Where have all the 20 something’s gone?

Red-Squirrel_2

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am sure they do but I am also sure that they will have already bought a car either on finance or with some sort of loan. The priorities have changed. If you walk down a road of terraced houses in the northwest the sort that are now looked on as first time buyers houses you won't be able to move for parked cars. If people truly believe that the house is the most important thing for a family those roads would be totally free of parked cars.

Why are you sure of that? Its not true in my experience! Maybe you know wealthier young people, the ones I know drive second hand cars!

Cars are fairly important in areas with poor public transport, and for people who work unsociable hours. These are often the people on low to average wages too. Home carers have to have their own car and they are some of the worst paid people in the country!

I'm sorry, but I can't help but think this trope that youngsters could easily afford homes if they just stopped drinking coffees and paying for Sky, is completely untrue and only exists to make people who have been lucky enough to buy their home feel virtuous and superior. (And I'm on my third property, bought the first in my early twenties, so I'm not saying that out of bitterness, I was very lucky too.)

Jaywood89

Cakeguts I completely agree with the entitled notion.

Let me start by saying I have worked since I was 12 (paper round) never not worked and my mom ensured I always had a job, I didn’t she’d make me work in the warehouse of her company so I made sure I always worked! But I am an only child of a wealthy person and I will admit I have always had the bank of mom and dad to support me and I don’t for a second think I have it bad compared to some. But for the most part I’ve always paid my own way.

But to hear how some of my 9 year olds friends talk sickens me, for example one refused to clean his room because “that’s what we have a cleaner for!, she can do it!” No joke. Or stand there on their iPhone 8s or iPads. God help them all as adults. Infact I’m considered the ‘mean’ mom at school because I expect my son to carry his own bags and stand for 0 back chat. And my son has a hand me down phone iPhone, someone call childlike!!:rotfl:


But seeing as how none of us can change they way young people think or behave what does this notion hold for the future of house buying??

economic

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

For women, that can be the difference between having children and not having them, especially if those 10 years are the ones between 30 and 40, or 35 and 45.

But men can have them into their 50s even 60s/70s in some cases. So women have many choices. If they want kids straight away then they should have kids with someone older and financially secure so that the woman can concentrate on their career whilst the man can look after the family financially until the woman has enough earning power.

If the woman wants to concentrate on a career first (which is what society has changed to) then they will have eventually have to have kids by 35 - they would be financially ok possibly own a house so can chose to have kids someone her age or even younger who is not so financially secure. If the woman is not financially fine, then have kids with someone who is who would be quite possible quite a bit older then the woman.

Theres always a sacrifice to be made. Life is not a hollywood movie.

Jaywood89

Economic.

I just fine your approach very black and white. As I!!!8217;ve said to others doesn!!!8217;t make you wrong, I!!!8217;m just struggling to wrap my head around it.

For example a lot of people in the 70!!!8217;s and 80!!!8217;s were able to get onto the market because of the selling off of the council houses, a lot of my family became home owners because of this, it!!!8217;s the event that changed the very nature of the housing market beast.
(As I understand it, correct me if I!!!8217;m wrong I admit to being a novice)

Council houses are rare now, rentals are expensive and over crowding a home (to save cash) is actually illegal so people can!!!8217;t really just suck it and get on with it. I think to pretend their isn!!!8217;t ANY housing issue and it!!!8217;s all people!!!8217;s own fault would be naive, isn!!!8217;t it still considered poverty if more than 25% of your monthly income is spent on rent? For most rentals people spend closer to 50% so are we saying we should expect to raise an entire generation in poverty. Don!!!8217;t get me wrong in my work I enter a lot of peoples homes and wonder how they have no wall paper up yet have a 50 inch flatscreen tv and £65 trainers on and just wonder what the hell is wrong with people! But this isn!!!8217;t everyone and I find the poorer the family the more silly their purchases. Most working family tend to try and live better within the means. These are the people I think are missing out. And the ones that should be able to purchase a home like their parents did before them without resorting to extreme styles of living and saving.

AdrianC

Jaywood89 wrote: »

In answer to your question my dad was an orderly in a hospital and my mom a book keeper. They were on average wages. I!!!8217;d like to also add my dad left school at 15 with no qualifications and my mom at 16 with gcse equivalent, she later got a degree in her 30!!!8217;s for IT and accounting but was unskilled when she entered accounting. So there!!!8217;s also the fact that job opportunities today are different.

