23, back from travelling, and can't afford a house in London

LydiaJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

The article doesn't make sense.

If she is living rent free and her only outgoings are commuting costs and food, why will it take seven years to save £20k?

I suppose it depends on how high her commuting costs are and how much she earns. If the difference between slow train and fast train commuting is £250 a month, what do London/SE posters think her overall commuting costs are? And how much do auctioneer's assistants get while they're new to the job and haven't started on the relevant qualifications yet? I have no idea what the answers to these questions are, but I'd be interested to hear from people who do.

By contrast, this "how I spend it" contributor is on track to save £50 by age 27, but is considerably more inclined to complain about her house buying prospects:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/31/how-i-spend-it-rosie-burns

Herzlos

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is also an attitude. One of the first things I had to learn in the Southeast was this. "If it costs more it must be better." In the northwest it was "I am not paying that for that." It is this attitude that confuses politicians who have never been north of Watford Gap. They assume that because someone won't pay £500k for a grotty 2 bed terraced that they are poor and can't afford it not that they have made the decision that £500k for a grotty 2 bed terrace is ridiculous and they aren't paying it.

That does make sense. I'm happy in my £95k 2 bed semi in a nice area, with my decent salary professional job. I don't think I could be tempted to move to the south east - I'd certainly need an enormous pay rise to get back to the quality of life I have now, since presumably that same £95k house here would be £500k+ in anywhere decent in the SE.

If I were smarter 10 years ago, I'd probably have moved to London, rented in an overcrowded flat share, worked for a few years, saved up and then moved back up here with a bigger deposit and gone for a £150k house. But I wasn't, so I'll make do quite comfortably.

LydiaJ

Herzlos wrote: »

That does make sense. I'm happy in my £95k 2 bed semi in a nice area, with my decent salary professional job. I don't think I could be tempted to move to the south east - I'd certainly need an enormous pay rise to get back to the quality of life I have now, since presumably that same £95k house here would be £500k+ in anywhere decent in the SE.

If I were smarter 10 years ago, I'd probably have moved to London, rented in an overcrowded flat share, worked for a few years, saved up and then moved back up here with a bigger deposit and gone for a £150k house. But I wasn't, so I'll make do quite comfortably.

My workplace always has several people who have moved here from London/SE so as to be able to afford a better quality of life.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Cakeguts wrote: »

So for me a warning sign now includes how many international non EU students attend the university because that is a sign of a university that isn't attractive to UK students. The international students don't know that they aren't getting a top university.

I work in one of the UK's top rated universities and we've always been very international. We have a high number of Chinese students, whose non-EU fees are very welcome of course, but they are also extremely bright, ambitious and motivated. And they come from a culture that values STEM subjects.

I think Newcastle is a respectable institution, and Geography a reasonably decent subject. Geography graduates from my student days are in well-paid careers and I know two who bought in London (trendy Dulwich no less). Another got a funded PhD by specialising in soil, another did an MSc in agriculture and now farms Herefords in an Escape To The Country type idyll. So it's a subject that can lead in many directions. I don't think it justifies the OP's scorn, and I don't think the interviewee said anything particularly outrageous. Working for an auction house sounds really interesting, good luck to her.

westernpromise

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is also an attitude. One of the first things I had to learn in the Southeast was this. "If it costs more it must be better." In the northwest it was "I am not paying that for that." It is this attitude that confuses politicians who have never been north of Watford Gap. They assume that because someone won't pay £500k for a grotty 2 bed terraced that they are poor and can't afford it not that they have made the decision that £500k for a grotty 2 bed terrace is ridiculous and they aren't paying it.

It's entirely accurate to assume that northerners are poor.

It's not as though people in the northwest can afford to pay £500k for a 2-bed terrace, but cannily choose not to do so. The fact is that almost nobody can raise £500, never mind £500k. Northerners like to applaud themselves for their own thrift of course, but that's because poverty demands thrift.

Property prices tell you everything. If an area is poverty-stricken, house prices will be low, because nobody can afford to pay more than fourpence ha'penny for their house. As GreatApe keeps reminding us, in places like Stoke, a mortgage is less than a social rent, which can only happen if the social renters can't afford to save for a deposit out of what's left after they've paid for their social rent, their roll-ups and their whippet food.

Some areas are poverty-stricken but still have high house prices, such as Cornwall or Suffolk. The locals are skint, but property prices in places like Zennor or Southwold are through the roof. Why is that? Because although the locals haven't a bean, and there are no jobs, there are visitors who do, because the area is desirable.

Hence the price tells you everything. If a place is worth living in and you can get a well-paid job there the property price will reflect it. If it's a poverty-stricken beauty spot property prices will be high because of incomers. If it is skint and unattractive property prices will obviously be low because nobody's going to bid houses up.

