On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:21:58 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:33:46 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:22:17 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

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

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

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.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Where the logic here fails is the idea that someone on a median wage is
going to buy an an averagely priced house.

Or any (decent) house.

I for example earned around that average wage but my 2 bed home is worth
less than your £329,075. And I live in the south east.

Move to the nearby city and you would be lucky to get a flat for
£329,000 and even basic three bed houses go for half a million quid now,
but along the coast a bit where I am, your £329,000 could buy you three
or four beds and a garden.

Not in many areas. Around here the cities, towns and countryside
alike are horrendously expensive.

And in London, £329,000 probably would not buy you anything at all.

Probably, and not just in London.

Meanwhile, go to some of the northern cities and houses can go for
£50,000.

Could you really get a reasonable house for this? But it's irrelevant
for those who need to live elsewhere.


I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

It is interesting to watch Home Under The Hammer and some areas are
astonishingly inexpensive to live in - relatively speaking.

I don't watch such shows, but I do find it hard to believe that
anywhere is really "inexpensive".


£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

Yet somehow, people can afford to pay.

*Some* people. Most cannot.

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