Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder how the next generation will afford a house?

951 replies

Housepricewoes · 21/04/2014 11:19

DH and I want to move to what will hopefully be our family home, in 2 years. Work commitments means we can't do it sooner but I'm stressing about how much house prices might rise in that time.

That got me thinking about how today's children will ever be able to buy a home.

I know it's a very British thing to aspire to home ownership but rightly or wrongly it is the norm.

Many of my friends and extended family have only been able to get on the property ladder with a significant hand out from the bank of mum and dad, but unless their circumstances drastically change, they are not going to be in a position to do the same for their children.

What do you think will happen about houses with the next generation?

OP posts:
HoopyViper · 22/04/2014 22:46

This idea that anyone who works, regardless of how much they earn or how many children they have to support, should be able to buy property is ridiculous.

I know it's a much hated word on this website, but it seems incredibly entitled to me.

WooWoo, I think the emphasis needs to be on "secure home" rather than buying.

I agree from the rest of your post that a roof over one's head is what is essential. It seems sensible to me to plan, where possible, for people to be homed in a location which suits and encourages them to maximise their potential and ability not only to support themselves, but contribute their fullest to society.

It seems shortsighted to me to shunt people where can be most cheaply afforded in the short term (often through state support) where they may actually lose work and depend more on the state, because they are priced out of the environment (rent or buy) where they would most likely thrive and make the best of themselves, if it weren't for the price of the roof over their head. This is the reality of my personal situation, so maybe I am biased/focussed on this.

uselessidiot · 22/04/2014 22:59

The thing is woowoo why should people stay in abusive relationships just to ease the housing crisis.

HoopyViper · 22/04/2014 23:03

Well yes, there is that as well useless.

WooWooOwl · 22/04/2014 23:07

I'm not saying that they should UI, and I include myself in that as I don't live with the father of my children. Not because of abuse, but because I chose it.

WooWooOwl · 22/04/2014 23:11

Hoopy, I agree to a certain extent, but no one is shunted around when they choose to buy property, they are making a choice if they have the means. People often have the choice to live in an area that does allow them to contribute as much as they can, but sometimes compromise has to be made between location and type of accommodation.

Gennz · 22/04/2014 23:13

I live outside the UK but in a country & city which is rated less affordable than London (average houses here are expensive and average wages here are very low).

DH & I bought our 3 bedroom place 5 years ago. It is a detached house with a decent backyard, which we really value. It was expensive when we bought, especially it for the area (which is 5km from the CBD and historically a bit dodgy but luckily for us rapidly gentrifying) but we have renovated and there is further scope to enlarge it if we need the space further down the track. I doubt we will move unless we win the lottery! We managed this with no financial assistance from anyone but it does mean we put off having children til later than we originally planned as we couldn't afford to drop to one income.

In terms of DCs, I don't plan to help them into property unless at that stage we had enough money that we could manage it without really noticing. I definitely want to cover their university fees so that they emerge with a tertiary qualification debt-free (more than my parents managed for me! I graduated with the equivalent of a 35,000 pound debt whcih I'm still paying off). From that point they are on their own!

MariaJenny · 23/04/2014 06:42

I still don't think it was easy 30 years. A few people's parents perhaps not in London found it easier 40 y ears ago than now, but it was still hard and in the past most people couldn't afford to buy. We were 2 professional 30 years ago on the equivalent of £40k each today so were better paid than most and it was a big struggle on those 2 full time wages to buy in outer London. The £100k home in London or elsewhere is available if you are prepared to tolerate an outer London area or move out of London - as someone said people always have. I remember 30 years ago when I started work in London the most senior people at work lived out in Herts, Kent, another got the train from Brighton every day (these were pretty rich professionals). Only one I know was buying a house in Notting Hiall and even that came with a permanent tenant on two of the floors who could not be removed.

I agree it got easier at various stages if you could pick the right time after a property crash which we never managed and in some periods like the 1930s when all the out London building of "metroland" took place people were moved out of tenement slums in the East End and some could afford to buy a brand new semi or terraced out in the suburbs at rates not easily matched today.

