UK Affordability still very good

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

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.

Yes but 50% of households in London have less than £40k coming in so most they could afford even with a 20% deposit is £220k. So 50% of housholds can't afford to buy anything.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

What would you class as affordable.

3.5 - 4x the national average wage.

As has, historically been the norm outside of fluctuations (which we have to expect to happen).

The period of the last 15-20 years has not been normal on any graph you look at if you apply it over a long enough period (say 60 years).

The last 15-20 years has though, stuck and not fluctuated back down, and there are many reasons for that, many which had a large influence on the crash of 2008. Since then, to fix the financial crash, we've had even more serious influences thrown around.....and now were stuck unable to undo those influences....much of which, combined, has led us to the very unsettled political landscape we find ourselves in.

It's not co-incidence that financial intervention that hasn't happened once since 90 years ago, but this time more intensified and prolonged, see's politics falling apart, asset prices inflated and unions breaking down. This goes further than house prices. Co-incidentally, the last time we saw a snap election was also in the same period 90 years ago. Weird that.

But with reference to house prices? Put interest rates at a below normal rate of 4% overnight. What do you honestly think would happen to house prices over the next 2 years? Be honest with me. There's no right or wrong answer.

Answer that question and you can answer the question as to whether house prices are where they would reasonably be, higher, or lower.

That's all there is to it really. We can't ignore everything else in the economy which helps determine house prices and pretend that house prices are set by supply and demand themselves. We've got banks being investigated for rigging markets, bankers inside for rigging markets, the head of the BOE drafted in after being appluaded widely for single handidly "correcting" Canada's housing market up and away. Direct government intervention "helping" people to buy houses. 40% of those people not even requiring help and therefore not even qualifying (but that doesn't matter as it suggests policy is working and it is, why do dyou think they never laid out income rules like every other government policy that comes to getting state help?)

It wouldn't stretch the imagine too far to suggest that policy and action of the current time is being used to bolster asset prices and the wider market.

But anyway, yer, 3.5 x 4x single, median average income with variance across the country of +/- 50%

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

3.5 - 4x the national average wage.

As has, historically been the norm outside of fluctuations (which we have to expect to happen).

The period of the last 15-20 years has not been normal on any graph you look at if you apply it over a long enough period (say 60 years).

The last 15-20 years has though, stuck and not fluctuated back down, and there are many reasons for that, many which had a large influence on the crash of 2008. Since then, to fix the financial crash, we've had even more serious influences thrown around.....and now were stuck unable to undo those influences....much of which, combined, has led us to the very unsettled political landscape we find ourselves in.

It's not co-incidence that financial intervention that hasn't happened once since 90 years ago, but this time more intensified and prolonged, see's politics falling apart, asset prices inflated and unions breaking down. This goes further than house prices. Co-incidentally, the last time we saw a snap election was also in the same period. Weird that.

But with reference to house prices? Put interest rates at a below normal rate of 4% overnight. What do you honestly think would happen to house prices over the next 2 years?

Answer that question and you can answer the question as to whether house prices are where they would reasonably be, higher, or lower.

That's all there is to it really. We can't ignore everything else in the economy which helps determine house prices and pretend that house prices are set by supply and demand themselves. We've got banks being investigated for rigging markets, bankers inside for rigging markets. It wouldn't stretch the imagine too far to suggest that policy and action of the current time is being used to bolster asset prices and the wider market.

But anyway, yer, 3.5 x 4x single, median average income with variance across the country of +/- 50%

IT has not be that historically nationwide prices to earning graph uses median male full time earnings and averages just over 4x.

The last 20 years has included the lowest and highest price in relation to earnings since the 50s. In fact 20 years ago they were at an all time low.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

IT has not be that historically nationwide prices to earning graph uses median male full time earnings and averages just over 4x.

The last 20 years has included the lowest and highest price in relation to earnings since the 50s. In fact 20 years ago they were at an all time low.

OK, but my answer was 3.5 - 4x with a 50% fluctuation either way depending on the area.

You asked me a question and I gave the answer. There was no right or wrong answer as far as I'm aware. Nationwide say one thing, Halifax another.

Your statement on the last 20 years is exactly why I say house prices have not been normal over that period.

Could you answer my question? Again, no right or wrong answer. So it's not there to catch you out, simply probably the easiest way to determine reasoning for your thoughts on house prices.

