"Housing Market Slumps"

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Can you make it clear what point you are trying to make.

From what I can tell we both think that property is affordable to the well off people who can afford to buy and unaffordable to the people who currently can't and thats unlikely to change any time soon.

The only difference I can see is that I think it would be better if more people could afford to buy or at least rent reasonable accomadation at a price they can afford and you don't.

yes i agree with all that. then what are we even debating about??

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

I agree with you if we are to define unaffordable as 4.5x median single person wages then much of london is unaffordable.

But why should you be king to defining the meaning of a word used by everyone?

Why cant affordable be defined as, the median wages of a full time working couple in the top 60% of the local area who also have gifts and inheritences?

By your definition you would have to say 'london housing is unaffordable but can stay or even get more unaffordable by people affording to buy unaffordable homes'. By my defintion you could simply say 'London is affordable'.

4.5x assuming you can get it gets you less that £160k if both couples earn median full time £320k and that's assuming they both are in top 50%.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

No, What I am saying is that BMWs will be priced at BMW prices and if you want a BMW you are going to have to earn BMW wages.

Savings is out of fashion. So many people now just rent. They don't buy. A badge for their image.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

4.5x assuming you can get it gets you less that £160k if both couples earn median full time £320k and that's assuming they both are in top 50%.

so you are saying that a £500k London house is unaffordable to a couple on median earnings who can only borrow £320k

I am saying that London is affordable to the typical London buyer who has more than your example couple

Both of us accept each others statements as fact

So whats next, what does your statement say about the market or its direction and what does mine say and what are the implications?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

yes i agree with all that. then what are we even debating about??

Amusement you don't think a debate on this sub forum is going to make any difference do you.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

so you are saying that London is unaffordable to a couple on median earnings

I am saying that London is affordable to the typical London buyer

Both of us accept each others statements of fact

So whats next, what does your statement say about the market or its direction and what does mine say and what are the implications?

I'd say nothing is going to change. It will become more difficult to fill semi skilled and some skilled posts and we will carry on subsidising the less well off to rent. Things could change with brexit and demand could fall but I don't see London prices falling dramatically if it does.

I suppose if someone took up your suggestion of knocking down large areas and rebuilding them at a higher density price might fall but that's is extremely unlikely to happen.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I'd say nothing is going to change. Things could change with brexit and demand could fall but I don't see London prices falling dramatically if it does.

I suppose if someone took up your suggestion of knocking down large areas and rebuilding them at a higher density price might fall but that's is extremely unlikely to happen.

agreed

It will become more difficult to fill semi skilled and some skilled post

maybe in theory but that is because higher prices = people moving out is the theory while the reality has been higher London prices = booming population regardless of higher prices. So there is no lack of people or lack of the growth in the labor supply in London so I disagree with that part of your statement

and we will carry on subsidising the less well off to rent.

sure but that should not be emotive or a negative in and of itself. We subsidise the less well off to eat that does not then lead to a conclusion that there is something wrong with food provision in this country. Its a choice. Just as we also have to subsidise tens maybe hundreds of thousands in London social homes who have social rents they can not even afford those.

if we did not want to subsidise them and the government simply capped housing benefits then what we would find is that people dont die on the streets they would take the very reasonable step of moving to stoke on trent. Very much a first world problem. Also it would not see half of London emptying out since price is set on the margins maybe 400,000 people leaving over a year would crash rents 30%

BikingBud

BikingBud wrote: »

BBC:

The number of first-time buyers relying on the "bank of mum and dad" for financial help has hit a record high, according to new research.

Analysis for the Social Mobility Commission suggests that more than a third of homebuyers in England depend on money from their family.
Using the latest official data available, from 2013-14, researchers found 34% of buyers needed cash or a loan from their parents.
That compared with just 20% in 2010/11.

A further 10% of buyers relied on inherited wealth, the research found.
"Affordability problems mean that parents and other family members have a critical role in assisting their children to buy their first home, either by means of a gift of money or a soft loan," said the report
author, Dr Paul Sanderson from Anglia Ruskin University.

Affordable: Cambridge Dictionary: (used about houses, etc.) able to be bought or rented by people who do not earn a lot of money:

I offered perspective that has some independence and credibility but you either missed or dismissed it?

You can pontificate as much as you like but up to 43% require outside help to be able to buy a house, now that is clearly an indication of being unaffordable.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

agreed



maybe in theory but that is because higher prices = people moving out is the theory while the reality has been higher London prices = booming population regardless of higher prices. So there is no lack of people or lack of the growth in the labor supply in London so I disagree with that part of your statement



sure but that should not be emotive or a negative in and of itself. We subsidise the less well off to eat that does not then lead to a conclusion that there is something wrong with food provision in this country. Its a choice. Just as we also have to subsidise tens maybe hundreds of thousands in London social homes who have social rents they can not even afford those.

if we did not want to subsidise them and the government simply capped housing benefits then what we would find is that people dont die on the streets they would take the very reasonable step of moving to stoke on trent. Very much a first world problem. Also it would not see half of London emptying out since price is set on the margins maybe 400,000 people leaving over a year would crash rents 30%

I think it's difficult to recruit in certain sectors and if the majority of low pain worker left the city would not function. I accept that things are as they are and are unlikely to change but I don't accept that it's a good thing.

GreatApe

BikingBud wrote: »

I offered perspective that has some independence and credibility but you either missed or dismissed it?

:rotfl:

the new definition of affordable, homes are unaffordable unless affordable by 'people who earn not a 'lot of money'.

Now thats cleared up :rotfl:

You can pontificate as much as you like but up to 43% require outside help to be able to buy a house, now that is clearly an indication of being unaffordable.

as this debate has shown the word itself can be used in such a wide way as to make almost any price affordable or not depending on its definition

Although its clear that what is affordable is not that clear What is easier to to be able to suggest what is CHEAP

I would like to propose we call homes cheap where a 20% down 30 year repayment mortgage cost less than renting the local social stock. And by that definition 8 of the UKs regions are CHEAP not just 'affordable' but CHEAP