Another take on 'affordability'.

fc123

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?

Not really worse case Cleaver...just different things that happen in life that affect a sensible decision made years before.


The only niggly thing I have about the 'affordability' arguement is looking back to previous generations and comparing the affordability then (the 3X Salary 'rules') to nowadays as we live in different times.

We have to live with life as it is now and, on the whole, buying is a struggle for most which is exactly the same as it was for us, my parents and grandparents but for different reasons.

I am sure my grandparents SOA back in 1945 didn't have loads of expenses on it that are standard now.

I am agreeing with you that it's not that bad and I also agreee with many that it's not going to get easier by a sudden drop in prices.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

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.

Then you are v unusual - or had a v expensive social life before...?

True, my expenditure on my social life is now minimal - but (maybe because your little one is only 3, you haven't got there yet?) my expenditure on my children's social lives (after-school clubs, party presents, birthday parties, days out, soft play centres etc etc all cost an arm and a leg), more than makes up for it - not to mention the extra costs for food, need a bigger car, lost earnings, childcare costs, lost career advancement, school-related costs, eg trips, special days, uniform etc, plus clothes, toys, furniture, bigger house, and more expensive holidays (Cleaver's proposed fund won't go far among a family of 4, say), etc etc etc.

Life CHEAPER after having children? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You have GOT to be joking. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, this couple could. Other couples the same as them also could.

Some real world examples of people we know.

Couple, he is 26, she is 29, he is a bricklayer on £24K, she is a PA on £32K, they have 2 kids, and bought a 3 bed semi in a nice enough but ex-council area recently for 180K. One car between them. They live much more frugally now than they did when we first met them, but you'd expect that from people with kids and a mortgage.

Single male, lorry driver, 29 years old, on £30K a year, bought a 1 bed flat for 85K on a 100% mortgage 3 years ago. Doesn't own a car, does own a motorbike. Goes out every weekend. Full repayment mortgage is cheaper than rent.

Couple, he is 24, she is 23, he is a "security supervisor", (glorified bouncer) she is a restaurant assistant manager, he is on around £25K, she is on £23K. He works long hours and gets overtime for doing events, etc, in season. They are in the process of buying a 2 bed flat, for 140K. They have saved about 20K as a deposit in the last 3 years, and their parents are helping with another 20K (10K from each family) so they can get a better rate and stretch to a 2 bed instead of a one bed in case a kid comes along.

None of these people went to Uni. All have taken advantage of career opportunities and further training. None of them are from rich families.

If they can do it, almost anyone can.

fc123

True Story for Cleavers thread.

Where we are based I chat to a staff member from Poland.

Her husband works full time Monday to Friday. She works P/T all day Sat and Sunday. They don't pay any childcare (2 + 7) and only spend leisure time together in the evenings as have no days off at all together.

They bought a house last year. I have no idea where or for how much but she is absolutely made up with it. We got chatting as she was hoping for a bonus so she could buy fabric to make curtains. They are making small changes one at a time.

One of the reasons she is so excited about living in it is the space as they rented the cheapest 1 bed flat they could find, all slept in 1 room and worked like crazy to save the deposit. I got the impression that they did this for a few years.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Then you are v unusual - or had a v expensive social life before...?

True, my expenditure on my social life is now minimal - but (maybe because your little one is only 3, you haven't got thereyet?), my expenditure on my children's social lives (after-school clubs, party presents, birthday parties, days out, soft play centres etc etc all cost an arm and a leg), not to mention extra costs for food, need a bigger car, lost earnings, childcare costs, lost career advancement, chool-related costs, eg trips, special days, uniform etc), clothes, toys, furniture, bigger house, more expensive holidays (Cleaers proposed fund won't go far among a family of 4, say), etc etc etc.

Life CHEAPER after having children? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You have GOT to be joking. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

We would spend about £200+ per week going out? (I used to spend that much when single) Sorry if I was popular Carol. (we now spend about £100 per month and we dont spend £700 on our child per month._

I personally find it no more expensive carol, you may be different so do you really need to go into.:rotfl:mode mmmm.

sjaypink

Agree the car amount sounds reasonable, if not slightly under estimated....

...I think for me the most unreal part of the op is the general idea that they decide to budget sensibly, save for 5 years etc! How many 20-somethings get together debt free, with a willingness to commit, plan ahead? Most (of what we might consider to be future home-owners) people in their mid-20s now will only be starting out in the world after living it up at uni & spending a year or so backpacking or whatever bright young things get up to nowadays

...the remainder will already have too many kids and be stuck in low paid dead end jobs , and are destined to forever rent :cool::rotfl:

So maybe its not the figures of average wages & average HPs that are of the most importance. I think its the attitudes (& debt?) that are more imortant than the multiples
^ genuine observation not desperate bear straw-clutching

Cleaver

sjaypink wrote: »

...I think for me the most unreal part of the op is the general idea that they decide to budget sensibly, save for 5 years etc! How many 20-somethings get together debt free, with a willingness to commit, plan ahead?

What an interesting comment.

So, as a genuine question, is it the younger generations inability to knuckle down and save that prevents them buying a place or sky high houses? Or the fact that travelling, lifestyle etc. is more important that the idea of home ownership to youngsters?

Of course, we all know that it's a complex mix of all of the above, hence lots of frustrating debate and arguements depending on your own personal experience.

Emy1501

Really2 wrote: »

We would spend about £200+ per week going out? (I used to spend that much when single) Sorry if I was popular Carol. (we now spend about £100 per month and we dont spend £700 on our child per month._

I personally find it no more expensive carol, you may be different so do you really need to go in.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Mode.mmmm

The average child costs 100K plus over 18 years. We send about £100 a month on Nappies and Milk for 2. As for £200 a week on going out exactly it shows how unrealistic the OP's figures are.

Emy1501

Cleaver wrote: »

What an interesting comment.

So, as a genuine question, is it the younger generations inability to knuckle down and save that prevents them buying a place or sky high houses? Or the fact that travelling, lifestyle etc. is more important that the idea of home ownership to youngsters?

Of course, we all know that it's a complex mix of all of the above, hence lots of frustrating debate and arguements depending on your own personal experience.

Exactly and if they start to knucle down and save then the economy will suffer.

fc123

Cleaver wrote: »

What an interesting comment.

So, as a genuine question, is it the younger generations inability to knuckle down and save that prevents them buying a place or sky high houses? Or the fact that travelling, lifestyle etc. is more important that the idea of home ownership to youngsters?

Of course, we all know that it's a complex mix of all of the above, hence lots of frustrating debate and arguements depending on your own personal experience.

Son is 22. He wants his own place too. Preferably in Central London with a spare room for mates crashing and a nice balcony with view.

No way can he afford this (rented or bought) but it's what he would like and has commented how expensive 'having a place of his own' is going to be.

Now , we are just ordinary parents without wodges of spare cash to give him and I have pointed out places that aren't so expensive but he doesn't want to live in 'a grotty suburb'...his phrase. He earns enough to rent something modest (house share) or could stay at home and save up. He is earning well at the mo and is saving to cover himself at law school (though we will be helping too).

DD is in even more of a dream world @ 16 and has already earmarked a 3 million pounder in Surrey to have babies in. She even asked me how do you get to afford something like this ...and shows me the RM pics. I was quite stumped TBH.

A couple on 60k pa joint is never going to able to afford a 3 bed house in Fulham even if prices crash more.

The neighbours is getting prepped for sale and no way would we ever be able to afford to buy it but we can afford to rent next door.

lost the point again....I have to do some work but I soooo procrastinating at the mo...kick me please.