Young people increasingly giving up on buying property

CLAPTON

mullen8627 wrote: »

were only saving £1200 per month? thats alot of money to save. We save our own money a side from that which may or may not be used when we come to go for the mortgage aswell.

Its not awful i said it was hard, winter its freezing and summer its like a furnace ha.

We rented for a year before moving back with my parents purely because we wanted to live together first before commiting to a mortgage.

1,200 is a lot or a little depending upon how much your income is.
if buying a house is first priority then that is different from being a priority.

Marktheshark

People do not realise just how far in 5 years the tories have turned the crew on young people.
Apprenticeships until they are 27 in non entity manual jobs, minimum wage dead end pay.
No place left at the table, property costs more than they can ever earn.

The future has been stolen from them.

MNM2903

My salary is 1150pm i save £660 of that, £25 mobile, £10 home broadband and tv, £191 car, £50 board, plus fuel, food, etc i earn bonus though and get somewhere between £500 - £1000 but this varies and i used some of this to clear her argos card, overdraft and my own debts aswell. £660 each gives us a deposit of 18k in 15 months. We both save our own money a side from this but if we didnt move home to save and if my parents werent so generous with the ammount of board they wanted it would take us alot longer and put alot more stress on us.

stator

There's no point in sacrificing the enjoyment of your healthy years 20-30 just so that you can own a lump of bricks and pay no rent / mortgage when you get to 60+.
There are many ways we could all save money, but it's certainly not worth living in a concentration camp, using communal showers all the time.
So yes, if your favourite band is playing a gig near you, why not go? By the time your 60+ all your favourite artists will be dead or retired anyway. You can't enjoy life by then, so hoarding money won't make you happy.

CLAPTON

mullen8627 wrote: »

My salary is 1150pm i save £660 of that, £25 mobile, £10 home broadband and tv, £191 car, £50 board, plus fuel, food, etc i earn bonus though and get somewhere between £500 - £1000 but this varies and i used some of this to clear her argos card, overdraft and my own debts aswell. £660 each gives us a deposit of 18k in 15 months. We both save our own money a side from this but if we didnt move home to save and if my parents werent so generous with the ammount of board they wanted it would take us alot longer and put alot more stress on us.

being able to save a deposit in only 15 months is pretty good going by any historical standard

well one I hope all goes well.

ViolaLass

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Looking at the survey, conducted by the Halifax, it appears we've moved past the point where the young feel it's actually worth trying to save a deposit. They are willing to save £33 per week towards a deposit and are willing to spend 5 years and 4 months saving for said deposit.

However, if saving £33 a week for 5 years 4 months still doesn't fund a deposit, it appears people are less likely to bother.

We don't know whether that £33 is the mean or median (I would guess it's not the mode!).

Say it's the mean (what most people mean when they say 'average'). If three quarters of young people are saving nothing (because they're paying down debts, perhaps), the remaining quarter could be saving £132 a week or £572 a month, which is a decent amount.

Some people on this thread are talking about 'young people saving £33 a week' as if that is what they are all doing.

MNM2903

yeah we thought so, didnt fancy using gouvernment schemes just to get on the ladder quicker when we are in a position to do it ourselves.

It is alot tougher for people though. Im fortunate my parents can have us there and dont mind for 15 months allowing us to save alot more and without much of a sacrafice in terms of money as we dont have to sit in every day we do go out and enjoy ourselves without sacraficing our saving.

My parents bought their hous for 16k after renting all there lives. The problem this had is it was offered to everyone with a council property and they then sold the property 5 years later for a healthy profit.

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

Because most people of that age don't want dearest mother and father waiting up when they bring their new special friend back from the nightclub, basically.


It's fine if you have a) a huge house with good soundproofing or b) you are happy to live like a monk

They will have to do what we did the 60s drive down to local beauty spot car park.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

Figures please.
Perhaps try someone working in a London supermarket paying £800 per month for shared accomodation.
Tell us how much you think they should save after the basic of food, rent. travel etc.

I'd like to see some real figures rather than just baseless opinions.

I think it's geuninely hard for someone paying rent and certainly harder than in the past.

London rents are absurd, as you note a SHARED house/flat will cost in the region of £800 per month in most places in inner London

Unless you have been lucky I would imagine the only choices a low paid worker has in London is....

accept perpetual subsistence living and pay more than half your gross wage as rent

state help (which will probably mean having a kid to get HB)

relatives help

cram even more to try and save (10-15 people to a 3 bed)

leave London

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

But in the days when Gen Xers like you were FTBs, UK property was seriously undervalued. There are two main reasons why this was so.

First, wives' earnings were taxed at their husbands' marginal rate. So if her husband was say a lawyer on the 83% top rate of the 1970s, no working wife had anything to show for going out to work. Deduct the cost of her commute and her work attire from what the taxman left her, and she had literally nothing left - or perhaps even less.

Houses have typically been priced at some multiple of household income. Whether the wife worked or not, very often the only income that amounted to anything was the husband's. So household income meant one income (and this is where those famous building society loan multiples of 3x main salary and 1x second originally came from - after the sexist taxman had done his work, the wife's salary was indeed worth only a fraction of her husband's).

The second thing that was different is that there have only been 20* years since the Bank of England was set up when base rates have been above 10%, and all 20 of them occurred between 1973 to 1993*. This is often lost on crashtrolls who argue "just wait till interest rates go back to normal". They now are normal! So to the extent that interest rates affect house prices, they lowered them exactly when Gen X were FTBing and STBing.

Permanently remove both of those drags on price, as the Tories did between 1988 and 1993, and it sends them nowhere but up.

The huge population rise of 1997 to date has uncorked the bottle again, so my guess is that the next move in prices will be a levelling off followed by a sharp uptick then another levelling off, etc.

I really do struggle to see bear factors for housing at the moment. We're not going back to 1970s sexist taxation principles whatever Ed Miliband or angry HPCers may want; we're already back at long-term normal mortgage rates; and the new population are not going to be deported no matter what Nigel Farage may want.

* - roughly; I may be a year or two out

not forgetting that between 1971 - 1981 the population was broadly flat yet over 2.5 million additional homes were built

compare that to what looks likely to happen between 2011 to 2021. Population up by ~4.5 million while only ~1.3 million homes will be built