"Housing Market Slumps"

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

You're so far off the mark I can't even be bothered formulating a response to you. You just keep re-enforcing what you want to believe. Oh look, yet another person on here thinks you are an arrogant tool.

then tell me why do you feel nurses should be able to afford to buy a decent house in a decent area?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

then tell me why do you feel nurses should be able to afford to buy a decent house in a decent area?

Myself and others on this forum have done this to death and you still just hear what you want to hear. You (and a couple of others) then extrapolate a one bed flat that isn't in the murder and mugging hotspot of Croydon to me demanding everyone have a Bugatti and a Kensington penthouse, just hear what you want to hear, and call me a raging lefty socialist. Round and round we go. You dont get it. You never will. Mr bagofwind - it's like talking to a toddler.

BikingBud

economic wrote: »

then tell me why do you feel nurses should be able to afford to buy a decent house in a decent area?

Looking across the broader piece, when you and the other Feudal Lords wish to have a service provided where will you turn? None other than the lucky few, it is absolutely about luck because they were born at the right time before unprecedented house price increases and were also fortunate enough to be passed on sums of cash that bailed them out, will be able to live in the vicinity to support you.

Maybe the future of London is to be supported by travelling students and migratory workers that live without their families as they cannot afford to have them near by. There's a comparison with China you appear to have missed.

But hey in your tower of luxury you won't mind as the doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers and a whole load of other extremely qualified, highly capable, critical service providing professionals, sorry unskilled personnel, can all live in hostels. Maybe you could put them up in your hay barn or stable.

Anyway after your extended love in, must be great polishing your egos while pontificating, I come back to my original point; house prices have been unnecessarily inflated far beyond the reach of a significant number of people and we will spend vast sums over many years chasing this. All for a very small, short lived, feel good factor.

How about a real world indicator of the likelihood of the division of assets? How many cars are now regularly park outside some of these small yet expensive houses? Four or 5? Maybe even sometimes more so if you divvy the price of that house between n-2 where n= number of cars and we take away 2 for the parents where would that put us?

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

they magically convert at some point from left to right probably at the point they inherit some of this annual £200 billion

I think they convert once they have experienced an actual Labour government.

GreatApe

BikingBud wrote: »

Looking across the broader piece, when you and the other Feudal Lords wish to have a service provided where will you turn? None other than the lucky few, it is absolutely about luck because they were born at the right time before unprecedented house price increases and were also fortunate enough to be passed on sums of cash that bailed them out, will be able to live in the vicinity to support you.

Maybe the future of London is to be supported by travelling students and migratory workers that live without their families as they cannot afford to have them near by. There's a comparison with China you appear to have missed.

But hey in your tower of luxury you won't mind as the doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers and a whole load of other extremely qualified, highly capable, critical service providing professionals, sorry unskilled personnel, can all live in hostels. Maybe you could put them up in your hay barn or stable.

Anyway after your extended love in, must be great polishing your egos while pontificating, I come back to my original point; house prices have been unnecessarily inflated far beyond the reach of a significant number of people and we will spend vast sums over many years chasing this. All for a very small, short lived, feel good factor.

How about a real world indicator of the likelihood of the division of assets? How many cars are now regularly park outside some of these small yet expensive houses? Four or 5? Maybe even sometimes more so if you divvy the price of that house between n-2 where n= number of cars and we take away 2 for the parents where would that put us?

Firstly its primarily a London 'problem' and mostly an inner London problem. Most the other regions of the UK vary from very cheap to cheap. So once its clear that your rant is only about 10% of the population so not 'the majority' let's continue

Some random points to consider

1. This reality is all about luck. The chances of being born at all is almost infinitely low and the chances of being born a human are lower still. Be thankful you can enjoy this existence and appreciate it while it lasts.

2. Happiness is mostly a frame of mind and people have a default happiness level. Buying a bigger better house/car/iplod is only a temporary happiness before you quickly fall back to your default

3. Wealth contrary to your post is actually very widely spread in the UK. That is to say most families live comfortably. Most peoples problems are not lack of money but other things like alcohol drugs gambling and people making each other miserable.

4. Wealth is spread around a lot via marriage children death and divorce. So what the socialists seem not able to achieve simple biology will

5. Richer folk in big homes also have lots of problems.

6. A lot of the people who today think life is unfair and hard will get better jobs in time or access to some of the annual £200 billion that is passed on from the richer to the poorer. Even many who do not expect this will benefit by marrying someone who will get this.

