And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..

[Haggisman]

Because opportunities don't fall from the sky for most people. Their side projects suddenly don't become twice as lucrative as their main job, and their job doesn't put them on a path to acquire skills that are worth 2x in the market. You'd have to be incredibly fortunate for this to happen to you.

Nonsense. I changed jobs 4 years ago, and while I haven't quite doubled my earnings in those 4 years, I'm over 50% higher than where I was before, in a job I enjoy more which is closer to home, however to get here, I worked my **** off for a couple of years prior to develop my VB.NET & C# skills in my "spare" time (what little there was trying to also juggle working full time and a young child), and then applied for an internal junior position which involved being seconded to a customer's site 40 miles/~1.5hrs away (compared to the 15 mins on the bike to the company's office). It then took me several weeks of applying, and 4-5 interviews before I got the current position (which initially involved a pay cut during my probation period).

Tell me again about those opportunities falling from the sky?

Surely if most people aks themselves the question "can I earn more money" the answer must be yes - it's more a question of commitment to it surely?

Absolutely. There's nothing stopping anyone learning a new skill in their spare time or doing a distance learning course to learn new skills and gain qualifications.

 

[dowie]

People either need to spend less or earn more if they want on the ladder - otherwise your just waiting for a huge house price correction that may never come (and probably isn't in the best interest of the majority). Even if it takes someone 10 years plus to save a deposit it's got to be worth it.

People have been posting on forums like this about prices in the housing market being "too high" and a crash coming soon for nearly 20 years it seems, I remember reading the same sorts of posts as a teenager.

Of course we did have a crash just over 10 years ago - didn't turn out to be some magical gift for all the moaners though and prices then came back.

 

[MikeTheNative]

So the solution to continued house price rises is for people to just earn more money?
That's some forward thinking there.

 

[The Running Man]

So the solution to continued house price rises is for people to just earn more money?
That's some forward thinking there.

Or trash house prices and put everyone who already bought (recently) into negative equity.

Awesome!

 

[Haggisman]

So the solution to continued house price rises is for people to just earn more money?
That's some forward thinking there.

That's the solution for the individual, yes.

On a larger scale, then reducing the population and building more houses is the only solution - simple supply & demand.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Or trash house prices and put everyone who already bought (recently) into negative equity.

Awesome!

That's not the only other option though is it?
Really seems odd that people don't see the stupid house prices as a problem or simply shrug their shoulders at it. I suppose it's the 'i'm alright jack' way of thinking.

 

[Haggisman]

That's not the only other option though is it?
Really seems odd that people don't see the stupid house prices as a problem or simply shrug their shoulders at it. I suppose it's the 'i'm alright jack' way of thinking.

How do you reconcile the 2 though?

House prices drop - People who have bought in the last X years get ****ed.
House prices don't drop - people who don't want to pay current prices get ****ed.

Either way, someone is going to get ****ed.

 

[Usher]

So the solution to continued house price rises is for people to just earn more money?
That's some forward thinking there.

Perhaps the estate valuers are to blame?, a house has to be valued in order to put it up for sale, they look at recent sales of similar properties in the local area and then bump the price up

 

[Haggisman]

Perhaps the estate valuers are to blame?, a house has to be valued in order to put it up for sale, they look at recent sales of similar properties in the local area and then bump the price up

Or the people buying the houses? If everyone wants to live somewhere and there's limited supply, then the person with the deepest pockets is going to get the house. Are we going to pass legislation which says a house can only be sold for X in relation to the previous sale value of surrounding similar house?

If the most expensive house on a street last sold for £250k, then from now on, no other house on the street can be sold for more than £250k?

 

[MikeTheNative]

How do you reconcile the 2 though?

House prices drop - People who have bought in the last X years get ****ed.
House prices don't drop - people who don't want to pay current prices get ****ed.

Either way, someone is going to get ****ed.