My hope would be that you find this discussion a little more involved that the statements being put out by economic and greatape

But with reference to house prices? Put interest rates at a below normal rate of 4% overnight. What do you honestly think would happen to house prices over the next 2 years? Be honest with me. There's no right or wrong answer.

Answer that question and you can answer the question as to whether house prices are where they would reasonably be, higher, or lower.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes but 50% of households in London have less than £40k coming in so most they could afford even with a 20% deposit is £220k. So 50% of housholds can't afford to buy anything.

how many of those earning less then 40k are working -part time, pension age or contractors who don't need to buy a property? how many are also coupled with someone else earning 40k and are looking to buy? then what can they afford to buy?

economic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK, but my answer was 3.5 - 4x with a 50% fluctuation either way depending on the area.

You asked me a question and I gave the answer. There was no right or wrong answer as far as I'm aware. Nationwide say one thing, Halifax another.

Could you answer my question? Again, no right or wrong answer. So it's not there to catch you out, simply probably the easiest way to determine reasoning for your thoughts on house prices.

whats the point of asking what others think even though it is not the right answer? there is always a right answer. otherwise you lot are just wasting time with your confirmation biases.


look, there are two components to affordability: mortgage payments and deposit. clearly the main problem is deposit which the government is helping to resolve. yes this and low rates have helped to drive prices higher. but if gov did not help then less people would be buying. low rates are there for a reason and that's because of the very weak economy and debt burden. if you want rates higher to lower house prices, just watch what happens to wages and employment. you cant have your cake and eat it!!

Graham_Devon

economic wrote: »

whats the point of asking what others think even though it is not the right answer? there is always a right answer. otherwise you lot are just wasting time with your confirmation biases.


look, there are two components to affordability: mortgage payments and deposit. clearly the main problem is deposit which the government is helping to resolve. yes this and low rates have helped to drive prices higher. but if gov did not help then less people would be buying. low rates are there for a reason and that's because of the very weak economy and debt burden. if you want rates higher to lower house prices, just watch what happens to wages and employment. you cant have your cake and eat it!!

I have little time for your pointless troll posts.

But I had to answer this question.

What's the point in asking what people think? Because they is no right answer and never has been.

Anyone who thinks they are "right" on something which has no right or wrong is merely suffering a delusion. If there was a right answer we'd never have to suffer the ups, downs and booms and busts of the economy.

Take what you will from that. I expect very little

Alternatively, you could answer my question, which you'll obviously avoid as it will lead to you having to question yourself....hence I have very little time for all the other guff.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

how many of those earning less then 40k are working -part time, pension age or contractors who don't need to buy a property? how many are also coupled with someone else earning 40k and are looking to buy? then what can they afford to buy?

Hard to say but how many are earning below £70k and above £40k, if I was saying afford to buy a average house your point might apply but I'm saying cheapest house.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK, but my answer was 3.5 - 4x with a 50% fluctuation either way depending on the area.

You asked me a question and I gave the answer. There was no right or wrong answer as far as I'm aware. Nationwide say one thing, Halifax another.

Your statement on the last 20 years is exactly why I say house prices have not been normal over that period.

Could you answer my question? Again, no right or wrong answer. So it's not there to catch you out, simply probably the easiest way to determine reasoning for your thoughts on house prices.

My hope would be that you find this discussion a little more involved that the statements being put out by economic and greatape

I'd say that if someone can buy with a 4x salary mortgage and a 10% deposit the property is affordable. Buying a property is not a right so I would say 4x median full time earnings + 10% would be OK for a flat and 4x median household earnings + 10% for house.

As you say affordable means different things to different people but as far as I'm concerned property is still affordable in some parts of the country but unaffordable in many especially London and the south east.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Hard to say but how many are earning below £70k and above £40k, if I was saying afford to buy a average house your point might apply but I'm saying cheapest house.

ok so say 220k home purchase for someone earning 40k. lets say they save 1k a month so that's 12k (its doable unless you are stupid like that vegas couple).


for a 20% deposit of 44k it would take at most 4 years to save that. they can get a 4.5x mortgage and voila, they have a cheap house, without any assistance. if they started in 2013, they would have been able to afford by now. easily possible for someone who is now in their late 20s or early 30s.


for the average house, it would be at least a two bed, why would a single person need to buy the average house? I think you agree with me now on this but others may not.