simmo
Senior Jockey
I'm making a Joey Deacon face now. And the bit with the arms.
The election 2015
- Thread starter trudij
- Start date
I'm making a Joey Deacon face now. And the bit with the arms.
EC1
On a break
now i know you are struggling
1971 man lived in his own home and was paying towards an asset..now 2011 man lives with mummy and daddy..and owns fook all..how is he better off?
we are supposed to be comparing like with like..you are now saying that 2011 man has to forget having his own home to be better off than 1971 man.
in my view,,thats not better off is it?..you changed the goalposts..but you and Clive are good at that
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
By any measure, the recent global recession was a once-in-a-century event, and it should be treated as such.
What of the localised property-bubble in the South-East in the early 90's? The rest of the country didn't have that problem, yet you would need to apply legislation across -the-board. That would merely penalise sellers in markets which were in balance. In fact, legislation would throw them immediately out of balance, for the reasons given in my previous post.
As for the rent/mortgage debtate - you're quite right, everyone has to pay something. But the original point was that the average cost of a house has increased by a factor of 42 since 1970 in comparison to a rise in wages of a factor of 12 (which the right were trying to tell us was irrelevant because people who own their own properties generally make more money). Whilst house prices themselves are not the correct indicator (rent/mortgage prices is), it's probably a reasonable refelection.
Therefore we can conclude, quite accurately, that the amount of money that people have to pay out to provide a roof over their heads (regardless of mortgage or rent status) has increased at a level far beyond that of wages.
Which was the original point that the right wingers are trying to deny existed. Which is the type of idiocy which led the right wingers to crash the world's economy in 2008-09, from which Britain is still recovering.
And you want to give them free rein to do what they want because the market will correct itself????? Unbelievable Jeff!
[/QUOTE]
simmo
Senior Jockey
I have at least tried to take a view of the practical effect of legislating. I find it's more useful to do that, than pretend I'm the coolest kid in the 6th-form debating society, where substance doesn't count - it's all about the style.
You're a breath of hot-air, simmo
So lets get this straight - you responded earlier to a suggestion that there should be legislation by saying that the market corrects itself (and used the recession as an example of this self-correction). This amused me. You then tried to back out of that by saying that you had used it in a different context and didn't really mean it the way it came out. And now you're claiming that you were just taking a practical view of legislation.
So we could conclude that actually you don't know what you want. Which is fine in itself - neither do I - legislation limiting house prices wouldn't work, nor would it gain the support of the majority of the country. But against that I KNOW, not think, I KNOW, that letting right wingers self-correct the market is ******* stupidity of the highest order - in every country where this has been allowed to happen it has resulted in disaster, or near disaster.
So presumably the real answer lies somewhere between the two. but at least we seem to have established that self-correction is fudwipery.
simmo
Senior Jockey
[/QUOTE]As for the rent/mortgage debtate - you're quite right, everyone has to pay something. But the original point was that the average cost of a house has increased by a factor of 42 since 1970 in comparison to a rise in wages of a factor of 12 (which the right were trying to tell us was irrelevant because people who own their own properties generally make more money). Whilst house prices themselves are not the correct indicator (rent/mortgage prices is), it's probably a reasonable refelection.
Therefore we can conclude, quite accurately, that the amount of money that people have to pay out to provide a roof over their heads (regardless of mortgage or rent status) has increased at a level far beyond that of wages.
Which was the original point that the right wingers are trying to deny existed. Which is the type of idiocy which led the right wingers to crash the world's economy in 2008-09, from which Britain is still recovering.
And you want to give them free rein to do what they want because the market will correct itself????? Unbelievable Jeff!
I agree with every word.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Showing you that your arguments contradict each other, isn't moving the goalposts.
The definition "better-off" is subjective. You cannot present statistics to back it up, despite your attempts to do so.
All you have provided us with is a statistic which states that mortgage is now 52%+ of disposable "individual" income in 2015, whereas it was 12% in 1971......and offer it up as conclusive proof that the 1971 man was "better off".
All you've really done is state that 2015 man pays a bigger %age of his income on his mortgage - thats it. You have provided precisely ZERO evidence that he is "worse-off" than 1971 Man.....which you could never do anyway, because the term is wholly-subjective, as we've just established.
If you enter the realms of "subjective" argument, then it is perfectly proper to start considering intangibles such as life-expectancy, sanitation, health, and all the other peripheral things that determine how well-off an individual is.
In real terms, 1971 Man probably paid about the same for his NHS service, as 2015 Man........but there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that (despite all of the NHS's fault) 2015 Man benefits from a much better Health Service than 1971 Man.
A low-income 1971 Man would perhaps have shared a bathroom with another family, and an outside toilet.. This is something that would be reflected in the purchase price of his house. 2015 Man would have no such concerns - no matter how far down the property-ladder he is.
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Right-wingers don't self-correct the market - buyers and sellers do.
The problem with the global recession was that Banks made too much credit available to too many people that couldn't afford it. Those lending and those borrowing were equally culpable; stupidity/recklessness on the part of the Banks, and stupidity/hopelessly-misplaced optimism on the part of the borrowers.
It's only natural that you would want to paint it all as a right-wing conspiracy - anyone who has hoovered-up the SNP's propaganda is a cert to think that way. But it takes two to take make a credit agreement. People weren't marched at gun-point to take-out mortgages - though, again, I realise that this perfectly-obvious fact runs counter to your tunnel-visioned-narrative.
Last edited:
OK, so I've been reduced to using this for now (I have no idea who londondpropertywatch.com are?) but they're drawing down a sample of contemporary asking prices (an asking price needn't be achieved of course) on 5965 properties across 4 different property types defined by number of bedrooms, across 69 postcodes in the capital
The average ask for a one bedroom unit is £364.73 a week, for an annual property overhead of £18,966 if multiplied by 52 weeks
http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.html
Incidentally Clive, the average asking price for a 3 bedroomed property in Twickenham was £586 a week and £1132 for a bigger property. This is obviously significantly larger than your qualitative evidence of "about £1600 a month now and I think it was £1200 about ten years ago."
Can we deduce that living next door to you is possibly having a local impact on the market?
I should say, I'm reasonably sceptical about the source, as they do sound a little bit like a pressure group who possess an agenda (albeit some pressure groups can of course be perfectly credible and are routinely quoted - the government is fond of quoting Human Rights Watch despite their very chequred history of impartiality).
I did try Zoopla but couldn't find any research, albeit they were delighted to act as a letting agent for me!
It's a shame the ONS aren't prepared to attach their own spreadsheet to the index they've built
The average ask for a one bedroom unit is £364.73 a week, for an annual property overhead of £18,966 if multiplied by 52 weeks
http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.html
Incidentally Clive, the average asking price for a 3 bedroomed property in Twickenham was £586 a week and £1132 for a bigger property. This is obviously significantly larger than your qualitative evidence of "about £1600 a month now and I think it was £1200 about ten years ago."
Can we deduce that living next door to you is possibly having a local impact on the market?
I should say, I'm reasonably sceptical about the source, as they do sound a little bit like a pressure group who possess an agenda (albeit some pressure groups can of course be perfectly credible and are routinely quoted - the government is fond of quoting Human Rights Watch despite their very chequred history of impartiality).
I did try Zoopla but couldn't find any research, albeit they were delighted to act as a letting agent for me!
It's a shame the ONS aren't prepared to attach their own spreadsheet to the index they've built
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
EC1
On a break
average house in 1971..£5600..was a bit better than sharing a bathroom with someone Grass..thats not accurate one little bit..in 1968 our house was 5 year old..decent sized.. newish house..semi ..£3600..we didn't share a bathroom
You could have got that easily on an average wage in 71i'm not arguing life expectancy/health care..i'm talking about real life circumstances re money in and out.
you yourself have said that 2011 man must now live with mum and dad and not bother with his own home to have some money to spend..because unlike his.."worse off" financially 1971 counterpart..he can't afford his own home. That in itself tells you whether people are better off financially these days...he has no home of his own is the trade off for having spendo..super eh?
i have provided clear evidence that a man is worse off financially..and you have proved it..you have taken his home away..just so he has some money left so he can compete with 1971 man
thats his home..not a mars bar..or a weeks shopping..or a gas bill...his home..just so you can say he has more disposable income..well lucky old 2011 man
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
My argument is that money-in/money-out is not a true measure of how well-off someone is. It's part of it, but not the whole - it's too narrow.
It must cost Gawd-knows how much more to get into a footy-match these days, than it did in 1971......but you've said it yourself, they go in their hundreds of thousands every week. Average attendance at Old Trafford has doubled since 1971. That doesn't really reflect your argument that 2015 Man is worse-off.
The living-with-Mum-and-Dad thing? I'm assuming that your 'individual" is the Father in this arrangement, and that HE is getting shafted (and is worse-off than 1971 Man), because he has to pay the mortgage out of what he earns, whilst his layabout seed use whatever they earn, to buy season-tickets - making no contribution to the mortgage themselves. Is it this particular arrangement that is the thrust of your argument? (genuine question).
It must cost Gawd-knows how much more to get into a footy-match these days, than it did in 1971......but you've said it yourself, they go in their hundreds of thousands every week. Average attendance at Old Trafford has doubled since 1971. That doesn't really reflect your argument that 2015 Man is worse-off.
The living-with-Mum-and-Dad thing? I'm assuming that your 'individual" is the Father in this arrangement, and that HE is getting shafted (and is worse-off than 1971 Man), because he has to pay the mortgage out of what he earns, whilst his layabout seed use whatever they earn, to buy season-tickets - making no contribution to the mortgage themselves. Is it this particular arrangement that is the thrust of your argument? (genuine question).
