Locked out of the property market. Generation X and Y's Dreams stymied.

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I see.

That must be why everyone from the BBC to the CML has pointed it out then.


A survey of chartered surveyors said that potential buyers were still being put off by economic worries and continued mortgage rationing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13760176

Mortgage rationing, which has depressed UK property sales, will stay in force until at least the end of 2012, the CML says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13620099

the rationing of mortgage funds by lenders are attributed to the general stagnation of the market.
http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/240338/5/Industry_in_depth/House_prices_still_sliding.htm

One factor weighing on the market has been the continued rationing of mortgage funds by lenders
http://www.vanguardngr.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fuk-housing-market-still-lacklustre%2F

And finally, from the CML themselves, who readily accept that the UK mortgage market is "dysfunctional".....

Maybe if you had ever worked for a lender you would understand what underwriting is.

Mortgage availability is no worse than any point in history other than the preceding boom. You need to get it into your head that lending people more money under the premise that HPI would bail them out is NOT a valid underwriting procedure as it does not take into account the person every paying back the money!

The other issue is almost 50% of the market is simply no longer there, so it is left to the banks/building societies to lend into that market.

You cant expect the same level of lending if there is only half the money to lend and the lenders actually want it back. Stop making a fool of yourself.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That would be funny, if only you could at least get the facts right.

But when you make stuff up, it just makes your argument look a bit on the sad side really.

I've never been anything other than frank about my house owning history, so just to correct your points....



False.

We increased our deposit size by a few grand, through adding a wedding present of a few grand to a larger saved deposit.

But that's hardly remarkable, in this day and age or previously. And we could of course have afforded the majority of houses just fine without help. Just not quite as nice a house as the one we ended up buying.



False again.

I don't rent out my houses.

I do provide one free of charge to an aging relative though.

Remind me again, how many houses have you provided so that someone you care about can live rent free?

And for a final bonus question fact-finders:

After having received a costly public school education with all the advantages that confers does HAMISH_MCTAVISH believe that:

A) As a fortunate moral arbiter of our nations leaders society should be widely counselled to improve education for all so that others may have access to the start he did

That by not going to a state school, he has therefore never been a 'drain' on the country's resources, so therefore in adulthood he shouldn't have to pay any tax that might contribute towards schools. *


*[All of these unfortunate, and silly opinions, as well as reams of other plutocracy, is available in HAMISH-MCTAVISH's extensive posting history. Eager McTavish archivists please note, much of the superior pomposity dried up about the time he accidentally let slip about the public schooling and the house deposit wedding present from his mum, about 18 months ago, in the face of sustained and unrelenting derision at the time]

grizzly1911

Running_Horse wrote: »

What to make it easier? Are you going to ban all immigration, or build over the south east England countryside?

That's a good start, then distibute the the wealth round the country to spread the opportunity, for people to move away from and not to the SE.

ruggedtoast

A._Badger wrote: »

"....those of us who live in cities, whose jobs are not secure, who are flitting from call centre to job centre and back again throughout our 20s and 30s, whose parents don't have property portfolios, those of us who are single, or still trying to do art or music or something they dreamed of....."

There's your problem, in a nutshell. And out of the writer's own mouth, too.

Good to see the Guardian still living down to its standards - the schoolteachers' Daily Mail.

There are plenty of baby boomers who spent their youths trying to do art and music while making ends meet by working in a shop or other non career job who were still able to pay their rent ok and then get on the property ladder with a simple place, for which they have been rewarded incredibly by time and housing policy.

There are also plenty of obdurate baby boomer management bods clogging up uncompetitive companies, and vast swathes of the public sector. People who basically do nothing other than attend meetings, add to their final salary pensions, and come up with reasons why nothing can ever change.

It might be worth pointing out to you as well, that this country has rather a good success rate with turning out successful artists and musicians, it would be rather a shame if none of them ever got a chance to try unless they were independently wealthy to begin with just to be able to pay the rent on a shared room in a crummy flat.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Eager McTavish archivists please note, much of the superior pomposity dried up about the time he accidentally let slip about the public schooling and the house deposit wedding present from his mum, about 18 months ago, ]

Well, perhaps it's just the "expensive public school" education showing through, but I must mention in the interests of accuracy that I noted both those points early on in my posting history on HPC, and have since discussed them whenever it was relevant.

