House Price Crash Discussion Thread

Mr._H_2

fc123 wrote: »

....so this could explain why there is so much household debt?
oh, I forgot the parking fines allowance in the budget....say £2000pa as each time one needed a tin of cat food or pint of milk (and no local shops left to walk to) one took the "running man" option of parking on a yellow line, feeling the adrenaline rise as one queued to pay...then , quickly went to car to find if ticketed or not..........mini endorphin rushes are bad for ones health BTW.

:laugh: Is it me, or are you managing to take the p*ss out of both wolvoman and me at the same time?

(edit: I'm not allowed to say p*ss?)

fc123

Mr._H wrote: »

:laugh: Is it me, or are you managing to take the p*ss out of both wolvoman and me at the same time?

(edit: I'm not allowed to say p*ss?)

Absolutely not:D . I am no economist (I am in the process of trying to learn more) but a bit of anecdotal does no harm......sometimes all the generalisations and averages etc. though relevant and important to the debate need a little bit of real life sprinkled on top.


Plus all those wrinkle treatments are coming out of someones household budget......those companies turn over a small fortune nowadays.

Generali

Mr._H wrote: »

I'm not too sure why you find it so difficult to accept that being able to afford said "decent roof" makes you well-off.

There are plenty of "decent roofs" (and decent lifestyles, for that matter), in this country, which cost significantly less than the amounts you quoted.

Are you going to continue to ignore my favourite new statistic that 90% of people in the UK earn less than £42,374? Are you going to continue to try and convince anyone still reading that anything above that doesn't make you well-off, despite it placing you in the top 10% of this country's earners, itself one of the most well-off countries in the world? Not to mention that the income level you quoted was for a couple earning on average £67,500 each, so now we must be up into at least the top 5%, and probably top 1%.

I agree with what you say. I was just trying to put a point of view which is for many people I know, £135k would only afford the basics of what they consider a decent life.

In 1992 I lived in London (Balham) on £102 net pw.

Things are relative. I have a friend who works as a teacher (and single mother) in Newcastle-under-Lyme. They live perfectly well on her salary.

My point isn't that if you live on less than £xxx,xxx per month, year or lifetime you're rich or poor. My point is that these things are relative. Why should a nurse earn less than an oil engineer or an IT consultant? No good reason and I'm sure a nurse is more valuable to 'society'. People have different views.

I'm not trying to ignore anything, merely to make a point of my own.

fc123

Generali wrote: »

I agree with what you say. I was just trying to put a point of view which is for many people I know, £135k would only afford the basics of what they consider a decent life.

...and what is considered to be enough.;)

Generali

fc123 wrote: »

...and what is considered to be enough.;)

It's a very interesting question. I believe that greed has been a fundamental driver of people down the ages and that greed has resulted in some terrible and some wonderful things.

Greed has driven some of the most horrible dictators. Greed has also led drug companies to make drugs to cure terrible diseases.

Most people will always want more, whatever they have. Psychological research seems to show that people will be happier to earn £30k pa if everyone else is on £20k pa than to earn £80k pa if everyone else is on £100k pa.

John_Pierpoint

I've only just realised how poor I am:D
"Freedom is nothing left to lose?"

Seriously though they say that my parents' generation were never fitter and "happier" than during WWII. Rationed food and everyone living with their backs to the wall, shoulders to the wheel and noses to the grindstone. People felt equal and with a common purpose. They certainly talked about it a lot afterwards.

I think someone got a Nobel prize for economics for work done on the human race's need to feel a bit richer than their neighbours and so there is no absolute measure of poverty or wealth. Does anyone know who and when it was?

Generali

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I've only just realised how poor I am:D
"Freedom is nothing left to lose?"

Seriously though they say that my parents' generation were never fitter and "happier" than during WWII. Rationed food and everyone living with their backs to the wall, shoulders to the wheel and noses to the grindstone. People felt equal and with a common purpose. They certainly talked about it a lot afterwards.

I think someone got a Nobel prize for economics for work done on the human race's need to feel a bit richer than their neighbours and so there is no absolute measure of poverty or wealth. Does anyone know who and when it was?

Well the solution to our problems are at hand. Drop bombs on East London and eat Spam and powdered eggs!

Daniel Kahneman is the bloke you're thinking of. Israeli Psychologist and Economist. A bright lad.

fc123

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I've only just realised how poor I am:D
"Freedom is nothing left to lose?"

Seriously though they say that my parents' generation were never fitter and "happier" than during WWII. Rationed food and everyone living with their backs to the wall, shoulders to the wheel and noses to the grindstone. People felt equal and with a common purpose. They certainly talked about it a lot afterwards.

I think someone got a Nobel prize for economics for work done on the human race's need to feel a bit richer than their neighbours and so there is no absolute measure of poverty or wealth. Does anyone know who and when it was?

Don't know that author but "Enough" by John Naish (published 3 wks back) expands on a similar theme but in a more "popular" style. Fab book...would recommend....made me feel much better about my life.

fc123

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

OH and I are not child free. We have a 2 year old son. We do have a car, but we choose to have it and could manage without - it's something we have decided we want enough to pay for.

I certainly can't see how a London family "needs" two cars. They just choose to have them, which is entirely different.

When I look back to how we lived (existed) on the suburban hamster wheel, I am shocked at myself for not challenging our lifestyle at any point.
It wasn't "chosen" it just evolved.

The 2 cars were "essential" as both of us worked and had school drop offs etc. but the expense of supporting that type of lifestyle.:eek:

wolvoman

Mr._H wrote: »

Are you going to continue to ignore my favourite new statistic that 90% of people in the UK earn less than £42,374? Are you going to continue to try and convince anyone still reading that anything above that doesn't make you well-off, despite it placing you in the top 10% of this country's earners, itself one of the most well-off countries in the world?

I think I agree with you that the top 10% of earners in the UK are considered to be well-off. Do you happen to know what the London figures are? I would estimate that the top 10% earn something like £60K and above, which would make them well-off too.

And anyway income isn't everything.
I know a girl in London, late 20s, works as a primary school teacher yet lives in a flat that must be worth £500K that her parents bought outright about 15 years ago and gave it to her. She must take home around £1500 a month I guess.
One of my friends rents a place not far from there with his g/f and baby and pays £1800 a month in rent alone. His take home is around £3500 I would guess, so after rent he is actually worse off then her, even though he earns 3 times as much.