The election 2015

[Grasshopper]

you'll post something positive in my direction at some point Grass won't you?..or are those days over?

Not at all....as soon as you post something I agree with, I'll be In Like Flynn.

I can't agree with any of your analysis on this though. When it's boiled down, it basically amounts to "Poor people are poor", which is hardly a revelation. The technical arguments put forward my Clivex and Benny that demonstrate that disposable income (and by inference, quality of life) is higher/better than in previous years, seem to me to be pretty-robust - and can be measured by things peripheral to mere money in the pocket (life expectancy/health, sanitation, medicine, ease of travel etc etc etc).

Equally, these arguments can't, imo, be blithely dismissed as "people taking-out loans" to fund their lifestyles. Whilst that may be true in some cases, it is not true in all cases - and seems to be another example of you taking a small percentage of the population, and passing it off as a valid measure of the whole. I just can't buy into that kind of argument.

 

[EC1]

Not at all....as soon as you post something I agree with, I'll be In Like Flynn.

I can't agree with any of your analysis on this though. When it's boiled down, it basically amounts to "Poor people are poor", which is hardly a revelation. The technical arguments put forward my Clivex and Benny that demonstrate that disposable income (and by inference, quality of life) is higher/better than in previous years, seem to me to be pretty-robust - and can be measured by things peripheral to mere money in the pocket (life expectancy/health, sanitation, medicine, ease of travel etc etc etc).

Equally, these arguments can't, imo, be blithely dismissed as "people taking-out loans" to fund their lifestyles. Whilst that may be true in some cases, it is not true in all cases - and seems to be another example of you taking a small percentage of the population, and passing it off as a valid measure of the whole. I just can't buy into that kind of argument.

no i'm not saying poor people are poorer Grass..i'm saying that Mr average is. In the example i gave Mr Average could afford to raise a mortgage for the average property in 1971..now he can only raise half the amount for an average property..and thats after being allowed to borrow twice the amount he was allowed to borrow then. This alone is enough to make sure that when Mr Average pays his dues and demands..to maintain 1971 life..he will find his mortgage monthly payment now takes 52% of his income..whereas in 1971 he only needed 16.2% of his monthly income to pay his mortgage.

The jump from 16% to 52"% is massive ..and thats just to get a home to the same level he would have had in 1971..same level...not higher level

I'm not talking about anything else but money left on table at end of month...thats the only real way of measuring disposable income.

If an average man can now no longer afford the same level of home he could in 1971..then straight away he is "poorer"..if someone today moved from a 1 million pound house to a £400,000 house..do you think he would think himself as better off or wealthier?..i doubt it. Well that is what the house prices have already done to to Mr Average..without us even going into all the other outgoings he will need to meet before he counts whats left on the table.

I completely agree that food is cheaper. I have not yet looked at utility bills and Rates...but i will wager that utility bills will take the same or more % of Mr Average's income now as it did in 1971.. probably more now we paying these greedy privatised utility companies. Would council Tax now be more than rates then?..i'm not sure..would have to check that

Its not hard to work out all this without a load of stats..you just sit down..work out what Mr Average had left to spend in both time periods...that keeps it real. To me saying..oooh folk are paying owt thats asked of them to see football..so they MUST have more money..is a total nonsense of a way of measuring disposable wealth. Its simple really..people who follow football will shell out owt that is asked of them even if it means going without holidays or other things they are prepared to give up to get their fix. Football is like crack cocaine..so it sells no matter how much is charged. I know people who spend most of their money on it...travelling here there etc..its got bugger all to with what is disposable...they get the money.

Its very simple really..just see whats left for Mr Average..if he has a greater % of money left now after he has paid his dues and demands than he had in 1971..then he is wealthier than in 1971..if he has less left them he is worse off..i don't need a load of supposed experts to draw up pages of overlong bollox to justify their existence..i..its then and now money left.

I'd sit and do it..but whats the point?..if Mr Average had less left now after we imitated both realities..real money left...nothing else...it won't prove anything to talking heads like Clive..because its not 19 pages long and written by folk who in reality want us to look better off anyway.

