To think the babyboomers have had it a lot easier than the next generation?

[DarlingDuck]

In terms of house prices, uni fees, pensions and retirement.

I'm 30 and don't know any people my age who own their own homes unless they were substantially subsidised by their parents. All my friends have uni fees to pay off and a lot of them struggled/are struggling to find work even with a degree.

Am a bit jealous of my parents generation... Had a major pang when I heard the over 65's own 85% of the UK's property, AIBU?

When I was employed you needed to have been employed with the same employer for 2 years to get your 6 weeks at 90% pay. In a sense I benefited from not havint that right as it meant I kept working full time and that tends to do women a lot of good 20 years on. Maternity rights can drag you down into poverty as you ignore a career.

As for interst rates yes we bought the tiny house in 1983 which now cost about £250k in outer London but as interest rates rate - I remember the day they went to 12% people tend to move up the property ladder so we certain didn't then become mortgage free and then divorce etc means people have debts later. I certainly didn't plan to have over £1m of mortgage debt in my late 40s.

On this:
"Yes, but this was in London and xenia was talking about London too...
If a 22 year old was on £22,000 now and their parents were able to generously stump up say £20,000, it would still get them nowhere. Even with a couple earning that much each (fairly unlikely at 22), each with a donation from parents, They'd have £40,000 plus realistically be able to borrow about £100,000."

The point is people don't always buy alone. I bought with my husband. I said he earned £7500 then as head of dept teacher. What would a 20s head of d earn as a teacher now? We earned the same then.

In terms of doing the maths today on the £250k 3 bed terraced you can borrow 90% which means each of you need £12,500. That is not an impossible sum to save if you're mid 20s and don't go out to parties too much and are in a reasonable job. Of course most peoople have never been able to buy and never will and if they watch silly TV programmes which suggest everyione has a right to a dream home they own then they should change their viewing habits. The average IQ is 100 and the average wages is 20k. Perhaps the biggest difference now is people having over inflated expectations. In 1983 is you were one o f the 15% who went to university and a perhaps a few othesr you might buy but not most people. I remember my first midwife saying did I (22) own that house - she coudln't believe someone could own a house of my age/stage etc.

Xenia - you don't ownthe house unless you have the deeds - at 22 you had a mortgage for the house of which you would owe x% depending on the equity to mortgage value. I agree with you though you can save and have to make sacrifices - our first mortgage / house in mid 80s we had a fixed at something like 12.5% had to have mortgage indemnity guarantee that all added to the costs. All our furniture was 2nd hand - although as a wedding gift we bought a set of good quality pine furniture - paid for in 3 cheques over a few months - is still with us 20+ years on. Our first dining table was one of those park bench type things so did not need seperate chairs (did buy it ).

sinister I live in Essex. The point is that there are affordable properties in the southeast, but people often have to move around to find them. Just as people, including many babyboomers, have always done.

senua - it's the Telegraph you need to argue with if you think their article is 'utter rot'.

Re not understanding simple maths, you need to urgently get your head around the basic fact that buying a house in an environment where interest rates were high BUT that was because wage inflation was also high is very, very different to buying when interest rates (though not nec mortgage rates, esp if you're a FTB without a massive deposit) are relatively low but wage inflation is lower or actually you're looking at wage deflation. And in the knowledge that interest rates have only one way to go from here - up, up and away.

Don't forget that most people who bought property in the inflationary 70s struggled for the first year or two - but could buy because they knew that within a couple of years, inflation would have rescued them from the mortgage millstone,and with every passing year, the burden would shrink significantly - not because of rapid repayments or hard work but just the happy accident of stonking wage inflation.

If anyone were to buy now, not only would the debt they'd be taking on now be greater, but they could be almost certain that interest rates would rise sharply. But sadly rather less certain that salaries would keep pace.

When I lived in London in the late 80's/early 90's there is no way I could have bought a house or flat or even rented one. I lived in a number of rooms in sahred houses along with the teachers, lawyers, graphic designers, etc who were all in the same boat as me.

I moved out of London in the early 90's to the North of England so that I could afford to rent and then buy a house. It has never been easy to buy a house in London.

