Boomers' House Price Bonanza Barrels Onwards. Young Excluded and Forgotten

MacMickster

mcfisco wrote: »

My point?
I believe you could still do the same, but I don't think there is the will to live like that in a great many people now. It's too easy to feel the need to get loads of credit in order to make the house how they want it from the start.
There are lots of people who won't put up with the same sort of work/life balance that we did.
So whilst it's very true that it's tough to start out, I think people's expectations aren't the same any more, they want (demand) to start from a higher level.

Those of us from a certain generation were brought up in homes that were slowly modernised to have indoor toilets, natural gas, central heating, double glazing etc. We saw our own parents go without in order to afford these modern improvements. Consequently, some of us were prepared to go without ourselves for a lengthy period at the start of our adult lives to enable us to get our own home.

Our own children however have generally seen little if anything of austere living and can't envisage being able to live without what they consider to be the essentials of modern life. The irony is that they consider that WE are the golden generation.

As always, some of today's youngsters will strive to fulfil their goals in life. Others will put all of their efforts into bemoaning, rather than improving, their lot.

mystic_trev

mcfisco wrote: »

Not sure if I'm a boomer or not (1959) not that it matters one jot

Yes you're a Boomer (born 1946 - 1964) Congratulations!

The house was bare, no carpets, curtains - nothing. We brought with us a double bed, 2 deck chairs and a stereo.

Same here, although I had three deck chairs and a Portable TV. For some strange reason, I also had a Cocktail cabinet someone gave me! :rotfl:

............Thanks!

mcfisco

A cocktail cabinet?

How very middle class

Loughton_Monkey

mcfisco wrote: »

Not sure if I'm a boomer or not (1959) not that it matters one jot

.....The house was bare, no carpets, curtains - nothing. We brought with us a double bed, 2 deck chairs and a stereo.
.....

Indeed you are a boomer. Well done.

Most of what you say reflects that, but the stereo? A bit of luxury wouldn't you say?

mcfisco

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Indeed you are a boomer. Well done.

Most of what you say reflects that, but the stereo? A bit of luxury wouldn't you say?

It was quite luxurious, top of the budget range from Woollies I believe

IIRC it was my GFs 21st birthday present from some relative

ess0two

mcfisco wrote: »

A cocktail cabinet?

How very middle class

Don't forget the bedside teasmaid.

Loughton_Monkey

mystic_trev wrote: »

Same here, although I had three deck chairs and a Portable TV. For some strange reason, I also had a Cocktail cabinet someone gave me!

Very civilised. Catering for guests.

One day, however, you will look back on the cocktail cabinet as a symbol of poverty, and work yourself up to having a proper bar. Couldn't live without mine.

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

dktreesea

John1993 wrote: »

Yes, I do, they are some of those who can afford a decent home. That's what renting is.

I was in that figure, by the way, even back when I was earning seven figures. It made no sense to me to blow 50k on stamp duty each time I moved, so I spent five years renting before buying the current flat.

Renting in no way implies that you can't afford a home.

That's true, but I still think there would be a number of people who rent because they can't afford to buy a house in the area they want to live.

CLAPTON

dktreesea wrote: »

That's true, but I still think there would be a number of people who rent because they can't afford to buy a house in the area they want to live.

given there are probably a huge number of people that can't afford to buy in the 'area they wish to live', then a few may choose to rent there instead but many couldn't afford that either without state aid.

dktreesea

CLAPTON wrote: »

given there are probably a huge number of people that can't afford to buy in the 'area they wish to live', then a few may choose to rent there instead but many couldn't afford that either without state aid.

Surely that's a different issue? Those who need the help of other taxpayers to pay their rent are unlikely to be able to afford to buy any house. For starters, their capital/savings would be restricted to £16k (for those with a family). And presumably their income would also preclude them from getting a mortgage.

State aid for that group is the price of shafting housing provision off to the private sector by removing rent controls, thus making it attractive for that private sector to invest in rental properties. Housing benefit goes to the landlord rather than the tenant, so in effect provides a reasonable rate of return on properties that would otherwise be uneconomical to invest in because most people wouldn't be earning enough to be able to afford to rent them.

Focusing instead on those who could expect to afford to buy but either don't have the deposit to make the borrowing rates attractive, and/or the income to be able to buy where they would like to buy, notwithstanding they can afford to buy somewhere, it must be pretty soul destroying, just shelling out rent, month in month out.

Take somewhere like this:

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/29170361

Nice enough area of Kent, pretty reasonably priced for a 2 bedroom renovated terrace at £150k. Say you had a household income - a couple in their 20s - of £40k a year. Getting a mortgage shouldn't be a problem, but decent interest rates don't even start to kick in at our mainstream bank until you have a 30% deposit, so £45k. Not to mention £1,500 stamp duty. Say £47k including the solicitor's fees. How many people in their 30s, let alone their 20s, would have saved up that kind of deposit towards their first house?