Why are house prices still so high?

David_Evans

Zero_Sum wrote: »

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.

I totally agree with this.
Unfortunately, the UK political system makes such common sense options unlikely.

AlanP_2

I don't know the figures but many central government jobs are out of the capital and have been for quite a while.

There needs to be a critical mass around Westminster as they are there to support Government at the end of the day.

Lower paid, "do" rather than "advise" roles are easier to host away from the centre.

Other organisations, like the BBC, have also relocated activities to other places but it hasn't made much difference by the sounds of it.

London is a vibrant, active interesting place to live for many and it is an international location that has traditionally hosted many foreign companies and their employees.

I worked for a US owned IT company and lived in outer West London back in the 80s.

I bedroom maisonette with a 5% deposit (based on 3+1 salary multiplier), 6 months later a friend bought a 3 bed detached in Essex for less than we paid for ours. The London effect has been there for years.

Deposit was a lot less than expected today but we had to save with the specific lender for 2 years and attend a meeting with the branch manger to get the loan.

That was less risk than today's automated / online only approach hence they could accept lower deposit. On the other hand it was a lot less inclusive as well hence limiting opportunities for some I am sure.

If you compared New York or Washington property prices to USA average would it be any different to the London / UK average comparison?

andrewf75

David_Evans wrote: »

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.

I agree, I comment on these subtle things all the time. But a lot of less intelligent people completely distrust the mainstream media and that is a far more dangerous situation.

David_Evans

andrewf75 wrote: »

I agree, I comment on these subtle things all the time. But a lot of less intelligent people completely distrust the mainstream media and that is a far more dangerous situation.

When I was growing up, I don't remember anyone not really trusting the BBC.
Tabloid newspapers were always a bit of a joke. But the Times and Telegraph etc were trusted.
I met some journalists when I was serving in the army and they were all excellent and very well informed (as is the Queen actually - she knew a lot more than I expected).

The problem now with the BBC is the editors. They seem to be pushing a very socially liberal agenda on nearly anything they can. I'm not against social liberalism, but it's definitely being used to distract the public from more significant problems. For example, the coverage of President Trump has been overly negative and not a great deal of sensible discussion on whether economic nationalism / protectionism is a good idea or not.

The other issue is the amount of slang and inappropriate language the BBC uses. The website has been ''dumbed down'' over the last few years.

David_Evans

AlanP wrote: »

I

Deposit was a lot less than expected today but we had to save with the specific lender for 2 years and attend a meeting with the branch manger to get the loan.

That was less risk than today's automated / online only approach hence they could accept lower deposit. On the other hand it was a lot less inclusive as well hence limiting opportunities for some I am sure.

?

I've noticed this with the banking sector in general, not just when it comes to mortgages.
There's a push (obviously financial) towards online tick-boxing and much less personal contact in branch.
It's certainly led me to move away from the 'High Street' bank I was with for 20 years. There just seems no point in my being loyal anymore.

I think the whole of the UK is becoming a bit like this now though. Digital and detached and impersonal. Employment agencies are the same. No real continuity. Very efficient etc. But if you don't tick the right boxes, easy for people to be rejected.

I've survived by being reasonably educated and with technical skills. But I see some of those I went to school with just not being able to keep up. A lot of the men I was in school with now have (quite minor) criminal records, so they're just not employable to the more ''faceless'' employers. That's when I start to hear them blaming immigrants for ''taking the jobs''.

andrewf75

David_Evans wrote: »

When I was growing up, I don't remember anyone not really trusting the BBC.
Tabloid newspapers were always a bit of a joke. But the Times and Telegraph etc were trusted.
I met some journalists when I was serving in the army and they were all excellent and very well informed (as is the Queen actually - she knew a lot more than I expected).

The problem now with the BBC is the editors. They seem to be pushing a very socially liberal agenda on nearly anything they can. I'm not against social liberalism, but it's definitely being used to distract the public from more significant problems. For example, the coverage of President Trump has been overly negative and not a great deal of sensible discussion on whether economic nationalism / protectionism is a good idea or not.

