Home Ownership at Lowest Level for 30 Years

ruperts

MobileSaver wrote: »

Owning your own home is not essential to anyone's survival; your sense of entitlement is quite shameful.



Seriously?!? £70 a month is the lowest someone who was making an effort could get broadband and a mobile for? And therein lies the problem, you are not prepared to make any effort or sacrifices.

£70 a month for health related activities?!? £180 per month "bare minimum social life required"? Required? Is it any wonder there is so little sympathy for a generation with such an appalling sense of entitlement?

One solitary weeks holiday £400 each... Again the entitlement rears its ugly head, you focus on "solitary" as clearly you believe you are entitled to more than one holiday a year.

As Cakeguts posted, our "holiday" was being shipped off to the grandparents for a week in the summer holidays. A weekend treat for my girlfriend and I was a four pack of lager and friends would come round with their four pack for a real party! Health activities were cycling everywhere on a £10 push bike with 5 previous owners. Essential communication was 10p a week in the pay phone down the road.

It's actually quite offensive that you wilfully ignore the previous generation did go without and did make do with things that you wouldn't consider in a month of Sundays. The sooner you wake up to that the sooner you might start doing something about it rather than spending your days complaining that life is so unfair.

Having a place to live is essential to everyone's survival. Being forced to rent puts that at risk.

£70 is for broadband and TWO mobiles, one for each partner. That's £30 for broadband which is about average for a basic service and 2x £20 per month mobiles which will get you a basic budget handset and a modest calls, texts and data package.

£70 per month for health related activities is something along the lines of a gym membership plus some very basic required gear for each partner. It might not be a gym membership, it might be five a side football or badminton or whatever, it all costs money.

£180 per month on a social life is £20 per week for each month partner, that barely covers a single trip to a coffee shop to catch up with friends. As I've said, you could go without social interaction when it only took 2-3 months to save a deposit, now it takes 10 years+ it's no longer feasible for health reasons. Shutting yourself off from the world will also harm your career prospects so is a false economy.

One cheap holiday per year is all I asked for, not even necessary abroad. Being shipped off to the grandparents would still cost, for me that would be £80+ in petrol alone and not everyone has grandparents who are willing to fund their holidays. A few days out and you're easily up to £400. You can use that budget for a few Christmas presents as well if you like, or is celebrating Christmas an example of "entitlement" as well?

ruperts

ukcarper wrote: »

In fact two people working full time in minimum wage jobs would take home more that £2000

In our scenario we are looking at one full time and one part time worker using average wage figures for Stoke-on-Trent adjusted for age group. Those figures are £22.5k for the full time and a very generous £10k for the part time, minus 15% to adjust for age and that's £19.5k for the full time worker and £8.5k for the part time worker. If they both pay 5% into a pension and the full time worker has an old system student loan then they take home £1,956 per month, which is actually less than I used in my example. Even if we say two full time workers that's only going to take their take home to just over £2k assuming they earn the average. Many people of course don't earn the average and for them it is clearly going to be practically impossible to raise a deposit at today's prices.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

In fact two people working full time in minimum wage jobs would take home more that £2000

Has there ever been a time when people on minimum wage could afford to buy?

The average wage statistics bandied around so much include the wages of people who never did buy even in the past.

According to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/595165/NS_Table_3_1a_1415.xlsx, which divides earnings into percentiles, the average of all percentiles in 2014-2015 was £29,046 but the average of the top 70 percentiles was over £35,000. It is this latter demographic who would have bought in the past so to try to use an average wage that includes people who never did buy, to prove that buying is hard today, is sleight of hand.

It's difficult but there has always been about 30% of the populace for whom it's not possible and never has been.

westernpromise

ruperts wrote: »

In our scenario we are looking at one full time and one part time worker using average wage figures for Stoke-on-Trent adjusted for age group. Those figures are £22.5k for the full time and a very generous £10k for the part time, minus 15% to adjust for age and that's £19.5k for the full time worker and £8.5k for the part time worker. If they both pay 5% into a pension and the full time worker has an old system student loan then they take home £1,956 per month, which is actually less than I used in my example. Even if we say two full time workers that's only going to take their take home to just over £2k assuming they earn the average. Many people of course don't earn the average and for them it is clearly going to be practically impossible to raise a deposit at today's prices.

If either of them has a wooden leg that's going to cost them at least £50 a year in Cuprinol too.

