Why can no one be positive on this forum.

justpurchased

tr3mor wrote: »

No doubt about it.

Sometimes I feel sorry for these people suckered in to buying a new-build poorly built hole on a very densely populated estate for god-knows how many times wages.

Other times I just laugh at their stupidity.

:rotfl:

I just feel sorry for the city dwellers who have to spend so much on property as the poster abover quoted 10X back in the 80s (and that when property was priced below the average trend line)
Glad i do not have to aspire to live in the country side, i have done all my life and hopefully so will my son.
Why don't you move now, property is so much cheaper in the countryside!

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

We could, but we probably won't. We're not planning to move anytime soon, so we'll opt for maximum value for money and suitabiltiy for a LONG time.;)

We're 29 now, don't expect to buy before we are thirty. have had several jobs!

But this is NOT an experience for EVERYBODY! My parents bought the house I was bought into (so about the same time you bought) for less than 3.5 times my father's (average) salary in 1979. It was a HUGE house in West London. My DH earns, comparitive to my father then, MORE, and can't buy one of the flats in that house for 3.5 times his salary. Your experience is not universal, neither is my parents...your experience proves that. We will get LESS than my parents did paying MORE. My eternal quest here is to find out where the AVERAGE of these two extreme experiences is, and so far I fail!

Well- I can see where you are coming from - but I still think, that from my experience of my other friends and co-workers my own case was far from extreme for the area I then lived in - Slough, that much maligned dump that for the simple reason of having ample employment has always been very over-priced compared to a lot of the Country. :rolleyes:

That that over-pricing spiralled out from London and the Slough/Heathrow area is probably due to the fact that "commuting" became more and more prevalent during that period - and people would think nothing of travelling from as far afield as Somerset in those days (or as one of my lodgers did - living in Milton Keynes and renting a cheap room for during the week in order to get a better paid job in Slough).

Intersting. How has employment changed in your area over that time, what impact might that have had I wonder?

Comparing this area would be of little help - at the time that I paid close to 30K for a two bedroomed flat in Langley - I could have bought a farm around here - but there was almost no other real employment - real in the terms of those days when we still had a manufacturing base and factory jobs, etc.

I agree with this. I think this confusion with class and affordability has pushed a lot of people into over stretching themselves who might have been better renting forever, but thats a gut feeling and not based on any evidence. Those who sold at the right time of course prove quite the opposite lucky them!

I don't think it is so much that - but that secretaries want to compare themselves with bank managers and "executives" who would only have been called supervisors or junior managers in those days want to compare themselves with doctors or solicitors. That the market is open to a much wider number of people these days is one of the biggest factors in driving those prices up! Supply and demand - the basic tennant of the capitalist ideal! I think it is right that this opening up occured - but suspect that those who truly would have been "middle class" back then are the ones that have suffered most change. The truly rich have in fact got richer, the poor appear little better off or better considered in real terms - but the middle sector do seem to be seeing the worst changes in their standard of living.

That's exactly what I do! In our position we are significantly worse off than we would have been 30 years ago. Dramatically in fact.
Agian, you must understand then how I feel people suggesting that for couples like us its NOT harder now!

If you are in one of those position where you would have been one of the few able to buy easily in those days - and are not so easily able to now - then I think you are probably right. What I think annoys me is those who like to give the impression they were "middle class" then, when in fact they were not (and would have been laughed at for considering themselves so) or that their present day job somehow equates with what would have been middle class then.

as one of 'these people' I agree, but I think some empathy from our side of the fence is called for too. I often see people accused of no sympathy where I think what they are feeling is relief. Personally I deplore any 'glee' in the misfortune of others, but breathe a sigh of relief that our pretty desperate nomadic existance is almost over!

I agree - it is always too easy to see ones own point of view and not others! But I do always like to try to see both sides, and to stay polite (even when sometimes annoyed - not this time) in pointing out that it wasn't all that easy in those days.

