On 20/11/2017 12:11, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:40:18 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 15:49, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:31:22 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 13:20, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 13:03, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

[ ... ]

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.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True. But it is an area in England. There are many comparable
places.

None of them are the whole of England either.

True, but irrelevant.

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.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

It means I am suprised.

What? Even with all that research you have been doing into house prices?

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Just done a search - average prices in Lancashire is £163K, average
for a semi £156K.

Now tell us all why and how you are comparing like with unlike.

You're the one who is doing this. What's the relevance of the prices
of houses in Lancashire, for those who need to live elsewhere?

Before I do that, please explain why you compared like (average prices)
with an unlike (lowest prices).

Lowest price isn't very useful since most people will be unable to
take "advantage" of this. Average prices will dictate what the
majority need to consider.

But if all you can afford is £50,000, there are houses and flats there
that you can afford.

Not in most areas.

And?

How does does that prove the untrue statement that the whole of the UK
suffers from non-affordability of housing?

Let's not forget that your first reaction was to disbelieve that houses
are even available for that price (or less), across the north of England.

And what's the relevance of your question, when the information was
given in order to counter the (untrue) assertion that house prices have
shifted upwards in real terms everywhere, when it is clear that they
haven't?

If a few areas have not had the same trend, how is this useful for
those who need to live elsewhere?

Who said it was?

You keep saying it.

Not so. All I have said is that there are areas of the UK (like most of
northern England and a fair bit of midland England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales) where "non-affordability" is not a local phenomenon.

Everyone in such areas, however, knows that moving to London (and
certain other places) as a home-owner may not be easy/possible.