So how much did it cost...

ukcarper

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If you look at house prices and the deposits usually required as a proportion of average income it is a lot more now. It's not so easy to save up for a deposit as it used to be-- and it was never easy. A lot of them need help from families -- and a lot of them get it.

However this reality of the supply and demand of the housing market does not justify the vitriol fired at a whole generation by certain members of younger generation/s.

I happen to believe that not all of the younger generation sees is that way, as is evidenced by some of the posts. The ones who peddle this c**p, on this forum and elsewhere, are no doubt the types with a big chip on their shoulder, an envious & embittered nature, and unwillingness to attribute any of their failures and disappointments to their own shortcomings -- it's always got to be someone else's fault. Such individuals transcend all generations -- there are baby boomers like it, and there are younger people like it. In my experience, thankfully, they are always in the minority.[/QUOTE

There have been times when house price deposits have been as large in relation to earnings as they are now the early 70s for example.

But the world was a different place in 70s I think I was fairly typical I lived with my parents until I got married at the age of 22 I then moved into house I was buying. It is obviously a lot easier to save while you are living with your parents. Once we decided we were getting married I was 20 at the time we save virtually all our money spending very little on entertainment or luxury items. I managed to save £1000 in just over a year when my gross income was less than £1500 a year.

I do agree wiith the last paragraph

seven-day-weekend

We had to put down a deposit of £700 on our £3k house - nearly a third!

We actually borrowed it off my b-i-l, and paid him back at the same time as we were paying our mortgage.

ash28

ukcarper wrote: »

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If you look at house prices and the deposits usually required as a proportion of average income it is a lot more now. It's not so easy to save up for a deposit as it used to be-- and it was never easy. A lot of them need help from families -- and a lot of them get it.

However this reality of the supply and demand of the housing market does not justify the vitriol fired at a whole generation by certain members of younger generation/s.

I happen to believe that not all of the younger generation sees is that way, as is evidenced by some of the posts. The ones who peddle this c**p, on this forum and elsewhere, are no doubt the types with a big chip on their shoulder, an envious & embittered nature, and unwillingness to attribute any of their failures and disappointments to their own shortcomings -- it's always got to be someone else's fault. Such individuals transcend all generations -- there are baby boomers like it, and there are younger people like it. In my experience, thankfully, they are always in the minority.[/QUOTE

There have been times when house price deposits have been as large in relation to earnings as they are now the early 70s for example.

But the world was a different place in 70s I think I was fairly typical I lived with my parents until I got married at the age of 22 I then moved into house I was buying. It is obviously a lot easier to save while you are living with your parents. Once we decided we were getting married I was 20 at the time we save virtually all our money spending very little on entertainment or luxury items. I managed to save £1000 in just over a year when my gross income was less than £1500 a year.

I do agree wiith the last paragraph

I think you were fairly typical too.

My sister and her husband did the same as you and lived with their respective parents until they got married and while there they saved the deposit for house.

We on the other hand rented when we first got married - we were a bit mobile for the first few years and lived in several different parts of the country - however it was 7 years before we could buy a house.

Living together was virtually unheard of (unless you were older and separated but not divorced), but I don't know anyone my age who lived together before they got married. Obviously some people must have done but they weren't within my circle, or my family's circle of friends.

People seem to forget that while you're paying rent to a landlord and paying bills it is much more difficult to save enough in a fairly short space of time, and the majority of boomers didn't live together first.

It may have been more common in London - but in the far reaches where we were they didn't.

ruggedtoast

A VCR cost this. Itunes cost that.
At television costs this. Now it costs that.

What nonsense.

The young don't want your frippery and baubles. They are not fooled.

They want what the boomer generation had when they started out. The option to make their way in the world and set up a modest home. To work hard and have the output of that work rewarded, rather than gobbled up by the previous generation.

Yet they are saddled with bleak unemployment, a colossal bill for national debts they didn't incur, stratospheric house prices, and the immense liabilities for boomer retirements they will never enjoy themselves.

DervProf

ruggedtoast wrote: »

A VCR cost this. Itunes cost that.
At television costs this. Now it costs that.

What nonsense.

The young don't want your frippery and baubles. They are not fooled.

They want what the boomer generation had when they started out. The option to make their way in the world and set up a modest home. To work hard and have the output of that work rewarded, rather than gobbled up by the previous generation.

Yet they are saddled with bleak unemployment, a colossal bill for national debts they didn't incur, stratospheric house prices, and the immense liabilities for boomer retirements they will never enjoy themselves.

A slightly dramatic, but reasonably accurate summary of the current situation.

seven-day-weekend

ash28 wrote: »

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you were fairly typical too.

