Can Millenials Buy A House?

Sapphire

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

Agree with all that you say, but would qualify 'and sustain it' with 'for now'. Without a drop, or at least a halt to, population growth of the human species, we (and unfortunately probably other species on this planet) will crash sooner or later. There's no sign of us moving to other planets, or terraforming ones that are currently uninhabitable. :cool:

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

Agree with all that you say, but would qualify 'and sustain it' with 'for now'. Without a drop, or at least a halt to, population growth of the human species, we (and unfortunately probably other species on this planet) will crash sooner or later. There's no sign of us moving to other planets, or terraforming ones that are currently uninhabitable. :cool:

I dont agree on this point, for a start it looks like the population is likely to peak and then fall but even if it didn't earth could easily sustain a good life for 10 x the current population perhaps even 100 x the current population

I think the opposite is true, for all we know earth is the only planet in the galaxy to support life. This life is threatened by nature and chance and the only animal known to be able to mitigate these existential risks is man. Far from being a plague on this planet the human race is becoming and will become its guardian and custodian

Sapphire

GreatApe wrote: »

I dont agree on this point, for a start it looks like the population is likely to peak and then fall but even if it didn't earth could easily sustain a good life for 10 x the current population perhaps even 100 x the current population

I think the opposite is true, for all we know earth is the only planet in the galaxy to support life. This life is threatened by nature and chance and the only animal known to be able to mitigate these existential risks is man. Far from being a plague on this planet the human race is becoming and will become its guardian and custodian

I truly hope your optimism is justified. Perhaps I've just studied too much history and archaeology and am a bit freaked out about the possible scenarios, given the nature of the human species (and based on countless events throughout our existence on the planet). Though I don't see Earth being able to sustain 'a good life for ten or a hundred times the current population' (it's not able to do that now, and very many of the world's populations don't have the means and/or the right governments, etc., that would propel them into sustaining themselves), especially given things like extremes of climate, and automation coming in, necessitating fewer people, not more. What would so many people do with themselves, and who would sustain them? I doubt whether those who have a great deal of money would be willing to do so, and there aren't all those very wealthy philanthropists around like there were towards the end of the 19th century in London, who built accommodation for the poor and so on (even so, they didn't help much, though the world's population was much smaller than it is now). There are people with several large yachts and a variety of homes, perhaps, but few of them would be interested in supporting (or even able to support) vast numbers of people. Ordinary taxpayers certainly wouldn't be able to continue paying for an ever-increasing, economically inactive population.

And our galaxy is not all there is. There are billions of galaxies out there. I was thinking of travel based on folded space and other such devices beloved by SF writers that would enable humans to reach other galaxies. :rotfl: But we are a long, long way from that, if we ever do achieve it. :j

Apologies for straying from the original subject so much.

westernpromise

Meanwhile back on Earth rents are still rising:

1. Main points
Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.0% in the 12 months to April 2018; down from 1.1% in March 2018.

In England, private rental prices grew by 1.0%, Wales saw growth of 1.3% while Scotland saw rental prices increase by 0.6% in the 12 months to April 2018.

London private rental prices were unchanged in the year to April 2018, that is, a 12-month rate of 0.0%.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/indexofprivatehousingrentalprices/april2018

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

I truly hope your optimism is justified. Perhaps I've just studied too much history and archaeology and am a bit freaked out about the possible scenarios, given the nature of the human species (and based on countless events throughout our existence on the planet). Though I don't see Earth being able to sustain 'a good life for ten or a hundred times the current population' (it's not able to do that now, and very many of the world's populations don't have the means and/or the right governments, etc., that would propel them into sustaining themselves), especially given things like extremes of climate, and automation coming in, necessitating fewer people, not more. What would so many people do with themselves, and who would sustain them? I doubt whether those who have a great deal of money would be willing to do so, and there aren't all those very wealthy philanthropists around like there were towards the end of the 19th century in London, who built accommodation for the poor and so on (even so, they didn't help much, though the world's population was much smaller than it is now). There are people with several large yachts and a variety of homes, perhaps, but few of them would be interested in supporting (or even able to support) vast numbers of people. Ordinary taxpayers certainly wouldn't be able to continue paying for an ever-increasing, economically inactive population.

