Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
'4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who [a]made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19&version=NKJV
"And thus spake Sunil unto his PB Disciples: 'Know ye that the Lord God did NOT bother marrying the mother of His only begotten son!' " - Psunils, 2023-08-24.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
I have met incels, there problems are their own, they generally have a shitty attitude to women and believe its a womans job to serve, they generally have also poor hygiene because lack of grooming is somehow manly. Also found most of them cant keep a decent job because their shitty attitude and sense of entitlement is to great and work colleagues won't put up with it.
Exactly.
Step number one of getting into a good relationship is sorting your own shit out. Get a decent job, look after yourself and treat women (or men) as equals rather than objects.
Instead their attitude towards women is reminiscent of the average 14-year old at an all boys school towards girls. Like a foreign species
Even goofy sci-fi from the 80s got that right.
RIMMER: No, it’s just that I’m ill at ease with the opposite sex. LISTER: It’s because you see them as some alien species that needs to be conquered with trickery. They’re not — they’re people.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
People have always wanted gods and goddesses for partners since Ug went out with his club to find Ugina.
This has no bearing on who they eventually decide to marry. What has a greater bearing is the number of mentally adolescent males who seem to think a partner is a right rather than a privilege and who make no effort to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.
Most men by 40 are well past sulky adolescence. Yet still almost a third of women at 40 have never been married and are single
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I’m the opposite to you with the suit. I despise wearing a suit. Jeans, trainers and a half decent t-shirt are my best clobber for the one day a week I have drag my sorry arse into the office now. Rest of the time I largely exist in a pair of scabby old DPM combats that I bought just to wear walking the dog across the fields. But they are just so bloody comfortable - and the myriad voluminous pockets so useful - that I wear them all the time. I’ve always got some dog biscuits and shit bags stashed away somewhere. You’d be surprised how often it’s useful to have dog biscuits or shit bags on you, even if you’re not with your dog. Thanks to the DPM they never look dirty. Smell a bit mind, but you get used to that after the first month or so. My missus isn’t the biggest fan, which is all part of the fun.
Your second sentence reminds me of a quote from Loaded 20 years or so ago now about Jamie Oliver - ‘nothing a decent haircut and a spell in the armed forces wouldn’t sort out’. For our younger readers, Loaded was the seminal, semi-pornographic 90s lad mag.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
I have met incels, there problems are their own, they generally have a shitty attitude to women and believe its a womans job to serve, they generally have also poor hygiene because lack of grooming is somehow manly. Also found most of them cant keep a decent job because their shitty attitude and sense of entitlement is to great and work colleagues won't put up with it.
Exactly.
Step number one of getting into a good relationship is sorting your own shit out. Get a decent job, look after yourself and treat women (or men) as equals rather than objects.
Instead their attitude towards women is reminiscent of the average 14-year old at an all boys school towards girls. Like a foreign species
Behave as if you're already in a relationship and you'll be fine.
That's why dating apps are such a nightmare. It's putting men in a situation where they can't demonstrate they are a good sort all round. The only mitigation, if you manage to get a date, is to be polite to the waiting staff etc
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
That was a really weird aspect of the trial. You’d have expected the defence to have either said she was insane, or that the evidence was rubbish and circumstantial, given that she was obviously looking at a life sentence on conviction - but her defence didn’t bring that up at all.
The attitude of the defendant can lock out certain defences, I imagine.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I’m the opposite to you with the suit. I despise wearing a suit. Jeans, trainers and a half decent t-shirt are my best clobber for the one day a week I have drag my sorry arse into the office now. Rest of the time I largely exist in a pair of scabby old DPM combats that I bought just to wear walking the dog across the fields. But they are just so bloody comfortable - and the myriad voluminous pockets so useful - that I wear them all the time. I’ve always got some dog biscuits and shit bags stashed away somewhere. You’d be surprised how often it’s useful to have dog biscuits or shit bags on you, even if you’re not with your dog. Thanks to the DPM they never look dirty. Smell a bit mind, but you get used to that after the first month or so. My missus isn’t the biggest fan, which is all part of the fun.
Your second sentence reminds me of a quote from Loaded 20 years or so ago now about Jamie Oliver - ‘nothing a decent haircut and a spell in the armed forces wouldn’t sort out’. For our younger readers, Loaded was the seminal, semi-pornographic 90s lad mag.
