The crushing housing burden on the young. Boomers, investors and landlords profit

wotsthat

jamesd wrote: »

Maybe GwylimT would want to do that but it's interesting here to investigate housing options for those with special needs and how those compare to the general market.

If you do find something that you consider off topic, do go ahead and report it and let the Forum Team decide whether they agree with you or not. That wouldn't be you being petty, just helping them to keep things on the track they want.

I don't care that much (or didn't) - I am however surprised to find you made comment about the validity of my thread but justify this on the basis of 'special needs' or the nice people's thread on the basis of 'community building'.

Anyway, I digress, you were confident about getting a flat with wheelchair access in Leeds for a couple on £17k - I look forward to the next installment.

ruggedtoast

wotsthat wrote: »

I remember the post and must admit I put two and two together. I don't know why you're so bothered as everyone likes to understand why people say things as well as what they say.

Knowing that your boomer dad refused point blank to help you buy a house doesn't render your views on boomers invalid but it allows the appropriate sized pinch of salt to be taken.

I have a second home and that might be worth knowing when considering my views on council tax for second homes (robbing gits!)

If I'm interested in posts about wealth building then I'd give more credence to people who have managed to build some than from those that haven't and appear unlikely to.

This isn't the worst part of the internet, it's not full of people spouting complete crap and you can generally have a disagreement without the threat of a beating (well since Foxy was banned anyway).

He actually isn't in a position to, even if he wanted to, which he wouldn't. Also him electing to start a family rather late in life (probably rather too late) means he also isn't a boomer.

His generation haven't / aren't benefiting nearly as much from generational inequality as the boomers are incidentally, though went quite a long way to actually making the sacrifices some people only seem to want to credit people born after 1945 with. Hopefully that will clear that up now.

Going back to inferring people's bias or otherwise based on their personal information; there are many people in this debate whom I could probably fairly be described as being at significant odds with; who have divulged that they are retired and have no children.

This conflated with their somewhat negative opinion of young people could perhaps fairly leave me to assume that they are voluntarily childless, bitter, and misanthropic so therefore arent very reliable observers of the younger generation; and call them out in accordance.

But I'm not going to do that as for all I know they may have desperately wanted children and been unable to have any. In a parallel universe they may have had a family of ten who were doted on with every shred of love and compassion at their command, and still hold the general view that young people are f3ckless and lazy.

Who knows, thats the thing about making assumptions based on not much information. I would rather debate what someone says, not who I think they may be.

OffGridLiving

which posters are you going on about now, ruggedtoast? There are only about 20 of us in here, but your description doesn't narrow things down at all?

p.s. when you have kids is irrelevant as to whether you're defined as a boomer - it's when you were born that matters. If your Dad was born outside the 'boomer years', then he's probably my age and my eldest is aged 17. If you're around that sort of age, then it explains a lot about the tone of your boomer posts.

ruggedtoast

OffGridLiving wrote: »

which posters are you going on about now, ruggedtoast? There are only about 20 of us in here, but your description doesn't narrow things down at all?

p.s. when you have kids is irrelevant as to whether you're defined as a boomer - it's when you were born that matters. If your Dad was born outside the 'boomer years', then he's probably my age and my eldest is aged 17. If you're around that sort of age, then it explains a lot about the tone of your boomer posts.

I'm aware of the age ranges ascribed to generational theory thank you, and also stated quite clearly that I am not going to pick fights with individuals over their family statuses.

Conrad

Just wanted to point out that I've assisted several young people in their property adventure recently. It really isn't difficult. 40 years from now I guarantee they will be deemed greedy boomers rather than those that just got stuck in.

People always assume tomorrow wont be as good as yesterday. It will as these people will prove. The rapid equity journey is there for the taking.

wotsthat

ruggedtoast wrote: »

He actually isn't in a position to, even if he wanted to, which he wouldn't. Also him electing to start a family rather late in life (probably rather too late) means he also isn't a boomer.

His generation haven't / aren't benefiting nearly as much from generational inequality as the boomers are incidentally, though went quite a long way to actually making the sacrifices some people only seem to want to credit people born after 1945 with. Hopefully that will clear that up now.

Going back to inferring people's bias or otherwise based on their personal information; there are many people in this debate whom I could probably fairly be described as being at significant odds with; who have divulged that they are retired and have no children.

This conflated with their somewhat negative opinion of young people could perhaps fairly leave me to assume that they are voluntarily childless, bitter, and misanthropic so therefore arent very reliable observers of the younger generation; and call them out in accordance.

But I'm not going to do that as for all I know they may have desperately wanted children and been unable to have any. In a parallel universe they may have had a family of ten who were doted on with every shred of love and compassion at their command, and still hold the general view that young people are f3ckless and lazy.

Who knows, thats the thing about making assumptions based on not much information. I would rather debate what someone says, not who I think they may be.

I'm not suggesting people build a narrative in their head like the story you've written - a couple more paragraphs and you'd have a drama documentary.

When talking about children or retirement it's handy to know whether the person you're talking to is retired and childless - if they are then they'll have hands-on experience of retirement but possibly not of child rearing.

It's just a back of mind thing so that what's written can be qualified to a degree.

Loughton_Monkey

Conrad wrote: »

......People always assume tomorrow wont be as good as yesterday. It will as these people will prove. The rapid equity journey is there for the taking.

.... large gin & tonics all round....

JencParker

OffGridLiving wrote: »

The MSE Housing Board 'old days', referenced often in discussions about house prices pre-boom as opposed to those post-boom.

In the 'old days' pre-boom, 3 bed homes could be bought by vagrants and so no one struggled to buy a house. It was a housing nirvana.

The boom in the 80's the board can't have been going that long - didn't have internet in those days. Following the 80's boom there wasn't any property in London that anyone earning a pittance could buy.

JencParker

Conrad wrote: »

Just wanted to point out that I've assisted several young people in their property adventure recently. It really isn't difficult. 40 years from now I guarantee they will be deemed greedy boomers rather than those that just got stuck in.

People always assume tomorrow wont be as good as yesterday. It will as these people will prove. The rapid equity journey is there for the taking.

I don't think that's true - more that for many on an average income they can see the impossibility of the task before them, at least in London.

Who are these young people you've assisted with and where are they buying. It's certainly a possibility in certain areas of the country, but beyond many in other areas.

OffGridLiving

JencParker wrote: »

The boom in the 80's the board can't have been going that long - didn't have internet in those days. Following the 80's boom there wasn't any property in London that anyone earning a pittance could buy.

You're singing to the choir.