Another take on 'affordability'.

Really2

Emy1501 wrote: »

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.

Oh so you think £200pm socialising is right but children are still more expensive?

If you are on £100 on nappies and milk they must be very young (twins perhaps) so other than so in reality what are the other expenses £50 every 3 months for a new set of clothes?

So how are you making out they are costing you more money than your old lifestyle?

PS ( so the average child costs about £450PM up to the age of 18 by your figures)

Graham_Devon

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 into.:rotfl:mode mmmm.

You have taken carols post completely out of context with your excessive £200 a week on going out.

You haven't actually made a point here.

It's akin to me trying to make a mokery out of Cleavers thread by sticking some rolly icons in and saying "get real, I spend £300 a week on crack, where is their crack budget, sorry I'm a crack addict cleaver, but your post is stupid".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

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.

Very true.

The facts are that most people just get on with life, buy a house, have kids, put aside a bit for a rainy day but are secure enough in the knowledge that the odds are on their side.

And for the vast majority, disaster does not happen, and things work out just fine.

If everyone behaved like the bearish posters on here, humanity would still be living in caves, too scared to go outside in case they were eaten by wildlife.:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Very true.

The facts are that most people just get on with life, buy a house, have kids,

Wow, it's finally acknowledged by Hamish!

Blimey. Never know, in a few months time he'll pick up on the fact that it isn't about being scared. It's about being sensible, and realising that you can't actually afford a house. What's more, not being scared to admit it.

lostinrates

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.

People often say that ''when our parents were younger they never had any stuff like mobile phones/computers etc'' completely missing that a lot of the gumph of today's society while not absolutely necessary probably is necessarily practically. Without a computer it IS possible to get through university (or it used to be) but its sure easier, and if ou have a job sometimes necessary to have some means of doing assignments at uni. The freedom of mobile communication has perhaps lead not just to individual reliance on them, but a reliance by society and employers. DH did his first interview for current employer over his mobile phone. Every chance had they called just a landline, not found him, they might have moved on to the next person...

with shorter tenancies, people just don't have the permanence they had years ago.

commuting is expensive, and as people live further and further away from where they work so it becomes more time expensive too. This means people fall bck on to more expensive ways of living than their parents in other ways too.

Its not that one can't live without all those things, in fact it makes me a little cross when people say they can't...its that you are likely to miss opportunities that make the difference between home owning earning or not, and then connection with home.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You have taken carols post completely out of context with your excessive £200 a week on going out.

You haven't actually made a point here.

It's akin to me trying to make a mokery out of Cleavers thread by sticking some rolly icons in and saying "get real, I spend £300 a week on crack, where is their crack budget, sorry I'm a crack addict cleaver, but your post is stupid".

Sorry it was not I who used the icons.look again.
But i dare say cleaver £500 personal allowance would be changed if they had a child or do you still expect them to live it large?

I am saying from my point of view that is all We have had a child my wife works less hours etc etc.
But that is me personally it may be different for others.
But according to the stats we are having a mini baby boom now. (so child affordability must be happening)

Why do people have to take someones point so personal it is my lifestyle graham.
Real life, not yours may be but I have a right to say what my circumstances were have I not?

Cleaver

Emy1501 wrote: »

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.

The OP's figures didn't include children! The average age to have a first child is now over 30. The couple I put forward were in their early twenties.

I would expect a couple who want to have a child to have some responsibility. I would therefore expect them to either get better paying jobs through working hard and personal development or to stop spending £500 a month on personal 'fun' stuff. Or do both. They have a good few years to think about it anyway.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Oh so you think £200pm socialising is right but children are still more expensive?

If you are on £100 on nappies and milk they must be very young (twins perhaps) so other than so in reality what are the other expenses £50 every 3 months for a new set of clothes?

So how are you making out they are costing you more money than your old lifestyle?

PS ( so the average child costs about £450PM up to the age of 18 by your figures)

I have no idea how much kids are, but I should think expensive: when given as much opportunity as possibl.e As well as food nd nappies,there are educational trips, time spent looking after them not earning, time leting someone else earn looking after them while yu ear to pay them....holidays in school holidays, kids films (lir shudders) toys, sporting endeavors......

social lives vary in cost. £200 month is what...one night a weekend for a month, with say, a couple of club entries or, a theatre trip and a cinema trip or live gig and one very unflash meal out?

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

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

Think your on to something here.

We are still trying to compare the average family against the average house etc etc.

We then compare these figures to a couple of decades ago.

But is the average family the same anymore? I don't think it is. It's dramatically changed. You only have to look at the lower marriage numbers, higher divorce figures. The number of divorces within the first year of marriage is scary.

On a personal level, the meet someone, buy a house, have babies seems to be more a fary tale than reality now.

Reality seems to be meet someone, have kids, struggle, or seperate.

I actually thought when I read cleavers post how nice it must be for 2 people to be so compatiable. Both wanting the same things, both madly in love, but no pressure for anything more. Both willing to live at a lower level than anyone else to secure their future.

I'm sure many a bull on here will have exactly that. But no one I know has, and every single one of my group of friends from school had kids before house, and before they were ready, I guess me included. Trouble is, the way house prices are, we would be ancient now before we could have kids. So it's a viscous circle.

For 2 people, so compatiable, so madly in love, but wanting nothing more from the relationship, with no kids, no debts from previous life, and both wanting the exact same thing, and both happy to do without and knuckle down for 15-20 years to achieve it, must be rather nice!

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

The OP's figures didn't include children! The average age to have a first child is now over 30. The couple I put forward were in their early twenties.

Agreed, but chicken or egg? I would have (health permitting) have had two children before 30 by choice...having had older parents, its not something I would want in my own family now.