Just had an offer accepted on a house - our deposit is smaller than we thought. Panicking.

MobileSaver

RHemmings said:

That information is much easier to find nowadays in no way compensates for the fact that houses are much less affordable than they were way back when.

It's not just that information is much easier to find, it's all the creature comforts we now have thanks to the progress we've made over the last few decades and those creature comforts of course come at a cost.

I honestly don't believe that many, if any, FTBers would give up all the amazing things we now take for granted just to get a cheaper house.

nicmyles

What creature comforts are you referring to? Internet costs are tiny. Consumer goods are not particularly expensive relative to salaries. The thing you appear to be missing is that, relative to *housing costs*, everyone earns significantly less these days. A much greater % of income goes on rent or mortgage payments. We are talking in this thread about people who, if they scrimp and save, can afford a house - there are many people in another category, ie those who even aggressive saving will not result in them being able to buy a home or upgrade to a better rental. And many of those people are in professions where that would have been a given in previous generations. The facts speak for themselves, the age at which people leave their parents' home is higher than ever.

No-one would say past generations had everything better. But in this one specific area (affordability of housing relative to salary), they did. They just did.

RHemmings

MobileSaver said:

RHemmings said:

That information is much easier to find nowadays in no way compensates for the fact that houses are much less affordable than they were way back when.

It's not just that information is much easier to find, it's all the creature comforts we now have thanks to the progress we've made over the last few decades and those creature comforts of course come at a cost.

I honestly don't believe that many, if any, FTBers would give up all the amazing things we now take for granted just to get a cheaper house.

You're bringing in other things other than the cost of housing into a conversation about whether houses are less affordable for young people than they were in previous generations. 

We're talking about affordability of housing and the situation of people now compared to their parents generation. If information is available about housing to be able to search for housing - then that's semi-relevant. But, if you start talking about 'amazing things we now take for granted' then this is getting too general and bringing in things that I don't see as relevant to the conversation. You started talking about things being tough for you buying a house when you were young and seemingly suggesting this showed that young people do not have it harder buying a house. But, now you are  talking about generic 'amazing things'. 

In a fairer world, housing would have remained as affordable as it was - as there is no real systemic reason for it not to - and the rest of the world would be as it is now. 

artyboy

RHemmings said:

I'm in the older generation and in many ways I had it much easier than young people nowadays. If I had bought a house in my 30s as is typical even now it would have been even easier. 

That information is much easier to find nowadays in no way compensates for the fact that houses are much less affordable than they were way back when. And that's even before things such as education no longer being free, so young people often have student loans etc. 

I'm certainly also in the older generation (at least in the context of this discussion) - my first property cost me 1.3x of my salary - ok it was a wreck of a repo, but it had 3 bedrooms, and I was able to sell it for 5x around 7 years later. I also got a grant to go to Uni.

Now fair to say I had a pretty good work ethic and was making decent part time money since I was 16, so all of that combined, despite some very questionable financial decisions along the way, has allowed me to be in the very secure position I am in now. Same basic story for Mrs Arty. And we've not personally benefitted from any generational wealth flowing down to us.

Which is why I'm not just able to, but more than happy to fund my children through Uni (I don't buy in to Martin's view that a student loan really isn't a proper loan - debt is debt), build them a savings nest egg, and help get them on the housing ladder.

This to me isn't parental indulgence, it's trying to level the playing fields between where they are now, and where I started out. They also have a good work ethic, so it's not like I'm just encouraging them to be lazy and feckless.

Maybe I'm just fortunate...

MobileSaver

nicmyles said:

No-one would say past generations had everything better. But in this one specific area (affordability of housing relative to salary), they did. They just did.

No-one disputes that house prices are higher than they were but you can't just take house prices in isolation. In the grand scheme of things life for pretty much everyone is simply better than it was.

RHemmings said:

You're bringing in other things other than the cost of housing into a conversation about whether houses are less affordable for young people than they were in previous generations.

Yes, of course, because you can't have one without the other.

RHemmings said:

In a fairer world, housing would have remained as affordable as it was - as there is no real systemic reason for it not to - and the rest of the world would be as it is now. 

