A Millennial Speaks out

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Website doesnt seem to like apostrophes so

So werent saying that someone on average earning of part time and full time couldnt afford it and trying to make a point.

No.

If I were saying that....I'd have, erm, said it?

But I didn't, and didn't say anything like it. What I have said is written in black and white.

I don't get what your issue is with anything I have said in response to the question as to how much it would cost someone on their own, I really don't. But nice to be hounded as soon as I pop back to the boards. Hey ho.

Cakeguts

ukcarper wrote: »

I can see the point that you are making and I agree if people are going to move they need to take in account the cost of living in that area and not just possible wages. But its not as easy as that if like me you were born close to London and if we all move to cheaper areas there would be no jobs in those areas.

I agree about the people who were born close to London but I actually don't think that they are the ones doing the large amount of complaining. I think most of the complaints are coming from people like the Journalist who made the choice to move to London without doing enough research.

triathlon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I quoted average earnings in the Oldham area as that's the average earning of a single person.

I was simply using data to say how much it would cost and how much an average single person may earn.

Why you have taken such issue with this I really don't know.

It's very relevant how much an average person may earn when looking at affordability of a specific house in a specific area. I'm confused as to how you think it's irrelevant. What should I have done? Used a London wage? A couples wage to show affordability for a single person? Confused.com :huh:

And I know what the answers are, I'd given them, and we agree there too (minus your typo) :undecided

I really am not trying to defend carper, both as bad as each other. But you are quite clearly wrong here, just give in.

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

They are talking about new builds. And 2sqm is not a lot smaller it is maybe just 3% smaller and a lot of that space is recoverer by flat screen TVs replacing the big old fat CRTs

Compare that 3% smaller new builds to the fact that a lot of existing homes have had loft conversions and extensions in some cases homes are a massive 50% bigger than they were in 1970. And add to that the fact that we have built a lot more residential space so the floorspace per capita has increased a lot. From memory we have something like 30% more residential floorspace per capita than the people in 1970

As I keep saying you ignore reality and hang into a confirmation bias fantasy

The fact is we are better housed today and homes are more affordable than ever. Most Brits will inherit housing for free. Where is that on the hpc graphs?

GreatApe

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.

The most silly of ideas is that one man should be able to buy a 3 bedroom home in any part of the country with just one wage. Because you know someone I know knows someone who said in the 60s that was not just possible but !!!! easy! Let's form a website called house price crash and feed each others biases. Let's ignore actual data like the census which shows home ownership was a lot lower in 1971 and that most women did work in 1971 no let's just forget that the fantasy of a post man with 5 kids and a 5 bedroom detached is a better comparison.


This is a reasonable model
Ignore the top 1/3rd of homes they go to the rich people (inheritences businessmen lotto wins silly high wage people and those that have made money elsewhere eg stocks/land/etc)
The bottom 1/3rd of homes go to the FTBs the middle 1/3rd go to SecondTimeBuyers
The social homes go to the poorest 1/5th

So its not one lonely man able to buy the average home.
Its a couple on just above average full time wages (as the poorest 1/5th are on social) able to buy the bottom 1/3rd of homes that is the norm and what would determine if the market is functional or not


I know you will ignore this and just go back to your comfort blanket.

The reality though is that FTB numbers are high. They represent about 1/3rd of all purchases with second time buyers at about 1/3rd and other buyers at 1/3rd.

The reality is in much of the country prices are below or close to reinstatement value

The reality is in much the country a repayment mortgage is less or close to social rents.

The reality is clear we ha e no housing problem we have a functional affordable and in most places cheap housing.

Yes I am green with envy when Mr Chunk posts that he bought a £600k flat for £70k twenty years ago. Does that mean the world is over? Does that mean £600k is a bubble or unsustainable. I'm sire you'd find a fool at every £1k up from £70k that said prices were expensive.


I do have sympathy for Londoners
I myself would like to buy a £2-£3m terrace in zone 2 but I can't afford it
Does that mean something is wrong with the fabric of reality or do I just accept that there are people richer than myself and either make more money or desire things that are in my current ability?

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

The point I am trying to make is that if someone on £18k in Oldham did a house share of a £500 a month house paying £250 a month they would be able to save enough to get the deposit buy a £65k 2 bed house.

What would be the most stupid thing to do would be to accept a job in London paying £25k or £30k a year just because the salary was higher without doing the research to find out if you could afford to buy a house on that. What I think is happening is just that. People are doing the move to London to get paid more without doing any research into how that higher salary compares to living costs. This is why I can't get upset about the people who are complaining that they can't afford to buy a house there. Of course they can't they don't earn enough. They would be better off on £18000 in Oldham because in Oldham that £18,000 is enough.

How can you possibly think you are going to get a "graduate" job if you can't do this simple comparison.

The point is that people can afford to buy houses in London because they are being sold and not all of them to overseas buyers. You don't really have a right to complain if you didn't do the research.

In the example we have a Journalist who managed to research for the article but didn't research the buying power of £40k in London. So for a start the whole thing is a bad example.

Two people working full time at say £40k each would have £80k x 4.5 mortgage = £360,000 + savings. Add £100k savings gives a budget of £450k

That would mean about 1/3rd of all the properties in London are within their budget for a couple earnings a typical median full time London wage.

£450k is even enough for a 3 bedroom ex council flat in zone 2 within walking distance of the three big employment hubs of Westminster City & Docklands

So even London is affordable for a couple. Not cheap but affordable.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

If I were saying that....I'd have, erm, said it?

But I didn't, and didn't say anything like it. What I have said is written in black and white.

I don't get what your issue is with anything I have said in response to the question as to how much it would cost someone on their own, I really don't. But nice to be hounded as soon as I pop back to the boards. Hey ho.

I’m not trying to hound just point out that the price of property is obviously not a problem in Oldham which I got the impression you though it wasn’t. Any it’s nice to have you back.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

Compare that 3% smaller new builds to the fact that a lot of existing homes have had loft conversions and extensions

The average household size in the UK was 2.3 people per household, compared to 2.4 in 2001.
- This is over 4% smaller, i.e. size of households fell by more than size of houses did.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21

In 2016, around 28% of households contained one person...17% of households in Great Britain contained one person
in 1971.
- Despite supposed unaffordability, more people are living on their own now than 47 years ago, which rather demolishes
the argument that you need two incomes now where you only needed one then.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016

The big change in occupation happened not recently but between 1961 and 2001.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21/4b835d3a

Owner-occupation was 36% in 1961, 57% by 1991, 57% until 2001 and has since declined to 50% in 2016.
https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/housing-tenure-over-time/
In 1961 buying was, pace our resident millennials, dirt cheap and dead easy.
Yet we had 45% renting privately in 1961 instead of buying versus only 27% now.
Social housing, according to millennial mythology, has disappeared, but in fact it was 18% then and it's 23% now - and that
doesn't include social tenants in private housing.

I'm afraid lucky boomers and exploitative BTL landlords are right up there with Robin Hood, King Arthur, the Loch Ness
Monster and the yeti.
As much as millennials want to believe in them, they are total figments of needy imaginations and their existence
doesn't withstand a moment's scrutiny.

andrewf75

westernpromise wrote: »

Why is the state more entitled to my money than my children?

Because the state has effectively given you (or allowed you to earn) the wealth so while of course you should be able to pass some to your children it is only right to give some back to the state.

ukcarper

andrewf75 wrote: »

Because the state has effectively given you (or allowed you to earn) the wealth so while of course you should be able to pass some to your children it is only right to give some back to the state.

How has the state giving anybody thier wealth.