Houses arent that Dear!!!

silvercar

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

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?

Very common in expensive cities in Italy. You buy with a mortgage that stretches well into retirement as that is the only way you can afford to buy. You accept that at some point, before the mortgage is paid off, you will sell up and buy something cheaper outside the cities.

silvercar

carolt wrote: »

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.

In the public sector it is much easier to be promoted in London; more jobs around, easier to move between posts, gain experience, get promotion - then move back out to the sticks if you want to. Particularly true in the police and the civil service. So on paper, the difference may be just a few thousand london weighting, in practice the promotions can mean big salary jumps.

silvercar

LydiaJ wrote: »

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.

Actions and choices have consequences and the idea that a couple managing with two incomes and one home can suddenly support two similar sized homes is nonsense, so if you are a single parent with the sole responsibility for housing and upkeep costs and want to buy, you are going to have to have a smaller property than a family with two workers providing a home.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

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?

Could be a fun game, we could all add one!

Individuals can sometimes move, but we need some people to do those jobs. People who work in the tourist sector for example, don't need to work at the London Dungeon, but some one needs to.

Shop clerks can work anywhere: but places like Havey Nicholls , Harrods and Selfridges would struggle. DH (does he count as a finacial?) he cant work in UK anywhere else.

but my addition to the list of INDIVIDUALS who couldn't leave london is: Beefeaters.

System

Beefeaters could commute

Cleaver

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Beefeaters could commute

Or work from home on a VPN Broadband connection.

Really2

LydiaJ wrote: »

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.

I agree that single people can have family's to house (more so in modern Britain) but it has always been virtually impossible for a person with young children to be able to afford to purchase a house on their own.

Childcare dictates that more than the cost of a house.
If you are lucky enough not to have to pay any child care it would still be a struggle (due to general care costs).
But a person who does not pay any care is not representative of the majority of single working parents.

I think renting is much safer if single with a family because if you do lose your job you will not be so stressed and would receive instant housing assitance.

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

Actions and choices have consequences and the idea that a couple managing with two incomes and one home can suddenly support two similar sized homes is nonsense, so if you are a single parent with the sole responsibility for housing and upkeep costs and want to buy, you are going to have to have a smaller property than a family with two workers providing a home.

Very true.

However, your previous post said that a single person would want/need a smaller house than a couple. I think that's not true in a lot of cases. I entirely agree that a single person will usually have to accept only being able to afford a smaller house than a couple. But that's different.

I don't think I'm the only one on here who gets a bit fed up of the argument that houses are "affordable" in some general sense if DINKS can comfortably afford them.

silvercar

I can afford to own my home ie I can afford the mortgage repayments, but I couldn't afford to rent it. So that makes owning more affordable than renting to me.

JonnyBravo

Cleaver wrote: »

Or work from home on a VPN Broadband connection.

Yeah it would have to be broadband, the days of trying to be a beefeater on dial-up are long gone thank goodness.