Generation Whine

Oldernotwiser

olly300 wrote: »

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

.

However much you saved, you never caught up with house price inflation running at 30% in the early 70s, particularly when paying a third of your income for a room in a shared flat!

Oldernotwiser

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

But you used to have to stretch your commuting distance to breaking point to be able to afford somewhere to live in the south east. Expecting to be able to live near friends and family is one of the things that just have to go when times are difficult. Perhaps people today are less prepared to make that kind of sacrifice?

olly300

A._Badger wrote: »

I've no idea about your personal circumstances. I am, though, struck by the lifestyles of some of the younger people I work with. Specifically, the percentage of their incomes spent on clothes, cars, holidays, eating out and entertainment generally.

Not all young people are like that. It really depends on the industry you work in.

I've worked in places where I've been uncomfortable because people my age and younger wasted lots of money on things and so have some of my siblings. Plus here are plenty of young people on this board who don't spend money on those things.

A._Badger wrote: »

The technology angle is a red herring. Technology is cheap - as has been pointed out.

Depends what you are buying. There are idiots out there who have to have the newest of everything as soon as it comes out.

A._Badger wrote: »

I'm also struck by their expectations. A new home seems to mean new furniture, new domestic appliances, new kitchens.... same old holidays and restaurants, though.

Plenty of people I know of all ages are happy to have second hand furniture or furniture of a mate, mainly because new stuff is not built to last.

In fact I've been involved in lots of conversations where people have got something second hand and other people want to know where it was brought from due to the quality.

In regards to kitchens if you see the stuff that some people put in to sell a property it's not surprising that people want it ripped out particularly when the doors start falling off.

A._Badger wrote: »

None of that applied in the past. You didn't breed, saved a huge proportion of your income as a deposit, staggered into your first flat with a few sticks of tenth-hand furniture, lived on tinned food and inched forward with the rest of your life.

Considering my parents, who weren't baby boomers, and others I know who definitely are brought their first properties after they had children that isn't strictly true.

A._Badger wrote: »

If, after umpteen years of that, older people now appear to 'have everything' then what do you expect? Older people always had everything - not least, as Generali points out, through the magic of compound interest and, as should be blindingly obvious, due to the natural process of the accumulation of wealth.

And I've met older people who aren't well off.

Oldernotwiser

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.

If something just isn't possible then is the fact that it's less possible actually worse?

olly300

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

However much you saved, you never caught up with house price inflation running at 30% in the early 70s, particularly when paying a third of your income for a room in a shared flat!

That's why I said it depends how old you are as older workers in general (but not always) tend to earn more.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

I am basing much of this on London where a 2 bed house can range from £140k to a million, all within 15 miles of each other. I am sure that even where your are there are rough areas on the outskirts of large towns where cheap property is available. If people decide these places are below them fair enough, but don't moan that you cannot afford to buy a home.

olly300

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But you used to have to stretch your commuting distance to breaking point to be able to afford somewhere to live in the south east. Expecting to be able to live near friends and family is one of the things that just have to go when times are difficult. Perhaps people today are less prepared to make that kind of sacrifice?

No people aren't.

Plenty of people who live in the SE weren't brought up there so move away.

Other people who were brought up in London move outside London.

However if people already have children when they want to buy and their family are their main source of childcare they think very carefully about where they buy.

Plus as people expect now to stay in a property longer than they will work for a particular company most people are careful to buy a property where they commute the same distance or less for other work.

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

I bought my first flat in Jan 1990.
The market promptly crashed by 30% and took 10 years to recover and interest rates went up to 15% for a bit.
Yes we had it easy.

Which goes to show it's not as simple as house price to wage ratios and there have always been good and bad times to buy

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

I am basing much of this on London where a 2 bed house can range from £140k to a million, all within 15 miles of each other. I am sure that even where your are there are rough areas on the outskirts of large towns where cheap property is available. If people decide these places are below them fair enough, but don't moan that you cannot afford to buy a home.

This is just a stupid thing to say.

Why would anyone, in their right mind, save up for ages, or get themselves into huge debt and take on possibly their biggest commitment so far in life, and knowingly do so in a place they do not like, do not feel safe and are not happy in?

When at ANY time have people done this? It's one thing renting, but actually buying a place you hate!?

Again, you are just doing the neat little box thing and saying "you can buy a home there, shutup" without thinking any further into it.

I doubt you would do yourself what you are expecting others to do.

Everyone in life has different thoughts and feelings on different areas. Every area therefore has it's potential buyer. But to suggest a buyer should spend so much money on their biggest commitment in life so far in a place they will never be happy, feel safe, or feel content is the height of stupidity - sorry.

No one is on here, or in the papers saying they want a mansion. On a general level, no one of my generation is expecting everything on a plate, and a 4 bed detached in the country with plenty of land and an orchard.

I'm out of this convo, it's going absolutely no where. I will say however, that on page 3 or 4, at least some of my generation on this thread acknowledged and discussed in detail the struggles the boomers went through. This has been totally ignored and were back to the fact my generation just want everything now, want it all so easy and want to pee our money up the wall every night in the process.

ukcarper

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

However much you saved, you never caught up with house price inflation running at 30% in the early 70s, particularly when paying a third of your income for a room in a shared flat!

I think people don't realise how fast house prices increased in the early 70s. I bought my first house in 72 in was a new build 3 bed. I bought it in April for £8000, the first houses on the street were £5350 at the end of 71 and the last ones were nearly £11,000 at the beginning of 73, that’s a big jump even with 15% inflation I would have had no chance of buying then.