A Millennial Speaks out

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Cakeguts wrote: »

The other thing that I have noticed and this may be due to everyone having a degree is that years ago people didn't take jobs in areas that they couldn't afford to live in. ....London is one of the examples of this.

London is a fantastic place to live in your care-free twenties when all your mates are there. At some point though you need to review your situation and decide what you actually want going forward in terms of career and lifestyle.

The writer of this Grauniad article is a journalist, famously not a highly paid career. How many big-earning journos are there in a country at any one time? How are any hacks going to earn a living with the way print media is declining and the difficulty of earning money from online sources? Is her job even going to exist in five years? Are the skills in her current job (with modern journalism this appears to consist of quoting idiots on Twitter and c&ping Buzzfeed lists) required in any other job, including outside the capital? These are the questions she needs to be asking if she's thinking of committing to a mortgage in London.

chucknorris

triathlon wrote: »

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.

It is amusing reading your post, If you asked the regulars on this forum board if I was really a poster from HPC they would laugh at you (in fact, ukcarper already has). I suspect being totally wrong about things happens quite often to you, let's face it you could not be much more wrong about me.

I don't care if you don't believe that I own property, I invested in it for financial independence, not to impress you. Obviously I do not want a house price crash, having some sympathy for those struggling with their aspirations is a million miles away from wanting my investments to fall in value.

steampowered

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't lack sympathy for your situation, but don't try and tell me that I didn't work hard, because I did.

I am sure you worked hard. I commend you for it, and others who worked just as hard.

Just as there were lazy baby boomers and hard working baby boomers, there are lazy millenials and hard working millenials.

The point I am making is that on average, the baby boomer generation worked less hard and had a much easier ride than the millenial generation do now.

ukcarper wrote: »

You can’t look at one moment in time prices in relation to earning have fluctuated greatly over the years and deposits have been the same apart from a few years

While I appreciate that every generation has had to save hard for a deposit, the facts are very clear: it is much harder to save for a deposit now than it was in the past.

As per the link I gave you, deposits have increased by more than 10x over a period in which earnings have increased 3x.

Or have a look at this graph which shows the size of the average FTB deposit as a percentage of earnings over time. You will see that the size of the required deposit has increased from about 40% of earnings during the 70s to 100% of earnings now.

The overall tax in U.K. as percentage of GDP varied between 32.5% and 37.5% it’s 36% now. Direct tax is lower now VAT higher.

The point on taxes is that the baby boomers are being heavily subsidised by the younger generation, and on average as a generation will take far more in public services and benefits during their lifetimes than they pay in taxes.

This is largely because baby boomers are living much longer into retirement than previous generations, yet during their working lives funded a smaller generation with much shorter life spans, yet still benefit from a low retirement age and high state pension. I don't bemoan baby boomers for living longer, but there comes a point where things like the state pension have to be paid for.

Especially when right now we have the never-before-seen situation where pensioners have a higher average income than working households.

ukcarper wrote: »

You are just as bad as triathlon only the opposite end of the spectrum.

I try not to be as hyberbolic as triathlon. The difference between me and triathlon is that I actually look at the real facts, rather than simply making stuff up.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

The "what you had" argument is relevant, but context HAS to be applied.

Sure, you may not have had a car or had an older one (like people today, then?), but I can pretty much bet you didn't need one as much as people do now, with commuting distances getting ever longer, out of town shopping etc etc. Go back to the 70's and the focus was very heavily on the town centre. Today that's just coffee shop in the main. The actual stuff people want is spread out around the outskirts requiring transport.

Everything has to be looked at in context. Technology has moved on and the "I didn't have this technology" argument is poor at best. Why? Because you had a LOT more technology than your parents, and it will ever be thus.

There are two things that, based on pure fact, are undeniable:

1. People in the 60's and 70's DID spend a lot of money on leisure. They had to have done, otherwise we couldn't have the history we do now. People bang on about how people spend their money on coffee today, quietly forgetting how much money was spent in the thousands of pubs up and down the country in the 70's while feeding the ciggie vending machine....most of them now closed. It might not have been Costa, but people were spending far more in the local pub.

2. Statstics show people bought houses far younger than many on this forum would have you believe. In order to do this, they can't have saved for as long as people make out. The sums simply don't stack up.

3. Working hours for people today HAVE increased. Back in the 70's, many places that are open now were shut on Sundays and half days Wednesdays. My dad always had a half day on a Wednesday and worked Mon-Fri. His full time, he tells me, was around 30 hours. Yet he still managed to buy a 3 bed house, support his stay at home wife and 3 kids.

Alright telling millenials now they need 2 jobs at 45 hours a week to buy a 1 bed flat and "it was like that in my day" while ignoring the blatant fact that in "that day" many lorry drivers were supporting a family, a stay at home wife, kids, and STILL bought a 3 bed house in suburbia. (Many, not all).

So as I said, we can argue about "back in the day" as much as we like. But we also have a record of exactly what actually went on, and no amount of convincing will undo that historical record.

chucknorris

triathlon wrote: »

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?

