Is it really that hard?

Goldiegirl

ukcarper wrote: »

You obviously did OK average male salary in 1976 was just over £3.6k and for woman it was just over £2.3k.

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.

Nikkster

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are part of the want it now generation. Whereas we started with a flat. As it enabled us to get a first foot on the ladder.

I also didn't see the point in stretching and spending my life savings to buy a pokey flat. So as a 31-year-old single FTB I took pretty much the biggest mortgage available to me (closer to 5x earnings than 4x) and plunged more of my savings than I'd planned into a 3 bed detached ex-student house (in need of a fair amount of TLC). I'd intended to buy a 2 bed terrace, but in my preferred areas (of a not overly glamorous market town, not London) prices were getting more and more silly.

That was 18 months ago and I'd been saving more or less money since I got my first weekend job at 16. I'm now trying to chip away at my 30 year mortgage whilst doing the place up. Good job I'm happy to not 'have it all now'

cells

There is a huge regional difference

if you live in the north east, the north west, the east Midlands, or the west midlands, prices are the same as they were twenty years ago (relative to GDP).

its really only London that has gone truly very expensive vs the past. The SE too but to a lessor extent

maddermanblue1_2

lisyloo wrote: »

Madder you're doing really well with your savings, however you are trying to live in the most expensive city in the country.
I keep getting told that it's easier in other parts of the country so just out if curiosity could you move? Or do you work in a very London centric industry?

I'm from Somerset originally, even though I travel all over the country as part of my job, about 75% of the jobs I do are in London, within the M25 and just outside the M25.
I would love to move back to Somerset, back near my family and friends, but there are no jobs for what I do there. Travelling back and forth from Somerset to London would drive me crazy and my employers would probrably frown at the mileage I'd do. I Like my job, but I hate London. So basically a bit stuck.
I would return to Somerset with no job/low paid job and £40k in the bank, I wouldn't be able to get a good mortgage. I would need £120k minimum for a flat there, say £85k mortgage as would need to spend £5k on fees, solicitor fees, moving costs, etc etc etc
At £85k mortgage, I would needs to earn minimum of £24k PA (based on 3.5x the annual wage, it's not going to happen. I'm just being realistic.

maddermanblue1_2

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Madder makes the point very well. Earning £28k - which is actually above the London median wage.

Yet what chance does that poster have as a single person - they could perhaps stretch at a 4 times salary mortgage to buy this delightful one bed flat in a council high rise block in East Ham?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34804902.html

Its also all very well saying - well why don't people just leave London. They may have family and other ties - or simply couldn't get work in their career elsewhere (or be paid a lot less - thus negating the advantages).

Of course if now the aspiration for a Londoner on average wages is a one bed flat in a council high rise in East Ham - well why bother!:D

I wouldn't want a to buy place of my own in London, I just live here for work. I wouldn't want raise a family here. It's true, if I move back to Somerset, where I'm from I would be paid a lot less, being back to square one, 5 years ago, back renting, in a low paid job, not saving any money.

maddermanblue1_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are part of the want it now generation. Whereas we started with a flat. As it enabled us to get a first foot on the ladder.

I've never 'want it now' I could of bought a flat in Somerset about 10 years ago, it was an ok flat but I was on 16k, and £5k savings. I'm glad I didn't buy a flat in the end, the flat was £82k, 5 x my annual wage, even though my (95% LTV) mortgage was approved in principle, this was pre-crash era. I was not sure I'd be able to afford the repayments.
I'm 35, I just still cannot justify the price of 1 bed grotty flats these days. I thought the 'want it now' generation refered to buying massive TVs, IPods, PC, Games console, Mobiles on a buy now, pay later basis or on credit cards. I've never done that. The only time Ive taken a loan was £3k for a car when I was 20 and a £1.5k Career development loan when I was 21.

Carl31

maddermanblue1 wrote: »

I've never 'want it now' I could of bought a flat in Somerset about 10 years ago, it was an ok flat but I was on 16k, and £5k savings. I'm glad I didn't buy a flat in the end, the flat was £82k, 5 x my annual wage, even though my (95% LTV) mortgage was approved in principle, this was pre-crash era. I was not sure I'd be able to afford the repayments.
I'm 35, I just still cannot justify the price of 1 bed grotty flats these days. I thought the 'want it now' generation refered to buying massive TVs, IPods, PC, Games console, Mobiles on a buy now, pay later basis or on credit cards. I've never done that. The only time Ive taken a loan was £3k for a car when I was 20 and a £1.5k Career development loan when I was 21.

I think the 'want it now' generation is anyone under the age of 50 that is finding it hard to buy a house, as it can't be that hard, and if it is hard it's obviously because we all spend our money on things that weren't around in the 70

Like gym membership, iphones, coffee, holidays etc..

chucknorris

Carl31 wrote: »

I think the 'want it now' generation is anyone under the age of 50 that is finding it hard to buy a house, as it can't be that hard, and if it is hard it's obviously because we all spend our money on things that weren't around in the 70

Like gym membership, iphones, coffee, holidays etc..

