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

noodle_doodle

my parents didn't even wait till their 20's to get married

Had their own house by the time I was on the way

Both school-leavers, it helps that they (or at least my dad) was earning as soon as they left school. Nowadays, take a-levels and a degree and it's 21 till you start earning money (as I found out, as all my school-leaving mates flashed about in cars and smart clothes when I was living the high life at university eating f*cking super noodles)

oh yeah, timepoint for reference: 1970ish

Percy1983

jjlandlord wrote: »

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?"

I don't want my property to gain in value I have done nothing to earn it and the young have done nothing to deserve to pay it.

Before anybody starts I am more than happy for my house to keep up with inflation (ie stay the same value in real terms).

the_flying_pig

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.

yeah, i dunno...

there was, according to that chart, a huge increase in homeownersihp in the twenty years between 1953 & 1971, from about 30% to about50%. 1953 was surprisingly down a little on 1939.

Despite the hype around the impact of RTB that happened lateron the 1953-1971 change was bigger and faster. It went hand in hand with the 1960shousebuilding boom.

It seems likely to me that the people who became homeowners forthe first time during this period were overwhelmingly born after [or during] WW2or else between the wars, say people who were aged 16-35 during 1953-1971period, i.e. born no later than 1918 & no earlier than 1955.

There was then another fairly meaty increase in ownership between1971 & 1981.

I put it to you that by the mid-to-late 1970s home ownershipamongst people born between say 1945 and 1960 was really quite high. Muchhigher than 50% anyway.

That [personal anecdote ahoy] was my experience having beenborn in 1976. I lived in a street [built I believe in the 1950s as many houses werein those days] fairly close to town, all owner-occupied, I don’t remember whatall our neighbours did for a living but my dad had left school at 14, didunskilled [though ok paid ] work in a factory, the bloke who lived opposite wasa postman, another one a few doors up worked in an electrical shop [Curry’sIIRC]. You know what I mean, people on slightly below average wages with incomesthat probably peak in real terms long before the age of 30.

I’d estimate that there were children living in at least onehouse in every four in that street, maybe one in every three. They’re worthabout £175k today, so comfortably out of the reach of people occupying the sameposition in the economic pyramid as the 1970s families. I don’t think there arenow children living in even one out of ten houses there. Nothing else at evennearly the same price point has been built since then.

jjlandlord

Percy1983 wrote: »

I don't want my property to gain in value I have done nothing to earn it and the young have done nothing to deserve to pay it.

Before anybody starts I am more than happy for my house to keep up with inflation (ie stay the same value in real terms).

And then there is always the virtuous one!

Interestingly when looking at properties for sale at estate agents or online I never ever see any property for sale 40% cheaper than the surrounding ones because the owner decided he did not deserve more...
Is it therefore virtue or hypocrisy?

the_flying_pig

jjlandlord wrote: »

And then there is always the virtuous one!

Interestingly when looking at properties for sale at estate agents or online I never ever see any property for sale 40% cheaper than the surrounding ones because the owner decided he did not deserve more...
Is it therefore virtue or hypocrisy?

that's, well, not at all the point.

i do not want houes prices to fall but i'd obviously be delighted if, say, the value of my house only were to increase whilst all others remained at the same level.

e.g. imagine that a small seam of precious stones was found in my back garden, enabling me to sell it for triple its 'normal' value. that'd be fantastic. i'd sell up & immediately buy three similar houses, one each for me & my two kids.

but if, say, there was a collossal newtown planned near to my town that'd [say] reduce the value of all other houses in town by 10%, then i'd be pretty happy about that. sure, i'd lose value on my place, but any other house that i might want to move to would also be cheaper [assuming that i want to stay reasonably local, as most pepole do]. more importantly, the development might reduce my kids' future cost of living.

cheers.

thequant

jjlandlord wrote: »

And then there is always the virtuous one!

Interestingly when looking at properties for sale at estate agents or online I never ever see any property for sale 40% cheaper than the surrounding ones because the owner decided he did not deserve more...
Is it therefore virtue or hypocrisy?

My favourite are the generation renters, who after finally getting their hands on granny's house after she's popper her clogs. Whack it on the market for 10%+ above similar properties despite it needing "extensive modernisation"

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I don't want my property to gain in value I have done nothing to earn it and the young have done nothing to deserve to pay it.

Before anybody starts I am more than happy for my house to keep up with inflation (ie stay the same value in real terms).

It doesn't really matter what you want because when you come to sell you'll be looking to achieve the market price the same as everyone else.

In practical terms I can see little difference between someone living on the moral high ground and the sinner who wants their house to increase in value.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what you want because when you come to sell you'll be looking to achieve the market price the same as everyone else.

In practical terms I can see little difference between someone living on the moral high ground and the sinner who wants their house to increase in value.

To a point I have to agree, the problem is whatever unearned HPI I gain, I need to cash to to pay the unearned HPI of the house I am buying.

In basic terms HPI would just cost me money going with the assumption I would be getting a bigger/better house.

IE, My current house is worth £100k and the house I wanted was £200k, 5 years later house have risen 40%.

Yay my house is worth £140k I am so much closer to my £200k house, wait a minute its now up £280k, so I now need to find £140k instead of £100k, so infact I have lost money in many respects.

So as great as it would be to have the power to refuse my unearned HPI and sell at £100k I need that £40K to offset the £80k unearned HPI of the seller.

As much as I don't like the game I have to play it to not plummit myself into financial ruin, yes I could not buy and not play the game and then plummit myself into financial ruin paying a stangers mortgage with no return.

Conrad

Percy1983 wrote: »

To a point I have to agree, the problem is whatever unearned HPI I gain, I need to cash to to pay the unearned HPI of the house I am buying.

.

The vast bulk of people benefit from HPI in the long run and this becomes meaningful on downsizing in retirement.



People realise all sorts of dreams with equity, buying the home of their desire in France and letting some of the space to vacationers, downsizing and using the balance to provide an income etc etc.


We all have relatives, friends and acquaintances that have done just this, it's very real.


Right now I know several that are on the golf course as I type, in their 50's, all thanks to property.


Mate of mine bought a 4 bed detached in c2008 in Epsom for £500k, a wreck. He's poured heart n soul into doing it up and it was a nightmare for his family at first, but now he's sitting on a £1.3m asset with a £300k mortgage - that's a million quid and he's mid 40's.
His life opportunities are totally different compared to 2008 just prior to the move.


He could now downsize out into Hants for say £500k cash and have £500k left over to invest. This is everyday stuff.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

To a point I have to agree, the problem is whatever unearned HPI I gain, I need to cash to to pay the unearned HPI of the house I am buying.

In basic terms HPI would just cost me money going with the assumption I would be getting a bigger/better house.

IE, My current house is worth £100k and the house I wanted was £200k, 5 years later house have risen 40%.

Yay my house is worth £140k I am so much closer to my £200k house, wait a minute its now up £280k, so I now need to find £140k instead of £100k, so infact I have lost money in many respects.

So as great as it would be to have the power to refuse my unearned HPI and sell at £100k I need that £40K to offset the £80k unearned HPI of the seller.

As much as I don't like the game I have to play it to not plummit myself into financial ruin, yes I could not buy and not play the game and then plummit myself into financial ruin paying a stangers mortgage with no return.

So the main difference between you guys on the top of moral mountain and those of us on the lower slopes comes down to what we say rather than what we do?