Generation Whine

Graham_Devon

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I thought this whole anti BB thing was one vast generalisation anyway.

Same anti any generation isn't it?

It's always a generalisation as the whole "group" is made up of a generalisation.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

Graham, its been like that for years. To say that this is just an issue for people now is wrong. The minimum space standards for houses were removed at some point in the early 1980s. My first house was 368 sq ft because it was a new build in the late 80s. That's tiny, especially when you consider part of that was taken up by a big staircase, so its not even all useable like in a flat.

But did it work out at 6.8x the average wage in the area?

That was my point. Mine does.

Realise my area is in the south, but theres a enough people in the south for this to be an issue!

Malcolm.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But did it work out at 6.8x the average wage in the area?

That was my point. Mine does.

Realise my area is in the south, but theres a enough people in the south for this to be an issue!

Positive net immigration and increases to longevity are causing this.

Higher demand, without sufficient supply of decent family accomodation.

It must be difficult for you, living in small accomodation with children.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But did it work out at 6.8x the average wage in the area?

That was my point. Mine does.

Realise my area is in the south, but theres a enough people in the south for this to be an issue!

It was 2.5x joint wage, but I think earning over the average. However bear in mind that even though that was the case, repayments were huge because the interest rate, which started at about 10% went up to nearly 15%, so in terms of the impact on our pockets, which ever way you arrive at it, it was really hard work.

Which would you rather, 6.8x at 3 or 4% or 2.5 or 3x at 10-15%? They both suck.

vivatifosi

Malcolm. wrote: »

How old were you when you bought this house(?), how many people including children were living there(?) and what wage multiple did it cost?

Two adults, no kids, aged in my 20s, rest answered elsewhere. Not dissimilar to most houses like that really.

vivatifosi

Malcolm. wrote: »

So with all due respect, it's not particularly comparable to Graham's situation, is it?

I don't know whether or not Graham's baby lives with him, but if I had a child I'd have been in the same boat, as indeed were some around me, though I wouldn't have said it was typical then.

My point is not to have an issue with Graham, because believe me, I know how hard it is to live in a shoebox, it is to say that people have always had such issues. It isn't easy to get your first step on the housing ladder now, nor was it then. It isn't easy to save up for a bigger property now, nor was it then. For just as house price multiples are all out of kilter now, interest rates were then. Different mix of problems but the effect is the same: there's always some way to punish the ftb, you just don't know what it is that is going to hit you. People I know who were ftbs in the 70s said they didn't know whether they were coming or going with fuel crises and 3 day weeks, even though houses were relatively cheap.

I hope you don't think I'm picking on you btw Graham. I saw your post and thought, oh cr*p I remember what that was like, and off I went on one...

the_flying_pig

So to sum up:

(1) The baby boomers are God's chosen generation. They combine the level-headedness & dignity of the generations that preceded them with the cosmopolitan, liberal, qualities of the ones that followed. They will be around forever. All of us owe the boomers more than we'll ever be able to comprehend; and

(2) The fact that the house price to earnings ratio has been crazily high for several years now is a red herring. It was always this hard to buy a decent sized house, always [mathematically impossible as that may be]. The fact that it's a matter of public record that prices and incomes used to be closer together on average is another red herring. It's irrelevant.

Glad we got that sorted.

olly300

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But, if you're FTBs, you're not going to be buying somewhere to bring up a family in, are you?

Actually a lot of my friends and other people I know have and are.

That's why they want bigger properties if and when they buy. That's why they also look at transport links and schools.

Those who have no intention of having kids go for the smaller properties.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're going to be looking for a 1 or 2 bed flat and move in a few years after (hopefully) a couple of pay rises.

Plus those not in the public sector tend to only get a pay rise when they either threaten to or do actually move to another employer.

A._Badger

There's an additional factor in the equation, beyond immigration and population increase - the number of single people who expect to own their own homes. The decline in the number of lasting marriages has seen a significant growth in single occupancy, as has a general unwillingness to share or rent.

As to the general thread, I'm still astonished by those who seem to believe it was easy to become a home owner in the past. I have no idea what imbecile is peddling this meme (I must say, for once it doesn't seem to be TV or radio) so I can only assume its some sort of spontaneous mass delusion spread by the interweb.

It was never easy. It was always a struggle. People were able to do it because they were willing to sacrifice things that, from my experience of working with them, many younger people today regard as necessities.

One thing that has changed, however, is the sense of entitlement. No doubt that's something else for which we have to thank decades of 'child centred' education.

julieq

Malcolm. wrote: »

In summary:

Hamish, Julieq e.t.c. would like the UK to be closer to the Chinese model.

I think it better tfor he UK to be closer to the Scandanavian, German, Dutch model.

I know which one affords the higher standard of living.

In a global economy, you don't get the choice.

Germany can't afford its pension provision, even with the highest level of efficiency in Western Europe. Incidentally, most of what Germany has been trying to do in recent years is to create regulatory barriers to the rest of the world to protect their domestic producers, but that won't work forever.

Scandinavia has a relatively high standard of living, but at levels of taxation that would have people in the UK whimpering. That's a political choice: distribute the wealth around the population or allow people to make their own choices regarding how they spend their money. In Scandinavia they accept the consequences of that choice, whereas here we seem to want low taxation, high public spending and a nice quiet comfortable life without extending ourselves.

It's amusing that one of the most consistent complaints from the whiners is that there is a benefit fed underclass they are having to pay for. Well why on earth should someone higher again up the food chain pay to support those who expect prosperity without being prepared to do something to earn it? It's the same thing exactly.

Ultimately the highest standard of living one way or another comes to those who generate wealth. That means those who get off their backsides and do something for themselves, rather than to sit down at a PC complaining because someone isn't doing it for them. Unfortunately for us, 1.3 billion Chinese are starting to understand that. and even if a very small proportion achieves success, it's enough to shift the economic balance firmly East. When that happens, the Northern European Social Democratic model has nowhere to go.

We in the West are living off historic wealth, in the same way a dissolute heir lives off the fortune of his forbears. It is dissipating, and capital is moving elsewhere. As that leeches away, inevitably the standard of living here will decrease and the standard of living elsewhere will increase.

You can either accept that and work within the new parameters of the world order, or you can attempt to jam your fingers up to the knuckles into your ears and ignore the fact that the world is a very different place to how it was at the end of the second world war.