We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Inter generational fairness
Comments
-
Anyone remember why they started this send everyone possible to University performance? It was because teenage unemployment figures were soaring. This has now been changed to degree holders being underutilised and under/unemployed and understatused (yes I know it isn't a word). Degrees are being required for jobs when there is absolutely no need.
As a result of this many of our young people are feeling (polite version) disengaged. This is not about boomers or generation X or whatever name people care to use to insult other people. This is about what should be done to enable them to join in "society" as they should.
I would like to add here that I do not like the idea that 18 year olds are forced to take on considerable debt, it is not the way their lives as adults should begin.0 -
Those are all reasonable assumptions.
6: 70% of the country live outside the SE
5: I would be happy for my children to stay with me until they are 26 especially if it was clear they were good enough to be setting themselves up for a good life rather than a !!!! one.
4: I've had many jobs in my life and close to zero downtime. Most people who lose their jobs find a new one within 3 months. Also they can improve from min wage so its a worse case
3: £350pm not including rent is fine most MSE people can get within that budget
2: Most parents would not charge rent to their kids especially before 20 and those that do typically only charge a small amount. Of course if you and your parents hate each other that is a problem and not just a money problem
1: There has been little to no HPI for a decade in most the country. I suspect the north midlands scotland wales and NI will still be cheap in a decades time.
This is assuming min wage, really you should assuming real increasing wages as the median male full time wage is closer to £35k than it is to the £15k min wage.
Your assumptions are crap.
The minimum wage at 16 is £5.30/hr. At 18 it's £6.70/hr. At 25 it finally rises to £7.20. Then you need to take off deductions; tax, NI, work-based pension. At the NLW that's ~£1k per month.
A 16 year old leaving school with minimal qualifications isn't likely to have much wage growth. Statistically speaking, they're incredibly unlikely to get anywhere near the national average by 26. They'll most likely still be on (or near) the minimum.
A 2013 study by Shelter found that just over 50% of parents charge their adult children an average of £315/month in rent. I would speculate that many of the parents who charge their kids rent are also the ones who can't afford to help them with a deposit, doubling down the impact of the housing boom on people from low-income backgrounds.
According to Rightmove, the average price of a "starter home" is ~£194.5k, while the average first time buyer spends just over £192k. While that figure will be distorted by London and the SE, your £100k starter home is a fiction.
HPI is badly misrepresented. The parts of the country that have low HPI are either packed with deprived industrial cities, or are largely rural. In more desirable areas, with better living standards and better job prospects, prices have been rising considerably. Moving from a town in rural Shropshire to an estate in Wolverhampton would result in more affordable housing, but an overall drop in living standards and quality of life.
And ultimately, your post was about what old you would do if you were 16 again. It makes no allocation for the naivety of youth. People don't reliably make good, focussed financial decisions without experience or education. Instead, they do stupid things, encouraged by high living standards, cheap consumer goods, cheap credit, and a culture of consumerism. While I don't disagree with the sentiment; it is very plausible to save for a housing deposit while living with parents, you are certainly misrepresenting the situation to suit your own argument and agenda.
The difference between today and 30/40/50 years ago is that living standards and expectations are higher. Food, consumer goods and foreign holidays are cheap. Credit is plentiful. But the ability to make a meaningful financial investment in the future has got much more difficult. Essentially, a mirror of the lives of today's old and middle-aged. The young of today have a good standard of living now that will decline as they age.0 -
lessonlearned wrote: »The other thing is the trickle down effect of inherited wealth.
Today's young people stand a reasonable chance of gaining through inherited wealth, either at their parents death or In some cases before if their parents have been able to downsize and release some equity.
I know quite a few people in my age group who have downsized and passed some equity on to their 30 something children to help out with house purchase....... myself included.
This is not a new phenomena.
Back in the early 2000s when I was a new homes sales negotiator I often had first time buyers who were being helped by their parents. Generally they were in their mid 20s so Gen X.??