I work for a law firm and I wear trainers and a polo shirt. 21st century baby.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
See mu post re the Graun article.
And I thought you approved of religious communities? Anglican nunneries such as the Clewer sisters?
At least if more of them became nuns they would be devoting themselves to God and service of others, many nuns are teachers or produce organic food so contribute a lot to society as well
Step number one of getting into a good relationship is sorting your own shit out. Get a decent job, look after yourself and treat women (or men) as equals rather than objects.
Instead their attitude towards women is reminiscent of the average 14-year old at an all boys school towards girls. Like a foreign species
Oh that takes me back, kinda.
I was not only a 14 year old at an all boys school but I was also a good Muslim who had to remain chaste for his arranged marriage.
It was at university that I first experienced females.
Being a non-drinker actually helped, I was the wingman for so many females but boy me talking to women as an 18/19 year old was horrific. I genuinely was shy then.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
People have always wanted gods and goddesses for partners since Ug went out with his club to find Ugina.
This has no bearing on who they eventually decide to marry. What has a greater bearing is the number of mentally adolescent males who seem to think a partner is a right rather than a privilege and who make no effort to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.
Most men by 40 are well past sulky adolescence. Yet still almost a third of women at 40 have never been married and are single
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
Ah so now its women should get married regardless of if they find someone they deem suitable so you can have tax cuts.....you wonder why I think you a despicable human being?
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I’m the opposite to you with the suit. I despise wearing a suit. Jeans, trainers and a half decent t-shirt are my best clobber for the one day a week I have drag my sorry arse into the office now. Rest of the time I largely exist in a pair of scabby old DPM combats that I bought just to wear walking the dog across the fields. But they are just so bloody comfortable - and the myriad voluminous pockets so useful - that I wear them all the time. I’ve always got some dog biscuits and shit bags stashed away somewhere. You’d be surprised how often it’s useful to have dog biscuits or shit bags on you, even if you’re not with your dog. Thanks to the DPM they never look dirty. Smell a bit mind, but you get used to that after the first month or so. My missus isn’t the biggest fan, which is all part of the fun.
Your second sentence reminds me of a quote from Loaded 20 years or so ago now about Jamie Oliver - ‘nothing a decent haircut and a spell in the armed forces wouldn’t sort out’. For our younger readers, Loaded was the seminal, semi-pornographic 90s lad mag.
I entirely agree with you - only with me it's rubber gloves in the pocket, to deal with the various dead birds and similar that Mrs C likes me to clear away on our walks lest our neighbours' children step in the mess.
I understand that Tom of Finland also liked haircuts and smart snappy dress, uniforms for preference.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
See mu post re the Graun article.
And I thought you approved of religious communities? Anglican nunneries such as the Clewer sisters?
At least if more of them became nuns they would be devoting themselves to God and service of others, many nuns are teachers or produce organic food so contribute a lot to society as well
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Well, imagine they were left to their own devices. They wouldn't know whether to cry over the darning or rejoice over some pretty flowers.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
Trump says the 2020 was a fruit bread consisting of nuts, spices, and dried or candied fruit, coated with powdered sugar or icing sugar and often containing marzipan
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
Just a shame that Tory policy is so against that. Housing, NI taxation disproportionately on the working, etc. etc.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
I'm sure you were the smartest person at all those places.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
The only time I ever wore a morning suit to work, was when I was working at Ascot.
Trump says the 2020 was a fruit bread consisting of nuts, spices, and dried or candied fruit, coated with powdered sugar or icing sugar and often containing marzipan
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Well, imagine they were left to their own devices. They wouldn't know whether to cry over the darning or rejoice over some pretty flowers.
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
Just a shame that Tory policy is so against that. Housing, NI taxation disproportionately on the working, etc. etc.
All the extra housing in the world won't make much of a difference if young women don't want to settle down with young men and get married and live in them and raise a family.
