Another take on 'affordability'.

Really2

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.

Exactly I was 25 when we purchased, but we did not have children until I was 31.
That has been virtually identical to all of my friends.

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Its exciting to have a lightbulb moment, but tbh this is the same ''something'' that some of us have wasted YEARS discussing, hardly new! I do suppose it hasn't come up in a while, and perhaps thats since before you joined in actively on this board...but you made me giggle.

Emy1501

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 was out they actually cost £738 each per month on average as per the last survey and as most have more than one then yes they do cost more than your life style.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

Never went to university but when I was a collage in the early seventies I bought a scientific calculator as they called them at the time which cost be almost a weeks wages. I expect you could get a reasonable notebook for a weeks wages now.

Emy1501

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.

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.

I was responding to children cost less than a lifestyle but as it shows your figures are way out. I would say the average couple spends at least a £100-200 a week on going out when young.

Graham_Devon

lostinrates wrote: »

Its exciting to have a lightbulb moment, but tbh this is the same ''something'' that some of us have wasted YEARS discussing, hardly new! I do suppose it hasn't come up in a while, and perhaps thats since before you joined in actively on this board...but you made me giggle.

Well just let me cling on to my fading lightbulb

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Well that may be the difference Graham. Non of my friends have had children before thirty.
Nearly all got the partying out of their system and now live happy lives (AFIK).
All do seem to be happily married and no sign of splitting up looking for pastures greener.

But I dare say the earlier you have children it is going to push back the age of house ownership as people not having one will be moving up in job while some are raising children.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

How much has the divorce rate increases over the last 20 years I got divorced in 1983 and I believe it was 1 in 3 then.

Really2

Emy1501 wrote: »

I was out they actually cost £738 each per month on average as per the last survey and as most have more than one then yes they do cost more than your life style.

What so if you have 3 children it cost you nearly £27K per year. Sorry I think that is a bit excessive.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Never went to university but when I was a collage in the early seventies I bought a scientific calculator as they called them at the time which cost be almost a weeks wages. I expect you could get a reasonable notebook for a weeks wages now.

Yes but a reasonable notebook is not the same as your scientific calculator.

The same analogy would be your scientific calculator vs one of these: http://www.ebuyer.com/product/152093

You are comparing state of the art against general technology. The calculator when you bought your scientific one, I'm guessing, would have been general technology. That's what a run of the mill laptop is now.