Harder now for 1st time buyers?

littlegreenfrog_2

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Surely this is exactly what he is saying. Things are more difficult than in the past, because houses are comparatively more expensive, because of this.

You seem to have made somebody up who is saying almost precisely the opposite of the OP and to be arguing against them.

Thank you.

always_sunny

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Surely this is exactly what he is saying. Things are more difficult than in the past, because houses are comparatively more expensive, because of this.

You seem to have made somebody up who is saying almost precisely the opposite of the OP and to be arguing against them.

If it helps you rationalise why someone cannot get on a property ladder sure go for it.

Point of views. I would say it's different because of changes in demographics. You may not be able to buy a house in that prime location but you can still buy a house somewhere else.
I would not call that 'hardship', my threshold for pain must be very high.

Cities in Canada where really you cannot buy anything, that is hard. In London you just need to look towards a different cardinal point.

Choices. If that location is really that important to you then increase your income to afford it.
If property is more important to you, find a location for your budget.

Some prefer to rent in a desirable location other prefer to buy in further-out-the-desirable location. There's no right or wrong so long you are happy with your choices.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

always_sunny wrote: »

If it helps you rationalise why someone cannot get on a property ladder sure go for it.

Point of views. I would say it's different because of changes in demographics. You may not be able to buy a house in that prime location but you can still buy a house somewhere else.
I would not call that 'hardship', my threshold for pain must be very high.

Cities in Canada where really you cannot buy anything, that is hard. In London you just need to look towards a different cardinal point.

Choices. If that location is really that important to you then increase your income to afford it.
If property is more important to you, find a location for your budget.

Some prefer to rent in a desirable location other prefer to buy in further-out-the-desirable location. There's no right or wrong so long you are happy with your choices.

What has any of that got to do with whether it's harder now than in the past? I'm not calling anything "hardship". Do you think it is harder now than in the past to buy an equivalent house on an equivalent salary, yes or no?

ukcarper

always_sunny wrote: »

If it helps you rationalise why someone cannot get on a property ladder sure go for it.

Point of views. I would say it's different because of changes in demographics. You may not be able to buy a house in that prime location but you can still buy a house somewhere else.
I would not call that 'hardship', my threshold for pain must be very high.

Cities in Canada where really you cannot buy anything, that is hard. In London you just need to look towards a different cardinal point.

Choices. If that location is really that important to you then increase your income to afford it.
If property is more important to you, find a location for your budget.

Some prefer to rent in a desirable location other prefer to buy in further-out-the-desirable location. There's no right or wrong so long you are happy with your choices.

All that is irrelevant there are many reasons why it's harder to buy now than in the past but that doesn't alter the fact that it is. I live in the area they are looking in and it's probably the cheapest part of Surrey and I managed to buy a house there in the 70s earning less than the equivelent of £50k.

always_sunny

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Do you think it is harder now than in the past to buy an equivalent house on an equivalent salary, yes or no?

No.
But I have no idea how it was in the past, I must assume they were giving houses aways like candies.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

always_sunny wrote: »

No.
But I have no idea how it was in the past

You're not very bright are you?

always_sunny

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

You're not very bright are you?

Obviously because I didn't look for a house in Surrey.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

always_sunny wrote: »

No.
But I have no idea how it was in the past, I must assume they were giving houses aways like candies.

No, but they were comparatively cheaper. There's a lot of ground between "giving them away like candies" and the way things are now.

As you by your own admission have no idea what things were like in the past, it seems to me very odd you would offer an opinion.

littlegreenfrog_2

always_sunny wrote: »

I would not call that 'hardship', my threshold for pain must be very high.

I never said anything about hardship. I have a good job and a decent salary and I know that makes me one of the luckier ones.

But that just underlines my point really, doesn't it? I am a good few years into my career, have been saving hard and making sacrifices. For the last couple of years I've moved back in with my parents in order to save - another thing which I'm lucky enough to be able to do. I've nearly saved a 15% deposit. But despite the fact that I am a higher rate taxpayer, my salary and my deposit are not enough to buy anything more than a very small flat. If I am lucky I will be able to get something with a small second bedroom, meaning that I could have a child and not have to move out immediately. If I'm lucky.

I am one of the lucky ones. I am better off than most people I know. If I am all but priced out, what hope is there for anyone younger than me, earning less than me, or with a bigger student debt than me?

We seem to have reached a point where if you're a young person working in London you will be permanently priced out of the property market unless you inherit or are given a substantial deposit. Your choices are either to rent forever (never having any stability or building up any equity, being constantly at the whim of your landlord and the rental market) or move out of London. Except that in many professional careers, opportunities outside of London are limited.

Do you think that's fair, or right, or sustainable?

MrJB

From my personal experience, I am lucky to be working in a job that pays relatively well and have a partner who also works in a role which pays an adequate wage. I am fortunate as though I live in the SE, I do believe house prices in the area I live (Suffolk), are not so out of control as parts of the SE. I think to say we've struggled to get a decent house would be inaccurate, but I do wonder how Joe Bloggs who earns the average wage for Ipswich - circa £19-20k could afford to buy anything much here where the average house price is in excess of 10 times the average wage.