100 years ago most rented and had had their first child by 30 on lower incomes
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I’m the opposite to you with the suit. I despise wearing a suit. Jeans, trainers and a half decent t-shirt are my best clobber for the one day a week I have drag my sorry arse into the office now. Rest of the time I largely exist in a pair of scabby old DPM combats that I bought just to wear walking the dog across the fields. But they are just so bloody comfortable - and the myriad voluminous pockets so useful - that I wear them all the time. I’ve always got some dog biscuits and shit bags stashed away somewhere. You’d be surprised how often it’s useful to have dog biscuits or shit bags on you, even if you’re not with your dog. Thanks to the DPM they never look dirty. Smell a bit mind, but you get used to that after the first month or so. My missus isn’t the biggest fan, which is all part of the fun.
Your second sentence reminds me of a quote from Loaded 20 years or so ago now about Jamie Oliver - ‘nothing a decent haircut and a spell in the armed forces wouldn’t sort out’. For our younger readers, Loaded was the seminal, semi-pornographic 90s lad mag.
I entirely agree with you - only with me it's rubber gloves in the pocket, to deal with the various dead birds and similar that Mrs C likes me to clear away on our walks lest our neighbours' children step in the mess.
I understand that Tom of Finland also liked haircuts and smart snappy dress, uniforms for preference.
I wasn’t aware of Tom of Finland’s oeuvre, but it’s good to see he’s a real man’s man.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
OK, what set him off this time?
People disagreed. Almost ready to move to stage two, someone else claims there is a pile on which is just no gosh darnit.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
OK, what set him off this time?
People disagreeing with him that women should have a choice of getting married or not apparently unmarried women by 40 are preventing his tax cuts.
Trump says the 2020 was a fruit bread consisting of nuts, spices, and dried or candied fruit, coated with powdered sugar or icing sugar and often containing marzipan
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
That was a really weird aspect of the trial. You’d have expected the defence to have either said she was insane, or that the evidence was rubbish and circumstantial, given that she was obviously looking at a life sentence on conviction - but her defence didn’t bring that up at all.
In any murder case there are a number of defences. The partial one of diminished responsibility; the complete one of insanity; and the two significant ones here, (a) there wasn't a murder so no-one did it and (b) there was a murder and as I didn't do it, someone else did.
In common sense Letby is insane - obviously, but in law not. (The defence will have looked at all of that of course). SFAICS the Letby defence was that in no case was murder done or attempted by anyone - it was all nature or luck or accident or negligence or bad judgement etc. I don't think any part of the defence was that in some or all cases someone else did it.
It would therefore be of overwhelming importance to provide independent expert analysis and opinion of the records to show that this was a possible interpretation of the data - of which there will have been a massive amount. If a decent defence on these lines had been possible it would have taken up days of court time.
The fact they didn't is compelling.
In trials the absences of evidence are often the most interesting feature. This was true in the trivial Wagatha case; but another recent example is that in the Cashman case neither side called the intended victim, Nee, to give evidence.
Always look for the silences, and the non-barking dog.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
That was a really weird aspect of the trial. You’d have expected the defence to have either said she was insane, or that the evidence was rubbish and circumstantial, given that she was obviously looking at a life sentence on conviction - but her defence didn’t bring that up at all.
In any murder case there are a number of defences. The partial one of diminished responsibility; the complete one of insanity; and the two significant ones here, (a) there wasn't a murder so no-one did it and (b) there was a murder and as I didn't do it, someone else did.
In common sense Letby is insane - obviously, but in law not. (The defence will have looked at all of that of course). SFAICS the Letby defence was that in no case was murder done or attempted by anyone - it was all nature or luck or accident or negligence or bad judgement etc. I don't think any part of the defence was that in some or all cases someone else did it.
It would therefore be of overwhelming importance to provide independent expert analysis and opinion of the records to show that this was a possible interpretation of the data - of which there will have been a massive amount. If a decent defence on these lines had been possible it would have taken up days of court time.
The fact they didn't is compelling.
In trials the absences of evidence are often the most interesting feature. This was true in the trivial Wagatha case; but another recent example is that in the Cashman case neither side called the intended victim, Nee, to give evidence.
She should have claimed to be a climate activist helping to prevent climate change by reducing population in the public interest
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
Oh good, he's started on the "your mother is a *****" logical response.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
OK, what set him off this time?
People disagreed. Almost ready to move to stage two, someone else claims there is a pile on which is just no gosh darnit.
