Another take on 'affordability'.

carolt

Joeskeppi wrote: »

The responses in this thread sum up perfectly why some people will never own a house, for some everything is destined for a negative outcome, like:



"no doubt" whatsoever that something is going to go wrong. Seriously? What planet are some of you on?

Millions of people are in a similar situation to the one Cleaver portrayed and people are getting on with it and managing fine, sure a small proportion don't but that's life, the sooner some of you realise it the sooner you'll move on.

Interesting that the person who wrote this and the people who thanked him are all as far as I know childless and planning to remain so.

Before I had had kids I would have agreed with you, Cleaver. But once you have kids your attitude to risk changes; as it should.

As a parent you need to think about the 'what-ifs' - because it's one thing knowing you can downsize/live on beans or benefits/work night shifts if nec, etc - it's quite another to expect your kids to put up with it and come out unscathed.

Cleaver

Really2 wrote: »

Clevers allowing for over £3,000K PA for 1 car.!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed.

I'm allowing for the following for the couple:

Personal 'fun' spending: £6,000
Car pot: £3,000
Emergency fund for repairs, unexpected breakdowns etc: £1,800
Holiday: £960

They have £220 a month for food, which is a good amount for a couple. We live on pretty much this and eat really, really well.

Yet Graham sees this as:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, I call it frugal.

What I'm saying is, your sums do not allow for normal, working and living lives.

These are two people earning under the average wage. The budget I've done for them seems pretty handsome to me considering.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Interesting that the person who wrote this and the people who thanked him are all as far as I know childless and planning to remain so.

Before I had had kids I would have agreed with you, Cleaver. But once you have kids your attitude to risk changes; as it should.

As a parent you need to think about the 'what-ifs' - because it's one thing knowing you can downsize/live on beans or benefits/work night shifts if nec, etc - it's quite another to expect your kids to put up with it and come out unscathed.

But to add carol I am a parent of 3 years nearly and you expenditure decreases greatly as you want to spend all your time with them not out socialising.

I think anyone owning has to think of the what if's their is even less support for couples with out children than with children.

Emy1501

Cleaver wrote: »

This is where we get in to semantics I guess.

I would hazard a guess that quite a few people in their early / mid twenties earn around 15% less than the average wage. But that's just a feeling. Maybe someone can post up a graph that shows wage distribution.

I've been caught out before on here about wages, as I think I have a really distored view of jobs and salaries. I regulary appoint to £20k to £25k jobs in my office and we fill them with pretty young, ambitious, decent people who will go on to earn £30k and £40k within a few years if they show promise and hard work. I see a £25k job (which is apparently the average wage) as a role that someone with pretty decent qualifications, common sense and a few year's experience as pretty obtainable. It is at my place anyway. Most of the £25k a year jobs at our place (which are generally admin jobs) go to grads in their early twenties, or mid-twenties people with a couple of years admin experience under their belt. But the stats show that this is average wage, so I must have a distored view.

I'm 29 and my friends, most of which went to Uni, are pretty much all on £30k and way upwards so I just can't relate to most of the stories I read on here, but I'm quite happy to accept that my experience is maybe not 'normal'.

Depends where you live I suppose. In the South East where I am people of 25 and under earn between 18-25K a year I would say. I know people with good degrees who started out on 20K in the South East.

I would say the average person under 25 probably earns on average 18-20K across the country.

I agree in principal that a couple could live how you say but how many do? Also what effect would it have on the economy if the average 22-25 year old lived like you are suggesting?

Mr.Brown_4

I also know of a fictional couple - Sid and Doris. They both earn the average wage, and live a fairly average life. Doris would like to buy a house so they can put down roots and start nesting. Sid is not so sure, he likes his free time, treats, and fairly carefree existence. He doesn't fancy being enslaved to a mortgage for as far as he can see. It means commitment and being one of the drones.

