Vent - My Mother (and her generation?)

Person_one

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Whilst I agree that housing has become less affordable, I don't think it all that useful to compare low incomes with the cost of an average house. If you're in that situation, you start by buying a small flat, put some work into it, move somewhere bigger until you reach the point of being able to afford an average house. In Greater Manchester, for example, there seems to be plenty of 1 bed flats available for between £50 and £55k, affordable even for a young couple on minimum wage..

Unless you're on a very high income, that's what most people do and have always done in the south east. That's why we talk about getting on the property ladder.

The first rung of the 'ladder' is impossible surely, for most ordinary people in the SE? Especially if they are paying the sort of rents that seem to be normal down there.

Person_one

mumps wrote: »

Yes, that was my point about comparing prices then and now, you can make it look different by changing the start and end dates.

But there's no argument that if you're looking at the broad trend over the last 50 years, housing (both owned and rented) has got less affordable for ordinary people. Surely nobody can be arguing that rents and house prices are lower compared to wages than they were in 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95 or even 2000? There was a dip after the crash of 2007/8 but not enough to really bring anything down to a sensible level.

fierystormcloud

Person_one wrote: »

But there's no argument that if you're looking at the broad trend over the last 50 years, housing (both owned and rented) has got less affordable for ordinary people. Surely nobody can be arguing that rents and house prices are lower compared to wages than they were in 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95 or even 2000? There was a dip after the crash of 2007/8 but not enough to really bring anything down to a sensible level.

You're right, there IS no argument.

For some reason, several posters here just ain't getting it.

I am struggling to make sense of what 'mumps' is actually on about: 'choosing starting and end dates?' 'picking before price booms yada yada....' !!!!!!? I have not chosen any start or end dates, and neither has 'person one' or anyone else.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that a house that cost £5K in 1970, should be worth about £75K now if you take inflation into account, but that SAME house is worth around £280 to £300K. PROVING that house prices have tripled-(some have even quadrupled! And then some!)

On the other hand, wages in the early 70s were say £1.15 an hour, (for basic pay,) and if you take inflation into account, basic pay should be around £18 to £20 an hour. But it's NOT; it's around £7 an hour! So no wonder people struggle financially these days.)

It's really really easy and really really obvious. (Well to me, and anyone with any logic and common sense!)

I think we could sit here til the cows come home and try to explain it, and because they don't 'get it,' they will dig their heels in and crow about how we are cherry picking statistics, with a chorus of 'yeah buts' and 'no buts,' and a handful of nonsensical reasons why we are 'wrong.'

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Redlady.....

balletshoes wrote: »

it depends on the wage, surely? along with what your outgoings are.

Most families were able to live on the man's wage. Usually the woman went out to work for 'pin money', a part time job which was usually for holidays and any other extras that might be wanted.

Through the 60's and 70's there was also a Prices and Incomes Policy
which was used to control directly the rate of increase of wages and prices.

missbiggles1

Person_one wrote: »

The first rung of the 'ladder' is impossible surely, for most ordinary people in the SE? Especially if they are paying the sort of rents that seem to be normal down there.

In much of the south east, yes. However that isn't the case for the majority of the country.

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Getting jobs was easier, but women couldn't afford to live on their wages. University was free, but 2/3 of people had no access to them.

Well, everybody had access to universties in our day, around 10% of the population actually went there. Whether the current situation is an improvement is debatable.

missbiggles1

Whilst not disagreeing with you in general, £1.15 ph would have been very good pay at the start of the 70s, certainly not basic. My first proper job (in an office, in the south east, in 1971) paid just under half that.

Given that where I was working, a 1 bed flat cost £5k at the start of 1972 and £10k 12 months later, property was already unaffordable for many people in ordinary work back then. This was 20 miles outside London and I considered myself to be quite well paid at the time with my fiance on a very similar wage.

Cornucopia

It's an interesting question, particularly since so many people seem to be convinced that their generation is worse off than others are/were - to the extent of creating forum and/or family disharmony.

It shouldn't be that hard to examine the typical life and lifestyle of a person born into each recent generation - certainly those that still have living members. In the earlier generations we would need to consider men and women separately, as their experiences would have been potentially quite different.

Without an academic consideration of that sort, the discussion is very much based around cherry-picking. Just how do you compare the lifestyle value of freedom of contraception with the ready availability of manufacturing jobs?

My personal view, having lived through much of the period of time we are talking about is that each generation had its advantages and disadvantages. No era was completely awful, and no generation was completely unable to cope - people are adaptable. Personally, I was better off than my parents almost from the outset. I have never struggled with money in the way that they obviously did (and not just for isolated crisis periods, but on and off over many years). I appreciate that this may be down to personal experience - in particular I went to University at a time when only a small proportion of the population did that.

Housing seems to have developed a "following" all of its own in isolation from other factors - another cherry-picking example. I'm sure Housing is more expensive for Millenials than for previous generations, though I suspect that the figures would tell us that it is not by a great margin (away from London, anyway). What people seem to forget is that interest rates through the 60s and 70s were in the 7-10% range, probably 2-3 times what most people are paying now, indeed that is almost certainly one of the contributing factors for HPI.

OTOH, virtually everything else is cheaper in real terms than it was 30 years ago - food, furniture, clothes, electrical and electronic goods, even the overall costs of motoring.

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Well, everybody had access to universties in our day, around 10% of the population actually went there. Whether the current situation is an improvement is debatable.

What I meant was, most people could not go to them, sometimes due to family expectations., but also due to the academic requirements. My husband could not go, because he went to a Secondary Modern school and didn't take any exams; also it was never on the cards with his family, he was expected to leave school at 15, work, and give all his wages to his mother. (He did go later as a mature student and got a First Class Honours in Earth Sciences).

I don't think today's situation IS an improvement, however, accessibility and expectations are increased.

missbiggles1

heuchera wrote: »

I think it was possible to live on one wage (the man's) in those days. You can't now.

You might've been able to survive (depending upon your rent) but you certainly couldn't live on many unskilled men's wages. I was an only child, we lived in a rent controlled flat and my dad did whatever overtime he could but we would have been in poverty if my mother hadn't done some part time domestic work throughout my childhood.

It certainly wasn't pin money and didn't pay for "luxuries " like holidays, a car, a telephone, a washing machne - we didn't have any of those because, even with my mother's earnings, we couldn't afford them.