The generation poorer than their parents

edinburgher

That article made me laugh - I love how the natural response of someone with a £1,000,000+ house is to set up a think tank. He doesn't actually have any good ideas for fixing the lack of fairness he perceives, but he cares (gosh darn it!) and would like to speak to other people who share his views

Sounds like he needs a penpal more than anything...

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

I bought my place at 28. You seem to think you're in the minority here.

No I think I am ahead of the game in current terms, my point is:

When its said people had to sit on boxs and wait for there income to increase that is beacause they could get there home at an earlier age (its not uncommon for my parents generation to already be married with the house and 2 kids by my age).

Now we have to wait for the wage increase before we get the house, hence why we don't need to sit on boxs.

abaxas

Percy1983 wrote: »

No I think I am ahead of the game in current terms, my point is:

When its said people had to sit on boxs and wait for there income to increase that is beacause they could get there home at an earlier age (its not uncommon for my parents generation to already be married with the house and 2 kids by my age).

Now we have to wait for the wage increase before we get the house, hence why we don't need to sit on boxs.

Interesting point.

If we look at the estate where my wife's parents bought their first 'starter home'. One is currently marketed at £365,000. It cant exactly be compared as it has small extension added.

Then look at my parents. They also bought a starter home, which the one next door is currently marketed at £240,000.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

abaxas wrote: »

Then look at my parents. They also bought a starter home, which the one next door is currently marketed at £240,000.

Fallacious argument.

Around every employment hub in the UK prices rise over time, and as population grows, areas that used to be "starter homes" are now expensive.

Think of it like this....

A population of 100,000 people needs say 40,000 houses. A population of 200,000 people needs 80,000 houses.

A population of 100,000 people needs, say, 5,000 well paid professionals, doctors, lawyers, dentists, managers, etc.

A population of 200,000 people needs 10,000 well paid professionals.

Once neighbourhoods are full, people have to build further out to fit the next 40,000 houses. And the first 40,000 become more valuable by nature of their proximity to the employment, and because twice as many high paid professional people are trying to live there, forcing the lower paid further and further out.

So the cottages that used to be common cheap housing for clerks on the edge of London 100 years ago, are now multi-million pound houses for bankers in the prime city centre.

Like it or not, people will pay more money to live closer in. If you drive an hour outside almost any major city in the UK, you can find cheap housing. 40 years ago you only had to drive 20 minutes. In another 40 years you'll have to drive 2 hours.

So the whole "My parents bought this house as working class youngsters" argument has no validity at all.

zagubov

Chrisblue1962 wrote: »

My two pennyworth...

The price of housing throught the UK bears no resemblance to people's wages and their subsequent ability to service said debt AND meet normal everyday living costs.

I appreciate no-one has an absolute natural "right" to be able to buy their own house but housing needs to be affordable - either rented or purchased - people need somewhere to live!

Another factor which raises house prices is the fact that the people who value the house for sale - Estate Agents - have a vested interest in pricing it as high as possible as their fees / commission is based on said sale price. Maybe fixed price fees for price bands would prevent "estate agent inflation".

For some people, house purchase is not the answer. My cousin, who has lived in Germany for 40 years, has always rented. If it works in Euroope, why not here?

Totally agree -this is all crazy. The HPI is doing us no good at all- we buy more houses than we sell because we don't sell the one we die in.

The houses have turned into investments where we buy and sell houses with more bedrooms than we need because that helps resale, while the number of widowers/widows/divorcees etc. keeps growing! Nobody can afford and few people need the kind of 2 and 3 bedroom homes that property !!!!!! encourages us to buy, develop and resell!

Net result: a country of 60 million people with about 120million bedrooms (most of them doubles). And people moaning the country's overcrowded. Also a glut of overpriced houses with spare capacity while tweenagers are staying at their parents for longer and longer.

The rest of the world gets on with renting and the result is they live in great housing all their lives, then their kids live in great housing all their lives ... and so on.

Have you guys never noticed that when you go to more crowded countries (Germany/ Netherlands/ Belgium) than this, they don't actually feel or look crowded: there still seems to be enough room and not totally covered by sprawling estates of tiny homes?

