"Most only have £500 of savings ",says Lloyds boss ,really ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bouton Aide said:
That depends on what people are buying and spending their money on. It also depends on if they are trying to save or still spending on things that isn't needed. I am aware bills have gone up. Maybe the gov need to re-think minimum wage and living wage again. If the bills are not going to go down anytime soon then wages need to increase.
Click to expand...
The topic was houses really, rather than other things. It is not an individual's fault that houses have gone up the way they have and sucked all the money out of people. Whilst I agree that if someone still smokes then says they can't afford something then yeah, that's on them, but there are lots of people doing the best they can and still can't afford somewhere. The assertion above was that those people should just lower their expectations - which is total rubbish. It may have worked 20 years ago, it certainly worked 40 years ago. It very much doesn't work now.
 
Bouton Aide said:
Doesn't really matter who's topic it was I was just responding to yours. If the bills don't go down anytime soon then wages will need to rise for a lot of people. There are only so many jobs that can be had at any one time, there's not infinite jobs available for the whole of the UK.
Click to expand...
I'd argue costs need to come down, rather than wages rising.

Wages rising will just drive more inflation and postpone the problem. And that extra money just flows straight into big corporate profit machines. We need to get costs down so things are cheaper and incentivise more local economy benefits.

Of course, its just easier for people to demand pay rises isn't it. Getting costs down requires a global rebalance.
 
Prices have to correct as this is unsustainable. Right now energy costs so much at least all/most of the European countries (I'd guessgovernments are propping it up. Increasing thier debt.

The longer it goes on the harder the correction will be.
 
danlightbulb said:
You certainly did continue the undertone by responding to Fez's assertion in the way that you did.
Click to expand...

No thats on you. There used to an old saying when buying a house, which was to buy the best house you can afford i.e. stretch yourselves to the maximum that was comfortable, we bought our house 21 years ago where the saying was still applicable. These days are different for sure and as you say, some are stretched to afford at the bottom of the market even if thats even affordable at all because it certainly isnt for many. Please stop assigning a position I do not hold
 
Trying to get the idea into my partner's head that there's no point having money just sitting in the bank at the moment (we have a decent emergency savings buffer.)
With current inflation we either need to invest or spend.
Headline doesn't surprise me at all though. We have a reasonably comfortable life (with in reason) and I've really noticed the price rises last few months. I can understand people wo were on the edge before this past year being in trouble now.
 
Bear said:
Please stop assigning a position I do not hold
Click to expand...
Then what was the point of your original post? Was it just to state that you'd personally made a sound financial decision 21 years ago? Or was it there to suggest that that's what others should do too through agreeing with Fez that everyone has deliberately stretched themselves to their limits and posting about what you did to evidence that fact. I took it as the latter but now it appears that it was a benign version of the former.


You bought your house 21 years ago, only a few years into the post-1997 house price inflation period.

What you described that you did was possible then. It is far less possible now. That is the simple point I am making and it is important because to not call this out when it comes up, means that people wrongly believe that everyone can just choose to buy cheaper like you did. A cheap house in 2001 is now 3x that price in 2022 (UK average increase over that period 208%). Average salary in UK in 2001 was £20k, now its around £30k, only a 1.5x (50%) increase.

Im just in the process of buying a £250k house, that is a huge stretch for me. That would have been less than an £80k house in 2001, affordable to almost anyone with a fairly normal semi-skilled job. That is the type of house I should be buying - a normal working class house for a normal working class person. Now that same house requires a salary nearly upper tax bracket. The only way I could have bought cheaper without moving region would be to buy in a slum area.
 
danlightbulb said:
You certainly did continue the undertone by responding to Fez's assertion in the way that you did.


Not sure if you have misquoted me as you've only taken a snippet of my post?

Im also very happy to have less, but having less should cost less too i.e it should mean someone is less stretched. What I am saying quite clearly is that having less still stretches people at the moment.
Click to expand...
So as a single bloke, does your new house have 1, 2 or 3 bedrooms?
 
Uther said:
So as a single bloke, does your new house have 1, 2 or 3 bedrooms?
Click to expand...
Interesting point Uther. It does have 3 bedrooms (one is a small box room), and I don't need 3 (but I won't be living there alone, will be with my girlfriend). But I do need space for my piano, mountain bike and scuba gear, and a driveway for my car which I rely on. So a 1 bed studio flat would be cheaper yes, but completely unsuitable for my lifestyle. They don't make houses with 1 or 2 bedrooms but lots of downstairs space for hobbies unfortunately.

Now you might say that Im wasting money by having those hobbies. My response to that would be a) that Im trying to lead a good active life and all my hobbies are positive ones not like just smoking or drinking away my money at the pub, and b) my hobbies are such that they have knock on benefits to the local economy i.e for a while I had piano lessons, I spent money on food when I go out mounting biking and am part of a local club for scuba diving etc.

I would love to buy a cheaper house like Bear did so I have more money for my hobbies, but I can't because they don't exist.
 
It's a really difficult thing. The temptation to get the best you can afford is high. And most of the time it is the best decision.

Moving is expensive. So if you can get a 3 bed rather than a 2 to future proof (WFH, or kids etc) it's worth it.

I was mortgaged to the max too. Had to be to get this. And it was unnerving. But it was the right call. Most of the time it is. Only if you get unlucky with a crash it isn't. But even then, if you can get through it it isn't always the worst decision.

