Which Decade Was The Hardest On The Yoof For Buying A House?

the_flying_pig

00's

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You put soaring house prices down to BTLers but from the same document you linked
http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/pdfs/research/2010/50_Years_of_Housing_UK.pdf



BTL filled part of the gap that was created during the social housing sell off. but as you can see is still far lower than historically

I’m not sure what you’re driving at but, from that table, this is the story of the last five decades in a nutshell.


The single biggest, most rapid, change in that whole table is the 1960s’ decline in the share of private landlords. Private landlords’ lost share was taken up pretty much equally by mini-booms in social housing & owner-occupation. A similar, smaller, thing happened again in the 1970s, with the growth here being a little more in OO rather than social housing.


The second biggest change in that whole table is the 1980s’ growth in owner-occupation. This was mostly at the expense of the 60s’ and 70s’ mini-boom in social housing, which was pretty much entirely reversed.

In the 90s things stayed pretty much the same. OO had a small gain at the expense of social.


The noughties saw both social housing and OO lose out to BTL. These weren’t huge changes by the standards of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but changes they were. And of course If BTLs' share of all housing went from 10% to 14% you can be sure that the change affecting "yoof" was far bigger.

ukcarper wrote: »

You are doing what most of you seem to do and pick a time when property was cheap and compare that to now anybody buying in the mid 90s were luck enough to get the cheapest house prices in relation to earnings since 1950

No. Today's 25 year olds have poorer housing than today's 35 and 45 and 55 year olds, in comparable lines of work, did at the same age. That's not cherry picking.

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I’m not sure what you’re driving at but, ..........
And of course If BTLs' share of all housing went from 10% to 14% you can be sure that the change affecting "yoof" was far bigger.

I'm not denying BTL increased, my point was that it has been less than the reduction in social housing.

You can't therefore attribute price rises as a direct result of this one factor.

I'm sure ifyou look at transactions as well, you'll find that OO far outweighed BTL.

BTL has contributed but it is a small contribution on the whole.

ukcarper

70's

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I’m not sure what you’re driving at but, from that table, this is the story of the last five decades in a nutshell.


The single biggest, most rapid, change in that whole table is the 1960s’ decline in the share of private landlords. Private landlords’ lost share was taken up pretty much equally by mini-booms in social housing & owner-occupation. A similar, smaller, thing happened again in the 1970s, with the growth here being a little more in OO rather than social housing.


The second biggest change in that whole table is the 1980s’ growth in owner-occupation. This was mostly at the expense of the 60s’ and 70s’ mini-boom in social housing, which was pretty much entirely reversed.

In the 90s things stayed pretty much the same. OO had a small gain at the expense of social.


The noughties saw both social housing and OO lose out to BTL. These weren’t huge changes by the standards of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but changes they were. And of course If BTLs' share of all housing went from 10% to 14% you can be sure that the change affecting "yoof" was far bigger.




No. Today's 25 year olds have poorer housing than today's 35 and 45 and 55 year olds, in comparable lines of work, did at the same age. That's not cherry picking.

House prices are cheaper in relation to average salary than they were in the early 1970s so if they have price can’t be the sole factor.

I was in a job where you can compare the salary in 1972 to now and it has roughly increased 20x. The house I bought in mid 1972 was £8k but by the end of the year they were £11k the same house would sell for £200k.

Really2

80's

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that the 80s was really quite easy [not just on the “yoof”] because government basically gave away loads of houses to occupiers at knock-down prices.

Would that not require you to live in a council house to buy one? Were the youth in easy access of council property or the unemployed able to get mortgages?
Does mortgage affordability not come in to the mix also?

Price does not make it easier to buy, especially if you can't buy one as you are not a council tennent, jobless etc.

The 00's must have been an easier time to buy, there were 100% + mortgages available, self cert etc.
We all know people who in reality should not have been able to own, purchased.

So in reality the 00's were most probably the easiest as virtually anyone could get a mortgage.

Graham_Devon

00's

ukcarper wrote: »

House prices are cheaper in relation to average salary than they were in the early 1970s so if they have price can’t be the sole factor.

Not quite...Infact not even close.

the_flying_pig

00's

Really2 wrote: »

Would that not require you to live in a council house to buy one? Were the youth in easy access of council property?

Price does not make it easier to buy, especially if you can't buy one as you are not a council tennent.

The 0's must have been an easier time to buy, there were 100% + mortgages available.
We all know people who in reality should not have been able to own, purchased.

So in reality the 00's were most probably the easiest as virtually anyone could get a mortgage.

Well, it depends. The noughties were reasonably easy if you were prepared to lie about your income and/or borrow the absolute maximum that banks were prepared to lend you. But thankfully many people [the majority?] shied away from such behaviour.

But I can't get away from the fact that home ownership by owner-occupiers went into retreat in the noughties. This can literally only be explained in one of two ways:

(1) It became more difficult to own a home;
(2) There was a shift away from people wanting to own a home.

Which do you think it was?

the_flying_pig

00's

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not quite...Infact not even close.

I do believe that there are a few recorded months in 1973 when the price to income ratio was high, nowhere near as high as 2007, but kind of early mid or end noughties-ish.

ukcarper

70's

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I do believe that there are a few recorded months in 1973 when the price to income ratio was high, nowhere near as high as 2007, but kind of early mid or end noughties-ish.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php

I though early would be before half way through.

Really2

80's

the_flying_pig wrote: »

(1) It became more difficult to own a home;
(2) There was a shift away from people wanting to own a home.

Which do you think it was?

3) A property crash at the end of the decade, STR etc.
4) An increase in social housing & private rental being built diluting the percentages.

Ease of owning is 100% down to access to finance. If you can't get finance you cant own, so when credit was at it easiest would have been the easiest time to own.

Non of the above 4 points reflect ease of purchasing. It is simply down to when was the time that the most could buy.
Self cert, 100+ being evil etc is irelevent, it was available, so more could buy and many rightly or wrongly did not take the risk.
It is not about morals it is a fact it was fairly easy to buy in the 00's.

ukcarper

70's

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I do believe that there are a few recorded months in 1973 when the price to income ratio was high, nowhere near as high as 2007, but kind of early mid or end noughties-ish.

We are talking about difficulty in buying if you are trying to buy when the maximum mortgages you can get is 3x joint (which believe it or not you could get in the 70s) and the average house price was 4x it’s no easier to buy than if house prices are 5x but you can only borrow 4x. especially if interest rates are over twice as high.