The dissapearing property ladder

TickersPlaysPop

This housing mess is successive governments failure to ensure house price inflation matched wage inflation, through house building.

Insufficient house building, high net immigration, allowing foreign investment in residential property, creating more demand by allowing buy to letters to compete with potential owner occupiers.

We are now in a position where an accelerating housing market value is pulling homes away from families into the hands of landlords. Spiralling downwards housing standards for all... more renters and more wealthy landlords.

This has been misconduct, neglect, selfishness by our MP's and political system. Vote for whoever you want, nothing will change, our MP's are not in control. The banks and big business and the EU rule our country, and when enough people wake up to this then we will see change.

lukeh23

Really amazed at how those who were fortunate of better times, downright refute the reality of those now facing much more difficult times to own a home. I can't help but think of them as trolls, I can't see what else they can be or what motive they might have.

The article illustrates it so well:

I bought my first flat in London when I was 21, and it cost about four times the very ordinary salary I was earning.

Today, the young person that I was wouldn't have a chance of buying it. At about £400,000, it costs maybe 15 times the salary I'd be earning in an equivalent job today. That's not just a London problem, something similar would be true in large parts of the country.

Also lol at the codgers thanking each other the whole way through the thread.

lukeh23

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Boomers paid 15% mortgage rates for about 5 minutes. Youngsters today are trapped into vertiginous house prices and rates for a lifetime.

Whats worse, paying 5% on a £200k mortgage in a time of real term falls in standards of living, or 10% on a £15,000 one in a time when the economy is growing exponentially and every Budget day is another Boomer handout?

As always you are picking out the things that were harder for the boomer generations and focusing on them to the exclusion of everything else.

They can't see much further then their own nose.

Loughton_Monkey

lukeh23 wrote: »

........I can't see what else they can be or what motive they might have...

Probably a futile attempt to educate the young.

ukcarper

lukeh23 wrote: »

They can't see much further then their own nose.

Rugged's post is meaning unless it takes no account of earnings at the time when house prices were £15k.

TickersPlaysPop

They are protecting their own interests.

They are actively Suppressing public opinion against landlord'ism

They are petrified of political gain from more rent controls and rights for tenants... if they really are providing a public service as they like to think, let's regulate it as such.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

They are protecting their own interests.

They are actively Suppressing public opinion against landlord'ism

They are petrified of political gain from more rent controls and rights for tenants... if they really are providing a public service as they like to think, let's regulate it as such.

You are starting to sound worse than rugged. The young need to face the real problems facing them and not whinge about property prices. Using present mortgage rules I could still buy in the area I bought in in the 70s might have to go for a 2 bed instead of 3 the difference is I would find it hard to earn what I was earning at the age I was when I bought it.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You are starting to sound worse than rugged. The young need to face the real problems facing them and not whine about property prices. Using present mortgage rules I could still buy in the area I bought in in the 70s might have to go for a 2 bed instead of 3 the difference is I would find it hard to earn what I was earning at the age I was when I bought it.

Right, so, in this post, you admit that:

A) You wouldn't be able to afford the same house you bought at a younger age.

You wouldn't be able to earn as much today doing the same job you were doing at a younger age.

So basically, you need an even better paying job than you did, to buy less than you did.

Grand. So at least we've got somewhere. I guess now we just gotta convince you to let us utter a bit of discontent with it all...

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, so, in this post, you admit that:

A) You wouldn't be able to afford the same house you bought at a younger age.

You wouldn't be able to earn as much today doing the same job you were doing at a younger age.

So basically, you need an even better paying job than you did, to buy less than you did.

Grand. So at least we've got somewhere. I guess now we just gotta convince you to let us utter a bit of discontent with it all...

No you've missed the point people doing the same job would be able to buy. But it would be more difficult to get that job at that age. The main problem facing young people is not house prices is the lack of good jobs especially without a degree.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

No you've missed the point people doing the same job would be able to buy. But it would be more difficult to get that job at that age. The main problem facing young people is not house prices is the lack of good jobs especially without a degree.

I don't think I did to be honest.

You've just said exactly the same thing, just turned it upside down to make out it's jobs that are the issue, not prices.

So wheres the evidence for your claim? How are you so sure that prices are not the issue, it's actually jobs?

Surely, it's both?

One things for certain though. Increase the stock of houses by 50% in the next year, and most will be able to buy due to supply and demand..... even those on minimum wage jobs..... so suggesting jobs are the issue is nonsense.