Frustrated young person

ukcarper

pioneer22 wrote: »

That is a good point, but when you spend a lot of money renting and a hell of a long time in education studying and then working you will want something to show for it dont you think?

Perhaps I'm ageist

Things were very different in the 60s and 70s most people lived with their parents until they got married at a much younger age than now. As Grizzly pointed out the majority started work at 16 and prospects for someone without a degree were much better and by 22 you would be fully qualified and earning a good salary. Also not many single people bought property then.

Jenniefour

Agree with grizzly1911. Some things have changed since the earlier post war generations - a lot for the better. Some things for the worse - like zero hours contracts which I view as out and out exploitation.

I too suspect the later age of FTB's is massively skewed by the fact that lots more young people go to University after leaving school. Only about 10% in the 50's and 60's got to Grammar School, going to University wasn't the norm at all, neither was staying on for 'A' levels. Quite a lot left at 15. So a lot more young people were getting into the labour market at a much earlier age. Of course, this predates the massive decline in manufacturing where a lot of these jobs were to be found. Not to mention that some jobs have now been replaced by computers.

Having debt, unless it was a mortgage, was not the norm at all. Credit was very hard to get, apart from the dubious money lenders who have always been around and always will be. Mostly people had to live within their means. And lots managed to save - by doing without. I think people's aspirations were very different then as well. Lots lived in council housing - for life. That all changed when Maggie came along and flogged off a lot of the social housing stock. This also changed perceptions on home ownership vs renting.

So maybe the position of FTB's today is not as different as it first appears - it's just that so many other things have changed in the way we live.

grizzly1911

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i've no idea what you're talking about.

the average age has gone up. this is very obviously not the same thing as saying that no 'older' people ever were FTBs back in the day.

Do you have one going back another 20 years it may well be that 1974 was a a particularly good starting point.or do you only have the sort of graphs used by fund managers and politicians?

IveSeenTheLight

pioneer22 wrote: »

I've never had a car and worked 60-70 hours a week to buy our house took about 10 months. But I am concerned about moving up the ladder now. Im not bothered about this house rising in price just that it doesn't go down so we can use the money we have paid as a deposit for the next place. Not going to be able to do that if prices keep going up.

Arguably, the opposite could be true.

We found we could move up the ladder quicker in a rising market (because our equity increased our available deposit) than it would have in a stagnant market.

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i've no idea what you're talking about.

the average age has gone up. this is very obviously not the same thing as saying that no 'older' people ever were FTBs back in the day.

So the average FTB wage has went up 3 years in 4 decades.
Have you considered that there may be other factors other than house price.
Indeed it can be shown that houses are more affordable now than in the past.

I think more people going to University for a start will mean a higher average FTB.

Mix in people not marrying till later and the prominence of ones own home is lower than 40 years ago

wotsthat

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the average age has gone up. this is very obviously not the same thing as saying that no 'older' people ever were FTBs back in the day.

..by 3 years in 4 decades? That can be explained away by a change in demographics.

Economically, the big change is that it's more difficult to make a living by loafing around in school and leaving with no qualifications.

If there's a shortage of houses and they're rationed by price it stands to reason that FTB's will be older because they're more likely to need a university education.

wymondham

pioneer22 wrote: »

I feel so sorry for people aged 30 and under who have been priced out of the market. I cant seem to understand why people are so happy about house price rises? It seem so unfair, especially if younger people are struggling to save for a deposit and when we live in a world of zero hour contracts.

What doesn't help is the media causing a divide between the old and young generation.

Is this ever going to resolve itself?

Not when consensus is to go hell for leather to keep house prices up. We bought our first house in 1990 and became mortgage free by my 40th birthday - something that is pretty much impossible now thanks to monopoly money prices.

ukcarper

This is the mean age for marriage in England and Wales don't you think that would have an impact on FTB age.

Linton

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i've no idea what you're talking about.

the average age has gone up. this is very obviously not the same thing as saying that no 'older' people ever were FTBs back in the day.

In 1974 most people started work at 16. Now most(?), or certainly many, dont start til their early 20s and so are older when they have built up their savings In 1974 people got married younger and so needed a house younger and would have two incomes available for buying a house earlier.

"The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there".

IveSeenTheLight

ukcarper wrote: »

This is the mean age for marriage in England and Wales don't you think that would have an impact on FTB age.

Interestingly the average age of marriage has increased by 6-7 years yet average age of buying a house has only increased by 3 years.