Here's a 4-bedroom terrace in Newcastle:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53551476.html

Here's a very similar 4-bedroom terrace in Dulwich:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53578770.html

One is 12 times the price of the other. If anyone would care to believe that the dump in Newcastle is better because it's cheap, and that the locals could easily afford to pay 12 times more but are simply too smart, well, that may be why London is an international city and Newcastle isn't.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11142074/London-is-most-desirable-global-city-to-move-to-for-work.html
More workers around the world want to come to London than any other city, a major survey has found, despite the fact it is now the most expensive place to live and work in the world.

A poll of 200,000 people in 189 countries found that nearly one in six want to come to the capital to work, ahead of New York and Paris.

People from the provinces often think their province is wonderful but that's because living in the provinces has left them with low standards.

kabayiri

westernpromise wrote: »

...
People from the provinces often think their province is wonderful but that's because living in the provinces has left them with low standards.

It's more nuanced than that.

You can find hot spots in most parts of the country, but they tend to feature access to city centres; university towns; good (ish) transport links.

Move away from these zones and prices drop significantly. South Manchester / Cheshire is very different to parts of Burnley or Blackburn for example.

I'd argue that being able to find a range of property to meet a variety of budgets is actually a good thing!

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

It's entirely accurate to assume that northerners are poor.

It's not as though people in the northwest can afford to pay £500k for a 2-bed terrace, but cannily choose not to do so. The fact is that almost nobody can raise £500, never mind £500k.

And you've lost any credibility already, I haven't even read the rest.
I imagine apart from a few at the bottom, and those with serious debt problems, almost everyone can raise £500. Almost none of them would want to raise £500k either.

We get that you're well off and dislike the poor, it's why we have a Tory party, but you don't need to be so ignorant/obnoxious about it.

No-one has said that Northerners are sitting on millions and choosing not to buy in the SE. Just that many feel they get a better quality of life up North, paying less for housing and stuff and earning less (in real terms, rather than relative). Like I said, for me to get an equivalent quality of life in the SE, I'd probably need a 3x pay rise (which I could get if I wanted to move), and then likely have a longer commute and so on.

The imbalance does mean that by the time someone in the SE retires, they can sell up and more or less buy a castle up North, but it doesn't mean that Northerners are poor or inferior. Just that they made a different value decision at some point in their career.

economic

Herzlos wrote: »

And you've lost any credibility already, I haven't even read the rest.
I imagine apart from a few at the bottom, and those with serious debt problems, almost everyone can raise £500. Almost none of them would want to raise £500k either.

We get that you're well off and dislike the poor, it's why we have a Tory party, but you don't need to be so ignorant/obnoxious about it.

No-one has said that Northerners are sitting on millions and choosing not to buy in the SE. Just that many feel they get a better quality of life up North, paying less for housing and stuff and earning less (in real terms, rather than relative). Like I said, for me to get an equivalent quality of life in the SE, I'd probably need a 3x pay rise (which I could get if I wanted to move), and then likely have a longer commute and so on.

The imbalance does mean that by the time someone in the SE retires, they can sell up and more or less buy a castle up North, but it doesn't mean that Northerners are poor or inferior. Just that they made a different value decision at some point in their career.

There should be no denying that on average northerners are poorer then those in the SE. Now you got to ask yourself if money was no option, where would people prefer to live? I'm willing to bet it would be the SE for by far most people.

It is those who are stupid or do not have any option (no decent job, no social housing options, low wealth) who would chose to live up north. Why do you think poor people who get to live in council houses still live in London? by your argument shouldn't they just move up North?

London has the best paying jobs, best career progression, best amenities and the best in terms of things to do and see.

LydiaJ

economic wrote: »

Now you got to ask yourself if money was no option, where would people prefer to live? I'm willing to bet it would be the SE for by far most people.

You are assuming that everyone feels the same way as you. You presumably live in London, so you probably know lots of people who also live in London because they like it. But those of us who live elsewhere equally find ourselves knowing lots of people who have never wanted to live in London, and never would. Those people aren't to be found in the places where you spend your time, so you don't see them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

In fact, the only people I've ever come across who don't live in London but want to move there are school children who want to go to London as students. I've never met adults who express a desire to live in London if they could only afford it.

Of course, there are plenty of people who regard London/SE as the most desirable part of the country, but there are also plenty of people who don't. I would *hate* living in London, whether I could afford it or not. I find myself in London every few years, and every time I am there, I think, "Well, it's quite fun for a day or two, but I pity the unfortunates who have to *live* here." Then I have to remind myself that many people actually like it and choose to live in London, however inexplicable that seems to me.

Herzlos

I disagree, with money no option I'd want to live as far away from London as I could. But then I'd rather live on a quiet island if my job would allow it.

In absolute terms, people up North are poorer than the South. That's obvious.
In quality of life terms, people up North compare pretty favourably.