guest_northshore Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, crashmonitor said: A clue might be where prices have gone in London and surrounding areas and the direction of prices in the provinces. Indeed in areas of falling population...Burnley, outer Liverpool, Hartlepool etc. you can't give property away. That wouldn't be evidence of population as the main driver. It's a correlation between prices and population, with no accounting for other factors or direction of causality. e.g. What came first - industrial changes, growing (un)employment, lower/higher incomes, lower/higher deprivation, less/more infrastructure investment, less/more real estate investment, relocation for work, net emmigration/immigration, house prices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromage Frais Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, crashmonitor said: Prices in Japan and China are still relatively high in migrant hubs. In Japan they just started from a crazy base but are still higher than this country.Sure if we built a new city in northern Scotland it too would stay empty. Migration has been the key force in driving global house prices....a slum in Beirut is worth more than a villa in Florida because its about competition for dwellings and land. It's ludicrous to think that house prices are unaffected by an extra 10 million people mainly competing for resourses in the South East. Been to Beirut its mortgages and expat/gulf money. You can be a sardine but you still need money to buy the can no matter how squashed you are. Algeria is massive with only 40 million people in it. House prices there are nuts. Same in Tunisia etc All those countries have large black economies with too much physical money in circulation + unemployed masses so this money goes into land where it can be cleansed. http://www.thearabweekly.com/Economy/6041/Why-real-estate-prices-in-Lebanon-are-falling "The Central Bank demands that the buyer provide a down payment of at least 30% of the price of property while commercial banks provide the rest as a low-interest loan. To help move the market, the Central Bank also offers subsidised loans as high as $500,000, which are subject to certain restrictions aimed at preventing speculation. Jihad al-Hukayem, a real estate expert, is critical of the Central Bank policy “Why offer such high subsidised loans to one person while the same loan can be divided among three buyers to purchase less expensive housing?” he asked." Edited November 13, 2017 by Fromage Frais Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Sorry, people who have this degree of parental help and the parents who exploited house price inflation in order to give it to them should feel guilty. Life is not a consequence-free game of Monopoly. These families have directly benefited from the very same policies that have impoverished other people's children. Their decision to buy more houses and rent them out means they are funding this from the labour of the new underclass - people born to parents without property wealth. The inheritors certainly haven't done anything to deserve being born with the silver spoon. A little guilt is the very least they should be feeling for their undeserved position in an unfair system. Life is only unfair to this degree because we tolerate it being so. Why didn't the property-owning generation use their incredible position in economic history to improve living standards for everyone? They promised us a meritocracy but the actual outcome looks more like the feudal society from before the world wars. Would these middle-class families be as sanguine about their prospects if their children were off to live downstairs to cook and clean at the manor house? But then a lot of Britain seems to have been manipulated to look back at those times with nostalgia rather than horror... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamborn Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 What they miss here is they are handing over money that will go up in smoke soon.Those deposits will be wiped out mostly,especially southern houses.Grandad leaves daughter £50k.She hands it over to her daughter to help with deposit.House prices fall 15% (more like 60%+) and its gone.Grandads lump sum from his pension,40 years of savings wiped clean. The end of cycles dont hit hard the people who cant join in.They hit the ones who double up on their "gains" or encourage all their siblings to follow their route to riches.Massive wealth destruction ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 There's the fingerprints of another boomer story in there as well: Quote Katie’s mum, Valerie, is 53 and retired. She spent her working life in local government and the civil service, while her husband, Tony, retired this summer after working as a quantity surveyor. Both have done well out of the housing market and used the money to help their daughters (Katie’s sister lives in London and they contribute to her rent). “Tony and I married when I was 32 and he was 28, So tony is retired at 48. And they are helping with rent. Anyone else suspect over-generous public sector pension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castlevania Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Parents paying or at least contributing to a child's rent in London for a few years when they're just out of university is sadly pretty common. I even know of one person who's parents paid all her rent in a shared house as they were fed up of her living with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 37 minutes ago, Castlevania said: Parents paying or at least contributing to a child's rent in London for a few years when they're just out of university is sadly pretty common. I even know of one person who's parents paid all her rent in a shared house as they were fed up of her living with them. Again, nothing wrong with this. If they choose to spend their money in that way then who am I to complain? They could waste it