I think the hardest bit to point out to younger people is just how HUGE all of the changes since those days are! Even where to start! We had a clearer (although not nicer) system then as well. Only proffesional people were middle class, the rest (despite some of thems best pretentions;) ) were working class. It sounds as if your parents might well have been considered middle class then - I'm not sure without knowing their exact jobs. However, what we did not have is todays highly automated and throw away home existence. Many (even of the senior management level that I worked with) still did not have tumble dryers, dishwashers, or two or three car families. We did not have as many things to want to put into our houses, and very few people had the house, and new furnishings as so many expect to have now! I have actually still got a house made up of lots of things I was given and a few (mostly second hand things) that I have bought - but I content myself with the fact that I "own" my things, and that it is still a comfortable home (and quite a lovely one) without the worry of debts for things which will fall apart in two or three years time anyway. The whole ethos of the things we buy has so changed as well. No-one would have had whole wardrobes full of clothes, designer labels meant one offs that the man in the street could not dream of, the majority of new cars on the road were Company cars - and running an old banger was the norm for even people in quite good jobs for those times, and "make do and mend" was still a normal way of life for many. I think the biggest change in all that came about the late 80's early 90's - but it has been so very dramatic and swift that it is hard to pin-point it!

Thank you, like wise!
this leaves me a bit standing, from this I think you have understood we don't need with the same imperitive, a house now? Like many pot FTBs I live with my family. I'm married. My DH lives here, in one room, at weekends, and lodges in London through the week. We have moved over 13 times in five years, keeping prices down, making moves we didn't want to make. We make sacrifices too, and of course we'd rather own. Its by making sacrifices in our position, as you have in yours, we have kept our heads above water and now have a nest egg.

I hope you hadn't thought me sarcastic - it wasnt meant to be. I too, lived with parents back when first married (but that goes back to the 70's not the 80's - and before I decided to buy on my own). Going back a couple of generations before that (pre and post war) - many people just lived with their parents for the entirety of their married lives - so you will see why I say it is so hard to compare hard with hard iyswim.

As to the second part, I think I just decided early on to do it the other way - start with a flat (I could have had a nicer bed-sit type one - but that would have left me just as skint - but with only a bed sitting room and no easy way to take a lodger unless I was willing to lease my body as well;) . Not an option - no-one would have wanted to pay £30 a week for that - even then!:rotfl:

Then, as my income improved with my experience and years, and I did each property up and made them worth a bit more than they would have been in lousy condition, I could climb up to the next rung. I think that was probably the most usual way of doing it then - certainly most of the people I knew then and now know in similar situations to my own had to do it along those lines.

It seems that you have chosen to go with saving more - and joining the ladder a little higher up. Not criticising - that's personal choice. I did get annoyed when that was people who had never even saved a penny in deposit and still wanted a third time house at a first time price on a 100% mortgage - iyswim.

May I add how nice it is to discuss opposing views with a calm, reasonable and polite person

Thank you.:o I don't really think ranting helps. I think discussion could - and I can certainly see other peoples opposing points of view in this matter clearly and can understand their frustration - I certainly felt it in my day as well. I like to debate - I try not to rant:o . Feel free to give me a quick slap if I do go off on one - I usually reserve them for people who are so smug and pompous and condescending that they deserve a big fall to bring their vanity back in line. I don't find you one of those - but there are a fair few on the house price threads who are - and their gloating will probably one day come back and bite them in the ...............:D

neverdespairgirl

justpurchased wrote: »

Average wage 1983 £7700, not exactly an average house then and 10X average income. but they did well the average £1m in london in todays money cost £124k back then.

They weren't on an average income - my Dad was doing well at the Bar. But doing well today at the Bar, with two of us (OH and me) we couldn't get a mortgage on that type of house now without a big capital injection.

Interesting link, thanks for posting it.

It wasn't this exact house, but very similar:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-17616442.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy

Another similar house, same street:

20/02/2007£900,000 Semi F 53, St Johns Park, London, SE3 7JW

and another:

18/04/2005 £790,000 Semi F 41, St Johns Park

justpurchased

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

They weren't on an average income - my Dad was doing well at the Bar. But doing well today at the Bar, with two of us (OH and me) we couldn't get a mortgage on that type of house now without a big capital injection.

