Houses arent that Dear!!!

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

How many of you could afford to buy a house alone, without any parental help with a deposit and without any partner ever?

silvercar wrote: »

You would then only need / want a smaller house.

Unless you were committed to living alone for a good few years, it would be more sensible to rent.

Why would a person without a partner necessarily only need/want a smaller house? OK so PN herself hasn't got any children, but you're not living in this century if you think all single people are childless. Since the partners would normally share a bedroom, the presence or absence of the partner makes very little difference to the size of house needed/wanted for the family.

In answer to your OP, kriss_boy, it would seem that indeed houses aren't particularly dear in your area of the country if you are a DINK couple. In other places and for other categories of households, they are still very dear indeed.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

How many people need to do that though? Most people tend to live with someone and it's fairly common for parents to help out nowadays with a deposit.

More than in the past, and for some people they pay more when single than in the past: having aswell as to provide for their offspring post divorce and their home. Then often, while supporting family one decided to support family two......


with the rise in single households I guess more have to that did need to.

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

Way I see it - say in real terms incomes have doubled in the last 30 years but food, motoring, holidays are all only up 50% in real terms. Now suppose 30 years ago 50% of disposable went on housing and 50% on everything else - now the 'everything else' could be bought with 33% of income leaving the option to spend 66% of income (if desired) on housing - net result - as incomes rise in real terms the proportion available for housing increases so housing costs are likely to rise as a proportion of income and relative to other spending. The market response would be to build more houses but planning policy prevents this.

Yes, yes, yes. And this is partly what I was skirting about in my deleted rant on the Liz Jones thread.

I have lost the stat in the tangle of my brain nd am trying to grab for it but I'm going to make a stab and a guess: I think the figure I'm after is 20% which I'm thinking was the historical norm paid for food. If this drops....there are impacts down that chain ......and other relative spending, that can not be made up by an increase in housing costs.

An alternative or combined market repsonse (looking wider than our own shores) could be to stop breeding so prolifically: but we're all to short sighted for that.


I also think we, as individuals, vastly, vastly, vastly underestimate the costs of the things we receive free at point of use: NHS & schooling for example.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You've answered your own question.



Whatever house prices are there is always going to be a dream house for everyone.

What changed was the ability to borrow large sums of money without income verification, no repayment vehicle and on a interest only basis.

Now there is a generation of people who will spend a high proportion of their income servicing and repaying debt. The economic situation means that there isn't likely to be rapid growth in incomes for for the foreseeable future and potentially interest rates could rise to painful levels for many. ( though still affordable). Resulting in a change of lifestyle and possibly a reappraisal of the important matters in life. Rather than house prices which is a British obsession.[/QUOTE


I don't think houses are that pricey either.
Every generation buying for the first time has found it difficult,it's easier nowadays than it's ever been.
There's a lot of sour grapes on this board.

carolt

Cleaver wrote: »

I find it hard to comment on this type of thing. I look at houses and think that they are quite mental prices. However...

I'm in my late-twenties and most of our friends who wanted to buy, have bought over the past 5 or 6 years. Some have well-above average earnings and have bought bigger places, some earn slightly lower salaries and have bought smaller places. No one has seemed to struggle that much. Like most people I do have a handful of different friends living in London and none of them have bought and would never consider doing so. They seem pretty happy and accepting of this - they've never known any different so it doesn't seem to bother them. Theconcept of buying a pad in central london belongs to the rich and they don't seem to take any issue with this. Guess they are all too busy having fun, working in marketing and generally being cool. One of my London friends has been there for 10 years and is now thinking of settling down and buying a place. She simply plans to move to a northern city where she can afford it - I guess that's what 'our generation' are happy to do.

My friends and I have all got deposits in different ways: parents helping out, living at home and saving 50% of your wage, lucky sharesave schemes that came good, getting it on with a partner who has a rich family... lots of ways really. Maybe everyone I know is one of the 'haves'.

I agree. I think there is a real difference, as you point out, between buying in Manchester, as you have done, and in London or surrounds, where you say friends have no plans to buy.

That's pretty much the same among my social group too, though we're slightly older - all the northern ones bought with no difficulty (all professionals); the southern ones who own all bought prior to 2002.

However, moving up north to buy, whilst still an option for your childless friends, who all have links to the north, I assume, as they're friends of yours, is not really an option for everyone else who lives down south - those who have families down south, or are tied to commuting distance of London for work reasons - few people could transfer up north on equivalent salaries, so what they gained in cheaper house prices, they'd lose in income, surely?

skap7309

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

if you bought early enough perhaps you could stretch that out to a 40 year mortgage?

Hmm, cant wait for that.

40 year debt - happy days. :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

The trouble with longer mortgages is it has a direct knock on effect to pensions etc in later life.

If you start that mortgage at 26 years old, you end it at 66 years old.

Scary thought.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

I agree. I think there is a real difference, as you point out, between buying in Manchester, as you have done, and in London or surrounds, where you say friends have no plans to buy.

That's pretty much the same among my social group too, though we're slightly older - all the northern ones bought with no difficulty (all professionals); the southern ones who own all bought prior to 2002.

I have friends scattered all over the place and some in the south have bought, but none in London have / could / plan to buy down there.

carolt wrote: »

However, moving up north to buy, whilst still an option for your childless friends, who all have links to the north, I assume, as they're friends of yours, is not really an option for everyone else who lives down south - those who have families down south, or are tied to commuting distance of London for work reasons - few people could transfer up north on equivalent salaries, so what they gained in cheaper house prices, they'd lose in income, surely?

I'm no expert on this, so two points just off the top of my head:

1) Are London salaries that good anymore? What I mean is, a semi-detached house in London could be up totwo, three or four times higher than the equivalent house in a lot of other places in the UK. But surely most salaries in London aren't double the rest of the UK?

2) I have to say that I've never really got the whole "I need London because of my job." Aside from financials, journalism and maybe some marketing / PR stuff, are there really that many professions that require you to be in London?

I'm going to list the jobs of our closest friends off the top of my head: Software geek, PR person, Teacher, Teacher, Management Consultant Type person, Solicitor, Accountant, Engineer, Social Worker, Social Worker, Social Worker, Factory Worker, Lecturer, Police Officer, Health Care Assistant, Insurance Officer type person, works in a Theatre, Recruitment Consultant. Four of those work in central London and all four could happily move tomorrow and get a similar job for just a bit less pay, probably for the companies / organisations they work for now.

I guess it might be a generational thing, but a lot of my friends don't really care that much where they live, region wise. If they fancy Leeds they may go there, or maybe Birmingham, or a year's travelling for a while. Maybe it's just my experience, but people tend to go wherever they fancy nowadays, even the ones with kids.

I should point out that I'm not from the North, we only moved here three years ago as we fancied a change, so aside from the people we've met since moving here, my friends tend to be all over the shop.

carolt

Don't know precisely how London salaries compare with elsewhere - in the public sector, there is very little difference, sometimes none, as the unions have worked hard to prevent that.

In other areas, I think the gap is larger, and certainly, the 'City' type jobs, that bring in the huge sums and skew the top end of the market, are by definition, tied to the City.

Also, it's just much easier to get a job in London - thee are more jobs. I think you have to try quite hard to be unemployed here - hence why it's such a maagnet for immigrants, as for anyone who wants to, there is work.

Whereas I think simply not being able to find a job - any job - is more of a reality elsewhere in the country.

the_ash_and_the_oak

skap7309 wrote: »

Hmm, cant wait for that.

40 year debt - happy days. :rolleyes:

and with retirement age increasing perhaps if you buy while still at university maybe you could stretch it out to 45 or even 50 if you like?