on a Ferrari or a world cruise if they liked as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 1 hour ago, durhamborn said: What they miss here is they are handing over money that will go up in smoke soon.Those deposits will be wiped out mostly,especially southern houses.Grandad leaves daughter £50k.She hands it over to her daughter to help with deposit.House prices fall 15% (more like 60%+) and its gone.Grandads lump sum from his pension,40 years of savings wiped clean. The end of cycles dont hit hard the people who cant join in.They hit the ones who double up on their "gains" or encourage all their siblings to follow their route to riches.Massive wealth destruction ahead. I do hope so. Nevertheless these very parents and grandparents feel that the govt has their back, and so far they've been right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Ram Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 2 hours ago, durhamborn said: What they miss here is they are handing over money that will go up in smoke soon.Those deposits will be wiped out mostly,especially southern houses.Grandad leaves daughter £50k.She hands it over to her daughter to help with deposit.House prices fall 15% (more like 60%+) and its gone.Grandads lump sum from his pension,40 years of savings wiped clean. The end of cycles dont hit hard the people who cant join in.They hit the ones who double up on their "gains" or encourage all their siblings to follow their route to riches.Massive wealth destruction ahead. Actually I think this is how we know that we are at, or very near the top of the cycle: the mainstream media are actively identifying the mechanisms by which capital is being misallocated on a grand scale, but they haven't quite made the conceptual leap to the fact that it is a misallocation, and not a brilliant and obvious investment decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mynamehere Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Does this mean we can finally admit that income to house price rations are useless? In an age of BOMAD and extreme interest rates, it barely seems worth it to compare older periods given conditions so different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest_northshore Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 3 hours ago, nickb1 said: +1. If population is a key driver, why are prices now falling in London? And what about the fact that there are now more dwellings per head than since records began? Here are the data: https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/2-1-billion-square-metres-to-swing-a-cat-in-b1f13ee7ad6b Population and the related "physical shortage" narrative are just too convenient because the "solution" that then obtains (Build More Houses) appeals to all the vested interests: landowners, developers, builders, estate agents, banks, mortgage brokers, politicians. Good find. He's even blunter today: https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/parrots-housing-and-redistribution-419b36a72e52 I wish those who favour lower population growth or immigration would just argue for that on its own merits. If population is forecast to rise/fall, developers will just build more/fewer houses. They're not idiots; they build as many as they can sell at max price. Justification via non-evidenced housing supply/demand dynamics is dangerously counterproductive to affordability, or wider supporting social/infrastructure investment. I completely agree that it plays to the VI narrative - like BOMAD or private landlording to get back on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Errol said: Again, nothing wrong with this. If they choose to spend their money in that way then who am I to complain? They could waste it on a Ferrari or a world cruise if they liked as well. Seems that 'boomers' can't do anything right. If they give their 'unfair' wealth to their kids they are selfishly helping to keep prices high by punting more money into the housing market (and favouring their kids) and if they keep it to themselves they are 'hoarding'. Just seems that many these days seem to think that life should somehow be inherently 'fair' even though manifestly it isn't. They need to get on with making the best of it and stop whining and expecting someone to come along and make everything all right for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Even if you divided all the assets in the country completely equally, it would only be a couple of years before one group had most of the money again. It's just the way the world works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 50 minutes ago, Sour Mash said: Just seems that many these days seem to think that life should somehow be inherently 'fair' even though manifestly it isn't. They need to get on with making the best of it and stop whining and expecting someone to come along and make everything all right for them. Surely attempting to make the world fairer is a laudable goal in itself. Civilisation would never have got anywhere if everyone just shrugged their shoulders and accepted their lot in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 1 hour ago, guest_northshore said: Good find. He's even blunter today: https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/parrots-housing-and-redistribution-419b36a72e52 I wish those who favour lower population growth or immigration would just argue for that on its own merits. If population is forecast to rise/fall, developers will just build more/fewer houses. They're not idiots; they build as many as they can sell at max price. Justification via non-evidenced housing supply/demand dynamics is dangerously counterproductive to affordability, or wider supporting social/infrastructure investment. I completely agree that it plays to the VI narrative - like BOMAD or private landlording to get back on topic. I don't buy the view that deregulated lending is the main cause, or rather it is the main feedback in the bubble, so it can