The only people I know on the property ladder our age (late 20's) is because they got an inheritance.

I agree lesley33. That is what I did . Nearly everyone in the town I live in has moved from London, simply because they couldn't afford to buy a house there.

Early to mid 90s it was ok, buy flat, sell, buy cheap house, not much stamp duty to worry about buyihng and selling two or three times.

Xenia - My mum was only a nurse and she bought a place when she was 20. Back then I dont know anyone who didnt buy a house on marriage at between about 18-25ish. That was what you did and it definitely was more than 15% ime

Also we had MIRAS back then - well for a few months (for us) - that really pushed up prices quickly. too.

I got married at 20 and we struggled to buy a house for £20k. To do that we had to save hard for 2 years while living with our parents. When our children were tiny our mortgage rate went up to 15%. Today people spend their teens and 20s/early 30s "partying" and buying clothes and having holidays, then move in with a partner. We didn't. We didn't have central heating until 1997.

A little bit of a generalisation. I met my partner at 23, moved into a rented shoebox for double what the landlord is paying for the mortgage. We rarely buy new clothes, have never been on holiday together and never have nights out. And yet, without the assistance of a wonderful aunt of my DP, there is no way in hell we'd be able to afford a deposit. This is despite both of us being in 'lucrative' professions (I'm a human rights lawyer, he's an IT manager) and living in the relatively cheap north east. I would imagine a lot of other young couples are in exactly the same position, and are not blowing their wages on the treats you think that they are.

In 1981 57% of households were owner occupiers. In 1999 69% of households were owner occupiers. So the rate of owner occupation has increased over the last 20 years, although there was a fall in those aged under 25 years who are owner occupiers.

Come on Tanif, if you went without a mobile phone you could save 150 quid a year and you'd have a 20k deposit in no time....

tyler Of course! It's been staring me in the face all along!

Yes, more people are able to b uy now than used to be the case as that 1981 figure shows.

These are not very helpful debates. It's like my asking if my AAB A level grades are better than my daughter's AAB. What good would that do either of us? You are presented with the time and life you have at the time and you make the best of it. Whatever your age and stage over 40 years you are likely to have hard times, sometimes world wars, sometimes deaths, sometimes not enough food, other times inflation, high taxes etc but things are not in general getting worse and worse. In general for most people standards of living do rise and things we take for granted now were not always common.

The house I mentioned in London zone 5 costs £250k or so. Of course there are smaller flats than that which are cheaper. Youi can buy somewhere for £200k as a start. YOu can get 90% loans still.If you are in a career where salaries increase you can even borrow quite reasonable multiples and as ever most people find it much easier to buy if two of them are buying.

The most important advice to girls is always go for the higher paid careers because then all this always becomes easier. You might think you want to save the world when you're 18 but that may not help the bottom line,
(You do by the way in law own a house even if you have a mortgage on it. The owner is you. It is just that a lender has security over it)

OK this thread is now officially closed cos Xenia says so!

The OP asked if the babyboomers had it easier than the next generation. Some did but not all. The babyboomers who did the best were the ones who went to university or at least a well paid trade, and then into a 'job for life' with a good pension. All of these people would have been able to buy their own homes, and it wasn't their fault that inflation, estate agents etc caused house values to rocket.

The babyboomers who went into the old heavy industries and manufacturing were well and truely stuffed in the 80's. Many would have lost everything and had to start again.

Some in every generation will be lucky, be in the right place at the right time, buy a house at the right time, win the lottery! Some of you will have low interst tracker mortgages.

I certainly didn't want the thread closed. It's fascinating and for those of us with 20 something children who are now starting out we can see things from both perspectives and remember our own parents (born in the 20s) and how things turned out for them and ourselves born in the 60s. I don't believe any 40 year adult life will always be massively easy in any time but I would argue that those who lived through a world war had a very very difficult time for loads of reasons and that as living standards generally have risen things are easier than they used to be for many.

Many babyboomers born in the 60s as I did lost jobs in the 80s and many in the 90s recession.

Also a high value house isn't always worth very much because you need a home and unless you want to move into a shoe box what use is the fact it might have equity in it. The fact mine had some just meant my husband got a small fortune on the divorce.

