Why are house prices still so high?

phillw

David_Evans wrote: »

Mortgages were restricted. A wife's income was not included in affordability.

My dad had trouble getting a mortgage because he worked in the building trade and because you couldn't pour concrete in all weathers, it was considered seasonal work and not full time employment.

He ended up meeting someone sailing who was high up in a building society and they vouched for him. Things were very different.

David_Evans

phillw wrote: »

My dad had trouble getting a mortgage because he worked in the building trade and because you couldn't pour concrete in all weathers, it was considered seasonal work and not full time employment.

He ended up meeting someone sailing who was high up in a building society and they vouched for him. Things were very different.

Things were different in many ways.
Relatives of mine in their 40s tell me of their first job interviews.
Basically,
''who are you?''
''who's your dad?''
''Can you start tomorrow?''

Paid in cash at the end of the week.
No minimum wage.
Cause any trouble and it will have repercussions for other members of your family etc.

If you didn't like it, you joined the army.

Certainly not the amount of tick boxing there is today.

But funny enough - despite these 'awful' conditions - houses were affordable and the pubs were full...??

David_Evans

andrewf75 wrote: »

and always remember that the non-mainstream media has even more of an agenda!

Very scepitcal of anyone using the phrase MSM, to be honest.

Completely agree with you that non-MSM has an agenda. I would only use it as a starting point for my own opinion / research.

The problem I see, is that MSM (eg BBC, newspapers etc) is often NOT questioned enough by the public.

I consider most of it propaganda to some extent.
Some is just more obvious at first.

For example, I think there are some really excellent educational articles on the BBC News website. (eg their science, history sections etc). The problem is that about 20pc of the BBC content is skewed towards propaganda. So it can discredit the whole organisation. Which is a shame because some of their journalists (eg Mark Urban, Frank Gardner) etc are excellent and really well informed with good contacts.

phillw

David_Evans wrote: »

Things were different in many ways.
Relatives of mine in their 40s tell me of their first job interviews.

I'm in my 40's, your description of interviews bears no relation to mine. It depended on what kind of job you were going for.

My school seemed liked it was just preparing you for work at the local factory, if you wanted anything else then you had to do it on your own. Which I did.

Nowadays the problem is that people are told they can achieve anything, but the majority of people can't do that. It keeps the sixth form and universities going, but at the end you still have to do it on your own.

I'm not sure which approach is better.

David_Evans

phillw wrote: »

I'm in my 40's, your description of interviews bears no relation to mine. It depended on what kind of job you were going for.

My school seemed liked it was just preparing you for work at the local factory, if you wanted anything else then you had to do it on your own. Which I did.

Nowadays the problem is that people are told they can achieve anything, but the majority of people can't do that. It keeps the sixth form and universities going, but at the end you still have to do it on your own.

I'm not sure which approach is better.

I'm talking about labouring jobs on building sites. Early 1990s.

Workers were also 'encouraged' to sign on the dole.
It would stop you making any kind of complaint about the employer - for obvious reasons.
Not ideal, but I do think it created a more 'stable' society. No body 'rocked the boat'.

The staff at the Job Centre were well aware of what went on - but they wouldn't do anything about it. They were involved somehow or just didn't want the hassle / comebacks against them.

When you went to the Job Centre and asked about some jobs, you'd just be told not to apply. They wouldn't give you the details.
Later I learned they were unofficially reserved for family and friends etc.

andrewf75

David_Evans wrote: »

The problem I see, is that MSM (eg BBC, newspapers etc) is often NOT questioned enough by the public.
.

I would have agreed with that statement a few years back, but now I think people question it too much!

The big danger in today's world is that people don't believe reputable sources and instead believe sources completely lacking in any credibility.

The mainstream media isn't perfect, but its mainstream for a reason - its mostly the truth and has standards to maintain.

triathlon

Goldman2020 wrote: »

When many people in the UK are on a low wage, working the Gig Economy or earning the basic UK salary (which I believe is in the region of £27,271) why are property prices (especially in London) still as high as they are? I would have thought that because owning a property is out of reach of many people, especially the young, this would have driven property prices down further than they are at present.

Your constructive and well meaning explanations are appreciated.

Just for starters, who is saying property prices are too high, I can afford them and so do a lot of people I know.

What are you really saying here, they are too high for you?

David_Evans

andrewf75 wrote: »

I would have agreed with that statement a few years back, but now I think people question it too much!

The big danger in today's world is that people don't believe reputable sources and instead believe sources completely lacking in any credibility.

The mainstream media isn't perfect, but its mainstream for a reason - its mostly the truth and has standards to maintain.

I believe the UK MSM mostly tells the truth.
But it's the emphasis and what is and is not reported that leans towards propaganda.
It's quite subtle and it's taken me a few years of life experience to see the truth.

David_Evans

triathlon wrote: »

Just for starters, who is saying property prices are too high, I can afford them and so do a lot of people I know.

What are you really saying here, they are too high for you?

By definition houses ARE affordable to SOMEONE - as it is the price transactions that set the market price. Same as any market - the price is what SOMEONE will pay.

The bigger questions are WHY someone is willing to pay that price.
Probably because low interest rates and govt H2B is increasing the amount buyers can pay.

None of us can change what the govt does - so for me the more interesting topic is that of regional differences relative to wages. Because that's where people CAN make a difference.

Zero_Sum

phillw wrote: »

If property was as cheap in London as it was in sunderland then you would still never be able to buy it. There is a limited amount of property available and the area is too desirable, so some other force would come into play. First come first served, it's easy to complain about high prices but less so to ask for people to be turfed out because it's your turn to live there..

Nobody would sell up in London and then buy in the country, if it wouldn't release some capital. They'd hold onto it because they knew their children wouldn't ever be able to buy in London, because nobody would just give up their place even though they had the money to buy there.

The problem is when you apply political correctness to financial matters, but you can't. You're worth what the market dictates, based on the choices you make. Which has an impact on what lifestyle you can live, what you can buy and who will want to be friends or romantically involved with you.

Using money as the arbiter is the only fair way to deal with this kind of problem. If money can't buy you what you want, then what is the point of money?

To answer the question, the price of property has nothing to do with what you can afford to pay because you're not competing with your workmates who live in the same street. You're competing with the highest earners who will look at properties based on what they think the return will be on their investment.

You could just as easily get upset that investors think sunderland is so unattractive that they don't want to drive the prices up by competing for it.

Absolutely but i think you're still missing the point.
Big cities will always be more expensive due to more job opportunities & access to amenities etc. The disparity is disgusting, really you should be paying 2 times (maybe 3 times) more in London than up north, not the 7, 8 or 9 times it currently is.

And actually the house prices are just a sympton of a greater issue. That issue being our successive governments dont care about the regions, just London. So London gets way too much public investment per head than it should which then drives more private investment. Its a vicious circle.

Post credit crunch/austerity its those let down areas which have suffered the hardest. Its then no surprise those same areas voted for brexit. Then our supposed educated politicians then scratch their heads wondering why it happened.

We need a more balanced economy spreadout more accross the country & government should start by moving as many department out of the capital as possible.