Home Ownership at Lowest Level for 30 Years

davomcdave

westernpromise wrote: »

Correct, and this reflects the fact that London is now an international city akin to Dubai or Hong Kong or New York, in which the economics of house buying are those of an internationally mobile demographic.

The idea that London house prices are unsustainable at any level because the locals can't afford them is then misplaced. What matters is whether the actual marginal buyers can afford them. I suspect Brexit will make them more affordable to that demographic rather than less.

I agree that Knightsbridge is competing with Manhattan or the 16e in Paris. I don't agree however that Mitcham is in some kind of international market with the 10th and Newark or something (I don't know NY, does it show!).

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

It large parts of the country it's no harder now than it was in the 70s. The problem as I see it is mainly confined to London and the south east, and the problem is the amount of money you can borrow which is determined by how much you earn. If you earn enough to get that mortgage with some effort you should be able to save deposit.

Maybe this is a bias formed from my dealings with certain younger people...but...

Outside London/SE, I would have a concern over the quality of jobs young people seem to be able to get.

In the contact centres in the NW, young people seem to accept that the nature of the work is potentially transient.

One of our better known PPI style claims companies has a staff turnover rate higher than 30%. That's hardly secure employment for considering mortgage plans.

Maybe if we focus on generating more productive jobs then the pay rewards will follow.

ukcarper

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe this is a bias formed from my dealings with certain younger people...but...

Outside London/SE, I would have a concern over the quality of jobs young people seem to be able to get.

In the contact centres in the NW, young people seem to accept that the nature of the work is potentially transient.

One of our better known PPI style claims companies has a staff turnover rate higher than 30%. That's hardly secure employment for considering mortgage plans.

Maybe if we focus on generating more productive jobs then the pay rewards will follow.

I agree that job opportunities for younger people is a problem and it's not confined to the NW.
I don't know why the turn over in call centres is high, but if you have a mortgage the choice is yours as to be the 30% or not. I'm sure that people doing medial task in the past did not particularly want to be doing them.

westernpromise

davomcdave wrote: »

I agree that Knightsbridge is competing with Manhattan or the 16e in Paris. I don't agree however that Mitcham is in some kind of international market with the 10th and Newark or something (I don't know NY, does it show!).

Indirectly it probably is. If you can't afford St John's Wood there's Little Venice, if you can't afford Little Venice there's Maida Vale, if you can't afford Maida Vale there's Kilburn, if you can't afford Kilburn there's Cricklewood, if you can't afford Cricklewood there's Harlesden and if you can't afford Harlesden there's Stonebridge Park. All are priced at differentials to somewhere else - some nearby area to which they are plainly either superior or inferior.

Some of these areas are a few streets and in many cases they change within a street; few people would consider Howley Place, W9, to be in the same enclave as Blomfield Road, W9 - one is Lisson Grove and the other is Little Venice. It is thus highly unlikely that you'd ever see a hard border whereby places international buyers would like to own are £10 million and otherwise similar flats in immediately adjacent areas are £100,000.

TrickyTree83

London isn't the UK. There's a vast country outside of London, out there where the majority of young people live there's no affordability problem if you can be bothered to make the sacrifices every generation has had to make.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

London isn't the UK. There's a vast country outside of London, out there where the majority of young people live there's no affordability problem if you can be bothered to make the sacrifices every generation has had to make.

True but over 25% of the population lives in London and the south east

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

True but over 25% of the population lives in London and the south east

since they live there they can afford London prices, whether its renting or owning. so whats there to complain about?

Cakeguts

The point about London is that it has always been expensive. My father wouldn't move from the North West to London for a promotion in the 1970s because he couldn't afford to buy a decent house even though he already lived in a 4 bed detached on a large plot in the North West.

The difference now is that people move to London for a "promotion" without taking into account that they can't afford to live there. "Graduates" chasing graduate level pay with degrees that aren't a traditional graduate level. Because they don't have "real" degrees they don't understand the difference between large salaries and disposable income after rents and other bills. It isn't that there is a shortage of work in parts of the North West. Manchester is booming but the pay is not as high as London.

Crashy_Time

economic wrote: »

since they live there they can afford London prices, whether its renting or owning. so whats there to complain about?

Tax payers in other parts of the country are paying their HB, that`s to complain about, and savers in other parts of the country are paying for them to stay in mortgaged houses they can`t afford at normal interest rates.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

since they live there they can afford London prices, whether its renting or owning. so whats there to complain about?

Many are in far from ideal circumstances, just because you can afford to live in a house share doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Also how many are claiming housing benefit and are therefore a burden on the tax payer.