Well even today I think gym membership is a waste of money, you can run and cycle in the streets or off road, and if you have the space, use your own weights. I do pay for swim membership though, even though I could afford my own pool, I just couldn't justify the cost.

Obviously mobiles are necessary (I wouldn't argue that).

I rarely (almost never) buy coffee or even sandwiches for lunch, I usually take my lunch to work (usually left overs or made special).

Holidays for me were sacrificed, for at least the first 10 years when I was trying to improve my financial position after graduating. I was far too busy working in my career job and also my business to spare any time (rather than the actual cost of the holiday) for holidays.

Carl31

chucknorris wrote: »

Well even today I think gym membership is a waste of money, you can run and cycle in the streets or off road, and if you have the space, use your own weights. I do pay for swim membership though, even though I could afford my own pool, I just couldn't justify the cost.

Obviously mobiles are necessary (I wouldn't argue that).

I rarely (almost never) buy coffee or even sandwiches for lunch, I usually take my lunch to work (usually left overs or made special).

Holidays for me were sacrificed, for at least the first 10 years when I was trying to improve my financial position after graduating. I was far too busy working in my career job and also my business to spare any time (rather than the actual cost of the holiday) for holidays.

I was being a bit sacrastic with my comment (not that you could tell from what I wrote) as a lot of 'have it now' generation probably dont have most of those things, or at least not all, but they are assumed to have all of that by old people, hence why they cant afford to buy houses. Plus for some reason, theres this un written rule nowdays where if you didnt draw blood and sacrifice yourself to the point of non existance whilst saving, you dont deserve a house? in an age where we are at the peak of technological development and should be more economically educated (i mean society generally) than ever by learning from past mistakes, we still look back 40/50 years to a time period that bears no resemblance to now to apply the same rules - it makes no sense. We are also expected to pay to be homed at the most expensive prices since records began, and the reason for this 'well, it wasnt easy in our day either'

I dont think theres anything wrong with having a gym membership, theoretically, if used properly, anyone that exercises properly will be less of a burden on the NHS now and later, so theoretically that should benefit everyone, hence I think it should be tax deductible, but thats another story

If you think about it, apart from feeding, cleaning and housing ourselves, everything is a waste of money. We dont need TVs, we dont need cars, we dont need hobbies, we like these things. I dont follow football, so I think it pretty sad when mates spend £50+ on a ticket to watch a game for 90 minutes - that costs more than a month gym membership, but many people find that acceptable, even essential in their life. But we have to have some interests and extra curricular activites, else we would die of boredom

chucknorris

Carl31 wrote: »

I was being a bit sacrastic with my comment (not that you could tell from what I wrote) as a lot of 'have it now' generation probably dont have most of those things, or at least not all, but they are assumed to have all of that by old people, hence why they cant afford to buy houses. Plus for some reason, theres this un written rule nowdays where if you didnt draw blood and sacrifice yourself to the point of non existance whilst saving, you dont deserve a house? in an age where we are at the peak of technological development and should be more economically educated (i mean society generally) than ever by learning from past mistakes, we still look back 40/50 years to a time period that bears no resemblance to now to apply the same rules - it makes no sense. We are also expected to pay to be homed at the most expensive prices since records began, and the reason for this 'well, it wasnt easy in our day either'

I dont think theres anything wrong with having a gym membership, theoretically, if used properly, anyone that exercises properly will be less of a burden on the NHS now and later, so theoretically that should benefit everyone, hence I think it should be tax deductible, but thats another story

If you think about it, apart from feeding, cleaning and housing ourselves, everything is a waste of money. We dont need TVs, we dont need cars, we dont need hobbies, we like these things. I dont follow football, so I think it pretty sad when mates spend £50+ on a ticket to watch a game for 90 minutes - that costs more than a month gym membership, but many people find that acceptable, even essential in their life. But we have to have some interests and extra curricular activites, else we would die of boredom

Although I said gym membership is a waste of money, I was stating my opinion, not a fact. But what is a fact, is that you have to prioritise and plan your finances, that is the point. I think (again only my opinion) people actually do need hobbies, that is one the differences between living and existing. Again nothing wrong with spending over £50 on a football ticket, if that is what someone wants, but if they do that for every home game, and also travel to away games, they can hardly complain that they can't afford to buy a house. They have to take responsibility for their financial planning, that's what it is all about, financial planning (which might include some sacrifices in the short term, for longer term benefits).

Did you see that Panorama programme, about the children that were offered a marshmallow immediately or two if they waited (was it 10 mins?). They re-visited those children when they were adults, and the ones who waited were more successful than those who chose to eat one immediately. One child actually snatched and ate the marshmallow before the rules were even explained to her.


EDIT: I found a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment