Can Millenials Buy A House?

GreatApe

Sir_Robin wrote: »

I'm no expert so am not in a position to argue with you if you're historian/anthropologist but my statement wasn't completely baseless. "The original affluent society" theory might be worth a google if your interested.

It is idealistic nonsense on both fronts.

Firstly to clarify we dont work all that much in the modern world. In the UK there is something like 23 million full time workers and 9 million part time workers supporting about 66 million people. That means the average number of hours worked per person per week is just 17 or roughly 2.5 hours per person per day.

So lets set that straight first in the modern world we have lots of leisure time. About 20 years as a kid not working and about 20 years as a pensioner not working and even those in the middle that do work almost one third work only part time. And even of the many that are 'working' clearly it isn't all that hard by evidence on forums like this were people spend hours while at work.

Now for the past. I'm sure it depends on the exact year.
One of the biggest problems was famine.
The Irish potato famine starved 25% of the population.
Im sure by your metric not many were working many hours, great, but they were starving to death at the same time.

If you go back further to hunter times again I am sure it must be a mixed picture. Stumbled upon a new area of land with few predators and no competition. Fun times for a few years or maybe even decades.
Stumbled onto an area already claimed, well prepare to fight to the death and even if you win you've probably just lost half your inbred tribe.

Of the multiple homo genus only one survived that alone should tell you how not easy it was.
It is estimated even modern humans went down to as low as 4,000. nature was so tough and difficult that we almost went extinct just trying to survive.

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

'Sahlins concludes that the hunter-gatherer only works three to five hours per adult worker each day in food production.[6][7] Using data gathered from various foraging societies and quantitative surveys done among the Arhem Landers of Australia and quantitative materials cataloged by Richard Lee on the Dobe Bushmen of the Kalahari, Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer tribes are able to meet their needs through working roughly 15-20 hours per week or les'

The relatively recent Aboriginals of Australia and other 'hunter-gatherer' societies living in lands where there was a lot of space may not have fought each other like those living under more crowded conditions, such as the later tribal societies that encroached on each other's resources, but it is doubtful whether their lives had much leisure and relaxation in them. Survival was their main objective, especially given that they lived in harsh conditions in often extreme climates. Food was often not readily available (no shopping facilities with all your neatly packaged food!) and had to be foraged for, often at some distance away. Under very dry conditions, Australian Aboriginals would, for example, have to find and dig up amphibians that stored water so as to use the water for survival, which was hardly a leisure activity. In their 'leisure' time, grandmothers (tellingly women rather than men, who were engaged in obtaining food more than women were) would recite legends as warnings to youngsters. These had been passed down over millennia, it is thought by some authorities who have studied the subject intensely, and told of natural disasters that occurred thousands of years ago.

You cannot compare Neolithic hunter-gatherer life with the pampered way in which our species currently exists in the Western world, where even the least affluent individuals are better off than the hunter-gatherers of the Neolithic period (and certainly than much more recent times as well). Even when looking at such societies from a vast time perspective, it is clear from their remains that the lives of these people were harsh, and often brutal and short. So I wouldn't aspire to a hunter-gatherer's 'leisurely' lifestyle (or that of a later agricultural society), or compare it to lifestyles in Western society today.

Nature is extremely brutal

No species has it easy almost all of them die out and of the species that exist today almost all of them die from being eaten alive or by disease and parasites.

Go back a hundred years and this was true for most humans too. As stated two thirds would die of disease and parasites or lack of food/water before they reached age 5

Prehistorically this must have been true too. You cant have women giving birth to 10-15 kids per generation and almost flat populations for thousands of years. Just simple mathematics tells us the story of prehistoric man was not of leisure it was of women dying in childbirth and most children dying before they became adults.

snowqueen555

I think a lot of people are forgetting that you can only borrow up to 4.5x salary from the bank. The problem is if you are single, and earning a low wage.

I have been able to save up a fair bit, but with a salary of only for example 20k, I can borrow 80k, and a 3 bed house here is 230k. I would need to make up 150k.

The lowest end housing in my city is probably 110k for a one bed flat, poorly furnished, converted from a house. I could maybe just about afford it, but I don't want to be highly leveraged on a small dingy place, it isn't worth buying for me.

Not only the mortgage, the cost for council tax, TV license, water, gas and electric is not economical in a one bed.

I'd rather rent a room to be honest it is cheaper and I have nothing to worry about.

I may consider moving to a cheaper city in the future.

Sapphire

GreatApe wrote: »

You dont have to go anywhere near as far back as the 1600s
Almost everyone was dirt poor until around 150 years ago.
Even the word has no meaning today. The poverty of 150 years ago was giving up your kids, pulling your own teeth out and maybe only bathing once a month and perhaps only having one pair of shoes

I'd argue that it was later than that. There were very many really poor people in Britain even into the 1950s and '60s (take the East End, for example). However, it's true that the 1800s were even worse, due to overpopulation, lack of work (men used to queue up desperately outside certain industrial establishments every day to see if they could be selected for work), low wages because, with such a large labour pool available, employers would pay people a pittance, no help for those who lived in absolute squalor with no money or other assets, little knowledge about hygiene in any class of the population (affluent people were also severely affected by this), etc. One might idealise past societies, and yes, they certainly produced some remarkable things, but life was never as easy in any other society as it is (currently) in the West. 'Leisure time', as opposed to struggling to survive (really struggling, in order for you and your family not to die due to starvation and deprivation), is perhaps a concept that didn't exist for the majority of people until quite recently.