Alternatively lets see how many tubby.. tattoed - bald headed - 40 year olds- living at home with Mum... turn up at Chelsea next week..thats a good measure...it must be..Clive says so

There is a theory in itself to explain why there are folk paying more for footy..a larger % of footie fans these days are like the above..the sort you see in gangs of 40 at the airport going to spain on holiday..all together nice and pi$$ed acting like overgrown schoolkids....they live at home with Mum because no other woman will have em..so have endless money..after paying Mummy 20 quid a month for board+lodgings.... for throwing at daft overinflated footy prices..on top of entry price they will pay 50 times the real value of a tee shirt to wear throughout the week with someone's name written on back of it...thats real wealth that is..when you can wear a 30 bob t-shirt and tell folk you paid 50/60 or whatever quid they charge these days for it.

just kiddin Clive..don't blow a fuse over that footie bit..though you will probably call the whole post absolute rubbish..which you usually do when you disagree with something

no wonder only two or three folk ever reply to these threads eh?

 

[EC1]

The cheaper food won't offset that 16-52% increase by the looks of it.....in 1971 ...21% of income was spent on food..its now 15%

well..it pulls back 6% of it..so just another 30% to find of savings in todays household to make up for the mortgage increase..where will that come from?

 

[Grasshopper]

EC1, all your numbers are based on the premise that the house your Joe Average buys is a pure cost, rather than an appreciating asset. That's what Clivex and Benny have tried to get across, and why you're overall analysis is flawed, in my view.

When it comes to numbers, you'd be better-off sticking with 5f sprints from hateful places like Newmarket and Hamilton.

 

[clivex]

It's going round in circles. It's like complaining about putting more in a pension.

Also so I think it's probably wrong about utilities. I think I've read that they are a smaller proportion than back then. Can't be bothered to look because frankly it's beside the point

so corbyn. Could the worm turn after recent statements. I wonder if anyone who supports him listens though

he says

cameron should apologise for the miners and thatcher. Fck off. And isn't that just living in the past a bit? Just a bit? what about the corn laws too? And whilst we are at it get those ******* Italians to apologise for julius d
ceasar who killed off a load of cave men or whatever. I think there are better things to do

we have a lot to learn from the labour government of the seventies. Actually they battled well in many ways and the detail of what he says is a bit specific regarding technology blah blah but frankly that will have anyone with any sense of the past laughing their heads off. It's an awful soundbite

and "reindustrusilaise the north" Jesus christ. Belching chimneys and British leyland. And how exactly? Tractor factories? "We've made a million tractors this year. No cnt buys them but we are reindustrusilaising".

If if he dared look at how Manchester and Liverpool, and Leeds are racing ahead he might realise it's not through cotton mills and iron forges but services and innovation and it.

He Should be in a fcking museum

 

[EC1]

EC1, all your numbers are based on the premise that the house your Joe Average buys is a pure cost, rather than an appreciating asset. That's what Clivex and Benny have tried to get across, and why you're overall analysis is flawed, in my view.

When it comes to numbers, you'd be better-off sticking with 5f sprints from hateful places like Newmarket and Hamilton.

i understand that..but an appreciating asset isn't what we are talking about at all is it?..we are talking about disposable income...ie..you earn money each year..and at the end you can actually spend the money you didn't need to live on

to most people..that is how they measure if they are better off..not letting some bod do some calculations that mean nothing re day to day money in money out

this is half the problem really...we have a simple money out money in measure of whether we are actually better off..but then we have have an overcomplicated method of calculating a figure that has no meaning in real life to the masses

my numbers will make sense to more people than anything you or Clive spout...i'm surprised you actually like an overcomplicated calculation that actually refers to nothing recognised in real life. If i did that re racing you's soon be picking holes in it..you would be saying....oh thats way overcomplicating something.

Maybe you and Clive are right..we are all rolling in money and can't see it...i'm not seeing that tbh with what people say in the media..on the net etc....and with simple telling figures

I'll have to definately give up then won't I?.......it looks like there is only me on here that thinks we are worse off now than in 1971..regarding disposable...real..not credit card/loan ..income.

i'll stick to racing...and again..let you guys celebrate our wealth

 

[clivex]

It's awful ec. If you don't understand the difference between and investment and a cost then it's simply a waste of time. I'm astonished frankly

and for the statement that your figures based on petrol prices only will "make more sense" is nuts. I can guarantee that 99% of homeowners understand the difference between rent and mortgages even if you dont

 

[Grey]

EC1, all your numbers are based on the premise that the house your Joe Average buys is a pure cost, rather than an appreciating asset. That's what Clivex and Benny have tried to get across, and why you're overall analysis is flawed, in my view.