Interesting link, thanks for posting it.

It wasn't this exact house, but very similar:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-17616442.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy

Another similar house, same street:

20/02/2007£900,000 Semi F 53, St Johns Park, London, SE3 7JW

and another:

18/04/2005 £790,000 Semi F 41, St Johns Park

It just shows you how different property is over the UK (i replied to your other post)
I can see why the south must be frustrated, An average house where I live is 5X average wage at its peak (2007 prices)

Perhaps this is showing the south could lead the falls this time?
Wish you luck because i know know your situation (two proffesional, people, Young child saving hard.)
How weird though after every thing said today we are like the mirror of what is different for the south to the north.
What is that progam where they got kids from differnt backgounds and areas and revisted the 10 years on etc!!

moggylover

Pobby wrote: »

Lol @ mewbie. NDsGs point regarding housing in the 80`s is right. I had many a friend that bought in there own at the start of the 80`s. South east, typical decent 3 bed terrace would be £20 to £25k. One of my aunts house was sold, 3 bed big semi in a decent part of town for £30k. In `78 I bought a very unusual 2/3 bed single story cottage for £15k and that was in a really nice part of town.

Not sure which bit of the South East that was - but I lived in Surrey (Guildford) from 76 -78 - and that £15K would only have got you a Wimpy house then (cos that is what ex and I were renting and wanted to buy) and your cottage would have had to have been in poor condition in that area to have been that cheap.

Ex was a soldier - I was a secretary - our JOINT income was just under £5K - and they would only lend three times his (which was the lower:eek: ) plus once times mine maximum - 2.5 + 1 was the norm. That multiplier got us about £10K - which was useless both in Surrey and in Slough except for a flat. It would have done very little at all in London.

tr3mor

justpurchased wrote: »

I just feel sorry for the city dwellers who have to spend so much on property as the poster abover quoted 10X back in the 80s (and that when property was priced below the average trend line)
Glad i do not have to aspire to live in the country side, i have done all my life and hopefully so will my son.
Why don't you move now, property is so much cheaper in the countryside!

I don't live in the city at the moment. I live in a village in Cheshire, but it's a bit dull. There aren't enough hills or beaches for my liking.

Work dictates that I stay here for a while. Once I've saved a few more pennies I'm going to move to Northumberland and do something else.

neverdespairgirl

tr3mor wrote: »

I don't live in the city at the moment. I live in a village in Cheshire, but it's a bit dull. There aren't enough hills or beaches for my liking.

Work dictates that I stay here for a while. Once I've saved a few more pennies I'm going to move to Northumberland and do something else.

Where in Cheshire? My parents were both born in what was then Cheshire, and is now Merseyside - Wallasey.

neverdespairgirl

justpurchased wrote: »

Wish you luck because i know know your situation (two proffesional, people, Young child saving hard.)

We are unlike my parents were in the 1980s, because, sadly, we do have a cash stash.

We have been saving, and are continuing to do so (living on less than you earn is always a good move! So we don't spend as if there's no tomorrow) but OH's parents both died when I was pregnant with our son, who is now 3, and OH was in the unfortunate position of inheriting some money when he was 26.

justpurchased

tr3mor wrote: »

I don't live in the city at the moment. I live in a village in Cheshire, but it's a bit dull. There aren't enough hills or beaches for my liking.

Work dictates that I stay here for a while. Once I've saved a few more pennies I'm going to move to Northumberland and do something else.

Exactly work dictates, like everyone else really. Believe me it’s not that exciting in the country, just low crime. I saw a badger for the first time in ages a few weeks ago near the centre of Birmingham! For some reason you only see dead ones in the country now!

tr3mor

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Where in Cheshire? My parents were both born in what was then Cheshire, and is now Merseyside - Wallasey.

tr3mor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Lymm
Post Count: 1,980
Thanked 1,205 Times in 659 Posts

:money: