"Generation rent" - did ppl really marry in their 20s and buy a house?

BouncingBean

ukcarper wrote: »

If you think your partners mother is typical I think you are mistaken. People of all generations succumb to easy credit but I think it is more prevalent in younger generations perhaps because when boomers were young credit was harder to obtain and they learnt to save for things. You are very patronising what makes you think most boomers hardly use their broadband or mobiles phones do you think us boomers are Luddites.

This is typical of my experience and I didn't say otherwise. Presumably that was the unwritten caveat we all respond here with? Things from our perspective? I was adding contrast to a sweeping generalization. But this experience is typical in my circles, and I'm working class. She is VERY typical of her class (not that I buy into the whole class system). She is also typical of her upwardly mobile social niche, who fiscally speaking, has had it very lucky.

Woah, calm down. I never insinuated boomers are luddites, if anything I insinuated I was! My point was paying a monthly sub for mobile broadband when they (ETA: and by "they", I mean the people I know) maybe use it once a month, was silly and typical of a particularly mindset that MANY people from MANY classes, generations and backgrounds have been seduced into.

Consumerism, marketing and aspiration isn't about generation or socioeconomic status, it's about convincing people they need stuff they don't really need, to impress people they don't really know.

Broadly speaking the boomers generation their equivalent of 'buying on credit' was buying a house. Then some smart business person decided that wasn't enough, they needed to spend money to fill their house with things. As tech moved on, it turned to spending money on gadgets. People rented TV's, doorstep loans and so on. The credit as we know it wasn't there, but boomers had their equivalents. As tech and marketing moved on, so did credit.

ukcarper

BouncingBean wrote: »

This is typical of my experience and I didn't say otherwise. Presumably that was the unwritten caveat we all respond here with? Things from our perspective? I was adding contrast to a sweeping generalization. But this experience is typical in my circles, and I'm working class. She is VERY typical of her class (not that I buy into the whole class system). She is also typical of her upwardly mobile social niche, who fiscally speaking, has had it very lucky.

Woah, calm down. I never insinuated boomers are luddites, if anything I insinuated I was! My point was paying a monthly sub for mobile broadband when they maybe use it once a month, was silly and typical of a particularly mindset that MANY people from MANY classes, generations and backgrounds have been seduced into.

Consumerism, marketing and aspiration isn't about generation or socioeconomic status, it's about convincing people they need stuff they don't really need, to impress people they don't really know.

Broadly speaking the boomers generation their equivalent of 'buying on credit' was buying a house. Then some smart business person decided that wasn't enough, they needed to spend money to fill there house with things. As tech moved on, it turned to spending money on gadgets. People rented TV's, doorstep loans and so on. The credit as we know it wasn't there, but boomers had their equivalents. As tech and marketing moved on, so did credit.

Credit was a lot harder in the early 70s no going into a shop and walking out the same day with a nice TV on credit. I'm not sure how you can say buying a house on credit is the same as the buying on credit that goes on now.


As for paying a monthly sub on a mobile and hardy using it, that is the reason my partner and I have pay as you go phones. Funnily because I'm having to use my phone more at the moment I have just been checking tarrifs and the call rate is 25p a min when that's only 40 mins and you up £10.


Many older people do have higher disposable income but that is because in many cased there have paid of their mortgage and have much lower outgoings that doesn't mean they were any better of in the 30s.

ukcarper

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I attended a lecture recently and evidence was presented that it's actually Generation X (and to a lesser extent, Y) who are the least happy, the least fulfilled.

The gist of it is that Boomers did, and continue to, block them at every turn and the Millennials now dominate the world they should have inherited from their parents.

They have no place, they are passed over and forgotten. Their moment in the sun never came. Only Boomers and Millennials seem to matter.

I'm not sure how anybody born in the late 60s or early 70s can consider themselves hard done by.


Perhaps you can explain your second paragraph as to me its rubbish.

ess0two

Bought early 90's,lived on second hand furniture / white goods for a few years.
Since moved on with equity and perseverance,own a place away and a current home.
Its all possible but you aint gonna get it handed on a plate,somethings gotta give.

ukcarper

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

This wasn't a discussion on who has the most material possessions.

You are still not making sense.

cns06

We bought our first house at 24 in 2004. We married 3 years later. HTH!

thequant

BouncingBean wrote: »

True to some extent, but not really. I can also show you many people 'my parents age' who fell hook line and sinker for the rampant credit consumerism that started to take a massive hold in the 80's. My parents came from working/lower middle class, 'make do and mend' practical type backgrounds, but still fell for it and got into financial trouble. To this day, they love their latest trinkets and ball balls, and I shake my head at the sheer staggering pointlessness of it all.

From my 20's I was living a very frugal lifestyle, no central heating or hot water, few mod cons (all essentials), making my own clothes, growing veg - (apart from the basics of gardening) these skills I learned, not from my parents, but by research.

Most baby boomers I know think throwing money at things will solve problems. That you can buy solutions to 'problems'. They think you can buy quality. They think it's very important to have home broadband AND smart phone internet connections even though they rarely use it. They think it's really important that their interior decorating is 'in fashion' and change it almost yearly. They love their trinkets and "trivia". Most importantly, a lot of the 'baby boomers' I speak to just do not get that my generation and those after me cannot afford a property, despite good jobs. To them, good jobs mean you buy a house or 5.

In fact my partners mother (a woman I like and respect), is the very epitome of a baby boomer. She has retired on a very nice pension, owns 3 properties, takes many holidays a year and is spending a never ending amount of cash on a shopping habit for tat she doesn't need (at the same time constantly throwing really good stuff away to make room for latest stuff). She hires a never ending stream of trades people to do even basic work like removing wallpaper! Even though she has more than enough time to do it herself!!!! She buys a new car every 2 years because it's 'a hassle' to deal with the MOT. She then complains that she is a 'poor pensioner' who just doesn't know how she will cope financially LMAO! If it wasn't so funny I'd cry. She wouldn't dream of mending her own clothes, cooking cheaply or doing DIY. On the rare occasions she buys a cheaper brand of toilet roll, she thinks she's really clever and frugal.

I digress, but my point being, whilst the 'my parents generation' might have higher amounts of practical skills, they have still fallen for the "trivia". Most have forgotten any practical skills they learned. Use it or lose it. This is how the current generation doesn't have these practical skills, 'parents generation' left them behind and didn't pass them on. Heck, it was my gran who taught me to knit.

I'm not sure your parents parents (or grandparents) would think much of your parents practical 'make do and mend' abilities either

Nice post, but have to say to buy a house you do need a good job and always have done.


If you can't afford a house, then by definition you don't have a good job.


Think about it, prices are what they are because people can pay these prices. Who are these people ? people with good jobs

Generali

thequant wrote: »

Nice post, but have to say to buy a house you do need a good job and always have done.


If you can't afford a house, then by definition you don't have a good job.


Think about it, prices are what they are because people can pay these prices. Who are these people ? people with good jobs

In the 70s it was pretty unusual for someone on a low wage to own their own home: in 1971 only half of households were owner occupied:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

My parents bought their first home in 1970 but they were an IT bloke and a teacher. Both very solid, middle class jobs. It was only Right to Buy and the 100% mortgages that went with it that allowed working class people to buy their homes in large numbers.

thequant

Generali wrote: »

My parents bought their first home in 1970 but they were an IT bloke and a teacher. Both very solid, middle class jobs. It was only Right to Buy and the 100% mortgages that went with it that allowed working class people to buy their homes in large numbers.

Plus a ridiculous expansion of Higher education such that now everyone thinks they are middle class.


A lot people need to realise, just because they went to university, but their parents didn't. It doesn't mean they are not in the same bottom 50% that their parents were.

SingleSue

Mum and dad purchased their first (and only) house when dad was 28 and mum was 26 in late 1969. They would have purchased earlier but dad worked in construction and his contract for each place was not long enough to buy anywhere before.....they bought their house as the construction contract dad was working on that time was a very lengthy one and it worked out cheaper than renting.

Neither had a college or uni education, they both left school at 14. They were married when mum was 17 and dad 19 and dad was the sole worker as mum was a stay at home mum.