The younger generation and the future cost of housing?

A._Badger

Gadgets are a distraction. The primary difference between the economic life of people in their twenties today and, say, the 1970s is the proportion of incomes spent on entertainment and travel.

If you can find a book of past photographs of your local area, take a long, hard look at the typical high street and count the number of restaurants, pubs, clubs and takeaways in the early 1970s. Then look at the same town today. Eating out and clubbing were uncommon in the 1970s, not regular events.

Similarly, holidays were fewer and far less exotic

I work in an industry with a lot of young people in it and it regularly strikes me how their spending patterns are hugely different in these areas. When a 20-something casually tells you he is taking a holiday in China, or Mexico, as if it's no big deal (twice recently I've seen this) and you know they eat out or use takeaways several tines a week, it's a marked contrast from when a wet week in Whitby and the occasional takeaway Chinese were the norm!

It's not the iPhone or the Internet account (though claims of £15 are disingenuous - what must really hurt are the mobile bills!) it's the great chunks of people's incomes spent on leisure that constitutes the biggest difference.

Cue, no doubt, protests that 'I only ever get fish and chips' or tales of a weekend in Torquay. But we're talking averages here and the catering, holiday and entertainment industries couldn't exist as they do without young customers pouring money into them.

A._Badger

money_maker wrote: »

Just curious, but who are all these young people demanding new gadgets and extravagant lifestyles and then claiming it’s unfair they cannot afford to buy a house and live?

Stick around a while - and read the comments section of any online newspaper. You'll hear the persistent whining about 'boomers' soon enough.

BobQ

money_maker wrote: »

Just curious, but who are all these young people demanding new gadgets and extravagant lifestyles and then claiming it’s unfair they cannot afford to buy a house and live?

I don’t know anyone around my age (22) who complains how hard is it to save a deposit or afford a mortgage. They still all have iPhones, laptops, tvs, cars etc, but never do I hear them saying it’s just unfair!

Its a choice at the end of the day. They spend money they earn on what they want. Its not that they cannot afford to buy a home, they choose to buy other stuff instead!

Who are these people who expect everything given to them? I don’t know any of them! Then again, I suppose its down to parents and how they raised their kids!

Well they do exist although tend to be in their late 20s early 30s. If you look on the pensions thread you will often find a posting along the lines "I'm 35 and hope to retire at 60, should I start a pension?.

But you are right it is a personal choice how you spend money and if you are making it safe in the knowledge of the consequences then fine.

I do not think anyone needs to buy a home as many do on this thread, so if they choose not to fine. But they do need to appreciate that they need to consider the cost of housing when they can no longer work. They do however need a pension or they will become a burden on others when they stop work.

Of course maybe the future is that we all work till we drop and do not have to worry about affording housing into our 90s.

Itismehonest

A._Badger wrote: »

Gadgets are a distraction. The primary difference between the economic life of people in their twenties today and, say, the 1970s is the proportion of incomes spent on entertainment and travel.

True but then, with a repayment interest rate of 15% in 1979 we didn't have a great deal of choice but to stay in if we wanted to keep up the payments.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Well they do exist although tend to be in their late 20s early 30s. If you look on the pensions thread you will often find a posting along the lines "I'm 35 and hope to retire at 60, should I start a pension?.

I started contributing at 22. If I had known what I know now. I would have saved more at the outset.

BobQ

A._Badger wrote: »

Gadgets are a distraction. The primary difference between the economic life of people in their twenties today and, say, the 1970s is the proportion of incomes spent on entertainment and travel. ............................

.

I agree. One other difference is employment patterns were different in the 1970s - the number of two income families was much smaller. Women tended to spend spend more time looking after children or being housewives. The trend towards two income families took off in these times. This in itself fuelled a consumer boom as there was more demand from higher household incomes. This also increased the demand for labour saving goods (I suspect washing machines were in about 50% of houses in 1970 unlike now and dishwashers were rare) It probably fueled increases in housing and child care costs and had other social implications.

Added: another difference was that there were many less self employed, particularly of the enforced variety

seven-day-weekend

ukcarper wrote: »

Someone on £13.5k would bring home over £900 a month if they are living with parents I can’t see why they couldn’t save.

Parents might not want their kids living with them for the next ten years whilst they save sufficient deposit to get the mortgage to manageable levels on a small wage!

Thrugelmir

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Parents might not want their kids living with them for the next ten years whilst they save sufficient deposit to get the mortgage to manageable levels on a small wage!

Additional income for the parents may be handy too. Meaning that collectively the unit is better off. We live in a world where personal gain appears to be the top priority. Which isn't necessarily the soundest route financially.

Joe_Bloggs

Bring back the manual washing machine with the mangle attachment. You can keep fit at home and still dry the washing with an eco-friendly technology . With some ingenuity there could be a mangle exercise DVD.

The carpet beater could be brought back to introduce self defence or tennis practice.

J_B

ukcarper

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Parents might not want their kids living with them for the next ten years whilst they save sufficient deposit to get the mortgage to manageable levels on a small wage!

Saving half of take home pay would be £5k a year and you said your son was buying a £40k flat so he would have had a 20% deposit in less than 2 years,