When it comes to numbers, you'd be better-off sticking with 5f sprints from hateful places like Newmarket and Hamilton.

But but but... why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms?

 

[EC1]

we are talking about disposable income Clive..i can't trade part of me house in for a Chelsea ticket..i need money to do that. Yes you are investing in a house..but it still costs you whilst you are doing it..and at the end of 25 years you own a home....but it will still be costing you in maintenance even after you "own" it..Assets are alright if you can cash them in ..if you sell your home you still need another one. It has bugger all to with what comes in and out re what you earn in real terms.

do you know something..if you just want to score points Clive..you can feck off..we were talking about disposable income..you them change the goalposts mid argument just to make ridiculing comments..bolox to ya

you are the time waster on this forum tbh

 

[clivex]

But but but... why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society if they merely held their value, in real terms?

Why? All that would indicate is that the economy is not growing. I don't think that's healthier at all

why interfere with the market? If incomes and wealth go up then prices will. So what? You will get bubbles but they invariably correct over time

why this obsession with how much people pay. It's their choice and if not enough want to or can't then prices will fall naturally. As has happened before

60m million foreign leisure trips last year. I think a lot of people are coping pretty well with their mortgages aren't they?

 

[clivex]

we are talking about disposable income Clive..i can't trade part of me house in for a Chelsea ticket..i need money to do that

do you know something..if you just want to score points Clive..you can feck off..we were talking about disposable income..you them change the goalposts mid argument just to make ridiculing comments..bolox to ya

you are the time waster on this forum tbh

well frankly I think you are a bit thick..in response

and if you don't know that you can borrow against the equity of your house to buy the season ticket then don't even bother to engage

time waster? All I have done is point you in the direction of clear facts and clear logic but it's a obvious waste of time.

 

[Grey]

Why? All that would indicate is that the economy is not growing. I don't think that's healthier at all

why interfere with the market? If incomes and wealth go up then prices will. So what? You will get bubbles but they invariably correct over time

why this obsession with how much people pay. It's their choice and if not enough want to or can't then prices will fall naturally. As has happened before

Because they can't continue to appreciate in value indefinitely unless there is a growing deficit of supply relative to demand. And anyway it's impossible not to interfere with the housing market unless you want to start scrapping planning laws and investment in infrastructure.

 

[EC1]

well frankly I think you are a bit thick..in response

and if you don't know that you can borrow against the equity of your house to buy the season ticket then don't even bother to engage

time waster? All I have done is point you in the direction of clear facts and clear logic but it's a obvious waste of time.

of course i know you can borrow against it...wtf are you on about?....we aren't talking about how much a person can borrow,,we are talking about money earned coming in and going out..any daft sod can borrow money..thats not what we are talking about is it.

a bit thick?..well yes if you want to change what we are talking about..to try and make me out to be

anyone could have borrowed against their property in 1971.you talk as though they couldn't and that now we now have an asset that makes us wealthier than 1971..using an asset to get loans is the same as when comparing with the past..it cancels itself out

 

[clivex]

Of course they can. They appreciate so long as economies and incomes grow in real terms (as they have done over past 30 years). It's a pure reflection of that and I can't believe you can't see it. Over time house prices will reflect growth in wealth and not pure inflation. Over time you would expect the former to be greater than the latter.

Another factor is that cheaper prices for other costs in real terms will also lead to greater spending on housing. If that continues then away we go again

i would agree with warbler that there should certainly have been more building ( a real failure of recent governments)and that would clearly increase supply and that would suppress prices a little over time but I suspect not by much

 

[Grasshopper]

Because they can't continue to appreciate in value indefinitely unless there is a growing deficit of supply relative to demand. And anyway it's impossible not to interfere with the housing market unless you want to start scrapping planning laws and investment in infrastructure.

The calimitous global downturn of 2008-2009 is all the evidence you need that a runaway housing market will eventually correct itself, Arthur.

Something similar happened in the early '90's, though was localised mainly on the SE, and was much shorter and shallower than the most recent adjustment.

