Resentment of this generation

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Well currently there will probably be a charging order on the house my brother and I will inherit but with that I guess we will still get 85% of it. (assuming my dad actually figures how to live within his means soon)

With that yes it will be a nice chunk of cash which will help us get out of the area and will help my brother finally be able to buy a house.

So in short because many of us will have a level of inheritance coming all we have to do is wait for our parents to die, good plan but we can't put our lives on hold that long.

No no one said that, my nan was not my parent believe it or not.
The current generation are likely to know their grand parents thus will be more likely to get inheritance from them. (like the other poster said)
All my Grandparents were dead by the time I was 17, 1 before I was borne 2 before I was 10.
Is that the same now? do they have more assets to pass down?

The money will be recycled at some point. We can't take it with us.

ukcarper

zagfles wrote: »

I'm trying to persuade my parents to leave their house directly to their grandchildren, rather than their children who already all have houses bought before the boom. That way those who will suffer as a result of current silly house prices (ie those yet to buy) will have this offset by being left a share of a house.

I think skipping a generation might be a good idea. I have 3 children in their 30s all are buying their own houses and have no real need for a inheritance from me. I would say the older 2 are in a better position that I was at their age and the youngest is about the same.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Mens wages have not grown as much since women entered the workforce?

If you split UK GDP now to "men only" do you not think wages would be higher.

More workers means stifled wages, the idea having two earners meant twice the money is very flawed.

Women working is great, but it is fairly obvious if men or indeed women were the only sex allowed to work wages would be higher.

Think china. (the effect of a high working population has on wage expectation)

Alright.

I don't really think you can really have a serious argument that 2 wages doesn't neccesarily mean household income increases. On very very flaky ground with that one. Especially considering it's used by yourself and others as a reason for higher house prices.

As I said, living costs may have declined slightly (dependant on whats in the basket), but household income has risen to the point where you need two people to buy the same as one could.

Easy enough to state for example that living costs are now (for example again) 60% of income, whereas they were 70%, if you are going to ignore how that household income is earnt.

quantic

I get pretty annoyed when people tell me I got the opportunity to go to uni, because what that actually means in my mind, is that it took me until I was 21 to be qualified enough to get a job that pays !!!!!. Seems like everyone has a degree in my generation now and they are worth nothing as a result.

Meaning not only do I need to pay more comparatively to buy a house than previous generations, but also have less time of paid employment to do so, which is probably why the age of the average first time buyer has crept up to 35+

Sure, owning a house worth 200k might not give you 200k in your bank, but that doesnt stop it costing me 2 or 3 times as much per month to own the same house as you that I bought 15 years later, even though we are on the same wage?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Alright.

I don't really think you can really have a serious argument that 2 wages doesn't neccesarily mean household income increases. On very very flaky ground with that one. Especially considering it's used by yourself and others as a reason for higher house prices.

I never said that, I was saying it did not mean twice the income. (you moved on to that after denying cost of living had not fallen)

But If you accept that two people working is by choice not by necessity and that cost of living has gone down The reality is it was not previous generations pushing up prices it was demand and excess cash.

The extra money and demand pushed up prices, exactly what I said on the thread you first disagreed with.:beer:

Glad to see the argument has changed from women are forced to pay a mortgage, to choosing to work now and spending it where they see fit.;)

grizzly1911

My parents married shortly after the war.

They lived in 2 rooms for about 4 years and then moved into a rennted maisonette until the brought their first house 11 years after marrying.

My mum still recounts the day they moved in. She sat on the stairs and sobbed, what have we done, we can't afford this. They were chided by their brother and sisters for taking on a mortgage.

They didn 't have the first car until I was 5. It was a second hand banger.

Dad wasn't never well paid in Engineering - it was sneered at. But thousands like him worked in awful conditions and supported the pyramid of all the hangers on. He traveled globally fixing the sales mans broken promises,we didn't see him for months at a time, for no extra in his packet.

They deserved everything that strove for.

Now the engineering/manufacturing base has gone. The pyramid is falling down.

ILW

quantic wrote: »

I get pretty annoyed when people tell me I got the opportunity to go to uni, because what that actually means in my mind, is that it took me until I was 21 to be qualified enough to get a job that pays !!!!!. Seems like everyone has a degree in my generation now and they are worth nothing as a result.

Sure, owning a house worth 200k might not give you 200k in your bank, but that doesnt stop it costing me 2 or 3 times as much per month to own the same house as you that I bought 15 years later, even though we are on the same wage?

Odd thing is that out of the around 10 people who I know who are in their mid to late twenties, three own their own houses, they are the three that did not go to university. Not sure if there is any message there though.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I never said that, I was saying it did not mean twice the income.

But If you accept that two people working is by choice not by necessity and that cost of living has gone down The reality is it was not previous generations pushing up prices it was demand and excess cash.

The extra money and demand pushed up prices, exactly what I said on the thread you first disagreed with.:beer:

Glad to see the argument has changed from women are forced to pay a mortgage, to choosing to work now and spending it where they see fit.;)

I've never said its twice the income either, simply stated it takes two incomes.

Whats this about accepting 2 people working is through choice?! Wheres that just come from? You really think all these dual income couples are doing it through choice!? You really are away with the fairies.

I dunno what your last paragraph is about You seem to be quoting me, but talking about other discussions going on which I haven't even been part of.

Can see this little debate isn't going to go anywhere anyway. I think it's safe to say, the amount of income a household needs to keep up has gone up, and that therefore, has pushed the cost of living down, very slightly in percentage terms.

Conrad

quantic wrote: »

.

It seems the last 2 generations (at least) have been a champion of circumstances, I find it pretty demoralising

You've tapped into something I come accross all the time.
I cannot stand some of the smug people I meet where for example Daddy helped them buy a plot of land and they all built the house 20 years ago and sit pretty without a mortgage. No planning, no guile or cunning, just pure circumstance. Of course they don't see it this way, they are quite smugg in thier good fortune.

The one that really bugs me is someone I used to manage. He was at best an average performing broker. Both his own and his wifes parents are very wealthy.

There was I working all hours and there was he having literaly 10 holidays per year. It got to the point where he risked buying a very expensive home, but he could only do this with the tacti backing of the parents who he knew well not only supported such risk taking, but would have seen him through any tough periods.

Within months of completion he had hived off half the land and may a cool £800,000 and was able to reduce the mortgage to £200k.:mad:

I used to think hard work and abstinance would always pay but as I grow older I realise luck has a huge impact.

quantic

ILW wrote: »

Odd thing is that out of the around 10 people who I know who are in their mid to late twenties, three own their own houses, they are the three that did not go to university. Not sure if there is any message there though.

Well its funny you say that because a guy I was friends with at school dropped out when he was 16, went and did an apprenticeship and started saving up. When he bought his house he had a 100k deposit. Hes now more financially set in life than everyone else I know! At the time though, everyone thought he was a drop out and too dumb for uni.