Does anyone still think the housing market isn't broken?

Vonhelmet · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:39

Russinating said:
Absolutely. But the same still applies just to a lesser extent; how many people want to live in West Wales, Cornwall, Northern Scotland etc.

Well, that's a good question, but there's land that could be used in the vicinity of more urban areas with some actual jobs nearby.

CREATIVE!11 · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:41

Vonhelmet said:
Do you not think it might be better if perhaps we didn't go? Or didn't go quite so soon? Or are you happy to write off the human race just because lol whatever?

LabR@t said:
sorry misanthropist here.

Vonhelmet said:
Maybe just kill yourself then, rather than taking us all down with you in your apathy, huh?

LabR@t said:
Didn't know I was that powerful to bring you all down? lol. It's not apathy I think we should just get on with less moaning.

Not gonna lie, this exchange made me lol....

LabR@t · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:42

Vonhelmet said:
Yes, but once again you're missing the point. We can't farm enough land in this country to sustain our population.

So building over it all is the answer? Lol

With rationing I am sure we would cope.

Vonhelmet · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:43

LabR@t said:
So building over it all is the answer? Lol

This ridiculous argument came up last time. Have I suggested paving over all of Britain? No, of course not. Don't be stupid.

Randomface74 · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:44

Vonhelmet said:
I don't know whether it's cause or effect that women have to work and kids go into childcare. Cost of housing and living in general is high enough that people have to work two jobs unless one of them is minted. It would be a huge step back to say women have to stay at home and not work.

IMO it's a step forward.

If all the women stopped working tomorrow:
- The family would be financially better off because the men would earn twice as much and the family wouldn't have to pay childcare. The family would have MORE money than they currently do.
- The children would also be better raised because it would be a parent doing it.

Note that I don't really care if it's the woman or the man who stops working, whichever can earn the most should work.

I think where we went wrong is the classic 'equal outcome' instead of 'equal opportunity'. We've ended up forcing women to work, which isn't the same as giving them the choice.

It's the family, especially the child, who have paid the price. And it's the top 1% who have benefited.

LabR@t · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:44

Meatball said:
I don’t have a car on finance, I drive a 12 year old Peugeot! I have no debts and no real modern luxuries apart from a PS4 Pro.

I’m lucky that my partner and I can afford rent and run a run London whilst still affording good food and occasional treats. We both earn good wages yet and save every month yet the hopes of ever owning are distant pipe dream.

I am not cry baby generation, I am realistic with my expectations.

Your choice to live in London.

Vonhelmet · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:46

billysielu said:
IMO it's a step forward.

If all the women stopped working tomorrow:
- The family would be financially better off because the men would earn twice as much

Not going to argue anywhere beyond this utterly ridiculous assumption. Not a chance this would happen. No way. You can't pay people twice as much because one person can't do the work of two people. That's actually the main stumbling block - business wouldn't stand for losing half the workforce.

LabR@t · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:46

billysielu said:
IMO it's a step forward.

If all the women stopped working tomorrow:
- The family would be financially better off because the men would earn twice as much and the family wouldn't have to pay childcare. The family would have MORE money than they currently do.
- The children would also be better raised because it would be a parent doing it.

Note that I don't really care if it's the woman or the man who stops working, whichever can earn the most should work.

I think where we went wrong is the classic 'equal outcome' instead of 'equal opportunity'. We've ended up forcing women to work, which isn't the same as giving them the choice.

It's the family, especially the child, who have paid the price. And it's the top 1% who have benefited.

One income house hold should be a priority for happy Society, shouldn't need both parents working to the bone to raise a family.

Vonhelmet · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:47

LabR@t said:
Your choice to live in London.

You might want to consider where the jobs are in this country.

LabR@t · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:48

Vonhelmet said:
You might want to consider where the jobs are in this country.

I don't live in London and I have a job, as do millions of other people?

Kenai · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:48

LabR@t said:
One income house hold should be a priority for happy Society, shouldn't need both parents working to the bone to raise a family.

Sounds a bit entitled.

LabR@t · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:50

Kenai said:
Sounds a bit entitled.

Society and families were more secure before it took 2 wages to buy a house.

I know my children are happier not having to have mum at work.

Kenai · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:53

LabR@t said:
Society and families were more secure before it took 2 wages to buy a house.

Times move on, why should you expect to be able to raise a family the way previous generations did? It's just pathetic entitlement, wanting it all,etc.

Am I doing it right yet?

LabR@t · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:55

Kenai said:
Times move on, why should you expect to be able to raise a family the way previous generations did? It's just pathetic entitlement, wanting it all,etc.

Am I doing it right yet?

We are happy living life this.

She could go back to work and we could have bigger, more holidays,a newer car etc but quality parenting is worth more to us.

Randomface74 · 14 Oct 2017 at 12:58

Raising your kids the way you think is best is NOT entitlement, it's parenting.

Kenai · 14 Oct 2017 at 13:01

billysielu said:
Raising your kids the way you think is best is NOT entitlement, it's parenting.

Just prodding at the way a millennial daring to think about home ownership for a reasonable cost is apparently all because of their entitlement complexes but expecting to be able run one income households isn't, that's just benefiting society.

Just another bit of hypocrisy from those on the right side of inflated house prices.

purplesky · 14 Oct 2017 at 13:02

I'm a landlord and have made a tidy sum on property over the last 15 years. The more house price increase, the more unaffordable they become therefore more people have to rent. It's kept me happy, allowed me to have nice things, go on holiday abroad 4 times a year and not have to work. I am however getting to the point where I don't really need to generate more income so will probably sell up. The properties I have I own outright so I should easily bag around £900K - £1.1M.

purplesky · 14 Oct 2017 at 13:13

LabR@t said:
Higher rates = higher inflation = higher wages

It's all relative

The higher rates and higher inflation parts are correct - they're coming. Unfortunately, higher wages aren't. The globalists saw to that.
In the future it's more likely more people will be living in cardboard boxes under street lighting in the local park with plenty of smashed cider bottles nearby.

Efour · 14 Oct 2017 at 13:13

purplesky said:
I'm a landlord and have made a tidy sum on property over the last 15 years. The more house price increase, the more unaffordable they become therefore more people have to rent. It's kept me happy, allowed me to have nice things, go on holiday abroad 4 times a year and not have to work. I am however getting to the point where I don't really need to generate more income so will probably sell up. The properties I have I own outright so I should easily bag around £900K - £1.1M.

What a great contribution to the discussion.
Has he rubbed your noses in it enough?
He doesn't need your money anymore so might throw the crumbs off to you soon.

The basic stuff of life, a roof over your head.
I'm so glad I left this British house ownership crap behind.
You are all screwed in SE England. Only way out is for the market to collapse, one way or another.

Edrof · 14 Oct 2017 at 13:14

purplesky said:
I'm a landlord and have made a tidy sum on property over the last 15 years. The more house price increase, the more unaffordable they become therefore more people have to rent. It's kept me happy, allowed me to have nice things, go on holiday abroad 4 times a year and not have to work. I am however getting to the point where I don't really need to generate more income so will probably sell up. The properties I have I own outright so I should easily bag around £900K - £1.1M.

Have you been able to raise your rental prices in that time, due to more people having to rent because of house-prices being unaffordable?