By comparison there are far fewer Boomers who have funded house deposits through inherited wealth. I only know one that was because she came from a very wealthy family where wealth had been trickling down for several generations.
Most of my peers were self funding. Our parents had no money spare.
Do you think it's a step forward that people are now more reliant on inherited wealth (ie good fortune), than in the past where more people were self funded?“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse0 -
missbiggles1 wrote: »Young people are supposed to remain in education or training until they're 18 but, if they're working, NMW for a under 18s is £4.00 ph (£3.40) for an apprentice. NMW of £7.20 doesn't kick in until someone reaches 25. Your calculation also assumes that they would be being kept by their parents for the first 10 years of working life and that, at 26, they then meet someone equally lacking in a desire for independence and with no wish to pay their own way!
Is it that big a burden to let you kids live with you until the age of 26?
Is it that big a burden to live at home with your parents until the age of 26?
Are the alternatives, a grotty HMO, better?
I suspect many people do not kick their kids out at 16 or 18. I wouldn't. many kids probably do stay past 18.
Maybe the house prices are too expensive cheerleaders are the ones who want to rent the grotty HMO and look down on the kids staying in their parents house saving to buy a house outright at age 26 rather than complaining at age 26 that they are broke and have £30k in debt and life is impossible?
Also it does not have to be age 26 that is just the time it would take to save £100k. If they buy a more modest home for £80k they can reduce the age to 240 -
Firetastic wrote: »I was thinking at sixteen or seventeen what experience are you going to have!? Come on. In my parent's day you could walk out of one job in the morning and have another one by the afternoon. My dad started work at sixteen. So if a sixteen year old can't get a job nowadays things must still be bad.
unemployment for 16-17 year olds in the uk is currently about 25% which means 75% of them do have jobs.
Like with all age groups, if you exclude short term unemployment the unemployment percentage number falls to about half or less of the headline figure0 -
unemployment for 16-17 year olds in the uk is currently about 25% which means 75% of them do have jobs.
Like with all age groups, if you exclude short term unemployment the unemployment percentage number falls to about half or less of the headline figure
To be 'unemployed' you have to be looking for work, so it doesn't mean that at all.“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse0 -
Anyone remember why they started this send everyone possible to University performance? It was because teenage unemployment figures were soaring. This has now been changed to degree holders being underutilised and under/unemployed and understatused (yes I know it isn't a word). Degrees are being required for jobs when there is absolutely no need.
As a result of this many of our young people are feeling (polite version) disengaged. This is not about boomers or generation X or whatever name people care to use to insult other people. This is about what should be done to enable them to join in "society" as they should.
I would like to add here that I do not like the idea that 18 year olds are forced to take on considerable debt, it is not the way their lives as adults should begin.
It would be better to return to kids leaving school age 16 straight into the workforce and only about 10% going to university. But for now the parents and politicians are too narrow minded to see that this would be a net good maybe they will wake up in 10-20 years time. Even a lot of the kids going to uni now think that too many are going the problem is many of them think they would be the ones in the 10% going when in reality 80% of them would be the ones not going.0 -
Is it that big a burden to let you kids live with you until the age of 26?
Is it that big a burden to live at home with your parents until the age of 26?
Are the alternatives, a grotty HMO, better?
I suspect many people do not kick their kids out at 16 or 18. I wouldn't. many kids probably do stay past 18.
Maybe the house prices are too expensive cheerleaders are the ones who want to rent the grotty HMO and look down on the kids staying in their parents house saving to buy a house outright at age 26 rather than complaining at age 26 that they are broke and have £30k in debt and life is impossible?
Also it does not have to be age 26 that is just the time it would take to save £100k. If they buy a more modest home for £80k they can reduce the age to 24
In principle, yes, you're right that people can save money while living at home.
