A Millennial Speaks out

[Deleted User]

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.

Doesn't that just highlight how cheap houses are in your neck of the woods?

If I want a laugh, I have a look at the house prices in Sunderland. For the price of my fairly regular looking 3 bed semi in St Albans, I could buy 3 bigger houses and still have £50k left over.

I'm guessing you had about an £80k budget? You can get fairly nice looking houses in some places for that - e.g. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-62503786.html

To buy my 'fairly average' house now, you'd need a £50k deposit, £15k for stamp duty and a combined income of £100k. The South East is nuts when it comes to housing costs - for Millennials or anyone else.

Cornucopia

We absolutely have to be careful in comparing anecdotal accounts from history, and currently. However, there are some consistent patterns that we can probably rely on, and that would probably check out with statistical references.

In particular, from my experience, growing up in the 1970s:-

- Car ownership was much lower than now. In the street where we lived for most of my childhood, there were only a handful of cars. Now, the same street is completely full of cars (may even have residents' parking). My family didn't have a car when I was a child.

- People typically had a single TV in the house (ours was Black & White for a long while). They might also have had a radio and/or record player, and that would be the extent of the electronics in the household. The electronics they did have were, in real terms, much more expensive than those available now.

- Not everyone had their own washing machine. I can remember going to the launderette to do washing.

- A lot of people did not have central heating (we didn't). We had gas fires in two or three rooms, and portable heaters elsewhere. I think this was probably quite common.


All of which makes direct comparisons very difficult. Our living costs were probably lower than young people's now. On the other hand, some of those costs are on things that are very much discretionary spend. I'm reasonably confident in saying that living standards are better now than they were when I was young.

The nature of a reasonably healthy property market is that it has always, and will always test the top price for the market. The only thing that can mitigate that is extra supply, and the only people who can do anything about that are the Government, Builders and Housing Associations. Our very strict planning laws (compared, say, to the US) are unhelpful, in that they prevent easy access to self-build or local-builder-build projects.

triathlon

chucknorris wrote: »

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

Yes I used get angry and lash when I could not give a straight answer.

For the life of me I cannot see why anyone would want to feel sympathy for him, I think he has made some great choices and is having a great life I bet, makes me wish like I could go back in time and start all over again as I sat in my first old terrace using an old box as a table for the first few months, best times of my life.

triathlon

Cornucopia wrote: »

We absolutely have to be careful in comparing anecdotal accounts from history, and currently. However, there are some consistent patterns that we can probably rely on, and that would probably check out with statistical references.

In particular, from my experience, growing up in the 1970s:-

- Car ownership was much lower than now. In the street where we lived for most of my childhood, there were only a handful of cars. Now, the same street is completely full of cars (may even have residents' parking). My family didn't have a car when I was a child.

- People typically had a single TV in the house (ours was Black & White for a long while). They might also have had a radio and/or record player, and that would be the extent of the electronics in the household. The electronics they did have were, in real terms, much more expensive than those available now.

- Not everyone had their own washing machine. I can remember going to the launderette to do washing.

- A lot of people did not have central heating (we didn't). We had gas fires in two or three rooms, and portable heaters elsewhere. I think this was probably quite common.


All of which makes direct comparisons very difficult. Our living costs were probably lower than young people's now. On the other hand, some of those costs are on things that are very much discretionary spend. I'm reasonably confident in saying that living standards are better now than they were when I was young.

The nature of a reasonably healthy property market is that it has always, and will always test the top price for the market. The only thing that can mitigate that is extra supply, and the only people who can do anything about that are the Government, Builders and Housing Associations. Our very strict planning laws (compared, say, to the US) are unhelpful, in that they prevent easy access to self-build or local-builder-build projects.

The simple fact is you cannot compare different time periods other than food, shelter and free time to do as you please. It's like saying Henry VIII was disadvantaged because he never owned a car and TV set in the 1500's

armchaireconomist

ringo_24601,


Not Sunderland, but your other assumptions aren't far off. However you've failed to consider that there are some very expensive houses in my area too, and wages (or for that matter opportunity) are significantly lower.


