millennials-can-you-afford-rental-prices-in-london

cells

missbiggles1 wrote: »

And yet I lived in London in the 70s (my early and late 20s) and I couldn't afford to rent more than a room in a flat share and wasn't able to buy until I was well into my 30s, married and had moved to Hertfordshire.

All my friends, most of them graduates, were in a similar position and were only able to buy in London by taking on a wreck in a run down area and spending all their leisure time doing it up over several years.

Maybe housing was cheaper but it had to be because things like food were a lot more expensive in real terms.

So even if it were true that housing was cheaper it didn't mean people could afford more housing as other things ate up the income.

As people got richer housing got more expensive at least partly due to huge sums of money spent modernising and improving housing. For instance I know a you couple in London who bought a house not long ago and had to spend £70k brining it up to standard it had no work done to it in 50+ years. So even if people say Housing was cheaper they are talking about a lower quality House but they don't realise it

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Your usually half thought out reactionary xenophobia I see. If all these immigrants are benefit scrounging low paid burdens like you seem to think then how exactly do you explain your claim that they're pushing up the already very high London prices?

I have made no posts that says any immigrants are benefit scrounging.
I challenge you to find a single one : when you can't, come back and apologise like a decent person.

I find it very depressing that you can't see how the high demand of rental accommodation (often multi occupation) leads to landlords driving up the price of housing (to make profit).
But if you really don't understand that then there is no hope for you.
There are over 3 million foreigners in London : you really think they have no impact on people's ability to live in a family sized house?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have made no posts that says any immigrants are benefit scrounging.
I challenge you to find a single one : when you can't, come back and apologise like a decent person.

I find it very depressing that you can't see how the high demand of rental accommodation (often multi occupation) leads to landlords driving up the price of housing (to make profit).
But if you really don't understand that then there is no hope for you.
There are over 3 million foreigners in London : you really think they have no impact on people's ability to live in a family sized house?

there are a lot more foreigners in London than that. Maybe as much as 7 of the ~9 million are foreign or children/grandchildren of foreigners.

your next king is the child of a foreigner
your potential next PM Boris is the kid of a foreigner
The last potential PM (milliband) a kid of foreigners
Even the leader of UKIP has a German wife and part foreign kids. All the scots welsh and irish in London are causing the same 'problem of overcrowding' too.

cells

Clapton.

During the 1800s London went from 1 million to 6.2 million

Was London in 1900 better or worse, richer or poorer than London in 1800?

How did they cope with the as you suggest impossible infrastructure demands and all round terribleness of a rising population?

HornetSaver

Generali wrote: »

The great thing, as I found, about being a low paid young person in London is that there are loads of opportunities to become a moderately paid young person in London and eventually become a well paid youngish person in London.

There are (I'm in SW Hertfordshire but basically based here for the same reasons someone would be based in London).

But to legitimately bring this back to Clapton's favourite topic, we create the circumstances where the majority of those with realistic career ambitions need to delay starting a family until they're in their late 30s, unless the bank of mum and dad or the tragic early passing of grandma and grandad can help them live beyond their means earlier. And then we wonder why we need so many immigrants to do the bottom-end jobs which are typically the domain of the young. We allow positions to be created which pay less than the typical cost of renting and commuting - and which need to do so in order to remain viable - and then wonder why the taxpayer is spending so much on housing poor people.

Those same people that bang their heads against a brick wall assuming (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that anyone who complains about the housing market doesn't understand the basic concept of supply and demand, are the same people who fail to understand the same concept in relation to the labour market or the benefits system.

chucknorris

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I'm surrounded by greenbelt land and have a train station in the village that gets me to Euston in 35 minutes. Hurray for living outside of Zone 6.

Ok, a 4 bed house costs £600k...

Anyway - i realise this has become a 'South Vs North' thing - and it's really more about the plight of young people, who've indebted themselves through education, that the education doesn't make way for jobs paying high enough to get them on the property ladder in the areas that are most desirable to live (and work) in.

