Inter generational fairness

GreatApe

Masomnia wrote: »

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?

The reality is that people who have help and gifts/inheritances from their parents have always and will always find it easier than people who don't.

With regards to people complaining that buying a house is impossible they are simply wrong, buying a house is very easy in most the country. So much so that a single sole working on min wage of £7.20 can save between the ages of 16-25 £90k which is sufficient to buy outright a modest terrace. Like this for instance

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-45322914.html

and if they have a partner who did the same they can buy a nice detached home like this

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-63149993.html


So a 4 bed detached purchased outright by a couple age 25 working min wage jobs from the age of 16. Rent out two of the bedrooms and keep working their jobs and by the time they are 30 they can buy the first house outright as a rental kick out the lodgers and start a family aged 30 with their main home owned outright and a rental owned outright all on min wage and we know half the population earns double min wage or more

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

sure if you are from a dysfunctional family things are going to be tough and its likely you will be in the bottom half of society. Was that any different 20 years ago or will it be any easier for the kids of abusive parents in 20 years?

And you don't need to say from age 16-26 you could do half that time and do 16-21 and instead of buying outright at 26 you can buy a modest £50k flat at age 21 or possibly use a mortgage to help increase your budget

satchef1

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Unemployment for 16 to 18 year old is 7.6% (NEET). Sounds good. Trails most other OECD countries.

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

Apprenticeships are up from around 180,000 a decade ago, to 503,700 last year. They have grown vastly since 2010, and were a significant part of the coalition's education policy. The number of people attending university has stayed relatively static over the same time period, despite a significant population increase. University starts now only outnumber apprenticeship starts by ~100k per year, and the gap is closing.

satchef1

GreatApe wrote: »

The reality is that people who have help and gifts/inheritances from their parents have always and will always find it easier than people who don't.

With regards to people complaining that buying a house is impossible they are simply wrong, buying a house is very easy in most the country. So much so that a single sole working on min wage of £7.20 can save between the ages of 16-25 £90k which is sufficient to buy outright a modest terrace. Like this for instance

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-45322914.html

and if they have a partner who did the same they can buy a nice detached home like this

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-63149993.html


So a 4 bed detached purchased outright by a couple age 25 working min wage jobs from the age of 16. Rent out two of the bedrooms and keep working their jobs and by the time they are 30 they can buy the first house outright as a rental kick out the lodgers and start a family aged 30 with their main home owned outright and a rental owned outright all on min wage and we know half the population earns double min wage or more

For the umpteenth time, the minimum wage is not £7.20.

Your calculations are, as a result, bogus. You've fallen in to the trap of forming an opinion, then looking for facts (misrepresenting where convenient) to suit your predefined agenda. It's pretty clear you don't really have a clue. The sentiment isn't wrong - saving for a deposit is very possible with a few years living rent-free (or low rent), but your argument is on a different planet.

GreatApe

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/datasets/youngadultslivingwiththeirparents

That data shows plenty of young adults live with their parents.
5.17 million aged 16-26 live with their parents, 57% of the population of 16-26 year olds.

They will probably be the ones saving money to buy homes over the next 5-10 years.

satchef1

GreatApe wrote: »

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/datasets/youngadultslivingwiththeirparents

That data shows plenty of young adults live with their parents.
5.17 million aged 16-26 live with their parents, 57% of the population of 16-26 year olds.

They will probably be the ones saving money to buy homes over the next 5-10 years.

Which is why 'life' is essentially being pushed back. People are moving out of home later. Having kids later. Saving for other things (retirement, in particular) is being pushed back. In a country with an ageing population, having people living with their parents in to their late 20's and early 30's isn't desirable.

GreatApe

satchef1 wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, the minimum wage is not £7.20.

Your calculations are, as a result, bogus. You've fallen in to the trap of forming an opinion, then looking for facts (misrepresenting where convenient) to suit your predefined agenda. It's pretty clear you don't really have a clue. The sentiment isn't wrong - saving for a deposit is very possible with a few years living rent-free (or low rent), but your argument is on a different planet.

so no one earns £7.20ph or more between the ages of 16-26?
Also does no one work more than 40h a week?

I dont know many young people but I know one who works in a phone shop six days a week 9-6 which means 51 hours a week (assuming 30m lunch break) and he gets paid £7.50ph and says he has been doing that job since he left secondary school. He has also recently taken on a second job at a pizza shop 4 hours a night six days a week which makes it 75 hours a week in total. Sure that is probably not the norm but working for £4/h is not the norm either.

GreatApe

satchef1 wrote: »

Which is why 'life' is essentially being pushed back. People are moving out of home later. Having kids later. Saving for other things (retirement, in particular) is being pushed back. In a country with an ageing population, having people living with their parents in to their late 20's and early 30's isn't desirable.

This does not appear to be true, the link has data going back all the way to 1996 which shows 54% of those aged 16-26 were living with their parents, this is compared to 57% for 2016 so almost identical

Some of that small 3% difference will be more women aged 16-26 getting married 20 years ago and moving out than now when women get married later

So I still stand by my assertion, most the country is cheap and affordable and a reasonable young adult staying with their parents can save significant sums enough to buy a modest house if they start work at age 16 rather than waste 6 years at college/university

satchef1

Are we looking at the same data? Because the figure I'm seeing for 1996 is 36%.

You're right though, under specific circumstances (leaves school at 16 straight in to a job that pays £1.90/hr more than the minimum, has minimal outgoings, determined to save solidly for a decade, able to live rent free with parents that entire time) someone could save £100k by 26. So basically, it's doable if you fancy working in retail. Otherwise, you've got to sacrifice that early earning power and take an apprenticeship or go to university.

TBH the people complaining loudest are the ones who left school a decade ago - the glut of university students from the worst excesses of Brown's university boom. Many of them left university during the recession, realised they couldn't get a job as unemployment was high, went back to uni to study a masters, and are now realising that they're 30-ish with no money or assets. I doubt today's 16 year olds will have the same problem - employment has picked up across the board and education is a lot more focussed.

lisyloo

satchef1 wrote: »

Which is why 'life' is essentially being pushed back. People are moving out of home later. Having kids later. Saving for other things (retirement, in particular) is being pushed back. In a country with an ageing population, having people living with their parents in to their late 20's and early 30's isn't desirable.

There are consequences of pushing life back at the other end of the spectrum. My MIL has dimensia (90) but both her children on their 50s are working and unable to provide daily care. If they were retired then they'd be much better placed to provide that care.
The fertility issues are fairly well known but having financial liabilities instead of retiring early and not having kids able to care for you cos they are working are consequences too.