Those born after 1979 could be stuck being a lifelong renter

ruggedtoast

MrRee wrote: »

Yeah, right ..... like I said, it's a report from the Independent newspaper.

If you're not interested in it just read something else, or is even that simple task beyond your limited abilities?

You're gallivanting on thin ice now, Ree. Very. Thin. Ice.

the_flying_pig

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes people who bought in the 90s experienced the cheapest house prices since the war the trouble is to many people think that was the norm.

young people nowadays would also be very happy with 1950s, 60s, 70s [please don't pluck the 1973 figure out of the air as a 'response'] or 80s affordability.

heathcote123

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You're gallivanting on thin ice now, Ree. Very. Thin. Ice.

Ooh careful Ree, he'll start correcting your punctuation.

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

young people nowadays would also be very happy with 1950s, 60s, 70s [please don't pluck the 1973 figure out of the air as a 'response'] or 80s affordability.

It wasn't just 1973, prices were above long term average for a few years I'm not saying they were as bad as the last boom but they were a lot higher than the 90s.

Even though prices were lower than now that didn’t make them any easier to buy as the lower salary multiplies used then meant you couldn’t borrow as much.

As for affordability it’s hard to work out and depends on more than interest rates which were above 10% for a large part of the 70s which is a lot higher than now even allowing for miras.

the_flying_pig

ukcarper wrote: »

It wasn't just 1973, prices were above long term average for a few years I'm not saying they were as bad as the last boom but they were a lot higher than the 90s...

that's not the single very strongest line of argument ever - [i'm paraphrasing] 'yeah OK prices now are the highest they've ever been but in the 90s they were really low'.

ukcarper wrote: »

...Even though prices were lower than now that didn’t make them any easier to buy as the lower salary multiplies used then meant you couldn’t borrow as much....

eh?

ukcarper wrote: »

...As for affordability it’s hard to work out and depends on more than interest rates which were above 10% for a large part of the 70s which is a lot higher than now even allowing for miras.

a fair-ish point but rates were only high to combat very high inflation, which was always accompanied by very high wage inflation.

asturdy2

im 32, bought in 2004, a 3 bed semi, could have bought earlier but waited for the right house. Ive probably missed a couple of rungs off the ladder but 2 kids later and we are looking to move to a bigger house. Hopefuly house prices will continue to fall and the rungs between the ladder get smaller.

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

that's not the single very strongest line of argument ever - [i'm paraphrasing] 'yeah OK prices now are the highest they've ever been but in the 90s they were really low'.



eh?



a fair-ish point but rates were only high to combat very high inflation, which was always accompanied by very high wage inflation.

I’ve never said prices aren’t high (although they have fallen and will in all probability continue to fall at least in real terms). Although they are above long term average they have been this high before. The problem is too many people only compare today’s prices to mid 90s prices.

The second point is that in relation to what you earn you can borrow more now that you could in the 70s. So if houses prices are 4x your earnings and you can only borrow 3x your salary it’s no easier to buy when house prices are 5x your earnings but you can borrow 4x your salary.

In the 70s houses prices increased more than wages but inflation was high and wage inflation was correspondingly high which did help with affordability as I said affordability is very difficult to calculate as lots of things come into play.

Percy1983

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Can i bring me mum:)

Got an idea Jimmy, as we both love our mummies so much and mothers day is coming up I have an idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0DeIqJm4vM&ob

What do you think?

robmatic

Percy1983 wrote: »

I have what I think maybe a very valid point about people living with parents these days.

I wpould say these days there is 2 reasons why people stay at home where 20 years ago there was only 1.

20 years ago there was only one reason to stay at home and that was because you wanted to stay (ie the whole mummies boy arguement).

Now there is 2 reasons to stay at home, the first is the same as the above and the second is due to finance.

So I can see where some may only come up with the mummies boy idea, but I can assure you in my case its much more down to finance and a longer term plan. I can confirm I that for the last couple of years I could have rented but then I wouldn't be able to buy a house now, as it is the relationship with my parents means I could stay here and pay less than market rate but still cover the costs + a little. In this case my parents aren't profiteering out of the situation and it puts me in a position to buy rather than being stuck renting forever.

So surely people can see there is a very strong logic to staying at home longer for a better long term outcome and therefore the reasons for still being at home are not due to an attachment to mummy but due to a financial agreement which benefits all involved.

Just a thought to which I am sure most people reading will understand, I am sure it won't stop insults from some but its always worth at least trying to open a closed mind a little.

It's a sensible thing to do. I would have saved an absolute ruddy fortune in rent if I'd been able to live at home when I was a student or after I'd graduated.

lavandergirl_2

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/julian-knight-those-born-after-1979-could-be-stuck-being-a-lifelong-renter-so-we-need-more-tenant-rights-7440808.html