More the fact the most unpopular ideology here is not pro Brexitism or Corbyn socialism but social conservatism.
Express socially conservative views on PB and you almost guarantee a pile on
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
All this about you being a traditional conservative but you have never explained why you support a party whose most important policy you disagree with. The Conservative Party is a Brexit party and you are a remainer.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
I'm sure you were the smartest person at all those places.
The reason I agreed to get married again was the opportunity to wear a morning suit.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
OK, what set him off this time?
People disagreed. Almost ready to move to stage two, someone else claims there is a pile on which is just no gosh darnit.
More the fact the most unpopular ideology here is not pro Brexitism or Corbyn socialism but social conservativism.
Express socially conservative views on PB and you almost guarantee a pile on
You love it, you're not fooling anyone about that, as you deliberately express things in as blunt and 'shocking' a way possible. And people love to respond - so that's fine, just no one needs sympathy or condemning.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
The only time I ever wore a morning suit to work, was when I was working at Ascot.
I absolutely hated my visits to Ascot, full of coked/drunk idiots looking for a scrap, plus the escorts who struggled to take no for an answer.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
OK, what set him off this time?
People disagreed. Almost ready to move to stage two, someone else claims there is a pile on which is just no gosh darnit.
More the fact the most unpopular ideology here is not pro Brexitism or Corbyn socialism but social conservativism.
Express socially conservative views on PB and you almost guarantee a pile on
"God is single - marriage is Blasphemy!" - Psunils, 2023-08-24.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It does when it affects the stability of society as a whole, men unable to find partners also makes for instability, hence why Andrew Tate has such a following amongst young males.
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
OK, what set him off this time?
People disagreed. Almost ready to move to stage two, someone else claims there is a pile on which is just no gosh darnit.
More the fact the most unpopular ideology here is not pro Brexitism or Corbyn socialism but social conservativism.
Express socially conservative views on PB and you almost guarantee a pile on
You love it, you're not fooling anyone about that, as you deliberately express things in as blunt and 'shocking' a way possible. And people love to respond - so that's fine, just no one needs sympathy or condemning.
Sorry I disagree. A racist needs calling out for their views, so does a mysognist, a homophobe or a transphobe or any other phobe.
HYUFD starts of with aporophobia and sashays into mysogynist in my view
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
Don't be so glib. It was a shit time for most people. Very nearly 100 years ago my grandmother took out life insurance. on my newborn father. Because the child mortality rate was so high that they had to make sure they could afford the funeral.
Fortunately, they didn't need to; hence my bemusement when I found the policy a few years back and actually claimed on it, on Granny's behalf - and shared it amongst the diaspora of her descendants.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
Good evening, BigG!
I am not sure why @HYUFD has a habit of irritating so many but his views are absurd on this subject
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
Don't be so glib. It was a shit time for most people. Very nearly 100 years ago my grandmother took out life insurance. on my newborn father. Because the child mortality rate was so high that they had to make sure they could afford the funeral.
Fortunately, they didn't need to; hence my bemusement when I found the policy a few years back and actually claimed on it, on Granny's behalf - and shared it amongst the diaspora of her descendants.
That's quite a story. Did it not have a time limit then? Stupid insurers if so...
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
The only time I ever wore a morning suit to work, was when I was working at Ascot.
I absolutely hated my visits to Ascot, full of coked/drunk idiots looking for a scrap, plus the escorts who struggled to take no for an answer.
Trump says the 2020 was a fruit bread consisting of nuts, spices, and dried or candied fruit, coated with powdered sugar or icing sugar and often containing marzipan
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
The only time I ever wore a morning suit to work, was when I was working at Ascot.
I absolutely hated my visits to Ascot, full of coked/drunk idiots looking for a scrap, plus the escorts who struggled to take no for an answer.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
Don't be so glib. It was a shit time for most people. Very nearly 100 years ago my grandmother took out life insurance. on my newborn father. Because the child mortality rate was so high that they had to make sure they could afford the funeral.
Fortunately, they didn't need to; hence my bemusement when I found the policy a few years back and actually claimed on it, on Granny's behalf - and shared it amongst the diaspora of her descendants.
