An entire generation locked out of property ownership

dianadors

mutter wrote: »

Where you live -
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-30868064.html

Where I live -
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-26292322.html

Same house, £140,000 difference in price.

I work for a large retailer with branches all over the country, and in recognition of the higher cost of living here, I receive 'Location Pay' which amounts to £33 per month.

Ive worked in Crowborough - it was lovely.. I live near Mexborough, its not as nice as Crowborough. However the North/South divide does have (a very few) advantages and property prices are one. My best friend bought her first house in Surrey for £80,000 at the same time as I bought mine for £18,000. Very similar houses. If she sold hers in Surrey and bought in South Yorkshire, she could afford a small mansion now!!! We don't have many jobs up here, but if you are lucky to have one, housing is affordable, Come up north, we'd love to have you.

FATBALLZ

dianadors wrote: »

hen nights were a night out around town with the bride wearing a veil with pill packets pinned onto to it !

We could learn a lot from this, todays generation are only too keen to buy their drugs from the dodgy expensive bloke in the club, rather than taking them from home.

dianadors wrote: »

go to a nightclub before 10 so that you got in free

Interesting that nightclubs charged at all after 10 if nobody of your generation ever went there after that time.

Stories like this remind me of grandpa Simpson. Did you all have onions attached to your belts too?

dianadors

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was gonna ask - whats changed?

You mean people didn't have lavish weddings 30 years ago? Really?

And everyone has lavish weddings now? Really?

The only thing thats changed really is more TV channels and more magazines etc reporting on these things to make you think they are somehow the "norm". Quite honestly, they are not.

Holidays are cheaper - get over it. Holidays were also cheaper for you 30 years ago than you parents. Why does no one recognise this? Only recognise that they are cheaper now, therefore must condemn a whole younger generation and hope they don't have more. Holidays will probably be cheaper agin in 30 years time.

Other things that were different are:
We used public transport as we couldnt afford to buy, let alone run cars.
We didnt buy as many clothes
We went to the village pub with our mates and nursed a britvic orange all night except on a friday when we went into town and had 2 halves of larger (alcopops not invented)
We split our wages into 3 from day 1. Mum got a third, we saved a third and spent a third.
Technology hadnt been invented so we didnt have to have it
When we bought something, it lasted.
We had to work and save for what we aspired to- as we knew nobody was going to give us anything
We used our imagination and creativity to make a few extra bob
We didnt have much choice

I know most things are cheaper theses days - one of the reasons that we don't have the jobs in the north that we used to have because we "demand" cheaper things so its all made abroad instead. But you have a choice.

dianadors

FATBALLZ wrote: »

We could learn a lot from this, todays generation are only too keen to buy their drugs from the dodgy expensive bloke in the club, rather than taking them from home.



Interesting that nightclubs charged at all after 10 if nobody of your generation ever went there after that time.

Stories like this remind me of grandpa Simpson. Did you all have onions attached to your belts too?

Oh yes, and you were considered an idiot if you were into drugs.

Of course the pills were contraceptive pills because we didnt have as many unmarried mothers as you didnt get benefits for it (there by saving the country millions) and we wanted to be married and have a home before we had kids. Of course this didn't apply to all of us, but it applied to those of us that wanted a better life.

We didnt have onions attached to our belts, but we knew someone who grew them on an allotment.

dianadors

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Interesting that nightclubs charged at all after 10 if nobody of your generation ever went there after that time.
QUOTE]


Nightclubs charged if you went in after 10 so that you would get in before and drink in them instead of the pub. We were in nightclubs between 10pm - 2am and we always had a great time with our mates. You watched out for each other. We rarely got bladdered and if one of us did, then we made sure they got home safely. We didn't need drugs to have a good time - our mates ensured we had a good time. Sad to say when I look round Sheffield these days, most of the great pubs are gone and the night clubs are full of young folks off their face on either cheap booze or drugs. (and I know because I end up picking my daughter up because she often has been left by mates and her only way home would be a taxi by herself) You might think its better, but it does't look like it to me.

PasturesNew

mutter wrote: »

Where you live -
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-30868064.html

Where I live -
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-26292322.html

Same house, £140,000 difference in price.

I work for a large retailer with branches all over the country, and in recognition of the higher cost of living here, I receive 'Location Pay' which amounts to £33 per month.

First one's a shabby little terrace; your area looks like a bigger/posher one

So, running that postcode through RM I've got you something £55k cheaper http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32757719.html or this lovely specimen at "just" £170k http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-18085632.html

But yeah ... £40k for a house! My studio with a bed on a shelf on a council estate miles out of town was valued at £50k in 1990!

