Anyone else in the same boat as me?

lieutenant_dan

So in other words, you'd still be outside the STANDARD 3 and a half times salary/mortgage multiple now, even for a flat, never mind 2 bed house.

Or is to be considered the the norm now, despite over the long term paying out a lot more for mortgage repayments, to take on mortgages in excess of 3 and a half times and up to six times the salary? (which you're bang in trouble for if prices do come down or interest rates increase)

Fact is, as you and many others on here seem to love the like for like comparisons, you would be on the outside too,unless you were prepared to take on a mortgage over the standard multiples (and WELL over standard for the 2 bed house)

That's all I needed to know.

guppy

I completely understand the OP's frustration, but I think it stems from the myth started by Thatcher in the '80s that home ownership is some kind of human right.

It's a reasonable enough sentiment to hold today, especially since a lot of people are now earning more than their home owning parents and grandparents were in real terms.

Having said that, if you go back to 1915, 90% of households in the UK rented privately. Most of them didn't have indoor plumbing either.

To avoid such frustration in future I think school leavers should be issued with a disclaimer along the following lines:

"Past performance is not a guide to what might happen in the future. Your standard of living as measured against historical standards can go down as well as up so you may get back less than your parents."

lieutenant_dan wrote: »

Rent a decent flat at the moment, earn a decent wage...

Having to rent might feel a bit rubbish, but in the hierarchy of human traumas that exist in this country alone, it really isn't so bad, certainly better than having to rent a rubbish flat on a decent wage.

So, go out and buy a plasma telly to cheer yourself up. If you already have one, you probably ain't saving hard enough.

Or, if you want it bad enough, and are an optimist, move somewhere cheap and awful and save up for the inevitable slump (Gordon was lying about boom and bust having been "abolished").

No point in getting wound up about it either way, life is too short. Old people might have had it easier buying houses, but they missed out on iPods, cars that work, the internet, not having to worry about Germans trying to drop bombs on us, takeaway pizza etc.

Reasonable trade.

jyonda

lieutenant_dan wrote: »

yeah right jyonda you clown, funny how I was contributing to this thread on a FRIDAY NIGHT instead of out clubbing! And didn't have a holiday at all last year, so much for your lame stereotyping.

Get a sense of humour Dan. I was being ironic.

But since you chose to be abusive.

Didn't have a holiday at all last year? Boo hoo.

Don't want to move away from London? Poor you.

Don't like shared accomadation? Get the violins out.

Kicking yourself for not saving/buying sooner? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

lieutenant_dan

Retracting my original apology jyonda.

That wasn't abusive either, that was quite scaled down.

And as I've already explained, house prices have been out of reach to me for years because the ratio of salary to prices was too much. So all the saving in the world wouldn't have got me there.

lieutenant_dan

guppy as has been touched on in countless other threads, ownership is not such an obsession elsewhere, largely because rentals are far more reasonable and tenants have more rights. You get stung twice over here if you can't buy, you can't afford to get your own home in the first place, then you're held to high rental ransoms purely through the need of having somewhere to live. It's not just about owning your own property, but also about not paying off someone else's mortgage and losing a lot of money to exorbitant rents that you'll never see again.

Unless, as in my OP, you are prepared to live a poor standard of living in bedsits etc purely because it's the cheapest, and then take on all the problems that entails, as have touched on in previous posts.

Even if house prices do fluctuate, and you end up in negative equity after the initial investment, you don't have to move, you can stay in the same property for the duration of the mortgage, by which time in all likelihood inflation and other market factors will see you alright anyway.

guppy

I completely agree...buying is more desirable, renting feels a bit rubbish. But then so is life for many people...what to do about it?

Those "lovely" right wing people at the Adam Smith Institute think that housing expectations have risen quicker than incomes. So they say, unless we are rich, we deserve to live in rat infested bedsits. I disagree.

Incidentally a lot of economists at the moment seem to be interested in what might happen when all the existing wealth starts "cascading" down the generations as people inherit housing wealth.

I think it might all be irrelevant as a correction seems inevitable.

WTF?_2

guppy wrote: »

No point in getting wound up about it either way, life is too short. Old people might have had it easier buying houses, but they missed out on iPods, cars that work, the internet, not having to worry about Germans trying to drop bombs on us, takeaway pizza etc.

