A Millennial Speaks out

kabayiri

steampowered wrote: »

Millenials work longer hours than the older generation did. There is plenty of evidence for this if you search. See for example https://www.statista.com/chart/4906/where-do-millennials-work-the-longest-hour/ which indicates that 3/4 of millenials work more than 40 hours. In my demanding profession I regularly work 70-80 hour weeks, the older guys used to work more like 40.
...

The reality is that your average Chinese or Indian worker works for longer hours than most of their Western counterparts.

The Indian techs I worked with would get just 2 weeks a year holiday too. We would expect double that holiday here.

Is this a good thing? Possibly not. Technology and globalisation turn things into commodity, and a commodity item is cheap. Labour is no exception.

The lady journalist in the original article claims that £40K is a typical wage in that business, but many regional journos struggle to scrape together that level of income. Far too many of us expect to be given our news quota online....for free.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

If they can’t stay with thier parents they will have to move into a shared property for a couple of years my stepson did exactly that. I really don’t see saving deposit is the problem, the price of property is a problem in many places but if you earn enough to get big enough mortgage you should be able to save deposit with a bit of effort.

Oh OK, see what you mean.

However, I class sharing as renting, as you pay rent! Having said that, have you seen the price of some house shares in London? :eek:

Graham_Devon

A lot of things seem to be forgotten about when it comes to the past.

This idea that everyone 30-40 years ago had to save deposits just like today. It simply doesn't stack up. Not when you look at working ages and when people bought homes. People can argue as much as they like, but ultimately pure fact shows that arguing is futile when people bought houses sometimes before they were 20 years old. There wasn't enough time between leaving school and what the facts show on home ownership to allow these arguments to be correct.

Secondly, all this stuff about mobile phones and costs "which we didn't pay all those years ago". Well guess what, millenials don't have a contract with rumbelows to rent a TV and Netflix. Thousands clearly did rent TV's and video recorders 30-40 years ago.

What we spend our money on has simply changed, and it's very apparent that because people didn't spend on mobile phones and sky subscriptions 40 years ago, they feel others shouldn't be now. They clearly forget that instead of mobiles and sky, it was TV & video rentals and the music industry was absolutely booming, with millions of records sold each year. Who bought them if no one was buying anything as we are so often led to understanding from this forum.

No mater how much people argue, it won't change the past. All those booming leisure industries 30-40 years ago were paid for by someone. I've even heard people suggest that people didn't go to concerts "in those days". Then you watch TV and see people litterally clambering to try and get a ticket to see the Beatles.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh OK, see what you mean.

However, I class sharing as renting, as you pay rent! Having said that, have you seen the price of some house shares in London? :eek:

Prices are very high in London and for the most part they always have been. I could afford to buy within thr M25 in the 70s.

I don’t know what the solution is in London because I don’t see any easy way of building sufficient properties to satisfy demand.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot of things seem to be forgotten about when it comes to the past.

This idea that everyone 30-40 years ago had to save deposits just like today. It simply doesn't stack up. Not when you look at working ages and when people bought homes. People can argue as much as they like, but ultimately pure fact shows that arguing is futile when people bought houses sometimes before they were 20 years old. There wasn't enough time between leaving school and what the facts show on home ownership to allow these arguments to be correct.

Secondly, all this stuff about mobile phones and costs "which we didn't pay all those years ago". Well guess what, millenials don't have a contract with rumbelows to rent a TV and Netflix. Thousands clearly did rent TV's and video recorders 30-40 years ago.

What we spend our money on has simply changed, and it's very apparent that because people didn't spend on mobile phones and sky subscriptions 40 years ago, they feel others shouldn't be now. They clearly forget that instead of mobiles and sky, it was TV & video rentals and the music industry was absolutely booming, with millions of records sold each year. Who bought them if no one was buying anything as we are so often led to understanding from this forum.

No mater how much people argue, it won't change the past. All those booming leisure industries 30-40 years ago were paid for by someone. I've even heard people suggest that people didn't go to concerts "in those days". Then you watch TV and see people litterally clambering to try and get a ticket to see the Beatles.

You had to have at least 10% to buy in the 70s and when I first bought that only applied to post war property only anything pre war required a 20% deposit. I left school at 16 and bought first house when I got married at 22, started saving when I was in late 20s, I was earning the equivalent of £35k and saved 60% of that. When I first moved in I had no TV no phone I had a cooker and second hand fridge the only new things I had were bed wedding present from wife’s parents and table present from my parents. We had one old car wife didn’t get a car all the time we lived in that house 6 years.

I did eventually rent a black and white TV (colour was available) and go on Holiday but not when I was saving. I had nothing apart from an old car which I needed for work and my future wife didn’t have a car.

triathlon

chucknorris wrote: »

Really? You think I've posted over 14,000 posts since 2008, just to set up an artificial profile to try and fool you the likes of you, who has only been here since last year, and with only 66 posts. I must have used a tardius otherwise how would I have known so many years prior to do that. I'd be less welcome on HPC than a prolonged fart in a lift.

You posting 14,000 times is disturbing in itself, but that's for another board. OK, I have looked through some of your posts and it's quite clear you are using this website to try to showcase a lifestyle that is quite clearly not the real you, bit of a Billy Liar me thinks. So I see no reason to believe your claims that although you own a little home you still also want to see a house price crash in order to see the poor housed.

You might have a heavily mortgaged little house in which case I apologise, but I am so suspicious of HPC mischief making.

triathlon

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't project those thoughts at all (those thoughts only exist in your head), a lot of my dissertation students work part time, and they struggle (but manage) with bringing up a family while studying and not working full time, yet manage to buy a property, they have my uttermost respect.

You are making my point for me, so if part time students can buy houses on low wages then households with £50,000 incomes most certainly can.
But now I am not sure if you are making these figures up before leading up to the real point you are wanting to make which is pro HPC.

Where do these students live and on what wage?

triathlon

chucknorris wrote: »

I didn't just work 70-80 hours regularly, I worked that every week for over 10 years after graduating, but not just in my chosen career (quantity surveyor), I also built up and ran my two part time businesses. I burned the candle at both ends, and I still had a social life, I've always believed 'all or nothing', I either do things full on, or not at all. BTL was just what was profitable back then, I spotted it early, it is up to you to spot the next big thing, I don't have to, I did it when I needed to do it. I don't lack sympathy for your situation, but don't try and tell me that I didn't work hard, because I did.

This is where I do not understand where you are coming if we are to believe your past. You claim to have worked long hours in what I assume is a good job while also building other businesses in order to buy yourself a little home.

I said people need to do the very same thing as you did in order to buy a home, and probably not as extreme as you, and you suddenly then jump ship and show your true colours in claiming they are hard done by youngsters and houses should be cheaper for them, all very odd.

Filo25

steampowered wrote: »

The average deposit for a first time buyer is £33k, or £106k in London.

It isn't easy to save that when a giant chunk of one's earnings is being taken up by rent.

How much do you save in a year?

That may be the average it doesn't mean it is the required deposit for a FTB though.

I would imagine there is a fair variance in those numbers, in general higher deposits for those FTBs with significant gifts/inheritances, lower for those who have largely saved it themselves.

I managed to buy a small house in outer London as a FTB with a significantly smaller deposit than the £106k quoted.

I'm not saying its easy to buy but I think just the article implying the average deposit is some kind of target to save is a bit misleading.

Wednesday2000

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Drivel like this is insulting to the many Londoners struggling on low wages in jobs far less cool than journalism.

Yes, I agree!