I have had to loom people buying now as some of my children might in the next year or two and it is nothing like as hard as I imagined. I thought 90% loans were definiteyl gone. I thought multiples over 3x of salary were gone. I thought I would have to guarantee their loan. none of those things are true. It remains amazingly easier than some have had it in terms of ability to borrow in the past. That is great as we need the first time buyers. Even if they take on risky loans it is better they take that step than just renting.

Think we'd be in a better position to advise our children on what are the options. Bought back in mid 80s and nearly paid it all monies off BUT we had little financial advice really at the time and think as a nation we are quite poor at discussing money (see as vulgar) and what are the options. Last few years have massively overpaid on the mortgage and its good to see how quickly the balance can reduce down - we could be spending the money now but rather be debt free in a year or so.

We'll try to help our DCs to some extent but firmly belive they also need to contribute and know the value of things. For large purchases for the DCs (laptops / games consols / music instruments) they contribute about a 1/3rd of the cost. Makes them think if they really want the item and look after it better.

Like any generalisation it depends on where you stand and what your experiences are - as a nation our GDP genrally grows year over year so we are all getting 'richer' whether this means each generation has it easier may be the case for some but not all.

It is still possible for those in their early 20s to get on the first rug of the housing ladder.

DS1 as bought with is DW. They have been going without things so that they can pay their mortgage of as quickly as possible and take advantage of the very low rates. They will have paid for their home in five years, well before DS is 40. After that they may go for a bigger property, move with work or buy a second property.

DS2 went staight in to work at 18 so had no debt. He is still only 25 and has been in his own home for over 2 years. It had been empty for over a year and needed lots of TLC. With DH's help he has replaced both bathrooms and the kitchen. Neither DS received or ever expected any financial help from us. I started as I intended to go on. They paid for all but the first few driving lessons (17th birthday present), and DS1's student loan will be paid off by him not me or DH. IMO adult children should not expect constant cash handouts.
Their sister still rents. She could afford to buy but prefers lots of holidays and a busy social life. Her life her choice.

I do worry about the future for our younger sons. One did want to go to university next year but has decided to go straight into work to avoid student debt. He has decided it's nolonger possible for DC from ordinary backgrounds to pay off massive university debts, buy a house, bring up a family, etc.

The youngest two still have a few more years before they need to worry too much.

I haven't read all posts, but one thing stuck out in the first few pages - the constant reference to no central heating back in the day - I don't have it now and can't afford to get it!

My mum was a SAHM and my dad a PC.

They bought the house my mum still lives in on 2.5 times my dad's salary.

The same houses now are owned and occupied by doctors, lawyers and managing directors (well at least three of them are!) who bough there in the last decade or so.

The only other long term owner/occupier is a postman.

So no, YANBU.

Oh, sorry I thought when you said These are not very helpful debates and You are presented with the time and life you have at the time and you make the best of it. that indicated you felt this was a pointless thread and there was nothing more to be said.

1.5 million homes were sold to council tenants between 1980 and 2003, that might explain why there are more home owners now. (Those would be babyboomers in the main.)

righttobuystatistics

All of which leaves today's young low-income families with a shortage of social housing, as well as very expensive private rentals or properties for sale.

Even young professionals are finding it harder than ever to buy, and the 90% mortgages you quote are only available to a small percentage of people. (And anyway you are taking an enormous risk borrowing to your limit on a 90% mortgage at the moment - interest rates are going to rise and we will be back in the repossession times you refer to)

As I said before, I feel tremendously lucky to have been born when I did - no way I would be sitting pretty where I am if dh and I were 5 years younger.

I think your divorce and your million pound mortgage debt are irrelevant to this debate and perhaps the large debt provides a warning for those who are tempted to borrow above their means!

We always had to saddle ourselves with 90% mortgages. It has worked out fine and I will encourage my 3 children in their 20s to buy when they can and we have been looking into mortgages. I thought 90% ones had gone but that is not so. I've been surprised.

Rates as very very low compared with the past and there are affordable first places in London. Obviously as in the past there will always be people who will never be able to buy but there is no God given right to own property. It's a free market.

( The warning if any is never marry someone who earns less as you lose out on divorce)