My sister and her husband did the same as you and lived with their respective parents until they got married and while there they saved the deposit for house.

We on the other hand rented when we first got married - we were a bit mobile for the first few years and lived in several different parts of the country - however it was 7 years before we could buy a house.

Living together was virtually unheard of (unless you were older and separated but not divorced), but I don't know anyone my age who lived together before they got married. Obviously some people must have done but they weren't within my circle, or my family's circle of friends.

People seem to forget that while you're paying rent to a landlord and paying bills it is much more difficult to save enough in a fairly short space of time, and the majority of boomers didn't live together first.

It may have been more common in London - but in the far reaches where we were they didn't.

We didn't live together either - but got married after four months and then lived together in a caravan that we bought for £250. We bought our house five years later in 1976 (still live in this house!). . The sale of the caravan bought our furniture.

Most of our friends lived with one set of parents after they were married until they were allocated a Council house or flat.

Could do with more of those.

thorsoak

What many of today's generation seem to fail to take into account is that many of the baby boomer generation saved as a couple whilst living at home with parents, and before they started having children - and weddings did not go into the realms of fantasy/costs that seem to be the norm today.

"We want it all - and we want it now" seems to be the mantra echoed by people like RuggedToast.



I

wotsthat

DervProf wrote: »

A slightly dramatic, but reasonably accurate summary of the current situation.

Why? Do you expect the post boomers to be the first generation that decides to pay down some of the national debt?

I suspect that the post boomers will build up the debt further and leave it to the next generation. The next generation will then moan about their parents (they'll need a catchy catchall name for them first) and they'll do exactly the same etc.

lessonlearned

Purchased first house in 1970.

New build two bed semi, no central heating, single glazing, no garage.

Purchase price - £4500
Mortgage - £3600

Deposit - £900

My maths makes that 20% - roughly the same as the banks are currently demanding.

Plus fees (sorry can't remember).

I think we had to find around £1000 all together.

No help from parents or relatives.

OHs wages £25 per week - £1300 pa
My wages £10 per week - £520 pa

I think the figures speak for themselves.

It took us over a year to save that £1000. We paid our parents our "board" and our travel to and from work. For that year we went nowhere, spent nothing - it was save, save, save. My then fianc! ran a car, and the only things I bought were tights and a few bits for my "bottom drawer".

When we moved in to our new home our furniture was a new bed and a new cooker paid for by ourselves. A new kitchen table and two chairs was purchased with £20 wedding gift money.

Anything else - sofa, a couple of armchairs and a chest of drawers for the bedroom were all family cast offs.

No fridge, no tv, no carpets, just chipboard floors and a "Readicut" rug that I had made.

I have worked as a new build sales negotiator. Without exception everyone of my first time buyers has wanted everything brand new, full carpets, new furniture, gadgets, gizmos, new cars etc

I often had to explain to them that sometimes you just have to compromise, that sometimes you cannot have everything all at once. I used to tell them how I started life in my first home to illustrate my point. Their jaws would drop in horror. The poor pampered darlings couldn't bear to think of a life without all mod cons and all their toys.

BTW - My OH was a highly qualified engineer and £25 was considered to be a very good wage at the time. Even so it took several years of being very frugal to furnish our house - no foreign holidays, no ciggies, no nights out at the pub, no meals out.

We really struggled to pay that mortgage.

Is it harder for youngsters today. I'm not sure.

Some seem to manage to get on the housing ladder ok. I know several that have done it and they have not had help from families, they've just knuckled down, stopped spending, worked hard and saved, saved, saved - just like we did.

In many areas house prices have of course outstripped the average wage, but the overall deposit to purchase price ratio is the same as ours was.

Several times in the past house prices have risen faster than wages. There usually follows a period of correction, house prices either fall or level off whilst wages catch up.

What's different this time is that wages are also falling or stagnating. This is due to a combination of factors - banking crises, the recession, the unavailability of mortgages, the squeeze on credit, increasing unemployment.

Again these have all happened in the past, recessions and booms come and go. This one has been long and deep but it won't last forever.

And you can't really pin all the blame on the "Baby Boomers". We don't care for recessions any more than the youngsters do - they affect everyone - except of course for the super rich who are pretty much immune.

A._Badger

lessonlearned wrote: »

Purchased first house in 1970.

Gosh, you've done it now, lessonlearned! You've tried to confuse the 'want it all now! It's mine! Gimme!' babies with real life experience.

I could tell a very similar tale and, working as I do with the L'Oreal generation, hear the whining and watch the money being splashed around like ketchup.