Gainsborough is not the bucolic idyll that the name suggests. I wouldn't recommend it, having worked in Lincs myself. Incidentally, both those houses asking prices are substantially less than they were a decade ago. The top one sold for £61000 in 2008, and has lost over a third of its value.
I didn't say I fancied it myself but it does help explain why Lincolnshire has become the promised land for many Eastern Europeans.
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
So over 50% of 35-44 year olds are still able to get on the property ladder and buy their first property even if those in their early thirties and those in their twenties cannot. Thus with the young mainly renting and voting Labour and the old mainly property owners, it will be 35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election and if fewer of them get on the property ladder that boosts Labour, if more get on the property ladder that boosts the Tories
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
So over 50% of 35-44 year olds are still able to get on the property ladder and buy their first property even if those in their early thirties and those in their twenties cannot. Thus with the young mainly renting and voting Labour and the old mainly property owners, it will be 35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election and if fewer of them get on the property ladder that boosts Labour, if more get on the property ladder that boosts the Tories
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
If you own that place in Gainsborough, and are down 35% in absolute terms, perhaps 50% in real terms, then you may well be jealous of those who rented. At least they do not have a millstone of negative equity around their necks.
Homeowners with negative equity are not likely to have a feelgood factor. The Tories need to combine rising home ownership with rising real estate values. One of these alone may well turn people away from the party.
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
So over 50% of 35-44 year olds are still able to get on the property ladder and buy their first property even if those in their early thirties and those in their twenties cannot. Thus with the young mainly renting and voting Labour and the old mainly property owners, it will be 35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election and if fewer of them get on the property ladder that boosts Labour, if more get on the property ladder that boosts the Tories
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Happy to believe you, but my point concerned the advisability of translating agegroup data into cohort data before projecting back/forward
35-44 still seems to be the age most get on the property ladder, if that rose to 45+ then yes that would be a problem but there is no evidence of that yet
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
So over 50% of 35-44 year olds are still able to get on the property ladder and buy their first property even if those in their early thirties and those in their twenties cannot. Thus with the young mainly renting and voting Labour and the old mainly property owners, it will be 35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election and if fewer of them get on the property ladder that boosts Labour, if more get on the property ladder that boosts the Tories
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Happy to believe you, but my point concerned the advisability of translating agegroup data into cohort data before projecting back/forward
35-44 still seems to be the age most get on the property ladder, if that rose to 45+ then yes that would be a problem but there is no evidence of that yet
Most of my gtrandchildrens friends (mid to late 20's) who are buying, or even renting seem to have very small places, where 'a third one' would be difficult to cope with. Apart from all the other issues.
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
But how will they feel, if like that house in Gainsborough sinks rather than rises in value?
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
So over 50% of 35-44 year olds are still able to get on the property ladder and buy their first property even if those in their early thirties and those in their twenties cannot. Thus with the young mainly renting and voting Labour and the old mainly property owners, it will be 35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election and if fewer of them get on the property ladder that boosts Labour, if more get on the property ladder that boosts the Tories
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Happy to believe you, but my point concerned the advisability of translating agegroup data into cohort data before projecting back/forward
35-44 still seems to be the age most get on the property ladder, if that rose to 45+ then yes that would be a problem but there is no evidence of that yet
Most of my gtrandchildrens friends (mid to late 20's) who are buying, or even renting seem to have very small places, where 'a third one' would be difficult to cope with. Apart from all the other issues.
Yes but we all have to start somewhere, especially if you are buying anywhere near the centre of a major city
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
But how will they feel, if like that house in Gainsborough sinks rather than rises in value?
Will they become less likely to vote Tory?
Hence it is a fallacy to suggest the Tories should try and reduce the value of house prices, build more affordable housing yes but not try and crash the housing market
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
But how will they feel, if like that house in Gainsborough sinks rather than rises in value?
Will they become less likely to vote Tory?
Hence it is a fallacy to suggest the Tories should try and reduce the value of house prices, build more affordable housing yes but not try and crash the housing market
Increasing supply while decreasing demand is not going to square that circle.
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
"The average" is the mean average.
I was suggesting using a median average might give you a more helpful picture, or something like it probably need to group a few years together to do it. As a mean can easily be skewed by a few numbers very different from the others.
Edit: Actually I might have been thinking of modal average but median could be similarly useful for above reasons.
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
But how will they feel, if like that house in Gainsborough sinks rather than rises in value?
Will they become less likely to vote Tory?