promote either high or low house prices in that respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest_northshore Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 31 minutes ago, Si1 said: I don't buy the view that deregulated lending is the main cause, or rather it is the main feedback in the bubble, so it can promote either high or low house prices in that respect. I think deregulated lending can be a significant factor, but I don't particularly buy his concluding perspective either (housing benefit etc). Was really in reference to the supply view and household formation, not demand. (I should probably have added that I also favour lower population growth. Globally. It's not at all irrelevant but there's little evidence in terms of main UK price driver or causality) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 The problem with articles along these lines is that the message can be read as..."Oh dear some youngsters don't have wealthy parents to buy them houses - how odd...well we need to fix that with 'help'...we should boost the Help to Buy scheme. That can be spun as a shot in the arm for social mobility and at the same time will boost the profits of our chums in the house building industry and inflate the prices - win-win !!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Sour Mash said: Just seems that many these days seem to think that life should somehow be inherently 'fair' even though manifestly it isn't. They need to get on with making the best of it and stop whining and expecting someone to come along and make everything all right for them ?? So its okay for the state to manipulate the markets to enrich one group at the expense of another and those on the losing side of that line should just accept it and doff their caps? I don't think so, I intend to continue 'whining' as would any decent person cognisant of the gross injustice being committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insane Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, Wayward said: need to fix that with 'help'... David Cameron's exact words when he introduced the HTB scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Errol said: Even if you divided all the assets in the country completely equally, it would only be a couple of years before one group had most of the money again. It's just the way the world works. Easy come easy go.......there is something to be said about earned and worked for money is better respected and better spent than easy handouts.....going to help family best give them the money and let them waste it or not as they feel fit.... not lend it to them expecting to get it back, or could end up turning a good relationship into a not so good relationship..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, nickb1 said: +1. If population is a key driver, why are prices now falling in London? I can't believe you are using London as an example. Since the immigration doors were opened circa 2004 prices in London have doubled in real terms after allowing for inflation. Meanwhile prices in areas of zero migration such as northern shire counties have fallen by 30% in real terms over the same period. Why does a terraced house in a deprived part of Hackney ( and still the 30th poorest borough overall in the country )now cost the same as a Stately Home in East Ayrshire. Meanwhile I did say that there were other drivers such as Bomad recycled equity which you totally ignored. No point anyway trying to reason a point with hpi loving leftists who always take the moral high ground when the I word is mentioned. Edited November 13, 2017 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 5 hours ago, Sledgehead said: There's the fingerprints of another boomer story in there as well: So tony is retired at 48. And they are helping with rent. Anyone else suspect over-generous public sector pension? Or there's a lot more to this story, or the story is wrong. I'd favour the latter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nayth Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 8 hours ago, MARTINX9 said: I am tired of the statement right to buy is the cause of the lack of affordable housing. No it isn't - those homes are still being lived in of course in many cases by people getting state funding to pay their rent. The shortage of affordable housing is due to a population growth of up to 10 million in the last 20 years with another 10 million to come by 2035, a lack of building to meet that pressure (well who could!), planning policy, cheap money and government policy. Right to buy didn't create a housing shortage of a crisis - all those properties are still there housing people! Agree with you re right to buy not being the problem (in isolation) Re population growth - 10 million over 20 years is around 1% per year. People will rightly debate whether that is good, bad etc. But it is far from impossible to provide the infrastructure to meet that growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorrowToLeech Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Sour Mash said: Seems that 'boomers' can't do anything right. If they give their 'unfair' wealth to their kids they are selfishly helping to keep prices high by punting more money into the housing market (and favouring their kids) and if they keep it to themselves they are 'hoarding'. Just seems that many these days seem to think that life should somehow be inherently 'fair' even though manifestly it isn't. They need to get on with making the best of it and stop whining and expecting someone to come along and make everything all right for them. Inspiring stuff. Reminds me of Martin Luther King's famous 'Life's not fair, stop moaning about segregation and knuckle down' speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said: Inspiring stuff. Reminds me of Martin Luther King's famous 'Life's not fair, stop moaning about segregation and knuckle down' speech. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.