Have the last 20yrs been more difficult to buy a property?

triathlon

It's funny how the opening post wanted to use the benchmark "last 20 years". That just so happens to be around the time when several high profile websites opened, give a take a few years, and started preaching about the inevitable property crash that was moments away.

I cannot help think some people are now trying to justify their terrible mistake waiting all this time, even sniggering at people who got on the ladder all those years ago and who are now all mortgage free

The-Joker

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Home ownership is falling and average age to buy first property is increasing.

There will be plenty of opinions here based on house prices, interest rates etc but the reality is that home ownership remains a priority for most but the ability to achieve that is decreasing.

The answer is therefore categorically yes.

The answer to if property is overvalued compared to everything else is categorically yes

RelievedSheff

The-Joker wrote: »

The answer to if property is overvalued compared to everything else is categorically yes

In your opinion maybe.

Others would tend to disagree.

The-Joker

RelievedSheff wrote: »

In your opinion maybe.

Others would tend to disagree.

I was quoting the poster above

RelievedSheff

triathlon wrote: »

It's funny how the opening post wanted to use the benchmark "last 20 years". That just so happens to be around the time when several high profile websites opened, give a take a few years, and started preaching about the inevitable property crash that was moments away.

I cannot help think some people are now trying to justify their terrible mistake waiting all this time, even sniggering at people who got on the ladder all those years ago and who are now all mortgage free

This one????

Cakeguts

No it hasn't actually go any harder. What has happened is that more people feel more entitled to have everything they want when they want it.



In the 60s and 70s people didn't move to areas where their salaries wouldn't cover the costs of living in the area. They did research first. This was before the internet so you would think that it would now be easier for people taking jobs in expensive areas on low salaries but higher than they can get where they work now to be able to find out quicker that they are going to be poorer and unable to buy a house on a higher salary in the South East.



People who are happy with their house buying do not complain. The media only reports complainers. This makes it appear that most people cannot afford to buy a house but most of those are people who have moved to the South East to take up jobs that people in the South East don't want because the salaries are too low. Someone working in London is unlikely to take a pay drop to move to Newcastle even though the lower salary in Newcastle would give them a much bigger disposable income and allow them to buy a house. It seems to be based on some sort of entitlement to have what you want where you want it without putting in any effort.



It seems that people are more prepared to move to the South East from another part of the country than from the South East. This is not just down to availability of jobs it seems to be a sort of odd kind of mindset.



Many young people do not want to put in any effort to buy a house. They want to have the holidays, new cars and be able to buy lots of things.



If people are not good at putting in effort to buy it is better for them not to buy because they are the ones most in danger of being repossessed.



Many young people could afford to buy a house if they applied the "do you need it" phrase to anything that they are thinking of buying. This applies to young people who buy cars but live in an area with good public transport. For example if you live in London and work in London there is no point in owning a car if you are saving for a house. Public transport is good and even if you have a car there is not going to be anywhere to park it at the end of your journey. This will also apply to many other towns and cities in the UK. The only place where you are likely to need a car is in a rural area. Yet car ownership has risen as people have moved to towns and cities.



Fast fashion, new cars and new gadgets advertising is aimed at people under the age of 35. This is because they are the main consumers of the latest gadgets, high priced mobile phones, and cars. People who respond to the advertising and buy all these consumer goods are the ones who then complain that they can't afford to buy a house. Most of what they buy is on credit so they can't get a mortgage.

Thrugelmir

triathlon wrote: »

It's funny how the opening post wanted to use the benchmark "last 20 years". That just so happens to be around the time when several high profile websites opened, give a take a few years, and started preaching about the inevitable property crash that was moments away.

1996 was when Bradford & Bingley first copied the US lenders in securitising debt. A concept that then was taken to the extreme by Northern Rock. Both within just over a decade were Nationalised. Still living with the consequences to this day.

Splatfoot

In certain areas it is harder. I bought my first property in Hove in 1997 for £32,700, a 1 bedroom flat. It was last sold in 2018 for £225,000. If I was a 24 year old now working in Brighton, doing what I was doing back then, there is no way my salary would cover that,

Cakeguts

Splatfoot wrote: »

In certain areas it is harder. I bought my first property in Hove in 1997 for £32,700, a 1 bedroom flat. It was last sold in 2018 for £225,000. If I was a 24 year old now working in Brighton, doing what I was doing back then, there is no way my salary would cover that,

You have to factor in the change in areas. If you are saying that there is nowhere that you could now buy a flat on the equivalent salary while working in Brighton in the local area then that is one argument but if the area where you bought in 1997 has for some reason become more popular and so has then become more expensive than it used to be because property is more in demand there then that is a different reason for you not being able to afford to buy there now.



There is this. If your salary then with interest rates the way they are now would have paid for this now https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-85637450.html The problem is that areas alter too. Some areas go up and some go down in relation to the prices in a particular area. There has been a shift towards town and city living so in some areas properties in more rural areas have become relatively cheaper than they were and properties in the centre of towns and cities have become more expensive.



https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-62898171.html This is Wembley Park. This is also Wembley Park. https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67134969.html. These flats are really quite close to each other a short walk but look at the difference in price. I could understand if someone said that they couldn't afford the first one but could they also not afford the second one? London has never been cheap. It wasn't affordable in the 1960s.

AG47

The-Joker wrote: »

Take an average tradesmen like a plumber, electrician or builder, with a wife who is not working and 2.4kids.

In the 80s and 90s he could get a mortgage with a small deposit no problem and buy an average starter home with no real difficulty m

Nowadays he needs HTB and he needs his wife to be working full time because it’s so much more difficult or another way to say it property is overvalued at the moment.

Property has always gone from overvalued to undervalued and then back again.

The perma prop bulls try to say this cycle has ended and it will remain overvalued forever.

The way to tell what part of the cycle we are in is how hard .org easy it is for average people to buy a house.