The younger generation and the future cost of housing?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you will find that food was relatively more expensive in the 70s infact wage inflation has out stripped RPI by almost 100%

The poster I was responding too was talking about it compared to the 80s/90s.

Travel is relatively more expensive now. AND in general, people have to travel further for work. This is never taken into account.

ukcarper

olly300 wrote: »

You are making a lot of presumptions about how young people live.

Seriously very few of the twenty-somethings I work and socialise with have:
1. Cars (as even if they can afford to run the car they can't afford the insurance)
2. Go on lots of holidays
3. Buy lots of gadgets

Yes they do go out if they can afford it.

Unfortunately for lots of them their jobs are not local to where their parents or anyone they can stay with in their family lives, so they have no choice but to rent unless they want to remain unemployed.

The people I know who have the most gadgets are over 50. Simply because they are always asking someone younger how to set this up or how to do something with it.

i'm not sure how old you are but in my experiance the people who are struggling are in the early twenties or younger and it is not down to high house prices but lack of good jobs. I'm not MrRee and know quite a few people earning well below average wage and that is in the southeast,

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

As usual you miss or ignore the point I rented the TV after I had saved enough to buy house.

If people are living at home and earning a reasonable wage lets say £25k they would have £1600 a month so it should be possible to save £20k in a couple of years especially if they are part of a couple.

So this is what people did in yesteryear is it? En masse? Or is it just some who did that, same as today?

Only, it doesn't resonate with any of the figures or documentries I have seen. On the contrary, people appeared to get married earlier and have children earlier. This is documented. Not just something I am basing on someone I knew.

The biggest difference was something called a council house and a relatively low rent (compared to renting today).

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The poster I was responding too was talking about it compared to the 80s/90s.

Travel is relatively more expensive now. AND in general, people have to travel further for work. This is never taken into account.

I live in the south east and have had to commute in excess of 20 miles most of my working life and I can tell you that was not unusual in the 70s.

I can see how people saying you can’t buy because you have an iphone is annoying, but then it is just as annoying when someone tells you how easy you had it, when you had to stay in every night and save and them move 20 miles away to be able to buy a house.

　

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I live in the south east and have had to commute in excess of 20 miles most of my working life and I can tell you that was not unusual in the 70s.

I can see how people saying you can’t buy because you have an iphone is annoying, but then it is just as annoying when someone tells you how easy you had it, when you had to stay in every night and save and them move 20 miles away to be able to buy a house.

　

Honestly carper, this is NO different to today.

No ones saying how easy it was, just that it was easier. You are on record yourself stating you coulnd't do what you did then today, so I don't know why you insist on suggesting it was so hard, implying it was harder and that the only reason people can't do it today is because they have a mobile phone and the internet.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So this is what people did in yesteryear is it? En masse? Or is it just some who did that, same as today?

Only, it doesn't resonate with any of the figures or documentries I have seen. On the contrary, people appeared to get married earlier and have children earlier. This is documented. Not just something I am basing on someone I knew.

The biggest difference was something called a council house and a relatively low rent (compared to renting today).

People did get married earlier and very few people rented privately as very little private rented accommodation was available. You had two choices you either saved and bought or lived with your parents and have kids then you might get a council house.

I do think it is a bad thing that there are very few council houses left but they have never been easy to get. I myself lived in substandard accommodation until I was 16 and my sister was old enough for my parents to get a council house.

I think Percy is a good example and shows what can be done albeit in a part of the country where property is cheaper.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No ones saying how easy it was, just that it was easier.

Wasn't any easier. I ended up moving further away from work. In order to buy my first property. Was a flat too. Houses were out of my price bracket. We could only borrow 2.75 joint salary.

When I had my first mortgage. Interest rates rose by 1% a month for 4 consecutive months from 10 to 14%. I remember walking round supermarkets with a calculator. So that I spent within my budget. I didn't have a credit card to pay tomorrow with.

There was far more personal responsibility back then,

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Honestly carper, this is NO different to today.

No ones saying how easy it was, just that it was easier. You are on record yourself stating you coulnd't do what you did then today, so I don't know why you insist on suggesting it was so hard, implying it was harder and that the only reason people can't do it today is because they have a mobile phone and the internet.

I am not saying it is because people have the odd iphone they can’t buy but I would dispute it is harder now that it was in 70s. If I was in the same position now as I was in the 70s using the present multiples of 4x joint I would be able to buy a similar house if I used the multiples available to me then I wouldn’t .

Itismehonest

olly300 wrote: »

Your missing a few points:
1. Not everyone is on a 25K wage
2. Not everyone has a partner to buy a property with
3. And most importantly not everyone has parents or a family member they can live with where their job is.

Those that do try and live with them as it's cheaper, easier and more comfortable then having to put up with a landlord and houseshare.

That has always been the case, though.
People on low wages, living alone or with parents unable to help them have traditionally always had to rent. When they got older, married & had a family they could usually get a council house.

What has changed over the last 40 years is the fact that
a) there are not the same number of council houses & flats available
b) there are more households (in all sectors - privately owned & rented and social) with fewer people in.

It was once incredibly unusual for anyone to own a house & live alone unless they were widowed & in a property bought when there were at least 2 of them.
There were less divorced couples looking for 2 houses & less young single mums.

Times have changed & the housing hasn't kept up with the times.

Where the local authorities would once have provided the housing needed, in more recent years they haven't & the private sector has stepped in.
However, BTL landlords do not build more houses they just buy from current stock so the situation is not improving just altering.

Pointless arguments over who had it easier do nothing.
Making sweeping generalisations about boomers, the elderly or the young is pointless.

It's not so much about the people (many of whom have always found it tough) as about the housing stock & having enough diverse forms & costs to cater for everyone.

Venusflytrap

MrRee wrote: »

True to the partner piece ..... but, I'm sorry, I cannot believe than anyone is earning too much less than £24,000 these days.

I feel that it is still very much the case. Since 2007 salaries (for the average worker) have either taken a dive or stayed same while cost of living has "shot up". Both amount to weaker earnings where one is not lucky enough to get a pay rise (above inflation) or be able to significantly cut back on expenditure.

I guess it also depends on what sort of industry you work in - Those professions in higher demand may provide a stronger position to demand/negotiate better pay.