Resentment of this generation

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

LOL, you said cost of living had fallen due to women entering the work force.

women entered the work force on mas in the 60's and 70's the yet people here are moaning about 25 years ago (1986).

Get your story straight, women had to enter the work place to support house prices ?

or because they wanted to and the extra money meant better living standards?


Which is it GD as you are now portraying people 40-50 years ago were forced to work to pay for a house.:D

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Two people working does not mean cost of living has become cheaper. Cost of living is based on cost of goods compared to wages not based on two parent households.
Cost of living is not based on home owners, it is the same measurment for all in the UK.

You are confusing cost of living and household disposable income.

Conrad

quantic wrote: »

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.

My mates sister earned £14k or so for years working from the mid 90's. She was an uber saver. By around 2005 she owned two 3 bed houses outright (in the South East) as she had let both and overpaid the mortgages. Again luck paid a part in that she just happened to start buying when prices had fallen and just happened to be able to live with Mum ongoing.

wotsthat

I know someone who has just finished an apprenticeship (works in a car factory) and has just bought a 3-storey new build with his girlfriend (works in a pound shop). The house costs £105k - he's saved since his apprenticeship started and the builders have, I think, paid 5% towards his deposit.

He's 19. Funny thing is he doesn't appear to be resentful of previous generations at all.

As Julieq said earlier it's about winners and losers. Winners are those who make the best of the circumstances they find themselves in.

Luck helps but it's not something that can be relied upon.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

LOL, you said cost of living had fallen due to women entering the work force.

women entered the work force on mas in the 60's and 70's the yet people here are moaning about 25 years ago (1986).

Get your story straight, women had to enter the work place to support house prices ?

or because they wanted to and the extra money meant better living standards?


Which is it GD as you are now portraying people 40-50 years ago were forced to work to pay for a house.:D

I'm finding it hard to keep up with your objection to everything I write, and if I'm honest, hard to understand what you write.

Just letting you know I'm not running from the discussion, just don't really know what you are going on about now.

If the cost of living has not risen, as you suggest, but has fallen back, as you suggest, please could you explain to me:
- The rise in debt
- The fall in savings levels
- Increasing poverty in children
- Increasing benefits bill
- Increased poverty in the elderly

Until then, i can't understand what you are writing. You seem to be blaming me for suggesting women have increased house prices or something along those lines and that I suggested income has risen by exactly twice the amount. I just have no idea where you got this from, when I was talking about dual incomes.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

Two people working does not mean cost of living has become cheaper. Cost of living is based on cost of goods compared to wages not based on two parent households.
Cost of living is not based on home owners, it is the same measurment for all in the UK.

You are confusing cost of living and household disposable income.

The people I feel sorry for are the post 2003 generation of 1st time buyers as these are the ones who are mostly affected by the HPI we had of that time.
They are the ones who will be saddled with massive mortgages and they are the ones who are likely to struggle when it comes to the time when they want to start a family because the drop in income for many of these people will be significant against what is likely to be a large mortgage.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I know someone who has just finished an apprenticeship (works in a car factory) and has just bought a 3-storey new build with his girlfriend (works in a pound shop). The house costs £105k - he's saved since his apprenticeship started and the builders have, I think, paid 5% towards his deposit.

He's 19. Funny thing is he doesn't appear to be resentful of previous generations at all.

As Julieq said earlier it's about winners and losers. Winners are those who make the best of the circumstances they find themselves in.

Luck helps but it's not something that can be relied upon.

Well there we go then. Case closed. Whole argument undone because someone you know has bought a 3 story new build for an amazingly cheap price. So cheap, it's cheaper than many mobile homes all over the country!

StevieJ

quantic wrote: »

Unlike a lot of people I know, I have gone without things, gone without buying fancy clothes, gone without nights out, gone without holidays and saved my !!! of to be where I am today, but it feels like a bit of a smack in the face that I have seemingly done everything right on paper, but others have done the opposite but simply because they bought 15-20 years ago they are somewhat set.
?

Where have I heard somethng lke that before, ahh I remember.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlPbIWAz-E

House prices are pretty irrelevant as they are subject to supply and demand, prices should fall if people cannot afford them in the medium/long term, now pensions well that is another thing entirely.

DaddyBear

ILW wrote: »

If your generation refused to pay the prices, they would drop. So you only have yourselves to blame.

Wouldn't work. Your generation would just buy them up.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to keep up with your objection to everything I write, and if I'm honest, hard to understand what you write.

Just letting you know I'm not running from the discussion, just don't really know what you are going on about now. (Of course I am happy to explain but I am sure you understand)

If the cost of living has not risen, as you suggest, but has fallen back, as you suggest, please could you explain to me:
- The rise in debt (increased income, also it's lower cost to service)
- The fall in savings levels (proof? But if debt is cheaper would the incentive to save be less? )
- Increasing poverty in children (Increased wages as increased the bar, ask a council kid in the 70's what he had and what he ate. Comparing times where 70% were in manufacturing to a time when 1 in 3 are supervisors may change relative poverty would it not?)
- Increasing benefits bill (More people and inflation)
- Increased poverty in the elderly (in what measure my grandparents had f'all!!!!)

You are comparing relative poverty with cost of living? Two totally different subjects?

My point's were clear, you have changed stance, saying cost of living had decreased due to women entering the work force.
You then go on to state they were forced to work to pay for houses.

If that were true the previous generations had it just as bad as females entered the workforce on mass from the 60's onwards.
When apparently houses were cheap???