The reason for my pessimistic thoughts

lemonjelly

Interesting OP Graham. As much as anything for enlightening us about each others ages!

I seem to fall inbetween you & chucky, in more than one sense perhaps.

I graduated in 1998. I started working part time at the age of 16, after years doing paper rounds etc. Just over a year after graduating I got my first job. I've never been disappointed with my wages, though always aspired to climb the ladder. I'd go so far as to say I earn a decent wage.

For the past 4 and a half years, I've held down 2 jobs - one full time, and another part time, working weekends/nights/evenings. The idea being that the 2nd job could be siphoned off & used as a deposit.

However, every month/year, HPI has essentially moved the goalposts and any ambition of owning a property has likewise moved away from me.

I have a decent level of savings in addition to a deposit put aside (in comparison with my peers - I actually think that I am the only one of my peers with any actual savings).

Trouble is, as someone says above, many have become too greedy - the want it now brigade have, to an extent, taken over. In addition, most people I know are living week to week/month to month on their income (perhaps including a bit of overdraft in this). Most people have lost any facility to save.

HPI may have, to an extent eroded my ability to buy on my own. & being single (currently) means that I will in no way get a mortgage I can realistically afford to repay. This is a viewpoint I'd review if I got into a good relationship.

For what it is worth, I did work for a housing association, and I have to say I wouldn't touch shared ownership with a bargepole. Only my opinion!

In addition, I am pessimistic, as I have been thinking for years that the level of consumer borrowing is unsustainable, and the proverbial has to hit the fan soon. I've been thinking that since 2001-2. We've had a further 6-7 years of increased consumer borrowing since then, so it has actually got worse. Therefore, IMO there is more proverbial yet to hit the fan!

Really2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think that in the past, people used to want to give their kids a good start rather than worrying about providing for them when they were adults or assuming that they should be helped not to struggle. It was always expected that by the time that you were settled and in your thirties it was your turn to help your parents!

Did they? many people had many children to hedge child mortality.

As far as i am aware many of the older generation were savers not spenders.

My point is not helping them as adults but having a mortgage free retirement and capital to pass down after death to my family (that may not be my child but my child's children)
That as always happened even relatives who have had nothing in life but still left a bit of money to me as a grand child.

I didn't think grandparent leaving money to grand children as ever changed.

The truth is 40-50 years ago by the time you were 18-30 your grand parents or possibly your parents were already dead.

That inheritance was there when needed now there is a fair chance yo will be near retirement age before your parents peg it (thank god)

Really2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

:T:T:T:T:T

There seem to be so many people now who think that their success as parents can be measured by how much their adult children depend on them. If they're emotionally and financially independent parents find that they're criticised for not being a "close" family.

can I say !!!!!!? my son is not even 2 that is not an adult but providing a stable roof over his head i see as a good thing.

Who the hell said anything about supporting him as an adult!!!

Again some bears make up something about supporting adults, never mentioned just living rent free in retirement and then leaving my estate after the death.

Every one does that not just home owners!!!

The truth is i am more likely to support my parents retirement than them supporting me /:rotfl:

tomstickland

I was thinking about this last night. I'm 36, work in a pretty well paid job and I bought my flat 3 years ago. Someone my parents knew about 10 years ago was in a similar position and bought a detached house on an estate for about the same income. Now, I'm quite happy with my modest flat. I was offered mortgages for twice what it cost, but when I was looking I couldn't actually buy a lot more house with the extra money. If prices remain where they are then I can only see people sacrificing more of their income to pay for a reasonable place to live.

Edit: 10 years ago we knew someone about 26 years old who worked as a policeman. He'd bought a new detached house on an estate. Now, of course, both my examples might have had massive inheritances.

pipkin71

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Isn't the mark of a good parent that they raised their children into self-sufficient adults? I really don't understand this mania for wanting to financially help 'children' that are well into their 20's or 30's.

My folks provided me with good role models, were (and still are) there for me when I needed them and ensured I emerged from my happy childhood prepared for adulthood. There has never been any talk of financial handouts, nor would I want there to be.

I think that a good parent is there for their children, raises them to be strong, independent adults who are able to be self sufficient, I agree.

My helping my children as best I can isn't necessarily to do with finances, however I do think that some parents want to help their children financially, and if they can do that, then it is their choice. Helping because a parent wants to rather than because the child relies on them to would be the better option

penguine

I haven't read the entire thread, but have some pessimistic thoughts of my own to add. I think heavily indebted countries like the US and the UK are in for an extremely difficult time for the next decade, if not longer, and that those who are in their 20s and 30s are going to bear the burden of this disproportionately.