What we all can probably agree on is that state interference is behind the current problems. Just as those who want houses given to all according to need will say communism has never properly been tried on this planet (it hasn't) I would also say that we have massive market interference in the UK at the moment in the housing market which makes free market libertarians like I am weep. Interest rates are interfered with all the time, we have these help to buy things, we have quantatitive easing, support for construction projects etc etc. Total absence of free market and look where it has got us? s for the the richer of us complaining if the market were freed and prices went down I don't think we would. Most of us have one house we live in. Whether it is worth £1 or £1m matters not if you are going to live in it until you die. It's not a cash cow. It's a home so there is not much benefit in its price having rises.

My advice to younger people even if you have not chosen a well paid career is buy as soon as you can. Buy with two wages in a couple or with a sibling if you can rather than alone. Try to get a repayment mortgage, not interest only. Pay off debt faster if you have any spare money at home - that's what we did when other were going on expensive holidays abroad or going to places like Starbucks. We never went out to eat etc as that's more expensive than eating in.

jasminemai · 23/04/2014 06:48

It would be possible for 2 near minimum wagers to buy property with 5% deposit in cheap areas, but of course you couldnt do it single. I dont think I know of any older people at all that bought as a single person in the old days.

WhosLookingAfterCourtney · 23/04/2014 07:01

To say that owning shouldn't be the norm, that all the property should be owned by an ever decreasing amount of people sounds like a return to feudalism to me.

There are enough houses for one per family unit. Why anyone would argue that some people should own 2 or 3 or more houses, while most own zero houses is beyond me.

sandgrown · 23/04/2014 07:18

DSS and fiancee are moving back in with us, at our suggestion, so they can get together a deposit for a house. We cannot afford to give them a lump sum so they will just pay a minimum amount towards expenses, allowing them to save, and that will be our contribution.

mizu · 23/04/2014 07:50

Another one here who asks what about THIS generation? I am 41 and we rent - have been in current place for over 6 years.

Have been saving for 3 years and have managed to get together 8000. We have two DDs who are 8 and 9. We have never been on holiday and do not fritter our money away.

Will need a lot more than that to get a decent deposit to buy here where the cheapest, smallest house is too much for us to afford. Neither of us earn a lot.

Most friends i know got a little help from parents a few years ago - that is how they have managed to buy a house. This is not an option for us.

Frustrating maybe but on a positive note it has enabled us to move to an area with a fab school.

ballseditup · 23/04/2014 07:56

Of all the things to be entitled about I think having a home is a good one

Housepricewoes · 23/04/2014 08:00

mariajenny, I just don't agree it was as hard the the previous generation as it is for this or will be for the next.

The previous generation could choose to scrimp on a lot of living costs to bridge the relatively small gap between what they could more easily afford and what they wanted.

The income multiples between salaries and houses were nothing like they are now, even excluding London.

The MMR regulations mean that the affordability of a couple with 2 children living on the outskirts of a city (lower house prices but higher travel costs) will be significantly reduced.

They just won't get a mortgage, even if they want to commit a big proportion of their monthly income to a mortgage in the short term, it just won't be an option open to them.

OP posts:
SuzzieScotland · 23/04/2014 08:08

Lol at people called being entitled for wanting some shelter with security!

The top 10% of earners are buying homes that for the last generation were afforded by working class earners. Big big problem .

Chunderella · 23/04/2014 08:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

uselessidiot · 23/04/2014 08:22

jasmine my parents bought a 3 bed semi with only one wage coming in and did so with only one wage coming in.

elastamum · 23/04/2014 08:40

My parents lived in a variety of rented property - including an old misson hut - and eventually bought a new 3 bed detached house just before we were born. they had 2 incomes but had to get the bank to agree that my mums income could be counted (she was the higher earner). They stayed there until retirement and it took them until 60 to pay off the mortgage.

I have been lucky - I bought in my 20's and now live in a big country house which I will sell when I retire to fund my DCs to buy - I wouldn't want to live here as an old lady anyway. My plan is to pass as much capital on to them as I can when they are young as I don't think inheritance in their 50's is the best I can do for them.

