House price increases. Is everyone absolutely loaded?

zagfles

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

You really don't understand. It really isn't that hard. The economic basics apply the same to houses as anything else you need or own.

If something you need rises in price, that's bad news. If something you own rises in price, that's good news. If something you both need and own rises in price (eg my house) that's pretty much neutral. It's of no benefit to me whatsoever that my house has doubled or even tripled in price while I've owned it. Because I need it.

It's no different to people thinking they're better off when they get a 5% pay rise when inflation is at 5%.

Prices rising are simply a transfer of wealth from those who are net buyers to those who are net sellers. As is the case with anything else that rises in price. Economic basics. So unless you are (or will be) a net seller, rising prices don't help you. 

So who are the net sellers? Maybe people who intend to downsize. OK, but the usual reason for downsizing is that the kids have moved out. Those kids will need to buy. So the overall property requirement of parents and kids combined has probably increased. So the parents and kids combined are net buyers. So price rises bad. What usually happens is that the parents spend their increased equity helping the kids out. Or become an unpaid childminder when they have grandkids because the kids can't afford the mortgage on one salary.

But most other homeowners either don't intend moving, like me, or intend moving upmarket, so are net buyers. So price rises bad.

Much is made of rising equity making mortgages cheaper due to lower LTV, but that's very much a peripheral issue and only applies to those with high LTV mortgages. Most people don't have high LTV mortgages, as above a lot of houses are mortgage free or like mine have a mortgage of a small fraction of the value. So for those people, with a mortgage of say £100k on a £300k house, it will make no difference whatsoever to their mortgage if their house drops in price by 20%

Govt policy influences the housing market, there's nothing "artifical" about that. The recent stamp duty holiday. The way CGT works and exemption for owner occupied. All the daft "help to buy", "shared equity" schemes etc. The big rises in house prices occurred 1997-2007 under Gordon Brown. He set the BoE an inflation target that specifically excluded house prices (RPIX then CPI), so they ran monetary policy not caring about soaring house prices. Monetary policy (ie basically interest rates) has a massive effect on the housing market because so many people buy with mortgages. There was nothing "artifical" about that any more than CGT rules, stamp duty etc.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. Nobody seems to have noticed though, they're not that bright.

jimbog

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

Ditzy_Mitzy

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

It doesn't sound right.  

• Full-time annual salary in the UK 2020 | Statista

• Average house price in the UK 2007-2021 | Statista

Average salary in 2007 (FTE) was £24,043 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 30.85%

Average house price in 2007 was £188,691 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 35.86%

Net difference, therefore, is 5.01%. 

Choosing 2007 as a base year is also slightly naughty, as it was the high point pre credit crash.  Running the same for January 2009 produces the following:

Average salary in 2009 (FTE) was £25,806 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 21.91%

Average house price in 2009 was £157,234 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 63.07%

zagfles

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

It doesn't sound right.  

• Full-time annual salary in the UK 2020 | Statista

• Average house price in the UK 2007-2021 | Statista

Average salary in 2007 (FTE) was £24,043 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 30.85%

Average house price in 2007 was £188,691 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 35.86%

Net difference, therefore, is 5.01%. 

Choosing 2007 as a base year is also slightly naughty, as it was the high point pre credit crash.  Running the same for January 2009 produces the following:

Average salary in 2009 (FTE) was £25,806 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 21.91%

Average house price in 2009 was £157,234 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 63.07%

Look up what "real terms" means. Hint - it's nothing to do with FTE earnings.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/chaw/mm23

RPI index May 2021 (latest) is 301.9, RPI index May 2007, 206.2, an increase of 46.4%. Compared with HPI of 35.86%. So over 7% real terms fall.

Here's a graph which shows real term house prices although it's a bit out of date, doesn't show the recent rises in the last 12 months, but you can see the trends (prices in 2020 terms): https://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-adjusted/

Real terms prices didn't really change much between the mid 70s and mid 90s, but of course there was high inflation in that time which made it look like they had. The big real terms rises were 1997-2007. Since then they've fallen and bobbled around a bit. But doesn't stop people thinking prices only rise...

lisyloo

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

The data is underneath the chart (yes I know about the website is heavily biased but the source data is nationwide).

Nationwide UK House Prices Index Adjusted for Inflation ['Real' Prices] (housepricecrash.co.uk)

newsgroupmonkey_

getmore4less said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

We moved 10 miles north in Buckinghamshire which I reckon has saved us 10% (and got us out of a town into a village).

As an example, many people moved from North London into areas like Watford and Hemel Hempstead. Those in South Hertfordshire are now moving into Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire as those areas have become too expensive. In turn, those in Beds and Bucks are moving into Northants and those in Northants are moving into Lincolnshire and North Cambridgeshire.

And so on.

Bucks covers Beaconsfield the most expensive place outside London.

5-6 miles gets you into high Wycombe 40%-50% cheaper but no where near as nice.

Then the other end is MK and around Buckingham quite a long way north.

