Will the next generation be able to buy their own house?

marcmc84

wages are crap and too low, need to dramatically rise (doubtful) we live in rip of Britain so no i dont think they will be able to buy. greed has got us here.

RelievedSheff

marcmc84 wrote: »

wages are crap and too low, need to dramatically rise (doubtful) we live in rip of Britain so no i dont think they will be able to buy. greed has got us here.

That certainly isn't true for all areas.

There are areas of the country where buying your first home is well within the reach of first time buyers.

The-Joker

marcmc84 wrote: »

wages are crap and too low, need to dramatically rise (doubtful) we live in rip of Britain so no i dont think they will be able to buy. greed has got us here.

Which seems more likely- property comes down or wages go up to meet elevated property?

Zero_Sum

Cakeguts wrote: »

Why? I can't see why that government building has to be in the capital? If you are really serious about reducing polution and CO2 you don't continue to use a building that is too big and difficult to heat and is all down one end of the country. Now on leaving the EU would be a good time to build something for the future in the middle of the country. A building that meets all the new energy ratings that modern office buildings are required to meet. You could also build in better security.

The whole point of a capital city is where the government sit. Unless of course you're suggesting we move the capital to somewhere else? Or have more than 1 like south africa.

The-Joker

Zero_Sum wrote: »

The whole point of a capital city is where the government sit. Unless of course you're suggesting we move the capital to somewhere else? Or have more than 1 like south africa.

Most countries have several big cities that are similar

I’m only has London and nothing else near it. Then other smaller cities

HS1 and The other high sped trains should lower property in London a more people move away and still commute in every day

cjdew

I think the main issue is what is classed as a luxury has changed. Eating out many times a week, including buying lunch is the norm. I am 31 and am one of few people I know on our second house.

Friends living in rented, house share, parents all have one thing in common- they don't save or sacrifice the cinema subscription, the meals, minimum two holidays a year,the drinks, clothes etc. One friend worked out if for 2 years he cut out/down 75% of those things he would have 20% deposit in South England. But....he couldn't be bothered with the lifestyle change. I just now hold my breath when they all winge.

Malthusian

Charjohndew wrote: »

Friends living in rented, house share, parents all have one thing in common- they don't save or sacrifice the cinema subscription, the meals, minimum two holidays a year,the drinks, clothes etc. One friend worked out if for 2 years he cut out/down 75% of those things he would have 20% deposit in South England. But....he couldn't be bothered with the lifestyle change. I just now hold my breath when they all winge.

And it's a perfectly reasonable decision as most of South England is horrible. Booze, regular escapist films and two flights to somewhere nice per year are required to make it tolerable.

Plenty of people spent all their income fifty years ago as well, but a bottle of Blue Nun and a trip to Blackpool was considered a luxury to spend it on.

Cakeguts

Charjohndew wrote: »

I think the main issue is what is classed as a luxury has changed. Eating out many times a week, including buying lunch is the norm. I am 31 and am one of few people I know on our second house.

Friends living in rented, house share, parents all have one thing in common- they don't save or sacrifice the cinema subscription, the meals, minimum two holidays a year,the drinks, clothes etc. One friend worked out if for 2 years he cut out/down 75% of those things he would have 20% deposit in South England. But....he couldn't be bothered with the lifestyle change. I just now hold my breath when they all winge.

They would probably all end up having their properties repossessed if they bought anyway because they wouldn't have the savings to pay the mortgage if they got ill or lost their job. People who can't not spend are always going to be better off in rented. People who are good at managing their income and can budget are better off buying. The build to rent companies are building properties suitable for the people you know who will always have to rent.

Zero_Sum

The-Joker wrote: »

Most countries have several big cities that are similar

I’m only has London and nothing else near it. Then other smaller cities

HS1 and The other high sped trains should lower property in London a more people move away and still commute in every day

Dont think that will lower property prices. Even if it does, its still keeping the money in London which is the issue

The-Joker

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Dont think that will lower property prices. Even if it does, its still keeping the money in London which is the issue

High speed trains will mean many people will be able to commute into work from far away and will free up a lot of property in and around London

How could this not lower prices?