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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

don't agree, H.

Why am I not surprised....

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

On this at least, we somewhat agree.

The following items were collated in the Wiki entry for Gen X, and I've no reason to dispute them

The Guardian cited Generation X birth years as falling between 1965 and 1982 and referred to it as the "'me generation' of the Eighties."

The Telegraph cited Generation X birth dates as falling into a longer time span (1965–1985).

The Independent estimated an earlier range of birth dates (1963–1978) compared to other writers or researchers.

A BBC News article about a lack of "mid-career volunteers" in their 20s provided a Generation X age range, which, in 2007, would suggest birth years that fall between 1962 and 1982.

so you're easily one of the very oldest members of 'gen X'.

Hardly.

Based on the date ranges above, I'd be roughly a third of the way through the generation.

And I'd argue most of that generation would have had the opportunity to purchase a house during one or more of the key times I listed.

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

I'd say all but the very tail end of the generation found themselves in the right place at the right time to buy property fairly easily.

So if they failed to do so, they really can't blame anyone else.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why am I not surprised....



On this at least, we somewhat agree.

The following items were collated in the Wiki entry for Gen X, and I've no reason to dispute them

The Guardian cited Generation X birth years as falling between 1965 and 1982 and referred to it as the "'me generation' of the Eighties."

The Telegraph cited Generation X birth dates as falling into a longer time span (1965–1985).

The Independent estimated an earlier range of birth dates (1963–1978) compared to other writers or researchers.

A BBC News article about a lack of "mid-career volunteers" in their 20s provided a Generation X age range, which, in 2007, would suggest birth years that fall between 1962 and 1982.




Hardly.

Based on the date ranges above, I'd be roughly a third of the way through the generation.

And I'd argue most of that generation would have had the opportunity to purchase a house during one or more of the key times I listed.



I'd say all but the very tail end of the generation found themselves in the right place at the right time to buy property fairly easily.

So if they failed to do so, they really can't blame anyone else.

Those definitions of a UK 'Gen X' don't make much sense to me.

Gen X was first conceived in the US as a 'baby bust' following a boom.

If the concept is analogous for the UK [i.e. a baby bust, as opposed to people born following certain fashions or whatever] given that our birthrate didn't peak till the mid 1960s it'd be fairly absurd for 1965, never mind something as early as 1962, to qualify.

Being completely honest I'd never heard the term until the Spice Girls did that Pepsi advert [with a purpose-written song, lyrics revolving around a 'Generation X', obviously supposed to refer to a young market] in 1998. So to me, you're not a UK gen X-er unless you were genuinely young, teen or marginally post-teen when that ad came out.

But that's an aside. Rather than dancing around what qualifies as Gen X I'll provide a less generalised summary. All of what follows assumes five years of education post 16, so obviously you can subtract 5 years for the less educated:

Born c. 1975 - somewhat disadvantaged relative to older peers;
Born c. 1980 - markedly disadvantaged relative to older peers;
Born c. 1985 - very markedly disadvantaged relative to older peers;
Born c. 1990 - much as per 1985.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Those definitions of a UK 'Gen X' don't make much sense to me.

Be that as it may, that is certainly the age range I think of when discussing Gen X.

Being completely honest I'd never heard the term until the Spice Girls did that Pepsi advert [with a purpose-written song, lyrics revolving around a 'Generation X', obviously supposed to refer to a young market] in 1998. So to me, you're not a UK gen X-er unless you were genuinely young, teen or marginally post-teen when that ad came out.

I first heard the term used in the late 1980's to describe my generation.

But that's an aside. Rather than dancing around what qualifies as Gen X I'll provide a less generalised summary. All of what follows assumes five years of education post 16, so obviously you can subtract 5 years for the less educated:

Born c. 1975 - somewhat disadvantaged relative to older peers;

Perhaps slightly, but not in any meaningful way.

Born c. 1980 - markedly disadvantaged relative to older peers;

The tail end of Gen X, sure, I can agree with that.

Born c. 1985 - very markedly disadvantaged relative to older peers;
Born c. 1990 - much as per 1985.

I'd put these two firmly into Gen Y.

yertiz_2

All these facts and figures doesnt alter anything, young people today are finding it difficult to buy or rent. We are told that the average FTB is what? 37? So their choices are limited no matter where they live.

ruggedtoast

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.

As has been pointed out, you are well into your 40s and are therefore one of the oldest Generation Xers, you are nearly a boomer.

Otherwise, anyone from Generation X who failed to buy the single most expensive item that most people ever purchase, just before a massive and unforeseen house price bubble predicated on reckless sustained lending and corrosive housing policies put it far out their reach, regardless of what their personal circumstances were; has only themselves to blame?

Do you actually, believe that?

Graham_Devon

ruggedtoast wrote: »

As has been pointed out, you are well into your 40s and are therefore one of the oldest Generation Xers, you are nearly a boomer.

Otherwise, anyone from Generation X who failed to buy the single most expensive item that most people ever purchase, just before a massive and unforeseen house price bubble predicated on reckless sustained lending and corrosive housing policies put it far out their reach, regardless of what their personal circumstances were; has only themselves to blame?

Do you actually, believe that?

I'd like to know how its the fault of the younger generation.

Prices were on the rise and this boom was on it's way the minute I stepped out of secondary education (including 2 years further education).

Hamish appears to believe that, having stepped out of further ed, at 19, I should have sufficient deposit and sufficient income to buy a house. My fault if I didn't and only have myself to blame.

Now, all I'm left wondering, is how many people buy their own house at 19, especially considering at that point, houses were well into double digit HPI each year. 15% a quarter when I left education.

Maybe Hamish could enlighten me with the right way of doing things? Maybe I should have been saving my paper round money at 13 years old for a deposit?

BJV

By the posts above I would be classed as gen X.

I saved like mad, and bought my first house at 23. ( no help, no presents, no money from mummy and daddy ) and I get really fed up when younger members of moan about house prices and rates of deposit. I needed a £5,000 deposit to get a mortgage at the time I earned less than £800 per month. So I didn't go out, I didn't buy new clothes and I didn't have new mobiles and gadgets.

It is about priorities. Ok I was lucky, but what everyone forgets is that every generation thinks that the previous one has screwed it up for them. Every generation thinks that they have it hard.

Instead it is what you do about it that counts. I had horses when I was younger and even though my parents could of afforded it they made me work every sat. I got pennies for a full days work cleaning pans at a local cafe and they used to take every penny. All of it! At the time I could not understand why.

I have over the years decided that it was to make me realise that if you want something you have to get off your b'hind and get it, make it happen, not just wait for someone else to pay.

Graham_Devon

Theres a good article here. Generation X vs Boomers
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/babyboomers-versus-generation-x--the-great-financial-divide-6264549.html

Generation X interviewee suggests they simply struggle from month to month.

2 Generation Y interviewee's suggest they struggle as their second home has lost some value.

Howeever, one of the Generation boomer interviewee's suggests they worry about their children. Her child is a teacher, her partner an IT manager. "They can't afford one house, let alone 2" the mother says while she helps them pay their bills. "I think the goodwill of the younger generation is going to be tested soon" she states.

Graham_Devon

BJV wrote: »

By the posts above I would be classed as gen X.

I saved like mad, and bought my first house at 23. ( no help, no presents, no money from mummy and daddy ) and I get really fed up when younger members of moan about house prices and rates of deposit. I needed a £5,000 deposit to get a mortgage at the time I earned less than £800 per month. So I didn't go out, I didn't buy new clothes and I didn't have new mobiles and gadgets.

It is about priorities. Ok I was lucky, but what everyone forgets is that every generation thinks that the previous one has screwed it up for them. Every generation thinks that they have it hard.

They key appears to stem from what year you were 23 in. The "generation X label" appears to cover quite an age range.

Apparently generation X reached the height of their earning power during the great recession.

I was in primary school at that point, yet still fall under this generation X umbrella. That's why these broad generation slatings don't work.

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

As for Gen Y, they're mostly screwed unless they bought before the crash. But that's thanks to mortgage rationing, not house prices.

Hamish, your passion for home ownership has a whiff of religious zeal about it and anyone who does not make home purchase their first priority in life is somehow morally deficient.

People who have to move for their jobs, look after sick relatives, on modest incomes or who have different priorities in life are often unable to buy when they are young. A responsibly managed property market would have checks and balances to eliminate bubbles and leave the choice open for people to buy at any time in life. The fact that we have low levels of house building at a time when house prices are at near historical highs suggest unhealthy influences and manipulation of the market.

On your favourite subject of 'mortgage rationing' the current situation was inevitable. Since you followed the thread you will be aware that house prices are tanking at auction. Auctions can be a good lead indicator.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3927263

Interest rates on unsecured loans are currently running at 10-20% but for property lending this is around 4%. Given that house prices are falling month on month, it is only a matter of time before 80 and 90% mortgages turn into unsecured debt. What you describe as 'mortgage rationing' is the inevitable consequences of offering artificially low interest rates on overpriced assets.