Winners, Losers, etc

the_ash_and_the_oak

lostinrates wrote: »

Not necessarily. My maternal grandmother was in her home and was nearly 100. My great, great uncle tried to teach me to dance...he was a 104 I think at the time, and it wasn't pretty, but he was in his home.

Don't really feel you can use this as an example. You could just as easily say here "my grandparent lived to 104 so I think its more likely that people will now live to 104". Of course there will be people that live 30+ years of retirement in their own home.

Lets rephrase my question to say "do you think that if the average number of years spent in retirement increases, then fewer people will live out their final years in their own homes". I think what I'm saying here is imo care homes etc aren't required for 70 year olds in the way they are for 86 year olds

fedupfreda

To get back to the OP - it's a very dangerous game to compare your life to someone elses, the situation is different and what suits you will not necessarily suit someone else. FWIW you have to make your own decisions in life and do what suits you - don't spend your life comparing your situation to others, you will only end up miserable. As long as you, and the people you share your life with, are happy, every one else can go take a running jump, metaphorically speaking

If you are living your life, making realistic choices and building a stable base for the future, then that is about all you can reasonably hope for. Anything else is a bonus. Those that made a killing through rampant HPI were just in the right place at the right time - and anyway, they didn't make that much of a killing, they still had to buy somewhere else vastly overpriced to live in, unless they were STR's - who are now probably worrying that their BTL landlord is going to sell the house out from under them, or are now struggling under increasing rent payments.

As the old saying goes, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'. If you feel that buying a house in the current economic situation is a risk - then don't do it. Regardless of what all the other lemmings are doing. Conversely, if you feel it is a risk you can afford to take - then go ahead with confidence. Only you know your own situation. Always keep an eye out for the bumps in the road ahead, and take appropriate measures to deal with them. But don't spend so much time looking out for the pitfalls that you forget to enjoy the scenery on the ride. Life is for living - enjoy it- 'cos it is over all too soon.

lostinrates

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Don't really feel you can use this as an example. You could just as easily say here "my grandparent lived to 104 so I think its more likely that people will now live to 104". Of course there will be people that live 30+ years of retirement in their own home.

Lets rephrase my question to say "do you think that if the average number of years spent in retirement increases, then fewer people will live out their final years in their own homes". I think what I'm saying here is imo care homes etc aren't required for 70 year olds in the way they are for 86 year olds

Oh, I agree, but anecdotal is the most all of us have to offer (he lived to older than 104 btw though:)) We're not economists, most of us, were just peole trying to apply the stats to our lives.

what I'm saying is ...who knows....things changed with council housing and women having work, then careers, things change with right to buy , things changed when my generation either bought or didn't on graduation...and boomeranged and got state supported childcare. Things change...I think under the curent status quo its likely more people will go into care homes. I don't know if how it is now is how it will be in a few years time.

Of course, its also suggested length of life will decrease with the inactive and poorly fed generation. We can predict and guess and suppose...then stuff happens

the_ash_and_the_oak

fedupfreda wrote: »

Those that made a killing through rampant HPI were just in the right place at the right time - and anyway, they didn't make that much of a killing, they still had to buy somewhere else vastly overpriced to live in, unless they were STR's - who are now probably worrying that their BTL landlord is going to sell the house out from under them, or are now struggling under increasing rent payments.

The people who owned through periods of HPI did very well imo, for 2 main reasons. 1) Equity gains giving larger percentage deposits for trading up (yes the gaps get wider but the LTV improves this way) meaning ending up in better houses than would otherwise have had. 2) Ability to downsize or STR to cash in on some of that money (incidentally don't really agree that people who STR'd would need to worry especially about rented accomodating being sold from under them - or from increased rents)

the_ash_and_the_oak

lostinrates wrote: »

Oh, I agree, but anecdotal is the most all of us have to offer (he lived to older than 104 btw though:)) We're not economists, most of us, were just peole trying to apply the stats to our lives.

I don't have a problem with anecdotals I think they are fine - but I think there has to be at least some claim on representativeness of the anecdotal - and, here, you're not saying "my grandfather lived in his own home until 104 therefore..."