I didn't quote any figures, but for the record a 5th year part time QS student would probably be on about £32-35k, I don't discuss their salaries with them. Although I do know that full time graduates (with no work experience) start on about £28k, so £32-£35k seems reasonable for those about to graduate with over 4 years experience.

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, I do not want a house price crash, I want prices to surge, but I suspect that over the next few years we will have stagnation. I merely have some sympathy for those priced out, but definitely not to the extent where I want my assets to drop in value.

chucknorris

steampowered wrote: »

The point I am making is that on average, the baby boomer generation worked less hard and had a much easier ride than the millenial generation do now.

I don't necessarily disagree, but if that's the way it is, then you have to do what is necessary to reach your goals, complaining about what others have or had it easier isn't going to advance your position. Personally I have never cared much what others have (good look to them), I have only been concerned at achieving my own goals.

triathlon

chucknorris wrote: »

It is amusing reading your post, I suspect being totally wrong about things happens quite often to you, let's face it you could not be much more wrong about me.

I don't care if you don't believe that I own property, I invested in it for financial independence, not to impress you. Obviously I do not want a house price crash, having some sympathy for those struggling with their aspirations is a million miles away from wanting my investments to fall in value.

Good, I am glad you are amused:) if that is in fact true.
why do you have sympathy for these millennials?
There are millions of rental properties out there to choose from and if they have the means and want to buy their own property, just buy one.
There has never been a time when 100% of the UK have been able or have the means to buy property, and 2018 is no different, all I was doing was stating what has to be done if you do want to own, and what I was stating was quite simple, get you income, joint or otherwise, up to £50,000 and there are 100,000's of properties around £200,000 with the exception of London.

Is that really all that difficult compared to the long hours of the 70's and 80's and when life really was tough for workers.

chucknorris

triathlon wrote: »

Good, I am glad you are amused:) if that is in fact true.
why do you have sympathy for these millennials?
There are millions of rental properties out there to choose from and if they have the means and want to buy their own property, just buy one.
There has never been a time when 100% of the UK have been able or have the means to buy property, and 2018 is no different, all I was doing was stating what has to be done if you do want to own, and what I was stating was quite simple, get you income, joint or otherwise, up to £50,000 and there are 100,000's of properties around £200,000 with the exception of London.

Is that really all that difficult compared to the long hours of the 70's and 80's and when life really was tough for workers.

I have sympathy for anyone (who isn't a pratt) that isn't happy with the way things are going for them. It is definitely more difficult to get on the housing ladder than it was many years ago. I bought most (all but 1) of my London properties in the 90's, they have gone up by as much as 880%, that is way above wage inflation. Yes of course that is somewhat mitigated by lower interest rates, but that doesn't help saving up a deposit.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The "what you had" argument is relevant, but context HAS to be applied.

Sure, you may not have had a car or had an older one (like people today, then?), but I can pretty much bet you didn't need one as much as people do now, with commuting distances getting ever longer, out of town shopping etc etc. Go back to the 70's and the focus was very heavily on the town centre. Today that's just coffee shop in the main. The actual stuff people want is spread out around the outskirts requiring transport.

Everything has to be looked at in context. Technology has moved on and the "I didn't have this technology" argument is poor at best. Why? Because you had a LOT more technology than your parents, and it will ever be thus.

There are two things that, based on pure fact, are undeniable:

1. People in the 60's and 70's DID spend a lot of money on leisure. They had to have done, otherwise we couldn't have the history we do now. People bang on about how people spend their money on coffee today, quietly forgetting how much money was spent in the thousands of pubs up and down the country in the 70's while feeding the ciggie vending machine....most of them now closed. It might not have been Costa, but people were spending far more in the local pub.

2. Statstics show people bought houses far younger than many on this forum would have you believe. In order to do this, they can't have saved for as long as people make out. The sums simply don't stack up.

3. Working hours for people today HAVE increased. Back in the 70's, many places that are open now were shut on Sundays and half days Wednesdays. My dad always had a half day on a Wednesday and worked Mon-Fri. His full time, he tells me, was around 30 hours. Yet he still managed to buy a 3 bed house, support his stay at home wife and 3 kids.

Alright telling millenials now they need 2 jobs at 45 hours a week to buy a 1 bed flat and "it was like that in my day" while ignoring the blatant fact that in "that day" many lorry drivers were supporting a family, a stay at home wife, kids, and STILL bought a 3 bed house in suburbia. (Many, not all).

So as I said, we can argue about "back in the day" as much as we like. But we also have a record of exactly what actually went on, and no amount of convincing will undo that historical record.

You really need to study social history a bit closer, I tcould not have done by job without a car, my wife travel 8 miles to work on public transport which increased to 20 when we got married.

People bought houses earlier not because it was easier but because they started work earlier in many cases 5 or 6 years earlier and got married earlier. Very few if any rented privately before they got married and if the did it was in shared accommodation.

Yes things are harder now but continually making out we had it easy does your argument no good.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

I have sympathy for anyone (who isn't a pratt) that isn't happy with the way things are going for them. It is definitely more difficult to bet on the housing ladder than it was many years ago. I bought most (all but 1) of my London properties in the 90's, they have gone up by as much as 880%, that is way above wage inflation.

I’m not sure why you are replying to triathlon he is obviously trolling.