The generation poorer than their parents

mintedmatty

LilacPixie wrote: »

haha I had plastic B&Q garden chairs I liberated from my parents :rotfl: and that was 2003.

When I bought my 1st house I had my bed, bedding, and a toaster. :rotfl::rotfl::o

Same goes! I had a picnic dining table and 2 chairs, and a bed! Think I had a beanbag too, that was only in 2005. I think marriage is a big factor to be considered. I think there are a lot more young independent twenty somethings now than in my paresnts generation! How many properties are owned by single people now compared to our parents? I'm sure it will be much more, saying that Im one of only 3 people in my 'friends' group of say 20 peeps who own a house by ourselves. Its a lot easier filling a house with furniture on 2 incomes!

When I did it myself, every room is a project! One month, its table and chairs, next month its sofa and chairs etc. It was B***dy hard work but I'm not reaping the benefits.

Flip side of that ofcourse is how many couples in our parents generation had 2 incomes anyway!

mintedmatty

Sorry 'NOW' reaping the benefits!!

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This myth keeps popping it's head up, that there are two bedrooms for every person is nonsense.

There are roughly 25 million houses, and 62 million people.

In order for the "two bedrooms for each person" myth to be true, the average house would need to have 5 bedrooms. Which it obviously doesn't.

To be fair I believe the 120 million is meant to refer to rooms you could unfold a sofa bed in as well as proper bedrooms - that's a lot more credible. however, there's a tendency to sell houses by room number not floorspace in this country. You hear stories of show homes where the extra bedroom has to have caravan furniture to fit in the small space they've squeezed an extra room into.

In the UK I gather a lot of flatbuilding nowadays is buy-to-let for the 40% of the population who go to university nowadays - and to be fair they might be more inclined to put up with subsized accommodation as its temporary. Nobody's building the proper sized flats a family could live in comfortably like they do in Europe

In fact I'd go so far as to say that a lot of people see a flat as a starter home until they can buy a house with more rooms than they need. Less so in Scotland where they don't have this leasehold nonsense and flats are often a decent size.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's fine to point out some items are cheaper, but that isn't correlating into an easier / higher standard of living. Indeed, we are going backwards. Smaller houses, worse quality houses, worse quality items.

This is a depressingly negative view and it doesn't reflect reality.

Have a look at this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/1970-vs-2010-40-years-when-we-got-older-richer-and-fatter-2017240.html

It's a year old but some interesting points. Is everything rosy right now? No but count me out of going back to the 1970's - I'll leave that to the rose tinted spectacle wearers that weren't even there.

ILW

I suppose if most people died before they were 70 there would be more houses to go round. Not exactly progress though.

zagubov

We are better off in many ways, but not in the most important one

It's fair to say housing is getting worse (smaller and lower quality) but costing much much more. Other goods are getting comparatively cheaper and more reliable. Seriously they do more and last longer than comparable models in the past. Repairers are struggling to make a living, and comparison organisations like Which? are finding people choose more on price than reliability nowadays

It's the housing bubble that's unbalancing the economy and finances and our way of life.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

This is a depressingly negative view and it doesn't reflect reality.

Have a look at this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/1970-vs-2010-40-years-when-we-got-older-richer-and-fatter-2017240.html

It's a year old but some interesting points. Is everything rosy right now? No but count me out of going back to the 1970's - I'll leave that to the rose tinted spectacle wearers that weren't even there.

This thread is about wealth and the cost of houses for two (or three) different generations.

It's not about life expectancy, health, or education. My point was houses get smaller, and worse quality. You've linked up to an article nothing to do with that.

People have already agreed most of that is better, and it will always be better the further we progress in life, due to human and technological advancement. I'd expect my son to have better access to better healthcare and advancements when he's my age. Thats human progression and science.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This myth keeps popping it's head up, that there are two bedrooms for every person is nonsense.

There are roughly 25 million houses, and 62 million people.

In order for the "two bedrooms for each person" myth to be true, the average house would need to have 5 bedrooms. Which it obviously doesn't.

evidence please.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

To be fair I believe the 120 million is meant to refer to rooms you could unfold a sofa bed in as well as proper bedrooms - that's a lot more credible.

But it's not "bedrooms" then.

Most people actually use their living room, kitchen and toilets for, well, not sleeping in....;)

a flat as a starter home until they can buy a house with more rooms than they need.

We have no kids and currently live in a 3 bedroom house.

We use the other bedrooms for a home office, and a storage room/spare bedroom for guests.

Not sure you can say people don't "need" those rooms just because they don't sleep in them every night.

Less so in Scotland where they don't have this leasehold nonsense and flats are often a decent size.

Newbuilds up here seem to be smaller than old houses, flats as well.

But some of that may have to do with the taxes developers must pay toward infrastructure. If you're having to fund a school and a road from the houses you build, something has to give if they're going to remain within reach of the prices of older properties that didn't have to pay those levies.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

geneer wrote: »

evidence please.

Which bit?

The part that was self-evident, or the part which was blindingly obvious?