Why would it be fairer for house prices to remain as affordable they were? Why should the younger generation have the benefit of all the technological advances that have cost so much money and effort over the last few decades and yet still be able to buy houses at 1990 prices?

I really don't see the logic in what you are saying? Do you also think it is unfair that the younger generation cannot buy Apple shares today at 1990 prices?

Millsandovis

You don’t have to go back that far though. You could buy a family home in my area of east London for 440k in 2007 that’s now worth 800k. I’d argue 440k was easily affordable for a young family with good jobs or people that grew up in the area for example but it’s impossible now. The only chance you stand now is inheritance or a really well paid job in the city. 

You used to be able to just work really hard to get on the property ladder whereas nowadays it’s almost impossible. If you have a ceiling in your wages/promotions at work you wont be able to afford a property in the city you were born and grew up in. 

 

nicmyles

MobileSaver said:

nicmyles said:

No-one would say past generations had everything better. But in this one specific area (affordability of housing relative to salary), they did. They just did.

No-one disputes that house prices are higher than they were but you can't just take house prices in isolation. In the grand scheme of things life for pretty much everyone is simply better than it was.

That's a different conversation entirely, this one is about housing. 

And the whole point is - it's not about taking house prices *in isolation*. It's about comparing the growth in them to wage growth - house prices have increased more than 2.5 times the rate of annual salaries over the past 30 years. So it is obviously a worse environment for younger people now trying to get on the housing ladder, because it would swallow a higher % of their income and for some swamp it completely, making it unaffordable, regardless of savings regime. 

Now, you could certainly say: but the increases in quality of life have been so substantial, that even having an extra **% of your salary taken up with housing costs and unavailable to be spent on other essentials or luxuries - even given that, quality of life for people coming of age today is *still better*. You could certainly say that, but I don't think there's a definitive answer, and I suspect *at best* it's zero sum game. How do you compare "the convenience of the internet" to "I can afford to go on holiday" in terms of quality of life benefit? You can't.

Millsandovis

Also, I’d argue being a young person now is one of the worse times to be alive in modern times. We’ve had two recessions, a global pandemic, 14 years of austerity, you can’t get an NHS appointment, everything is more expensive and on top of that you can’t get on the property ladder. I certainly wouldn’t swap growing up in the 90s/00s for growing up now even if I can get a Mcdonalds delivered in 15 minutes 

EssexHebridean

Millsandovis said:

You don’t have to go back that far though. You could buy a family home in my area of east London for 440k in 2007 that’s now worth 800k. I’d argue 440k was easily affordable for a young family with good jobs or people that grew up in the area for example but it’s impossible now. The only chance you stand now is inheritance or a really well paid job in the city. 

You used to be able to just work really hard to get on the property ladder whereas nowadays it’s almost impossible. If you have a ceiling in your wages/promotions at work you wont be able to afford a property in the city you were born and grew up in. 

 

When we bought in 2003 we had the option of buying something about the size of a shoebox in the area of East London where I'd been born and brought up, and always lived, or spending less money to buy something at least double the size about 20 miles out. We opted for the "move outside" option and with hindsight I am glad we did, but at the time it just felt brutally unfair. People being forced out of their home area in London is certainly not a recent thing at all, in my experience. 

nicmyles

EssexHebridean said:

Millsandovis said:

You don’t have to go back that far though. You could buy a family home in my area of east London for 440k in 2007 that’s now worth 800k. I’d argue 440k was easily affordable for a young family with good jobs or people that grew up in the area for example but it’s impossible now. The only chance you stand now is inheritance or a really well paid job in the city. 

You used to be able to just work really hard to get on the property ladder whereas nowadays it’s almost impossible. If you have a ceiling in your wages/promotions at work you wont be able to afford a property in the city you were born and grew up in. 

 

When we bought in 2003 we had the option of buying something about the size of a shoebox in the area of East London where I'd been born and brought up, and always lived, or spending less money to buy something at least double the size about 20 miles out. We opted for the "move outside" option and with hindsight I am glad we did, but at the time it just felt brutally unfair. People being forced out of their home area in London is certainly not a recent thing at all, in my experience. 

It's not at all, but the proportion of people in that situation has grown. The number in the sentence "if you're in the top xx% of household incomes, you've got no problem buying a house in London/wherever" has got smaller.