Hence it is a fallacy to suggest the Tories should try and reduce the value of house prices, build more affordable housing yes but not try and crash the housing market
Increasing supply while decreasing demand is not going to square that circle.
Increasing supply of affordable housing for first time buyers will not make much difference to house prices but will move more from renting to owning, in any case it is the owners of larger detached houses especially who are most affected by house price falls.
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Happy to believe you, but my point concerned the advisability of translating agegroup data into cohort data before projecting back/forward
35-44 still seems to be the age most get on the property ladder, if that rose to 45+ then yes that would be a problem but there is no evidence of that yet
Most of my gtrandchildrens friends (mid to late 20's) who are buying, or even renting seem to have very small places, where 'a third one' would be difficult to cope with. Apart from all the other issues.
Yes but we all have to start somewhere, especially if you are buying anywhere near the centre of a major city
I'm referring to suburban Essex. Must have a chat with my relatives in the NW about it; some of the next generation are moving towards wanting/getting their own place
And of course, moving out of the city centre consequent upon the arrival of 'a third one' has other financial consequences, such as train fares.
If you are buying a house that cheap then you are looking out for brothels, crack dens and the like, the kind of local amenities that indicate affordability.
Add in some posh restaurants and that would be ideal for the SeanT of a decade ago.
You definitely meet some interesting people in the rougher end of town and in some ways it can be friendlier than a much wealthier place, although you are more likely to get mugged as well, pros and cons.
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Not straight away no but as their built up equity in the property and its value rises they will become increasingly likely to vote Tory.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
"The average" is the mean average.
I was suggesting using a median average might give you a more helpful picture, or something like it probably need to group a few years together to do it. As a mean can easily be skewed by a few numbers very different from the others.
Edit: Actually I might have been thinking of modal average but median could be similarly useful for above reasons.
The 37 figure was based on an estimate of first purchase and the original figures already showed that 35 too 44 was the age a majority were property owners
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Here's the chart from the ONS report, look at the incredible reversal of home ownership by age over the years
In 1991 over a third of 16-24 year olds owned a home, now it is less that 10%.
for 25-24 year olds it went from ~66% home ownership in 1991 to ~33% ownership
In 1991 ~78% of 35-44 year olds owned their home, now it is ~58%. Conversely in 1991 52% of 75+ year olds owned there home, now it's ~75%
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Happy to believe you, but my point concerned the advisability of translating agegroup data into cohort data before projecting back/forward
35-44 still seems to be the age most get on the property ladder, if that rose to 45+ then yes that would be a problem but there is no evidence of that yet
Most of my gtrandchildrens friends (mid to late 20's) who are buying, or even renting seem to have very small places, where 'a third one' would be difficult to cope with. Apart from all the other issues.
Yes but we all have to start somewhere, especially if you are buying anywhere near the centre of a major city
I'm referring to suburban Essex. Must have a chat with my relatives in the NW about it; some of the next generation are moving towards wanting/getting their own place
And of course, moving out of the city centre consequent upon the arrival of 'a third one' has other financial consequences, such as train fares.
I live in suburban Essex and even after train fares, or tube fares in this part of Essex, as London house prices are so high a significant saving is still made (in Hastings almost £1000 per month cheaper than living in central London albeit with a lengthy commute) https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/16/commuting
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Actually they would have got on the housing ladder 7 years earlier if the average age of a first time buyer is 37, by 44 they would be looking to buy a bigger property most likely.
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Actually they would have got on the housing ladder 7 years earlier if the average age of a first time buyer is 37, by 44 they would be looking to buy a bigger property most likely.
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
We had a discussion where I pointed out the potential problems of a mean average and you mentioned the 35-44 figure. As the mean average could be brought down by a small minority with wealthier parents buying much younger I mentioned and then you mentioned that figure I was going off that.
We have a much more individualistic society these days, probably tracing back to the shift to neo liberalism. China probably hasn't got the same house price problem we have. Even if all these things do match up perfectly I don't think young voters are going to be impressed by being told that its their parents fault for not being Chinese, or that they should get their parents to help them buy a house now in exchange for care in later years. This certainly isn't what their parents generation had to do. This is the ticking time bomb.
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Actually they would have got on the housing ladder 7 years earlier if the average age of a first time buyer is 37, by 44 they would be looking to buy a bigger property most likely.
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
We had a discussion where I pointed out the potential problems of a mean average and you mentioned the 35-44 figure. As the mean average could be brought down by a small minority with wealthier parents buying much younger I mentioned and then you mentioned that figure I was going off that.
