my,my how prices have changed over the years. :-)
A 3 bedroom,living room & parlour(havn't heard that term for years), in this area was selling for £2,500.
If I knew then what I know now I'd be cruising the med and lying on a beach under palm trees. :-)
-- Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite
50s, how about late 90's! Mine would have been half the price if that!
That sounds a lot of money for a small house in the north for that time. And yes, hindsight can make you cry at times.
Like my first house cost me £11,950 and is now worth £200,000.
My present house cost me £16,250 and is only £140,000
Ho-hum
I think my parent's house was around that value, at a similar time. But I remember my Dad talking about taking out his first mortgage, which he said had him lying awake at nights with worry - it was for 'hundreds' of pounds! So to an extent, it's all relative.
Cue another "I remember when I were a lad it only cost..." thread
David
I don't think it is relative. You could pay the mortgage from one salary in those days.
In message , The3rd Earl Of Derby writes
And what was the average wage?
Yes, and in fact they would only take one salary into account when determining the amount you could borrow in those days. This is precisely the reason that house prices have risen so quickly - the more you can borrow the more you can offer. It has bu**er all to do with Drivel's shortage of land stupidity.
About £700.
A really good wage for a skilled man was £1000.
Because they never lent you too much. They assessed your income and what you could pay. Now they throw money at you. And when people get into problems paying the scumbags send the bailiffs in. Many courts have wiped out debts because they considered the lenders too cavalier; they want it both ways.
The problem is that we spend far too much of our incomes on mortgages because house prices are far too high, for shoddy little boxes. The problems is land and planning. Release land, relax planning and house prices will come down. Or rather not rise as homes are built on cheaper land.
Total bollocks!!!! Only 7.65% of the UK is settled. Of this 5% is gardens and other green areas, making only 2.5% paved. The French have no central housing quotas. Build anywhere you like as long as the local community agrees. You see new homes being built way high up in the Alps. It works. Our Stalinist planning system has failed miserably, serving only large billionaire landowners and billionaire property companies; about 20 companies build 80% of all homes. BTW, the media is always on about massive consumer debt, giving the impression people are reckless. 80% of that debt is mortgages, to keep a small shoddily built tiny box over our heads.
The land and planning system is the root problem. We are always in a state of boom and bust in housing with always a large shortage of homes. If we had the French system then the private sector would sort it all out. All we do is use our taxpayers money to attempt, and always fail, to fill a housing gap that never goes away. A needless housing gap.
In countries which don't having housing shortages like we do, if borrowing gets cheap they don't all run out and get a mortgage, because housing is not in short supply, because they have proper land and planning laws. Get it? Nah you don't.
We are all better off except in one thing...housing. Just after WW2 my Dad bought a 14" B&W TV for over £100. (Electronics have dropped 14% in the past year). We can have "cheapish" cars, and go on cheapish Spanish holidays.
In the 1950s the only types of people who had two or three cars in the family, TVs and radios in every room, drank good wine and went on Spanish holidays, etc, were the small in number upper middle class. So, the working class equal what they did then, except in one thing.....housing. In the
1950s the upper middle class had very large houses as well. The land and planning laws have curtailed the quality of life of the vast majority of the people in the UK.Our Continental neighbours have the same level of consumer goods as us, built they have a higher quality of life because they have larger, better built and cheaper homes. High density is for insects.
You could buy a new car for £500. So after tax you had to work for about 8 or 9 months to buy a new car. What is it today?
In 1960 a very good salary earned by the more fortunate of my schoolmates dads in a posh job was £20/week. He could have been exaggerating but that was believable.
My father as a skilled manual worker (Tailor) earned £5-£7/week :-( .
Father in law (a self employed barber) bought a 3-bed semi in Headingley in 1962 for £2k, (now worth £200k +) and also bought a a 4 bed Victorian detached house with attached shop for £1k. which he paid back by way of a private interest free mortgage aranged with the seller at £100/year over 10 years! I.E. 2 pounds a week!
He used the shop as a barbers shop and put students in the house and by 1970 he had 6 students paying £6 -£7 per week. He said he never had any real difficulty getting paid. Even if occasionally some of them had difficulties, and borrowed money off him, even after getting chucked out of Uni, they came back after leaving Uni and settled up what they owed.
Tell that to t' t' kids today, and they'll not believe yer.
/voices off on/
So £2000 invested in 1962. What would that be worth now? Probably more than £200,000. That's if he paid for the house in cash.
My business contacts in Spain, Italy, and Greece live in rented apartments. The drag is that the basic shell of the place can't be varied. Marble floors in Athens might be nice, but occasionally some choice would be nice. Ditto polished hardwood floors in Milano.
In Germany less than half do.
I am getting old, the kids have buggered off. The rented appartment in the centre of the city scenario is looking more and more attractive.
DG
About 15k numerically at 5%/year compound - in real terms far less if you include the effects of inflation.
Over 43 years 12% on average would return £281,000. Which about what the stock market would return. So a good spread of unit trusts would be a better bet than property and no hassle.
Out of curiosity I looked up some of my fathers old build records and found from 1950 Townsend rd Dunstable the build cost was £1259 and the size 954 sq ft. Incidentally my first house bought in 1967 Battersea London cost £400.
-In message , Doctor Drivel writes
Except that we live in a property and, whether owned or rented, it has a cost. So the money has been made with money which would have been spent anyway.
In addition, because most of us have mortgages, the gearing multiples the gain quite substantially.
I wonder what the figures are when comparing a typical mortgage, (amount and interest payment), with capital growth and rent.
In this case it was a second property. The only good point about property is that it stops you spending the money when you see the bank balance. In the "long term", money always makes more money.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.