UK Affordability still very good

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Oh boy...

GreatApe wrote: »

1: ....significant numbers can not afford any type of house because they are not working....

So you agree that significant numbers can't afford any type of house? I thought you were just saying that 96% of people can afford to buy?

GreatApe wrote: »

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

So what? Seriously? So house prices have grown at 4 x the speed of wages. But of course in your world, no problems, still affordable.

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Right move - whole of London, terraced house, exclude shared ownership. 24 properties for £300k or less.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E87490&minBedrooms=1&maxPrice=300000&propertyTypes=terraced&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=terracedhouses&includeSSTC=false&dontShow=sharedOwnership%2Cretirement

What were you saying about the terrace price under £300,000?

Oh but wait, you're not talking about London of course - you've headed out to prove a point again. Barking and Dagenham - 111 properties across the area:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E61400&minBedrooms=1&maxPrice=300000&sortType=1&propertyTypes=terraced&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=terracedhouses&includeSSTC=false&dontShow=sharedOwnership%2Cretirement

Yup, a real glut of properties.

GreatApe wrote: »

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

What is the source of your table?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

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

And again, let's forget about the 21% of other people, quarter of the population in social rented. It doesn't fit your argument so let's just forget about that lot. You're just talking !!!!!!!! as per the numerous other people on this thread who have given up with you.

GreatApe

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.

Indeed he has shown himself to have poor understanding of statistics and data on multiple discussions and threads.

14.7% of UK born rent privately as per the most reliable data available, ie the census data. what this 14.7% private renting means is that typically UK born rent for about 10 years and then become owners or move into social.

My experience was quite similar to that average shown in the 2011 census, I rented for about 13% of my adult life and I will be an owner for about 87% of my adult life.


Of course Mr wind and co wont understand this, but what needs to be done is look at the three big housing tenures. Ownership, Renting Privately and Social. From that minus a certain amount needed for private rentals (Just for arguments sake lets use 13% as thats how long I rented/will-have-rented in my expected adult life) so people have the option to rent and move about the country for a period. Then whats left is the actual representation of wants

So the data for 2011 shows for uk born

47.76 million uk born, lets say they need to rent 13% of the time as I did which means at any one time 6.2 million of them need/want to rent. So ignore them and you have 41.56 million uk persons of which 32.85 million own and 7.87 million in social and 0.84 million in private rental.

That effectively means if you account for this 13% of a persons adult life as needing/wanting to rent privately the remainder is

79.0% own
18.9% in social
2.0% in private renting


I would argue we are very close to optimal levels for the uk born, at least that was the case in 2011 and probably is now.

Windofchange

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.

Come back when you can put a proper grown up sentence together. Silly me for posting facts and research - ONS etc. I'm out before this just descends into the usual mess. You two carry on - nobody else understands you.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

i find it ammusing how GreatApe provides hard facts and data analysis

A little bit later...

GreatApe wrote: »

(Just for arguments sake lets use 13% as thats how long I rented/will-have-rented in my expected adult life

Yup. Proper hard facts and data analysis in that argument. :rotfl:

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Problem is you use joint income as 2x full time while median household income for London was £40k in 2013.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

And again, let's forget about the 21% of other people, quarter of the population in social rented. It doesn't fit your argument so let's just forget about that lot. You're just talking !!!!!!!! as per the numerous other people on this thread who have given up with you.

maybe you/they simply are not able to follow the data analysis? I forget sometimes that what I consider easy probably is not easy for those who do not enjoy mathematics as much as I do.

I am quite patient so I will try again

I rented for 13% of my adult life and have/will-have owned for 87% of my expected adult life. If everyone was like me but born in different years then the stats would show 13% private rental 87% ownership. Understand?

Many private renters are just transitional from private renting to owning or going to the social stock.

Overall we know from the 2011 census that UK born are

68.8% owners
16.5% in social
14.7% in private rental

However as noted we know many private rentals are just transisitional households before they go into owning or social. If we take this into account, using 13% of the population as temporary private renters before they buy/go-into-social then you get these figures which exclude the transitional renting period

79.0% own
18.9% in social
2.0% in private renting


Hopefully that makes sense now?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

A little bit later...

Yup. Proper hard facts and data analysis in that argument. :rotfl:

Clearly you do not understand what is being done, but once more let me try again

The data is as follows

2011 Cencus. UK born Housing tenure

68.8% are owners
16.5% in social
14.7% are renters.


Now we need to do some data analysis. The data is a snapshot of 2011 and the uninformed would think that 14.7% of households are private renters, full stop. However when you think more carefully you should understand that private renting is an intermediary tenure. Most people rent privately at least for some part of their lives. For me its 13% of my adult life. Now I am not claiming that that is the average or data. What I am claiming is that the figure is definitely above 0 but at this point in this discussion we do not need the exact data to conclude that if we exclude the intermediary tenure that is private renting, that both ownership and social will jump. Now at this juncture I could try to search for the data of how many and how long people who are owners or in social rented privately before or will do at some later point. However this is not a paper to be published in a journal its half a dozen loons on the net. So the next step i said was IF my experience was representative these would be the results.

You can come back at me and say oh your experience of renting for 8-9 years before buying is not typical most uk born people privately rent much fewer years before buying!! And maybe you are right. However we both know and accept private renting is a transitional tenure so we know the figures will look a lot better when you ignore these transitional persons

Take this to your hive mind at hpc and let them ponder it

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Problem is you use joint income as 2x full time while median household income for London was £40k in 2013.

It's a mistake to use the average household income in London because the average household wont be representative buyers

Its a bit like the transitional debate with Mr wind

A person might start working age 21 on £25k
Then at age 25 they might be on £30k
Then at age 30 they might be on £35k
At that point they might buy a house
They might see more wage increases and peak at say £40k in their 40s
Then they retire and their household income drops to the state pension of what £10k?
they stay like that for 30 years and then die

Whats the point in using this mans lifetime household income?
He is buying at age 30 thats the income you should look at

You might be thinking, I did not use this mans average lifetime income I was looking at London average household income. But a large group ie a city what you are effectively doing is what I have described above. You are looking at kids, the retired and other points in time that are irrelevant


For London 2 x full time income is reasonable. I would even say adding gifts and inheritances is reasonable but no need to add to the detail at this point

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

You two carry on - nobody else understands you.

You might actually be correct

You look at data and totally interpret it wrong

Maybe Mr ukcarper would like to comment on this as he seems a little more capable

ukcarper what do you think of the idea that renting is a transitional tenure. That stripping out those who are in private renting as a transitional tenure and looking at what remains is a better view point of how things stand in the uk

So while the headline data is this
2011 Cencus. UK born Housing tenure
68.8% are owners
16.5% in social
14.7% are renters.

If you assume 10% of an average adults life is in private renting before they move onto ownership/social then the figures taking account of this transitional tenure become

76.4% owner
18.3% in social
5.2% non transitional private renter

So the problem, if it is a problem at all is to reduce this 5.2% and turn them into owners or social renters.


Whats for sure is that the problem is far less acute than Mr wind and his hpc cheerleaders make it out to be.