> Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside.
IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor.
Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money.
Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s.
You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago.
So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.)
The new figures, revealed by the LibDems, showed that in 1950, the average full-time weekly wage was worth £7.08 (equivalent to £499 in today's money) while the basic weekly state pension was £1.36 (£91.65). Last year the average wage had climbed to £549.80, but the pension was just £87.30
> But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford.
My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates.
> IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor.
Whatever, on an average salary you can’t afford to live in a council flat that 30 years ago was meant for the poor. It means that you are poorer.
> Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money.
Data says that real salaries in the UK are still below 2007.
> Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s.
You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago.
Council flats haven’t been replaced by luxury apartments, they are the same shitholes they were 40 years ago, but now you can’t afford to live in there with an average salary.
> So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.)
We spend more on housing because we stopped building houses and prices went up. One doesn’t spend an entire salary on rent because they like Netflix.
> My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates.
> I'm paying less than 1%
I’d gladly pay 19% interest if my flat cost a third and inflation was 15%.
IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor.
Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money.
Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s.
You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago.
So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.)
The new figures, revealed by the LibDems, showed that in 1950, the average full-time weekly wage was worth £7.08 (equivalent to £499 in today's money) while the basic weekly state pension was £1.36 (£91.65). Last year the average wage had climbed to £549.80, but the pension was just £87.30
> But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford.
My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates.
I'm paying less than 1%