BlondeHeadOn

lostinrates wrote: »

A well balanced cake is a fine thing indeed Cleaver, all base no filling or icing, is a bit bland, if sustaining, All icing however, is sickly and ...just sugar...you'll be in hospital in no time.

MSE is a bit distorted, there are a lot of people baking ''bases'', then not icing, or a lot of people who arrived here all icing, no base.

What cannot be denied is that to ice a cake, you have to hve baked the base first. No harm in throwing some flavours into the batter before baking, but icing unbaked cake is a recipe for disaster.

Interesting discussion, but to get back to this cake.....


:easter_ba

lostinrates

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

I don't have a problem with anecdotals I think they are fine - but I think there has to be at least some claim on representativeness of the anecdotal - and, here, you're not saying "my grandfather lived in his own home until 104 therefore..."

No, I'm saying its possible before care homes eople either lived with family or lived by themselves. I'm saying that its possible that it could happen again. I wonder if there is an area or a income vbracket difference too. IMO going into a wardern flat, than care home hastened my grandmother's decent into demensia and ill health. Its not something I'd want for my parents. Thinking about it all four of DH's parents also died in their own homes, and he has a surviving ste grandparent living alone with a daily carer.

This IS representative of my life, if not statistically, its possible to portray what is representative of my circumstances without assuming its the norm.

Its also possible to say this is norm now...but wonder whether will it be in twenty, thirty years time..:)

JonnyBravo

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Lets rephrase my question to say "do you think that if the average number of years spent in retirement increases, then fewer people will live out their final years in their own homes".

No, I agree with you, I think it will increase......



But I also think the number of "man years" spent in their own home whilst of retirement age will also increase. And that will increase by a larger number than the number going into retirement homes or the like.

They are not mutually exclusive, that is the important bit.

fedupfreda

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

The people who owned through periods of HPI did very well imo, for 2 main reasons. 1) Equity gains giving larger percentage deposits for trading up (yes the gaps get wider but the LTV improves this way) meaning ending up in better houses than would otherwise have had.

Would they really? When every other property in the area is also going up? IMO they would only realise an increase if they moved to a different area, it's only really on retirement that this sort of increase can be realised, unless you are lucky enough to work from home/for yourself/or get a transfer out. If you are unlucky enough to have to commute, you are pretty much limited to where you can move to unless you really want to spend hours commuting. Also transport costs will wipe out a proportion of the gain, eventually, unless your new job comes with a wage increase and you are able to cut your other costs down.


2) Ability to downsize or STR to cash in on some of that money (incidentally don't really agree that people who STR'd would need to worry especially about rented accomodating being sold from under them - or from increased rents)

Depends how much cash they have to fall back on - and how lucky they have been with their investments. IMO there will be a fair few who have had to dip into their capital as returns have become practically non-existent. With vanishing resources the possibility of an increasing cost of living will be a worry to many.

Comments above in blue.

the_ash_and_the_oak

fedupfreda wrote: »

Would they really? When every other property in the area is also going up? IMO they would only realise an increase if they moved to a different area, it's only really on retirement that this sort of increase can be realised, unless you are lucky enough to work from home/for yourself/or get a transfer out. If you are unlucky enough to have to commute, you are pretty much limited to where you can move to unless you really want to spend hours commuting. Also transport costs will wipe out a proportion of the gain, eventually, unless your new job comes with a wage increase and you are able to cut your other costs down.

Well lets look at someone who bought in 1979 and compare to someone who didn't. Or lets look at someone else who bought in 1999 and compare with someone who didn't. Surely the HPI since both those times has enable them to live somewhere they wouldn't be able to if they had both rented?

Depends how much cash they have to fall back on - and how lucky they have been with their investments. IMO there will be a fair few who have had to dip into their capital as returns have become practically non-existent. With vanishing resources the possibility of an increasing cost of living will be a worry to many.

Its not the investments imo here, its the HPI-to-STR that allows that. Lets take the person who bought a person who bought in London in 1999 and who sold in 2007. imo thats a lot of money thats come directly from HPI. I don't really see why this person would be needing to dip into the capital?