A Millennial Speaks out

triathlon

armchaireconomist wrote: »

I live in the North East admittedly, but I managed to buy a house at 21 with no financial help and having been "employed" for less than 12 month on 19k, having been an apprentice the 2 years prior. I should add that house was a mess, and I spent 3 month of just about every evening and weekend making it habitable.


I had no holidays, no expensive PCP financed car, no designer clothes, no expensive meals out etc... Entirely possible. However, it takes effort - of which I find my generation often don't want to do.


Her problem isn't the environment she lives in, it's her lifestyle.

And thank you armchair, it's your voice that needs to be heard and not the patronising voices who say it cannot be done because of their suffering and hardships.

chucknorris

armchaireconomist wrote: »

I live in the North East admittedly, but I managed to buy a house at 21 with no financial help and having been "employed" for less than 12 month on 19k, having been an apprentice the 2 years prior. I should add that house was a mess, and I spent 3 month of just about every evening and weekend making it habitable.


I had no holidays, no expensive PCP financed car, no designer clothes, no expensive meals out etc... Entirely possible. However, it takes effort - of which I find my generation often don't want to do.


Her problem isn't the environment she lives in, it's her lifestyle.

Well done, you sound like some of my students who really made an effort and managed to buy (usually a property that needs work doing). You are one of the ones that have my sympathy, because you knuckled down, made sacrifices and got on with it, rather than whinged about how others had it easier.

GreatApe

andrewf75 wrote: »

I think that’s very naiive. There is not a chance millennials will be as wealthy as baby boomers. In fact it seems unlikely that any generation ever will be. It seems hard to imagine how the levels of wealth can do anything but fall given that basically we in the rich Western countries consume way more than our fair share of the worlds resources. Other countries are now driving global growth, populations are rising, people are living longer. All of that points to less wealth per person. The warning signs are everywhere, pensions, NHS funding crisis etc

The boomers are giving the young £200 billion a year

ukcarper

Average house price is now £211k median full time earnings are £27,200, with a 10% deposit you would need £190k requiring earnings of £47,500.

So a couple each earning £24k could get a big enough mortgage they would both take home £1550 a month. They would need to save £1000 a month combined to get deposit in less than 2 years not impossible I would say.

Of course these are average figures so figures will vary depending on where you live making it harder in some areas and easier in others.

triathlon

chucknorris wrote: »

Well done, you sound like some of my students who really made an effort and managed to buy (usually a property that needs work doing). You are one of the ones that have my sympathy, because you knuckled down, made sacrifices and got on with it, rather than whinged about how others had it easier.

Why does he need your sympathy for?

More to the point does he even want it?

triathlon

ukcarper wrote: »

Average house price is now £211k median full time earnings are £27,200, with a 10% deposit you would need £190k requiring earnings of £47,500.

So a couple each earning £24k could get a big enough mortgage they would both take home £1550 a month. They would need to save £1000 a month combined to get deposit in less than 2 years not impossible I would say.

Of course these are average figures so figures will vary depending on where you live making it harder in some areas and easier in others.

So easily done then, as as each year passes the easier it gets through inflation, wage growth and earning potential.

GreatApe

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.

1: real earnings are much higher than the 70s despite your stories of people in the pub.

2. No not 'far younger'. Maybe people bought 5 years sooner but that is because they started work at 15 instead of 21. We should go back to kids leaving school age 15 and they would start buying sooner again

3. Personal stories are often full of lies and half truths. Better to look at the stats and the 60s/70s had lower ownership rates a lot lower. If houses were two ha penny why was ownership so low?
As for women not working that too is lies and myths. We have the census data which clearly shows most women were working in the 1960s/1970s

Lorry drivers supporting families. More anectodal filtering. If life was so easy why was home ownership so low compared to today?


Hahah yes we do have historical records actual ones like the blooming census we don't need your tales of lorry drivers living the high life.

triathlon

GreatApe wrote: »

The boomers are giving the young £200 billion a year

That's one thing I am a little lefty about, I would massively increase inheritance tax. I take my hat off to someone educating and working their way out of the gutter off their own only to be priced out by someone being handed everything on a plate.

chucknorris

triathlon wrote: »

Why does he need your sympathy for?

More to the point does he even want it?

Why do I need to answer to you? More to the point why the f*ck should I?

ukcarper

triathlon wrote: »

So easily done then, as as each year passes the easier it gets through inflation, wage growth and earning potential.

If you are lucky enough to earn that much and live in an area where prices are average. In Surrey where I live average house price is twice national average so you can double my figure and contrary from what you think it’s not easy to earn £50k a even year in Surrey.