 

[Grey]

The calimitous global downturn of 2008-2009 is all the evidence you need that a runaway housing market will eventually correct itself, Arthur.

Something similar happened in the early '90's, though was localised mainly on the SE, and was much shorter and shallower than the most recent adjustment.

But doesn't that contradict what you were saying to EC1, that he has to take into account in his analysis that houses are an appreciating asset?

 

[Grasshopper]

Not when the property has now recovered to the point where it's more valuable than in 2007, it doesn't. The asset has merely appreciated more slowly than would ordinarily be the case - something you would expect in the middle of a global recession.

 

[EC1]

Not when the property has now recovered to the point where it's more valuable than in 2007, it doesn't. The asset has merely appreciated more slowly than would ordinarily be the case - something you would expect in the middle of a global recession.

I have at no point been talking about amassing wealth through owning an asset though. I've been talking about earnings in/out to compare someone at the same stage in two time frames. Not someone who is 25 in 1971 and thenas a 75 year old owning an asset in 2011

If you are 25 years old now..you face a whole different world that a 25 year old man faced in 1971 regarding even gaining a house as an asset.

 

[Grasshopper]

If you are 25 years old now..you face a whole different world that a 25 year old man faced in 1971 regarding even gaining a house as an asset.

What you've been talking about is a comparison of who is "better off" in two separate timeframes.

Even assuming your base numbers argument is accurate (it isn't), you refuse to acknowledge the peripheral improvements in living conditions, general health, sanitation, advanced technology, or any of the other myriad 'soft' factors, which determine how "well off" anyone is.

If you had access to a time-machine, a 25yo from 1971 would bite your arm off to be the same age in 2015. The last thing he'd be bothering his rear-end about, is there cost of his mortgage.

 

[EC1]

What you've been talking about is a comparison of who is "better off" in two separate timeframes.

Even assuming your base numbers argument is accurate (it isn't), you refuse to acknowledge the peripheral improvements in living conditions, general health, sanitation, advanced technology, or any of the other myriad 'soft' factors, which determine how "well off" anyone is.

If you had access to a time-machine, a 25yo from 1971 would bite your arm off to be the same age in 2015. The last thing he'd be bothering his rear-end about, is there cost of his mortgage.

i've not being talking about "well off" in any other sense other than financially..its you and Clive that have brought that in to rubbish the original argument

I doubt your last sentence is true either.

Its pointless discussing much with either you or Clive..you both switch around about what we are actually talking about ..its not debate..you just change the goalposts halfway through a discussion.

a waste of time..and probably why few ever bother with these threads..i think they are just personal score cards for some people

 

[Grasshopper]

You cannot divorce "financial well-being" from "overall well-being"..........they are intrinsically-linked.

If you cannot see this, then you're right - there is no point in discussing it further.

And you can stick your "personal score-card" cobblers right up your ar*se, whilst you're at it. I'm disagreeing with you - that's all.

 

[clivex]

Discretionary spending. Biggest indicators holidays and new cars. Widely accepted as reliable economic indiicators



cars 1971. 777000
2014. 2400000

foreign holidays
1971. 6m
2014. 60m

 

[BennyB]

Funny how the left are happy to use the ONS stats to show that we are no better off over the past few years, then the same people refute the use of the same stats to show that we are massively better off than in 1970.

 

[Grey]

Not when the property has now recovered to the point where it's more valuable than in 2007, it doesn't. The asset has merely appreciated more slowly than would ordinarily be the case - something you would expect in the middle of a global recession.

Whoa there, now you're back to the scenario of houses appreciating indefinitely in value, albeit with occasional slowdowns. So let me return to my earlier question:

Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms?

 

[Warbler]

The damage that's coming down the road is in the rental sector and the way it traps young people in particular.

You're starting to get a property owning cohort who want to kick the ladder out. The buy ot let market then becomes theirs to milk. The younger generations find themselves working to hand money to rapacious landlords for what? You can hardly blame the poor work attitude in some of the lower paid tertiary sectors really.

Ultimately house price inflation has to surface in wage rises with all the erosion that involves of productivity and loss of competitveness. It's one of the reasons why in work benefits have increased as the government has sought to subsidise employers wage bills by relieving them of the burden to pay housing linked pay rises.

Long term, it's a suicidal economic policy