I'm originally from the North (Newcastle) and I lived in London for 15 years, I now live in Surrey. I don't regret for one minute coming down to London, and I also don't regret moving out of London to Surrey, although I wouldn't have done that if I had to work full time and also commute during rush hour. Yes this thread is about the plight of young people, but when I talk to our part time final year students about housing, a lot of them have already bought, and the others do seem to have aspirations of buying once their careers are more settled.

mayonnaise

When mrs. mayo and me started working life, we couldn't afford London prices either. So we bought in Watford and I commuted in for many many years.
And not a single word in the Guardian about our fate.
How unfair.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

there are a lot more foreigners in London than that. Maybe as much as 7 of the ~9 million are foreign or children/grandchildren of foreigners.

your next king is the child of a foreigner
your potential next PM Boris is the kid of a foreigner
The last potential PM (milliband) a kid of foreigners
Even the leader of UKIP has a German wife and part foreign kids. All the scots welsh and irish in London are causing the same 'problem of overcrowding' too.

I believe that the people of the UK (at least in the SE and London) are getting worse off due to the population increase : London is growing at the rate of 100,000 a year and the level of net new building is insufficient to even meet existing standard with no room to improve. That makes it every difficult for working couples to even consider being able to live in a family sized house.

My objective is NOT to do the best possible outcomes for the whole world but to do the best of the people of the UK whatever their generic material. Obviously these people are NOT special and have no unique genetic code or anything else to distinguish them, except an accident of birth that makes them British.

In the context of my posts, foreigners mean people who have not been born in the UK (with some exceptions) and does NOT refer to their genetic background : I often make this clear by writing ' foreign born' so that idiots can understand more clearly. Basically 'foreigner ' has it usual meaning and not your made up nonsense.

You have previously said that you are a greedy person looking to maximise the benefit of yourself and your own : just like me.
Get off your false and ridiculous pseudo scientific semi moral high ground and actually READ what I write.

You may disagree with me on many issues: you may well think that people living in smaller and smaller living spaces makes them richer or people with no real wage increases makes them richer or or people with more overcrowded and time consuming transport makes them richer or people with less access to NHS makes their lives better : but please use real arguments to justify your beliefs rather than telling me the Milliband's father was an immigrant.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

There are (I'm in SW Hertfordshire but basically based here for the same reasons someone would be based in London).

But to legitimately bring this back to Clapton's favourite topic, we create the circumstances where the majority of those with realistic career ambitions need to delay starting a family until they're in their late 30s, unless the bank of mum and dad or the tragic early passing of grandma and grandad can help them live beyond their means earlier. And then we wonder why we need so many immigrants to do the bottom-end jobs which are typically the domain of the young. We allow positions to be created which pay less than the typical cost of renting and commuting - and which need to do so in order to remain viable - and then wonder why the taxpayer is spending so much on housing poor people.

Those same people that bang their heads against a brick wall assuming (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that anyone who complains about the housing market doesn't understand the basic concept of supply and demand, are the same people who fail to understand the same concept in relation to the labour market or the benefits system.

We don't NEED immigrants to do ANY jobs.
If there was a genuine shortage of people to do necessary jobs then the price (wages) would rise until enough people wanted to do the jobs.
It is BECAUSE we have a unlimited input of cheap labour that the jobs are poorly paid.

mayonnaise

cells wrote: »

Clapton.

During the 1800s London went from 1 million to 6.2 million

Was London in 1900 better or worse, richer or poorer than London in 1800?

How did they cope with the as you suggest impossible infrastructure demands and all round terribleness of a rising population?

It's remarkable the population growth in the 19th century.
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history-of-london.jsp#a1815-1860

In 1815 London was already the largest city in the world, but by 1860 it had grown three-fold to reach 3,188,485 souls. And many of the souls it contained were from elsewhere. In 1851, over 38 per cent of Londoners were born somewhere else.

The last half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth saw continued strong growth, in some ways replicating and reinforcing the pattern set in preceding decades. The over three million people living in Greater London in 1861 more than doubled to become over seven million by the 1910s. During the same period, the flow of European immigrants rose from a steady stream to a regular river of humanity, while migration from the wider world also grew in importance.

I'm sure there were 19th Century 'Claptons' around at that time also, but their actions were limited to shouting abuse through their window at the Irish or anyone else not part of the Anglo-Saxon masterrace.
Now these 'Claptons' have access to the internet.