We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Where have all the 20 something’s gone?
Comments
-
I actually thinhk this poster is trolling now as the posts are so nonsensical.
Which bit of this is me trolling http://www.experian.co.uk/blogs/consumer-advice/young-buying-new-car/
Please also explain why you think this is me trolling https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/stop-the-rot-why-thousands-of-british-children-are-having-their-teeth-taken-out-in-hospital-8527836.html0 -
1) I was talking about adults, since we're talking about buying houses.I don't think that the parents near here who give their children pay as you go phones rather than expensive iphones in order to keep them safe would thank you for calling their sensible decision a poor tax. A small child with an iphone is a target for robbery.
2) The opposite of pay as you go is a contract, not an iPhone. The iPhone is a device, which can be either on pay as you go or a contract. Regardless of the device -- whether a fancy iPhone or the cheapest phone in the country -- it typically costs more per minute, per text, or per GB to pay as you go. That's the very definition of the colloquialism poor tax: you have to pay more because you can't afford the most economically efficient option. It's analogous to buying a single toilet roll vs a 24 pack.
The key bit is "buy the same standard of manufacture"(sic). Most £15 shoes aren't the same standard. When I had to watch my pennies more than I do now, I would buy a pair of shoes at the start of each winter, and be gluing them together by the end. Now that I have some money, I have a pair of shoes that are still going strong after three winters. Maybe you've had better luck than I have.Trainers are not good quality shoes they are expensive because of the brand names. If you buy the same standard of manufacture without the brand name they cost about £15. Trainers costing £65 to get the brand name are a luxury.
You specifically mentioned a TV. Someone starting out can't rely on something they already own, obviously.You get 10 year old anythings by not changing them each year for the next latest model. Sometimes you can buy things that are 10 years old. Cars for example.0 -
This post has got very off track.
To sum up what some are saying are we blaming the fact young people today can’t buy decent family homes is because we spend frivolously?
Are we catagorically saying there is NO housing crisis in this country? And therefore there is nothing to fix?
I’m just going to try and compare the generations, there are obviously more factors to consider so if you have one to add let me know, I’m just basing this on some families I know....
Grandparents (1930’s onwards)
Got Married, applied for a council house, got one. Had no indoor toilet, no fridge or freezer and instead used a pantry with a cold slab. Option to buy home for £3000 in £1970. One years wages equivalent to price of house. Area of house nice, not many places except the inner city is anything less
Parents (1970’s onwards)
Got married, couldn’t get a council house so bought an ex council house with 100% mortgage, albeit higher interest rates than today. House cost £19k with indoor toilet and fridge freezer. (Still going strong today) equivalent to 2 years wages. Lending criteria undeniably easier. Area of house decent and likely the area you grew up in or close by.
Current (2000’s onwards)
Got married, no option of council housing, try to buy but need £16k+ deposit. Currently paying £600 per month in rent if you can’t live with parents. Basic white goods much cheaper to buy due to mass production and import goods (last around 3 years) Based on 18k to 25k job. No 100% mortgage option, lending (rightfully so) stricter than the previous generation.
All of these families take holidays, socialise and need to buy food and clothing but non are big spenders. Can we say they are all in the same situation or that the the millennials are any less fortunate that the one before them in their grandparents eyes?0 -
itchyfeet123 wrote: »1) I was talking about adults, since we're talking about buying houses.
2) The opposite of pay as you go is a contract, not an iPhone. The iPhone is a device, which can be either on pay as you go or a contract. Regardless of the device -- whether a fancy iPhone or the cheapest phone in the country -- it typically costs more per minute, per text, or per GB to pay as you go. That's the very definition of the colloquialism poor tax: you have to pay more because you can't afford the most economically efficient option. It's analogous to buying a single toilet roll vs a 24 pack.
The key bit is "buy the same standard of manufacture"(sic). Most £15 shoes aren't the same standard. When I had to watch my pennies more than I do now, I would buy a pair of shoes at the start of each winter, and be gluing them together by the end. Now that I have some money, I have a pair of shoes that are still going strong after three winters. Maybe you've had better luck than I have.
You specifically mentioned a TV. Someone starting out can't rely on something they already own, obviously.
I thought most young people these days have a television in their bedrooms that they got as a Christmas present? Perhaps I am wrong and parents don't give them things like televisions anymore? Also I don't know which bit of ebay you looked at but I found some tvs on there for less than £10 that had been sold. So even if you didn't get one as a present when you lived with your parents you can buy a second hand one for under £10. I think in the past I have even seen tvs offered on freecycle. You can get most things off freecycle.
