14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Changing point again. You said " people in their 60s and 70s".

 

You need to put interest rates on your graph too.

 

Its you not having the intelligence to understand the point .

 

People buying a house in the 1970 would now be in the 60's and 70's .

   People who are now 60/70 could easily buy a house in 1970 .

   Having two 70s (Year and age) in the equation probably  confused you 

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

Its you not having the intelligence to understand the point .

 

People buying a house in the 1970 would now be in the 60's and 70's .

   People who are now 60/70 could easily buy a house in 1970 .

   Having two 70s (Year and age) in the equation probably  confused you 

No confusion. 

 

Only someone constantly moving the goalposts. You.

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now all you have to recognize young people are being priced out of the market.

 

House price inflation, low wages, insecure employment, and importantly the buy to let industry in direct competition with young people for low cost homes.

 

 

It's as though the demand is outstripping the supply in the housing market whereas the supply is outstripping the demand in the jobs market.  Any idea what the cause of this could be?  

3 hours ago, James105 said:

 

It's as though the demand is outstripping the supply in the housing market whereas the supply is outstripping the demand in the jobs market.  Any idea what the cause of this could be?  

I expect a bit of made up stuff on your part:

 

“As of October 2023, approximately 9.7 percent of businesses in the United Kingdom were experiencing worker shortages. Over a quarter of accommodation and food sector businesses had a staff shortage at this time, the most of any industry sector.”

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1369216/uk-worker-shortages-by-sector/#:~:text=As of October 2023%2C approximately,most of any industry sector.

 

 

3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's a great help. Proves my point hands down.

 

Thank you.

Proves your point by replacing the national average wages you are using as the basis of your argument with the very much lower local wage data.

 

Give up with the utter nonsense.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Proves your point by replacing the national average wages you are using as the basis of your argument with the very much lower local wage data.

 

Give up with the utter nonsense.

It all proves you simply have not been keeping up.

 

My reasonings are explained throughout this thread.

 

You choose to ignore the bits you don't like. As usual. The links are there, the one you provided was extremely helpful, and the figures are there. 

 

 

54 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It all proves you simply have not been keeping up.

 

My reasonings are explained throughout this thread.

 

You choose to ignore the bits you don't like. As usual. The links are there, the one you provided was extremely helpful, and the figures are there. 

 

 

I’m not ignoring anything.

 

Here’s a simple fact, you argue the affordability of houses on the basis of a particular region’s prices and the national wage average.

 

I have provided the specific wage average for the region for which you quoted house prices, and no surprise at all it’s significantly lower than the national wage average. Blowing a gaping hole in your argument.

 

You’ve been comparing apples with oranges and don’t like me calling out your misleading use of prices and wages.

 

Please forgive me for having done so.

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not ignoring anything.

 

Here’s a simple fact, you argue the affordability of houses on the basis of a particular region’s prices and the national wage average.

 

I have provided the specific wage average for the region for which you quoted house prices, and no surprise at all it’s significantly lower than the national wage average. Blowing a gaping hole in your argument.

 

You’ve been comparing apples with oranges and don’t like me calling out your misleading use of prices and wages.

 

Please forgive me for having done so.

 

No. You haven't read what I wrote. There are no gaping holes blown. You need to take of your biased reading glasses and try again.

5 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. You haven't read what I wrote. There are no gaping holes blown. You need to take of your biased reading glasses and try again.

You need to make a detailed and specific replies to Chomper's objections rather than just make unbacked assertions.

Awful story this. 

 

Substitute pragmatic with autocratic.

 

 

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

You need to make a detailed and specific replies to Chomper's objections rather than just make unbacked assertions.

My reasonings are clearly explained and backed up, with links as he likes, in my posts. Chomper is trolling. No need to give detailed replies again. 

Starmer accuses Sunak of planning to scrape the winter fuel payments in May this year

 

Watch the short videos in the clip

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/keir-starmer-tories-winter-fuel-raid-weeks-before-election/

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

My reasonings are clearly explained and backed up, with links as he likes, in my posts. Chomper is trolling. No need to give detailed replies again. 

Pointing out the glaring flaws in your reasoning and doing so with links to credible sources is not trolling.

 

But I do understand you don’t like your erroneous arguments being called out with relevant facts and I have apologized for having done so.