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

Generali

thequant wrote: »

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


A lot people failed 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.

This expansion of higher education seems rather futile. There seems little point in a bank clerk or a PA having a degree unless they have a strong interest in a particular subject rather than needing it for a career.

All that's happened is that the clever posh kids have to stay in Uni for an extra year to get a Master's degree to differentiate themselves from the masses.

purch

Generali wrote: »

All that's happened is that the clever posh kids have to stay in Uni for an extra year to get a Master's degree to differentiate themselves from the masses.

Hang on. My boy is doing a MChem and is neither posh nor clever :eek:

thequant

purch wrote: »

Hang on. My boy is doing a MChem and is neither posh nor clever :eek:

We're talking proper 1 year masters, i.e. ones that are not funded by state loans which will never be paid back

calicocat

My parents married and bought a house straight away in 1960 I think.

Well it was a flat I think, and cost around 5/6K.....which mum mentions every time there is any discussion about house prices.

They both shoved most of their pay into getting it and paying it off early, no holidays, meals out unless a very special occasion, krap furniture i'm told etc. They were both totally fixed on housing, and this came before any luxury items.

lisyloo

In the 70s it was pretty unusual for someone on a low wage to own their own home

This doesn't match my experience.
My parents were married in 1964.
A lot of the blockes worked at ICI as fitters and I'd say they were definitely working class. Most of them owned.

I think there was more housing to go round and now we have shortage.

jjlandlord

I believe that the number of home-owners overtook the number of tenants only during the mid-70s.

This means that during at least half the 70s tenants were the majority in this country, and that during the whole of the 70s there were most likely less home-owners as a percentage of all households than there is now.

lisyloo wrote: »

This doesn't match my experience.

Well you had a pretty unusual experience, then.


I think it is also a question of perception and expectations:
In the 70s renting was the norm for most but home-ownership was on the (strong?) rise so people remember how they or their family bought a house and how great that was.

Nowadays, home-ownership is the norm and considered an entitlement by many so people take it rather badly not being able to buy and remember of they are 'prevented from' buying.

lisyloo

Well you had a pretty unusual experience, then.

Ok that may be the case.
I am describing the entire village, not just one house (a lot of the men worked at the same large firm).

Perhaps because we lived in a village or maybe they were lucky having a large employer nearby or perhaps well paid because although "working class" they did shift work and I believe got some "danger" money for working with amonia etc.

Just goes to should doesn't it how someones lifeimes experience can be out of step with the national pitcure.

londonTiger

Generali wrote: »

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.

Well there was massive housebuilding during the post war era which increased the housing stock and exceed the pre-war levels. In particular council houses led to the boom. Renting from council was cheap so there was no need to own. That's all changed now, right to buy and buy to let had a snowball effect of creating a rush for people to buy houses.

Increasingly growing public sector probably had a part to play in the massive sales of council houses. As council houses were an easy way for councils to raise funds.

A friend of mine is an estate agent and he mentioned that the government is withholding building more homes and placed measures to prevent new properties into the market so as to artificially raise property prices.

The prices need to stay at 2008 levels so masses of people don't decide to cut their losses and default. If prices fell too much people would get into negative equity and it would not be worthwhile to hold onto these expensive mortages where they're paying back far more than what the property is worth.

The UK managed to deal with the 2008 crisis quite well given the circumstances. The government has been able to really slow down the blowback from the 2008 crash to the point that people just got on with their lives without protesting or grinding the country to a halt.

In the long run it means the average joe is going to be taxed to death for the next 20 or so years - because we're paying for the bailout.

jjlandlord

To summarise, if I understood correctly:

- People want to be able to buy property easily and as soon as possible.
- People want properties to be cheap when they buy them.
- People want properties to have gained in value when they sell them.

"Do you want fries with that?"

Generali

jjlandlord wrote: »

I believe that the number of home-owners overtook the number of tenants only during the mid-70s.

1971 according to the ONS.