OV9

JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:07 am They're aren't any. The end.

*There

Jobbo wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:46 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:40 am

Sundayjumper wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:27 am

Off the top of my head, most of the people I know have two earners in the household. I'm sure there's some data out there for regional differences.

View 1: affordability remains the same because most houses are bought by 2 earners

View 2: it takes 2 wages to be able to afford a house

They're effectively the same view. Any couple buying a house have to make an offer based on their combined earnings, because if they don't they will be outbid by someone who will. Prices are driven more by what banks are willing to lend than anything else.

20 years ago being a DINKY (Dual Income No Kids Yet) was a signifier of affluence. Now it’s almost the minimum requirement for home ownership.

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:04 am Anyone ready to put forward the case for the tangible benefits of Brexit yet? I’ll wait.

I think membership of the EU is incompatible with capital punishment, so we could bring that back. And we have a home secretary who supports it. This will, at a stroke, reduce overcrowding in prisons and the housing crisis (less demand because the net population increase will be slowed).

ETA: it is actually the Council of Europe protocol which prohibits the death penalty. And that is not a part of the EU, so we are not leaving it. Ignore my above comment, in that case.

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:15 am

Jobbo wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:46 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:40 am

View 1: affordability remains the same because most houses are bought by 2 earners

View 2: it takes 2 wages to be able to afford a house

They're effectively the same view. Any couple buying a house have to make an offer based on their combined earnings, because if they don't they will be outbid by someone who will. Prices are driven more by what banks are willing to lend than anything else.

20 years ago being a DINKY (Dual Income No Kids Yet) was a signifier of affluence. Now it’s almost the minimum requirement for home ownership.

Some folk bought and got their mates in to help pay the mortgage.... in fact most people who werent in a relationship did. Modern kids want everything now with no sacrifice as said above.

Broccers wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:19 am Modern kids want everything now with no sacrifice as said above.

Aristotle, 4th Century BC wrote: “Young people are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances. They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.”

Bought my first house in 2000, £53k on a salary of £21k. Sold same house in 2008 for £113k, salary was not much better. The equity and joint income were what allowed me to move up the chain.

Contrast that now with his kids in my team earning similar to that first figure and looking to buy houses £200k+. I can understand why they're stressed.

Bringing house values more in line with salaries would actually help me move up the ladder too, as the bigger houses would lose more based on % values of course. And that frees up cheaper houses for the new wave of buyers. Everyone wins really, if you can get over the "loss" in equity we think we have now.

I'm no economist though clearly

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:27 am
Bringing house values more in line with salaries would actually help me move up the ladder too, as the bigger houses would lose more based on % values of course. And that frees up cheaper houses for the new wave of buyers. Everyone wins really, if you can get over the "loss" in equity we think we have now.

I'm no economist though clearly

so you’d be ok with your house value being revised to less than the mortgage you have on it?

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:14 am

JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:07 am They're aren't any. The end.

*There

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE I BECOME?!!

JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:43 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:14 am

JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:07 am They're aren't any. The end.

*There

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE I BECOME?!!

A disappointment.

No that's always been a constant.

Jobbo wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:25 am From this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordabi ... ed_Kingdom



The first of those is what Rev is talking about, the second is the actual monthly cost of a mortgage. I hadn't appreciated how much prices had climbed versus earnings in the last few years, though.

Exactly 20 years ago is a slightly unfair comparison, because it's quite different to 19 years or 21 years ago; the climb out of the 90s recession all seemed to happen around 1997-1999.

Those charts ignore deposits though. Those people that are lucky enough to be able to buy are doing so having saved up big deposits,...

My deposit for my current house was around 47%. No way I could afford it on my salary without that.

Simon wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:17 pm

Jobbo wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:25 am From this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordabi ... ed_Kingdom



The first of those is what Rev is talking about, the second is the actual monthly cost of a mortgage. I hadn't appreciated how much prices had climbed versus earnings in the last few years, though.

Exactly 20 years ago is a slightly unfair comparison, because it's quite different to 19 years or 21 years ago; the climb out of the 90s recession all seemed to happen around 1997-1999.

Those charts ignore deposits though. Those people that are lucky enough to be able to buy are doing so having saved up big deposits,...

My deposit for my current house was around 47%. No way I could afford it on my salary without that.

whilst I totally agree that deposits for first Time buyers are huge - they don’t really matter once you’re on the ladder - no one is expected to save up a 47% deposit, and you’ve presumably only got that through the increase in price of your property - which you wouldn’t have if they hadn’t gone up in price.

Yes, you're right. A large part of my deposit has come from both price increases on previous houses I've owned as well as the capital repayments of mortgages for the same.

