Resentment of this generation

Percy1983

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Come on Really. The last decade has shown us it wasn't solely about the amount of money you had.

Regulation and lending was a massive part of the house price boom. It wasn't all based on the amount people earned.

It does seem it was more who got to the bank first and said 'give me some money'

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

Well that does go back to the whole 'you only sit at a computer, its not hard work' arguement. Maybe I will reword it.

I am doing tasks many of those before me could not, while many of them did tasks I can do.

Yours is a professional service role, like a lot of others, me included at times.

What has been lost in our economy is the roles that helped create the wealth that we can then service.

My father was an Engineer, started work at 14 and graduated up, "he" constructed machinery that in turn made things. The company he worked for then exported them. That brought revenue in.

I know lots of service industries do too but this company was pretty near the bottom the pyramid. It provided the seed for many more layers of jobs in the economy.

Unfortunately we have lost those bottom layers and the jobs,
the pyramid is smaller plus we have to pay other countries for what we used to do.
I wasn't allowed to go into a factory I had to have job with a suit.:o

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Come on Really. The last decade has shown us it wasn't solely about the amount of money you had.

Regulation and lending was a massive part of the house price boom. It wasn't all based on the amount people earned.

But what has that got to do with the boomers? you still needed the wages to fit where the market was going to lend.

There have been three busts since the boomers (at least) money still dictates what you can buy.

It stands to reason if people are better qualified and are more upwardly mobile that it has an effect on were the line house prices are.
Regulation may have helped boost it but for it to ring true prices should be a hell of a lot lower now.

And you cant use the base rate as loans are in reality the same cost as the boom yet prices are only 10% lower, if deregulation was the a cause now things are a hell of a lot tighter it only seems to account for 10% of the HPI.

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

It does seem it was more who got to the bank first and said 'give me some money'

Spot on IMO.

Those that spotted an opportunity, took the risk and maximised it.

Not everyone is like that.

It is the same at work, some people are fair and honourable others are quite happy to trample all over someone to benefit themselves.

It is usually the young that take risks apart from those that beleive they are to old to die young.

quantic

grizzly1911 wrote: »

We enter life with nothing we exit with nothing.

There are no pockets in shrouds,

Stuff happens in life, some people get lucky, some don't some are careful but some squander their chances to.

Sometimes you will do better than others sometimes you will fall behind.

Perhaps you are or will be lucky to have children if that is choice, many will not be able to and would give anything for that opportunity.

When you stare death in the face, believe me, the size of your asset bank is last on your mind and it will do you no good whatsoever.

So a guy went to Oxford, lot's of our politicians went there too:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Enjoy what you can, don't sweat over things that you have no control over.:j

Well yes, of course I realise this but after all this is a Money forum and not a how lucky in life in general you are. I was speaking fiscally not any wider than that. I appreciate that its not the most important (not even close to being) but it does have an impact on all other aspects of life and your ease in which to do them.

Being fiscally challenged makes it inherently more difficult to begin doing things such as having children and all of the rest of it.

I take your point though.

Really2

Or the theory is people pay for houses what they think they are worth at that time.

What they are worth is based on what everyone else is willing to pay.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

It stands to reason if people are better qualified and are more upwardly mobile that it has an effect on were the line house prices are.
Regulation may have helped boost it but for it to ring true prices should be a hell of a lot lower now.

Yes, and that's all I was hinting at.

You appeared to be suggesting that its no different now, and people compete on wages. If that was the case, and had always been the case, prices would not be where they currently are. Wages certainly wouldn't have supported the increases in prices.

As for the last part, re: "if regulation helped boost it, prices should not be a hell of a lot lower". Indeed. But that ignores everything that has happened, such as reducing the money needed to service the debt.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for the last part, re: "if regulation helped boost it, prices should not be a hell of a lot lower". Indeed. But that ignores everything that has happened, such as reducing the money needed to service the debt.

No you managed to cut this off so I was ignoring nothing.

Really2 wrote: »

And you cant use the base rate as loans are in reality the same cost as the boom yet prices are only 10% lower, if deregulation was the a cause now things are a hell of a lot tighter it only seems to account for 10% of the HPI.

Servicing debt is about the same cost for new buyers as at peak? Buyers dictate house prices.

Percy1983

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Spot on IMO.

Those that spotted an opportunity, took the risk and maximised it.

Not everyone is like that.

It is the same at work, some people are fair and honourable others are quite happy to trample all over someone to benefit themselves.

It is usually the young that take risks apart from those that beleive they are to old to die young.

And the door close on many because they where born to late to take that chance.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

And the door close on many because they where born to late to take that chance.

Sorry, but that's a bit like saying if we were not borne life would be easier.
We are mid bust and lending is tight, you are hardly too late. Do you wish you purchased 2007 instead?

If 70% own and 70% are only ever available it will always be the top 70% which buy.

That has not changed since your dad was borne, the number of people in competition has though.