£194,400 minimum wage

ukcarper

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

I think it could well be true, for a long time I had no savings and plenty of people live month to month.

Windofchange

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

Yup I can agree with that. There are some odd characters on there who can't accept they have been wrong, and who have no doubt lost out assuming that they were in a position to buy in the first place 5 years back. May well be a lot of anger at having missed the boat of course. This site is largely at the opposite end of the scale trumpeting forever house price growth, and there are certainly some odd jobs on here who will never back down from their positions of endless house price growth, never be wrong, never accept their position can be questioned.

I've rented, I've owned, I've rented, I've owned. Each period fitted a time in my life when I either wanted to be stable, or have the flexibility to move around the country / world. I just find the whole thing sad that we have a situation where housing is treated as an investment vehicle as opposed to just somewhere to live. It has become a speculative asset, a chip at the roulette wheel, but that I guess is another thread.

Windofchange

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

It also pretty much blows out of the water all the debate on this thread. 16 million people of working age represents what, a third of the country? Maybe more? For all that has been said on here about saving money being easy and how anyone can do it, it would appear that either people can't, or don't want to.

I would bet pretty good money that those who have no savings are also from the poorer end of society, i.e. those on minimum wage / students etc.

Argue all you want about salary multiples, the wisdom of saving before having children etc, but again, the numbers don't back any of you up. People have no deposit.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Yup I can agree with that. There are some odd characters on there who can't accept they have been wrong, and who have no doubt lost out assuming that they were in a position to buy in the first place 5 years back. May well be a lot of anger at having missed the boat of course. This site is largely at the opposite end of the scale trumpeting forever house price growth, and there are certainly some odd jobs on here who will never back down from their positions of endless house price growth, never be wrong, never accept their position can be questioned.

I've rented, I've owned, I've rented, I've owned. Each period fitted a time in my life when I either wanted to be stable, or have the flexibility to move around the country / world. I just find the whole thing sad that we have a situation where housing is treated as an investment vehicle as opposed to just somewhere to live. It has become a speculative asset, a chip at the roulette wheel, but that I guess is another thread.

who has been saying house prices always go up? i havent seen anyone say that on here. property is just like any market. it works in cycles and have periods of growth and periods of stagnation (prices may still go up nominally but in real terms they go down).

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

It also pretty much blows out of the water all the debate on this thread. 16 million people of working age represents what, a third of the country? Maybe more? For all that has been said on here about saving money being easy and how anyone can do it, it would appear that either people can't, or don't want to.

I would bet pretty good money that those who have no savings are also from the poorer end of society, i.e. those on minimum wage / students etc.

Argue all you want about salary multiples, the wisdom of saving before having children etc, but again, the numbers don't back any of you up. People have no deposit.

so the conclusion is to bring back 100% LTV mortgages....I would not object

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Yup I can agree with that. There are some odd characters on there who can't accept they have been wrong, and who have no doubt lost out assuming that they were in a position to buy in the first place 5 years back. May well be a lot of anger at having missed the boat of course. This site is largely at the opposite end of the scale trumpeting forever house price growth, and there are certainly some odd jobs on here who will never back down from their positions of endless house price growth, never be wrong, never accept their position can be questioned.

I've rented, I've owned, I've rented, I've owned. Each period fitted a time in my life when I either wanted to be stable, or have the flexibility to move around the country / world. I just find the whole thing sad that we have a situation where housing is treated as an investment vehicle as opposed to just somewhere to live. It has become a speculative asset, a chip at the roulette wheel, but that I guess is another thread.

Another pointless post from dear wind.

Saying house prices are affordable in 7-8 regions for people even on the min wage, which is true, does not then follow that prices will go up. Prices can be affordable yet go down or stay the same or go up.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

who has been saying house prices always go up? i havent seen anyone say that on here. property is just like any market. it works in cycles and have periods of growth and periods of stagnation (prices may still go up nominally but in real terms they go down).

You just have! :rotfl:

You say there are two options - periods of growth, and periods of stagnation. What happened in 2008 when prices went down 15%? Was that growth or stagnation?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Another pointless post from dear wind.

Saying house prices are affordable in 7-8 regions for people even on the min wage, which is true, does not then follow that prices will go up. Prices can be affordable yet go down or stay the same or go up.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. It's like you are replying to another post. Can anyone translate?

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

You just have! :rotfl:

You say there are two options - periods of growth, and periods of stagnation. What happened in 2008 when prices went down 15%? Was that growth or stagnation?

should have said prices cold go up, stagnate or fall.

will you now use this honest mistake against me in future posts?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

should have said prices cold go up, stagnate or fall.

will you now use this honest mistake against me in future posts?

Yup of course, simple typo to go from what you have put above to:

"...it works in cycles and have periods of growth and periods of stagnation (prices may still go up nominally but in real terms they go down)."

Is it you or the other one who goes on about confirmation bias?