The house 'earnings' award goes to ....

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Not complaining - just as ever presenting the other side to the argument. Interesting how so many of your counter points start with "who cares". I think actually many people do, obviously not you from all the previous input you have given, but many others. Carry on.

but this is capitalism at its greatest. those who can afford have done well in life and earned and worked hard and saved. those who cant afford need to step up their game. its only fair it works like this. if it doesnt then what the point of working so hard?

i bought my first place after about 8 years of working. i worked hard and saved. yes i had rent free accomodation during this time however i have saved a substantial amount for my age (im semi-retired). i sacrificed my freedom and having fun (although i did go on holidays and did have fun from time to time just not crazy about it). and now i am enjoying more because i have total freedom and can live by my terms only.

i had a friend who was very shocked by how much i saved. he had the same opportunities as me (banking and living at home with parents rent free). however he wasnt wise at all with his money. he would say i should live a little or be extravagent (in an insulting sort of way). he ended up getting jelous after i bought my property and is still stuck living with parents at the age of 34.

Windofchange

westernpromise wrote: »

Framing all this as a moral question doesn't help. Hating people who already own doesn't help either. The argument that there's something morally wrong with property investing fails to understand the most basic point about all investing, which is that you want a piece of something that will be valuable in the future. If you put all your money into things that were certain to be worthless in the future, you'd end up with nothing. Food, energy, housing, healthcare - all things we're always going to need.

I have some sympathy with WoC's position but I am not hearing any actual proposals on what to do. The country's population has gone sharply up over a very short time, and landlords cannot provide the whole solution (which they do, by refurbishing existing space and / or using it more efficiently). UK industry does not have the capacity to add more dwellings at anything like the rate required. Smaller developers are hamstrung by plannings and obligations to do things like sell X cheap flats below cost for every Y flats they are allowed to build. This is why you see lots of houses converted into three or four flats these days, but you will probably never see again a deconsecrated church converted into 15 flats.

The state does not have the money or the housebuilding resources to enter the housebuilding market. Even if it did there would be outrage if it proceeded to build houses and sell them immediately at giveaway prices (in competition terms it would be probably be illegal). Many of those who hanker for more state housing want it let not sold, and the state anyway has a poor record in building houses where they are needed.

Where am I framing this as a moral question? Simply making a couple of observations.

1) The article as posted by the OP presents a situation that surely not even the most fervent property bull can try and dress up as sustainable?

2) Capitalism works in booms and busts. The housing market has always worked in this fashion; in recent times at least. Monopoly is a fantastic example of how this all starts and how it ends EVERY cycle.

I've not commented on this thread about the morality of property investment - not sure why you've brought that up? I don't think that anyone can give a solution to the crisis at present, certainly in London / S.E. There are multifactorial reasons why we are in this state, but what strikes me is that we have been here before, and before that, and before that. Still, it's different this time. New paradigm. No more boom and bust.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

but this is capitalism at its greatest. those who can afford have done well in life and earned and worked hard and saved. those who cant afford need to step up their game. its only fair it works like this. if it doesnt then what the point of working so hard?

i bought my first place after about 8 years of working. i worked hard and saved. yes i had rent free accomodation during this time however i have saved a substantial amount for my age (im semi-retired). i sacrificed my freedom and having fun (although i did go on holidays and did have fun from time to time just not crazy about it). and now i am enjoying more because i have total freedom and can live by my terms only.

i had a friend who was very shocked by how much i saved. he had the same opportunities as me (banking and living at home with parents rent free). however he wasnt wise at all with his money. he would say i should live a little or be extravagent (in an insulting sort of way). he ended up getting jelous after i bought my property and is still stuck living with parents at the age of 34.

If only in was a simple as that.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

If only in was a simple as that.

nothings easy. i certaintly didnt have it easy. life is always about sacrifice. if you can only afford a dodgy area in croydon and you have to buy then you just have to sacrifice area for buying.

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

nothings easy. i certaintly didnt have it easy. life is always about sacrifice.

Same for us, in fact, just the other week we couldn't find the letter opener, then we realised that it was his day off, so we had to open all the mail ourselves.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

nothings easy. i certaintly didnt have it easy. life is always about sacrifice. if you can only afford a dodgy area in croydon and you have to buy then you just have to sacrifice area for buying.

Plenty of people work hard and can't buy. It's a lot more complicated than working hard, a lot of other things come into play.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Plenty of people work hard and can't buy. It's a lot more complicated than working hard, a lot of other things come into play.

yes agree however most people have a choice and can do something about it. namely gain new more valuable skills! it takes time and effort but no one says it was gonna be easy. thats the way life is.

or just continue renting. perhaps wait till prices fall. the point is there no point arguing or complaining prices are so high. they are high for a reason. but maybe the wannabe buyers salary and/or skillset is not upto par with london house price levels?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

yes agree however most people have a choice and can do something about it. namely gain new more valuable skills! it takes time and effort but no one says it was gonna be easy. thats the way life is.

or just continue renting. perhaps wait till prices fall. the point is there no point arguing or complaining prices are so high. they are high for a reason. but maybe the wannabe buyers salary and/or skillset is not upto par with london house price levels?

Yes that is the way life is but not everybody is capable of earning enough to pay high prices. I think people are entitled to complain so long as ther realise that it probably won't make any difference.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes that is the way life is but not everybody is capable of earning enough to pay high prices. I think people are entitled to complain so long as ther realise that it probably won't make any difference.

sure people are entitled to complain. but complaining is wasted effort. time better spent trying to earn more cash.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

sure people are entitled to complain. but complaining is wasted effort. time better spent trying to earn more cash.

I suppose it depends how complaining impacts on your earnings. I think some people complaining about house prices have very little chance of earning and saving enough to buy but others do but are not prepared to make the sacrifices they need to. Personally I see the barrier to buying is not saving deposit but earning enough to get the mortgage.