Generation Whine

the_flying_pig

A._Badger wrote: »

...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...

Give me strength... no one's saying that it was "easy" in the sense that semi-skilled workers of the day in their late teens would routinely, on their way out of a Roxy Music concert or similar, find a crowd of people outside trying to thrust deeds to various two-up-two-down properties into their jacket pockets...

But it was easier than it is now. If it was hard then it's even harder now. This is easily verifiable from data on both house prices and wages then & now, which is readily, publicly, available. There's nothing particularly tricky, subtle, clever, or even debatable about this fact, it is what it is.

Oldernotwiser

olly300 wrote: »

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.



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.

If you'd waited until you wanted to buy a family house you'd've been screwed in many areas for many generations!

Surely this is the time in people's careers when they do move from job to job for advancement? (Not in a recession, obviously.)

A._Badger

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Give me strength... no one's saying that it was "easy" in the sense that semi-skilled workers of the day in their late teens would routinely, on their way out of a Roxy Music concert or similar, find a crowd of people outside trying to thrust deeds to various two-up-two-down properties into their jacket pockets...

But it was easier than it is now. If it was hard then it's even harder now. This is easily verifiable from data on both house prices and wages then & now, which is readily, publicly, available. There's nothing particularly tricky, subtle, clever, or even debatable about this fact, it is what it is.

You can torture the data however you like. At various times it has been easier, at others, harder. The real question is - can it still be done? And the answer is the same as it has always been: yes - providing you are willing to make sacrifices.

olly300

ukcarper wrote: »

Can someone tell me the birth years for gen x and gen y I believe babyboomers are 1946 to 1964.

Most of the data on what generations are called is from American sources but the UK differs slightly due to the difference in politics.

In the UK Generation Y is usually used for those who were born when Margaret Thatcher got into power until the year 2000.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/career_and_jobs/recruiter_forum/article1813031.ece

ILW

A._Badger wrote: »

You can torture the data however you like. At various times it has been easier, at others, harder. The real question is - can it still be done? And the answer is the same as it has always been: yes - providing you are willing to make sacrifices.

A fact that many choose to ignore. Most on a average wage can buy as long as they are not too fussy about what and where. None of my contemporaries bought a 2 bed house as their first purchase. Virtually all started with 1 bed flats in manky areas.

Oldernotwiser

ninky wrote: »

i think there was a lot more social mobility for the boomer generation. those poorer kids that went to university had not tuition fees but maintenance grants. they were also entitled to housing benefit during the holiday periods to cover rent.

neither of my parents went to uni but (despite my dad working) were offered a council house or a glc mortgage. they chose the property ladder and could afford a detatched country home by the time i was ten on just my dad's wage (which wasn't very high).

people talk about their parents struggling but compare this to the many who live in shared rented accommodation well into their 20s and even 30s these days.

I'm a boomer and lived in shared accommodation well into my 30s, as did most people I know in the south east! My parents were on the council list for 45 years!

olly300

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If you'd waited until you wanted to buy a family house you'd've been screwed in many areas for many generations!

Depends how old you are, what you do for a living and how much you saved.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely this is the time in people's careers when they do move from job to job for advancement? (Not in a recession, obviously.)

Since I keep meeting and working with people who have been made redundant when they had finally decided they weren't going to seek further advancement upwards in a particular career, there is now no time in peoples' now many careers when they aren't moving from job to job.

And a recession is not necessarily a bad time to change employers. It again depends on what your job is as employers can't use the first-in first-out rule any more unless they want an age discrimination claim.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

A fact that many choose to ignore. Most on a average wage can buy as long as they are not too fussy about what and where. None of my contemporaries bought a 2 bed house as their first purchase. Virtually all started with 1 bed flats in manky areas.

You are consistently ignoring something yourself.

The fact that people generally buy where they can still access their place of work....can access their family....can keep their kids in the school surrounded by their familiar peers.

Most people cannot simply up stick, quit their job, leave everyone they know, the area they know, their family, just to be able to get a house.

You are correct in what you are saying...many of my peers could probably buy in the North West. Not much use though when your whole life is built around living where you live....normally where you were bought up.

Some people still want quality of life (family, friends, familiarity, job) when they buy a home. Maybe that's just asking too much now?

StevieJ

Here is one Generation Yer that is just getting on with it and attracting peoples admiration along the way.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2680787

Oldernotwiser

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In this case, it's a written report, looking at several factors, which has concluded what we are talking about now.

I can see where you are coming from, but we are back to mass generalisations of a whole generation again.

I'm not sure what we are supposed to sacrifice? What is it that you see that people my age should be sacrificing in order to buy a home?

Is it Holidays? Cus none of my group of friends do that, and we all have problems, bar the one who got his house bought for him. Technology? Again, we all just have the norm. I got a 21" CRT upstairs an LCD downstairs. Don't have sky, just sky freeview and normal freeview upstairs. None of my immediate friends from school have sky either, not since freeview has come along. Haven't got a blueray player. Do have an Xbox360, mates all have a PS3 or Xbox.

We all need the internet for general living now, and I'd say I EASILY save the cost of my ISP subscription each month by using the internet to make purchases. Cashback, vouchers, it all add's up to a major saving...especially as everywhere I go in town I have to pay the council to park. Though the internet subscription is often one the older generation throw our way in conversations such as this.

Regarding technology and how much we have now. Boomers had more than their parents. So I don't really see what's different. My son wil have more than me. That's just advances.

So I'd like to know these sacrifices were supposed to make? Is it really getting rid of the TV, internet, mobile phone etc? If so, I couldn't live my life properly, or carry out my work properly, literally because life now revolves around those items as life has changed to take these into account....just as life changed to take washing machines, cars, the radio etc into account. Don't think my clients would be too happy if I said "no e-mails, no mobile phones, just landlines after 6pm please".

You're right that these things are the norm now, but they weren't for earlier generations, so they equate to more expense.

What about cars? Far more people run a car now in their teens and also expect to do so whilst at university. In fact, many people turn their nose up at the bangers that I, and many people of my age, drive quite happily.

What about social expenses? I'm sure that you're aware of the amount of money that people in their early twenties spend regularly on a night out. When I was at university it was 3 or 4 cans of Newquay Brown at the student disco (entry a quid), not regular nights out in clubs drinking shorts and shots!