But I see far too often criticism that people won't move to the places that there are work, and that young people won't stand on their on two feet. Essentially you just can't win.
When I did live at home I insisted on giving my mum some money towards the bills. Maybe it's because my generation don't believe in something for nothing?“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse0 -
Your assumptions are crap.
The minimum wage at 16 is £5.30/hr. At 18 it's £6.70/hr. At 25 it finally rises to £7.20. Then you need to take off deductions; tax, NI, work-based pension. At the NLW that's ~£1k per month.
You don't have to take up a min wage job. I would just as readily hire a 17 year old on £7.20 than a 25 year old on £7.20 also the min wage is going towards £9 with above inflation increases over the next 3-4 years.
You also forget nepotism exists. If I had a child was was not partially gifted I would get them a £20k+ job at age 16 simply through connections. Sure it might seem unfair to you but this exists. I think using the £7.20ph figure is very reasonable.A 16 year old leaving school with minimal qualifications isn't likely to have much wage growth. Statistically speaking, they're incredibly unlikely to get anywhere near the national average by 26. They'll most likely still be on (or near) the minimum.
only if you look at the current crop where those leaving education at 16 are largely the problem children in problem homes. What if you go back 50 years when about 90% of the workforce did not go to university. Was the economy 90% min wage 10% doctors and solicitors? of course not. Plenty of that 90% who were not university educated went on to earn a lot more than min wage.A 2013 study by Shelter found that just over 50% of parents charge their adult children an average of £315/month in rent. I would speculate that many of the parents who charge their kids rent are also the ones who can't afford to help them with a deposit, doubling down the impact of the housing boom on people from low-income backgrounds.
studies by shelter are worth less than bog rollsAccording to Rightmove, the average price of a "starter home" is ~£194.5k, while the average first time buyer spends just over £192k. While that figure will be distorted by London and the SE, your £100k starter home is a fiction.
In what world is a starter home the average home?
In what world does it make sense for £100m flats in Kensington distorting the average and making things look silly. The truth is there are lots of terrace homes available in scotland wales NI NE NW Yorkshire WM EM that are £100k or less. If this £100k savings person couples up with someone else who did the same they have a £200k budget before even thinking about mortgagesHPI is badly misrepresented. The parts of the country that have low HPI are either packed with deprived industrial cities, or are largely rural.
unemployment levels are quite consistent in the regions. Its not like London is zero and wales is 40% unemployed. Its more like 5% plus or minus 2% everywhere.And ultimately, your post was about what old you would do if you were 16 again. It makes no allocation for the naivety of youth. People don't reliably make good, focussed financial decisions without experience or education. Instead, they do stupid things, encouraged by high living standards, cheap consumer goods, cheap credit, and a culture of consumerism. While I don't disagree with the sentiment; it is very plausible to save for a housing deposit while living with parents, you are certainly misrepresenting the situation to suit your own argument and agenda.
I am not misrepresenting anything. The reality is that housing in much of the country is cheap. So cheap that a kid can buy outright a £100k terrace by the age of 26The difference between today and 30/40/50 years ago is that living standards and expectations are higher. Food, consumer goods and foreign holidays are cheap. Credit is plentiful. But the ability to make a meaningful financial investment in the future has got much more difficult. Essentially, a mirror of the lives of today's old and middle-aged. The young of today have a good standard of living now that will decline as they age.
The big difference is people from the poorer sections of society expect to be able to start work at age 22, have holidays, live in expensive parts of the country, buy expensive things, not couple up to save and pool resources and then wonder and complain that buying a house on a single income in an expensive part of the country after having worked only 5 years is quite a difficult task0 -
Is it that big a burden to live at home with your parents until the age of 26?
For anyone whose parents are abusive and/or divorced or who wants to do things their parents don't like (like having sex as an example), then yes it's a very big deal. A metaphorical prison that to some is worse than being on the streets, selling drugs or their body or even.....sinking even further and paying rent.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards