£194,400 minimum wage

economic

kabayiri wrote: »

This stat I found a bit disturbing ...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-3813659/16-million-people-working-age-100-savings-study-shows.html

Yes, there are record numbers in employment, but it seems like that doesn't automatically translate into a decent amount of disposable income.

I'd not want to be in a home ownership situation with such a precarious financial position.

that doesnt sound right. it doesnt mention how they got the data. colelcting savings data for the whole population is not easy. im sure some approxmations and assumptions have been used resulting in this very unrealistic article. i guess things like this get lots of viewers.

if it were true, there are seriosuly a lot of stupid people out there.

westernpromise

economic wrote: »

i highly doubt mr wind will understand this. he didnt understand what median was. probably thats why he is so confused about things?

Actually, and this is what happens when you do stuff at 1 in the morning, the numbers in there weren't quite right. In my first example Timmy Tenant has a 42k deposit plus 2k saved from renting so the house can cost not £220k but £264k. This is because the £42k stash and the £2k he saved renting can be added to his budget. So the crash he needs is not 51% but (drum roll) a mere 41%.

Likewise in the 20-year case Tommy Tenant would need a 94% crash. However, all it would require to turn that 94% into a number greater than 100% would be another year or two of holding out, or a slightly smaller return, or a bit more rent. If one or more of those happened sooner than 20 years, his crash requirement would breach 100% sooner likewise.

Windofchange

westernpromise wrote: »

Actually, and this is what happens when you do stuff at 1 in the morning, the numbers in there weren't quite right. In my first example Timmy Tenant has a 42k deposit plus 2k saved from renting so the house can cost not £220k but £264k. This is because the £42k stash and the £2k he saved renting can be added to his budget. So the crash he needs is not 51% but (drum roll) a mere 41%.

Likewise in the 20-year case Tommy Tenant would need a 94% crash. However, all it would require to turn that 94% into a number greater than 100% would be another year or two of holding out, or a slightly smaller return, or a bit more rent. If one or more of those happened sooner than 20 years, his crash requirement would breach 100% sooner likewise.

You're arguing about the semantics. If something falls 100% in price then it is worth nothing. I can follow your reasoning but anyway, arguing over what someone who is clearly insane posted on another forum takes this even more off topic.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

i highly doubt mr wind will understand this. he didnt understand what median was. probably thats why he is so confused about things?

So given all the back slapping a few pages back with Great Ape about how sage the pair of you were, are you going to back him on any of his policies? Marry a rich granny? Give everyone who turns 18 £50K? Base your dating around ascertaining on the first date how rich his / her parents are and whether he / she is a doctor? I actually think you are the same person.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

So given all the back slapping a few pages back with Great Ape about how sage the pair of you were, are you going to back him on any of his policies? Marry a rich granny? Give everyone who turns 18 £50K? Base your dating around ascertaining on the first date how rich his / her parents are and whether he / she is a doctor? I actually think you are the same person.

I think you read too much into my posts. People should consider the economic position of their partner and their parents when pairing up and there should be some alternative to university which gives as much opportunity to those that don't go.

Anyway stop trolling my thread.
This is a thread about what two people on the min wage can buy now and in 2020

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

I think you read too much into my posts. People should consider the economic position of their partner and their parents when pairing up and there should be some alternative to university which gives as much opportunity to those that don't go.

Anyway stop trolling my thread.
This is a thread about what two people on the min wage can buy now and in 2020

So you've now gone full circle from boohoo should have worked harder tough luck to now being the saviour of the poor and un-educated? Your suggestions of 50k handouts, marrying rich partners and digging into your first date's credit file are relevant to the minimum wage and buying a house conversation how?

I'll leave yourself and Economic to carry on the love in.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

So you've now gone full circle from boohoo should have worked harder tough luck to now being the saviour of the poor and un-educated? Your suggestions of 50k handouts, marrying rich partners and digging into your first date's credit file are relevant to the minimum wage and buying a house conversation how?

I'll leave yourself and Economic to carry on the love in.

are you seriously for real? you seem to have a lot of built up anger inside of you. over exaggerating everything we say and continuously sarcastic. i think you should just leave this thread as you are polluting it.

westernpromise

Windofchange wrote: »

You're arguing about the semantics. If something falls 100% in price then it is worth nothing. I can follow your reasoning but anyway, arguing over what someone who is clearly insane posted on another forum takes this even more off topic.

The point is that a house falling more than 100% in value is impossible, but it's a necessity for some people that it do so, if renting is ever going to pay off for them.

I suspect there are quite a few HPCers who imagine that having rented for the last 5 years they'd be ahead if there were a 25% dip tomorrow and they then bought in after that dip. In fact, 25% would not be nearly enough even making very generous assumptions.

kabayiri

economic wrote: »

that doesnt sound right. it doesnt mention how they got the data. colelcting savings data for the whole population is not easy. im sure some approxmations and assumptions have been used resulting in this very unrealistic article. i guess things like this get lots of viewers.

if it were true, there are seriosuly a lot of stupid people out there.

The £100 savings topic was a feature of a national phone in radio show yesterday, and I didn't hear any of the expert pundits challenge it.

Stupid or reckless or whatever. If it's remotely true, then it's clearly not enough. You'd need 3 or 6 months income as a buffer against temporary job loss to sustain mortgage payments for a start.

The key must be better quality jobs which presumably means more productive work.

westernpromise

kabayiri wrote: »

The key must be better quality jobs which presumably means more productive work.

The frightening thing is that while we can all rue the fact that the median wage is low, it seems possible that it is where it is for very good reasons. For example, maybe the average adult working full time only makes £27k a year because that's all his / her labour is worth. If the median adult is thick, lazy, illiterate and innumerate then they're never going to be any more prosperous and nothing the state can do can fix this over a time frame of a few years. 50 years perhaps.

I am also not sure why, if the ratio of median wage to average house price fell because wages spontaneously went up, house prices would not just move to being the same mutliple of the higher wage.