Young generation want too much too soon

Graham_Devon

Carl31 wrote: »

Its not comparing like for like, hence its a poor arguement the economy and world has changed. I bet all these old generation people that bang on about 'the youtb with their latest mobiles and expensive coffee' would have done exactly the same if the devices and products were available, but they werent

Well they did. They rented them, as that was the easiest and quickest way of getting the item.

The opening post is just yet another holier than thou post, putting their foot in their mouth straight away.

"we had to save up if we wanted something".....yet the rental (because they didn't want to wait and save up) was expensive on their new technology.

It's pointless talking to the blind though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

My phone is also my camera, mobile internet, calendar, calculator, music player, GPS, e-mail and all sorts of other things. It's probably one of the best value things I own.

Completely agree, they're great value and I love mine.

But I think the smartphone issue is a distraction....

The fact remains that young people today do not seem to go through the same scrimping and saving that young people used to go through, and enjoy a standard of living that young people 30 years ago would find unimaginable.

When we bought a house, we were given a few grand as a wedding present by parents, and added this to a saved deposit. Despite this help, we still had hand-me-down furniture for a decade or so, hardly ever went out in the first few years of ownership, couldn't afford to heat the whole house, couldn't afford to go on holiday, etc. And it was tougher still for those who didn't get help.

The first chap from our group to buy a flat when we were growing up had milk crates as chairs and a cardboard box as a table for the first 18 months he lived there.... No TV at all, as even though he could have got an old one from his family, he couldn't afford the TV license, and not even a phone line for the first 6 months.

That level of living is unimaginable to most young people today, but it used to be standard practice when buying a house for our generation.

You just assumed that you had to sacrifice absolutely everything for the first few years, and that it would be a decade or so until you were more comfortable....

Whereas the young of today don't seem to view that as an acceptable trade-off.

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's pointless talking to the blind though.

Surely, it's 'pointless talking to the deaf?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The fact remains that young people today do not seem to go through the same scrimping and saving

We could see this though couldn't we?

Your point is a fair one. BUT, we haven't seen it, because why would people scrimp and save when credit has been literally thrust at us for anything we desire?

We all seem to be hoping for a magic cure to this lost credit, in terms of government intervention, housing schemes, other helping hands.

You yourself are well known for slamming "mortgage rationing" and wanting to see easier credit back. So on the one hand, your suggesting you don't see people scrimp and save, and on the other, you are vocally cheering any manouvre back to easy credit. At the same time, you want to suggest the young people (that you want this easy credit back for) don't know their born. You seem to want to eat the whole cake, another cake, and eat it however you want to eat it.

It seems families, estate agents, business etc are ALL hanging on what the government does next, and in the meantime, were in limbo.

IF things go back to how they were, government intervention stops, a rigid lending requirement is back in place for the long term and people know where they stand, you may well see scrimping and saving back.

However, I very much doubt it....as he benefits system is so massive now, fewer people actually need to scrimp and save.

There are still people scrimping and saving. Just not on such a large scale. The family of four scrimping and saving to get by in 1970 could now be in a house paid for by housing benefit, topped up with tax credits, free school meals etc etc.

If all the things we now have in place were removed, people would be scrimping and saving. LOTS of people would be. Infact I'd suggest it would be on a scale that would make the days gone by look very easy.

I heard a good analogy the other day on the radio. Families are just existing today. Going no where. Prospects are low, and repayment for the years gone by high. This was said in relation to inflation and housing costs, and more QE being wanted to pump liqudity to families.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You yourself are well known for slamming "mortgage rationing" and wanting to see easier credit back. .

I'm known for slamming mortgage rationing because it's a symptom of a dysfunctional market, and continues to impede economic recovery.

And I want to see historically normal, prudent, sensible lending return, instead of the absurdly tight lending we have today. I certainly don't want 125% mortgages and the like to return.

As long as the global credit markets remain frozen, not just mortgages but other economically essential forms of credit such as business lending are negatively impacted.

rochja

The 'wanting too much too soon' argument and the unaffordable housing argument link in several interesting ways. For instance, there have been a few TV programmes lately about unused housing stock available cheap which requires time and effort to be put back into use. These programmes dwell on the Government policies both national and local which put too many hurdles in the way of commercial redevelopers, but another argument is that the want it all brigade will not put the effort in to buying and renovating cheap stock which will cost no more than the deposit on something more mainstream. Furthermore, the endless supply of cheap credit which is now thankfully a thing of the past means there are a lot of houses available for rent which give far better living standards than could be achieved even on much greater mortgage expenditure. My ex tenants when they finally got a deposit bought a house worth half the value of the house they had occupied 2 miles up the road. My return on investment because I owned the house outright barely achieved 2% net. Had I been mortgaged I could have had tax relief on interest and a better return - another example of the consume now pay later mentality in this country as a leftover of Government social engineering. It is also possible to argue that the expectation of house ownership was a blip in history. Certainly the UK is out of step with most other developed countries in this and as a direct consequence of the wholesale sell off of council housing stock. I suspect renting housing is set to become the norm again leaving far higher levels of disposable income. This could mean people will be able to have it all now without incurring huge debt. That would at least be good for the state of the country's economy. That is if we have an economy after the collapse of the Eurozone

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And I want to see historically normal, prudent, sensible lending return, instead of the absurdly tight lending we have today. I certainly don't want 125% mortgages and the like to return.

Your normal, prudent, sensible lending appears to be 5x joint income (note the joint part, as it used to be single), interest only, at 95%. You'll suggest interest only existed "back in the day", but ignore the fact that you needed a proper scheme on the side which ou had to pay a set amount into. You don't want to see the return of the compulsory repayment part, just the lower monthly payment interest only part.

That's certainly not what was normal when people were, as you put it, scrimping and saving.

You are trying to eat far too much cake here. You can't have a pop at credit tightening, and celebrate everything that could look as if it will make it easier to get housing (building schemes, governmetn homebuy schemes etc) and then have a pop at the same people this is intended for, for not scrimping and saving.

You need those people you are having a pop at, to make use of the easier credit and initiatives you celebrate...yet you also want to have a pop at them for not saving.

EchoLocation

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm known for slamming mortgage rationing because it's a symptom of a dysfunctional market, and continues to impede economic recovery.

And it all stems from the core problem which is absurdly high house prices. Until this is addressed the market activity will not revert to normal.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well they did. They rented them, as that was the easiest and quickest way of getting the item.

The opening post is just yet another holier than thou post, putting their foot in their mouth straight away.

"we had to save up if we wanted something".....yet the rental (because they didn't want to wait and save up) was expensive on their new technology.

It's pointless talking to the blind though.

That's not true we went without them. A lot of that was due to the fact that credit was very difficult to get and we were brought up in a time when you had very little. The only thing that people rented was a TV but I didn’t get one for a long time and that was black and white even though colour had been out some time.

Not all-young people are as the original poster describes just as not all-older people were prudent. But in general young people expect more than we did when we were young. That is not because they are different to older people but because they have been brought up in different circumstances.

ukcarper

EchoLocation wrote: »

And it all stems from the core problem which is absurdly high house prices. Until this is addressed the market activity will not revert to normal.

House prices are high but they have been just as high in the past.