No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

Cyberman60

When we are an islamic state no doubt Allah will provide.....

Having said that, there is no excuse nowadays for anybody not to work hard to get good qualifications, followed by a good job. It simply takes dedication and ambition. Very many youngsters nowadays don't seem to have it maybe because they are used to being spoilt and getting something for nothing.

No wonder when we have parties offering to dole out money for doing nothing, such as the Greens who are offering 72 quid a week to everyone as a 'citizens payment'.

danothy

pollypenny wrote: »

I am a baby boomer ... rented at first and saved like mad for a 10% deposit

How long of saving like mad did it take you to save up two years' gross income?

Graham_Devon

lisyloo wrote: »

So if my onward journey is 45 mins (5+5+30+5 as above), and I want to allow a 5 min wait for the train then that's 105 mins single, 210 mins return i.e 3.5 hours and that's without any delays.

I personally would not call that "reasonable" if I had to do it everyday.
I'm not saying I wouldn't consider it if a glittering career was on offer, but that's basically the reason why it isn't a highly desireable area and prices aren't higher.
I totally get that circumstances differ, but most people do have some onward travel and I don't think my example is outrageous, for example 5 min wait for main line train, or 5 min wait for a bus (or tube) are not exaggerated figures.

P.S I do live in London and have lived at many London locations (lived in temporary serviced apartments for a while precisely to try the options) so my experience is first hand and recent.

And worth noting that for all that effort, you still only get a 1 bed flat....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think I'm right in saying it was the young who wanted the change? I.e. the young were, by majority, voting for independence.

Nope.....

From the Yougov poll of voters on the day....

51% of those 16 to 24 voted No.

55% of 25-39-year-olds voted Yes

66% of over 65's voted No

55% of 60-65-year-olds voted No

53% of 40-59-year-olds voted No

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nope.....

From the Yougov poll of voters on the day....

51% of those 16 to 24 voted No.

55% of 25-39-year-olds voted Yes

66% of over 65's voted No

55% of 60-65-year-olds voted No

53% of 40-59-year-olds voted No

Yes, so I was right in what I was saying. By large, it was the younger generations voting yes to independence.

Don't really understand how you can claim it was any different tbh.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Probably.

The 1 bed flat wouldn't suit most people and is a bit of a niche really.

So looking at the 2 bed home.... 15% reasonable deposit = 36k. Then you have the fee's etc.

The average wage is running at around 26-28k. For that wage, you'd probably expect someone to be in their 30's, having progressed up the ladder a bit. (hence why I suugested a 1 bed flat is probably a bit of a niche area).

So disregarding the fact that they may have kids and need a 3 bed..... to buy that 2 bed, you are looking at saving a large amount - and the crux of the issue is that they will presumably be paying to live somewhere in the meantime. Your suggesting is that they also live within reasonable commuting distance to London...which is fantastic.... but commuting in and out each day will be another large expense, limiting their saving potential.

You can still a 90% mortgage so £24k deposited less average wage. If you want to buy that should be your number one priority and if that means waiting for children and living with parents or in a house share so be it. That is what we did and if we had rented a house and had children first we would still be renting.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

So if my onward journey is 45 mins (5+5+30+5 as above), and I want to allow a 5 min wait for the train then that's 105 mins single, 210 mins return i.e 3.5 hours and that's without any delays.

I personally would not call that "reasonable" if I had to do it everyday.
I'm not saying I wouldn't consider it if a glittering career was on offer, but that's basically the reason why it isn't a highly desireable area and prices aren't higher.
I totally get that circumstances differ, but most people do have some onward travel and I don't think my example is outrageous, for example 5 min wait for main line train, or 5 min wait for a bus (or tube) are not exaggerated figures.

P.S I do live in London and have lived at many London locations (lived in temporary serviced apartments for a while precisely to try the options) so my experience is first hand and recent.

If you feel any of my numbers are wrong then please feel free to pick holes, but 5 mins for a bus or even walk round some tube stations is really not excessive.

Tell that to the thousands of people who commute from the main commuter towns is Surrey where the train journey to London is 15 mins less.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And worth noting that for all that effort, you still only get a 1 bed flat....

If you take one years average earnings as deposit £26k as a 10% deposit you would get a 3 bed house.

The trains to London are full in the mornings and have been for the last 50 years so it's no exactly a unusual commute and people have been doing it for a long time.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

That is what we did and if we had rented a house and had children first we would still be renting.

And you've just hit the nail on the head.

You cannot reasonably expect someone to earn the national average wage, by, (say) the age of 24 (reasons for the age of 24 given below).

It's an unrealistic expectation. Look at the jobs available without qualifications. If you are going to suggest they should get the qualifications, that's fine, but you have to allow them time to do this, get through uni and then find the job.

To get that job, with their qualifications, they are likely to have to move out of their parents house, unless they are lucky enough to have opportunities on their doorsteps (unlikely outside any major city). To move out, they need to pay rent.

The body clock while you are doing all of this is ticking. Allow them another 2 years to save a deposit for a house (while paying rent, while paying commuting costs etc) and they are soon pushing 30, if not past 30. By that point, for a grwoing number of people, having children becomes difficult due simply to biology.

The other option is to leave school at 18 and fall into any job going hoping for career progression. You'll start at (probably) minimum wage. Lets say you take a job in tesco. How do you think you are going to progress in Tesco to a level where you are taking 28k a year home by the age of 24/25?

I think you are assuming too much. Assuming that people just fall into average wage paying jobs while living with their parents, in a stable relationship with another person (living at one parents house, I'd imagine?!), having got qualifications etc to get their decent job all before the prime age for conception.

The biggest change since the time you refer too is the job sector has changed radically. So many jobs are no minimum wage or thereabouts unless you have qualifications PRIOR to the job. On job training is not as prevelant as it used to be in the time you refer to. Many now are taking on debt to get the training, not taking home a wage while getting trained. You have to be able to cater for this before assuming people can do what you did in your day.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you've just hit the nail on the head.

You cannot reasonably expect someone to earn the national average wage, by, (say) the age of 24 (reasons for the age of 24 given below).

It's an unrealistic expectation. Look at the jobs available without qualifications. If you are going to suggest they should get the qualifications, that's fine, but you have to allow them time to do this, get through uni and then find the job.

To get that job, with their qualifications, they are likely to have to move out of their parents house, unless they are lucky enough to have opportunities on their doorsteps (unlikely outside any major city). To move out, they need to pay rent.

The body clock while you are doing all of this is ticking. Allow them another 2 years to save a deposit for a house (while paying rent, while paying commuting costs etc) and they are soon pushing 30, if not past 30. By that point, for a grwoing number of people, having children becomes difficult due simply to biology.

I think you are assuming too much. Assuming that people just fall into average wage paying jobs while living with their parents, in a stable relationship with another person (living at one parents house, I'd imagine?!), having got qualifications etc to get their decent job all before the prime age for conception.

The biggest change since the time you refer too is the job sector has changed radically. So many jobs are no minimum wage or thereabouts unless you have qualifications PRIOR to the job. On job training is not as prevelant as it used to be in the time you refer to. Many now are taking on debt to get the training, not taking home a wage while getting trained. You have to be able to cater for this before assuming people can do what you did in your day.

I agree people reaching full earning potential later is a problem but that is not the same thing as house prices being to high being the problem. I've said many times there are many problems facing young people it's just that I don't think high house prices are the main one.


Interesting figures from latest ONS median earnings 22-29 £18,880: 30-39 £25,000: 40-49 £25,003: 50-59 £23,348.