Is it really that hard?

cells

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Personally I think if you get a first or 2.1 from Oxbridge or Red Brick then it is still worth as much as it always has in that not having such a qualification makes it much more difficult to access certain professions.

I am not sure that it was ever much use to have a rubbish degree from a poorly rated university - what has really changed is not the value of such a qualification but the number of people who have one.

on the facts and figures page of oxford university website, it says 20% of their graduates gain a job paying £30,000 (or more) within six months

That means 80% don't...

dktreesea

There's a page on BBC's website called "Where can I afford to live?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033) where it allows you to put in your deposit, the amount you want to pay on your mortgage each month, how many bedrooms (I put 3) and whether you want a house at the expensive, mid market, or cheaper end of the spectrum, then it shows you where in Britain you could buy a home.

I was quite surprised, when I put in a deposit of £5k, and that I only wanted to pay £400 a month, to see I could afford to buy in 17% of local authority areas in Britain, including right across the central belt of Scotland, areas around Newcastle, South Wales, Lancashire and East Yorkshire/North Lincolnshire. All easy commutes to major cities for work.

When I upped this to a £20k deposit, and a mortgage of £800 a month, i could afford to buy in 66% of Britain, including places within commuter distance of London, e.g. Gravesend, Medway.

Up the deposit to £30k and the amount on the mortage to £1000 and even the south east of England became available. Keeping in mind this is for a 3 bedroom property. For a 2 bedroom property even East London became available.

I have concluded that it isn't that people can't afford to buy a house - they just want a better house than they can afford in the area they want to live.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dktreesea wrote: »

I have concluded that it isn't that people can't afford to buy a house - they just want a better house than they can afford in the area they want to live.

There's a lot of truth in that statement.

Graham_Devon

dktreesea wrote: »

There's a page on BBC's website called "Where can I afford to live?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033) where it allows you to put in your deposit, the amount you want to pay on your mortgage each month, how many bedrooms (I put 3) and whether you want a house at the expensive, mid market, or cheaper end of the spectrum, then it shows you where in Britain you could buy a home.

I was quite surprised, when I put in a deposit of £5k, and that I only wanted to pay £400 a month, to see I could afford to buy in 17% of local authority areas in Britain, including right across the central belt of Scotland, areas around Newcastle, South Wales, Lancashire and East Yorkshire/North Lincolnshire. All easy commutes to major cities for work.

When I upped this to a £20k deposit, and a mortgage of £800 a month, i could afford to buy in 66% of Britain, including places within commuter distance of London, e.g. Gravesend, Medway.

Up the deposit to £30k and the amount on the mortage to £1000 and even the south east of England became available. Keeping in mind this is for a 3 bedroom property. For a 2 bedroom property even East London became available.

All that is fantastic, but the biggest problem which it appears to have passed you by is the mobility.

You have suggested, for instance, that a 5k deposit and £400 a month will buy you a house.

However, forgetting stamp duty, fees etc for a moment.... it will buy you a house in areas with low job prospects.

Why would people take it upon themselves to uproot their families, leave their friends and everythign they know, leave their job and move somewhere where job opportunities are low?

These sorts of suggestions are fine if you have a job where you can work from wherever, or even a job whereby you can move locations.

But most people avoid moving to new areas areas precisely because they have to give up their incomes to do so. Giving up your income is hard to do when the sole reason for doing so is to get a mortgage (which requires a solid income!)

I have concluded that it isn't that people can't afford to buy a house - they just want a better house than they can afford in the area they want to live.

Grand, but your conclusion relies on you burying your head as deep as possible in quick sand.

Graham_Devon

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I started work in 1976 on an annual salary of £1074.

House prices went up considerably in the late 1970's.

By the time I bought a house in 1981, our two bedroom starter home cost £24250. We had a £21000 mortgage and we'd saved very hard for the deposit for the house. By that time I think I was earning about £4500,and my husband was on about £8000. It was the maximum mortgage we could get at the time, then we had to cope with the 15% interest rates

Every generation has it's problems - no generation has had it easy. You just have to play the hand you are dealt.

Am I reading this right?

You are suggesting every generation has it's problems, but your house cost 1.9x your annual wages?

Every generation does have its problems, but for you, it seems housing wasn't one of them.

pjread

I'd take 15% on a 20k mortgage in heart-beat

Samsonite1

It would be interesting to know what the OP thinks now given that it appears that things are way worse now than they were back then...

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All that is fantastic, but the biggest problem which it appears to have passed you by is the mobility.

I don't see that - he has cited options right across the country.

Why would people take it upon themselves to uproot their families, leave their friends and everythign they know, leave their job and move somewhere where job opportunities are low?

I don't see him suggesting that. I see him saying that between £400pm and £1000pm there are options that would enable someone (and potentially their family) to live in a variety of places that would enable them to work anywhere in the country.

ukcarper

Samsonite1 wrote: »

It would be interesting to know what the OP thinks now given that it appears that things are way worse now than they were back then...

Depends what you call worse I agree prices are high about 6x average earnings compared to just under 5x when I first bought in the early 70s. Between then and now prices have fluctuated and I must admit I'm surprised how much prices have increased in my area over the last year unfortunately I don't see prices falling anytime soon.

Samsonite1

ukcarper wrote: »

Depends what you call worse I agree prices are high about 6x average earnings compared to just under 5x when I first bought in the early 70s. Between then and now prices have fluctuated and I must admit I'm surprised how much prices have increased in my area over the last year unfortunately I don't see prices falling anytime soon.

Well for my parents, they bought a 5 bed Victorian house for less than 2x my Dad's 25k salary. This was 1986 in a salubrious part of a big city. The same house last sold for around 500k, more than 10x the 1986 value. 25k is still not a terrible salary but you are going to be struggling to buy this house, in fact a 1 bed flat is barely affordable on that salary in that location.

I think the point I am making is - 1986 meant a huge house in a lovely location for little borrowing. Today means barely affording mortgage payments for a flat in the same area.

This does not affect me, but I really feel for first time buyers.

I too was very surprised to find my house had gone up £120k in the past 2 years in the lofty heights of Zone 6 lol - I actually find it eye-opening working in Central London. I feel poor in comparison to the 1000 or so people I work with throughout the year. They all have multiple properties, some in London, some abroad. I feel like a failure only owning a family home in Zone 6! This emphasises to me why prices will not drop any time soon in London - there is too much money about.