We have a much more individualistic society these days, probably tracing back to the shift to neo liberalism. China probably hasn't got the same house price problem we have. Even if all these things do match up perfectly I don't think young voters are going to be impressed by being told that its their parents fault for not being Chinese, or that they should get their parents to help them buy a house now in exchange for care in later years. This certainly isn't what their parents generation had to do. This is the ticking time bomb.
52% of first time buyers have parental support now with deposits etc so plenty already do. Their parents may have got on the housing ladder earlier but most of the grandparents of the 30 to 40 year old generation never got on the housing ladder at all, we still had Tory governments in the 1920s and 1930s even so, home ownership makes it more likely a voter will vote Tory it does not mean without it they never will
Ahh the younger generation is simply more like the poorer generation that preceded the baby boomers, well that is okay then. Somebody should just explain that too them and I am sure they will quickly convert into Conservatives and start relishing the idea of working hard to keep the more successful generation above them happy.
A couple of comments, particular with regards to people getting on the property ladder at £20k/home.
Firstly, it can't be the case, for any reasonable period of time, that property transacts at less than rebuild cost (unless, of course, you have a shrinking population, and therefore shrinking demand for housing).
If houses cost less than their bricks and mortar, nothing will get built, because anything built will cost a lot more than buying a "second hand" home.
The 1980s may have been a unique time for purchasers, and we should expect their return: interest rates had fallen, there was mortgage interest tax relief, and homes traded for below rebuild value. We now ha
Secondly, I think we forget how scarred people were in the late 90s by the early 90s crash. In real terms, UK property fell 38% peak-to-trough. Now inflation softened the impact, but that put a lot of people in negative equity.
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Actually they would have got on the housing ladder 7 years earlier if the average age of a first time buyer is 37, by 44 they would be looking to buy a bigger property most likely.
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
We had a discussion where I pointed out the potential problems of a mean average and you mentioned the 35-44 figure. As the mean average could be brought down by a small minority with wealthier parents buying much younger I mentioned and then you mentioned that figure I was going off that.
We have a much more individualistic society these days, probably tracing back to the shift to neo liberalism. China probably hasn't got the same house price problem we have. Even if all these things do match up perfectly I don't think young voters are going to be impressed by being told that its their parents fault for not being Chinese, or that they should get their parents to help them buy a house now in exchange for care in later years. This certainly isn't what their parents generation had to do. This is the ticking time bomb.
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Actually they would have got on the housing ladder 7 years earlier if the average age of a first time buyer is 37, by 44 they would be looking to buy a bigger property most likely.
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
Where are you getting data on average age for first home purchase in China?
Careful, you're running into the cohort/agegroup problem.
The "35-44 year olds" you refer to were 35-44 in 2013/4, so they were born in the 1969-1978 cohort. They are now 39-48.
If we assume the next election is in 2022, then the "35-44 year old mortgage holders who will decide the next general election" will have been born in the 1978-1987 cohort, so in 2013/4 they would have been in the 26-35 age group.
Given the average age of a first time buyer was 37 in August 2016 there is little reason to think the age of first time buyers has got any older than the 35-44 year old age group 4 years later than that survey was taken in 2014
Happy to believe you, but my point concerned the advisability of translating agegroup data into cohort data before projecting back/forward
35-44 still seems to be the age most get on the property ladder, if that rose to 45+ then yes that would be a problem but there is no evidence of that yet
Most of my gtrandchildrens friends (mid to late 20's) who are buying, or even renting seem to have very small places, where 'a third one' would be difficult to cope with. Apart from all the other issues.
Yes but we all have to start somewhere, especially if you are buying anywhere near the centre of a major city
I'm referring to suburban Essex. Must have a chat with my relatives in the NW about it; some of the next generation are moving towards wanting/getting their own place
And of course, moving out of the city centre consequent upon the arrival of 'a third one' has other financial consequences, such as train fares.
I live in suburban Essex and even after train fares, or tube fares in this part of Essex, as London house prices are so high a significant saving is still made (in Hastings almost £1000 per month cheaper than living in central London albeit with a lengthy commute) https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/16/commuting
If you are spending three hours a day, 23 days a month, then you are spending roughly 70 hours a month commuting.
Assume that rent + travel pass is £1,000/month difference (which seems a little high, but I'll go with it), then you need to be earning less than about £35,000/year to make the hours pay.
If you are spending three hours a day, 23 days a month, then you are spending roughly 70 hours a month commuting.
Assume that rent + travel pass is £1,000/month difference (which seems a little high, but I'll go with it), then you need to be earning less than about £35,000/year to make the hours pay.
If you are classing travelling time as the same as per hour wage as working then it could depend on how much you enjoy your job and how much you enjoy the commute. If you have a job you hate but a relatively nice commute were you relax and read some news then it might be worth it to have a far lower hourly rate for your travel.
Obviously not getting paid to travel but saving money is the same thing.
Also interesting to note on China's housing prices, I wonder if the problem is as acute for younger people over there though, huge rises but I assume from much lower bases.
44 is well into middle age, if you've been working from 18, let alone 16 you are closer to retirement than starting work and these people are just about getting on the property ladder... Surely this is very wrong.
Actually they would have got on the housing ladder 7 years earlier if the average age of a first time buyer is 37, by 44 they would be looking to buy a bigger property most likely.
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
Where are you getting data on average age for first home purchase in China?
Ahh the younger generation is simply more like the poorer generation that preceded the baby boomers, well that is okay then. Somebody should just explain that too them and I am sure they will quickly convert into Conservatives and start relishing the idea of working hard to keep the more successful generation above them happy.
Well not entirely as by middle age the younger generation is still far more likely to be on the housing ladder than their grandparents generation
Ahh the younger generation is simply more like the poorer generation that preceded the baby boomers, well that is okay then. Somebody should just explain that too them and I am sure they will quickly convert into Conservatives and start relishing the idea of working hard to keep the more successful generation above them happy.
If they take that selfish an attitude then tough, if they refuse to help with their parents care and their parents in turn do not help them get on the housing ladder that is their own fault and if they end up renting longer term they have nobody to blame but themselves
Comments
http://www.yourmoney.com/mortgages/average-age-first-time-buyer-now-37/
That is in general, never been to Gainsborough before.
HYUFD the problem is those annoyed/relieved they've finally scraped their way onto the property ladder or not exactly likely to be turning straight into grateful Tory voters.
I also wonder if we have an average age of 37 how much that could be skewed by the relatively small number of young adults with very wealthy parents getting them on the ladder much younger with a much larger group with less family wealth actually getting on generally a few years later than the average.
Homeowners with negative equity are not likely to have a feelgood factor. The Tories need to combine rising home ownership with rising real estate values. One of these alone may well turn people away from the party.
The average is the average and the fact a majority of 35 to 44 year olds are home owners (even if many of them had parental assistance) suggests that is the tipping point age when the average voter will start to consider voting Tory, indeed given Labour won under 35s in both 2015 and 2017 that would seem to be the case
Will they become less likely to vote Tory?
I was suggesting using a median average might give you a more helpful picture, or something like it probably need to group a few years together to do it. As a mean can easily be skewed by a few numbers very different from the others.
Edit: Actually I might have been thinking of modal average but median could be similarly useful for above reasons.
And of course, moving out of the city centre consequent upon the arrival of 'a third one' has other financial consequences, such as train fares.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/16/commuting
As I said on the previous thread in China more young people get on the housing ladder earlier as parents pay their son's deposit or buy their first property on marriage albeit with the hope of being cared for in that home for much of their final years
We have a much more individualistic society these days, probably tracing back to the shift to neo liberalism. China probably hasn't got the same house price problem we have. Even if all these things do match up perfectly I don't think young voters are going to be impressed by being told that its their parents fault for not being Chinese, or that they should get their parents to help them buy a house now in exchange for care in later years. This certainly isn't what their parents generation had to do. This is the ticking time bomb.
Firstly, it can't be the case, for any reasonable period of time, that property transacts at less than rebuild cost (unless, of course, you have a shrinking population, and therefore shrinking demand for housing).
If houses cost less than their bricks and mortar, nothing will get built, because anything built will cost a lot more than buying a "second hand" home.
The 1980s may have been a unique time for purchasers, and we should expect their return: interest rates had fallen, there was mortgage interest tax relief, and homes traded for below rebuild value. We now ha
Secondly, I think we forget how scarred people were in the late 90s by the early 90s crash. In real terms, UK property fell 38% peak-to-trough. Now inflation softened the impact, but that put a lot of people in negative equity.
Assume that rent + travel pass is £1,000/month difference (which seems a little high, but I'll go with it), then you need to be earning less than about £35,000/year to make the hours pay.
Obviously not getting paid to travel but saving money is the same thing.
Also interesting to note on China's housing prices, I wonder if the problem is as acute for younger people over there though, huge rises but I assume from much lower bases.
It might be sensible for May to remove him now before she is removed herself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39512599