A cry of anguish

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Northern Ireland is not Ireland.

They are 53% down.

They can still get a paper from the newsagents and can still shop in B&Q. They can still eat a chinese meal from a takeaway on a friday night.

There is evidence that what was suggested isn't true. There is no evidence to say it's true.

We were down a good 20%+ anyway in the UK, and I didn't see the high street imploding and neither did I find I couldn't feed myself as all the shops had shut. I saw chains and shops with huge debts go under.

ok, so we don't mean ireland anymore, just northern ireland, good. i have already covered that above.

i don't think that what is going on in northern ireland now is really a very good example of why 30% nominal falls from here wouldn't cause a problem. why don't we actually look south of the border where property prices are down by similar amounts but where they aren't just a small part of a larger economy.

if northern ireland was an independent country, i have no doubt that its economic problems would be far greater than they currently are. they wouldn't be able to afford to pay the benefits that they do to the very large number of unemployed there for a start, so consumption would be greatly reduced.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Fair enough....just can't see the doom scenario play out, thats all. All a bit too tin foil for me!

We were near 30% down by Feb 2009 if I recall? I could still get a packet of chips from the chippie. I just couldn't get pick and mix from Woolworths or a new bathroom from the overpriced Dolphin chain.

yes, the trouble is that i didn't say that there would be doom resulting in you not being able to go to the shops. my point was that a large number of people would suffer greatly, in response to HSW's suggestion that they would not. you appear to have constructed a strawman, although perhaps in response to michaels rather than me.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think people need to stop blaming the boomers for everything they got. They couldn't have known they would have ended up where they are.

On the other hand, said boomers need to stop insulting the young at every opportunity.

I think people need to stop thinking in terms of "boomers" and "the young". Not all boomers are the same. Not all young are the same. Not all renters are the same. Not all home owners are the same. Nor are all landlords, benefit recipients, bankers, public sector workers... Need I go on? Sometimes we just need to get over the massive over generalisations about this place. Except the one that silver bugs are all bonkers of course.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

yes, the trouble is that i didn't say that there would be doom resulting in you not being able to go to the shops. my point was that a large number of people would suffer greatly, in response to HSW's suggestion that they would not. you appear to have constructed a strawman, although perhaps in response to michaels rather than me.

Having read back, yes, that's the case. So apologies.

DervProf

HOMEOWNING_FTW wrote: »

Yes, amazingly enough we did manage to forgo buying the latest Apple computer in the early 80's as we were saving for a deposit. Your point being?

I dunno.......

HOMEOWNING_FTW wrote: »

Our generation never wasted our money on bagging the latest iphone, yes we actually saved and paid down our mortgages.

Maybe I was suprised that iphones were around when your generation were saving and paying down your mortgages.

And maybe you'd like to consider the relative cost of an Apple computer in the early 80's to that of an iphone today. Yes, an iphone can be considered as being an upper end mobile phone, but relative to income, I'm sure it's cheaper to buy/own than an early Apple computer was back in the day.

Let's face it, not having an iPhone (~£400 a year ?) isn't exactly going to make the first step onto the "ladder" a lot easier, is it ?

Loughton_Monkey

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think people need to stop thinking in terms of "boomers" and "the young". Not all boomers are the same. Not all young are the same. Not all renters are the same. Not all home owners are the same. Nor are all landlords, benefit recipients, bankers, public sector workers... Need I go on? Sometimes we just need to get over the massive over generalisations about this place. Except the one that silver bugs are all bonkers of course.

Although you are almost certainly right, you have just killed the concept of 'stereotypes'. I would hate to see this concept die. It would shatter my long-held knowledge that all Northerners wear clogs, cloth caps and own wippets. All Scotsmen are mean, eat fried Mars Bars, and don't know what an inside toilet is. Norfolk people can count the seven deadly sins on one hand......

Let's keep it alive.

A._Badger

DervProf wrote: »

I dunno.......


Let's face it, not having an iPhone (~£400 a year ?) isn't exactly going to make the first step onto the "ladder" a lot easier, is it ?

It is when you add it to the two holidays, chemical consumption (legal, illegal or both), eating out several times a week, two cars, one kid (from earlier temporary liaison) and the insistence that everything in the house has to be brand new. Examples based on a young couple of my acquaintance who are 'boomers stole our future' believers.

Not typical? Probably not, but a straw in the wind, that's for sure.

homelessskilledworker

chewmylegoff wrote: »

ok, so we don't mean ireland anymore, just northern ireland, good. i have already covered that above.

i don't think that what is going on in northern ireland now is really a very good example of why 30% nominal falls from here wouldn't cause a problem. why don't we actually look south of the border where property prices are down by similar amounts but where they aren't just a small part of a larger economy.

if northern ireland was an independent country, i have no doubt that its economic problems would be far greater than they currently are. they wouldn't be able to afford to pay the benefits that they do to the very large number of unemployed there for a start, so consumption would be greatly reduced.

Don't ever walk down the sharkhill spouting that rubbish chewmylegoff, thats one "UK county" where you can still get a slap around the ear for not standing to the UK National anthem

DervProf

A._Badger wrote: »

It is when you add it to the two holidays, chemical consumption (legal, illegal or both), eating out several times a week, two cars, one kid (from earlier temporary liaison) and the insistence that everything in the house has to be brand new. Examples based on a young couple of my acquaintance who are 'boomers stole our future' believers.

Not typical? Probably not, but a straw in the wind, that's for sure.

And I know a fair few young people who have very little chance of being able to buy a place of their own, even if they gave up every single "luxury" that they might enjoy. Yes, they don't have highly paid jobs, and are not likely to in the near future, but neither did I when I bought my first home. The thing is, I did manage to save a deposit and take on a mortgage, while earning a very modest wage, enjoying a few holidays and spending on other "extravagances".

A._Badger

DervProf wrote: »

And I know a fair few young people who have very little chance of being able to buy a place of their own, even if they gave up every single "luxury" that they might enjoy. Yes, they don't have highly paid jobs, and are not likely to in the near future, but neither did I when I bought my first home. The thing is, I did manage to save a deposit and take on a mortgage, while earning a very modest wage, enjoying a few holidays and spending on other "extravagances".

If they are that low paid then I doubt they would have been able to buy in the past either, apart from in quite unusual circumstances.

The maths have been rehearsed here time and time again but no amount of reason seems able to shake this fixation that there was once some golden age when shop assistants and clerks regularly bought their own homes.