UK Affordability still very good

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

yet you still bought a home despite never being in the higher percentiles of earnings.


we have shown a couple earning median income can buy the cheapest home in their area, even in London. they just need to save enough each year rather then splash out on vegas!!

Yes and when prices in realation to earnings were above long term average, but if I was in the same position now as when I first bought I would not be able to.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes and when prices in realation to earnings were above long term average, but if I was in the same position now as when I first bought I would not be able to.

ok fine so things are more difficult. so what? its not the end of the world. people can rent. I don't think theres anything that can or should be done as I don't see a problem at all.

Graham_Devon

So, could I just wrap up this thread?

It seems, so long as:

- You are part of a couple
- You both have full time jobs (often more than full time)
- You both live with your parents and pay no rent
- You save every penny you earn, have no social life, have no holidays
- You don't ever come across a problem such as needing to repair something.
- You have no transport other than that public transport you use to get to work
- You have no children
- You move in together ONLY once you have saved the deposit.

And your work life is such:
- You have no qualifications as you have no student debt
- BUT, you earn the median income, not the lower income
- This anomaly happens to both of you as part of the couple.

THEN, and ONLY then can you afford to buy a house.

So, the moral of this thread is that, based on the above, we should assume housing is "cheap" or "affordable".

Well pardon me....but before we get to the affordable part could we please examine how on earth these two recluses found each other in the first place?!?
AND in the very same locality (they can't travel much further than their legs will carry them afterall as that would involve actually paying for transport, and clearly young people don't do that!).

"How does such a first date go? "Hi, do you wan't to sit on a park bench with me and admire the pigeons before coming around to my parents house to eat what we are cooked? I'd prefer not to do anything that costs a single penny until we get married in 7 years time....at that point, we can visit the charity shop for a sofa to furnish our shoebox of a flat on floor 15"....."if you wait 45 years, once pops croaks it, I'll buy you a meal with our new found fortunes".

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

ok fine so things are more difficult. so what? its not the end of the world. people can rent. I don't think theres anything that can or should be done as I don't see a problem at all.

That some up your attitude I'm alright jack. The thread is about whether property is affordable and when 50% or more of people working full time can't afford to buy cheapest property it's clearly unaffordable.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

That some up your attitude I'm alright jack. The thread is about whether property is affordable and when 50% or more of people working full time can't afford to buy cheapest property it's clearly unaffordable.

that's not true at all outside of London. in London the median wage is 35k so 70k total combined.


the thing is you can not compare median wage to property prices. some of the population do not need to buy and may have part time jobs or less stressful jobs or even work as contractors. you can not simply deduce property is unaffordable simply by using the median wage and the average property price. even the average property price is meaningless as overly expensive mansions and Kensington located terraces distort the picture.


so you really need to look at the median wage of those looking to buy a property. not only that but some of these people would have gifts from their parents. then you look at the average property price excluding overpriced new builds, mansions and prime boroughs.


get me these answers so we can finally get to an answer, until then for London it is not clear whether is unaffordable or not.


as for rest of uk, we have proven it is affordable.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So, could I just wrap up this thread?

It seems, so long as:

- You are part of a couple
- You both have full time jobs (often more than full time)
- You both live with your parents and pay no rent
- You save every penny you earn, have no social life, have no holidays
- You don't ever come across a problem such as needing to repair something.
- You have no transport other than that public transport you use to get to work
- You have no children
- You move in together ONLY once you have saved the deposit.

And your work life is such:
- You have no qualifications as you have no student debt
- BUT, you earn the median income, not the lower income
- This anomaly happens to both of you as part of the couple.

THEN, and ONLY then can you afford to buy a house.

So, the moral of this thread is that, based on the above, we should assume housing is "cheap" or "affordable".

Well pardon me....but before we get to the affordable part could we please examine how on earth these two recluses found each other in the first place?!?
AND in the very same locality (they can't travel much further than their legs will carry them afterall as that would involve actually paying for transport, and clearly young people don't do that!).

