Do you want house price to rise or fall?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

If you are low paid it should be an aim to try and not have a car and ideally live close enough to walk to work.

For a very long time, most my working life, I did not have a car I just choose to rent near to where I worked and it was great not only do you not have to pay £3-5k per year for a car but a nice 20 minute walk to work is better than a 45 min drive.

For other things what do you need a car for? There are shops almost everywhere its not like we are in the middle of the saharah and online shopping comes right to your door.

But we are getting side tracked, most people in the UK are so wealthy they can afford a house and a car no problem so lets not pretend people have to scrimp and save. The uk and its citizens have more than £10 trillion in wealth we are a rich nation not a poor one.

The problem is you and other crash cheerleaders just look at income and ignore the huge wall of wealth. Yes life is not fair but it is much much better than it has been for the other 95 billion souls who lived horrible lives compared to us. Actually that sounds too depressing. Life is great in the west we have lots of opportunity and freedom, full employment and high wages. The problem is coveting others lives and things.

You really do have a simplistic view of life. Yes most people in this country do managed to own and house and a car but a sizeable minority don't and that number is getting larger. I'm no crash cheerleader but then again I'm not so out of touch to realise that in many parts of the country there is a serious problem with housing.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

at in many parts of the country there is a serious problem with housing.

That's funny I used to live next door to a illiterate migrant who didn't speak a world of English nor did he work yet he had a roof over his head, food in his belly and cloths on his back. Who is it that you think in the UK doesn't have housing or his needs met?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

That's funny I used to live next door to a illiterate migrant who didn't speak a world of English nor did he work yet he had a roof over his head, food in his belly and cloths on his back. Who is it that you think in the UK doesn't have housing or his needs met?

People get their basic needs meet, but some people including me think that if people work they should have more than their basic needs meet.

Graham_Devon

GreatApe wrote: »

If you are low paid it should be an aim to try and not have a car and ideally live close enough to walk to work.

For a very long time, most my working life, I did not have a car I just choose to rent near to where I worked and it was great not only do you not have to pay £3-5k per year for a car but a nice 20 minute walk to work is better than a 45 min drive.

For other things what do you need a car for? There are shops almost everywhere its not like we are in the middle of the saharah and online shopping comes right to your door.

But we are getting side tracked, most people in the UK are so wealthy they can afford a house and a car no problem so lets not pretend people have to scrimp and save. The uk and its citizens have more than £10 trillion in wealth we are a rich nation not a poor one.

The problem is you and other crash cheerleaders just look at income and ignore the huge wall of wealth. Yes life is not fair but it is much much better than it has been for the other 95 billion souls who lived horrible lives compared to us. Actually that sounds too depressing. Life is great in the west we have lots of opportunity and freedom, full employment and high wages. The problem is coveting others lives and things.

I'm pretty sure you must live in some sort of simplistic utopia.

Shops all around us? Maybe so in London or another big city - but there are places outside of this.

Really no point in discussing anything with you though as this simplistic lifestyle viewpoint you have where everything simply lands in peoples laps seems to cloud any judgement.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

People get their basic needs meet, but some people including me think that if people work they should have more than their basic needs meet.

No not just the basic needs. People in africa have their basic needs met hence the population boom

Poor people in the UK have all their needs and most their reasonable wants met. The problem with wants is that you never really reach everything you want. There are lots of things I want but dont have.

And most working people in the UK do manage to buy their own home or get into social. As I keep pointing out the private rental sector is a highly transitional sector most people move on to ownership and social

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you must live in some sort of simplistic utopia

Yes that is correct I live in a utopia this particular one is called the united kingdom.
Where you literally dont need to work a day in your life and all of lifes needs will be given to you regardless.

Shops all around us? Maybe so in London or another big city - but there are places outside of this.

If your on the min wage you have it the easiest of all to choose where you live as any move is at worst sideways and possibly up

Really no point in discussing anything with you though as this simplistic lifestyle viewpoint you have where everything simply lands in peoples laps seems to cloud any judgement.

Life is not easy because we are mortal and fallible.
Everyone will suffer greatly due to someone they love suffering or themselves suffering.
But economic life is very easy in the UK and other developed nations.
We work just 2-3 hours a day and live like kings.
Every other animal, and about 90 of the 100 billion humans to have ever lived had horrible lives of death disease and true hardship

The only thing the crash cheerleaders have to moan about is spending 10,000 hours patting each other on the back for being so smart they can see the impending doom before the sheeple rather than spending those 10,000 hours bettering themselves and their life chances

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

No not just the basic needs. People in africa have their basic needs met hence the population boom

Poor people in the UK have all their needs and most their reasonable wants met. The problem with wants is that you never really reach everything you want. There are lots of things I want but dont have.

And most working people in the UK do manage to buy their own home or get into social. As I keep pointing out the private rental sector is a highly transitional sector most people move on to ownership and social

You keep saying that and in might have been true in the past but it's not now and in some areas many people are who could have bought in the past can't now. We also spend £18billion on housing benefit much of it to working families yet you don't think there is a problem.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

You keep saying that and in might have been true in the past but it's not now and in some areas many people are who could have bought in the past can't now. We also spend £18billion on housing benefit much of it to working families yet you don't think there is a problem.

We spend billions on food benefits and cloths benefits for the poor. Does that somehow prove food and cloths are too expensive?

I am aware people in situation X 20 years ago could afford more than people in situation X today what you dont realize or accept is that in a multi variable problem you are not comparing apples with apples.

London was super cheap in the 1990s. A pair of teachers buying a terrace in Hackney in 1998 is not comparable to a pair of teachers not being able to buy the same terrace in hackney in 2018 the reason is London has changed and inner London more so. Almost everything is different why would you think it isn't

Anyweay we have been though this too many times and dont get anywhere.

Let me ask you something else, what do you make of the fact that 2017 was the first time in a long time that the private rental sector shrunk in nominal terms (actual number of units) as well as real terms (as a percentage of the housing stock)??

I think its quite interesting. If you feel high ownership is a net good then we are going in a good way at prices you think are untenable yet somehow they arent untenable

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

We spend billions on food benefits and cloths benefits for the poor. Does that somehow prove food and cloths are too expensive?

I am aware people in situation X 20 years ago could afford more than people in situation X today what you dont realize or accept is that in a multi variable problem you are not comparing apples with apples.

London was super cheap in the 1990s. A pair of teachers buying a terrace in Hackney in 1998 is not comparable to a pair of teachers not being able to buy the same terrace in hackney in 2018 the reason is London has changed and inner London more so. Almost everything is different why would you think it isn't

Anyweay we have been though this too many times and dont get anywhere.

Let me ask you something else, what do you make of the fact that 2017 was the first time in a long time that the private rental sector shrunk in nominal terms (actual number of units) as well as real terms (as a percentage of the housing stock)??

I think its quite interesting. If you feel high ownership is a net good then we are going in a good way at prices you think are untenable yet somehow they arent untenable

I agree property was cheap in mid 90s but they are now higher in relation to earnings than they have ever been in fact previous high before 1990s was 5x now it's about 6.5x. These are national figures I bough my first house in 1972 it was just over 5x median earnings same house now is about 7.5x and I bought when the house price to earnings ratio was high.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree property was cheap in mid 90s but they are now higher in relation to earnings than they have ever been in fact previous high before 1990s was 5x now it's about 6.5x. These are national figures I bough my first house in 1972 it was just over 5x median earnings same house now is about 7.5x and I bought when the house price to earnings ratio was high.

People do not buy property with just earned income they also have capital and other sources of income. These are much higher today than when you bought your home so prices are still affordable.

This is clear by the fact that ownership is higher today than in 1972 when you bought even if prices are higher relative to incomes. Whats more ownership is increasing again now at these prices so the idea that property is unaffordable is just wrong. More people own now and even more will own this year and next year.

Like I keep saying, whats the problem?