Generation Rent pushed to breaking point as London prices double

CLAPTON

Fella wrote: »

And why would anyone want to. Overpriced, overcrowded, expensive, dangerous dump. Move out of the city.

central london isn't the city

and it's not representative of London either

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ahem....

No self respecting Gen X-er with half a brain would still be renting.

Some people prefer to rent. Half of the continent for starters. I train every day, find running marathons fun and can't understand why anyone would choose to be indolent and fat, and can probably do more chin-ups with one arm than you can do with two. Does that make you an idiot for not spending your time the same way? I don't think so. Push the landlord ticket by all means but it's stupid to say that's the only way.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ahem....

No self respecting Gen X-er with half a brain would still be renting.

After all, we had the cheapest house prices in history, the lowest interest rates in history, and the most reasonable lending standards in history during our adult lives.

If you are Gen X, and you haven't bought, "you need your head read" as the Australians would say.

Ahem....

Either you've had too much Scotch, or me too much Gin & tonic. But I think you are taking the wrong connotation of the word 'Rent'. It's nothing to do with paying money to live in a house you don't know.

If you were a boomer, you'd know that this is a euphemism for the 'riches' we received, and still receive, from the younger generations whom we financially raped and pillaged while we bought houses for £500 a pop and sold them for £540,000, with 7X salary mortgages at -4% interest rate. We all earn 6 figure salaries and Final Salary pensions, supplemented by tax breaks and heating allowances paid for by the enslaved younger generations trapped in minimum wage jobs, at the mercy of thieving rentier classes, priced out from ever buying their own property.......

Nothing to do with Gen-X having half a brain.

chucky

This guy sounds like a super hero.

He sounds like such a tough guy on the Internet.

MrRee_2

All he has said is that he is good at running away ..... that's not tough - all the marathon runners I see are 5 stone and built like a swan vesta - go easy.

He does have a good point though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

If you were a boomer, you'd know that this is a euphemism for the 'riches' we received, and still receive, from the younger generations whom we financially raped and pillaged while we bought houses for £500 a pop and sold them for £540,000, with 7X salary mortgages at -4% interest rate. We all earn 6 figure salaries and Final Salary pensions, supplemented by tax breaks and heating allowances paid for by the enslaved younger generations trapped in minimum wage jobs, at the mercy of thieving rentier classes, priced out from ever buying their own property........

Oh.

Well that's just fine.

Why didn't you say so the first time?

Carry on old boy, and large Gin and Tonics all around.

gwen80

kabayiri wrote: »

Indeed.

I don't know many people who live in London, but a few people openly acknowledge they are working there to one day retire to somewhere a little less hectic. It feels like a working place to me.

Why are we still wedded to the notion that we have to live near to our workplaces?

Technology has moved on, making these notions old fashioned. Tele-commuting is a real alternative for many.

For the kind of work I do, I reckon I'd need to spend perhaps 2 days out of the 5 weekdays actually in the workplace. Of more use to me in London would be great value short term hotel accommodation and great value commuting costs.

Maybe this situation will change in the future.

After all, there was a time when we could never have imagined most of the world's goods being produced on the other side of the world.

Having recently relocated to the South East for work, not to earn a higher salary (because I'm not!), but because in my industry the majority of jobs are in the South East. The job I do could easily be done working from home, but the company won't allow it.

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why didn't you say so the first time?

I thought you would have caught on to the general theme of the original poster..

I try to avoid rubbing it in too much, but at least your post gave me another opportunity to use expression such as "thieving rentier classes" that have me rolling on the floor.

Do you have "toiling Millennial and Gen X dwarves" who are 'forced to rent' in Aberdeen? If such specimens exist - slaving hard every day on minimum wage - having to pay it all to a rich landlord, then I don't particularly mind. But I hope we don't get many in Loughton. Such types are bound to force house prices down.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Fella wrote: »

Some people prefer to rent.

Multiple studies, surveys and polls show the majority of renters want to buy.

The size of deposit required, (since the credit crunch took hold and mortgage rationing became endemic), is most commonly listed as the major obstacle.

I train every day, find running marathons fun and can't understand why anyone would choose to be indolent and fat, and can probably do more chin-ups with one arm than you can do with two.

That's lovely and all, but it doesn't change the fact you're wrong.

Fella

A poll that shows that the majority of renters want to buy, by definition demonstrates that some prefer to rent. Otherwise it would say that ALL renters want to buy.

Thanks for confirming that what I wrote was correct.