Caporegime
Alright Moneybags
Boomerang Generation
- Thread starter chris.tarry85
- Start date
Surprisingly I know more than one person. I was making an example of that person but I know plenty more. I see how they prioritise their earnings. If that's what you got from what I said then you missed the point. we are at a point in time where we have a huge number of people (not all before you lot get upset) where they are more concerned with how they look, not what they have in terms of a career or measurement of stability.
20 years ago we/they didn't have the tools to be so connected to platforms where all that mattered was what you had and how you look.
If you cannot see that, you're blind.
Yup moving is a short sighted "solution" and eventually shifts the problem - I live a bit south of Bristol but more recently with improved transport links to Bristol people being priced out of Bristol have started moving this way as those priced out of London have moved towards Bristol (rather simplified but serves for illustration) which has meant that house prices here have gone up twice the national average in the last few years and put significant strain on those who've been living in this area (and while that does mean to a degree more better paid jobs are accessible Bristol way for people local to here it doesn't go even half way to sorting the problem).
indeed. its a hard choice isnt it.I could buy 10 houses in Leeds for what I spend on a night out here in London
the point is you dont need to be money bags to buy a house....Alright Moneybags
You get to choose where to live. You can make all the excuses you like, but if there are houses that you can afford and jobs on the area you can do, so you can afford to buy them, then you move there. Its quite simple really. I dont see how if you moved to a cheaper area how it would make social care costs higher. In areas that the wages are lower and house prices are lower, both care for the elderly and child care will also be cheaper.
If wages dont keep up in your area, then get a better job or move. its nobody else's fault that you are failing at life and you are not entitled to a house on the area you grew up in.
As far as i can see most people who "cant afford" a house just want to live in an area out of their price range in their given profession and level of experience. They could easily move somewhere else, that is cheap until they have sufficient experience or capital to buy a house in the area they want and get a position in a job where they can afford to pay off and maintain it.
Last edited:
Soldato
.... So long as someone else is housing you.
not even then, I pay a similar amount of rent to my parents as i could rent a small flat in a worse area for.
No you dont, you need to lower your standards or get a better job....... or get another job. Unless you work 7 days a week at a job that is maximising your capabilities, then you clearly just arent willing to put in the effort.
Soldato
Not everyone does. As well as working I need to look after increasingly frail parents, together with my brother. I can't easily move away anywhere else, and it is tough enough that my job often takes me away elsewhere for two or three days at a time. I can't live two hours away and provide the same level of support that I can by living 20 minutes away.
I appreciate that some people don't give a stuff about their parents, or don't have any such ties.
Yes you do have a choice, you are choosing to live nearer you parents despite the expense. It is a good reason not to move though.
I am not saying it is the right or wrong choice either. I am just making the point that all these millennial moaners saying they cant afford a house are not putting in enough effort or lowering their standards to a realistic level.
I think your case is not the case for most younger people coming out of uni and getting there first jobs and saying they cant afford a house.
Soldato
I think you're being very judgemental, as indicated by naming them as millennial moaners. They're the first generation to have been poorer than the previous in real terms. Society has, in that regard, failed them. Yes, people have always had to make sacrifices to buy their first house, but this generation is being asked to make more than any other at time when it has never been easier to be marketed and sold to as consumers.
It isn't impossible, but it is almost certainly harder than it has ever been for many.
It isn't impossible, but it is almost certainly harder than it has ever been for many.
Caporegime
Someone who has parents in London or the Home Counties does have a massive advantage when it comes to getting a deposit together, a non-Londoner newly graduated from university and heading to the big smoke for their first job can easily be handing a grand or more a month in rent/bills/council tax etc... so that alone is 12k a year... 5 years into a grad job and the person with London parents has an extra 60k+ on top of what they could otherwise save towards a deposit. Lets say our non-Londoner who is forced to rent puts aside 5k a year... well they've got a 25k deposit vs the Londoner's 85k now.
You could quite reasonably buy a flat aged 26 or with a whole range of grad jobs if you have parents living in or near to London, don't just need to be a banker/lawyer.
are you serious? could not disagree more, they have it easier than ever.
how i am i talking out my ass? do people in their little london bubble never leave or look outside or something ?
Soldato
Please break it down then with some facts. I'm 46, my son is 19. Explain how he has it easier than I did to buy my first house.
ok i will have a look. what year did you start working? what year did you buy your 1st house?
i am guessing he doesnt have a house yet? so im not going to be able to predict the future but i could get stats for 2017/2018 if they are available.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,120
He cant, the guy is delusional.
Using your ages and where I live, if you had of bought your house it would have cost you around 45000 in 1992, you son would be expected to pay 450000 today for the same house here.
Wages haven't even doubled in that time, not even close, let alone a magnitude of 10.
Soldato
1992 working, 1995 first house (age 23). Correct, he does not yet have a house. He's 19. Four years away from when I bought my first house.
Soldato
I'm beginning to see that. I know the maths, but I'm keen to see the justification to prove that I'm incorrect. I imagine that it will be to give up all the things that didn't exist 25 years ago, and then when that isn't enough to make things add up it'll be to move to somewhere cheaper.
One of the things that has stood out for me age wise kind of straddling the generations - my parents and my parents' generation sure didn't have it easy but making adjustments, doing the extra hours and so on you'd get a reasonable house subjectively commensurate with their "position" in life and if they really really went the extra and made lots of sacrifices they could potentially afford somewhere nicer than their otherwise position in life which would pay off in the long run. I see all around me these days people having to scrabble and scrape just to afford a house at the bottom range of what I'd say was commensurate with their position in life without much in the way of a longer term pay-off for the effort.