What would be more telling would be the above graphs taken just for first time buyers.

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:33 am

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:27 am
Bringing house values more in line with salaries would actually help me move up the ladder too, as the bigger houses would lose more based on % values of course. And that frees up cheaper houses for the new wave of buyers. Everyone wins really, if you can get over the "loss" in equity we think we have now.

I'm no economist though clearly

so you’d be ok with your house value being revised to less than the mortgage you have on it?

Of course not but that wouldn't be viable from the banks pov anyway, I'm just saying some sensible adjustment wouldn't be the worst thing. It won't happen unless the entire country crashes, I'm just making the point that you only really gain if you sell up and remove yourself from the housing chain.

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:33 am

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:27 am
Bringing house values more in line with salaries would actually help me move up the ladder too, as the bigger houses would lose more based on % values of course. And that frees up cheaper houses for the new wave of buyers. Everyone wins really, if you can get over the "loss" in equity we think we have now.

I'm no economist though clearly

so you’d be ok with your house value being revised to less than the mortgage you have on it?

Of course not but that wouldn't be viable from the banks pov anyway, I'm just saying some sensible adjustment wouldn't be the worst thing. It won't happen unless the entire country crashes, I'm just making the point that you only really gain if you sell up and remove yourself from the housing chain.

Any sudden “sensible adjustment” would leave lots of people in negative equity - particularly first time buyers who have new mortgages and have not built up much equity....

...which would stop them moving house for a long time. That would not help the market at all.

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:40 pm

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:36 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:33 am so you’d be ok with your house value being revised to less than the mortgage you have on it?

Of course not but that wouldn't be viable from the banks pov anyway, I'm just saying some sensible adjustment wouldn't be the worst thing. It won't happen unless the entire country crashes, I'm just making the point that you only really gain if you sell up and remove yourself from the housing chain.

Any sudden “sensible adjustment” would leave lots of people in negative equity - particularly first time buyers who have new mortgages and have not built up much equity....

...which would stop them moving house for a long time. That would not help the market at all.

A % adjustment would affect the expensive houses more in pure numbers than those at the lower end, is all I'm pointing out. I'm not saying it'll happen, for many reasons, and it would be financial forces causing this not intentional intervention. The current yearly increase is going to create the same result very soon anyway. I can't afford to move up significantly without agreeing to a mortgage I doubt I'd be allowed, so the situation is already there arguably.

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:58 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:40 pm

Barry wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:36 pm

Of course not but that wouldn't be viable from the banks pov anyway, I'm just saying some sensible adjustment wouldn't be the worst thing. It won't happen unless the entire country crashes, I'm just making the point that you only really gain if you sell up and remove yourself from the housing chain.

Any sudden “sensible adjustment” would leave lots of people in negative equity - particularly first time buyers who have new mortgages and have not built up much equity....

...which would stop them moving house for a long time. That would not help the market at all.

A % adjustment would affect the expensive houses more in pure numbers than those at the lower end, is all I'm pointing out.

it really doesn’t matter what the actual numbers are, if you only own 10% of your house and the market suddenly drops by an amount more that that, you’re stuck and can’t move unless you pay the difference PLUS a new deposit. I expect there are far more people with a 10% deposit mortgage in the typical ftb market than at the top end of the market. And those at the top will likely have FAR more liquidity to absorb changes.

Rich B wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:49 am If we’re generalising, twenty somethings want to buy their own houses (in the best areas), but they also want brand new German cars, annual holidays to the Far East/America/Australia, £20k weddings, £1k phones, expensive watches and clothes, new everything, etc....

If they did without all those they could probably buy a house (in a less desirable area).

You'd be surprised how often I've come across young couples like this in the last few years.

The age of Instagram where new cars, exotic holidays, expensive mobile phones, jewellery and clothes are considered essential. Fundamentally youngsters generally don't save full stop, everything is bought on the drip as soon as the idea pops in to their head which leaves them short of disposable income to save for a deposit or even pay for things like clothes as they go along.

The amount of deposit they need typically needs to be 15%+ due to low credit score as they manage their affairs poorly with little regard for paying bills on time.

I am generalising but that's my experience with more than half of that age group.

I struggle to relate to it as I felt well off when we bought our first house in 2003 and the only furniture we had was a second hand sofa from my parents house, a G Plan nest of tables which I found
in the garage, a double bed and Matsui TV. In hindsight it was probably being debt free other than the mortgage and being to able to choose what to spend on rather than being in a cycle of paying for credit.

My other half spent the first 6 months of homeownership with a concrete floor in the living room while they saved for carpet.

They sat on plastic garden chairs.

It’s what you did