Shoe yes but not trainers. Some brands are more expensive because of the branding. I remember when parents were all trying to out do each other by buying their children the lastest fashionable brand of trainers. It is for this reason that the very good school not far from here doesn't allow children to wear trainers to school. Paying £65 pounds for a pair of trainers for a child that will be grown out of before they wear out is just a waste of money especially if you can get some just as good for less without the current fashionable branding.
I agree that buying a good quality pair of shoes that will last 3 winters is better than paying the same amount for a pair of a latest fashion shoes that cost the same amount but are of much poorer quality and have to be changed every year when the fashions change. I would buy the better quality and wear them when they were not the latest fashion but lots of people have to have the latest fashion that is how all these fashion catalogues and shops make their money. Not only that but we now have "designer outlets" where everything costs more because of the "designer" bit. Everything has been designed at some point.0 -
In response to the whole !!!8216;entitled millennials!!!8217;
I!!!8217;m not saying we aren!!!8217;t or that we deserve better.
But who would is to blame for them feeling entitled? If not the generations that came directly before them? Children don!!!8217;t just feel entitled, they have to be treated as such.
Frankenstein!!!8217;s monster can!!!8217;t be to blame for being a monster? And he certainly can!!!8217;t be expected to change because Frankenstein regretted what he had made?
Also isn!!!8217;t there some truth on the fact that previous generations, the ones believing us to be spoilt and expect too much are the ones sitting in a tower of property boom looking down on us and judging? Who created the consumerist world we millennials live in? Who really profits from our silly spendings and high expectations? If again not the previous generation who run the industries creating these things?
Now I don!!!8217;t say this to be rude or divisive or to insult my elders, it more me questions what has been said here on previous post and trying to see it from both angles to create that clearer view.
Overall I still hold the view that young families today are in a worse position than they have been since post war rations, there just doesn!!!8217;t seem to be anyway of moving forward like the last 2 generations did.
Just my opinion rightly or wrongly0 -
Also I don't know which bit of ebay you looked at but I found some tvs on there for less than £10 that had been sold. So even if you didn't get one as a present when you lived with your parents you can buy a second hand one for under £10. I think in the past I have even seen tvs offered on freecycle. You can get most things off freecycle.
Your original definition of luxury for tvs was years of age, not pounds. The cheap TV on ebay proves my point, not yours: you can't tell if someone is burning money by the type of TV they have.This post has got very off track.
Fair enough; sorry!0 -
This post has got very off track.
To sum up what some are saying are we blaming the fact young people today can’t buy decent family homes is because we spend frivolously?
Are we catagorically saying there is NO housing crisis in this country? And therefore there is nothing to fix?
I’m just going to try and compare the generations, there are obviously more factors to consider so if you have one to add let me know, I’m just basing this on some families I know....
Grandparents (1930’s onwards)
Got Married, applied for a council house, got one. Had no indoor toilet, no fridge or freezer and instead used a pantry with a cold slab. Option to buy home for £3000 in £1970. One years wages equivalent to price of house. Area of house nice, not many places except the inner city is anything less
Parents (1970’s onwards)
Got married, couldn’t get a council house so bought an ex council house with 100% mortgage, albeit higher interest rates than today. House cost £19k with indoor toilet and fridge freezer. (Still going strong today) equivalent to 2 years wages. Lending criteria undeniably easier. Area of house decent and likely the area you grew up in or close by.
Current (2000’s onwards)
Got married, no option of council housing, try to buy but need £16k+ deposit. Currently paying £600 per month in rent if you can’t live with parents. Basic white goods much cheaper to buy due to mass production and import goods (last around 3 years) Based on 18k to 25k job. No 100% mortgage option, lending (rightfully so) stricter than the previous generation.
All of these families take holidays, socialise and need to buy food and clothing but non are big spenders. Can we say they are all in the same situation or that the the millennials are any less fortunate that the one before them in their grandparents eyes?
First one there is no modern equivalent to because they would have got the house at a significant discount because they were sitting effectively sitting tenants. There were houses in the 1930s which were built to let on short rental leases and at the end of the lease the tenants were offered the houses at a big discount because they had become sitting tenants. There were also houses that people got to rent that were connected to their job that they also got to buy at huge discounts as sitting tenants.
Basically there probably isn't anyway that we can find out what your grandparents house would have cost to buy on the open market.
The 1970s one is easier. Nationwide's house price index says that the average house price in 1970 was £4378 to £4582 with the variation over the year. The average manual workers wage was £2805. I think a manual worker's wage is a good comparison. I assume that the £9,000 salary as half the value of the house was both their earnings combined not one salary? They both earned nearly twice as much as the average manual workers wage. On one salary they would have had to borrow 4 times their annual salary as a mortgage to buy that house. £19k in the early 70s was an expensive house are you sure this is the correct value?
The average wage now is £27, 600 so based on your figures and my dreadful arithmatic I make the value of the 1970s house today around £185,000 as 6 times the average wage which is what the 19k was. That doesn't include any improvements that might have been made which might have increased the value.
I think you need to remember that your parents were well paid compared to the general population which is probably why they couldn't get a council house.
Your parents earned a lot more than the average salary but you earn under it so you can't expect to be able to buy a house that needs above average earnings. If you want to buy the kind of house your parents bought you have to earn the equivalent of what they earned when they bought it which today is more than £27,600.0 -
This post has got very off track.
To sum up what some are saying are we blaming the fact young people today can’t buy decent family homes is because we spend frivolously?
Are we catagorically saying there is NO housing crisis in this country? And therefore there is nothing to fix?
I’m just going to try and compare the generations, there are obviously more factors to consider so if you have one to add let me know, I’m just basing this on some families I know....
Grandparents (1930’s onwards)
Got Married, applied for a council house, got one. Had no indoor toilet, no fridge or freezer and instead used a pantry with a cold slab. Option to buy home for £3000 in £1970. One years wages equivalent to price of house. Area of house nice, not many places except the inner city is anything less
Parents (1970’s onwards)
Got married, couldn’t get a council house so bought an ex council house with 100% mortgage, albeit higher interest rates than today. House cost £19k with indoor toilet and fridge freezer. (Still going strong today) equivalent to 2 years wages. Lending criteria undeniably easier. Area of house decent and likely the area you grew up in or close by.
Current (2000’s onwards)
Got married, no option of council housing, try to buy but need £16k+ deposit. Currently paying £600 per month in rent if you can’t live with parents. Basic white goods much cheaper to buy due to mass production and import goods (last around 3 years) Based on 18k to 25k job. No 100% mortgage option, lending (rightfully so) stricter than the previous generation.
All of these families take holidays, socialise and need to buy food and clothing but non are big spenders. Can we say they are all in the same situation or that the the millennials are any less fortunate that the one before them in their grandparents eyes?
what a silly and pointless post. You seem to only be looking at a small proportion of the population throughout the generations. Why only concentrate on the poorest - those looking at council houses?
Not everyone should be able to buy a property - certainly not the poorest!!!0 -
Also that link isn!!!8217;t specific to iphones. It also wouldn!!!8217;t hold up. Legally I mean.
The item belongs to me as the bill payer so they wouldn!!!8217;t be able to with hold it for months. Glad my children don!!!8217;t go that school.
But this is all off topic and i think I have to agree with red squirrel, you have a very unwavering opinion of the younger generation. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
It is a very oversubscribed state school round the corner from a big council estate. Entry is by living closest to the school so that would mostly be people on the council estate once the places are filled entrance is by lottery. It is very carefully in a situation where middle class parents can't buy houses close by to get their children into the school because there aren't any nice houses really close by.0 -
Ecomonic, please don’t call me or my posts silly, it demeans us both when I’m trying to engage in open and meaningful discussion. And I’m sure you are an intelligent person who can bring something meaningful to the discussion but name calling isn’t it. I’m trying to give examples of lives of people I know and compare them to their eqivelant today and see if there’s a difference. I didn’t say the poorest should be able to buy, where did I say that?, I’m saying unskilled working families have less options than they did in previous generations. Personally I believe selling off the council houses was the worst decision made in a long time, I don’t think people should have the option today of buying their council house, frankly if you can afford to buy it you don’t need it, it’s social housing for a reason.
Cake guts.
Like I’ve said before I can only compare in my own area which is Birmingham. To answer your questions the 19k house was in 1986 and was my inlaws first home. My FIL was a line worker for jag and still is. Unskilled and from a very poor background. So it’s just one example I know, they were low working class and had 6 children, one wage household. Do you think comparable people today have the same options? Maybe it’s different depending where you go?
The situated tenant explanation you gave surely proves the point? Options aren’t available like that for people today. Or maybe they are I don’t know.
You keep referring to my parents as well paid but we didn’t live in an affluent area and both came from poor backgrounds and were unskilled workers at the time. From what I’ve been told their wages were pretty standard for the late 80’s early 90’s. But as always I’m glad you can say in with something that we can debate like adults0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards