£1.2tn given to old from young

stueyhants

StevieJ wrote: »

Not to benefit, but I assume you did I hope you didn't blow all that profit

Yes I did benefit. I doubled my money (although double of something small isn't always big !) However moving from the North to South has put any gains I made in to some perspective. Houses are probably double what I would have paid up North so all in all not much of a gain. I've saved like made since I sold up so hopefully will have a resonable 40-50% deposit.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This doesn't work with the owner occupied argument thats used so much.

I keep getting told most were not owned back then, so clearly what you have said isn't quite right.

Graham, where did I say they bought them?

They had access to cheap homes. Even with large urban centres severely bomb damaged, there was no shortage of housing to rent or buy for those able to buy (essentially the professional middle classes). Because housing was cheap, rents were also cheap.

And houses which would now be extremely desirable - villages and rural areas - weren't then, because of lower standards of basic infrastructure and comfort, for example central heating, sewerage and gas. The baby boomers paid for these, as a result of this investment we all now have better homes.

But hey, if you want a button to press to go back and be born in 1946 so you can have life easy, then good luck to you. I don't think you'd find it as pleasant as you seem to believe, and I doubt you'd do anything much differently.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

so the house built for boomers (1960s/70s semis) are good quality! (personally I think most class Victorian as good quality but hardly boomer)
.

Jeez. I didn't say that either.

The quality of housing extends to garden size, storage areas, building quality.

If you wish to tell me that a 60's/70's build is of now better build quality than a home built in the noughties IN GENERAL is of no better overall quality, feel free.

Then feel free to come round to my house, and listen to my neighbour in his bath, then walking down his stairs, then belching.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Jeez. I didn't say that either.

But you did say.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot of people HAVE argued about the quality of new homes, and I believe that is a fair argument, but I have never seen "we deserve", at all.

I am simply pointing out boomer houses were generally of worse build quality yet they were happy to buy and still live in the same houses.

I never said you said anything but pointing out build quality as a reason not to buy a new house is odd frankly becasue unless you want a Victorian house with a 500ft back garden most 1940s+ house are not built so solidly.
but is wanting that in demand Victorian house on a massive plot not wanting it now?
Or do you know of other housing options which have been built in the last 60-70 years are of good quality and have massive plots and were cheap at the time of build?

mbga9pgf

Really2 wrote: »

But you did say.


I am simply pointing out boomer houses were generally of worse build quality yet they were happy to buy and still live in the same houses.

I never said you said anything but pointing out build quality as a reason not to buy a new house is odd frankly becasue unless you want a Victorian house with a 500ft back garden most 1940s+ house are not built so solidly.
but is wanting that in demand Victorian house on a massive plot not wanting it now?
Or do you know of other housing options which have been built in the last 60-70 years are of good quality and have massive plots and were cheap at the time of build?

How did the number of homes/acre compare? How many shoe box sized flats were they building with paper thin walls and floors, sold on at over 7X single salary back in the boomer days?

Tell you what, I will buy a newbuild house with poor insulation, no double glazing and solid walls for 2X income, it will cost another 20 grand MAX to insulate it up to modern day standards. Doesnt justify in increase to 8X single average salary does it?

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

The old F*ckers had it on a plate. The sooner they get sent to swizerland and turned into glue the better for all of us.

that's not very nice - at least Reweird agrees.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I never said you said anything but pointing out build quality as a reason not to buy a new house is odd frankly becasue unless you want a Victorian house with a 500ft back garden most 1940s+ house are not built so solidly.
but is wanting that in demand Victorian house on a massive plot not wanting it now?
Or do you know of other housing options which have been built in the last 60-70 years are of good quality and have massive plots and were cheap at the time of build?

I've not said new builds should not be bought either, I bought one.

All I said is there is an argument that older properties are of better quality than newer. I firmly believe this, and don't want to debate it any further.

I think you know full well 20 houses built on a plot that would have had 12 houses built on a couple of decades ago, means overall worse quality.

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

But hey, if you want a button to press to go back and be born in 1946 so you can have life easy, then good luck to you. I don't think you'd find it as pleasant as you seem to believe, and I doubt you'd do anything much differently.

Probably have a nice house and pension, on reflection I think I would rather be younger

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

that's not very nice - at least Reweird agrees.

Do I give a sh*t?

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Then feel free to come round to my house, and listen to my neighbour in his bath, then walking down his stairs, then belching.

But in return does he have to put up with constant keyboard tapping noises and the occassional shout of "oh for f**k's sake Hamish, I didn't SAY that..."?