Yep, that's actually a very good point.

Nobody leaves school at 16 now, unless they're going into education or training. It's illegal.

Half of all 18yos go to Uni.

Cakeguts wrote: »

First thing is that you can't compare GCSEs to what people took before they were introduced because O levels were much harder than GCSEs. To give you an idea there are now often O level questions on A level papers so the exams that people took at 16 were more like doing A levels now but people took at least 5 of them. There were also exams called CSEs and a grade 1 in CSE was considered the same as a bottom grade at O level so anyone who got a CSE with a grade 1 got what is now called an A level.

<wipes tear of laughter>
Oh, wait. You're serious...?

<sigh>
No... Just... no.

I'm late 40s, and I was the last year to do O levels. CSEs were an absolute doddle.

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Monaco needs its low paid people though surely? To clean its streets and serve the rich their drinks and patch them up when they crash their expensive cars!

They commute...

Monaco is 2km2. 34k people live there.
Monaco is 12 miles from Nice. 1m people live there.

Jaywood89

Red-squirrel I have to agree that the notion that it!!!8217;s ALL down to poor money management by 20 something!!!8217;s is abit to cut and dry.

If I personally cut out all silly spending I.e no phones, internet, coffee, nights out I probably would only save couple hundred a month which would still take me 10 years to put a deposit down on a starter home, by then I!!!8217;d be nearly 40!. I couldn!!!8217;t of done this in my early 20!!!8217;s as I didn!!!8217;t even spend money on these things, just about could keep the bills paid. Clothes, nights out etc were always paid for by my lovely mom.

Red-Squirrel_2

economic wrote: »

But men can have them into their 50s even 60s/70s in some cases. So women have many choices. If they want kids straight away then they should have kids with someone older and financially secure so that the woman can concentrate on their career whilst the man can look after the family financially until the woman has enough earning power.

If the woman wants to concentrate on a career first (which is what society has changed to) then they will have eventually have to have kids by 35 - they would be financially ok possibly own a house so can chose to have kids someone her age or even younger who is not so financially secure. If the woman is not financially fine, then have kids with someone who is who would be quite possible quite a bit older then the woman.

Theres always a sacrifice to be made. Life is not a hollywood movie.

Or they might not.

Red-Squirrel_2

AdrianC wrote: »

They commute...

Monaco is 2km2. 34k people live there.
Monaco is 12 miles from Nice. 1m people live there.

Forget Monaco then, use London instead. Is the situation I described perfectly ok there?

AdrianC

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Forget Monaco then, use London instead. Is the situation I described perfectly ok there?

I've worked in London with people who commuted daily from Leamington, Swindon, Lincolnshire...

Cakeguts

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Why are you sure of that? Its not true in my experience! Maybe you know wealthier young people, the ones I know drive second hand cars!

Cars are fairly important in areas with poor public transport, and for people who work unsociable hours. These are often the people on low to average wages too. Home carers have to have their own car and they are some of the worst paid people in the country!

I'm sorry, but I can't help but think this trope that youngsters could easily afford homes if they just stopped drinking coffees and paying for Sky, is completely untrue and only exists to make people who have been lucky enough to buy their home feel virtuous and superior. (And I'm on my third property, bought the first in my early twenties, so I'm not saying that out of bitterness, I was very lucky too.)

Yes but I am talking about roads and roads of terraced houses that are now first time buyers homes and are full of parked cars you can see them on google maps parked nose to tail all down the streets and this in an area with very good public transport. They can't all be care workers working unsocial hours. The entitled generation will buy a car before they buy anything else. Cars are expensive to run especially if you are trying to save up for a house or move to a bigger house.

The government has introduced a sugar tax to help with obesity in children. There are 100s of children having their first teeth removed because they are rotten from drinking sugary drinks. Water comes out of the tap and is much cheaper plus it doesn't come in plastic bottles. A supermarket is selling a soft drinks at 33p per 100 mil. That has to be more expensive than tap water. So why are people giving their children expensive sugary drinks that make them fat and rot their teeth? What is wrong with water? The sugary drinks are part of the entitlement along with the cars, mobile phones, latest gadgets and all the other things they buy that they don't actually need but want. They don't feel the need to go without.