Percentage of 25-34 y/ds owning their own house 2004 - 2014

Physics

Jason74 wrote: »

But I think any talk of "mortgage rationing" in this environment is a long way wide of the mark.

One man's mortgage rationing is another's prudent regulation of an industry that brought the world's economy to its knees.

MARTYM8`

ruggedtoast wrote: »

To paraphrase someone from another forum. Its amazing how many older people who own two cars and a 150 ton house full of consumer items, will then look at a young person who owns a bicycle a phone a laptop and some cotton clothing, and call them materialistic.

Yes - and then the same types suggest the reason these young people cannot afford to pay £250,000 for a one bed flat is because they have just spent £300 on an ipad.:D Hardly much of a dent in the £25k deposit is it?

And both main parties are again committed to fully protecting pensioner benefits.

ukcarper

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Yes - and then the same types suggest the reason these young people cannot afford to pay £250,000 for a one bed flat is because they have just spent £300 on an ipad.:D Hardly much of a dent in the £25k deposit is it?

And both main parties are again committed to fully protecting pensioner benefits.

And building more houses we will see how they both pan out.


They could buy this in Surrey for half the price. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33573852.html

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

To paraphrase someone from another forum. Its amazing how many older people who own two cars and a 150 ton house full of consumer items, will then look at a young person who owns a bicycle a phone a laptop and some cotton clothing, and call them materialistic.

As most of us know, "materialism" involves being excessively concerned with physical comforts or the acquisition of wealth and material possessions, rather than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.

Personally I find this a rather contradictory definition.

Whilst young, I admit to having been passionately concerned with "wealth", but much less so about the material possessions. I realised (rightly or wrongly) that for most people, to strive for both at the same time is a contradiction in terms.

In other words, spending one's income on depreciating assets (Cars, i-Phones, designer clothes) and consumables (expensive food and drink) significantly reduces wealth over time. Conversely, putting one's income into investments (one's own property, pensions, ISA's) significantly increases wealth over time.

Of course now I am older, I have no income to speak of - other than from the substantial proceeds of my earlier investment decisions - and I am able to indulge far more freely into the consumption and material possessions elements of 'materialism'.

Analternate strategy of demonstrating one's own materialism by blowing one's income on possessions and consumables for the first half of economic life, and doing the wealth creation only in the second half, is rather less sustainable. Such creatures will have no wealth in older age and be forced to follow rather more spiritual, intellectual, or cultural pursuits in old age.

Presumably, for many, this manifests itself in the activity of reading the Daily Mirror every day, and praying that the Lottery Ticket comes up this week!

ruggedtoast

How is it that the boomers can gloat their hands together at their own wealth while the youngsters have so little?

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Here you go....

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/england-and-wales-population-pyramid---dvc2/index.html

Thanks - exactly what I was looking for.

Some Friday night Excel action:

Age 2004 % 2014 %
24 703500 9.0 796100 9.2
25 675000 8.6 789400 9.2
26 642200 8.2 792900 9.2
27 643600 8.2 773500 9.0
28 663200 8.5 782800 9.1
29 687700 8.8 787500 9.1
30 705300 9.0 769800 8.9
31 743300 9.5 776000 9.0
32 778800 9.9 774800 9.0
33 802700 10.2 782400 9.1
34 793300 10.1 784600 9.1
7838600 8609800

2004 % 2014 %
24-28 3327500 42.5 3934700 45.7
30-34 3823400 48.8 3887600 45.2

Apologies for the lack of formatting, and in the 'table' at the bottom I excluded the 29 year olds as they were the mid-point so I wasn't sure which category, if either, to include them with - the balance between the older and younger sections of the 24-34 year olds in 2004/ 2014 does seem to explain some of the difference in the data. Would also be interesting to see know how many of those people were just out of uni/ out of work etc etc.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

How is it that the boomers can gloat their hands together at their own wealth while the youngsters have so little?

Some of us had good parents.

Every week, on a Friday evening, my father brought home his little square pay packet and I would receive a shilling. He educated me that it was far better to put it in a money box rather than go to the shop and waste it on sweets.

He even provided the money box.

It was some years later, by which time - even at that age - I could calculate that I had put over £10 in the box altogether.

I think it was when I was at home, for the first time, when a little uniformed man knocked on the door, went under the stairs (where my money box was situated) and emptied all the coins before taking them away.

So in this way, I learned not to trust anybody, and looked after my own money.

But the answer to your question is that boomers have conspired to rob the youngsters blind. As we get older, we learn all the best methods. Pay them peanuts. Tax them silly. Deny any promotion. Keep house prices up so that they can't afford them. If any of them beat the trend, we deny them a mortgage. Eventually they will be forced to rent which is where rental values are massively inflated by the rich. Especially for the young. Those that insist on scraping enough together for a car, we charge £3K or more for the insurance. Another ruse is to convince them that pensions are a rip-off so they won't join the matching employer's scheme.

In this way, hopefully, by the time they are 35, they are beyond all financial redemption. Consigned to the scrapheap for good. When they retire, they will not want to live for long which is why boomers are sucking the NHS dry so that it is wound down well before this current young generation retires. This, of course, will probably be possible at age 80.

The few that reach that age will become known as "Doomers".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Nikkster wrote: »

Thanks - exactly what I was looking for.

Some Friday night Excel action:.

It's what we've been banging on about for years around here....

If you take 30-ish as the average FTB age, there was a pretty big trough from 2007-2012, but those numbers will now increase relentlessly until the mid 2020's when they peak at numbers nearly 50% greater than the trough, and it will be into the 2030's before the next trough.

There will never again in our lifetimes be as few people of the age to buy their first house as there were a few years ago.

The competition amongst FTB-s for the very limited available housing stock is going to get absolutely insane.

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's what we've been banging on about for years around here....

If you take 30-ish as the average FTB age, there was a pretty big trough from 2007-2012, but those numbers will now increase relentlessly until the mid 2020's when they peak at numbers nearly 50% greater than the trough, and it will be into the 2030's before the next trough.

There will never again in our lifetimes be as few people of the age to buy their first house as there were a few years ago.

The competition amongst FTB-s for the very limited available housing stock is going to get absolutely insane.

Not if they're all on zero hour contacts, spending their dole money on IPhones!

More seriously, it doesn't explain most of the difference.

Anecdote, not data, but I bought at the first point where it was sensible for me to do so in terms of finally having a proper job (was in academia before that, so not settled personally, and on fixed term contacts so might not have got a mortgage, esp not in London where I was based), at 32. Not dissimilar to many of my friends.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Nikkster wrote: »

Not if they're all on zero hour contacts, spending their dole money on IPhones!

Well there is that....

More seriously, it doesn't explain most of the difference.
.

The number of average FTB age people (30 years old) in 2007/8 was 642,000, at the tail end of a demographic bulge declining, ie, the absolute trough in numbers terms between generations.

Today it is 790,000.

By 2021 it will be 937,000.

That is damn near a 50% increase in young FTB age people needing a house over just 15 years.

The only reason for current FTB numbers being suppressed, and rents at record highs instead, is mortgage rationing....

Despite mortgages being cheaper than rent on average, the new bank capitalisation rules for higher LTV borrowers (traditionally FTB-s) dictate society would prefer to have youngsters buying houses for boomer landlords than buying them for themselves.

But that is neither politically sustainable nor desirable.

Political pressure will continue to increase until mortgage availability returns to historical norms, where a 5% deposit and a reasonable (but not perfect) credit score is enough to get you a mortgage at circa 35% to 45% of salary in terms of monthly repayments.

So there is only one way prices can go with the current trend of massively under building, and it ain't down...