Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

dktreesea

remorseless wrote: »

What happened to their grandparents?
Unless y'all are 20 I struggle to believe you were all raised in private kindergarteners...

I agree childcare is indeed extortionate but that is a for a short time of a child life. Then again now children are driven to school even when they're a way too old to go themselves.
Too dangerous to 'trust' them on their own, vicious cycle, need to pay for 'things' not really needed!!!

Grandparents? How old were yours when you were born? Mine were in their early 50s, and that's old. And still working, so wouldn't have been able to babysit during the week day. Quite a few of my cousins were grandparents in their late 30s. One of them just became a great grandmother. She's only 53. And still working.

My grandparents had retired by the time my children - their great grandchildren - came along. But I would say for most people nowadays, their grand parents, and possibly even their great grand parents are still not retired by the time their own children come along.

dktreesea

princeofpounds wrote: »

I think the sad thing is that in these buying vs. renting articles, three really key points are missed.


The first one is that the really valuable feature of owning for society is in many respects security of tenure, rather than actually owning the real estate capital itself.

The inability to make plans based on long-term accommodation can really screw with the ability to make choices that lead to stable, fulfilled lives.


The second point is that the condition and liveability of the housing stock is also hugely important to wellbeing. Landlords have little competitive incentive to invest given the supply/demand imbalance, and tenants have little incentive to invest given insecure tenure. The result is poor condition housing stock.


The third unfortunate point is that the supply/demand imbalance is ultimately largely artificial. There is no shortage of land, and there is no shortage of money to pay for bricks. Many of the people who cannot house themselves in the current market would be perfectly able to combine bricks and land if it were not for the dysfunctional planning system we currently have.


So overall we have a system where we inflict upon ourselves poor quality and insecure housing stock, and that has a negative effect on people's lives and society as a whole. People attribute many responsibilities to government, but I would hope that enabling people to improve their quality of life is high on the list.

Technically, there is no shortage of land, but the UK is unusual in the sense that there's a commitment to the continuous countryside. And a preference for land not to be built upon. Ex industrial sites maybe but not green fields.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

Some houses are still worth less than their peak price? Is that breaking news on HPC?

There's more to this.You've posted that link about 5 times now. I think your psychiatrist might suggest you're so very fearful of buying a house and seeing a fall in value you're willing to insure against this by spending the next 25 years in rented just like the last 20 odd.

A housing crash would scare you lot to death because you'd be forced to face your fears. Do you still sleep with your post office savings book taped to your chest?

Way too deep. Short version: Some mugs bought (borrowed) into the new build Ponzi and are now losing money. Don`t shoot the messenger.

Crashy_Time

missyrichards wrote: »

OMG, I laughed a lot at that.:rotfl:

You must be easily amused.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Short version: Some mugs bought (borrowed) into the new build Ponzi and are now losing money.

So some houses are selling for less than they previously sold for?

Thanks for that.

ukcarper

dktreesea wrote: »

:TPost of the thread!

But that's Graham's take on argument not the point I'm trying to make.

wotsthat

dktreesea wrote: »

Grandparents? How old were yours when you were born? Mine were in their early 50s, and that's old. And still working, so wouldn't have been able to babysit during the week day.

Graham used a similar argument. Just because some people don't have grandparents playing an active part in childcare doesn't mean we can dismiss the role of grandparents in childcare out of hand.

dktreesea wrote: »

Someone else posted this earlier. Is it just over 5%?

I posted my personal average but assumed it's a reasonably decent proxy for the average.

My average mortgage rate over 21 years is 5.14%. (Well down to 5.13% since I posted a few days ago). I don't know what the average long term mortgage rate is but 5% seems about right. The current average mortgage rate is about 3.5%.

IMO it's important to note that the low interest rate environment didn't arrive out of the blue just because of the GFC. My average mortgage rate has been falling every day for 17 of those 21 years. It's not a trend that started in 2009.

Whilst I'm wary of trying to predict the future I'd suggest the stress testing being applied to mortgage applications are rigorous. Anyone getting a mortgage now can be confident their finances are sufficiently robust to cope with whatever changes in interest rate can be reasonably be expected to come their way in the next five years.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

But that's Graham's take on argument not the point I'm trying to make.

Graham's greatest skill is in forumonics. Fooling one of the brighter contributors into thinking a discussion about the long term increase in real wages can be compressed into comparing a 20p saving on a loaf and comparing that to a £1000 increase in house prices amply demonstrates his skill.

He's brilliant.

Cornucopia

wotsthat wrote: »

Graham's greatest skill is in forumonics. Fooling one of the brighter contributors into thinking a discussion about the long term increase in real wages can be compressed into comparing a 20p saving on a loaf and comparing that to a £1000 increase in house prices amply demonstrates his skill.

Did anyone fall for that though? There are several easy to recognise flaws in it, after all. Not only that but the substantive facts of HPI require it to be an over-simplification.

And if he is genuinely "baffled" by the argument (and it is not merely more pointless hyperbole) then what does that say about his understanding?

He's brilliant.

No, not even close. Brilliantly pointless, more like.

Even after participating in several HPI/HPC threads, I still really don't understand what it is that the property bears want. And that's before we even get on to the question of whether what they want is possible, sensible and compatible with our existing governance structures.

wotsthat

Cornucopia wrote: »

Even after participating in several HPI/HPC threads, I still really don't understand what it is that the property bears want.

They want their cake, they want to eat it and if you'd contribute towards it and light the candles that would be even better.

Much like Fiona from the OP.