UK Affordability still very good

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

In which case I could agree with you in regards to saving as long as someone earns enough. As you get down towards minimum wage the ability to save becomes less - you just have to look at the fact that 16 million adults have no savings to see that as a population we either can't or don't want to save.

Housing has typically hovered around the 3 - 4 x salary mark, and this is affordable. What we have at the moment is insanity, especially in London. I say this as someone who has benefitted on paper from crazy prices too. It can't go on.

It's obviously more difficult to save the less you earn but if you can get a property for £60k you would only need to save £6k. I don't think it reality it is possible for a single person on minimum wage to buy anywhere but I would think it would be possible for a couple to in some areas.

As for London I couldn't afford to buy there in the 70s and I was earning much more than the minimum wage.

The fact that 16 million adults have no savings is not relevant for most of my working life I had no savings.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

In which case I could agree with you in regards to saving as long as someone earns enough. As you get down towards minimum wage the ability to save becomes less - you just have to look at the fact that 16 million adults have no savings to see that as a population we either can't or don't want to save.

Housing has typically hovered around the 3 - 4 x salary mark, and this is affordable. What we have at the moment is insanity, especially in London. I say this as someone who has benefitted on paper from crazy prices too. It can't go on.

Your position is clearly ridiculous, that every single region in the uk is various degrees of insanely high prices. Stupid

8 regions are very cheap so cheap that buying a house with a mortgage over 30 years will cost you less than renting a social property for 30 years. How can you call those 8 regions 'insanity' prices when its cheaper to buy than to rent even the cheapest subsidized poor stock?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Which links did you post that you are unhappy I ignored? I assume they were from the likes of the guardian or shelter? Thanks but no thanks, give me raw data

Some yes, others the ONS. If you took the time to read anything before responding it might be possible to have a debate with you.

GreatApe wrote: »

14.7% of UK born live in private rentals

Keep in mind that we do not need to want to reduce that figure to 0% because having zero private rentals would be a bad idea for obvious reasons. So If you think private rentals are too high what figure would you be happy to see them fall to? I would say 10% which means all your arguments are about 2.25 million persons living in less than 1 million rental properties.

So out of about 24 million properties in England and Wales your argument is that 1 million of them are not in ideal conditions. The cup is 96% full and your crying that its 4% empty

You don't get it do you? The census isn't 24 million properties. It's 24 million households. A household may be 1 person. It may be 7 people. It maybe 24 people. It maybe a young family, it may be Economic aged 27 living with his parents. Failing to get this means that whatever you think you have worked out is yet again wrong. As for what you have worked out, I am completely lost. Can anyone help?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Your position is clearly ridiculous, that every single region in the uk is various degrees of insanely high prices. Stupid

8 regions are very cheap so cheap that buying a house with a mortgage over 30 years will cost you less than renting a social property for 30 years. How can you call those 8 regions 'insanity' prices when its cheaper to buy than to rent even the cheapest subsidized poor stock?

The opening to my post on page one of this thread is quite prophetic really. I'm just going to paste it all here and maybe you will take it in? Pay attention to the bottom article in particular with regards to your insinuation that everything is cheap.

Windofchange wrote: »

Seeing as you never open / read articles to inform yourself, I have summarised the key points. All recent.

Shelter / BBC - March 2017

"Nearly eight out of 10 families across England are unable to afford newly built homes in their local area, a report by housing charity Shelter says. Its research shows rising house prices hitting all parts of the country, not just London and the south-east."

AND

"It said the problem was worst in the West Midlands, where 93% of privately renting, working families could not afford to buy a newly built home, even if they used the government's Help to Buy scheme."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39128037

FROM THE ONS - March 2017

"The median price paid for residential property in England and Wales increased by 259% between 1997 and 2016; median individual annual earnings increased by 68% in the same time period."

"On average, working people could expect to pay around 7.6 times their annual earnings on purchasing a home in England and Wales in 2016, up from 3.6 times earnings in 1997."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/1997to2016

Money wise - Feb 2017

"Despite Londoners having an average wage of £34,000 a year – the highest average earnings in the country – the average house costs £563,041, which is double the national average and 16.6 times more than the typical London salary."

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2017-02-06/house-prices-unaffordable-london-s-buyers-and-renters

City AM - April 2017

"In 87 per cent of cases (Local Authorities) across England, Scotland and Wales, house prices were more than five times average salaries."

http://www.cityam.com/262960/uk-house-prices-unattainable-no-not-just-london-most

Comment regarding the above on how UK affordability is still very good?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Some yes, others the ONS. If you took the time to read anything before responding it might be possible to have a debate with you.



You don't get it do you? The census isn't 24 million properties. It's 24 million households. A household may be 1 person. It may be 7 people. It maybe 24 people. It maybe a young family, it may be Economic aged 27 living with his parents. Failing to get this means that whatever you think you have worked out is yet again wrong. As for what you have worked out, I am completely lost. Can anyone help?

There is no large difference between the 'persons per property' of private rentals and owner occupied housing.

So now that you are finally aware only 14.7% of UK born are in private rentals and that you want to get this down to 10% do you agree the problem clearly is not as bad as you thought/hoped?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

There is no large difference between the 'persons per property' of private rentals and owner occupied housing.

So now that you are finally aware only 14.7% of UK born are in private rentals and that you want to get this down to 10% do you agree the problem clearly is not as bad as you thought/hoped?

What? Where have I said I want to get this down to 10%? Where have I said I care about private rentals? What on earth are you on about? Does anyone understand?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

The opening to my post on page one of this thread is quite prophetic really. I'm just going to paste it all here and maybe you will take it in? Pay attention to the bottom article in particular with regards to your insinuation that everything is cheap.

Your links are not worth replying to and you would know that if you had any data analysis ability but since you have asked twice

1: '8/10 families cant afford a new build in their area' This is an irrelevant stat, significant numbers can not afford any type of house because they are not working. These may be the retired or the single mothers on benefits or those in the social stock etc. Also new builds sell for a premium to the second hand stock but the second hand stock is over 80% of sales in any given year.

2. "The median price paid for residential property in England and Wales increased by 259% between 1997 and 2016; median individual annual earnings increased by 68% in the same time period." So what? Like I have said before prices could double in real terms yet go from cheap to still cheap. Just because prices are higher it does not mean prices are now not affordable

3: "Despite Londoners having an average wage of £34,000 a year – the highest average earnings in the country – the average house costs £563,041, which is double the national average and 16.6 times more than the typical London salary." I would far more trust the land registry than an internet newspaper and the Land Registry shows average terrace house cost £482,353. The median full time wage is now closer to £35k so 13.8 x single income. However only idiots think its reasonable for single people to be buying a whole terrace house to themselves in London. For a couple it falls down to 6.9 x joint income. That is still high but London is home to some mega expensive properties so I would say its more reasonable to ignore the 10 most expensive boroughs and look at the cheaper ones if you only have access to personal income. The more expensive areas will be purchased with generational wealth and business wealth and stock market wealth and Russian gangsta wealth etc. When you look at a cheaper borough like Barking&Dagenham the terrace price is under £300,000 so for our couple with a 20% deposit they need only borrow 3.4 x joint income and remember this is the average terrace which means that half are even cheaper

4: '87% of LA are unaffordable'

Always look at the raw data my boy



8/12 regions below 3 x joint full time income
Only 1 region, London, above 4.5 x joint income

:T

GreatApe

If homes are so unaffordable why are only 14.7% of uk born in private rentals? Of which very likely 2/3rds of this 14.7% need/want to be renting at that point in their lives.

If housing is a problem at all that is the problem right there, about 1/3rd of 14.7% = less than 5% of households. So for the uk born 95% of them are in a tenure they want/need to be in.

The glass is 95% full

economic

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.

GreatApe

I rented a house between the ages of 18-27 or about 9 years of my life.
I make that about 13% of my expected adult life assuming I live to age 88 (9 years renting / 70 years adult life = ~13%

If that was ok which it was for me and I am sure most people would see renting at ages 18-27 as just fine and then buying a house for yourself. Then we would and should expect to see the private rental market represent about 13% of all housing.

In 2011 the uk born was 14.7% as private renting which is only a tiny amount above what would be considered a normal bare minimum functioning rental market.

As I keep saying, things are absolutely fine. The housing market for the uk born is almost perfect. Free markets working just fine even if moneyweek and its readers are confused