It's two bedroom not three.
EC1
On a break
no..i'm talking about a 25 year old in both time spheres Grass..not father
i can't make my argument any clearer tbh...i'll leave you guys with it for a bit..i'm tired now with being old..and northern
i can't make my argument any clearer tbh...i'll leave you guys with it for a bit..i'm tired now with being old..and northern
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
But you've just said that 25yos in 2015 can go to the footy and have plenty disposable, simply by staying at home and continuing to be a burden on their parents.
This is what I mean by your argument contradicting itself. And even if you mean 25yos in 2015 with a mortgage, they are hardly representative of how an entire economy is doing - it's far too small as a demographic.
And is the comparison even relevant?
A 25yo Man in 1971 was almost certainly married, and very-likely already a parent. A 25yo in 2015 very-likley isn't married or a parent. Their relative circumstances would tend to render any comparison more-or-less pointless, imo.
This is what I mean by your argument contradicting itself. And even if you mean 25yos in 2015 with a mortgage, they are hardly representative of how an entire economy is doing - it's far too small as a demographic.
And is the comparison even relevant?
A 25yo Man in 1971 was almost certainly married, and very-likely already a parent. A 25yo in 2015 very-likley isn't married or a parent. Their relative circumstances would tend to render any comparison more-or-less pointless, imo.
Last edited:
The old two bedroom trick hey!
Otherwise do you recognise these rental values as being realistic? or do you think they're wildly out of kilter? I honestly don't know. They look to be on the high side to me?
out of kilter with what?
i can't understand why you can't get this of all people. Others maybe
if if they were too high they would drop. If they were too low they would rise.
The whole point is that people can afford to spend much more in housing because nearly every other cost of living is way lower than before. Especially high price items such as cars and holidays and electricals.
Then we have other significant items. Who remembers the fuss over a phone bill back then?
a colour tv was same actual price as now ffs . In real terms it's a tiny fraction
The disposbale income is massively higher both in real tms but most importantly in what it can buy.
Petrol seems seems to be the only given example of otherwise (and I suspect that's dubious) but is a rubbish example because it's pinpointed just before the first oil crisis. There is little doubt that oil prices were extremely low before 1973
the big issue is getting in the ladder and the need for more supply.
Then we have other significant items. Who remembers the fuss over a phone bill back then?
a colour tv was same actual price as now ffs . In real terms it's a tiny fraction
The disposbale income is massively higher both in real tms but most importantly in what it can buy.
Petrol seems seems to be the only given example of otherwise (and I suspect that's dubious) but is a rubbish example because it's pinpointed just before the first oil crisis. There is little doubt that oil prices were extremely low before 1973
the big issue is getting in the ladder and the need for more supply.
Out of kilter with what you believe the average cost of renting to be? I'm looking for a reliable and substantive source. I'd have prefered it had the ONS made this data available, but they don't, so I've had to turn to something else.
I think there's probably been a breakdown here in supply and demand, and in that regard I don't accept we become slaves to the market. I actually think there's a terrific generational danger developing
When they came to power the coalition ripped up the house building targets that were contained in the regional economic strategies across the English regions (despite makign a huff and puff about it in opposition). IIRC within 18 months, about 250,000 new builds were removed from the schedule by local authorities (much easier to remove controversial plans than it is to push them through against voters wishes). They also introduced the new Localism Act (a Greg Clark disaster) which basically handed a lot of power to Nimby's to further block developments. The final break was then applied in the commercial lending industry.
Suffice to say, supply fell as demand rose, and continues to. The result is that people who might have had aspirations (nay expectations) of buying are being increasingly forced into the rental sector, adding furtjer inflationary pressures, and where they're being picked over. Not surprisingly it's most acute amongst young people
It's showing up as an inter generational dynamic. In fact to use a literary reference, this is almost Eloi and Morlock (without the cannibalism). We're sleep walking into situation where those who've climbed a ladder are then kicking it out from the inheritting generation below them. The cosnequences I believe will be far reaching unless something is done to correct this (and I mean something substantive not the odd little policy or scheme here and there)
What I'm trying to establish is how much money a young person in London (and the South East) earns by way of average (proving much harder than I thought it would be) and try and crudely reverse engineer their household budget starting with rental costs of property
So are we prepared to accept £18,966 as being an average indicative rent for London on a bedroom dwelling? Instinctively this feels high to me, but then there is no point even beginning this exercise if I'm going to apply my prejudice to what i think the figure should be! In the absence of the ONS, are Londonpropertywatch.com reliable? I assume that it's one or two people trawling newspaper advertisements?
