For those who think we had it easy...

guppy

seraphina wrote: »

People on under £20 000 a year aren't buying flat screen tellies and iPods all the time...

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+...

I think you must be more frugal than most, seraphina. Personally I don't have any doubt that people of all ages spend more money on "luxuries" than in the recent past. For example, who had expensive gym membership 20 years ago? Or a DVD collection? Or a contract mobile...

There must be some stats on this?

lieutenant_dan

There is another point to consider here re so called "luxuries"

A lot of these are very competitively priced now, and widely available for mass consumption. You can get a laptop for under £400 now, fly to Europe under £100 etc. You don't have to earn a fortune to buy these items. Also household items like washing machines/fridges, all cheaper than in years gone by. You can get a decent TV for under £300.

And if you're resourceful and use things like ebay you can save further.

Even clothes, you don't have to shop at Asda or Primark, you can pick up good quality clothes at knockdown prices if you know where to look.

What is distorting the value of money and what can be considered a "good" or "average" salary is house prices, not standard cost of living and the price of gadgets/flights etc.

Also re the DVD collection point, again much cheaper now. Downloading has distorted this market, and the CD market, to make it very reasonably priced for those who still wish to buy these items. I can remember in the 1980s when videos first came out, some were priced over £50 per pre recorded cassette!!

So all in all, you can have "luxuries" available to you at very little cost nowadays.

guppy

I agree entirely Dan, and I love my travel, PC, cds, hifi, eating out etc. for cheap...but it still all adds up...

I think houses and dentistry must be the only things that are more expensive than 10 years ago...

Lomion

lieutenant_dan wrote:

A lot of these are very competitively priced now, and widely available for mass consumption. You can get a laptop for under £400 now, fly to Europe under £100 etc. You don't have to earn a fortune to buy these items. Also household items like washing machines/fridges, all cheaper than in years gone by. You can get a decent TV for under £300.

Or you could decide to not get a laptop. Not fly to Europe and buy a cheap little black and white jobby for £20 and put the other £700 that you will have saved towards a deposit on that house you want

wymondham

when I moved out of my parents house 20 years ago at 16, I rented a room for £30 a week, and my wage was .... £30 a week! - The Council gave me a cheque every month for £25 to live on! - top that! :rolleyes:

lieutenant_dan

what are luxuries and what are necessities? Are computers a luxury or a necessity? I'd say in the current climate, the latter. You don't have a computer, you're not privy to the knowledge others get not through a level of intelligence, but simply by having access to a wider range of information.

Are mobile phones a luxury or a necessity? I'm not talking about those who run up £200+ bills per month, but purely for emergencies and to keep people informed if you're running late or for security reasons for women, again, an essential.

And re TVs, you could even get a decent one under £150, not widescreen, but still a good enough size.

In fact in this current climate, also with the internet (another reason making a computer essential) the consumer has never had it so good, no one ever has to pay full price for anything anymore, unless they choose to.

wifeforlife

Poppy9 wrote: »

Even 20 years ago a single mother would not been able to afford to buy her own home even if WFTC & CTC had been available to her. 20 years ago a single parent taking home £511 per month after tax would have either had to live at home with parents/share a property with another person, get maintenance from the child's father or live on benefits as there was nothing to top up the income.

I wouldnt mind paying rent on a HA property knowing the security it would bring, my point being that although I am a single parent (through no choice of my own, I'd love to have a partner) I dont have any choice.

The choices are all taken away from me. It's not my choice to be living in a rented property, it's not my choice not to be living with my parents and it's not my choice not to be able to buy and not to qualify for coucil housing.

If I give up my job yes I can get income support and I will qualify for a council property, but I have morals, I have a conscience, and I have dignity.

I dont mind taking criticism and I have to say I am very happy in my rented property and have a great landlord (who has a property profile of approx 70).

The problem I have is people telling me how easy it is and that I'm lazy and I should save, oh and the people reinforcing that their mortgage payments are half my rent, cheers people let me get you a blue peter badge

Poppy, I'm not directing at you, it's just your posts most resemble what I listen to everyday, I know you see both sides of the coin

Cate

seraphina

guppy wrote: »

I think you must be more frugal than most, seraphina. Personally I don't have any doubt that people of all ages spend more money on "luxuries" than in the recent past. For example, who had expensive gym membership 20 years ago? Or a DVD collection? Or a contract mobile...

