For those who think we had it easy...

Running_Horse

jyonda wrote: »

So only 16 years ago you could buy a house for the same price as 30 odd washer dryers. Now it would be about 300.

You have Chinese peasant labour to thank for that fact.

lieutenant_dan

I generally agree that the cultural mindset is buy now pay later etc, etc, but in terms of house prices, this is an entirely seperate argument altogether. Too many simpletons on here comparing everything like for like.

I don't deny that previous generations had to make sacrifices to get a deposit. But just look at iamstacie's post for all you need to know. Parents a checkout assistant and a driver for a bakery, made sacrifices etc to get a 3 bed house! They would not be able to get a one bed flat now with the equivalent salary and house prices, no matter how hard they saved. The salaries would not cover the standard mortgage multiples, and it would be nigh on impossible to even get the required deposit together.

Why are people being obtuse on this subject, is it deliberate? Most of us not on the ladder are looking at flats, not houses, because that's all that can be afforded. The figures don't add up in this current climate for average or below average earners.

I know many from previous generations, postmen, butchers etc sitting in 3 bed houses. If they were growing up in this generation instead, where do you think they'd be sitting in 30 years time? Not in accomodation of that type, that's for sure.

Pobby

I have been a house owner for over 30 years,yet I do think it is a lot harder for first time buyers .When we bought there was massive wage inflation.Within 2 years my salary of £120 per month increased to £400 due to promotion and wage inflation.That alone took care of the debt.

Folks,we are on the peak of an insane bubble in the housing market that has kept going through fear,greed,mad,sorry,creative lending ``products``

Wish i knew where this BS is going to end up but looking at what is happening in the USA gives some indication.

I understand that many are finding this whole affair frustrating and by no means would I want to pay rent to some Johny-come-lately landlord for sub-standard housing without no security.I agree it is all a mess but markets always,always sort them selves out!

Poppy9

TTMCMschine wrote: »

Ii am not willing to buy a house because they simply aren't worth it. It is far cheaper to rent and save (and no i don't have a credit card, any debt, or go on flash holidays - in fact i only just got a passpart this year for the first time and i'm 31. These hardship stories of how you could only have potatoes and gravy for six weeks because you had no money - you think this is a good thing? A house is worth losing sleep everynight when you don't know where you're going to find the money?

For me personally buying a house when young is a good thing. The first few years were very tough and we aspired to a better house in a better area, with better schools etc. We are now just 2 years away from being mortgage free. It means for the last few years we've had a lot, lot more disposable income to enable us to spend more on leisure activities. I look at my elderly relatives who bought their former council homes (albeit at a discount). For 20 years they have been free from paying rent which has saved them thousands. House prices are pushed up because demand is there. The demand is driven by buyers, buyers who want it now and don't care what it costs. A house is only worth what someone will pay and we have raised a generation who don't care what it costs, they want it.

TTMCMschine wrote:

And those of you who think second hand is a thing of the past? Yes, guess what i have second hand furniture and hand me down clothes! My washing machine, freezer and most of my furniture are second hand.

based on my younger work colleagues and family members you are the exception, not the rule. When I was younger it was the other way around.

TTMCMschine wrote:

Cheap white goods are not a good thing either. Look how long some of your expensive white goods have lasted. Cheap things break, and we have turned into a throw away nation. It is sad that we think it is better to throw something away than have it fixed.

couldn't agree more and even paying more doesn't guarantee quality now (thinking of my lousy Bosch washing machine that lasted barely 2 years)

YTTMCMschine wrote:

Yes house prices have always been a lot, but there are times when in relation to anything else, the value is too expensive - this is now without a doubt.

House prices will only fall when people stop buying. Perhaps we need a national campaign to of "just say no to house buying" to stop demand and the market will self correct.

TTMCMschine wrote:

BTW whoever complained about young people being rude - you think it's only the younger generation who are rude, and that being rude is some recent thing that's only happened - you ought to meet some of the elderly people i've worked with - rude is an understatement, never once provoked. I've been sworn at, hit and spat at. They didn't learn that on the streets recently did they? I've met some pretty rude nasty middleaged people in my time as well. Road rage etc.

That was me:p . Generally young people have little respect and little self discipline. I have been amazed at the way young children have spoken to teachers in school. The language of younger people is often foul. You hear it everwhere, which you don't generally hear from the older generation. I've yet to hear one middle-aged or old biddy say to another in the supermarket "F' off, I'm not buying that, it#s F'ing minging":D . I know old people can be rude, but they will only do it to people they can get away with. Generally in public they are on best behaviour. Road rage or any temper tantrums have always existed but there is a difference to be agressively rude and disrespectful 100% of the time. My post was really referring to Zebedee69. Was there any need to start off his post calling people Wallies? Was there any need to say how as a NHS worker he would pick and choose who he helped? Was there any need to tell fellow :money: that he hated them?

TTMCMschine wrote:

You'd think you were a bunch of war veterans the way you all go on.

and some youngsters think they are hard done-by because they can't have what they want, when they want. Parents have to take some of the blame as they have encouraged their children to have all the things they wished for when they were younger. i.e. I don't want to see my DD buying/living in a run down home just to get on the property ladder. I don't want to see her driving a car that has seen better days (or even years) so no doubt I will help her out. I don't know if it's the right thing to do but I have tried to teach her the value of money throughout her life so she doesn't end up living in debt her whole life. Some children are just given so much by their parents though. Last week DD went to town with her friends. They each took £10 (2 weeks pocket money for DD)so they could go to the cinema and get something to eat later. However one girl took £90 and got money out of her bank account:eek: . They are 12!!