If we had got a 2 bed, work from home would have been a nightmare.


I'm similar to @danlightbulb

Lots of hobbies so need space for kayaks, boards, bikes etc.
In my case I was close enough to that 3 bed with garden and garage to hold out for it.
Had to live in a rougher area to make the cut though.
 
danlightbulb said:
Then what was the point of your original post? Was it just to state that you'd personally made a sound financial decision 21 years ago? Or was it there to suggest that that's what others should do too through agreeing with Fez that everyone has deliberately stretched themselves to their limits and posting about what you did to evidence that fact. I took it as the latter but now it appears that it was a benign version of the former.


You bought your house 21 years ago, only a few years into the post-1997 house price inflation period.

What you described that you did was possible then. It is far less possible now. That is the simple point I am making and it is important because to not call this out when it comes up, means that people wrongly believe that everyone can just choose to buy cheaper like you did. A cheap house in 2001 is now 3x that price in 2022 (UK average increase over that period 208%). Average salary in UK in 2001 was £20k, now its around £30k, only a 1.5x (50%) increase.

Im just in the process of buying a £250k house, that is a huge stretch for me. That would have been less than an £80k house in 2001, affordable to almost anyone with a fairly normal semi-skilled job. That is the type of house I should be buying - a normal working class house for a normal working class person. Now that same house requires a salary nearly upper tax bracket. The only way I could have bought cheaper without moving region would be to buy in a slum area.
Click to expand...

Dont know if you are trolling or being a bit thick but if you read what I wrote and not deleted it then you wouldnt have to reiterate what I already acknowledged. I will quote what you deleted and you can tell me what part of that hasnt acknowledged what you just wrote?

Bear said:
There used to an old saying when buying a house, which was to buy the best house you can afford i.e. stretch yourselves to the maximum that was comfortable, we bought our house 21 years ago where the saying was still applicable. These days are different for sure and as you say, some are stretched to afford at the bottom of the market even if thats even affordable at all because it certainly isnt for many.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've given BT Sports the chop soon as the football season finished which saves me £25 a month...it doesn't do much vs the rise in fuel though but helps a little. Also cancelled Odeon Limitless card, cancelled Crunchyroll and the gym. They add up! My hobbies are modest and already made my investments in them so they are now free to me in perpetuity (photography and muck around with guitar and piano), with the latter actually worth more than when i paid for it. The only thing I save for is the occasional trip abroad.

My vice is that I can't seem to stop myself buying random little things like £100 Lego or £90 Japanese Knife...although the latter too is a one time purchase. But if only i stop there and not move onto the next thing, like a Ooni Oven etc.
 
Last edited:
413x said:
It's a really difficult thing. The temptation to get the best you can afford is high. And most of the time it is the best decision.

Moving is expensive. So if you can get a 3 bed rather than a 2 to future proof (WFH, or kids etc) it's worth it.

I was mortgaged to the max too. Had to be to get this. And it was unnerving. But it was the right call. Most of the time it is. Only if you get unlucky with a crash it isn't. But even then, if you can get through it it isn't always the worst decision.

If we had got a 2 bed, work from home would have been a nightmare.


I'm similar to @danlightbulb

Lots of hobbies so need space for kayaks, boards, bikes etc.
In my case I was close enough to that 3 bed with garden and garage to hold out for it.
Had to live in a rougher area to make the cut though.
Click to expand...
You are like the worst human ever in some circles though. Childless therefore affordability is higher -> stealing a 3 bed when there is only 2 of you (i.e. driving up family home prices).

You should be ashamed!
 
dLockers said:
You are like the worst human ever in some circles though. Childless therefore affordability is higher -> stealing a 3 bed when there is only 2 of you (i.e. driving up family home prices).

You should be ashamed!
Click to expand...
Won't someone think of the children!
 
Raymond Lin said:
I've given BT Sports the chop soon as the football season finished which saves me £25 a month...it doesn't do much vs the rise in fuel though but helps a little. Also cancelled Odeon Limitless card, cancelled Crunchyroll and the gym. They add up! My hobbies are modest and already made my investments in them so they are now free to me in perpetuity (photography and much around with guitar and piano), with the latter actually worth more than when i paid for it. The only thing I save for is the occasional trip abroad.

My vice is that I can't seem to stop myself buying random little things like £100 Lego or £90 Japanese Knife...although the latter too is a one time purchase. But if only i stop there and not move onto the next thing, like a Ooni Oven etc.
Click to expand...
It's all a balance though isn't it? You have cancelled some subs which you don't get the most out of but then bought something for your hobbies in lego and the knife. If you can afford to treat yourself you should.
 
MikeTheNative said:
It's all a balance though isn't it? You have cancelled some subs which you don't get the most out of but then bought something for your hobbies in lego and the knife. If you can afford to treat yourself you should.
Click to expand...

I am fortunate that i own my car and do have some money put away. If the push comes to shove, selling a guitar could get me through a few months of bills. I didn't really need to cancel the subs but I feel like they weren't value for money as I found myself not caring had i miss a game, which I paid for. Crunchyroll...i've discovered that Netflix Japan has quite a few shows, so use a VPN to watch those instead. It's more about not paying for something needlessly really.

My other hobby is my bonsai trees, which already have a few and more than enough, could spend more time researching how to make them better, but this too doesn't cost much money beyond some fertilisers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom