Nobody is priced out..

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

It's all about delaying gratification.

You stay with parents and save hard even though it might not be an ideal situation as you long for independance.

That's absolutely fine....but just to go over a bit of advice given on this forum....

You are supposed to stay living with your parents to save, but move to get a better job.

If you do stay with your parents, you will be vilified...especially by the person who thanked your advice (percy, anyone?)

You are supposed todelay your gratification, but you are supposed to ignore this when it comes to buying the first and smallest flat you can possibly afford.

If you save longer, and delay your gratification to buy a 3 bed house, you "want it all".

After buying your 1/2 bed flat, THEN it's time to look at kids. So, you should then sell your 1/2/ bed flat and move up. Going through all the expense all over again.

Now...isn't all this advice to delay gratificaiton, but buy a flat....any flat as soon as !!!!!!! possible, while moving away from your parents to earn more while living with your parents to save more, all a little disjointed?

92203

My girlfriend and I are are 30 and 31 respectively. We've owned our own house before (albeit in a rough area of Notts, completely unsuitable for raising a child). She was a care worker, I was working in IT earning £25 k per annun (£25K jobs are not particularly easy to get in this area).

We soon came to the conclusion that we'd made a mistake in buying the place, but soldiered on and tried to make the best of it, in the vain hope that we'd be able to upgrade to a nicer place/nicer area.

We had a mix of people living near us, house shares full of Polish farm workers, single mums on housing benefits etc. Other owner occupiers who lived on our street were in low paid/min paid jobs, but had been fortunate to be able to buy before the boom. We on the other hand had been completely stiffed.

We ended up selling it at a loss and moving away so that my girlfriend could go to university and get a proper career, to permit both of us to be on reasonable wages, and ultimately be able to afford a better quality of life.

It hasn't all ended badly. We now have a joint income in excess of £50K per annun and are able to save £1k per month.

We're about to move down South where I have been offered a job paying 40% more than currently earn. I'll be able to massively upskill in tech growth areas, and ultimately increase my earning potential significantly further.

The moral of the story I've taken from the past 6 years - Don't listen to the boomers and self-serving estate agents who try and convince you that buying a house for double the price the previous owner paid 8 years ago, in an area full of reprobates is an acceptable start to home ownership. Although the houses aren't too bad, until they have lived in such an area in current times, they have no idea. Times have changed, and I can only assume that people have become much less considerate and civilised than they used to be.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you do stay with your parents, you will be vilified...especially by the person who thanked your advice (percy, anyone?)

Is this aimed at me?
If so, can you show me ONE post where I vilified Percy for staying with his parents until he did?

Put up or shut up Graham.

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Is this aimed at me?
If so, can you show me ONE post where I vilified Percy for staying with his parents until he did?

Put up or shut up Graham.

Have I got you mixed up with rinoa? (one of the same to me, sorry, it's all a blur) If so, apologies.

Lagoon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's absolutely fine....but just to go over a bit of advice given on this forum....

You are supposed to stay living with your parents to save, but move to get a better job.

If you do stay with your parents, you will be vilified...especially by the person who thanked your advice (percy, anyone?)

You are supposed todelay your gratification, but you are supposed to ignore this when it comes to buying the first and smallest flat you can possibly afford.

If you save longer, and delay your gratification to buy a 3 bed house, you "want it all".

After buying your 1/2 bed flat, THEN it's time to look at kids. So, you should then sell your 1/2/ bed flat and move up. Going through all the expense all over again.

Now...isn't all this advice to delay gratificaiton, but buy a flat....any flat as soon as !!!!!!! possible, while moving away from your parents to earn more while living with your parents to save more, all a little disjointed?

This is exactly it. There's absolutely no point in us delaying starting a family to a point where there will be more health risks, in order to purchase a property which will be too small once the child is born!

That constant system of saving, moving, upgrading, saving, moving, upgrading is going to lead me to a life of unhappiness when I'm at a stage in my life when I want to settle down. If I were buying a house, I'd be buying one large enough to live in comfortably - nothing fancy, but it needs not to be cramped.

Conrad, you say that "Same with starting a family, many of us put it off and delay the gratification until were in a position to afford it. They should teach this schitt at school."

The fact is, I have put off starting a family until I'm able to afford it, but as I said I can't do both and I've chosen to prioritise. I'm not some 18-year-old who's become broody and said 'to hell with everything else'. I've wanted children for years but finances have dictated that the time hasn't been right - now I'm in the situation where children will be a possibility but at the extent of home ownership.

The fact is that my situation might change, and I might find myself with plenty of money to buy a house when I'm 40 - I'd rather not be waiting until I'm 40 to start a family!

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have I got you mixed up with rinoa? (one of the same to me, sorry, it's all a blur) If so, apologies.

Accepted, cheers Graham.

Graham_Devon

Lagoon wrote: »

That constant system of saving, moving, upgrading, saving, moving, upgrading is going to lead me to a life of unhappiness when I'm at a stage in my life when I want to settle down.

That's a pyramid scheme for you.

dryhat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's absolutely fine....but just to go over a bit of advice given on this forum....

You are supposed to stay living with your parents to save, but move to get a better job.

If you do stay with your parents, you will be vilified...especially by the person who thanked your advice (percy, anyone?)

You are supposed todelay your gratification, but you are supposed to ignore this when it comes to buying the first and smallest flat you can possibly afford.

If you save longer, and delay your gratification to buy a 3 bed house, you "want it all".

After buying your 1/2 bed flat, THEN it's time to look at kids. So, you should then sell your 1/2/ bed flat and move up. Going through all the expense all over again.

Now...isn't all this advice to delay gratificaiton, but buy a flat....any flat as soon as !!!!!!! possible, while moving away from your parents to earn more while living with your parents to save more, all a little disjointed?

Sums it up nicely Dev.

Of course it's disjointed thinking.


That's HPI debt-junky nutters for you.

ruggedtoast

Lagoon wrote: »

Conrad, you say that "Same with starting a family, many of us put it off and delay the gratification until were in a position to afford it. They should teach this schitt at school."

There isn't any point arguing with him because there is no way to get through to him. Money is more important to him than family is, the rest of them are the same.

Money dictates you can't have a house unless you sacrifice the normal human behaviour of having kids, so you don't have kids. Live under a bridge, work all the hours, as long as you have an asset with no one to pass it on to you've done alright.

Sad really. (Or annoying when you consider that no baby boomers have been in this situation and are talking out of their erises as usual).

Conrad

92203 wrote: »

The moral of the story I've taken from the past 6 years - Don't listen to the boomers and self-serving estate agents who try and convince you that buying a house for double the price the previous owner paid 8 years ago, in an area full of reprobates is an acceptable start to home ownership.

You and Devon paint this as some sort of black or white choice, but that's far too simplistic.

There will always be a range of possibilities in terms of balancing saving with when to buy, relocating vs local wage levels, but the basic principle underlying all this is that one can delay gratification in order to put themselves in a better position later, rather than immediately rent / have babies.

Incidentaly some professional types chose to rent a room as a means of minimising rent outgoings and thus leaving more for saving whereas others we deal with want the 3 bed semi at £1200/£1500 pm and then moan to me 2 years later that they cannot save a deposit and thus are unable to get on the property ladder.