Indeed and my wife's granny had 13 children, two of which died in infancy as did my wife's baby sister in 1942
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
The only time I ever wore a morning suit to work, was when I was working at Ascot.
I absolutely hated my visits to Ascot, full of coked/drunk idiots looking for a scrap, plus the escorts who struggled to take no for an answer.
How were the Fiestas and Sierras?
I think TSE preferred a back Seat.
I was with my then girlfriend.
The escorts did get me into real trouble with her when I suggested we hire one.
'You know how you complain about having nobody to talk to after sex, well I think I've got the perfect solution.'
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
I bet you wear a lounge suit.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
When?
Inter alia, at work, nights out, weddings, formal events, Ascot, and when I was invited to Buckingham Palace.
The only time I ever wore a morning suit to work, was when I was working at Ascot.
I absolutely hated my visits to Ascot, full of coked/drunk idiots looking for a scrap, plus the escorts who struggled to take no for an answer.
How were the Fiestas and Sierras?
I think TSE preferred a back Seat.
I was with my then girlfriend.
The escorts did get me into real trouble with her when I suggested we hire one.
'You know how you complain about having nobody to talk to after sex, well I think I've got the perfect solution.'
Sorry that was TMI.
So she did not agree to a @NickPalmer solution then?
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
It's odd. Even if you can't find an expert who is willing to say black is white (and often you can), you can at least find one who is willing to cast a reasonable doubt.
But, as you say, the defence surely had their reasons.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
Some people believe women have a duty to have children.
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
What HYUFD also seems to forget is that some women struggle to conceive/bring a baby to term.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
I don't disagree but the later age of first marriage and/or first child doesn't help with that either, hence more also turn to IVF.
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
I've told you several times I have friends who decided not to have kids as they cannot afford their own homes.
This is why the policy you support and defend.
100 years ago most rented and never owned their own homes, they still had 2 children normally by 30.
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
Don't be so glib. It was a shit time for most people. Very nearly 100 years ago my grandmother took out life insurance. on my newborn father. Because the child mortality rate was so high that they had to make sure they could afford the funeral.
Fortunately, they didn't need to; hence my bemusement when I found the policy a few years back and actually claimed on it, on Granny's behalf - and shared it amongst the diaspora of her descendants.
That's quite a story. Did it not have a time limit then? Stupid insurers if so...
It was one of those Man from the Pru jobs - eeeeenormous sheet of paper with a nice engraving of Pru HQ. I've kept it - Mrs C threatened me with castration fi I ever discarded it as she is so taken with this bit of family history. Totally out of proportion to the reality. M from the P came round every week for the 1d premium or something. I would need to fish it out but think they stopped collecting it when Dad grew through the critiical years for dipth, scarlet fever, etc. etc. and it wasn't worth the bother. It just remained in the Pru for almopst a century. I was pleasantly surprised to get just over a grand to share out (thank heaven for Paypal and for my cousins doing it for their children) but not quite so impressed when, out of interest, I ran the sums through the BoE inflation calculator. It certainly didn't keep up with funeral costs, that's for sure.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
Some people believe women have a duty to have children.
Yes and the technical term for those people is knuckle dragging mysogynist arseholes
To the surprise of absolutely no-one, bosses at the Mail are extremely unhappy with the Boris Johnson column. They expected him to be much more petty, using the column as a platform to attack the government at every turn; creating news rather than regurgitating it. But – shock! – it's turned out to be lazy and boring.
They're currently preparing to draw straws to figure out which of them will need to take him out for lunch to politely inform him that he needs to be a lot more interesting if he wishes to continue drawing the handsome salary they're paying him.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
BB writes: "Matt Hancock is a shitty tipper. He left his server a £5 tip on a £300 bill in a swanky London hotel bar. In addition, the staff had to watch him groping his girlfriend all evening.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
Last year (to 31/12/22) they had a deficit of £803K following a deficit of over £700K the year before. As a result they are now absolutely insolvent with net assets of (£219K). The central party owes the local parties a share of the membership income which they collect on their behalf. The unpaid share is over £800k. The party has £100k in the bank so I trust that the local treasurers are not holding their breath awaiting payment.
The SNP have therefore burnt through the £600k that they were supposed to be holding in trust for the next referendum, they have burnt through the accumulated reserves of the party and they are only able to operate by failing to pay the money due to their branches as they fall due.
Many have claimed that the SNP is vindictive towards private enterprise and business in Scotland but in fairness these accounts show very clearly that their incompetence is directed at all organisations in the country up to and including themselves. Whelk stalls simply don't come close.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
With hanging you can sell the rope by the inch to collectors, that adds on the top of ticket prices to watch
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
"God is single - marriage is Blasphemy!" - Psunils, 2023-08-24.
Marriage has suited Mrs C and myself for 60+ years and seems to have suited our children. One grandchild has followed us, one hasn’t and the rest haven’t got there yet!
Last year (to 31/12/22) they had a deficit of £803K following a deficit of over £700K the year before. As a result they are now absolutely insolvent with net assets of (£219K). The central party owes the local parties a share of the membership income which they collect on their behalf. The unpaid share is over £800k. The party has £100k in the bank so I trust that the local treasurers are not holding their breath awaiting payment.
The SNP have therefore burnt through the £600k that they were supposed to be holding in trust for the next referendum, they have burnt through the accumulated reserves of the party and they are only able to operate by failing to pay the money due to their branches as they fall due.
Many have claimed that the SNP is vindictive towards private enterprise and business in Scotland but in fairness these accounts show very clearly that their incompetence is directed at all organisations in the country up to and including themselves. Whelk stalls simply don't come close.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
"God is single - marriage is Blasphemy!" - Psunils, 2023-08-24.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
With hanging you can sell the rope by the inch to collectors, that adds on the top of ticket prices to watch
Very frowned upon nowadays in the public sector, unless of course one is a MP. I wonder how Mr Pierrepoint got away with it (if indeed he tried)?
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
Marriage has suited Mrs C and myself for 60+ years and seems to have suited our children. One grandchild has followed us, one hasn’t and the rest haven’t got there yet!
OKC no one is saying marriage is bad, merely that people shouldn't feel the need to get married to someone that doesn't meet their suitability criteria. My son got married this year. He found someone he liked enough to stay with so did she. Neither of them settled for someone that didn't meet those criteria. HYUFD is suggesting its wrong for women to be picky
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
Username checks out
I did say I am a person of faith, that faith guides me in my personal life and the decisions I make. However it is a shitty way to run a country
Marriage has suited Mrs C and myself for 60+ years and seems to have suited our children. One grandchild has followed us, one hasn’t and the rest haven’t got there yet!
And next year my wife and I join you in being married for 60 years.
We have three married children 57 52 and 48, the eldest only marrying in 2015 and has no children, our daughter married in 1998 and has 2 children, and our youngest married in 2021 and has three children 12, 10 and 1
Not sure what @HYUFD would say about our youngest but who cares !!!!
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
Username checks out
Not necessarily; many pagans are/were very religious. Hell, they used to teach the doctrines, still do, in the halls of Eton and Balliol.
Especially as IIRC it's defined as someone who is not of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Which leaves the Druids, the imperial state religion of Rome, and everyone else.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
People have always wanted gods and goddesses for partners since Ug went out with his club to find Ugina.
This has no bearing on who they eventually decide to marry. What has a greater bearing is the number of mentally adolescent males who seem to think a partner is a right rather than a privilege and who make no effort to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.
Most men by 40 are well past sulky adolescence. Yet still almost a third of women at 40 have never been married and are single
Comments
RIMMER: No, it’s just that I’m ill at ease with the opposite sex.
LISTER: It’s because you see them as some alien species that needs to be conquered with trickery. They’re not — they’re people.
I wear morning suits, the sign of a real gentleman.
Your second sentence reminds me of a quote from Loaded 20 years or so ago now about Jamie Oliver - ‘nothing a decent haircut and a spell in the armed forces wouldn’t sort out’. For our younger readers, Loaded was the seminal, semi-pornographic 90s lad mag.
That's why dating apps are such a nightmare. It's putting men in a situation where they can't demonstrate they are a good sort all round. The only mitigation, if you manage to get a date, is to be polite to the waiting staff etc
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
I was not only a 14 year old at an all boys school but I was also a good Muslim who had to remain chaste for his arranged marriage.
It was at university that I first experienced females.