Which is why Doris wants him to commit. She actually does want him enslaved to a mortgage, and committed to her. "If you spent less time on MSE perhaps we might aim for something" she says.

Fast forward...

Two years have passed since Sid and Doris bought their 2 bed house. She is pregnant, again. Sid works a lot of overtime. But he is happy - marriage, house, kids has given him a purpose. Doris is happy too, she doesn't care what the house is worth, she is in full blown nesting mode.

Sid is still on MSE. Mostly he reads, and thanks the funny posts that Cleaver makes. Sometimes he hearkens back to his early carefree days, but then he steels himself. "Best move I ever made" he will occasionally post.

edit: Oh dear, I seem to have made a bullish post. Whoops.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

As a parent you need to think about the 'what-ifs' - because it's one thing knowing you can downsize/live on beans or benefits/work night shifts if nec, etc - it's quite another to expect your kids to put up with it and come out unscathed.

I could not agree with you more. You always need to think about the 'what ifs', and that's whether you have kids or not. Then you need to make sure that you're approach to risk is balanced so that you're sensible and frugal, but also ambitious enough to take a few risks to get ahead in life.

I think it's pretty fair to say that there seems to be a few on here that cannot see anything but the worse case scenario. Surely you can see that?

ess0two

Cleaver wrote: »

I officially give up. You're right, the couple I created are massively wealthy, can afford a house and are not average or typical in anyway. I'll bow out and think about how silly I've been.

What you've posted is about right in civvy street,its just lost in here.

Cleaver

Actually, the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Over the next 10 or 15 years one of two scenarios will play out:

1) Young people, including families, will continue to work, stuggle by and buy houses and get on with life as they've always somehow done. House prices remain the same or go up.

2) Affordability is indeed completely screwed, people will not be able to afford houses and we'll see house prices crash 30% or more, so that a more normal couple or young damily (i.e. not the one I've apparently posted up) can afford them.

Guess we'll see. I have no real clue, but I'd hedge towards number 1.

Graham_Devon

On the car thing, as I see it's now getting towards getting a little personal...

I do 45 miles a day for work. 225 miles a week, 900 miles a month. 10,000 miles a year allowing for holidays.

A tank of fuel in my diesel gets me 550 miles. A tank costs approx £65.

18 tanks of fuel = £1170.

Tax = £160. Insurance = £280.

We are at £1,610 already. Haven't even covered personal mileage, servicing, maintanance.

And I'm supposed to save for the next car with this 3k too?

I know this is my personal figure. But if two people were using the car, it would cost even more.

As you said cleaver, our personal situations determine our expectations and thoughts.

The only thing that seems to be completely ignored is the kids thing. Now we are getting down to arguing how much cars cost to run, based on a mythical couple, probably both walking to work or something daft.

In other words, it's now getting silly. I have agreed with you cleaver over and over. All I have said is this couple are NOT the normaility, and I think you know that.

Dunno why were arguing about it anyway. These people do not even exist! We could create any old scenario to make our points.

Really2

Cleaver wrote: »

I could not agree with you more. You always need to think about the 'what ifs', and that's whether you have kids or not. Then you need to make sure that you're approach to risk is balanced so that you're sensible and frugal, but also ambitious enough to take a few risks to get ahead in life.

I think it's pretty fair to say that there seems to be a few on here that cannot see anything but the worse case scenario. Surely you can see that?

To add to that you can lose everything without taking any risks.
True story in the 80's my dad had a manufacturing firm. Made good money and had a good lifestyle.
Place got robbed and they stole all of the machines. insurance company took 6 months to pay out in the mean time it virtually wiped him out. The recession then did wipe it out.

Never took any risks but still lost everything. I was to young to really remember but still loved my family and the childhood I had.

I think to many blame a change of circumstance only effects those who take risks, it does not.

PS I can personally state having children has not effect our financials my wife does 1 day less a week but we only go out once a month now max. Personly I do not see children this massive financial hardship other make out. As long as you prepare the cost is not really that high.