Beaconsfield isn't north of South Herts though? I wouldn't a FTB to move out of Watford and go west (even to Chesham or Amersham).

If you work in Hemel, MK isn't a million miles away. People who travel from Wellingborough or Cambridgeshire as they've been priced out, I'm pretty sure they'd have taken a place in MK.

Believe me, the difference between say Dagnall or Edlesbrough and say Wing or Leighton Buzzard is huge.

Move a few miles north to the MK villages and it's cheaper still.

Most people in Leighton (yes, it's Beds, but virtually in Bucks) are moving there from Watford area.

And this isn't about "nice" really - it's about affordable.

lookstraightahead said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

lookstraightahead said:

Then everyone will have longer commutes when they're expected back at work potentially! 

The 10,000 people that work for my company aren't expected back in the office.

And if they are, it's likely to be 2 days a week, so a commute of double the distance isn't going to make much odds.

I'm not saying that some won't choose to go back, because many will. It's the same for many office workers. Business are going to realise it's cheaper to have people at home than pay for costly office space.

Yes I suppose it depends what type of work people do, but salaries might reduce as well.

I know the areas you are talking about really well. I moved from there but gave my job up as I couldn't cope with companies changing their minds.

Have they all been given new contracts and office equipment etc or are the 10000 still hoping? Companies and employees shoujd be agreeing to terms going forward. Many office buildings have long tenancies so companies may have to pay for their office space fur a few years yet, and decide they want their staff back in, which of course is their prerogative. I'm sure lots of people are just risking it, and thinking it's up to them, when actually they are still employees. 

As someone else said, hybrid working isn't a change to Ts and Cs. All of us have laptops and are "home enabled".

If people choose to go into the office 5 days a week, they can, but it'll be hot desks. No-one will have a permanent seat.

Clearly, it depends on people's age and job, but most of us office drones are more than capable of working from home full time if we wish. My wife moved to homebased some years back as she doesn't do soaps or reality TV which a couple of her colleagues bored at everyone incessantly.

newsgroupmonkey_

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

 That's the crux here - house snobbery. 

I agree with you and I've been telling the HPC crowd that for ages.

There is loads of affordable housing available but the problem is that many of the younger generation don't want a run down house in a run down area. They see the nice house in the nice area that their parents have and they want the same, conveniently forgetting that their parents had to work for decades to get to where they are now.

Quite agree with this too. As above, the "expectation" of moving into a nice area.

My eldest is looking to buy later this year. He and his GF have a help-to-buy ISA and will hopefully be buying a new build 3 bed on the HTB scheme (not my choice, but they're adults and it's up to them).

Neither of them can afford their home town, so they'll be moving away to a slightly less desirable area, but it means they have their own place. The alternative is a 2 bed flat locally. Not ideal for their future plans which involve children and pets.

jimbog

zagfles said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

It doesn't sound right.  

• Full-time annual salary in the UK 2020 | Statista

• Average house price in the UK 2007-2021 | Statista

Average salary in 2007 (FTE) was £24,043 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 30.85%

Average house price in 2007 was £188,691 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 35.86%

Net difference, therefore, is 5.01%. 

Choosing 2007 as a base year is also slightly naughty, as it was the high point pre credit crash.  Running the same for January 2009 produces the following:

Average salary in 2009 (FTE) was £25,806 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 21.91%

Average house price in 2009 was £157,234 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 63.07%

Look up what "real terms" means. Hint - it's nothing to do with FTE earnings.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/chaw/mm23

RPI index May 2021 (latest) is 301.9, RPI index May 2007, 206.2, an increase of 46.4%. Compared with HPI of 35.86%. So over 7% real terms fall.

Here's a graph which shows real term house prices although it's a bit out of date, doesn't show the recent rises in the last 12 months, but you can see the trends (prices in 2020 terms): https://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-adjusted/

Real terms prices didn't really change much between the mid 70s and mid 90s, but of course there was high inflation in that time which made it look like they had. The big real terms rises were 1997-2007. Since then they've fallen and bobbled around a bit. But doesn't stop people thinking prices only rise...

Thanks for this. Not sure why some believe we're in a 'bubble'

Would 'real terms' not be better if it included wages and other variables?

zagfles

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

It doesn't sound right.  

• Full-time annual salary in the UK 2020 | Statista

• Average house price in the UK 2007-2021 | Statista

Average salary in 2007 (FTE) was £24,043 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 30.85%

Average house price in 2007 was £188,691 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 35.86%

Net difference, therefore, is 5.01%. 

Choosing 2007 as a base year is also slightly naughty, as it was the high point pre credit crash.  Running the same for January 2009 produces the following:

Average salary in 2009 (FTE) was £25,806 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 21.91%

Average house price in 2009 was £157,234 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 63.07%

Look up what "real terms" means. Hint - it's nothing to do with FTE earnings.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/chaw/mm23

RPI index May 2021 (latest) is 301.9, RPI index May 2007, 206.2, an increase of 46.4%. Compared with HPI of 35.86%. So over 7% real terms fall.