TrickyTree83

ruperts wrote: »

Having a place to live is essential to everyone's survival. Being forced to rent puts that at risk.

£70 is for broadband and TWO mobiles, one for each partner. That's £30 for broadband which is about average for a basic service and 2x £20 per month mobiles which will get you a basic budget handset and a modest calls, texts and data package.

£70 per month for health related activities is something along the lines of a gym membership plus some very basic required gear for each partner. It might not be a gym membership, it might be five a side football or badminton or whatever, it all costs money.

£180 per month on a social life is £20 per week for each month partner, that barely covers a single trip to a coffee shop to catch up with friends. As I've said, you could go without social interaction when it only took 2-3 months to save a deposit, now it takes 10 years+ it's no longer feasible for health reasons. Shutting yourself off from the world will also harm your career prospects so is a false economy.

One cheap holiday per year is all I asked for, not even necessary abroad. Being shipped off to the grandparents would still cost, for me that would be £80+ in petrol alone and not everyone has grandparents who are willing to fund their holidays. A few days out and you're easily up to £400. You can use that budget for a few Christmas presents as well if you like, or is celebrating Christmas an example of "entitlement" as well?

If we assume you must have a mobile phone.

£10 up front cost from ASDA and a PAYG model would not cost £20 pcm and would keep you in touch with the people you need/want to stay in touch with. It wouldn't be the latest most fashionable model but it would satisfy the requirement.

Broadband can be sourced cheaper than £30 pcm. It doesn't have to be 50Mb/100Mb+ to give you access to do what you require. Plus it'll probably come with landline rental, so do you really need those mobile phones?

£70 pcm for health related activities?? What's wrong with running in the park instead of a treadmill? This is ridiculous, nothing wrong with buying a football and going down the park instead of renting a hall for 5-a-side. If you're spending this amount on fitness you really ought to have a word with yourself.

£180 on social?! Invite your friends around to yours, and they invite you to theirs. Why must you meet up at Starbucks, Costa, etc..? There is no basic need/requirement to go out and spend money in these places to meet with people. A lack of imagination and desire to save money for whatever reason would result in expensive social activity sure, but whose fault would that be? Not the governments.

You're still in "I expect this standard of living as a minimum" territory (clearly entitlement), you can easily cut costs from those figures and still live well. You just won't have the latest phone, the best broadband, the fashionable gym membership so you can cycle on a bike that goes nowhere instead of a real bike, or run going nowhere instead of running around a park or try the latest coffee.

The holiday is a classic case of entitlement. If you really want a house you go without, end of story. Whilst you decorate, you go without. Whilst you furnish, you go without. You cannot have your cake and eat it even if you earn well, and I did when I was saving for, buying, renovating and furnishing my house. The self imposed sanctions soon lift and you're in a better place because of it.

MobileSaver

ruperts wrote: »

Having a place to live is essential to everyone's survival. Being forced to rent puts that at risk.

Complete and utter nonsense.

ruperts wrote: »

TWO mobiles, one for each partner.

The average take home for a SINGLE person is not far off the £2k per month you stated so to base your argument on £2k a month for a working COUPLE is simply ridiculous.

ruperts wrote: »

it might be five a side football or badminton or whatever, it all costs money.

barely covers a single trip to a coffee shop to catch up with friends.

One cheap holiday per year is all I asked for,

You feel so entitled to all those things that you cannot even see the hypocrisy and irony in your own words. My friends and I seemed to find plenty of ways to keep in touch, play sports and chill without spending much more than 2p or 10p to make a phone call.

MobileSaver

ruperts wrote: »

In our scenario we are looking at one full time and one part time worker

So in your scenario you don't even have a couple who are both working full-time but they both still want all the niceties of life (mobile, gym, Starbucks, holiday plus, of course, their own home) ... and you wonder why that generation is accused of having a sense of entitlement?!? :rotfl:

Herzlos

ruperts wrote: »

In our scenario we are looking at one full time and one part time worker using average wage figures for Stoke-on-Trent adjusted for age group. Those figures are £22.5k for the full time and a very generous £10k for the part time, minus 15% to adjust for age and that's £19.5k for the full time worker and £8.5k for the part time worker. If they both pay 5% into a pension and the full time worker has an old system student loan then they take home £1,956 per month, which is actually less than I used in my example. Even if we say two full time workers that's only going to take their take home to just over £2k assuming they earn the average. Many people of course don't earn the average and for them it is clearly going to be practically impossible to raise a deposit at today's prices.

