A Millennial Speaks out

triathlon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's a pretty ridiculous way to look at things.

Everythign has moved on from the 70's.

By your standards, TV's now should cost 50x more than they did in the 70's as they are now better. Cars should cost 30x more due to the better safety equiptment, efficiences and longer lasting engines.

The world simply doesn't work that way.

The standard is ever changing, and a standard is always present tense.

If you don't do any work on a house for 50 years it simply devalues. What you are suggesting is that it stays the same price, but everything else around it get's more expensive. Bizzare way to look at it, in any walk of life, whether it be shares, investments or materials.

Extensions I agree with (but then that's no longer the same house, as per your post?). But general maintenance and keeping up with modern comforts doesn't increase a buildings value to the extent you seem to believw.

What you fail to grasp is that most people by far value where they live, and in a country with a shortage of land, growing population and high immigration it's a wonder property is as cheap as it is today, and yes I mean that.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aroudn £25k with a 12k deposit.

Around £600 a month.

Though the average salary is Oldham is nearly half that of the rest of the UK at £18,000 a year according to the ONS.

So what looks cheap isn't that cheap when you look at the local wage.

Don't get the link with London though as it's around 220 miles away.

Median full time earnings in Oldham is just over £22k
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/nesscontent/dvc126/

So I would say that house is easily affordable for a couple infact 2 people working full time on minimum wage could afford it and illustrates that there is not a housing crisis everywhere

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Median full time earnings in Oldham is just over £22k
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/nesscontent/dvc126/

So I would say that house is easily affordable for a couple and illustrates that there is not a housing crisis everywhere.

Yes, I wasn't just looking at full time earnings, just all earnings as, well, that's well, more average than looking solely at those who work full time.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, I wasn't just looking at full time earnings, just all earnings as, well, that's well, more average than looking solely at those who work full time.

Do you really expect people working part time to be buying houses, 2 people working full time at minimum wage earn £34k and you are trying to say that house is unaffordable!

Graham_Devon

GreatApe wrote: »

The average floorspace per capita has increased a lot since the 1970s

Almost every direction you turn you are wrong

How long does it take for reality to bite and you accept you are wrong about housing.


We are better housed than ever. And all factors considered homes are cheap. Most UK born Brits will inherit housing. Where on that graph do I look to glean that fact?

Average floor space per capita? What do you even mean by this? Some convoluted way of ignoring reality by looking at space per person in the UK to prove houses are not smaller on average? Ridiculous.


You'll have to disagree with the Royal Institute of British Architects, who state as a result of their own studies, houeses are getting smaller. infact, they shed 2 square metres on average between 2003 and 2013 alone.

Cakeguts

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aroudn £25k with a 12k deposit.

Around £600 a month.

Though the average salary is Oldham is nearly half that of the rest of the UK at £18,000 a year according to the ONS.

So what looks cheap isn't that cheap when you look at the local wage.

Don't get the link with London though as it's around 220 miles away.

That is slightly less than what I would be earning now for a similar job with the same qualifications so that house is now cheaper to buy than when I bought it.

Also you can buy a house in Oldham for around £65k so even if you earn £18k housing is still affordable.

I agree about the local wage in Oldham but you can commute to Manchester from Oldham and the average wage in Manchester is much higher.

The link to London was because I knew when I bought that house in Oldham on my salary that was a national pay scale for the job that I could not afford to live in London so I made the choice not to go for a job in London. This common sense seems to have disappeared in that there are now people choosing to move to London for jobs which don't pay enough for them to buy a house rather than getting a job in an area where they can afford to buy.

My father's generation were not accepting jobs in London even with big promotions offered because they knew that the lower salary that bought a 4 bed detached in a cheaper area would not buy an average 3 bed semi in London even with the big promotion and this was in the 60s and 70s. So how did they know that they would be worse off living in London and the people who are complaining about the high costs who have the internet to do research on not realise that the job they have chosen to take in London doesn't pay enough for them to afford to live there? It was much harder in the 60s 70s and 80s to get the information on the cost of living in London yet people living 200 miles away could do it then and people who have all the information on the internet now and are supposed to be "graduates" are incapable of finding out now?

This is one of the reasons why I take absolutely no notice of complaints about the cost of living in London from people who have moved there from choice. They had the choice of not moving there. The people who have the worst problem are those whose parents had social housing in London in the 60s 70s and 80s onwards because they have been brought up in an expensive area. I have no sympathy for someone who moved from Australia and who works in Journalism complaining about the cost. They could have done some research first just like anyone else who is thinking of moving to London.

The information is all there. They found the job so they can also find out if they can afford to live there on the salary of that job.

London is not making any more land. It can't expand forever to accommodate lots of people who want to move there and live there cheaply. It has never been cheap. If you take a job in an area and don't check to see if you can afford to live in that area that is your problem and it is of your making.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really expect people working part time to be buying houses, 2 people working full time at minimum wage earn £34k and you are trying to say that house is unaffordable!

Not neccesarily, but one full time and one part time is very common.

Hence no real point in ignoring those people (in my opinion) as it only distorts reality.

We've discussed this before. Theres no right way or wrong way of doing this. I simply include all earners, you only include optimum earners. Both will show an outcome, but in this scenario were not that far apart in terms of the context of what I was suggesting.

Graham_Devon

Cakeguts wrote: »

That is slightly less than what I would be earning now for a similar job with the same qualifications so that house is now cheaper to buy than when I bought it.

OK, 1. you don't know what you would be earnign now.

2. That house clearly needs a few thousand spent on it.

I see the point you are trying to make, but it's full of assumptions that everything would be the same today in the workplace as it was back then etc.

All I know is that on that wage before tax etc, and paying £500 a month rent, I'd struggle to save a £12,000 deposit, and I reckon if we are all honest with ourselves and look at all living expenses, we'd all agree it would be very difficult to save that £12k on an £18k (or £22k for that matter) income.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not neccesarily, but one full time and one part time is very common.

Hence no real point in ignoring those people (in my opinion) as it only distorts reality.

We've discussed this before. Theres no right way or wrong way of doing this. I simply include all earners, you only include optimum earners. Both will show an outcome, but in this scenario were not that far apart in terms of the context of what I was suggesting.

Sometimes I despair on these thread we have you saying a £120k house is unaffordable and triathlon saying anybody can buy a house in London,

You would probably not have to pay £120k for that house so a £100k mortgage would most likely be enough. So join income of £25k or one on minimum wage full time and one on half minimum wage.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Sometimes I despair on these thread we have you saying a £120k house is unaffordable and triathlon saying anybody can buy a house in London,

You would probably not have to pay £120k for that house so a £100k mortgage would most likely be enough. So join income of £25k or one on minimum wage full time and one on half minimum wage.

I never said it was unaffordable. Please quote me if that's what I have said.

I merely responded to the poster with the figures posed as a question. The poster asked how much it would cost for a single person, not a couple, so that's what I have answered.

See below:

Originally Posted by Cakeguts View Post
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-61794430.html How much would someone have to earn to afford to buy this house on their own? How much approximately would the mortgage repayments be on that?

All I have said is that on £18k a year, as a single person (as that was the question) I'd struggle to save a £12,000 deposit. I don't think that's all that absurd. But, yer, whatever