"How does such a first date go? "Hi, do you wan't to sit on a park bench with me and admire the pigeons before coming around to my parents house to eat what we are cooked? I'd prefer not to do anything that costs a single penny until we get married in 7 years time....at that point, we can visit the charity shop for a sofa to furnish our shoebox of a flat on floor 15"....."if you wait 45 years, once pops croaks it, I'll buy you a meal with our new found fortunes".

What would you class as affordable.

It would be nice if everybody working full time could buy a property but that has never been the case and unlikely to be so.

I first bought in the 70s when I'm told by various people on here I had it easy. But it took two of us working fulltime in fairly well paid jobs to get a big enough mortgage and to save a deposit we had to live with parents if we had rented a flat we would not have been able to save deposit.

economic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So, could I just wrap up this thread?

It seems, so long as:

- You are part of a couple
- You both have full time jobs (often more than full time)
- You both live with your parents and pay no rent
- You save every penny you earn, have no social life, have no holidays
- You don't ever come across a problem such as needing to repair something.
- You have no transport other than that public transport you use to get to work
- You have no children
- You move in together ONLY once you have saved the deposit.

And your work life is such:
- You have no qualifications as you have no student debt
- BUT, you earn the median income, not the lower income
- This anomaly happens to both of you as part of the couple.

THEN, and ONLY then can you afford to buy a house.

So, the moral of this thread is that, based on the above, we should assume housing is "cheap" or "affordable".

Well pardon me....but before we get to the affordable part could we please examine how on earth these two recluses found each other in the first place?!?
AND in the very same locality (they can't travel much further than their legs will carry them afterall as that would involve actually paying for transport, and clearly young people don't do that!).

"How does such a first date go? "Hi, do you wan't to sit on a park bench with me and admire the pigeons before coming around to my parents house to eat what we are cooked? I'd prefer not to do anything that costs a single penny until we get married in 7 years time....at that point, we can visit the charity shop for a sofa to furnish our shoebox of a flat on floor 15"....."if you wait 45 years, once pops croaks it, I'll buy you a meal with our new found fortunes".

this is complete nonsense. people in median wage in London can save enough of a deposit soon as they start working to be able to buy. no one is entitled to own a property. they may have to wait a bit longer to buy then decades ago but they can still buy. meanwhile they can have a decent life. if they go having weddings in vegas and buy the latest gadgets and new cars and spend a lot of money on rent when they can go cheaper, they only have themselves to blame.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

that's not true at all outside of London. in London the median wage is 35k so 70k total combined.


the thing is you can not compare median wage to property prices. some of the population do not need to buy and may have part time jobs or less stressful jobs or even work as contractors. you can not simply deduce property is unaffordable simply by using the median wage and the average property price. even the average property price is meaningless as overly expensive mansions and Kensington located terraces distort the picture.


so you really need to look at the median wage of those looking to buy a property. not only that but some of these people would have gifts from their parents. then you look at the average property price excluding overpriced new builds, mansions and prime boroughs.


get me these answers so we can finally get to an answer, until then for London it is not clear whether is unaffordable or not.


as for rest of uk, we have proven it is affordable.

But the median household income in London is £40k not £70k . I think median earning are a valid measure I am not saying someone on earnings should be able to buy a average house I'm saying they should be able to buy a cheaper property.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

But the median household income in London is £40k not £70k . I think median earning are a valid measure I am not saying someone on earnings should be able to buy a average house I'm saying they should be able to buy a cheaper property.

but this includes retirees, pensioners, unemployed, CEOs on millions, graduates, families who already own etc.


just look at the working population who is in the ages of 25-35 and figure out what the median wage is. then multiply by 2 for a couple.

Windofchange

From a day or so ago.

economic wrote: »

i find it ammusing how GreatApe provides hard facts and data analysis and all WindofChange can do is say "oh no thats not possible because this newspaper said this and that". its really funny to read.

i honesty think WindofChange is just not smart to understand and there is no point even of him being on this thread and he doesnt add any value to the discussion.

And in response to "hard facts and data analysis" your reply is:

economic wrote: »

what a load of waffle.

Outstanding.

Will either of you engage in any sort of educated response?