Resentment of this generation

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

Well the thing is Graham that I told him what I'd heard from a nutjob on the internet....

The UK government is doing everything in it's power to ensure house prices never fall and once you buy a house the government will do everything it can to keep you there even to the extent of paying interest and capital on your mortgage.

Armed with this 'knowledge' he went and bought a house. It seemed odd to me; I thought the correct response should be to go on an internet forum and start moaning about how high house prices are.

quantic

StevieJ wrote: »

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.

Well, I left Uni at 21, and bought when I was 24, between those dates I earned £43,806 after tax for all 3 years combined. It cost me roughly 24k to move into my first house, so yeah. I would say I saved quite well.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

You then go on to state they were forced to work to pay for houses.

I have not once stated women were forced to work to pay for houses.

I don't know what you are on about.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have not once stated women were forced to work to pay for houses.

I don't know what you are on about.

Must be my misread when I said women chose to work.

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.

Hands were in 1St Gear, brain was in neutral again Graham?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Must be my misread when I said women chose to work.



Hands were in 1St Gear, brain was in neutral again Graham?

Oh I see. You have simply changed the language in what I was saying, into something far more sinister, and suggested I was saying women were "forced" to work to pay for houses.

You dind't misread anything. You just chose to take it to the absolute extreme and apply a completely new context to it.

My point was simply that people would find it incredibly hard to live today without a dual income. Not that anyone had "forced" women out there to pay for a house. The context of choice here is the difference between "I need to go to work, bills need to be paid" and "I think I might go to work because I want to".

Lets agree to disagree Really. I cannot be bothered with you twisting my words and coming up with those types of extremes, and it doesn't help the discussion one bit.

quantic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh I see. You have simply changed the language in what I was saying, into something far more sinister, and suggested I was saying women were "forced" to work to pay for houses.

You dind't misread anything. You just chose to take it to the absolute extreme and apply a completely new context to it.

My point was simply that people would find it incredibly hard to live today without a dual income. Not that anyone had "forced" women out there to pay for a house. The context of choice here is the difference between "I need to go to work, bills need to be paid" and "I think I might go to work because I want to".

Lets agree to disagree Really. I cannot be bothered with you twisting my words and coming up with those types of extremes, and it doesn't help the discussion one bit.

Completely agree with your point about both having to work, while buying a house was a little bit of a struggle but not impossible when I put my mind to it, having children may be a different kettle of fish, god knows what we are going to do when it puts us onto one wage.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My point was simply that people would find it incredibly hard to live today without a dual income.

Yet the number of single people has increased.

Really2

quantic wrote: »

god knows what we are going to do when it puts us onto one wage.

Start saving for it is he best advice, that's what we did.

children have never been cheap.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Yet the number of single people has increased.

Notice how you don't deny completely changing the context of what was said to make it look like I had said something more sinister.

Now you just take issue with the next thing I say. So I guess I shall have to explain that. <sigh>......

It would be incredibly hard, today, to start out, and raise a family on one income, rather than dual income. I didn't say single people. I said one income.

Yet again, we were talking in context of dual incomes, and households. I didn't think I would need to explain that I was still talking about households, as we were in the middle of the conversation.

Is there anything I could say, that you wouldn't take issue with?

What football team do you support?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It would be incredibly hard, today, to start out, and raise a family on one income, rather than dual income. I didn't say single people. I said one income.

What factor stops that Graham in your opinion?