UK Affordability still very good

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

ive excluded shared ownership and retirements homes in zoopla and still get around 700 properties worth less then 220k. still a decent number.


on median wages - fair enough.

Oh look, you can buy a studio in Knightsbridge for £140k. Just move your furniture right in!

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/42604085#4xT983tJ7lHxUiRg.97

Yup, your Zoopla search also includes a large part of Essex if you look at the map of properties, alongside des res such as the above.

Right move - 379 properties in the whole of London for under £220k.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E87490&maxPrice=220000&sortType=1&includeSSTC=false&dontShow=retirement%2CsharedOwnership

But wait, sort things by lowest price. The first 6 pages are parking spaces interspersed with the occasional boat.

Again, showing your inability to check facts before posting rubbish on here.

I see that neither of you will answer my 5 questions from earlier still.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question.

It's a really simple question too.

I see what would happen if interest rates went up to 4% I don't think it would make much difference.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

ok ive also filtered for properties at least 1 bed. so I haven't even included studios. I still get over 400 properties, a decent number.

Don't look at headline figures look at properties.

economic

i do agree London property is expensive. it is more unaffordable then it was ten years ago. however it is not a bubble. people can clearly afford to buy. its just that inequality has risen. there are also a lot of people who waste a lot of money so they only have themselves to blame.

GreatApe

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".

You are being silly.

If someone really wanted and was able to save like you describe then in 7-8 regions of the uk they could buy outright before they were 30. And if they found a partner who also did the same then by 30 they would be married with one house owned outright and one rental owned outright and their subsequent years will be easy.

My first purchase was outright purchase because I did save most of my income and I worked 70 hour weeks and earnt more than average for it. Yes life was all work and no fun but its the sacrifice I made to enjoy a better life down the line.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

i do agree London property is expensive. it is more unaffordable then it was ten years ago. however it is not a bubble. people can clearly afford to buy. its just that inequality has risen. there are also a lot of people who waste a lot of money so they only have themselves to blame.

It's probably the most unaffordable it's been for the last 50 years but I agree I don't think it's a bubble,.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

It's probably the most unaffordable it's been for the last 50 years but I agree I don't think it's a bubble,.

I can agree with you on that.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

You are being silly.

If someone really wanted and was able to save like you describe then in 7-8 regions of the uk they could buy outright before they were 30. And if they found a partner who also did the same then by 30 they would be married with one house owned outright and one rental owned outright and their subsequent years will be easy.

My first purchase was outright purchase because I did save most of my income and I worked 70 hour weeks and earnt more than average for it. Yes life was all work and no fun but its the sacrifice I made to enjoy a better life down the line.

exactly. its all about sacrifices. I lived with family for the 8 years of work before I bought to move out of home. its a sacrifice that has paid off as I managed to save 80%+ of my 100k income during that period and I am now financially better off for it. I imagine those who wasted their money and lived extravagantly are paying the price now and only they are to blame.

GreatApe

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.

As noted before London has more social housing and more migrants than rUK. So while rUK can aim for 2/3rd owners 1/6th social 1/6th private rental that isn't possible in London.

And as noted before the extremely simple model of median wage should buy the median for sale home is obviously a crap unreasonable model.

You need to break it down to first time buyers second time buyers capital buyers inheritors etc.

More reasonable to say first time buyers who have no help/gifts/inheritances should be able to buy the 20th percentile property in their region and I would say count London as part of the SE region rather than a separate region.


If you think of Kensington its a crazy multiple of earnings vs house prices and it always has been crazy high. The reason is that the typical Kensington buyer is not buying with just their wages. Well that's has been true for multiple areas Kensington Chelsea Westminster etc so what's to say that cant or hasn't expanded to cover more borough and perhaps in time most the borough's of London

GreatApe

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.

Even if house prices cost 20 x wages it would still be affordable for the majority as the majority of UK born Brits have UK born parents and grandparents who are owners so they will inherit property or the sums to buy property.