1.6m people aged 20-40 'living with parents'

ukcarper

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Is your £250k FTB property specifically to do with London pricing? Historical average prices for the UK seem to be between £60k and £80k in real terms during the 70s (well, 1975 onwards, as the data starts in 1975).

You have got to compare to wage inflation not RPI house was in South East.

FATBALLZ

ukcarper wrote: »

You have got to compare to wage inflation not RPI house was in South East.

Apparently the average wage in 1975 was £2300. And house prices were about £10k. I'm still confused how the person whose post I questioned needed somewhere between 4 and 9 years of 'saving like mad' whilst living at home to save a 10% deposit (less than 6 months wages for an average person).

chewmylegoff

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Apparently the average wage in 1975 was £2300. And house prices were about £10k. I'm still confused how the person whose post I questioned needed somewhere between 4 and 9 years of 'saving like mad' whilst living at home to save a 10% deposit (less than 6 months wages for an average person).

Perhaps, being a young person without much experience, they didn't earn the average salary, but earned much less. It would probably take a young person today earning minimum wage a long time to save up half an average salary - minimum wage being about £11k and average full time salary being £26/27k or something like that. Unless "saving like mad" entails not eating, or paying to get to work etc.

Although I must say I hate the "saving like that" expression. Right up there with "hard working families" as a piece of utter bollox.

ukcarper

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Apparently the average wage in 1975 was £2300. And house prices were about £10k. I'm still confused how the person whose post I questioned needed somewhere between 4 and 9 years of 'saving like mad' whilst living at home to save a 10% deposit (less than 6 months wages for an average person).

Average house prices fell from just under 5x average earnings in 1972 to 3.5x in 1975.

Sapphire

In much of continental Europe – and other parts of the world – people don't think anything of living together in families, with parents and often grandparents, frequently in rented accommodation. I lived with my grandparents until the age of 28 and it was no bother for me at all – or for them.

In recent years families have splintered in Britain, with every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry thinking he 'deserves' his own property – at least in the big cities. I think people in this country are going to have to get back to living the way much of the world lives. They may be better for it.

ukcarper

How many single people in their 20s lived on their own in the 70s the big change is people get married later now.

Loughton_Monkey

As a retired 'boomer' from an extremely poor family, but with no kids, I find myself totally 'neutral' regarding the debate of the younger generation. But I simply have to admit that the financial behaviour of younger generations (generally) mystifies me. I have observed behaviour of hoards of nieces/nephews, and now their children too.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a "disease" of spending that seems to be made worse by the blinkered and defensive attitude amongst these generations. They cannot (or will not) understand the issue. The 'issue' is quite simple. From age (say) 21, you have 40/45 years during which you can earn. After that, you have another 25/30 years during which you don't earn. Inflation makes the latter years, generally, rather more expensive.

A simple enough fact to understand, but one that seems to be totally ignored by the majority. The proportion who save for "stuff" [like cars/TV etc.] let alone for retirement is now miniscule. It's a buy now/pay later society.

I recall reading a BBC article - in 2001, when I had just started work in Korea - stating something like the average "savings" for a British Person was £500 (or something miserably low). Once I had got over the shock of such a miserable statistic, I told my Korean secretary (lovely girl, about 25 years old) and she couldn't believe it either. With salaries in Korea about 25% of the UK equivalent, I asked her to do a 'straw poll' to nominate what an average Korean 25 year old office worker might have saved by that tender age. The answer came back around £35,000.

Luckily, all of this doesn't directly affect me too much, other than having to pay slightly too much tax for our 'benefits society'. But otherwise, I thank my lucky stars that (a) I was not like that, and (b) I will be long in my grave when most of these people find themselves in 'retirement poverty'. But meanwhile, I find it difficult to attach too much sympathy to the [worst of the] younger generations. I observe, listen to, and read all the 'excuses' but most don't hold any water. I believe there are still some smart ones, but generally I look on it as a lifelong game of 'financial Russian roulette'.

Mr_Matey

Zekko wrote: »

In some cultures it is quite common for people aged 20-40 to still be living with their parents.

You've touched on a key point. Britain's demographics have changed significantly. It is much more multicultural than it used to be. People from a Mediterranean or Asian background are often encouraged to stay at home until marriage.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...

Loughton, comparisons with countries such as China or Korea always seem a bit strange to me. Savings are lower in the UK, because a lot more money is tied up in property and pensions, which are used to fund retirement. What's the pension/support system like in Korea, and do people generally own property or plan to rent through retirement?

Also, I'm not sure about Korea, but in a lot of Asian cultures, a young person is expected to look after or help the older generation, effectively meaning you are paying for retirement when you are working (assuming your kids look after you). So you would need to start saving a lot earlier for this.

In other words there's a lot more to this.

As for the other generational comments, I could similarly question the boomer's buy now pay later approach to property, no? 20-30 years is a long time to pay off a debt...

Zekko

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

From age (say) 21, you have 40/45 years during which you can earn. After that, you have another 25/30 years during which you don't earn.

Sorry, I don't agree with this statement entirely. I have plenty of relatives who work/have worked well in to their 70's in part-time jobs to supplement their pension income. Some have even said they prefer it this way and do not know how they would have transitioned from working full time for 40-50 years, to doing nothing, and work part-time to stay active and challenged. Whilst this is the exception and not the rule, it does happen.

Looking forward it is clear than working in to your 70's and beyond (even if only part-time) will become more commonplace for this current younger generation.

Linton

Zekko wrote: »

...

Looking forward it is clear than working in to your 70's and beyond (even if only part-time) will become more commonplace for this current younger generation.

Only if that's what they want, which I suspect it wont be when they get to their 60's and discover that they have left things too late and have no choice.