By old student loan system you mean pre-98 mortgage style?

Whilst this make people recoil in horror, assuming young enough I think reducing the pension payments in the short term would help. They'd still be a long way away from retiring so dropping to 2.5% each would free up a reasonable amount of cash. I'm aware that you want to put as much into a pension as early as possible, and how compound interest works, but I'd view getting on the property ladder as a priority (you'll need less pension if you're not still paying off a mortgage as a pensioner).

ruperts wrote: »

Having a place to live is essential to everyone's survival. Being forced to rent puts that at risk.

I guess, but lots of people survive pretty comfortably renting.

£70 is for broadband and TWO mobiles, one for each partner. That's £30 for broadband which is about average for a basic service and 2x £20 per month mobiles which will get you a basic budget handset and a modest calls, texts and data package.

My broadband is £26/month for unlimited data and phone usage, so I'm sure there's scope to trim it down there a bit, especially if you're in a cable area and don't need line rental. (You could go full MSE and pay your neighbours £10/month to share their wifi).

You can get phone contracts from about £10/month with basic smart phones from about £50 (new, can get cheaper 2nd hand). PAYG is still a thing even if it's seen as uncool, and you don't use it that much.

£70 per month for health related activities is something along the lines of a gym membership plus some very basic required gear for each partner. It might not be a gym membership, it might be five a side football or badminton or whatever, it all costs money.

Off-peak gym memberships should run you to less than £20/month, even something like badminton or 5-a-sides should be costing you less than £5/session.

£180 per month on a social life is £20 per week for each month partner, that barely covers a single trip to a coffee shop to catch up with friends. As I've said, you could go without social interaction when it only took 2-3 months to save a deposit, now it takes 10 years+ it's no longer feasible for health reasons. Shutting yourself off from the world will also harm your career prospects so is a false economy.

£20 in most coffee shops would cover at least a cake and 3 coffees. If you're spending that long in there, why not suggest going to a park/museum or something, or socialize in one of your homes.

One cheap holiday per year is all I asked for, not even necessary abroad. Being shipped off to the grandparents would still cost, for me that would be £80+ in petrol alone and not everyone has grandparents who are willing to fund their holidays. A few days out and you're easily up to £400. You can use that budget for a few Christmas presents as well if you like, or is celebrating Christmas an example of "entitlement" as well?

Why is a holiday a requirement? Why not spend the time on a staycation, and go on day trips to nearish cities?

I understand the point about needing to maintain some quality of life whilst spending years saving a deposit, but a little bit of effort should allow you to trim outgoings by at least 30% in the above examples. Even more if you're bargain hunting, cooking all your own food etc, which should be easy enough if one of you is only working part time.

Another point to note; owning a house isn't cheap. If you're worried about the cost of saving a deposit @ £4/month leeway, you're really going to hurt when you need to repair or replace something. It'd easily cost you £1k to furnish a house (kettles, microwave, bed, sofa, plates), before you get into carpets, wallpaper, boilers and so on.

ruperts

westernpromise wrote: »

Has there ever been a time when people on minimum wage could afford to buy?

The average wage statistics bandied around so much include the wages of people who never did buy even in the past.

According to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/595165/NS_Table_3_1a_1415.xlsx, which divides earnings into percentiles, the average of all percentiles in 2014-2015 was £29,046 but the average of the top 70 percentiles was over £35,000. It is this latter demographic who would have bought in the past so to try to use an average wage that includes people who never did buy, to prove that buying is hard today, is sleight of hand.

It's difficult but there has always been about 30% of the populace for whom it's not possible and never has been.

Average wages don't include unemployed people. When I checked unemployment for Stoke it was around 22% iirc so that just about covers your argument. Average wage stats give you the median of all employed people so the examples I'm using represents people in around the 40th percentile, meaning at least 60% definitely cannot afford to buy without third party assistance which tallies up with what is being observed in the real world.

ukcarper

ruperts wrote: »

Average wages don't include unemployed people. When I checked unemployment for Stoke it was around 22% iirc so that just about covers your argument. Average wage stats give you the median of all employed people so the examples I'm using represents people in around the 40th percentile, meaning at least 60% definitely cannot afford to buy without third party assistance which tallies up with what is being observed in the real world.

Do you really expect unemployed people to buy houses. The only people who have ever been able to buy property are those in full time employment and mainly as a couple.