Generation rent article in today's paper

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, given that this is apparently your second post, i should think you are limited to having said it a maximum of twice.

:rotfl:That's made my day.

runninglea

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it's surprising to me. I can honestly say I only know of one couple who both work full time and have 2 young children. However, their grandparents live up the road and are happy to collect and take to school etc.

The rest I know, all work, but all work with one full time and one part time. Maybe it's due to the type of jobs down here. I guess living in a city with decent career opportunities things may be different. Certainly working full time in a clothes shop, tescos, office etc wouldn't be worth the nursery fees.

I guess a 30-50k job would make a huge difference. I'm talking more 16k jobs. The sort PN often refers to down here as the norm. It doesn't make it worth it full time with fees for childcare.

Only jobless people I know are single parents, for whom in many cases, they would be worse off working, so can see their point.

I also don't know anyone simply unemployed and dossing.

We both work full time - so you now 'know of' two

mystic_trev

SecureOnTheLadder wrote: »

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times, there is absolutely nothing wrong with renting, if that is all you can afford. In all walks of life there are winners and losers, and as such, homeowners and renters.

Bearing in mind how long SafelyOnTheLadder and SafeOnTheLadder managed to hang around here, I shouldn't feel too secure if I were you.

claire16c

vivatifosi wrote: »

Yet another article asking how when the average salary is £26k people can afford the average house of £162k. Surely the answer is you buy something cheaper than £162k.

I live in Hertfordshire, one of the most expensive areas of the country and a reasonable commute for London. You can buy one bedroom flats here for upwards of £80k and there's a reasonable selection under £100k, not shared ownership either. If people really want to buy their first property it is still possible.

You must live in a 'cheap' part of Hertfordshire then.

I live near a commuter town to London and you wouldnt get anything more than a static caravan for under £100k.

The 1 bed maisonettes in my road went for around 120k and the inside of it needed gutting = new kitchen, carpets, doors, etc.

So by the time youre on 26k, youre probably looking to buy a 2 bed house. Which = 200k or more.

ukcarper

Unfortunately it has never been possible to buy a nice 2 bed house it the better places near London if you earn the national average wage.

With the exception of the bottom of the last crash

movilogo

Usual Daily Mail tosh.

It says 1.5 million young adults won't be able to buy houses. But how many can actually buy houses? I guess that number will be several times higher.

It is a fact that house price is high - especially in the South East. If those young adults move somewhere where price is cheaper, many of them could actually still afford to buy a house.

vivatifosi

claire16c wrote: »

You must live in a 'cheap' part of Hertfordshire then.

I live near a commuter town to London and you wouldnt get anything more than a static caravan for under £100k.

The 1 bed maisonettes in my road went for around 120k and the inside of it needed gutting = new kitchen, carpets, doors, etc.

So by the time youre on 26k, youre probably looking to buy a 2 bed house. Which = 200k or more.

There are numerous parts of Hertfordshire where cheaper properties are available. The biggest pockets are probably in the new towns. Of course they are not everywhere, I never said they were. My point is that they are available if people want them. In much the same way as there are cheaper parts of Surrey, cheaper parts of Berkshire and so on. If people want cheaper still, they can go to Luton, Dunstable or Bedford. These places may not be to everyone's taste, but they give people a valuable opportunity to get their first homes at a price that is affordable (just).

If people want somewhere bigger, or in a better area, or that doesn't need decorating or a bit of work, they have to pay more. If they can't afford that, they either have to continue renting, borrow from elsewhere (eg bank of mum and dad), save more or realign their expectations. It has been so, on and off, since the 1980s at least.

£120k sounds a bargain for a maisonette in a good area of Hertfordshire commuter-belt and it's within the reach of a couple on even a bit less than the average wage. Doors can be bought up for £15 a shot, you can pick up a basic kitchen for about £1k and remnant carpets for less than £100 per room. The place could be turned into something lovely for less than £5k by someone with a bit of vision.

If childless people on average wage still want £200k properties then part of the issue is expectation every bit as much as affordability. First homes are rarely forever homes.

PasturesNew

The three cheapest 1-bed flats in my town are £65k, £75k, £85k. It'd be rare in this town to get a job that lasted long enough to even think about buying. Jobs are mostly seasonal - or, as the man on the radio said about people in the county being able to get jobs "Oh - there's no problem getting jobs round here.... the trouble is everybody's having to get a new job 6-7x a year. That's the problem". And jobs round this way pay £7/hour.

FTBFun

claire16c wrote: »

So by the time youre on 26k, youre probably looking to buy a 2 bed house. Which = 200k or more.

No, you should be looking at what you can afford. No-one is entitled to a particular sized property.

Graham_Devon

FTBFun wrote: »

No, you should be looking at what you can afford. No-one is entitled to a particular sized property.

No one ever said anyone is entitled.

But with 2 kids in two, a 1 bed flat won't suit the needs.

Therefore if thats what you can afford, there is no point looking at it.