Houses more affordable than 1970s

GreatApe

spadoosh wrote: »

Show me what you want me to look at and i will.

I tried googling "UK born figures and recent migrant figures for ownership and tenure" and im struggling to know exactly what youre wanting me to look at.

Migrants dont own?
UK born tend to although theyre getting older?
Youre more likelty to rent in london?


From what i can deduce from a source that im not sure if you want me to look at or not you want me to blame this on migrants?

Because it says they dont buy. Well less than half do. And 1.8 million additional homes for migrants over the last 18 years is only a fraction of the reason why prices have increased nearly 200% (accounting for inflation)

Recent njgrants have a totally difference ownership profile than UK born citizens

I can't check the exact numbers for you now but its something like 75% of recent migrants rent privately. What this means is if you import a lot of migrants the housing tenure mix will change.

If you look at overall figures ownership started to fall around 2004 which coincides with the mass EU migration. It wasn't to do with price. Prices went up lie mad between 1995-2004 but ownership increased at the same time. The fall in overall UK ownership is due to the different (very very different) tenure makeup of recent migrants vs UK born.

If you look into it in more detail it makes a lot of sense. For instance look at the NE prices were static in nominal terms for nearly a decade (so prices actually fell about 30% vs wages) but what happened to ownership in the NE? If you look one layer deep you would assume cheaper rrwl prices must have resulted in more ownership in the NE but that would be wrong ownership fell even in the NE the same overriding reason it fell everywhere which is the mass migration of recent migrants.

If you look at UK born ownership levels they are very close to peak levels a little down as the regulators removed self cert and 100% mortgages post 2008 but still very close to peal levels.

I have nowt against migrants I'm a migrant myself.
I'd be happy to see +500,000 to the population indefinitely
But I am aware it would dilute the ownership figures even if UK born citizens are more or less still owning at record levels.

spadoosh

westernpromise wrote: »

You think 64 is lower than 50?

That may be why you can't buy.

I really couldve been on your side.

Im a spoilt millenial. Ive got new phones, the full sky package, holiday 2-3 times a year, not a fan of avocados but i do av a car do (two in fact). Games consoles, i even had my own little games room going on until the baby came and for whatever reason we still required a room for guests.

I failed my economics AS level because my coursework was 'too far fetched' and i didnt grasp the basics of economics. In it i highlighted the increase in sub prime lending and predicted the collapse and run on a major high street bank (dont mind pointing out my actual failings, in my head it was RBS). From that i went on to buy at the bottom of the curve, as i had planned and had my house at 24. What was affordable then was a 34 year mortgage and a 10k deposit. I fully anticipate being mortgage free by 40 unless of course i decide to upscale, although being the reckless millenial i am, i threw all caution to the wind and bought a house that i knew would be perfectly suitable for me (and family) until i die.

Ill be honest and say i dont know many 30 years olds who own 50% of their home. But then i do know a lot of millenial home owners. From my social group i can only think of one person who cant afford a home. Hes single. The rest have bought, all be it with government schemes and high ltv/long mortgages.

As i said, i could more than easily argue your stance. I could highlight how easy my life is and how clever i am because im doing ok and whilst i do have confidence in my abilities in predicting economic activity. I cannot rule out the presence of luck. Considering i think of myself as somewhat rare (i was the youngest of my peers to buy and have little in the way of debt) i cant help but consider my timing and circumstances may have been helped by luck.

spadoosh

GreatApe wrote: »

Recent njgrants have a totally difference ownership profile than UK born citizens

I can't check the exact numbers for you now but its something like 75% of recent migrants rent privately. What this means is if you import a lot of migrants the housing tenure mix will change.

If you look at overall figures ownership started to fall around 2004 which coincides with the mass EU migration. It wasn't to do with price. Prices went up lie mad between 1995-2004 but ownership increased at the same time. The fall in overall UK ownership is due to the different (very very different) tenure makeup of recent migrants vs UK born.

If you look into it in more detail it makes a lot of sense. For instance look at the NE prices were static in nominal terms for nearly a decade (so prices actually fell about 30% vs wages) but what happened to ownership in the NE? If you look one layer deep you would assume cheaper rrwl prices must have resulted in more ownership in the NE but that would be wrong ownership fell even in the NE the same overriding reason it fell everywhere which is the mass migration of recent migrants.

If you look at UK born ownership levels they are very close to peak levels a little down as the regulators removed self cert and 100% mortgages post 2008 but still very close to peal levels.

I have nowt against migrants I'm a migrant myself.
I'd be happy to see +500,000 to the population indefinitely
But I am aware it would dilute the ownership figures even if UK born citizens are more or less still owning at record levels.

Ill look properly in a bit but the simple maths ive got in my head is 200,000 a year net migration Isnt going to have had a huge effect on the 27 million homes over the last 15 years or so when you consider half of the migrants end up buying. The supply (build rate) whilst lagging will also have offset those numbers somewhat.

Cant help but think the main reason for reduction in ownership over the 10 year period would be due to the tightening of mortgage lending and mortgage approvals drastically plummeting. Late 90's early 00's mortgage approvals where at 120,000 a month, from mid 05 onwards they dropped to 30,000 to 60,000 per month.