Being a non-drinker actually helped, I was the wingman for so many females but boy me talking to women as an 18/19 year old was horrific. I genuinely was shy then.
I understand that Tom of Finland also liked haircuts and smart snappy dress, uniforms for preference.
The traumas they endure and sneering they have to go through.
Think it through, man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2WK_eWihdU
Having children without a partner is not ideal for those children either.
I am a traditional conservative not a libertarian
Truth Social says Election WAS STOLLEN
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1694782933863670218/photo/1
The ideal time to have a child is in your 20s or early 30s conception and body wise even
This is why the policy you support and defend.
What's hilarious is he is still just obsessed with ratings - he should welcome a speedy televised trial, it will be very well watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
100 years ago most rented and had had their first child by 30 on lower incomes
In any case the most NIMBY party are the LDs you vote for now not the Tories
In common sense Letby is insane - obviously, but in law not. (The defence will have looked at all of that of course). SFAICS the Letby defence was that in no case was murder done or attempted by anyone - it was all nature or luck or accident or negligence or bad judgement etc. I don't think any part of the defence was that in some or all cases someone else did it.
It would therefore be of overwhelming importance to provide independent expert analysis and opinion of the records to show that this was a possible interpretation of the data - of which there will have been a massive amount. If a decent defence on these lines had been possible it would have taken up days of court time.
The fact they didn't is compelling.
In trials the absences of evidence are often the most interesting feature. This was true in the trivial Wagatha case; but another recent example is that in the Cashman case neither side called the intended victim, Nee, to give evidence.
Always look for the silences, and the non-barking dog.
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
Express socially conservative views on PB and you almost guarantee a pile on
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
HYUFD starts of with aporophobia and sashays into mysogynist in my view
Fortunately, they didn't need to; hence my bemusement when I found the policy a few years back and actually claimed on it, on Granny's behalf - and shared it amongst the diaspora of her descendants.
Eat too much of it and it makes me feel so sickly.
The escorts did get me into real trouble with her when I suggested we hire one.
'You know how you complain about having nobody to talk to after sex, well I think I've got the perfect solution.'
Sorry that was TMI.
I know it's genuine because it's got a bit of veneer missing.
But, as you say, the defence surely had their reasons.
https://twitter.com/Missijusthere/status/1694759177204228607
To the surprise of absolutely no-one, bosses at the Mail are extremely unhappy with the Boris Johnson column. They expected him to be much more petty, using the column as a platform to attack the government at every turn; creating news rather than regurgitating it. But – shock! – it's turned out to be lazy and boring.
They're currently preparing to draw straws to figure out which of them will need to take him out for lunch to politely inform him that he needs to be a lot more interesting if he wishes to continue drawing the handsome salary they're paying him.
BB writes: "Matt Hancock is a shitty tipper. He left his server a £5 tip on a £300 bill in a swanky London hotel bar. In addition, the staff had to watch him groping his girlfriend all evening.
Edit: I see we have done this
Last year (to 31/12/22) they had a deficit of £803K following a deficit of over £700K the year before. As a result they are now absolutely insolvent with net assets of (£219K). The central party owes the local parties a share of the membership income which they collect on their behalf. The unpaid share is over £800k. The party has £100k in the bank so I trust that the local treasurers are not holding their breath awaiting payment.
The SNP have therefore burnt through the £600k that they were supposed to be holding in trust for the next referendum, they have burnt through the accumulated reserves of the party and they are only able to operate by failing to pay the money due to their branches as they fall due.
Many have claimed that the SNP is vindictive towards private enterprise and business in Scotland but in fairness these accounts show very clearly that their incompetence is directed at all organisations in the country up to and including themselves. Whelk stalls simply don't come close.
Be useful for the public finances though.
We have three married children 57 52 and 48, the eldest only marrying in 2015 and has no children, our daughter married in 1998 and has 2 children, and our youngest married in 2021 and has three children 12, 10 and 1
Not sure what @HYUFD would say about our youngest but who cares !!!!
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/topic/Death_Penalty?content=trackers
Especially as IIRC it's defined as someone who is not of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Which leaves the Druids, the imperial state religion of Rome, and everyone else.
What next, defining Brits as Welsh-speakers?