I'm not sure what your on about. It's not like it's going to be government policy of 'from this date your houses will be worth £50,000 less'

One thing they can do which will help is to reign in the house builders who have basically doing what they want. Appealing all the local planning permission and getting it overturned in Westminster then proceeding to build a load of 4 bed detached houses. The joke that is 'affordable housing', which they don't need meet the targets of anyway, needs to be replaced with something that actual penalises builders for not making homes affordable for first time buyers.

 

[Haggisman]

I'm not sure what your on about. It's not like it's going to be government policy of 'from this date your houses will be worth £50,000 less'

One thing they can do which will help is to reign in the house builders who have basically doing what they want. Appealing all the local planning permission and getting it overturned in Westminster then proceeding to build a load of 4 bed detached houses. The joke that is 'affordable housing', which they don't need meet the targets of anyway, needs to be replaced with something that actual penalises builders for not making homes affordable for first time buyers.

If you don't build bigger houses then where are all the previous generation of FTB going to move to when they want to move out of their affordable FTB home? I agree we need a mix. I also agree we need to do something about predatory landlords snapping up all of the lower end of the market, but it needs to be done carefully so that the previous generation of FTB don't end up getting shafted when a load of affordable 2 bedroom houses get built across the street, wiping out 50% of the value of their house overnight, otherwise your example of 'from this date your houses will be worth £50,000 less' is exactly what will happen.

 

[The Running Man]

Don't 1 bedroom flats in London already go for 200k?

 

[FoxEye]

People either need to spend less or earn more if they want on the ladder - otherwise your just waiting for a huge house price correction that may never come (and probably isn't in the best interest of the majority). Even if it takes someone 10 years plus to save a deposit it's got to be worth it.

This only works for a few tho.

If everybody suddenly found a way to earn more money, all that would happen is prices would increase.

The problem is as I've said - the market does not cater for all. The market is broken because it caters for those with a good income and not those on lower pay.

It's like saying that only the top 60% of earners can afford to eat. If you want to eat, just earn more.

The market should cater for the low earners, but for various reasons (including too much BTL), it doesn't.

 

[MikeTheNative]

If you don't build bigger houses then where are all the previous generation of FTB going to move to when they want to move out of their affordable FTB home? I agree we need a mix. I also agree we need to do something about predatory landlords snapping up all of the lower end of the market, but it needs to be done carefully so that the previous generation of FTB don't end up getting shafted when a load of affordable 2 bedroom houses get built across the street, wiping out 50% of the value of their house overnight.

I'm not saying don't build 3/4 bed houses. Under current rules affordable housing is meant to be just 10% of the development but most house builders aren't even hitting that target but they don't need to when there is seemingly no penalty for them not doing so.

 

[Haggisman]

I'm not saying don't build 3/4 bed houses. Under current rules affordable housing is meant to be just 10% of the development but most house builders aren't even hitting that target but they don't need to when there is seemingly no penalty for them not doing so.

Except the previous FTB won't be able to afford those 3/4 bedroom houses. Because their £200k 2 bedroom house is now an £80k 2 bedroom house because a load of brand new £100k 2 bedroom houses have just been built across the road and they still owe £120k on the mortgage.

So you end up with a load of empty bigger houses that no one can afford (except BTL landlords who'll snap them up and rent them out by the room), a load of families who want/need a bigger house but can't afford it and are now stressed and worried because they are £40k in negative equity, a few more affordable houses, but no real increase in housing stock because the houses which would have been available to new FTB are occupied by aforementioned stressed and worried families who can't afford to move out of them. Sounds ideal

 

[FoxEye]

If you don't build bigger houses then where are all the previous generation of FTB going to move to when they want to move out of their affordable FTB home? I agree we need a mix. I also agree we need to do something about predatory landlords snapping up all of the lower end of the market, but it needs to be done carefully so that the previous generation of FTB don't end up getting shafted when a load of affordable 2 bedroom houses get built across the street, wiping out 50% of the value of their house overnight, otherwise your example of 'from this date your houses will be worth £50,000 less' is exactly what will happen.

The trend for rental is increasing and increasing. That alone tells a story, doesn't it.

As does the increasing average age of people living with parents.

Also the fact that a large share of the lower end is owned by BTL.

Some people are absolutely making bank from the present situation - this is undeniable.

The problem isn't purely of "low earners can't afford x". It's also "higher earners see low earners as a way to bolster their own revenue, thus making the situation worse for the low earners and cementing the high earner position at the top".

And the advice from the high earners to the low earners? "If you can't beat me, join me. Just earn more and start exploiting those below you. It's easy!"

 

[Lopéz]

Because opportunities don't fall from the sky for most people. Their side projects suddenly don't become twice as lucrative as their main job, and their job doesn't put them on a path to acquire skills that are worth 2x in the market. You'd have to be incredibly fortunate for this to happen to you.

Nothing fell from the sky for me either.

I got assigned to the project because I was the best person for the job and displayed the right attitude. Out of the 30 of us picked to run the project (all from different countries)
I was the only one who chose to take an interest in it as a specialism and use my time on the project to become the subject matter expert.
I was the only one who did the suggested extra curricular learning.
I was the only one who looked for a mentor from our project implementation partner to increase my knowledge and seek career advice.

I made myself the go-to guy and in-house expert, and when I felt I knew enough I marketed myself in that field and secured a well paid position.

Everyone else just did their job, did what they "had" to do, and implemented the project. I did more.

I'm not fortunate, I put myself in the right position through my own efforts, and capitalised on that when the time was right with more of the same.

You make your own "luck".

 

[touch]

I had a £25,000 mortgage on a house that i had put down a £4000 deposit on and i did that on an income of £75 a week.

So you were able to borrow 6.25 x salary.
These days you'd be lucky to get 5 x salary, which would be a maximum of £20,000. So you'd need a total of £9000 deposit for the same house.
Essentially, all that hard grafting you did isn't even half of what you'd need to do in the same position today.

I'm not one of the "moaning whingers" (I've already bought a house and have a mortgage) but I don't think your figures are comparable to today's situation.

 

[413x]

Nothing fell from the sky for me either.

I got assigned to the project because I was the best person for the job and displayed the right attitude. Out of the 30 of us picked to run the project (all from different countries)
I was the only one who chose to take an interest in it as a specialism and use my time on the project to become the subject matter expert.
I was the only one who did the suggested extra curricular learning.
I was the only one who looked for a mentor from our project implementation partner to increase my knowledge and seek career advice.

I made myself the go-to guy and in-house expert, and when I felt I knew enough I marketed myself in that field and secured a well paid position.

Everyone else just did their job, did what they "had" to do, and implemented the project. I did more.

I'm not fortunate, I put myself in the right position through my own efforts, and capitalised on that when the time was right with more of the same.

You make your own "luck".

But there was only one position for 30 people. One person was always going to get it. Opportunities don't often come up like that.

I do agree (myself included) don't put enough effort into careers, or spend to much on the next thing. For me I've just never cared enough about ant job I've had to date.

I'm not saying many people are. Moaning about stuff they could have changed if they didn't have that car on finance etc..

But it still doesn't change that the previous generation had it easy.

 

[Haggisman]

The problem isn't purely of "low earners can't afford x". It's also "higher earners see low earners as a way to bolster their own revenue, thus making the situation worse for the low earners and cementing the high earner position at the top".

And the advice from the high earners to the low earners? "If you can't beat me, join me. Just earn more and start exploiting those below you. It's easy!"

That's almost as much of an inaccurate sweeping generalisation as those saying that all millennials are lazy & entitled. Please, by all means, go ahead and tell me how I'm "exploiting those below me" by sacrificing my free time and money to gain new skills and qualifications, so I can make a better life for myself and my family?

But there was only one position for 30 people. One person was always going to get it. Opportunities don't often come up like that.

They do. Go to any recruitment site, there are thousands of opportunities, just sitting there, waiting for you to grab them.

The harsh reality of life is that there is no prize just for taking part.