The reason for my pessimistic thoughts

chucky

i'm your generation Graham and owned a one bed flat when i was 20 on a 5 times mortgage and 10% deposit on a slightly below average wage. i couldn't live in it because of looking after parents so i rented it. the rent covered the mortgage and some more - which also repaid capital.

2 years later i was in the same situation again where i could buy again and did. 2 years after that i did the same again.

eventually, i consolidated some of it and bought for somewhere to live.
i've done this a few times since then. my salary has also increased dramatacally in the last 6 years so that has helped to make me mortgage free on my residential.

the reasons i could do this was because i was lucky to be in employment to get these deposits, my location also helped and my salary has shot up due to re-training myself and moving into something completely new.

the most important of all of these was the timing - i started buying in 1993 when prices were rock bottom and was able to afford mortgage repayments. this was by default rather than a plan, my parents have a similar outlook to yours btw.

i don't think you've done anything wrong but maybe your location hasn't helped and your salary doesn't help either. have you considered re-training that may open things up for a better paid job.

nightsong

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Graham lives in the south west - when his father bought according to Nationwide in 1982 the average price in the south west was £25k. By 1985 the average price was £42.5k now it's about £168k

In 1982 I was earning £5,000 p.a. which I believe was around the average national wage. So Graham's father's house would have cost about 5 times the average wage.

If the average wage is now around £25,000, an equivalent house would be £125 k. So, at £168k houses ARE more expensive in real terms.

BUT - not impossibly so, surely? Presumably a 2-bed terrace would still be affordable on that basis? I think the bottom line is exactly what other posters have suggested. In order to buy a house perople used to make sacrifices. They would live very frugally for a couple of years to afford the deposit, and they would go on living frugally until such time as their pay went up. This would involve going without things - holidays, new clothes, a new car etc.

And as for my parents' generation - we didn't have TV or a car until I was five, my mother didn't have a washing machine till I was ten and we never had central heating. My father earned an average wage, my mother didn't work when I was little and they were buying a small house. This was all perfectly normal, nobody suffered and we were quite happy with our week's holiday at the British seaside, my cousin's cast-off clothes, second-hand furniture and our home-cooked meals.

The advertising industry has convinced so many people that the only way to be happy is to spend money. This is NOT TRUE.

Rant over

Graham_Devon

So, any input from the optimists?

What I would like to know, as I have this, maybe wrongful thought in my mind, is that the optimists have either:

- Made money from property, either from increases in their homes enabling them to take equity and feel rich, or BTL.

- Got a home and are clinging on to the hope that they too will get the chance to live that life we have seen others live.

Like I say, don't argue about it, just correct me if I'm wrong, and tell us why you are an optimist and why you think a trend of high house prices, out of reach for pretty much anyone but the working couple, is better than my alternative approach.

Really2

pipkin71 wrote: »

, I do think people should live for now rather than thinking about an asset for their children, children's children ect.

Not sure if you have children, but I would have said the same before children but not now.

The decision to buy offer stablility in terms of as a residence at the moment and hopefully some kind of financial security for them in the future.

Some people save all their money for exactly the same reasons, but I would rarther have it in an asset that could mean a rent free retirement.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i'm your generation Graham and owned a one bed flat when i was 20 on a 5 times mortgage and 10% deposit on a slightly below average wage. i couldn't live in it because of looking after parents so i rented it. the rent covered the mortgage and some more - which also repaid capital.

2 years later i was in the same situation again where i could buy again and did. 2 years after that i did the same again.

eventually, i consolidated some of it and bought for somewhere to live.
i've done this a few times since then. my salary has also increased dramatacally in the last 6 years so that has helped to make me mortgage free on my residential.

the reasons i could do this was because i was lucky to be in employment to get these deposits, my location also helped and my salary has shot up due to re-training myself and moving into something completely new.

the most important of all of these was the timing - i started buying in 1993 when prices were rock bottom and was able to afford mortgage repayments. this was by default rather than a plan, myparents have a similar outlook to yours.

i don't think you've done anything wrong but maybe your location hasn't helped and your salary doesn't help either. have you considered re-training that may open things up for a better paid job.

See I wouldnt class you from my generation. I was 13 in 1993, you were 20 it seems.

I guess that is my generation, but in terms of the last few years and house prices, the age gap is huge.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So, any input from the optimists?

What I would like to know, as I have this, maybe wrongful thought in my mind, is that the optimists have either:

- Made money from property, either from increases in their homes enabling them to take equity and feel rich, or BTL.

- Got a home and are clinging on to the hope that they too will get the chance to live that life we have seen others live.

Like I say, don't argue about it, just correct me if I'm wrong, and tell us why you are an optimist and why you think a trend of high house prices, out of reach for pretty much anyone but the working couple, is better than my alternative approach.

?

house price follow what people pay nothing else.

Yes I feel richer as I have been able to make some worth while decisions but not from buying and selling for profit, just changing my accommodation and mortgage.

I have not said i would like high house prices but the safest way for them to deflate for the economy is for them to stagnate and wages to catch up.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See I wouldnt class you from my generation. I was 13 in 1993, you were 20 it seems.

I guess that is my generation, but in terms of the last few years and house prices, the age gap is huge.

yes, i see what you're saying. i've been lucky to get on that mythical ladder when prices were rising. and i say luck because that's all it is, timing.

to be fair to you i don't think you're in a bad situation looking at you medium to long term. there is no reason why you couldn't leave the south-west keeping your current home and trying somewhere else.

i know this may be a no-no for you but let your property, cover your mortgage payments by the rent and look at another area to live, rent short term and may be buy if it suits. that is only if you believe that you could imporve the quality of your life in all aspects including economically.

Graham_Devon

Like I said, I'm not moaning

I'm just looking at the country as it stands, and wondering why people keep saying house prices are now suddenly affordable.

I'm not looking for any help / advice etc. I'm looking for opinions on others situations, why they are an optimist, why they are a pessimist.

Maybe we could then understand each other a bit more instead of constantly looking for the smallest of things to fight over?

I've already been extremely lucky with money, so honestly I am not complaining, I am not poor, and have enough to afford things some could only dream of, but still, not enough to buy a future, and its that which worries me about this country.

We will have millions upon millions with no assets, no pensions if this trend continues and prices do not come down to realistic, affordable, while enjoying a life level.

How expensive will it be to fund and look after all those people who have worked all their lives, earned a decent crust, but life has been so expensive they have never got anywhere?

pipkin71

Really2 wrote: »

Not sure if you have children, but I would have said the same before children but not now.

The decision to buy offer stablility in terms of as a residence at the moment and hopefully some kind of financial security for them in the future.

Some people save all their money for exactly the same reasons, but I would rarther have it in an asset that could mean a rent free retirement.

I have two children Really.

I want to see them settled when they're older, and will do what I can to help them, but I would also like to have seen my parents enjoying life more rather than saving so much, if that makes sense.

Agree with the asset for a rent free retirement though, as my parents can still enjoy their luxuries without having to worry about the rent.

Really2

pipkin71 wrote: »

I have two children Really.

I want to see them settled when they're older, and will do what I can to help them, but I would also like to have seen my parents enjoying life more rather than saving so much, if that makes sense.

I agree but as a child I think you hate to see your parents strugle (we were poor) but also as a parent you will do anything for your kids.

We never very logical as a race are we