30% fall in property if no deal brexit

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

I think anyone considering speculating needs to understand they probably will be less attractive to a partner, could risk having a family at all, spending big 5 figure sums on IVF, having a child with Down’s syndrome or other issues, having a miscarriage or still birth and they could get it totally wrong and be financially worse off.

It's actually rather offensive suggesting that men need to buy a house or they'll never get laid.

snowqueen555

phillw wrote: »

It's actually rather offensive suggesting that men need to buy a house or they'll never get laid.

I agree, it does sounds incredibly crass!

vacheron

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t think anyone is suggesting buying isn’t a good deal when all other things are equal.

What’s being suggested is speculating on house prices.
I think anyone considering speculating needs to understand they probably will be less attractive to a partner, could risk having a family at all, spending big 5 figure sums on IVF, having a child with Down’s syndrome or other issues, having a miscarriage or still birth and they could get it totally wrong and be financially worse off.

For the vast majority it’s going to be better to buy when their circumstances permit and are right e.g. settled long term relationship. This has a massive advantage of forcing people to be disciplined I.e. they will be buying equity each month.
If you put it off you risk losing all that money if you aren’t disciplined.

I did consider speculating once but bought my dream home when it became available. They have been rarely available since (about 1 per year).

I think it all boils down to the great British psychology of "we've gone too far to turn back now". So once someone begins to realise that actually they may not have perfectly timed the market, they are too invested, both financially and psychologically, to take the resultant hit, and the further it goes, the harder it becomes.

In the example I used above (which I appreciate uses generalised figures) you would be gambling 4.2% of your future houses' value each year by taking this stand, and for every year more you wait, the market will need to drop by an additional 4.2% to provide them with a return which they now consider "acceptable" or "realistic". (And this is providing house price and rental inflation remains at zero, otherwise this would also need to be added on top of the 4.2%).

Some people have held out like this taking the hit year on year and incurring these costs because of an anticipated outcome they strongly believe will happen and have won big (such as the characters in "The Big Short" book and movie), however i'd imagine that far more, with similar stronlly held convitions, have lost.

I have speculated on property in the past, I have also bought a family home. The two were, and should be, considered as completely different types of purchases made for completely different reasons with a completely different mindset.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

It does when you take it out of context like that.

So you don't stand by this statement?

I think anyone considering speculating needs to understand they probably will be less attractive to a partner,

lisyloo wrote: »

What I’m saying is that any person (of either gender) who puts financial speculation above the needs of their partner

Why does their partner need them to own a house? Someone speculating can rent a house.

lisyloo wrote: »

and the health of future children risks not being successful in having healthy children and a healthy marriage and family relationships.

That’s Nothing to do with getting laid.

It was a long while ago but I don't remember the human biology class where they explained about the need of a mortgage in human reproduction. As far as I recall it just requires unsafe sex. So that's everything to do with getting laid.

I don't believe having a mortgage makes any difference whether you have a healthy marriage or family relationship. I know a lot of people with unhealthy relationships that have loads of property and people with healthy relationships that don't have any.

lisyloo wrote: »

Women have a fairly small biological window. Medically women are geriatric after 35

Why wait until you find someone with a mortgage then? It's women's fault if they wait too long for "Mr Right", especially if having a mortgage is a concern.

I'm not sure rom coms would work in your idea of romance, they'd all just be going to see mortgage advisers and then teasing with completion dates.

triathlon

lisyloo wrote: »

It does when you take it out of context like that.

What I’m saying is that any person (of either gender) who puts financial speculation above the needs of their partner and the health of future children risks not being successful in having healthy children and a healthy marriage and family relationships.

That’s Nothing to do with getting laid.

Women have a fairly small biological window. Medically women are geriatric after 35
https://www.goodtoknow.co.uk/family/geriatric-mother-462676

I think you need to go back and read what you have actually wrote. Though I don't totally disagree with you, you did write what you were accused of.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

Men in grubby bedsits posting on HPC 24/7 or staying at home with mummy until their 50s are not attractive to women looking for a provider. I stand by that.

And that is pretty offensive to both men and women.

Not everyone speculating on the housing market is in a grubby bedsit. Some nice people live in a bedsit.

Not every women is a gold digger. At least I hope not or this whole equality thing is going to go south really quickly.

lisyloo wrote: »

Women are responsible for family planning too of course, so they will chose the best matE and thats the one that provides the best nest. If they have a biological imperative they won’t wait, they’ll find another mate.

So women's biological imperatives are ok, it's only men's biological imperatives that are bad? I hear Harvey Weinstein is single. He has money and a whole load of biological imperatives.

I can't think of anything worse than being in a committed relationship with someone that would just up and leave because I didn't have a house, and I'm saying that as someone who does have a house. It's morally abhorrent to treat people like that.

You were talking about healthy relationships, but I'm not sure it's even possible to have a healthy relationship with someone who is willing to think like that.

It's like saying it's morally ok for a man to leave a female long term partner as soon as they are bigger than a size 4.

You'd end up becoming mentally ill having to live up to the expectations (either in money for men or looks for women).

lisyloo wrote: »

In context yes.

I think you misunderstand that you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself. How I read what you wrote was entirely in the context that you wrote it.

I completely agree that buying a house has proven to be better in the majority of circumstances, but some people can't buy.

You should however be able to come up with an argument for it better than "men who don't buy a house are forcing women to delay having children past the age of 35 and risk birth defects". That is offensive on so many levels.

You said it, in context.

lisyloo wrote: »

I think anyone considering speculating needs to understand they probably will be less attractive to a partner, could risk having a family at all, spending big 5 figure sums on IVF, having a child with Down’s syndrome or other issues, having a miscarriage or still birth and they could get it totally wrong and be financially worse off.

It would seem that type of women have a lot in common with HPC users. They are waiting and waiting and waiting just in case there is a big payoff. At least the HPC are purely trying to trade money for money, the women in your example are trading love for money. Yet it's then still the mans fault the poor woman can't have children before she's 35. I don't buy it.

snowqueen555

I just don't like the idea that you assume/imply a"man" has to attract a "woman" with money and assets, it does sound very outdated and old fashioned. It is that type of thinking that perpetuates and divides males and females.

But having financial stability is definitely a good thing to have when starting a family, no doubt about that.

It would work the other way around, it would be crass as a male for me to analyse whether a person is a fit life partner based on their age and their reproductive capacity.

Generally speaking, I think people tend to hook up and make the other things work for them, that is life I think!

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s not about romance it’s about a biological imperative that can be very strong, a nesting instinct and a primal preference for the strongest mate.

This reminds me somewhat of the MGTOW view of women.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Views_on_women_and_feminism

Do you think it's ok for men to sleep around because of their strong biological imperative and move onto younger women because of a primal preference? Or should you only follow your groin if you're a woman? Love as an asset acquisition strategy is not without it's own risks for the woman.

triathlon

phillw wrote: »

This reminds me somewhat of the MGTOW view of women.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Views_on_women_and_feminism

Do you think it's ok for men to sleep around because of their strong biological imperative and move onto younger women because of a primal preference? Or should you only follow your groin if you're a woman? Love as an asset acquisition strategy is not without it's own risks for the woman.

Although I do sadly know where you are coming from and where I can also see where Lisyloo is starting to sound like a supporter of natural selection and a little man with funny moustache I do also understand her crudely worded point as well.

More than ever women are looking for security, and on top of that list is property. It is also why so many men are being very cautious these days with the women that approach them. My first question to someone like lisyloo is what do you bring to the table if I am providing a home

phillw

triathlon wrote: »

More than ever women are looking for security, and on top of that list is property.

If that is true for the younger generation then it's going to be a bloodbath for generation rent.

I think there has been too much of a swing in what men are allowed to want, for women to expect that they can just get something because they want it. Such an entitled view is harmful to themselves and anyone they try to ensnare.

If they decide to wait past their eggs sell by date, then it's their lookout. They should blame their parents for giving them unrealistic expectations.

triathlon wrote: »

My first question to someone like lisyloo is what do you bring to the table if I am providing a home

That is fine if they are upfront about it, but it's not clear from what she was saying that they would be. So how would you know to ask? You might have been under the illusion that they actually liked you.

Not disclosing would seem to be running the risk of sexual assault if the true reason for engaging in a sexual relationship was for financial gain rather than love that was being faked, as it would negate consent. So it's really important to be honest about your intentions up front or you may find yourself being held criminally accountable for the psychological trauma that you caused.

Although if both the HPC 24/7 user and the woman nearing her sell by date were honest with each other then I doubt they would make it past meeting for coffee as they have conflicting goals.