On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:47:26 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.

Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely fall.

Unfortunately for the average is there are enough rich people to pay
the excessive costs, otherwise the prices would fall and ordinary
people would be able to afford to buy.

When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater than my
income for a few months.

A lot of us had exactly the same issues. I had to let out the spare
room in my first house in order to afford the rising mortgage
payments.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?