GreatApe

spadoosh wrote: »

Ill look properly in a bit but the simple maths ive got in my head is 200,000 a year net migration Isnt going to have had a huge effect on the 27 million homes over the last 15 years or so when you consider half of the migrants end up buying. The supply (build rate) whilst lagging will also have offset those numbers somewhat.

Cant help but think the main reason for reduction in ownership over the 10 year period would be due to the tightening of mortgage lending and mortgage approvals drastically plummeting. Late 90's early 00's mortgage approvals where at 120,000 a month, from mid 05 onwards they dropped to 30,000 to 60,000 per month.

A large part of the fall in ownership is purely down to recent migrants having s hugely different tenure profile

If you think of just the last ten years there have been a gross inflow of about 6 million
You can't use bet figures as that includes high ownership groups like UK citizens migrating out
The while 6 million isnt fair either as very shirt term migrants eg here for a year before they leave just can me out. So let's just go with 4 million for the sake if it

Average occupancy 2.35 = 1.7 million home

If they displaced Brits with 75% ownership with recent migrants with 75% private rental that's a swing I about 1.3 million properties from owners to renters.

Total rental stock is up about 2.5 milkion over the decade so more than half the swing us simply from migrants. This is birn out by the fact that UK born ownrrship figures haven't crashed so hard and are near oeak lebels.

Of course the mortgage market changes like no more self cert has jicked out sine UK biyers too eg the 10% if the wirkforce in the bkack or grey economy now cant buy as easily as they could in the self cert days.

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

No. It's very simple. If home ownership were genuinely cheaper in the past, why was there less of it?

The number of owners does not give a good indication its growth in home ownership that tells the story and that was higher in 70s than now.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

The number of owners does not give a good indication its growth in home ownership that tells the story and that was higher in 70s than now.

It was improving from a low base because it was so hard to achieve. So hard that only 50% did...

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

It was improving from a low base because it was so hard to achieve. So hard that only 50% did...

Home ownership increased from 30% to 50% between 1950 and 1971 then to over 60% by 1991 so a lot of people were buying.

I bought my first house in early 70s if I was in a similar position today I could not buy same house even using present day mortgage rules. That tells me it is harder to buy now than It was in the 70s.

Malthusian

spadoosh wrote: »

I failed my economics AS level because my coursework was 'too far fetched' and i didnt grasp the basics of economics. In it i highlighted the increase in sub prime lending and predicted the collapse and run on a major high street bank (dont mind pointing out my actual failings, in my head it was RBS).

Passing Economics AS level requires a bit more than picking up a copy of The Economist and repeating the widely-known fact that there was a sub-prime bubble.

Everyone who took an interest in the subject was aware of the risk that sub-prime lending posed to the global economy; the bit that was impossible to predict was that it would burst in 2007. For every person that correctly guessed the year and had a film made about them, a dozen shorted the markets in 2006 or 2005 and lost their shirt.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Home ownership increased from 30% to 50% between 1950 and 1971 then to over 60% by 1991 so a lot of people were buying.

I bought my first house in early 70s if I was in a similar position today I could not buy same house even using present day mortgage rules. That tells me it is harder to buy now than It was in the 70s.

But your comparison is a flawed one
For a start how much were people inheriting back in the 1970s? £200 billion a year like now?
The great thing now is most UK born kids will get a house for free many will get more than one house for free.

The nation is much richer and much better housed today than fifty years ago.

When you say the same person now vs 50 years ago it isn't comparable.
The same person now is born to more wealth is born to a stronger economy is born to more capital than the twin born fifty years earlier as they have 50 years more capital to inherit or borrow

This isn't really a difficult problem to think about. We have x number of homes and they are allocated on income and wealth. People who don't own are mostly at the bottom of wealth/income distribution bit they don't realise it. Ten years ago I was a member of the hpc cheerleaders association because I thought I was average and deserved the average house all by my lonesome. The reality though was I was earning less than the median male full time wage and had less capital and no family help so I was a disgruntled renter for a few years. But I realised it wasn't the system that was broken I was just a lot poorer than I thought I was. The solution was to get more wealthy or sit there and accept low wages mean lower quality of life.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

But your comparison is a flawed one
For a start how much were people inheriting back in the 1970s? £200 billion a year like now?
The great thing now is most UK born kids will get a house for free many will get more than one house for free.

The nation is much richer and much better housed today than fifty years ago.

When you say the same person now vs 50 years ago it isn't comparable.
The same person now is born to more wealth is born to a stronger economy is born to more capital than the twin born fifty years earlier as they have 50 years more capital to inherit or borrow

This isn't really a difficult problem to think about. We have x number of homes and they are allocated on income and wealth. People who don't own are mostly at the bottom of wealth/income distribution bit they don't realise it. Ten years ago I was a member of the hpc cheerleaders association because I thought I was average and deserved the average house all by my lonesome. The reality though was I was earning less than the median male full time wage and had less capital and no family help so I was a disgruntled renter for a few years. But I realised it wasn't the system that was broken I was just a lot poorer than I thought I was. The solution was to get more wealthy or sit there and accept low wages mean lower quality of life.

You are talking absolute rubbish again and your take on inheritance is incorrect most people are in the 50s or older when they get a inheritance.

As for your last paragraph yes house are allocated on income and wealth but that doesn't effect the relative affordability between now and 70s.