Can Millenials Buy A House?

Sapphire

westernpromise wrote: »

I noticed that too, and it's been a thing for 30-odd years at least. No property is ever marketed as anything other than "luxury". Equally none is ever marketed as "bog standard". I can't imagine why this is.

Except that 30-odd years ago there were far fewer new-build flat blocks being built, and aggressively promoted in the way they have been over the last decade or so as 'the must-have, desirable way to live'.

Madness.

Sapphire

Sir_Robin wrote: »

I'd rather mow the lawn and do a bit of housework then another hour of work But I'm a lazy millenial albeit with my own house.

I think what us millenials don't understand is the previous generations glorification of work, the stigmatisation of anyone that doesn't work every hour of the day, the way you conflate your job with sense of identity and possessions with self worth.

It's this odd behaviour ultimately that has inflated prices and forced people to work more hours than we need to. Even hunter gatherers had more leisure time than us.

Personally, I have always loved work, as well as studying in my free time, 'mowing the lawn', seeing friends, going to museums, etc. I'm really interested in my work and it gives me a sense of purpose and challenges me; that's something most people need to thrive. My work can't be described as boring, but when I started work I did some 'mundane' jobs too, at very low pay, and also enjoyed them because of what I learnt.

You don't know what you are talking about when you say hunter-gatherers had more leisure time than us. :rotfl: Hunter-gatherers lived in small bands, and their prime concern was propagating the species (as with all animals), so obtaining food, shelter and females (often by fighting with other bands) was of key importance to them. Research has shown that the lives of hunter-gatherers were extremely short and brutal. I doubt whether you would have liked to live their 'leisurely' lifestyle. :T

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

You don't know what you are talking about when you say hunter-gatherers had more leisure time than us. :rotfl: Hunter-gatherers lived in small bands, and their prime concern was propagating the species (as with all animals), so obtaining food, shelter and females (often by fighting with other bands) was of key importance to them. Research has shown that the lives of hunter-gatherers were extremely short and brutal. I doubt whether you would have liked to live their 'leisurely' lifestyle. :T

People often romanticise the past but as you say life was very difficult
For almost all of human history median life expectancy was about 5 years old
The average woman had about 6 kids but 3-4 would die before they reached age 5

Even that is hiding the truth, a lot of women would have had just 1-2 kids before they died in childbirth which meant the ones that didn't die had 10-15 kids which meant the average was closer to 6 kids per woman. Imagine having 15 kids and 10 die before they reach age 5.
Yeah lots of free time to bury your kids

The modern world is amazing you'd have to be a fool to want to be born at any other time than today

Sapphire

GreatApe wrote: »

People often romanticise the past but as you say life was very difficult
For almost all of human history median life expectancy was about 5 years old
The average woman had about 6 kids but 3-4 would die before they reached age 5

Even that is hiding the truth, a lot of women would have had just 1-2 kids before they died in childbirth which meant the ones that didn't die had 10-15 kids which meant the average was closer to 6 kids per woman. Imagine having 15 kids and 10 die before they reach age 5.
Yeah lots of free time to bury your kids

The modern world is amazing you'd have to be a fool to want to be born at any other time than today

Yes, agree with this. I've just been reading a huge book about the history of Spitalfields, for example. It discusses, among other things, the Huguenot weavers who came to England in the late 1600s and 1700s to escape persecution in France. They did very well initially, setting up their weaving enterprises in their houses, and journeymen were paid decent wages. However, following the repeal of the acts in the early 1800s that granted protection to the weaving industry from cheaper foreign competition, the people living in the area quickly descended into abject poverty (real poverty, of the sort where 50 people plus, in different families, lived in a house in squalid conditions, and tried to scrape by in a variety of separate trades working from their homes). The conditions were terrible in the Victorian period and beyond, and there was no help for those who were unemployed or on very low wages (beyond some limited charitable aid that didn't do very much to improve their lives).

Even when there was wealth in the area, the childbirth conditions you mention prevailed, among the wealthy and poorer people alike, partly due to the terribly unsanitary conditions (cess pits in houses, open sewers, etc.). And throughout those times, women gave birth to huge numbers of children, with a very high mortality rate.

Such conditions cannot be imagined by many of those living in Britain today.

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

Most houses have a hallway and stairs. These would be maintained by the owner.

Split the house into flats and it still has a hallway and stairs. These are now common parts and are maintained by the owner. The owner then distributes the cost among the lessees.

Most flats also have hallways in addition to common spaces.

Zero_Sum

Sapphire wrote: »

Except that 30-odd years ago there were far fewer new-build flat blocks being built, and aggressively promoted in the way they have been over the last decade or so as 'the must-have, desirable way to live'.

Madness.

Not round my way they aren't
Think its generally a London / SE / big city thing due to the availability of land & values.

There were a few blocks built upto & around 2007, which developers got fingures burnt. None have been built since as theres very little demand. All apartment developments since have largely been converting unused buildings into student digs.

shirlgirl2004

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Not round my way they aren't
Think its generally a London / SE / big city thing due to the availability of land & values.

There were a few blocks built upto & around 2007, which developers got fingures burnt. None have been built since as theres very little demand. All apartment developments since have largely been converting unused buildings into student digs.

Try looking at Manchester for example; so many apartments going up it's unbelievable. Believe me it isn't all down south.

Sir_Robin

Sapphire wrote: »

Personally, I have always loved work, as well as studying in my free time, 'mowing the lawn', seeing friends, going to museums, etc. I'm really interested in my work and it gives me a sense of purpose and challenges me; that's something most people need to thrive. My work can't be described as boring, but when I started work I did some 'mundane' jobs too, at very low pay, and also enjoyed them because of what I learnt.

You don't know what you are talking about when you say hunter-gatherers had more leisure time than us. :rotfl: Hunter-gatherers lived in small bands, and their prime concern was propagating the species (as with all animals), so obtaining food, shelter and females (often by fighting with other bands) was of key importance to them. Research has shown that the lives of hunter-gatherers were extremely short and brutal. I doubt whether you would have liked to live their 'leisurely' lifestyle. :T

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

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.

Sapphire

'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.

GreatApe

Sapphire wrote: »

Yes, agree with this. I've just been reading a huge book about the history of Spitalfields, for example. It discusses, among other things, the Huguenot weavers who came to England in the late 1600s and 1700s to escape persecution in France. They did very well initially, setting up their weaving enterprises in their houses, and journeymen were paid decent wages. However, following the repeal of the acts in the early 1800s that granted protection to the weaving industry from cheaper foreign competition, the people living in the area quickly descended into abject poverty (real poverty, of the sort where 50 people plus, in different families, lived in a house in squalid conditions, and tried to scrape by in a variety of separate trades working from their homes). The conditions were terrible in the Victorian period and beyond, and there was no help for those who were unemployed or on very low wages (beyond some limited charitable aid that didn't do very much to improve their lives).

Even when there was wealth in the area, the childbirth conditions you mention prevailed, among the wealthy and poorer people alike, partly due to the terribly unsanitary conditions (cess pits in houses, open sewers, etc.). And throughout those times, women gave birth to huge numbers of children, with a very high mortality rate.

Such conditions cannot be imagined by many of those living in Britain today.

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