Where have all the 20 something’s gone?

Cakeguts

Koldweather1 wrote: »

I think its FAIR to say that a 25 year old in 1995 could afford what a 25 year old couldnot now, at least in the SE.

For example, I looked at a house in Guildford, I purposefully looked there because it is an area that has had utterly rampant HPI.

In 1995 the average wages were in the £20k ballpark in the SE. The house I looked at just for comparison sake was 95K in 1995. Maybe a stretch for a single person even back then, but it was just about do-able on your own based on the average salary atthe time.

Fast forward to 2017, and that same house sold for 825k...average SE salary now 31K. Now I do acknowledge that Guildford is an extreme example, but that is replecated everywhere. That exact same person, at the exact same age COULD NOT afford that house, indeed even a joint salary wouldn't even touch the sides.

I think that is the point you are missing cakeguts, people are directly comparing themselves to the previous generations AT THE SAME AGE!

I think once your on the ladder and have a mortgage, it is EASIER than the past, simply due to the low IR we have been experiencing, even a decent uptick is still well below long term norm. BUT the problem is many can't even get a mortgage due to the salarys not having kept pace. No amount of beans on toast is rectifying that situation!

Yes but you are not comparing like with like. For example I can remember when Victorian houses were really really cheap because no one wanted one. If you couldn't afford anything better you got a Victorian or older house which was often in bad repair. If you could afford something better you got a new 1960s house. Then suddenly people got interested in Victorian and older houses and the prices rocketed and the ones that people didn't want were the 1930s. Now the 1930s are becoming popular. Areas change by going in and out of fashion. Technical colleges changing their names to universities, moving areas and expanding can put pressure on local housing.

In order to compare like with like you have to find the house that has replaced the one you looked at in the latest non fashionable area. You are probably going to want to be looking for a run down 70s built house or even a run down 80s housing estate.

Here you go this is sold http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53438070.html This kind of property is what people are buying now instead of the one that you are trying to do the comparison on.

Jaywood89

Cakeguts

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’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’s for IT and accounting but was unskilled when she entered accounting. So there’s also the fact that job opportunities today are different.

But on your math my parents bought their first house for £40k with a 100% mortgage, a mortgage that was easier to get. They sold that house for 75k 10 years later. They bought their next house for 90k, this was to move us to a much better area, the one i still live in today. This house is now valued at over 300k. It’s not a large house and cannot be made larger. But as I’m an only child we didn’t need a large house. Average houses in are area are 350k plus

Their original house is now worth £160k, so if I were to start where they did I’d first need £16k plus in savings (they didn’t) accounting for lower interest rates I’d say our monthly payments would not be too different. (I think theirs were 6.5% but I’m not 100%. ) my son is coming to secondary school age so like my parents I now want to move to a better school area but the house is £300k, do you think that’s the same situation? Not saying your wrong I just want to know where you get your reasoning from.

I do disagree about wages thought, they have not increased in line with housing prices or costs of living.

Also I’m not saying living without modern amenities is impossible just saying it’s a big ask when the Modern world is changing so much and HAS changed so much in the last 20 years, not necessarily for the better I might add but young peoples perception of life is changing rapidly. I personally think young girls today are ridiculous with their £300 handbags and £50 lipsticks, what’s wrong with abit of primark and Rimmel lipgloss for less than a tenner!? But their phones and internet usage I get because I couldn’t be without them either

Cakeguts

SG27 wrote: »

It does make me laugh when all this 50+ year olds thought they had it hard when they bought houses for 3 or 4 times their single income and think the reason youngsters cant afford a third of million pounds for 2 bed house is because they spend £20 a month on a phone contract and £50 a month on meals out.

Who tries to buy a £300k two bed house in an area where they can't afford it? That is the difference people didn't get jobs in areas where they couldn't afford to buy a house unless they were prepared to rent and that included renting social housing. Lots of people rented for their whole lives. It has never been possible for people to buy in areas where they don't earn enough. In London this was true in the 1960s In the 1960s if you couldn't afford to buy a house in London you didn't move there however much more the job paid than the one you had. You stayed where you were on the lower salary and bought in that area.

The point about the £20 phone contract and the £50 eating out is the attitude to spending this money on something that no one needs. Someone who has this attitude is never going to be a good saver. They can't see that they are wasting money that could be going into a savings account. To buy a house you have to maximise earnings and reduce costs to a minimum. This might include having two jobs and never eating out but if that is what you have to do that is what you do. If you start out with the mindset of it doesn't matter if you waste just under £70 a month on nothing then you are not going to be able ever to save enough.

economic

SG27 wrote: »

Houses are the smallest they have been since 1970s. You obviously havent seen a new build these days in the last decade or so.

And the house doesnt come with appliances, you have buy them separately and out them in yourself. Not sure how things worked in your day? Plus appliances are very very cheap as a percentage of a house price. Just toted up my entire kitchen amd its about £4500 including boiler!

Not sure about that, but even if they are smaller now, they are new builds afterall and command a premium just because they are new build. And many new builds come with fancy gadgets and appliances all brand new and all integrated looking plush. there is a premium to pay for this.

My day? Im 34. I only ever bought two properties in my life and all in the last 5 years and both already came with appliances. Both were old so this was reflected in the price but i got my kitchen and bathroom re done and it cost 20k in total. 40 years ago many properties did not come with dishwashers or ethernet ports or electric ovens or steam cookers or microwaves or power showers or combi boilers or thermostats or ceramic tiles etc etc etc. all these things cost, there is a nominal price increase due to these things since 40 years ago as much of it didn't even exist 40 years ago!!

economic

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Wow!

Beginning to sound like you'd have felt rather at home in 1930s Germany....

If people like to complain now they should be glad we are not in 1930s Germany. They would not survive.....

Bogof_Babe

Cakeguts wrote: »

Now this business about having less than your parents. How can you possibly know that? You would have to look 30 years into the future to find out. What your generation are trying to do is to have the lifestyle straight away that has taken your parents 30 years of working to achieve. You don't start off at the top you start at the bottom like they did. When they were your age they didn't have what they have now.

It is completely unrealistic to think you can live the lifestyle of someone who has worked for 30 years to get it.

It's the same with student accommodation. 40 years ago those who lived off-campus counted themselves lucky to rent an attic room in an old house a bus or bike ride from uni, with not much more than a ropey old bed, and sharing a bathroom and basic kitchen facilities with four or five others.

Nowadays apparently they are very fussy about where they live, requiring modern appliances, en suite bathrooms, free wifi, all within a few minutes walk of uni. Look at the huge increase in specially built student developments in all university cities. Then they complain at having to pay £100+ a week, but they just take out more loans rather than set their sights lower, or work all the hours they can to fund themselves.

All of which starts them on the entitlement road, believing that they must never settle for anything but the best, "because I'm worth it". Sadly most parents encourage this view, resulting in the next generation of "I want it now" young adults.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

Plenty of people do buy houses now so those that don't are either living beyond their means or trying to buy in a place where they can't afford to buy.

Wow! again.

At the sheer fact that there are and have been plenty of people living well within their means/being very good with money in fact and still not able to buy a house.

As for "trying to buy in a place where they can't afford to buy" - I very much doubt many are trying to buy in a place outside their home area. Personally the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" about a persons absolute right to be able to buy a home in their own home area is the one I have in my mind.

If one is being good with money and the home aimed for is in their own home area = I believe they have every right to find an affordable home there. Whatever sort of society is it that forces people to move against their will merely in order to be able to manage to get a roof over their head? Not a very humane or reasonable one imo.

Alarae

I should preface this with I am a millennial. 25 in fact.

While I do believe that house prices down South are extremely high for first time buyers, it is also down to people just not helping themselves in saving for a house deposit.

In order to bridge the gap for our next house move (just exchanged!) I have saved every penny like a madwoman, equating to about 1k a month. I am just below average wage at 26k, however I went out and got myself a second evening and weekend job as well. This means I don't spend extravagantly, but I also don't live off beans on toast.

A lot of my friends bemoan the house prices but then are drinking hundreds of pounds at the weekend going out. Fair play if that's what they want to do, but a hangover won't buy you a house.

Even my husband has freely admitted that he probably spent thousands in his 20s on alcohol.

Another thing people don't realise is that if you don't earn enough money to buy a house, you either rent or move somewhere cheaper. Unfortunately it's just a tough reality that needs to be understood.

Oh, and to the other poster that mentioned Primark I do want to point out it is a false economy. It's rubbish quality and falls apart after a few washes. Better to buy more expensive for something that lasts rather than buying cheap and having to replace numerous times. You can also always spot inferior quality in cheaper clothes.

Plus my Louboutins make me look amazing, and well worth it

economic

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Wow! again.

At the sheer fact that there are and have been plenty of people living well within their means/being very good with money in fact and still not able to buy a house.

As for "trying to buy in a place where they can't afford to buy" - I very much doubt many are trying to buy in a place outside their home area. Personally the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" about a persons absolute right to be able to buy a home in their own home area is the one I have in my mind.

If one is being good with money and the home aimed for is in their own home area = I believe they have every right to find an affordable home there. Whatever sort of society is it that forces people to move against their will merely in order to be able to manage to get a roof over their head? Not a very humane or reasonable one imo.

No one has any right to live where they want. they need to earn it. I laugh at those who complain they cant afford when it is there own fault. I laugh because i am so glad i am not like that.

Jaywood89

Moneyistooshorttomention

I very much echo your view there, this is something I have always struggled with,

My parents moved me from an area that had become awful, one they had grown up in but had become full of poverty drugs and crime so we moved our whole lives to a different area so I could have a nice up bringing and I can’t thank my mother enough for that! I lived in a lovely village and went to a nice school. It’s why when I had my own child I refused to move out of the area, my partner and many people couldn’t see why, but I’d always said I’d rather rent and have my kids have a nice upbringing that buy for the sake of ownership, not that I could really afford that anyway. Now our children are getting older my partner sees how it was the right decision. It has been finacially stressful but our kids aren’t exposed to things they would have been if we lived where I had first come from. But now I’m watching everyone I know move 100’s is miles to find affordable housing, very few people I grew up with have stayed in the area, purely can’t afford to buy here. Small starter homes here start at 250k and a family home is well over 350k average 450k really. Young families in their 20’s or 30’s can’t stretch to that.

I always wonder if all the young people have to move away, what will be left? What happens to a community when the future generations can’t join it.