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

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

I don't know how many times you can be told that nobody is advocating an average worker buying in Kensington. You keep dusting this off and it's getting boring. Nobody has ever said that.

As for the rest of it, your Kensington property has already had millions wiped off it's value according to latest figures - its a bloodbath in super prime London. As for the rest of London, the super wealthy aren't after studio flats in Croydon. Go figure. I don't want wealthy people to go away, we need them, but we also need the average worker to keep the city running. Many are leaving - London net emigration is rising. People are getting out.

Well I still can't afford the Kensington Property which goes to show that even in a crash plenty of people won't be able to afford to buy

If you agree Kensington is special and you would not expect just anyone to buy there then would it not make sense to remove Kensington property from the average London price?

My next choice was Westminster and then the city and then Camden and then Hammersmith and then Islington. but I can't afford the £2m+ homes there either. Should we also remove those areas from the averages? Why/why-not?

Where do we stop?
I can just about afford a nice big house in hackney so should that be the line?

London is clearly affordable by the marginal buyer. What you and your friends don't grasp is that the marginal buyer has a LOT more wealth than one would guess looking at a London wide median wage that includes kids and part time workers and does not include other sources of wealth and income let alone gifts and inheritances of some £200 billion annually

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Why would you look at the median wages that include children and part time workers?

Also income and wealth are not only derived from wages. For instance what of the people who earn maybe a million a year in a small business but only draw say £30k a year as they don't spend much and keep the rest in the company as its not efficient to draw it out? Are dividends even in the income stats? What of the people who own shares that pay no dividends how do you class someone who bought £50k of rightmove shares 7 years ago that are now worth £1 million? What about people who bought shops or factory buildings for £100k that are now worth £500k? What about people who set up a business and sold the shares like the recent sale of ARM for billions or the Deepmind creators that sold their company for some 200 million dollars to google? What about all the people that earn nationally but disproportionately purchase London homes? For instance all the sports and movie stars that land on millions of wealth how think OK now that ibe made it what I need is a nice expensive home in Birmingham/Stoke/Wales/Scotland/etc? No they all go out and buy a London home. Likewise for international wealth how many think a second home in stoke is what they need how many think a home in London rather than living in hotels is what they'd like?

But keep posting the median wages that include part time workers and children as evidence for London unaffordability

That's full time

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Why would you look at the median wages that include children and part time workers?

Also income and wealth are not only derived from wages. For instance what of the people who earn maybe a million a year in a small business but only draw say £30k a year as they don't spend much and keep the rest in the company as its not efficient to draw it out? Are dividends even in the income stats? What of the people who own shares that pay no dividends how do you class someone who bought £50k of rightmove shares 7 years ago that are now worth £1 million? What about people who bought shops or factory buildings for £100k that are now worth £500k? What about people who set up a business and sold the shares like the recent sale of ARM for billions or the Deepmind creators that sold their company for some 200 million dollars to google? What about all the people that earn nationally but disproportionately purchase London homes? For instance all the sports and movie stars that land on millions of wealth how think OK now that ibe made it what I need is a nice expensive home in Birmingham/Stoke/Wales/Scotland/etc? No they all go out and buy a London home. Likewise for international wealth how many think a second home in stoke is what they need how many think a home in London rather than living in hotels is what they'd like?

But keep posting the median wages that include part time workers and children as evidence for London unaffordability

As I posted earlier 20% of people living in London live in a household with total wealth including pension pot.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

but that doesnt matter. its all about the mrginal buyer and if there are enough that can buy then that will push prices up in a low supply market. for anyoen else its tough luck they cant afford.

I agree there are obviously enough buyers to sustain prices, and yes it's tough on the majority who can't afford to buy.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree there are obviously enough buyers to sustain prices, and yes it's tough on the majority who can't afford to buy.

Though for who exactly? Be specific.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

Though for who exactly? Be specific.

The majority of people lets face in most earn less than £50k and it would be difficult to buy earning that.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

The majority of people lets face in most earn less than £50k and it would be difficult to buy earning that.

They need to re skill. There are plenty who earn more who can afford and prices are rising. Shows there is inequality rising but that's just economics innit

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Well I still can't afford the Kensington Property which goes to show that even in a crash plenty of people won't be able to afford to buy

If you agree Kensington is special and you would not expect just anyone to buy there then would it not make sense to remove Kensington property from the average London price?

My next choice was Westminster and then the city and then Camden and then Hammersmith and then Islington. but I can't afford the £2m+ homes there either. Should we also remove those areas from the averages? Why/why-not?

Where do we stop?
I can just about afford a nice big house in hackney so should that be the line?

London is clearly affordable by the marginal buyer. What you and your friends don't grasp is that the marginal buyer has a LOT more wealth than one would guess looking at a London wide median wage that includes kids and part time workers and does not include other sources of wealth and income let alone gifts and inheritances of some £200 billion annually

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this? There are plenty of sites that break down house prices by borough if you want to exclude certain things? Are you going to take bankers out of average earnings? How about those who inherit millions? Pilots? Surgeons? What purpose would removing the 5 most expensive boroughs in London along with the 5 top earning professions serve?

What's the point about Hackney? You've lost me.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

They need to re skill. There are plenty who earn more who can afford and prices are rising. Shows there is inequality rising but that's just economics innit

Just to get some reality London Full Time earnings 2016
10% earn £84K or more
80% earn less than £54K
60% earn less than £42K

westernpromise

Perhaps it's the circles I mix in, but anyone on less than £50k a year 5 years out of university has picked the wrong career path if earning a decent wage was their goal. I have people of 26, 27 under me who are on £70k. I have 24-year-olds on packages worth £50k. Some of them deserve a bit more, frankly.

I can only surmise that someone with a degree, who's working in London, and who is not making £50k a year by the time they're 30, simply doesn't want to. In the same way, anyone in London who's not working is not working because they've chosen not to work. They are identical choices. If you're on less than £50k at 30 it has to be because you've chosen a line of work that rewards you in some way other than the money.

That's fine but don't forget what a great time you had in your 20s when you're 40 and still trying live on kiddy money.