I've worked myself to the bone to pay for that house, doing jobs on top of my full-time employment and privately funded, part-time university studies.


Can you really say there aren't "cheap" houses in the South East? Or are you simply unwilling to live in areas with more reasonable prices. I moved to the next village for that very reason.

Cornucopia

triathlon wrote: »

The simple fact is you cannot compare different time periods other than food, shelter and free time to do as you please. It's like saying Henry VIII was disadvantaged because he never owned a car and TV set in the 1500's

Hang on - I'm not THAT old!

I take your point about distant history not even having modern conveniences like cars, but the modern car industry was well-established when I was a child. Our next door neighbour had a relatively new car, and a friend from school's Dad used to ferry us around in an ancient Austin A40 (this was late-70s).

Given that cars were relatively widely available, cost around the same in real-terms, and were as desirable as they still are, I think they make for a good comparator of wealth. Ironically, the only distorting factor is the modern ease of availability of credit, and its low cost - back to our old friend the PCP.

steampowered

triathlon wrote: »

SDH(synchronous digital hierarchy) engineer with a electrical engineering background

A quick google search suggests that the average salary for an electrical engineer is £31k, or £34k in London (https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/london-electrical-engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,6_IM1035_KO7,26.htm).

Earlier in this thread you said that people earning less than £50k shouldn't buy property.

So if you entered that line of work today, then by your own standards you'd never be able to afford a property (let alone a BTL as well).

Cornucopia

armchaireconomist wrote: »

Can you really say there aren't "cheap" houses in the South East? Or are you simply unwilling to live in areas with more reasonable prices. I moved to the next village for that very reason.

There are (a very few) cheap properties in the South East. The overall best value on RightMove is probably a 2-bed "in need of modernisation" flat in Bromley, which has a slightly short lease and an auction guide price of £90K.

More typically, properties below £100k are in places like Tilbury, Chelmsford, Chatham and Strood. The issue then becomes the high cost of commuting to London.

[Deleted User]

The only 'cheap' place near me would be Luton - but that is 14 miles away and much further than 'one village over'. You can 'snap up' a 3 bed home there for £200-225k these days. It's cheaper than the other 'cheap' nearby towns of Hatfield and Hemel Hempstead. Even Watford isn't very cheap anymore. It's technically Central England, not the SE though.

Given that I was working in West London when I bought my first place, living outside of London would have been pretty tough - not to mention we wanted to live near family.

I also went without any holidays, car ownership or nice stuff for 4 years while I saved for a house deposit (and I was also paying rent). Even then I needed family help to get on the ladder.

But here's the kicker - I bought 12 years ago. In that time, my 'first' home has gone up in price by £170k. I was earning £27k when I bought it with my missus - You'd now need to be earning much more.

My wife doesn't like the idea of moving to Seaham, buying something like this http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-61043443.html and then being mortgage free. My current job lets me work anywhere in the UK, and my wife's a nurse so she can get a job pretty much anywhere.

triathlon

armchaireconomist wrote: »

ringo_24601,


Not Sunderland, but your other assumptions aren't far off. However you've failed to consider that there are some very expensive houses in my area too, and wages (or for that matter opportunity) are significantly lower.


I've worked myself to the bone to pay for that house, doing jobs on top of my full-time employment and privately funded, part-time university studies.


Can you really say there aren't "cheap" houses in the South East? Or are you simply unwilling to live in areas with more reasonable prices. I moved to the next village for that very reason.

It's all relative, houses might well be cheaper where he is, but what about wages and jobs, not as well paid I bet as down south. You have managed to find work, buy an house in your area with its own unique pros and cons, no harder or easier I bet than buying a house down south.

P.S For some reason Chuck feels sympathy for you?