There must be some stats on this?

Thank you - frugal sounds so much nicer than tight!:rotfl:Don't know where my thanks button has gotten to these days.

As for luxuries - they certainly are much cheaper than they used to be, and habits are changing. You can easily pick up a movie dvd for less than a fiver these days - whilst a dvd may seem like an extravagance/luxury still, the actual cost isn't very much at all, unless you buy them every day - which I don't think many people do. Social habits have changed as well - certainly my contemporaries wouldn't go to the pub as often as my parents would but we'd spend more time in other people's homes, for example. What I'm trying to say is that people might not think much of buying a bottle of wine as a treat even when they're being careful with money, but a dvd still feels a bit more luxurious.

And fair enough, your average TV may be £300 cheaper, or your white goods x% cheaper, but do people really buy enough of these to make the saving worthwhile over a long period of time?


Poppyk - the plural of anecdote is not evidence:rolleyes: Whilst I'm pleased for your nephew who's able to get a foot on the ladder - the effective salary is nearly 30K as he's not buying alone and there's certainly nowhere near here where you could buy a 2 bed property of any description for under £100K! I don't think anyone is disputing that sacrifices have to be made to get a foot on the ladder no matter where you buy, or that those sacrifices may make siginificant changes to your lifestyle, but that even with those sacrifices it's still nigh on impossible to buy a place of your own. And when you do manage to buy, you'll still be spending a record level of your take home salary on mortgage payments.

And when people are university bashing, please remember that for every "freeloader" who you perceive to be going to university solely to spend three years borrowing a wodge of cash to drink it all away, there is a potential doctor, nurse, teacher or other professional who will ultimately go on to hugely benefit society but who now has to pay several thousand pounds a year for the priviledge.

TTMCMschine

People are also forgetting, often it's cheaper to buy new. Clothes are the example. It is cheaper to buy new than second hand in a lot of cases, i don't agree with this in theory it shouldn't be.

In regards to people being picky about rough areas. A lot of places which were poorer a few years back were respectable areas. They were kept nicely and people though they had little looked after them. These same places are places of murders, rapes, drug dealers, attacks. A friend of mine while pregnant had some random nutter come into her house and beat her with a baseball bat. I can tell you, having lived somewhere where you had to tread carefully because of all the hyperdemic needles in my yard, and other various dodgy places in the past that i feel if people shun these areas it's not because they're fussy, it's because they're dangerous places to live. I consider myself lucky, but i had some very scary moments, i'm sure if my mum found out she'd have been horrified.

I bet you wouldn't live in these places in a million years. Worse still you expect people to live in them, and still pay through the nose for the priviledge?

You can't have it both ways. you'll admit society is worse, but expect us to live in some dangerous places, because you think it's the same as when you lived in your little run down area.

Poppy9

lieutenant_dan wrote: »

what are luxuries and what are necessities? Are computers a luxury or a necessity? I'd say in the current climate, the latter. You don't have a computer, you're not privy to the knowledge others get not through a level of intelligence, but simply by having access to a wider range of information.

you can use them free in libraries. My MIL manages without one:p

lieutenant_dan wrote:

Are mobile phones a luxury or a necessity? I'm not talking about those who run up £200+ bills per month, but purely for emergencies and to keep people informed if you're running late or for security reasons for women, again, an essential.

but it's always old people who have the old fashioned phones that they use for 'essential' calls while the younger people have the newer models and are constantly texting!

lieutenant_dan wrote:

And re TVs, you could even get a decent one under £150, not widescreen, but still a good enough size.

and you only need one, but most people have more than 1!

lieutenant_dan wrote:

In fact in this current climate, also with the internet (another reason making a computer essential) the consumer has never had it so good, no one ever has to pay full price for anything anymore, unless they choose to.

but there is so much more peer pressure on people to have things.

As a child I had two pairs of shoes at time. Best/school shoes and playing shoes. In addition I would have black plimsols, flip flops and maybe wellies.
My DD (12) has school shoes, black dolly shoes, silver dolly shoes, pink dolly shoes, DC trainers (fashion), Reebok trainers (for exercise), fashion boots, 4 pairs of flip flops and pink floral wellies. Madness when I see it written down. She chooses to spend some of her pocket/birthday money on these items. She was going to spend £100 on a PAYG mobile but I had a Dialaphone contract one for her for £5 per month as it's better value.