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

ukcarper

70's

Cleaver wrote: »

You can get one for free, with cashback on a pretty low monthly contract, then sell on eBay at the end of the contract before doing it all again. I did this with my iPhone and I think it ended up costing me around £13 a month. Which isn't really much.

As you probably realised I was talking tongue in check and if I could get one for £13 could probably find the money. But some young people on here seem to think all older people are awash with money but although I have a reasonable pension I have to watch what I spend.

All those small things add up.

zeupater

the_flying_pig wrote: »

That`s just assertion, though. It`s a matter of public record that millions became homeowners for the first time in the 80s and that a trend in the opposite direction started in the noughties. Why muddy the water with silly theories about the total cost of living?

Because of the wording of the original question ....

Times only become hard when necessary expenditure is close to income, therefore the price of the house on it's own is a red herring. It's only when you consider all expenditure that you will see the entire picture.

Regarding assertion v public record ... historical average earnings are public record, you can also find the history of average house prices, consumer goods, food, tax, mortgage interest, TV license, energy costs and probably everything else .... when you've done that for each decade and calculated the comparative financial pain to a first time buyer you will be able to answer the original question, "Which Decade Was The Hardest On The Yoof For Buying A House?", which is a completely different to asking "Which Decade Were houses the most expensive in comparison to earnings?"

To put this into current context, let's assume that over the next couple of years average earnings and house prices stagnate, inflation runs at 5% and mortgage interest rates double. Using logic which only looks at the relative value of housing stock to average earnings which is proposed there is absolutely no change to the housebuyer, it would be no more, or no less painfull to purchase then than now, whereas anyone applying a little commonsense would easily identify that it would be much harder in a couple of years time .... yes it's more complex, but it's definately not 'silly'.

HTH
Z

zeupater

Percy1983 wrote: »

So...

Because we have cheap TV's and iPhones we should pay more for our houses, which in turn takes money from the young and gives to the old so they can afford more cheap TV's and iPhones...

Hi

No, it's more like .... Because we have cheap TV's and iPhones we have relatively more disposable income which means that we are able to offer & pay more for our houses when in competition with other buyers .... it's simple supply and demand and that's just as true today as at any other time, the proof being housing price drops when the demand dries up ...

HTH
Z

Graham_Devon

00's

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

No, it's more like .... Because we have cheap TV's and iPhones we have relatively more disposable income which means that we are able to offer & pay more for our houses when in competition with other buyers .... it's simple supply and demand and that's just as true today as at any other time, the proof being housing price drops when the demand dries up ...

HTH
Z

Sorry but how is the iphone cheaper than yesteryear?

the_flying_pig

00's

ukcarper wrote: »

But you are implying that it's all to price.

No I'm not.

Well, maybe I was in parts. But this is secondary.

It's an indisputable, glaringly glaringly obvious fact that the noughties saw a fall in owner-occupation for the first time in a couple of generations. As such it seems entirely reasonable to me [and to most voters in this poll, including rewired, who really knows his !!!!] to describe it was a decade in which home ownership became more difficult.

The precise reasons for this are complex and more of a matter for opinion/debate but I'm sure price must have come into it. If not price then what is your explanation? Several other factors, including interest rates, were on the favorable side if anything. So why did home ownership fall if not price?

the_flying_pig

00's

zeupater wrote: »

Because of the wording of the original question ....

Times only become hard when necessary expenditure is close to income, therefore the price of the house on it's own is a red herring. It's only when you consider all expenditure that you will see the entire picture.

Regarding assertion v public record ... historical average earnings are public record, you can also find the history of average house prices, consumer goods, food, tax, mortgage interest, TV license, energy costs and probably everything else .... when you've done that for each decade and calculated the comparative financial pain to a first time buyer you will be able to answer the original question, "Which Decade Was The Hardest On The Yoof For Buying A House?", which is a completely different to asking "Which Decade Were houses the most expensive in comparison to earnings?"

To put this into current context, let's assume that over the next couple of years average earnings and house prices stagnate, inflation runs at 5% and mortgage interest rates double. Using logic which only looks at the relative value of housing stock to average earnings which is proposed there is absolutely no change to the housebuyer, it would be no more, or no less painfull to purchase then than now, whereas anyone applying a little commonsense would easily identify that it would be much harder in a couple of years time .... yes it's more complex, but it's definately not 'silly'.

HTH
Z

i barely mentioned price. i stand by the idea that a bar-room theory knocked up together using house prices and a half-remembered idea of the cost of a portable TV is hugely inferior as a means of answering the OP's question to actual data on the increase, or decrease, in home ownership.

zeupater

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry but how is the iphone cheaper than yesteryear?

Exactly ..... If you check the original post you'll find that my wording was a mere parody quotation to emphasise an illogical position.

HTH
Z

reweird

70's

Actually on reflection I think this poll is flawed, as today's generation of man-babies still living at home under mummy and daddy's roof, rules, and finances are more likely to whine and moan over their sense of entitlement than any other previous generation, ever. Hence the skewed poll. In our day the yoof just knuckled down and got on with their lot in life.

zeupater

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i barely mentioned price. i stand by the idea that a bar-room theory knocked up together using house prices and a half-remembered idea of the cost of a portable TV is hugely inferior as a means of answering the OP's question to actual data on the increase, or decrease, in home ownership.

Okay, if you're not open to a view of complexity, let's examine a different viewpoint ....

Home ownership ..... Every home is owned by someone, so what you are saying is that there are more people or organisations who own more than one home ? ... it must be because the housing stock has increased and ownership has decreased ... so the two questions which are relevant are why are more homes being bought or built by organisations or individuals, and what effect has this on the ''Yoof', which I take to mean first-time buyers.

Firstly, the obvious one ... there's the fear of recession, so people just aren't looking at increasing their financial exposure, so properties which come to market through natural churn (death/job re-location etc) just aren't moving and are being discounted to encourage buyers to come forward. When properties become affordable enough to make a rental profit the buy-to-let market snaffles them up ..... result, less owners. Then there's the reaction to the loss of social housing stock where some housing associations built a considerable number of properties in to 00s. add to this the shared ownership schemes, I have no idea how there are accounted for in the official statistics, are they included as owned, or part owned ... ?

What effect does this have on the first time buyers ? ... well, from the way that the top end of the market has collapsed around here I reckon that there are very few successful chains being driven by top-end or mid-range housing without collapsing, so it's just confidence ... and that's what recession, and fear of recession, is all about .... confidence.

Another way of looking at it is that overall home ownership doesn't address the issue of first time buyers, it's total market ... so who's to say that it's FTB type properties which are driving the increase in multi-home ownership ?

HTH
Z

ukcarper

70's

the_flying_pig wrote: »

No I'm not.

Well, maybe I was in parts. But this is secondary.

It's an indisputable, glaringly glaringly obvious fact that the noughties saw a fall in owner-occupation for the first time in a couple of generations. As such it seems entirely reasonable to me [and to most voters in this poll, including rewired, who really knows his !!!!] to describe it was a decade in which home ownership became more difficult.

The precise reasons for this are complex and more of a matter for opinion/debate but I'm sure price must have come into it. If not price then what is your explanation? Several other factors, including interest rates, were on the favorable side if anything. So why did home ownership fall if not price?

I would agree that the boom of the 00s made buying more difficult and contributed to the fall in ownership but a fall on it's own isn’t proof that it was more difficult than earlier times. the right to buy scheme obviously had an increase in ownership and the low prices of the 90s probably help to increase numbers.