Lavendyr

Running_horse, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I am a FTB in today's climate. However, I would agree with a lot more, did I not feel that you make such huge and sweeping generalisations about people in my situation, when you post. Please don't take this the wrong way, as it is intended firmly with tongue-in-cheek, but you can come across like a bit of a grump, sitting there saying "in my day we didn't sweat, we BLED, and what's more, WE LIKED IT!" - and I'm sorry, but that puts me right off wanting to agree with anything you say, because you imply that no one who dares voice a complaint about house prices has any right to complain, because if they worked as hard as you did, they could afford a house. In many cases today, that is just not true.

However, I do agree in essence that some people could, if that was their priority, buy a house, and I am one of those people myself. If my OH and I wanted to own property, we could - we are earning good salaries (£50k between us) and have no debt aside from student debt. We could buy a small flat, we could overpay on our mortgage even, we could put all our efforts towards that. But we choose not to, because we see what the market is doing and while the market is so uncertain, there is no point in "just getting on the ladder" - because if house prices do go down, we would not be able to move up. As we are, we are able to save far more towards a deposit, and therefore plan to borrow less when we do choose to buy. It is costing us less to rent and save than it would cost us to borrow that additional money and pay interest on it. It may have made sense in the past to buy whatever you could and get on the ladder however you can, but I cannot see how that can possibly make financial sense today.

ginger_nuts

My first house cost me £17,000 in 1991, it was resold this year for £140,000

My present house cost me £39,000 ten years ago ,it now worth £185,000 .

If I was a ftb today ,I couldnt afford either house .

BrandNewDay

reformedEffortMaker wrote: »

Zebedee69

I think you have been a bit out of order to the OP. I agree its harder to get on the ladder now, but it is not impossible.

I personally think that a lot of people have spent so much time watching Sarah Beeny and Phil/Kirstie that they will not settle for anything other than a semi detached victorian with original features close to good school, station, pub, shops, with room for a loft extension and a post code to shout about

Its all about compromising. I am sure, even on a technician or paramedic wage you could afford something in the UK if you compromised?

I would agree with this. OK, it's true that paramedics who work in London have a hard time of it - that's an extreme and ridiculous situations. Otherwise, you can make compromises in most situations.

We were renting a three-bedroom with a huge garden and a gorgeous view of Loch Fyne and a 20 minute commute to my husband's job. We have bought a two-bedroom mid-terrace ex-council house in a cruddy estate, and my husband now has a one hour commute. We decided that it was worth it to us to own our home, so we made sacrifices. A few people up in Argyll said some rather stupid things, but they were all either some of the lucky few housed by the council, or they were able to buy a home up there. If they wrinkled their noses at our decision, I just shrugged and said, "Well, it's what we can afford and we don't want to live above our means."

To OUR thinking, paying rent for a view was living beyond our means. We can't afford that house. We needed to be realistic about who we were and what we could afford.

seraphina

The key thing is, when people are talking about people on poor wages (checkout staff, delivery drivers) scrimping and saving 20 years ago to buy a house, is that they *could* buy a house with scrimping and saving. Today's low paid staff have no way of buying a house, no matter how much scrimping and saving they do. People on under £20 000 a year aren't buying flat screen tellies and iPods all the time - and no matter how many cutbacks you make, if house prices are rising £20 000 per annum, if you're on a salary of £20 000 a year, there is *no way* you are ever going to be able to come up with a decent sized deposit. You can't cut back what's already pared to the bone.

It's today's young professionals that are struggling to get on the ladder - people earning good money and saving - people in poorly paid jobs can't even begin to think about getting on the ladder.

And where are all these young people spending cash? Or are you just repeating what you've read in the Daily Mail? Certainly none of my peers are extravagant in the manner you seem to believe- most of our furniture comes from ebay, or at a push, ikea, we bring packed lunches to work, we drive old bangers or cycle to work etc. In my experience, the people flashing their cash in John Lewis at the weekend, or jetting off on cheap flights for weekend breaks, are all at least 40+...

seven-day-weekend

I posted a few posts ago about our hosebuying experiences in the early 70s.

Now our son is a similar age to us when we bought our house, he is on a minimum wage job and he cannot afford to rent a place on his own, let alone buy one.

So yes, although we had to scrimp and go without, I think houses were more affordable then. I do also think however, that we were prepared to make do with far less in comsumer goods/holidays/lifestyle choices than many people of today.

We were also prepared to look in a less than top-flight areas. You can get a nice two-bedroom flat round our way for £100k and a three-bed mid-terrace for £130k (I realise that these will still be out of the reach of many). But move two miles up the road and you can add £100k onto the price. Many people will not even consider less 'desirable' areas and I think that this prices many people out.

However, all in all I think houses are less affordable now than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. But I do think if people lowered their sights a bit many more could afford something.

lieutenant_dan

spot on seraphina.

To be blunt a lot of this stuff about squandering money on clubbing, designer clothes, plasma screens etc is downright insulting. These people don't live in the real world at all.

As if average/below average earners have much disposable cash anyway after paying out on high rents. The point lost on these dinosaurs is that many are scrimping and saving already JUST TO SURVIVE, never mind to save for a deposit.

Think you're wasting your time debating with some of the people on here, clueless.