Nobody is priced out..

ILW

Lagoon wrote: »

As I said, to me home ownership isn't worth all that. I was merely pointing out that this notion that people can 'easily save £20,000 in two years' is very short-sighted.

If that means putting in lots of unpaid overtime, paying to go and study for further qualifications and moving across the country to somewhere you might not be happy living but where salaries are higher, that can't necessarily be considered 'easy'. That's a lot to expect of a lot of people. It's not entirely impossible, but why is home ownership so important that people are EXPECTED to do that much for it?

I thought that was just what most people did in life.
Many come half way across the world.

Mr._Pricklepants

Lagoon wrote: »

As I said, to me home ownership isn't worth all that.

Ok Lagoon. Then you should rent.

Even though it will be more costly and insecure in the long run.

Good luck.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

If you're a couple earning an average salary, with no outstanding debts (near impossible to graduate without them), and are able to live rent-free with parents, then it is indeed possible to save up a decent deposit in a couple of years.

This is not an option for an awful lot of people though.

Lagoon

ILW wrote: »

I thought that was just what most people did in life.
Many come half way across the world.

It may be, but let's put Jack and Jill in the standard situation of many people I know.

Jack and Jill are on salaries that, combined, allow them to rent and to set a small amount of money aside. They could save for a deposit for a house, but on their current salary that would mean delaying starting a family until they were some way into their 30s. Alternatively, they could start the family they want and could continue renting comfortably, without setting money aside to save for a house.

If Jack and Jill want to 'save £20,000 in two years', they're expected to move to London. They then have higher living costs, travel expenses and rental costs in return for a higher salary..marvellous. Great trade, there!

Alternatively, Jack and Jill can quit their jobs to return to study. They then have no income, have had to pay out for qualifications, and will eventually (if they survive that long without jobs - possibly thanks to a loan) have qualifications that might stand them a chance of getting £25k jobs alongside all of the competition. Alternatively, they can continue working as they currently are, still pay out to get those qualifications, but have to spend their spare time doing their courses in the evenings or at the weekends.

After all that, they're only going to get that £25k salary if they're willing to spend 10 or 20 hours a week doing extra work on top of their full-time hours. (ETA: After all that time, by WHEN will they have the funds to buy a house so that they can start a family?)

It might be possible, but you can see why young people are disheartened!

System

Lagoon wrote: »

In order of priority, through compromise:
- Wedding
- Children
- Home Ownership

You either need to put Home Ownership above Children on that list or forget about it to be fair.

I saved for 2.5 years and bought a place when I was 26, saved up again and got married at 29 and then saved up again and am about to buy a family house to put some kids in. Kids next year hopefully.

I could have got married, had 3 kids and then decided that it's not fair that I can't afford a house but that seems silly.

Lagoon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

You either need to put Home Ownership above Children on that list or forget about it to be fair.

I saved for 2.5 years and bought a place when I was 26, saved up again and got married at 29 and then saved up again and am about to buy a family house to put some kids in. Kids next year hopefully.

I could have got married, had 3 kids and then decided that it's not fair that I can't afford a house but that seems silly.

I am forgetting about house ownership, and I'm not saying that it's not fair that I can't afford a house.

ILW

Lagoon wrote: »

It may be, but let's put Jack and Jill in the standard situation of many people I know.

Jack and Jill are on salaries that, combined, allow them to rent and to set a small amount of money aside. They could save for a deposit for a house, but on their current salary that would mean delaying starting a family until they were some way into their 30s. Alternatively, they could start the family they want and could continue renting comfortably, without setting money aside to save for a house.

If Jack and Jill want to 'save £20,000 in two years', they're expected to move to London. They then have higher living costs, travel expenses and rental costs in return for a higher salary..marvellous. Great trade, there!

Alternatively, Jack and Jill can quit their jobs to return to study. They then have no income, have had to pay out for qualifications, and will eventually (if they survive that long without jobs - possibly thanks to a loan) have qualifications that might stand them a chance of getting £25k jobs alongside all of the competition. Alternatively, they can continue working as they currently are, still pay out to get those qualifications, but have to spend their spare time doing their courses in the evenings or at the weekends.

After all that, they're only going to get that £25k salary if they're willing to spend 10 or 20 hours a week doing extra work on top of their full-time hours.

It might be possible, but you can see why young people are disheartened!

Think ahead though, rents are only likely to increase with or above inflation. Mortgage repayments are likely to be relatively static. In 20 years time chances are a mortgage will be costing a quarter of what you will be paying in rent.

Mr._Pricklepants

ILW wrote: »

Mortgage repayments are likely to be relatively static.

:whistle:** waiting for shortchanged to say that mortgage interest rates could reach 10-15% by next week ** :whistle:

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Alright.

You show me where any of those with a liking towards higher house prices factor in children when talking about what people can afford and suggesting how affordable houses are?

I await my apology.

I have six pages of searched threads, 137 threads to be exact where I also discussed children.
I honestly think you block out what you don't want to hear / read.

Here's on in particular where I responded to apparent "stealing from my children"
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=33382069&postcount=4

Jonbvn summed it up nicely
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=33387671&postcount=12

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Trust me when I tell you that today many children woke up across the world wishing they had even 1% of the advantages the majority of children in the UK have.

Here's an apt post in a thread which is relavent to this thread topic
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54622365&postcount=111

Here is the specific post in that thread of a guy who left the forces with very little, had the determination and focus to save on relative average wages, with kids

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54600659&postcount=97

You even thanked it.

And another
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=46518085&postcount=19



So no need for an apology, once again, I've provided evidence easily available that your wrong and have a blinkered memory.

It's a bit of a groundhog day relationship we seem to have isn;t it?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology or retraction of statement, we've been there once or twice before to no avail.

IveSeenTheLight

Lagoon wrote: »

These are all choices we've made. I'm not complaining, I'm not saying that nobody can save for a house at our age. I'm saying that in our circumstances the family comes first and that to me not owning a home isn't the be-all and end-all.

Hey Lagoon,
Your right, life is about choices and each situation is assessed on their own criteria.

There is no right or wrong.

I wish you the best in whatever you choose

Lagoon wrote: »

We also pay slightly higher rent than the necessary, because I wanted to live in a decent area.

This does make me think you should consider the longer term impact.

It's generally accepted that the rents will increase over time and when you factor in the population increase in comparison with the number of properties being built, this will only squeeze further.

You need to also factor in what is your options in retirement to continue to pay for renting property.

Owning property is a financial squeeze when saving for a deposit and in those first few years. Generally we see this squeeze easing as time passes and in the long terms has proven in general to be the better option.