£210k for a 2-bed terrace where I grew up http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32791373.html

Shakethedisease

A colleague and her boyfriend had put their name down for a mortgage, and a council house at the same time when they got engaged and were going to go with whichever came up first.

I think although you mentioned it.. you've missed a rather large factor out of the equation. In those days there was a choice. So much so that council housing had 'engaged couples' lists ! Imagine that.

That doesn't happen now and although many here want to 'wax lyrical' and sigh nostagically about how hard it was back in the day to attain a mortgage, how youngsters today want it 'all on a plate' etc.. they tend to forget that council housing was in massive abundance then too. Secure tenancies at low rates. Millions of council houses accessible to anyone who wanted one, even those just thinking about getting married.. as opposed to homeless and been living in a hostel for 6 months.

You got married and bought, or got married and got a council house to start a family in..( then bought it 20 years later and then 'got it on a plate' ).. Choice. That's gone now.

Never underestimate what a difference this has made to the current generation who cannot access what you could. Their choices are very limited. Many who you assume are 'gadding about' pay as much in rent ( and rising ) as those who pay mortgages. So while you may indeed have worked hard and went without for your first house.. Others also do so now just to keep a roof over their heads too. One that can only be counted on for 6 months at a time. And it's also very tough saving decent deposits up, when one is already paying the equivilent of the average mortgage out of their wage packets each month just to rent.

There's a big difference between struggling to fund ONE home back in the day.. to those that now are struggling to fund one AND fund the deposit for another at the same time.

Of course the pills were contraceptive pills because we didnt have as many unmarried mothers as you didnt get benefits for it (there by saving the country millions) and we wanted to be married and have a home before we had kids. Of course this didn't apply to all of us, but it applied to those of us that wanted a better life.

The average age of a single parent these days is 36. Most as a result of marital breakdown, not of contraceptive failure. The largest rise in those having children the last few years is for those over 35, teen pregnancy rates are falling. It was common 30 years ago to marry much younger than now, and for only one wage to be coming in too. This one wage paid the bills. Again, these days this is no longer the case.

Graham_Devon

dianadors wrote: »

Oh yes, and you were considered an idiot if you were into drugs.

Were you!?!? Swinging sixties anyone? Certainly seemed there were enough people out there, doing everything you state people do today. Be it drugs, or spending money on going out. The decade was notorious for it.

Of course the pills were contraceptive pills because we didnt have as many unmarried mothers as you didnt get benefits for it (there by saving the country millions) and we wanted to be married and have a home before we had kids. Of course this didn't apply to all of us, but it applied to those of us that wanted a better life.

I can't disagree this was better. Ultimately it was. However, which generation saw through the benefits etc? Your very generation. Don't blame ours. The path was built and laid out for us, and whats more, encouraged.

We didnt have onions attached to our belts, but we knew someone who grew them on an allotment.

Allotments are in high demand throughout the country.

dianadors

You put your name on the council list when you were engaged, but didnt get a house until you were married. Yes there were far more council Houses as Mrs Thatcher had'nt sold them off then. Singles Mother at age 36 who are single through marital breakdown tend to not claim benefits as much as the younger single mums who have never worked and are now given priority for a council house as well as benefits. Back in the early 80's if you got pregnant before you got married, you either got married, got rid of it, or your parents took care of you. Yes the benefits system does help the wrong ones whilst depriving the ones who really need it in my opinion. The drug fuelled 60's didnt really happen as much around here. In the village where I lived, every body's dad was too busy working as there were plenty of jobs and generally had families to take care of. Teenagers went straight from school to work too. Demand for cheaper living has forced almost all the factories, mines and steelworks abroad from around here.

When I joined this thread, I wanted to share how I had managed to afford buying my own home. I went without things and saved hard. The people that I know of your generation who have bought a home have done exactly the same thing. Its the only way I know of doing it. You don't seem to want to take this route, but you don't seem to have a plan either. I hope you find a way and I hope you share it with us when you do. Till then, I wish you luck

PasturesNew

dianadors wrote: »

When I joined this thread, I wanted to share how I had managed to afford buying my own home. I went without things and saved hard. The people that I know of your generation who have bought a home have done exactly the same thing. Its the only way I know of doing it. You don't seem to want to take this route, but you don't seem to have a plan either. I hope you find a way and I hope you share it with us when you do. Till then, I wish you luck

But in a later post you said it cost you £18k. £18k with two people saving. The bottom of the market where I grew up was never that low, never.... and there was just me.

£18k, seriously .... it wasn't that hard for a couple to buy a house at that price. They simply had to decide they wanted one and work out where to get the deposit from.

£18k for a couple would be similar price-wise to a single having to find £9k. In 1981 I was earning £6,000 and the bottom of the market where I lived (and a 20 mile radius) was about £24k. Mortgages were 3x salary for a single person then.