And as regards it all ending when we own a mansion and earn a million a week. We're close to that already. We're living in hovels priced like they're mansions and earning vast multiples of previous generations income - just spending it on bricks and mortar (and not even the right kinds of bricks and mortar)!

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham,

How many home buyers do you know today that have to sit on old milk crates for chairs for the first few years because they can't afford furniture? That don't own a TV because they can't afford one? That don't have central heating, and huddle around a coal fire in one room of the house wrapped in blankets every winter because it takes years of promotions and/or payrises before they can afford to heat the house properly?

These were the types of sacrifice many people used to have to make to own a house. Not everyone, but a reasonably large percentage.

I don't see anybody making those sacrifices nowadays.

This isn't an argument over whether it was easier "back then".

Why? Because you ignore credit. Something which wasn't around as much, especially credit cards, "back then". Therefore, people made do, instead of buying on credit.

Credit is the very thing you complain about, i..e there isn't enough of it and therefore demand is held back, so I'm surprised to see you making a comparison and ignoring credit.

edinburgher

Why? Because you ignore credit. Something which wasn't around as much, especially credit cards, "back then". Therefore, people made do, instead of buying on credit.

Back when? Because we had this discussion in the office the other day and more senior colleagues agreed that while credit in the form of credit cards didn't exist, hire purchase agreements for specific items have been around for decades.

Graham_Devon

edinburgher wrote: »

Back when? Because we had this discussion in the office the other day and more senior colleagues agreed that while credit in the form of credit cards didn't exist, hire purchase agreements for specific items have been around for decades.

This subject is pre 1980's.

Hamish appears to think anyone who buys now also buys brand new everything else....which simply is not true.

A credit card is MUCH easier to go and buy a few basics, such as the kettle, microwave, dvd player, kitchen utensils, even the sofa.

Wouldn't get people taking out hire purchase individually on all those items.

Electronics HAVE got a lot cheaper, there is no denying that. But this point blank "we ha dit harder in every way" nonsense does get to me. It simply doesn't allow any discussion, and seems there is no discussion from some of the older generations.

Credit cards have had a HUGE effect on buying power.

Some of the older generation on this thread would have us believe we are all filthy rich, due to the low cost of living. Reality is, the UK populace is more indebted than at any other time in living history.

When its easier to purchase items, people do so. Credit has made it easier. It's not that we are more wealthy and have an easier ride....just we have the means to spend today and worry about it tommorow.

If you want to have us believe people used Hire Purchase on most individual items we are talking about, feel free, but you aint fooling me!!

I don;t know which generation had it easier. All I do know is the generation before me (say 10 years older) have all done, and had done FAR better in terms of house size vs mortgage payments / indebtedness, than any of my age have done so far.

edinburgher

Hamish appears to think anyone who buys now also buys brand new everything else....which simply is not true.

While there are a dedicated minority (on these boards and a few others) who think sensibly about such things and would shop around, use second hand, Freecycle and gifts from family etc., in my experience they're the exception to the norm.

One example (entirely anecdotal), but I have a family member who completed on a house and lost his job within weeks of doing so. Did it mean he bought second hand/reined it in/lived of his financial reserves? Did it hell - he bought expensive new items, just less of them and was unable to pay the mortgage within 2 months...

If you want to have us believe people used Hire Purchase on most individual items we are talking about, feel free, but you aint fooling me!!

I don't believe I said that? My specific comment was that while a boom in 'cheap'/flexible credit has definitely led to major changes in spending habits, people have been taking out credit/HP on the larger household items for generations.

I'm not taking a side either way on the 'generations' argument, but have to say that HPI, luck and a modicum of timing have led to my parents owning a far larger house than I'm ever likely to do..

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don;t know which generation had it easier. All I do know is the generation before me (say 10 years older) have all done, and had done FAR better in terms of house size vs mortgage payments / indebtedness, than any of my age have done so far.

That wealth isn't going to be locked away for ever - eventually it'll pass down a generation.

I'm sure the recipient generation, knowing just how hard it's been for them, will make all efforts to spend/ invest wisely to ensure the generation behind them don't have to go through the same hell we've had in the UK for the last 20 years.