The other issue is the amount of slang and inappropriate language the BBC uses. The website has been ''dumbed down'' over the last few years.

Again, totally agree, the criticisms of mainstream media are completely valid. But I think the amount of criticism the BBC gets is way out of proportion to its actual faults. Its still very good. I guess its the times we live in, but you hear a lot of people on the hard left calling it massively right wing biased and those on the right saying its left wing biased. That suggests it gets the balance about right!

Zero_Sum

AlanP wrote: »

I don't know the figures but many central government jobs are out of the capital and have been for quite a while.

There needs to be a critical mass around Westminster as they are there to support Government at the end of the day.

Lower paid, "do" rather than "advise" roles are easier to host away from the centre.

Other organisations, like the BBC, have also relocated activities to other places but it hasn't made much difference by the sounds of it.

London is a vibrant, active interesting place to live for many and it is an international location that has traditionally hosted many foreign companies and their employees.

I worked for a US owned IT company and lived in outer West London back in the 80s.

I bedroom maisonette with a 5% deposit (based on 3+1 salary multiplier), 6 months later a friend bought a 3 bed detached in Essex for less than we paid for ours. The London effect has been there for years.

Deposit was a lot less than expected today but we had to save with the specific lender for 2 years and attend a meeting with the branch manger to get the loan.

That was less risk than today's automated / online only approach hence they could accept lower deposit. On the other hand it was a lot less inclusive as well hence limiting opportunities for some I am sure.

If you compared New York or Washington property prices to USA average would it be any different to the London / UK average comparison?

Most areas of the north east are now cheaper in real terms than 10 years ago.
Whilst London prices have risen quite a bit

Whilst there maybe is a need for certain gov depts to be in westminster (the big 4) the rest? Im not so sure.

Another bug bearer, charities. Why are they all HQ'd in London?
Higher property cost, higher wages for directors etc. In my view thwy should lose their business rate relief & that money diverted to the regions.
Ive taken the decision to mainly give to local charities. If theyre HQ'd in london then they get nowt off me. I'm not paying to subsidise the directors lifestyle of what should be a good cause.

Things will only change if more people take a stance (which is sort of happened with brexit, even though subsequent events have proven that they dont listen or dont care)

David_Evans

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Most areas of the north east are now cheaper in real terms than 10 years ago.
Whilst London prices have risen quite a bit

Whilst there maybe is a need for certain gov depts to be in westminster (the big 4) the rest? Im not so sure.

Another bug bearer, charities. Why are they all HQ'd in London?
Higher property cost, higher wages for directors etc. In my view thwy should lose their business rate relief & that money diverted to the regions.
Ive taken the decision to mainly give to local charities. If theyre HQ'd in london then they get nowt off me. I'm not paying to subsidise the directors lifestyle of what should be a good cause.

Things will only change if more people take a stance (which is sort of happened with brexit, even though subsequent events have proven that they dont listen or dont care)

A major problem is that the bosses of large organisations like being in London and don't care what their staff would prefer.

I generally avoid London (and most of SE England) if at all possible.

Zero_Sum

David_Evans wrote: »

A major problem is that the bosses of large organisations like being in London and don't care what their staff would prefer.

I generally avoid London (and most of SE England) if at all possible.

Indeed. There was an episode of Yes Prime Minister where Jim Haker tried to move the civil service out of london to save tax payers money. Sir Humphrey wasnt having it. I do think a lot of that is very true to life. I think northerners need to be more parochial whem it comes to parting with money.

fatbeetle

House prices aren't high, didn't you hear? In 2016 the Sage of the remain campaign, George Osborne, forecast that;

House prices could take an 18% hit over the next two years and there will be an “economic shock” that will increase the cost of mortgages if the UK votes to leave the EU, George Osborne has warned.

That did happen, didn't it?