I think there's probably been a breakdown here in supply and demand, and in that regard I don't accept we become slaves to the market. I actually think there's a terrific generational danger developing
When they came to power the coalition ripped up the house building targets that were contained in the regional economic strategies across the English regions (despite makign a huff and puff about it in opposition). IIRC within 18 months, about 250,000 new builds were removed from the schedule by local authorities (much easier to remove controversial plans than it is to push them through against voters wishes). They also introduced the new Localism Act (a Greg Clark disaster) which basically handed a lot of power to Nimby's to further block developments. The final break was then applied in the commercial lending industry.
Suffice to say, supply fell as demand rose, and continues to. The result is that people who might have had aspirations (nay expectations) of buying are being increasingly forced into the rental sector, adding furtjer inflationary pressures, and where they're being picked over. Not surprisingly it's most acute amongst young people
It's showing up as an inter generational dynamic. In fact to use a literary reference, this is almost Eloi and Morlock (without the cannibalism). We're sleep walking into situation where those who've climbed a ladder are then kicking it out from the inheritting generation below them. The cosnequences I believe will be far reaching unless something is done to correct this (and I mean something substantive not the odd little policy or scheme here and there)
What I'm trying to establish is how much money a young person in London (and the South East) earns by way of average (proving much harder than I thought it would be) and try and crudely reverse engineer their household budget starting with rental costs of property
So are we prepared to accept £18,966 as being an average indicative rent for London on a bedroom dwelling? Instinctively this feels high to me, but then there is no point even beginning this exercise if I'm going to apply my prejudice to what i think the figure should be! In the absence of the ONS, are Londonpropertywatch.com reliable? I assume that it's one or two people trawling newspaper advertisements?
Last edited:
I'll come to things like telecoms later, but we need to find a workable figure for the housing first.
I'm sure supply is the answer incidentally.
http://www.londonrents.org.uk/
Bloody hell ... you know there's a serious problem when even this esteemed social commentator is ringing alarm bells
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-people-spend-DECADE-saving-deposit-home.html
Last edited:
I Don't why you are bothering though.
london? If rent was killing all other expenditure and remembering that credit cards are harder for the young to get now, how come bars , coffee bars, clubs and the arts aimed at that community are thriving like never before? The fact is they are and big time in London.
and how come nearly every one of that age group seems to spend way more time travelling to God knows where Almost incessantly?
im not saying they are rich but rent is not killing them.
london? If rent was killing all other expenditure and remembering that credit cards are harder for the young to get now, how come bars , coffee bars, clubs and the arts aimed at that community are thriving like never before? The fact is they are and big time in London.
and how come nearly every one of that age group seems to spend way more time travelling to God knows where Almost incessantly?
im not saying they are rich but rent is not killing them.
EC1
On a break
I find it quite funny that Clive gives you lots of respect Warb...when i was doing something similar to what you are doing..his response..was dire..worst econimic discussion i've seen..absolute rubbish
If your rent figure average is correct at 189666..well..thats a large % of the average pay...in LOndon Dec 2014 the average earnings were £41000. So its not just buying a house that is crippling average earner..its also rents..i make that 46% of your earnings gone in rent
tellys are cheap though..and so are mars bars....so that makes up for it
Last edited:
you don't know what you are talking about for a start.
single occupancy dwellings are only fractionally cheaper than two bedrooms . They have always been the preserve of those with a greater income. And yes that was precisely the case when I was that age too. I didn't know of anyone that rented alone
again you simply have no idea about markets at all.
EC1
On a break
i've quoted Warbs figure..but instead of telling him he doesn't know what he is talking about..you tell me.
Clive..the day someone like you tells me i do know what i am talking about..thats the day i'll worry
i don't care about markets..i'll leave those to selfish soulless folk that don't give a toss about anything else.
Clive..the day someone like you tells me i do know what i am talking about..thats the day i'll worry
i don't care about markets..i'll leave those to selfish soulless folk that don't give a toss about anything else.
The whole London rent thing is again a load of rubbish.
if rents are too high then younger people with talent will take work in other cities in preference. That's obvious and I knew people who did . Also businesses will ultimately relocate if they can't attract staff. Except that they are not and the massive Google (who are hardly likely to hire coffin Dodgers) headquarters is located right bang in the middle of kings cross
if rents are too high then younger people with talent will take work in other cities in preference. That's obvious and I knew people who did . Also businesses will ultimately relocate if they can't attract staff. Except that they are not and the massive Google (who are hardly likely to hire coffin Dodgers) headquarters is located right bang in the middle of kings cross
if you don't "care" or understand. Markets then you simply do not understand money in the slightest and shouldn't have kicked off a debate
the idea that markets are the preserve of the right wing or selfish (as has been suggested here ) is frankly mental. It's like saying oxygen is only for scientists
next time you sell your car and don't take the lowest offer, then remind yourself how right wing and selfish you are
Last edited: