A serious question for the Bears....

the_ash_and_the_oak

julieq wrote: »

People afford it by being couples. Whether you like it or not, any singleton is in competition with couples, and many couples will choose to combine incomes to buy somewhere to live.

So maybe plan B is to meet a significant other and work together. Thinking about it, that's certainly more or less what I did.

actually agree w this. in the past most places bought by couples, singles FTBs increasingly large percentage during boom (hence the removal of small houses as first rung properties by 1bed apts and studios) - and then equity flow upwards. this may well go into reverse now imo - gradual return to FTBs being couples again in greater number and less flat buying by FTBS

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

this is what i see

2009 demand is supporting 2009 house prices
2008 demand did not support 2008 prices

kinda makes sense, forced sales and higher rates for owners in 08 removed as a factor in 09

SingleSue

julieq wrote: »

So maybe plan B is to meet a significant other and work together. Thinking about it, that's certainly more or less what I did.

Call me soppy but that thought would be the furthest from my mind....love (yes that eurgh thing) and the ability to be there for each other mentally and physically would be at the front of the queue.

I could never marry for money or financial security...I would have to love them and be able to live with them, marriage is not supposed to be a financial decision.

But then I am a soppy mare

mr_fishbulb

SingleSue wrote: »

Some people are always destined to be singletons

I'm sure Martin would let you change your username if you asked nicely.

SingleSue

Ahhh but I have not always been a singleton....I was in a relationship/married (to the same person) for nearly 20 years of my life.

And I'm only 39 now!

abaxas

Easier plan is revolution.

It's going to happen withint the next 20-30 years anyways, so why buy something when u can get it for free.

DaddyBear

Plan B
Buy an absolute wreck and make it habitable. A suitable house has come onto the market recently and I'm viewing it again with a builder this week.

Plan C
Wait. In addition to inflation-related pay increments my pay will roughly treble in the next 10 years. Even with mild HPI I will eventually be able to buy a decent family home, and probably on a shorter term mortgage.

Plan D
Canada

Plan E
Australasia

Plan F
France

Enough plans for you Hamish, or would you like a few more.

How about Plan Z - top off the in-laws and sell their house - would probably be seen as a reasonable plan by desperate property bulls.

Entertainer

Dan: wrote: »

Good question.

I have a close friend who has been telling me that prices will crash since 2003. He has made his wife and kids wait 6 years for this to happen, and now, at last, he has dicided to buy.

So, if he had bought 6 years ago, he would still not be anywhere near NE, would have paid nearly a quarter off his mortgage and now be taking advantage of the low interest rate to shave several more years off.

What a waste of 6 years.

How would he have paid off a quarter of his mortgage when rental yields have been similar to mortgage interest in most parts of the country, outside of the regions, for the last six years?

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

People afford it by being couples. Whether you like it or not, any singleton is in competition with couples, and many couples will choose to combine incomes to buy somewhere to live.

So maybe plan B is to meet a significant other and work together. Thinking about it, that's certainly more or less what I did.

And many couples have kids.

Therefore you are back to basically a singleton wage.

What happens then?

Is the solution from the bulls really to just get together as a couple and work constantly, not have kids etc etc, to be able to afford a roof?

Well don't mind me, but even though I will be in negative equity (again), I'd rather people actually had lives they wanted to live.

What a desperately boring, mundane and a life of pure survival the scenario above would be. I can think of far more that I would like to do with my one life than to just work to live because if I don't, I can't have a home.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And many couples have kids.

Therefore you are back to basically a singleton wage.

What happens then?

Is the solution from the bulls really to just get together as a couple and work constantly, not have kids etc etc, to be able to afford a roof?

Well don't mind me, but even though I will be in negative equity (again), I'd rather people actually had lives they wanted to live.

What a desperately boring, mundane and a life of pure survival the scenario above would be. I can think of far more that I would like to do with my one life than to just work to live because if I don't, I can't have a home.

We have a child my wife had the first year off and as gone back three days. We both home by 5:30pm.
You cope Graham that is life.
Children are not the massive drain on resources like many say. (in fact we are better off as we go for less nights out now)
soon the little one will qualify for the free child care places.

We live a good life and spend a lot of time with our child who is also able to learn more social skills at nursery for 3 days than he ever could at home (EG sharing, peer interaction etc.)
So I fail to see the point that the family unit is broken if some one does a part time job.
Some women actually want to feel they have a life and are not just secluded from the rest of the world after child birth.
We are social creatures, social interaction is the main point, so unless you want us to go back to having 9 children each and women are just baby machines I fail to see your point.
Times have changed, move on, the world will with or without you.