Here's a graph which shows real term house prices although it's a bit out of date, doesn't show the recent rises in the last 12 months, but you can see the trends (prices in 2020 terms): https://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-adjusted/

Real terms prices didn't really change much between the mid 70s and mid 90s, but of course there was high inflation in that time which made it look like they had. The big real terms rises were 1997-2007. Since then they've fallen and bobbled around a bit. But doesn't stop people thinking prices only rise...

Thanks for this. Not sure why some believe we're in a 'bubble'

Would 'real terms' not be better if it included wages and other variables?

No, real terms accounts for the value of the pound changing. Houses are priced in pounds, but £1 in 2007 is the same value as about £1.46 today. So "real terms" accounts for the item you're using to measure prices, ie pounds, changing value over time, so you compare like with like.

Using FTE wages and other variables can be useful for specific things, like affordability for a full time worker, but it doesn't really tell you much else. For instance the proportion of people working part time may change, the unemployment rate may change, childcare costs may change, so overall affordability in the population will be affected by that too.

As to whether we're in a bubble, nobody knows. Bubbles tend to be short lived things (they can be longer, but mostly years not decades), so 2007 isn't really relavent to that question. It could be a bubble and prices return to same real terms 2019 values, who knows. Anyone who thinks they can identify bubbles and doesn't have their own private yacht is delusional.

Ditzy_Mitzy

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

jimbog said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

zagfles said:

MobileSaver said:

My comment was of course tongue in cheek although there is no reason why those who feel strongly enough couldn't leave specific instructions for when they have no further use for their home (e.g. death or care home.)

You really don't get it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

It's no use to my kids if my house in particular sells for 20% less. It's of great benefit to them (and all FTBers) if houses in general are 20% cheaper.

I totally understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your viewpoint.

If enough people think the same as you and you all sell your properties to FTBers with big discounts then that will help the younger generation. It won't help your kids specifically but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

zagfles said:

So I would welcome any policy which would result in a general reduction in house prices.

Most people would be better off with lower or at least stable house prices.

You are moving the goal posts here; the discussion was about lowering house prices but you have now introduced "stable" house prices into the mix. I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is good for most people.

• How are most of the 20 million existing homeowners better off in a general reduction in house prices?
• How are most house builders better off if house prices are going down while staff and material costs are going up?
• How are FTBers better off if lenders want bigger deposits and charge higher rates because house prices are falling?
• How are most lenders better off if the main asset their loans are secured on is going down in value?

I simply don't believe that artificially lower house prices is "better" for most people. We live in a market economy so let the market do its stuff and let supply and demand dictate the price.

Anyway, at least prices are now lower in real terms than in 2007, even after the recent rises. 

Do you have a link to this? 

It doesn't sound right.  

• Full-time annual salary in the UK 2020 | Statista

• Average house price in the UK 2007-2021 | Statista

Average salary in 2007 (FTE) was £24,043 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 30.85%

Average house price in 2007 was £188,691 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 35.86%

Net difference, therefore, is 5.01%. 

Choosing 2007 as a base year is also slightly naughty, as it was the high point pre credit crash.  Running the same for January 2009 produces the following:

Average salary in 2009 (FTE) was £25,806 and in 2020 was £31,461, an increase of 21.91%

Average house price in 2009 was £157,234 and in 2020 was £256,405, an increase of 63.07%

Look up what "real terms" means. Hint - it's nothing to do with FTE earnings.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/chaw/mm23

RPI index May 2021 (latest) is 301.9, RPI index May 2007, 206.2, an increase of 46.4%. Compared with HPI of 35.86%. So over 7% real terms fall.

Here's a graph which shows real term house prices although it's a bit out of date, doesn't show the recent rises in the last 12 months, but you can see the trends (prices in 2020 terms): https://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-adjusted/

Real terms prices didn't really change much between the mid 70s and mid 90s, but of course there was high inflation in that time which made it look like they had. The big real terms rises were 1997-2007. Since then they've fallen and bobbled around a bit. But doesn't stop people thinking prices only rise...

Thanks for this. Not sure why some believe we're in a 'bubble'

Would 'real terms' not be better if it included wages and other variables?

That's the problem.  It's all well and good to talk of inflation adjusted 'real terms', but they don't really hold much sway with the man on the Clapham omnibus as he cannot adjust his own wages in a similar manner.  All he has, at any given point in time whether in 2007 or in 2020, is the money in his pocket.  The money has specific purchasing power at that point in time only, ergo real world affordability is most effectively calculated by comparing 2007 wages to 2007 house prices, and similar for 2020.  

The 'real terms' price adjustments give an average house price of £257,798 in 2007.  That's a 38.08% uplift on that year's real average price.  For the sake of fairness, one should apply the same multiplier to the 2007 average salary.  That gives £33,198.60, which is higher than the real average salary in 2020.  The average house price in 2020 is about the same as the adjusted 2007 price, ergo a real individual in 2020 has less buying power than a real individual in 2007.