Nobody is priced out..

ILW

I wouldn't want to bring up a family on no more housing security than a 6 month rental contract.

Conrad

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.



The fact is, I have put off starting a family until I'm able to afford it,

You say your'e prime driver is settling down, but are you sure you can find a lanlord able to say you can have the place long term?

I'm not privvy to your full circumstances, maybe having kids now is the right thing for you, but my basic point is that in general those that delay gratification for example to study and save will tend to have better outcomes later on.

We had our first child aged 34. My first little house mean't years of saving whilst putting up with sharing a room with my Brother in my parents home well into my twenties which took some doing as my Dad, bless him, is the most demanding person you could ever meet.

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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).

rugged you might find I have more in common with you than you think.

If my wife agreed I give up work tomorrow, buy a cheap place in somewhere like mid wales, and be self sufficient growing all my own food. I cannot stand materialism or the rate race even though I'm currently engaged in it.

Money is only important to me as a means of escape. I am not one of those that measure sucess by it at all.
I also think it's very sad that some people cannot see a life beyond thier mighty career. I have several hobbies and interests (I make and sell dance music, I'm mad into mixed martial arts, I adore making fires to cook wild food on, I adore politics etc) that could easily consume me and I will also work for wildlife charities when I retire.

lazer

Conrad wrote: »

You say your'e prime driver is settling down, but are you sure you can find a lanlord able to say you can have the place long term?

I'm not privvy to your full circumstances, maybe having kids now is the right thing for you, but my basic point is that in general those that delay gratification for example to study and save will tend to have better outcomes later on.

We had our first child aged 34. My first little house mean't years of saving whilst putting up with sharing a room with my Brother in my parents home well into my twenties which took some doing as my Dad, bless him, is the most demanding person you could ever meet.

I was brought up in a privately rented house - my parents lived in it for 30 years - it was ideal for bringing up children - in the middle of the countryside, surrounded by fields for us to play - ok the house did not meet todays standards - no central heating, single glazing etc, but we loved it.

After bringing us up they had the savings to buy a small terraced house with only a very small mortgage (which is now paid off) and they will live out their retirement in that.

Home ownership is not a must for bringing up children and personally I would rather bring up children in a nice rented house in a good area than a flat or house owned in a worse area.

I despair of people telling others to delay having children, delays can lead to difficulties in having children. In 20 years time what do you think you would regret more - not having the child you longed for or not buying a house?

ruggedtoast

There is a social contract which has endured for generations of aspirational capitalism, put simply, if you work hard and keep your nose clean you'll accumulate enough money to have a family and a secure place to live.

In countries like the US this contract is now mostly broken. Students graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars debt and will be lucky if they see a permanent contract with health insurance in their lifetime. The cost of gas and no public transport is making affordable homes unaffordable.

In the UK we are well on the way. Owning a house isnt on many young people's radars. The cost of renting and transport to work makes saving any appreciable amount unrealistic for many.

But yet the baby boomer generation, sitting in their mansions, the happy recipients of exponential house price inflation and a welfare state that looked after their every twinge and deficiency and that will pay them legacy pensions that would make an Arab blush, have the gall to lecture the young on belt tightening and privation so that they can continue to be good little workers; childless; living in slave boxes, but working to keep paying the taxes and house prices and rents that keep the boomers in the fashion to which they have become accustomed.

It is unsurprising that many people are saying knickers to that!

Lagoon

Conrad wrote: »

You say your'e prime driver is settling down, but are you sure you can find a lanlord able to say you can have the place long term?

I'm currently in a house where that's the case (though this isn't the one I'd want to stay in), and have no doubt that many landlords are happier with long-term tenants that don't cause trouble and keep the house in good condition, but at the same time whilst I intend to 'rent long term' I'm also comfortable with the prospect that I could be asked to move out by any landlord at any time. There are always other suitable rental properties out there, and there's an opportunity to upgrade or downgrade a little as current circumstances dictate. If we can set aside some money for eventual home ownership at the same time, fantastic - if not, at least I'm not constantly striving for the unachievable.

MobileSaver

Lagoon wrote: »

we'll find somewhere we'd want to rent for life.

That's the major flaw in your approach - it's nigh on impossible to "rent for life" these days. When you're living in someone else's house you never know whether you'll be forced to move in six months, a year or a couple of year's time, regardless of whether you want to or not.

wotsthat

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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).

Why don't more post boomers get involved in policy then and do something about it?

A small scale example. Mevagissey (small town in Cornwall) has vacancies for 14 councillors - only 8 people applied so in May they are likely to automatically become councillors without any democratic elections. Now I happen to know that whilst Mevagissey does have its share of old farts young people do live there but this is what you end up with....http://www.mevagisseypcc.co.uk/

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Barely-half-councillor-posts-filled/story-18729176-detail/story.html#axzz2S2OHDVpU

If people can't be arsed to get involved then they have to accept that people who can be arsed are going to be making decisions on their behalf.

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There is a social contract which has endured for generations of aspirational capitalism, put simply, if you work hard and keep your nose clean you'll accumulate enough money to have a family and a secure place to live.

In countries like the US this contract is now mostly broken.

If what you describe were accurate we would not find masses of migrants wanting to get into the US and Britain, instead they would head for other places.

Everyday I meet young people of modest means that prove your description wrong.

They've saved, worked hard and are embarking on thier property and life journey and in 30 years time will be dispised as boomers by some from the generation that follows.

Lagoon

MobileSaver wrote: »

That's the major flaw in your approach - it's nigh on impossible to "rent for life" these days. When you're living in someone else's house you never know whether you'll be forced to move in six months, a year or a couple of year's time, regardless of whether you want to or not.

Finding somewhere that we'd 'want to rent for life' is different to expecting that it'll be possible.

My point is that we'll be looking for homes with the space, amenities and locations that we desire for long-term living, rather than choosing properties to rent because they fit our budget whilst we're trying to save for our own place.

i.e. Spending more on a rental property, with the intention that we'll stay there.