7. London is still very affordable. Everything from the 24% of the housing stock that is social to the fact that most Londoners naught more than 5 years ago so they purchased at half or much less than half the price they will of course be able to pass this on as inheritances and their kids will be some of those that you think won't be able to afford but they will

8. Your points about people living in high density housing is simply false even in London the average is only about 2.4 persons per house. Of course that will mean some homes have just 1 person while others have 10 but there is no need to live 10 to a house unless you are an illegal or unless you want to live that way.

economic

thanks GreatApe. your post really does put everything in perspective. its just a silly argument over how bad it is that nurses cant afford to buy. how silly is that?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

It's easy to look at such issues through the prism of left/right political ideology (although I think "left" and "right" no longer mean what they once did anyway). I like to look at it from an admin/logistics point of view, as it's my job, and I like things to be tidy and efficient.

So what is the best way for a city to function most efficiently in terms of infrastructure and long term sustainability? If a city's population is growing, but there is difficulty in recruiting and retaining essential personnel such as paramedics meaning ambulance coverage is below a certain threshold, then I think it's a problem that should be objectively reviewed.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

thanks GreatApe. your post really does put everything in perspective. its just a silly argument over how bad it is that nurses cant afford to buy. how silly is that?

Nurses should and can afford to buy a home, with a partner, just not in expensive areas.
A nurse can afford to buy a second hand Ford but not a new BMW.
Mr Wind and Co do not realise that they are crying that a nurse should be able to buy the new BMW.

For them a house is a house no matter where it is so the nurse should be just as able to buy a 3 bedroom semi in Kensington as she is able to buy a 3 bedroom semi in stoke. Which of course completely misses the point that they are not the same thing.

BikingBud

And so the deluded love in continues.............
This is not only a London problem:
Wetherby
Bristol
Peterborough - 40% of a property for £72k:eek:
There are more but what is the median salary in those areas? Do you know? Do you care?

As to your other "random points"
1. Blah - no added value.
2. Blah - no added value.
3. Describe wealth in that context and reaffirm your consideration of comfortable.
4. So separation and divorce, confirm where this wealth goes? Solicitors? Additional housing and living costs, cars, food bills etc? Remarried couple having their own children? Or not able to because they are already paying for the divorce. Is that the kind of wealth and comfort you are thinking of?
5. Blah - what? Like which caviar to buy or wether they really need the Aston, the Range Rover and Tesla, not a real problem, not interested.
6. Blah - A lot of people are in very respectable jobs adding a great deal to the progression of the UK as a whole, let me think doctors, nurses, police, school teachers, engineers, shop workers etc. Please let me know what might be better and also the reality of how they can aspire and then progress to these "better" jobs.
7. Affordable at what rate of pay? And with what bonuses? And with what contribution from BOMAD. Not on low wages or zero hour contracts and without job security?
8. So how many kids mid 20s-30s are still anchored to their parents whereas the parents themselves with quite ordinary yet worthy jobs could buy at the same point in their lives?

Keep going with your delusions.

GreatApe

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

It's easy to look at such issues through the prism of left/right political ideology (although I think "left" and "right" no longer mean what they once did anyway). I like to look at it from an admin/logistics point of view, as it's my job, and I like things to be tidy and efficient.

So what is the best way for a city to function most efficiently in terms of infrastructure and long term sustainability? If a city's population is growing, but there is difficulty in recruiting and retaining essential personnel such as paramedics meaning ambulance coverage is below a certain threshold, then I think it's a problem that should be objectively reviewed.

This problem does not exist there is no problem recruiting people in London in fact the opposite is true if you want a large pool of skilled and unskilled people go set up a business in London

It is true an unskilled low paid worker in London wont be able to buy a house but its also true that most of the 9 million people in London do not pay 31st March 2017 prices but pay anything from £0 upwards


PS the solution to improving infrastructure and well being in London is for the zone 2 councils to sell their council stock by the block, after giving themselves planning permission to rebuild at 2-3x the density with no social housing commitment. What that would do is 1: bring in a huge amount of money to the government and 2: take places like inner east London from over 50% social towards 10% social and thus zone 2 can be home to workers who work in westminster city docklands rather than retired nurses who got a council flat in 1975 and now plans to live for 30 years in that flat next to the big employment hubs while the workers need to travail 400 miles weekly to and from Luton