There was no "accidental slip" 18 months ago, any more than there is any truth to the claim that I was given a house.

However, it doesn't take a public school education to see through your continued personal attacks, and put them in the context of...

Abusive ad hominem which involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

You have no argument..... so you must resort to playing the man, not the ball.

I note you've now spent a number of posts engaging in this way, without once addressing the pertinent facts I raised earlier.

So I'll repeat my point....

Gen X had the opportunity to take advantage of the cheapest houses relative to income in history during the mid 90's, they had the opportunity to take advantage of both cheap houses and falling interest rates in the late 90's, low deposit requirements in the early 2000's, and easy lending criteria in the mid 2000's.

If you're Gen X and you failed to buy a house through all of those... You probably have nobody to blame but yourself.

Graham_Devon

God its groundhog day yet again....Hamish complaining of abuse. Dear lord.

A._Badger

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There are plenty of baby boomers who spent their youths trying to do art and music while making ends meet by working in a shop or other non career job who were still able to pay their rent ok and then get on the property ladder with a simple place, for which they have been rewarded incredibly by time and housing policy.

And, has been amply demonstrated here time and again, still could. Just not with all the 'lifestyle choices' they demand as well.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It might be worth pointing out to you as well, that this country has rather a good success rate with turning out successful artists and musicians, it would be rather a shame if none of them ever got a chance to try unless they were independently wealthy to begin with just to be able to pay the rent on a shared room in a crummy flat.

This country also has a rather good success rate of starving wannabe artists and musicians back into 'the real world' too. I've known quite a few in my time. You, on the other hand, clearly have a fantasy vision of what the '60s, '70s and '80s were really like. A fantasy fed by other envious twerps stirring up intergenerational hatred via the Guardian.

ILW

I would suspect that the percentage of "musicians and artists" who actually get to make a living out of it is roughly the same as it has always been. Just the current X factor generation seem to believe that if they really want something enough, it will be theirs by right.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well, perhaps it's just the "expensive public school" education showing through, but I must mention in the interests of accuracy that I noted both those points early on in my posting history on HPC, and have since discussed them whenever it was relevant.

There was no "accidental slip" 18 months ago, any more than there is any truth to the claim that I was given a house.

However, it doesn't take a public school education to see through your continued personal attacks, and put them in the context of...

Abusive ad hominem which involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

You have no argument..... so you must resort to playing the man, not the ball.

I note you've now spent a number of posts engaging in this way, without once addressing the pertinent facts I raised earlier.

So I'll repeat my point....

Gen X had the opportunity to take advantage of the cheapest houses relative to income in history during the mid 90's, they had the opportunity to take advantage of both cheap houses and falling interest rates in the late 90's, low deposit requirements in the early 2000's, and easy lending criteria in the mid 2000's.

If you're Gen X and you failed to buy a house through all of those... You probably have nobody to blame but yourself.

don't agree, H.

the fall-off in home ownership started in the early mid noughties, as high prices and the growth of BTL [the two being closely linked, of course] started to squeeze out FTBs.

now, in the UK there's nothing even approaching a consensus on a precise definition of 'gen X' but i think that most would agree that gen X births stopped somewhere in the early to mid 80s and started somewhere in perhaps the late 60s [given that UK birthrates hit a peak in about 1966 that period has to be filed under 'boomer' years].

so you're easily one of the very oldest members of 'gen X'. references to your education & family background are highly relevant, since you found yourself with a lot of money at a very young age. most reasonably wealthy UK gen X-ers: (1) are much younger than you; and (2) have had to go to university & then get a graduate job etc to become reasonably wealthy, i.e. wait till their mid 20s, i.e. came into money much later than you, perhaps 15 years later. sticking with round numbers, someone born in 1975 hit the age of 25 in 2000, when pwoperdee was starting to get a little expensive already. someone born in 1980 hit the age of 25 [you can see where i'm going with this...]...

i'd pretty much agree that early members of gen X had housebuying fairly easy. middling ones so-so. late ones very tough.

StevenMarks

I was born in 77 so that would make me Gen X.

I bought a flat in 2001 that was cheap and interest rates were tumbling at the time. My mortgage on that flat was literally half the rent I had been paying (on the same flat). I sold the flat 18 months later for double what I had bought it for.

I left Uni in 1998 and did not get a graduate job.