And our galaxy is not all there is. There are billions of galaxies out there. I was thinking of travel based on folded space and other such devices beloved by SF writers that would enable humans to reach other galaxies. :rotfl: But we are a long, long way from that, if we ever do achieve it. :j

Apologies for straying from the original subject so much.

Why are you pessimistic?

Take housing for instance, the current new build rate is approximately half a billion new homes per decade. Yes you read that correctly. There has never been a time in history when things for the poorer have been getting better at this amazing rate.

We dont need the super rich to save the poor, the poor are saving themselves as soon as they get electricity plus agriculture sorted they develop at near 5-10% a year which when compounded over a 30 year period means in just a single generation wealth goes up 10x

That was the story of the west 1950-1980 it is the story of china 1990-2020 and it will be the story of India 2015-2045

We will easily sustain western standards for 10 billion and there is no reason to think it could not be sustained for even 1 trillion humans on this planet not that that would come to pass. People make various arguments to why that wouldn't be possible all based on current technology and norms but to get to 1 trillion humans would take 500 years at @ ~1% annual population growth.

As for what humans will do when the machines do all the work. We will finally be free. The only reason work is highly valued is because for all of living memory those who did not work were a drain on their families and wider society so to work was seen as to be valuable and not to work seen as hugely destructive to a persons family and themselves. When the bots do all the work people can do whatever it is they enjoy.

MPD

GreatApe wrote: »

As for what humans will do when the machines do all the work. We will finally be free. The only reason work is highly valued is because for all of living memory those who did not work were a drain on their families and wider society so to work was seen as to be valuable and not to work seen as hugely destructive to a persons family and themselves. When the bots do all the work people can do whatever it is they enjoy.

Or maybe we will do what has always happened. The rich and corporations will structure their wealth to pay few or no taxes and everyone else will have to take the low paid and insecure service jobs that are left to pay the same rich and corporations for food, shelter and trinkets.

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter

westernpromise wrote: »

Meanwhile back on Earth rents are still rising:

1. Main points
Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.0% in the 12 months to April 2018; down from 1.1% in March 2018.

In England, private rental prices grew by 1.0%, Wales saw growth of 1.3% while Scotland saw rental prices increase by 0.6% in the 12 months to April 2018.

London private rental prices were unchanged in the year to April 2018, that is, a 12-month rate of 0.0%.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/indexofprivatehousingrentalprices/april2018

Rents will inextricably keep rising forever and a day. This is why I do not understand the mindset of a RFL. Why intentionally trap yourself in poverty and serfdom to another person and pay their mortgage off for them? It's bonkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci40ae8BlcE

John_Jones

MPD wrote: »

Or maybe we will do what has always happened. The rich and corporations will structure their wealth to pay few or no taxes and everyone else will have to take the low paid and insecure service jobs that are left to pay the same rich and corporations for food, shelter and trinkets.

The top 1% of earners earn 14% of all wages and pay 30% of all income tax.

The bottom three quintiles of the population pay zero into the communal pot. Not a penny. They are net receivers.

I know that it is fashionable to ignore the facts and pretend that less skilled people are hard done by, but it really is not the case.

Frugal_Financial_Freedom

Oldest end of millennial here and just bought my first house. It took quite a while to get here - I have been saving towards a deposit since my very first post-education pay cheque, so that's about 8 years.

I've got friends who only really started considering that they might need a deposit once they hit 30 and are now facing an enormous uphill struggle trying to put together the 10s of thousands needed so they can buy a place before they hit 35 or even 40.

I also ditched London and moved to another city in the north that isn't completely insane in terms of house prices (and, as it happens is just the most amazing place I've ever lived so I heartily recommend any other people considering a move out of London to go for it!)

Frugal_Financial_Freedom

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter wrote: »

Rents will inextricably keep rising forever and a day. This is why I do not understand the mindset of a RFL. Why intentionally trap yourself in poverty and serfdom to another person and pay their mortgage off for them? It's bonkers.

visited a friend in california recently and learned about rent control - ie a landlord can't put the rent up while a tenant still lives there. It is one of the very few things I wish the UK could learn from over the pond.