Housing Shortage Forces Millions of Adults to Live With Parents

ukcarper

KnightSmile wrote: »

The average house today is more expensive than x6 average salary (£25000) which would equate to £150000. To compare with 1971 that would be £75,000 or your example of 1973 would give today's youth £125,000. This wouldn't secure you very much today particularly in London and South East.

Basically the generation in the 1970's didn't achieve home ownership because they are 'better' or worked harder than today's generation.

It was simply more affordable to buy a property than it is today. This generation is not struggling because of a vast excess in the purchase of obscene amounts of iPads/iPhones, which some seem to point towards.

The figures used have never been base on the average of everyone they have been based on average male. The nationwide site has a graph going back to 1984.

No it's not because people purchase iPads etc although people do spend more on luxury items and entertainment then they did in the 70s. House prices are very high making saving the deposit harder but the fact that people reach their full earning potential later and peoples lifestyle and lack of good earning opportunities compound the problem.

lisyloo

The figures used have never been base on the average of everyone they have been based on average male.

If you want to compare like for like then it's correct.
However live isn't like that.
Things have changed for women wrt getting mortgages as well as work (it's not that many decades ago a woman couldn't get a mortgage).

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

The 70s is a rather dodgy time to be doing any analysis.

There was a little thing called the Energy crisis which prompted anomalous levels of inflation, which was then followed by anomalous levels of wage inflation.

The whole thing was over within a matter of 5 years, and either side of the crisis the house price to wages ratio was far, far lower than it has been for the last 15 years.

It is quite funny how in the memory this seems to dominate many people's recollections of 'how tough it was', although it is far from representative of the average situation over the full period.

It depends the only time that matters is the time you want to buy which was the early 70s for me and I had to sacrifice a lot to save deposit and only just managed to buy before prices went beyond my reach. Making blanket statements that prices were much lower in the past is counter productive.

I would agree things are now worse than they have been and it would have been better if they had not increased so much but to quote Clapton the only thing that will help is to build more houses.

DpchMd

samsam89 wrote: »

I'm 25 and my girlfriend is 24. We're desperate to get on the property ladder but there aren't many affordable houses out there for us, and the ones that are just about affordable simply aren't suitable (i.e. flats, maisonettes and retirement bungalows in the area we live in) for what we need.

We've got £12,000 saved up between us for a potential deposit and that has taken us long enough as we're not high earners.

It's very frustrating and the more house prices rise the less chance we have of being able to afford one as our wages aren't rising with them. Not to mention that the more they rise the more reluctant we are to buy, as sooner or later prices will have to fall and we'll be left sitting in negative equity.

Lots of people can't afford a Lamborghini. Many people cannot afford a luxury watch. Some cannot afford to own their own home.

You have a right to shelter, you do not have a right to own your own home.

There are many alternatives for you:

• Living with family
• Renting
• Council houses

I know that it's hard to accept, but if you do not earn enough money to buy a house, then you cannot afford it.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

If you want to compare like for like then it's correct.
However live isn't like that.
Things have changed for women wrt getting mortgages as well as work (it's not that many decades ago a woman couldn't get a mortgage).

Yes lots have things have changed since the 50s and these have an effect on house prices and what people can afford. Back in the 70s very few single people bought property.

princeofpounds

Yes lots have things have changed since the 50s and these have an effect on house prices and what people can afford. Back in the 70s very few single people bought property.

It's an interesting application of Ricardo's Law of Rent

The rent of land is determined by the excess of its production over that which the same application can secure from the least productive land in use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

Basically the consequene is that as we have become a more productive society, with women working, the benefit of that work has largely accrued to the owners of the land, rather than the families that actually do the work.

It's pretty obvious when you think about it - families compete for housing. When families move towards two incomes, having two incomes becomes increasingly necessary to compete as house prices and rents rise.

Now this is not an iron-clad law in the physics sense, and it is not the only thing going on in our economy by any means. But it's interesting to think about it.

It should also be noted that the workers can also be owners of land, so they are not necessarily exclusive groups. Although land ownership is really concentrated in a few hands.

lisyloo

• Living with family

• Renting
• Council houses

I agree with the sentiment in the post about entitlement, however not all those alternatives are always realistic.
Council house for able-bodied workers is simply a no-no. You'd need to have some sort of desperate need for a council house to get top of the list - like battered wife with young children and even then you might have to go somewhere else temporarily.
Living with family is not always an option for everyone. Parents might not have room, might not be willing, might be dead, could be abusive or live somewhere different to the jobs.
Private renting is the only one on that list that's a generally viable option.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment in the post about entitlement, however not all those alternatives are always realistic.
Council house for able-bodied workers is simply a no-no. You'd need to have some sort of desperate need for a council house to get top of the list - like battered wife with young children and even then you might have to go somewhere else temporarily.
Living with family is not always an option for everyone. Parents might not have room, might not be willing, might be dead, could be abusive or live somewhere different to the jobs.
Private renting is the only one on that list that's a generally viable option.

I think that has always been the case but I do think that more people have to move away from parents to find good jobs now.

fromtheshires

ukcarper wrote: »

No it's not because people purchase iPads etc although people do spend more on luxury items and entertainment then they did in the 70s.

This.

I purchased my first house just over 3 years ago earning £19K with a £30K deposit I had saved from childhood. I didn't have the most expensive phone / car / games consoles I could afford and saved. I still don't have nice expensive items but chose to have a house over possessions. Don't get me wrong, I do have nice stuff but its not the 'gucci' brand spanking new shiny expensive items. Friends on the other hand have brand new cars every few years, the latest iPhone when they can get one and designer clothes / watches / shoes yet moan that they cant afford to buy a house.
Whilst I see both sides and see that some issues are caused by high rents, if people were more savvy then they could save at least 5%.

For those on about building more houses I don't believe that that is the solution as the new houses by my are 30-45%* more expensive than a comparative older home just down the road.

*I'm no expert at maths but that's what my right move calculations come out at that Ive just performed.

{Edit} My house was a repo and a mess which is why I got it cheap and could afford to move. How many people of the can't afford to move camp would actually buy a repo that was a state or would they expect a walk in home. I know a lot of my friends would...

DpchMd

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment in the post about entitlement, however not all those alternatives are always realistic.
Council house for able-bodied workers is simply a no-no. You'd need to have some sort of desperate need for a council house to get top of the list - like battered wife with young children and even then you might have to go somewhere else temporarily.
Living with family is not always an option for everyone. Parents might not have room, might not be willing, might be dead, could be abusive or live somewhere different to the jobs.
Private renting is the only one on that list that's a generally viable option.

I never said every option was possible for every person.

Generally speaking there is no reason to be homeless in this country.