Non - House prices

Trying to explain it to my dad is very difficult, but then 15% interest rates aren't a problem for my generation like it was for his, deposits are the biggest issue. Over the last 10 years I'd expect the stock market indexes (certainly the American ones) have out performed house prices as well to throw more spanners in. It's never just as simple as wages:houseprices.
 
House prices doubling relative to earnings across a time period when society moved from single income families being the norm towards double income families being the norm. Chicken and egg...but there's probably something in that...

It was going to take me many years to save a deposit by myself, meeting a partner and thus doubling the household's income short cut that and got us a mortgage. Very hard to expect single youngsters to manage.

Build more!
 
northstandmark said:
House prices doubling relative to earnings across a time period when society moved from single income families being the norm towards double income families being the norm. Chicken and egg...but there's probably something in that...

It was going to take me many years to save a deposit by myself, meeting a partner and thus doubling the household's income short cut that and got us a mortgage. Very hard to expect single youngsters to manage.

Build more!
Click to expand...
Build more? So many parts of the country are suffering problems from flooding, drainage, congestion, loss of green belt that building more and more houses surely isn't the answer?
So many factors to take into account such as longer living ages, large numbers of immigration, et al. So many huge developments going up everywhere locally is having a detrimental effect on local communities. I don't know what the answer is but I don't agree with just continually building and building new houses.
 
Silent AFCB said:
I've done it while living abroad and still agree. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube though.
Click to expand...

Yeah it would be very difficult to implement. There's a tendency to paint baby boomers as villains in all this, which is silly. That said we have major societal problems coming our way due to these issues.
 
Red_till_im_ded said:
Build more? So many parts of the country are suffering problems from flooding, drainage, congestion, loss of green belt that building more and more houses surely isn't the answer?
So many factors to take into account such as longer living ages, large numbers of immigration, et al. So many huge developments going up everywhere locally is having a detrimental effect on local communities. I don't know what the answer is but I don't agree with just continually building and building new houses.
Click to expand...
I do agree with much of what you say. It's a proper puzzle. We need to answer questions such as what we want our population to be: what level of birth and immigration do we want, how long are people going to live these days and in future? The UK has grown by more than 10m people in the same timeframe of the graphic.

An increasing population is going to need more properties in which to live. We'll also need more land to grow on, more land for infrastructure to support the population, and we all see a need for more open green nature space as well.

We can't satisfy all these priorities, something does have to give. I don't want to concrete over the whole country, certainly not. But I would like to provide more housing stock to the population as part of an answer.
 
I was paying 15.1% to Capital One for my mortgage in the early '90s.

I would be paid on the last working day of the month, go briefly into the black at the bank and be in the red the following week.

From about 1992 to 1994, I struggled, with just feeding myself.

A point to note:

The estate of the Earl of Salisbury, has struggled in the last year or so, due to not getting rent from the properties owned by the estate (a great many are in London's West End) and have consequently sold other properties, including houses in Cranborne.
The chances of any government, forcing through changes to property ownership, to benefit hoi polloi, whilst so much land and property is owned by the possessors of inherited wealth, are practically nil.

It would require an election on a revolutionary scale, to get shot of the career-politicians (of all political hues) and elect people who have some life experience, pertinent to the 93% of the population, who did not attend public school.

And the reality is, because of all the division caused by infighting of that 93%, who are mostly so stupid, they think that Labour and Conservative MPs differ, it will never happen.
Never forget, Nick Clegg wanted the Lords replaced by an Upper House called a Senate, with 15-year terms for the members (and the salaries, pensions, perks etc. that go with it)
 
northstandmark said:
I do agree with much of what you say. It's a proper puzzle. We need to answer questions such as what we want our population to be: what level of birth and immigration do we want, how long are people going to live these days and in future? The UK has grown by more than 10m people in the same timeframe of the graphic.

An increasing population is going to need more properties in which to live. We'll also need more land to grow on, more land for infrastructure to support the population, and we all see a need for more open green nature space as well.

We can't satisfy all these priorities, something does have to give. I don't want to concrete over the whole country, certainly not. But I would like to provide more housing stock to the population as part of an answer.
Click to expand...

Start by making it a legal requirement, for all new builds to have a garage, below the house (all over the continent, this occurs)

Build more 3-storey houses = same living space, smaller footprint

Restrict immigration, highly contentious but having seen a documentary, on the vast numbers of illegal immigrants in London alone, virtually all of whom were economic immigrants, we are going to be in a pickle with such a fast growing populace.

Murder the current holders of inherited wealth and share it out to ......Napoleon and Snowball (wait a minute, has that happened already?)
 
Why don't we get rid of the green belt and turn Britain into a giant version of the Kowloon walled city? We would have trillions of available homes then.
 
As mentioned, complex subject. I think it ties in with other factors which need to be addressed.

Not only immigrants needing accommodation, but more split families due to higher divorce rate. More women working, so need dual income to buy somewhere OK, unless you're in top few % of earners. More pressure on families when kids arrive. High divorce rates. Generally if kids involved, the woman will stay in family home, tge man then has to pay maintenance plus his own living costs, so means renting or buying houses/flats at lower end of market, putting more pressure on that end.

Also read an article recently that statement a higher and higher % of people (men in particular) aren't in relationships or having sex at all.

Also, more millennial not getting married in 20's and/or having kids, spending their prime years having fun or being career focused.You then end up with a load of desperate 30 something year old women scrambling to find a man who's willing to have kids ASAP, whilst still in honeymoon phase. Which is pretty easy as loads of desperate men who'll take anything. Relationship built on poor foundation, buy doesn't matter, just get divorced !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;