Reasonable trade.

I'm not so sure that people did have it 'easier' way back in the past buying houses. Going from what those who have been through it have told me, there were a LOT of sacrifices involved in getting a house.

The thing is, council accommodation was much more freely available so the onus on getting a house of your own wasn't there - you had secure tenure in a modern, well maintained place at reasonable prices. Also, once Thatcher brought in the 'Right to buy' there was a bonanza of cheap homes to buy (at the expense of council stock of course). The right to buy scheme is the only reason why my parents could own their house.

It's only in the last 2-3 years that prices have gone truly la-la. And IMO that was just a transitory bubble that's about to burst and we'll see prices reduce to something more in line with realistic salary multiples in the coming few years.

The trouble is, there might not be as many people around with salaries to buy the houses the way things are looking :undecided

jyonda

lieutenant_dan wrote: »

And as I've already explained, house prices have been out of reach to me for years because the ratio of salary to prices was too much. So all the saving in the world wouldn't have got me there.

Keep telling yourself that Dan but I don't understand how someone your age with no dependants working as a contractor in the finance sector could not have saved up a nice wedge by now. Unless:

1. You p*ssed it away.
2. Your income was well below average.

You said it should be your RIGHT to own in the area you grew up in but this is not the case because NO-ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING. Probably working in finance and living in the London suburbs has raised your expectations a little too high as your peers have moved on and you haven't but who's fault is that exactly?
You've had some constructive advice from people, myself included but you just don't want to take it. Normally I wouldn't find myself agreeing with RunningHorse but you are saying "yeah but... yeah but" when Phirefly very nicely suggested that London might be your problem. You know buying in London is not the be all and end all of life. Yes it's ridiculous times in the Capitals housing market but that isn't news to anyone. If you'd have started saving 10 or even 5 years ago instead of brainwashing yourself into thinking it was pointless then you could have spent the money on...

1. Retraining in a useful skill in an industry not exclusive to London. Helicopter pilot was always my favourite way out!
2. Starting a business. Estate agent maybe?
3. Invested it in shares. Construction industry would have been one idea.
4. MOVE. Make new friends. Cut those apron strings. They have telephones elsewhere and you can still travel to visit friends and family.

Now, as I said before it's a totally different ball game if you'd had kids like Carolt or me and are trying to raise them and buy a house on 1 income but you're not. So really it's you who's holding yourself back and no-one else.

Stop looking for sympathy and move on.

lieutenant_dan

I've only been a contractor for under 2 years. Before then, I was working in the City (permanent) for just under the national average (whilst living in London and the above average house/rent prices) it may surprise you to know that not everyone working in the City get fat bonuses every year, wear braces, and are like the characters in Wall Street.

My income has only rocketed in the last couple of years, but I've had to leave the security of permanent employent/paid holidays in order for this to happen, and provided prices don't escalate, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel with sacrifices being made, in terms of securing a deposit. The point was in years gone by, when my salary was much less, it's wasn't practical or feasible to get a deposit together, no matter how hard I tried. It's been out of reach for ages.

So I already changed course a couple of years ago, and at least now it's attainable with quite a few cutbacks, it wasn't before.

What does having kids have to do with it? I can't bloody afford to have kids or give them somewhere decent to live!

You're totally missing the point. If I and many others can't support ourselves to a decent enough standard, how can we think of bringing others into the world? That argument's the wrong way round.

And I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm frustrated, but just reading this thread has shown there's people worse off than me, aswell as better off.

And I ignore yours and the like of Running Horse's advice because it's not logically sound.

jyonda

I'm aware of the City and those working in it. 40k is not big money. 20k is what the cleaners earn and not just below average. It's really not worth your while commuting and working all hours in the square mile for 40k as a contractor. Maybe Generali or Melissa know of some better paying jobs. Why not go to the Housing board meet up and do some networking?
Kids are a differnet kettle of fish because living near family/ old friends is a real benefit. That's why. Personally I think it's a big mistake to put off having kids for purely financial reasons but that's just me.

Ignoring sound advice sounds like ignorance. It's you who's not taking the point Dan.