I'm not denying that individual choices affect the financial situation someone ends up in, that previous generations worked as hard as we do, or that in general there has been a growing trend towards spending rather than saving (along with a rise in personal debt). However there are wider economic factors at play here, and much of the baby boomer generation has had a much better time of it than we will.

I know quite a few people who bought property in the 70s when it was easier than it is now to pick up a large house that needed a lot of work but was still a good bargain. These people have now retired, often at 60, with a good pension -- which is not going to be the case for most people working now.

It's going to be long hard slog to climb out of the national fiscal pit we (and our leaders) have got us into. If house prices continue to rise (which I don't believe they will, but I'm acknowledging the possibility that I'm wrong) then renting needs to become more secure and socially acceptable because for a lot of the population, owning a house won't be an option. If house prices fall and interest rates rise, then those in their 20s and 30s who bought in the past decade are going to face negative equity along with rising mortgage payments, combined with very little chance of building up a good pension for their retirement.

I don't think, frankly, that there's a lot to be optimistic about at the moment, but I'd be grateful if someone could convince me otherwise.

mewbie_2

penguine wrote: »

I don't think, frankly, that there's a lot to be optimistic about at the moment, but I'd be grateful if someone could convince me otherwise.

How about when you retire your life expectancy will be greater, and the up coming generation will have to work even harder and pay more tax to support you. Assuming that your generation works out how to screw your children.

I'm slightly !!!!ed that people are resentful of the baby boomers. House and pension - well not for all of them. And it wasn't deliberately engineered by them that the younger ones would suffer for their 'lap of luxury' living.

The economy will recover. House prices will drop further. And life will go on. It's tough starting, it's tough living, and generally it's tough. But I guess towards the end of your working life - after 40/50 years at the 'coal face' - you might be entitled to a few luxuries and some comfort. When you need it most. Make no mistake about this - for most people it's not stolen, it's earned.

penguine

mewbie wrote: »

How about when you retire your life expectancy will be greater, and the up coming generation will have to work even harder and pay more tax to support you. Assuming that your generation works out how to screw your children.

I'm slightly !!!!ed that people are resentful of the baby boomers. House and pension - well not for all of them. And it wasn't deliberately engineered by them that the younger ones would suffer for their 'lap of luxury' living.

The economy will recover. House prices will drop further. And life will go on. It's tough starting, it's tough living, and generally it's tough. But I guess towards the end of your working life - after 40/50 years at the 'coal face' - you might be entitled to a few luxuries and some comfort. When you need it most. Make no mistake about this - for most people it's not stolen, it's earned.

I think my life expectancy was going to be greater anyway, most of my grandparents and great-grandparents lived into their 90s. But I take your point, there are drawbacks and benefits to being young in any era, and I don't wish I'd been born 20 years earlier -- especially as I'd be 20 years older now .

I don't exactly feel resentful of baby boomers. I don't feel envious of the ones I know, even when I visit their cavernous echoing homes. I'm happy enough with my own life that I don't want to swap it with anyone else's. But I think the burden of public debt that's been built up in the past decade or so, mostly by leaders who were themselves baby boomers (GWB in the states, TB and GB here) is a pretty rotten legacy to leave to the generations coming after them.

mewbie_2

penguine wrote: »

IBut I think the burden of public debt that's been built up in the past decade or so, mostly by leaders who were themselves baby boomers (GWB in the states, TB and GB here) is a pretty rotten legacy to leave to the generations coming after them.

I don't think that debt will solely be the responsibility of the young. Fully expect the tax net to spread far and wide, old, young, rich, poor, earnings, savings, assets. If it moves - tax it.

But I don't want to be pessimistic on the pessimistic thread. It seems a bit obvious. Rather play devil's !!!!!!! (advocate?). We're alive, it's nearly summer, money really isn't everything.

treliac

pipkin71 wrote: »

I think that a good parent is there for their children, raises them to be strong, independent adults who are able to be self sufficient, I agree.

My helping my children as best I can isn't necessarily to do with finances, however I do think that some parents want to help their children financially, and if they can do that, then it is their choice. Helping because a parent wants to rather than because the child relies on them to would be the better option

We can't afford to give our children more than a little financial help (as we're expected to while they go through uni). My role has been to give them every support, encouragement and help to understand the benefits of achieving for themselves and of becoming independent in life.