Sapphire

AFF8879 wrote: »

This type of entitlement really irks me. As a single person on close to minimum wage, why do you feel only 3-bed houses are sufficient for you? Surely you wouldn!!!8217;t want to deprive a family who actually need the space, and as a single person you only need a 1 bed flat.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and as you built up equity in your flat and (assuming) your income increases, then a house will become more affordable down the line. No one ends up in the forever home on their first time buy unless they!!!8217;re loaded.

I'd agree with that. I started out with a tiny one-bedroom flat and was very happy to have managed that. Even now I see no need for me to own a 'house'.

snowqueen555

AFF8879 wrote: »

This type of entitlement really irks me. As a single person on close to minimum wage, why do you feel only 3-bed houses are sufficient for you? Surely you wouldn!!!8217;t want to deprive a family who actually need the space, and as a single person you only need a 1 bed flat.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and as you built up equity in your flat and (assuming) your income increases, then a house will become more affordable down the line. No one ends up in the forever home on their first time buy unless they!!!8217;re loaded.

When did I say only houses were sufficient for me? Please get off your high horse, I'm here for discussion, not to be judged by you. It is exactly this mentality that divides generations. Read the thread title, it is about buying houses. I was demonstrating an example many people and families face, whether im earning 20k or 50k, prices are too high.

I think its sad you choose to villify me and others who would deprive the poor families of a house. Lets not talk about all the buy to let landlord and owners of multiple houses.

I don't think thats fair coment, what "irks" me off is the mentality that millennels feel entitled or are a bunch of flakes. I dont feel entitled at all, just showing how expensive houses are.

I am also saying I think one beds are just not worth buying where I am, I think they are too expensive. I would love a one bed, but not at the prices they are now. I cant justify spending 50-60% of my salary on a one bed, when they are so poor quality converted houses.

I also think that it is a shame the whole discourse about building up equity is a sad fact of life, and assuming prices will go up forever and the need to buy asap just to get on the ladder.

There was a time when a house was x5 salary, not 10-15x. I just need to tie up my bootstraps, I get it.

ukcarper

snowqueen555 wrote: »

When did I say only houses were sufficient for me? Please get off your high horse, I'm here for discussion, not to be judged by you. It is exactly this mentality that divides generations. Read the thread title, it is about buying houses. I was demonstrating an example many people and families face, whether im earning 20k or 50k, prices are too high.

I think its sad you choose to villify me and others who would deprive the poor families of a house. Lets not talk about all the buy to let landlord and owners of multiple houses.

I don't think thats fair coment, what "irks" me off is the mentality that millennels feel entitled or are a bunch of flakes. I dont feel entitled at all, just showing how expensive houses are.

I am also saying I think one beds are just not worth buying where I am, I think they are too expensive. I would love a one bed, but not at the prices they are now. I cant justify spending 50-60% of my salary on a one bed, when they are so poor quality converted houses.

I also think that it is a shame the whole discourse about building up equity is a sad fact of life, and assuming prices will go up forever and the need to buy asap just to get on the ladder.

There was a time when a house was x5 salary, not 10-15x. I just need to tie up my bootstraps, I get it.

The problem is there has not been many times when a single person earning below average earnings could buy a 3 bed house. I bought my first house in early 70s I was earning the equivalent of £35k in today's money and had to move 20 miles from where I wanted to be. That was as part of a couple which did not enable you to borrow what you can now but without that extra I would not have been able to buy.

Sapphire

snowqueen555 wrote: »

There was a time when a house was x5 salary, not 10-15x. I just need to tie up my bootstraps, I get it.

Yes, it was also a time when people's wages were much, much lower than they are now, when interest rates were much, much higher (more than 15 per cent at one time), and when it was very difficult to even get a mortgage. Also at that time, single people rarely bought any property on their own, let alone a house.

When comparing 'then' and 'now', it helps to get a sense of perspective on the subject.

ukcarper

In 1997 when prices were pretty much at there the lowest in relation to earnings, median full time earnings were £16.5k average house price £62k 3.7x now median full time earnings £28.6k average house prices £212k 7.4x.

£20k now would be about £12.5k in 1997 so still very hard to buy average home let alone one 15% above.

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

I'd argue that it was later than that. There were very many really poor people in Britain even into the 1950s and '60s (take the East End, for example). However, it's true that the 1800s were even worse, due to overpopulation, lack of work (men used to queue up desperately outside certain industrial establishments every day to see if they could be selected for work), low wages because, with such a large labour pool available, employers would pay people a pittance, no help for those who lived in absolute squalor with no money or other assets, little knowledge about hygiene in any class of the population (affluent people were also severely affected by this), etc. One might idealise past societies, and yes, they certainly produced some remarkable things, but life was never as easy in any other society as it is (currently) in the West. 'Leisure time', as opposed to struggling to survive (really struggling, in order for you and your family not to die due to starvation and deprivation), is perhaps a concept that didn't exist for the majority of people until quite recently.

I absolutely agree even in the west most people were very poor into 1950 or thereabouts.
I make the argument that it was electricity and the green revolution which saved us.
Electricity did exist before the 1950s but it was nothing compared to the modern world. Electricity plus the electric motor allowed mass production of goods which began to make nations rich.

The same 'electricity revolution' started in china around 1990 and fast forward to 2020 it will be a fully developed first world nation. India is just about in the electricity age so from 2015-2045 they will go from third world to first world.

There was also the great improvement in agriculture specifically the 'green revolution' lead by Norman Ernest Borlaug almost certainly the greatest man to have ever lived. He saved a billion people from starvation but his techniques also improved agricultural productivity massively. It meant people could leave the land and start working and producing other goods and services

The idea on the left is that people voted for better conditions, how childish and stupid. Better conditions arrived when productivity could deliver and sustain it.