Grennie · 23/04/2014 08:42

Sure it was easier in the past. But like others I know, I moved out of London 25 years ago as I could never have afforded to buy a house or a flat. I remember even then people buying houseboats as it was the only way they could afford to buy a home in London.

I deliberately moved to an area of the country where houses were much cheaper than average. I know not everyone is able to do that, but it does irritate me when people talk as if buying in the past was easy.

Iseenyou · 23/04/2014 08:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WooWooOwl · 23/04/2014 08:43

Wanting shelter with security is not the same as wanting to own property in a convenient and desirable area and own a garden to go with it.

I agree that property probabkyw as easier to buy in the last generation, but my working class family's experience is that back then, children slept four to a bedroom. Children left school at 15/16 and went straight out to work and paid board. The properties they managed to buy were tiny, in not particularly nice areas, had tiny little yards if they were lucky enough to get any outside space at all. They didn't do half the things that we consider to be relatively normal today, like sending children on school trips or going to the cinema or eating out or having the odd takeaway, let alone have a foreign holiday before they got to adulthood.

People's priorities have changed. I agree that house prices are crazy now, but there's a lot more to it than just that.

Grennie · 23/04/2014 08:48

Amateur buy to lets have fuelled house price rises. A lot of these houses are the kind that used to be a cheap first buy. It wont, but I think the Government should tax these more to make them an unattractive proposition.

MariaJenny · 23/04/2014 08:51

The older lending requirements were not easier. You had to have saved with that lender for year sand years, be interviewed by the bank manager and then if you were lucky got 3x your salary to buy with. (35 - 40 years ago and even earlier women could not buy at all - you had to have a man with you as the main lender as financial institutions would not speak to women). We have had periods since then it has got easier for short periods. It goes up and down and always will.

However what I believe in is practical advice on mumsnet and elsewhere to help people buy if they want to. I gave a real example of myself 30 years ago - two professionals and my parents in the early 60s - worked for over 10 years without having children to save up to buy a house live lived in until they died 50+ years later. There was a crash in the 70s. There was another in the 90s. If you bought after those crashes you might have been able to get in whilst prices were a bit lower.

I think some people who want to buy in central London or posh bits of outer London just need to consider what people of my generation had to do - buy where they could afford even if it were a grotty area and slum it. It was the only way to do it then and it is the only way now for those lucky enough to earn enough to buy. Consider things like no maternity leave. Both working full time. A second job at weekends. We all that and more. It's not fun but it can be a way to afford to buy when otherwise you might not.

I am certainly not saying it's easy these days. My daughter and her husband recently bought somewhere and my other daughter has (the latter had some help with the deposit and cannot afford to live in what she bought so has to let it whilst renting in a friend's house). They don't have children yet.

I bet if a few people who are in work on this thread who cannot buy gave us a few details we could find them somewhere even if it meant children sleeping in parents' bed room for a few years or moving to somewhere like London zone 5 where I live.

catsmother · 23/04/2014 09:18

Lol at people called being entitled for wanting some shelter with security!

Exactly !!

The reason that most people want to buy is because, ATM, owning your own home (providing you don't default on the mortgage) is practically the only way to ensure security. What are the alternatives to that ? ..... are there any, realistically ? A very tiny minority may be able to get their hands on one of the few social properties available but most people in need of a home haven't a hope in hell of doing so. As for private lets - where's the security in that ?

I'm fucking sick of people on lower incomes being all but sneered at because they have the temerity to want a secure home. Because they want to put down roots, become part of the local community, turn the property they're living in into a home which reflects their needs and taste (without having to ask permission), and make plans for both employment and schooling with confidence, as sure as they can be that those plans won't be tipped on their head (potentially) a few months/years down the line.

All this crap about "entitlement" smacks of the poor "getting above their station" and/or of them being "undeserving" because - shock horror - they presumably "must" be stupid, lazy and/or feckless if they can't earn enough to buy a property or rent somewhere with HB assistance.

We all know that except for the fortunate few buying a property has never been easy per se - and yes, a large proportion of those doing so have had to make some sort of sacrifice along the way. But it simply isn't good enough to dismiss today's situation by blithely saying it was hard in the past too. Does that make it okay today then ? .... not in my book, not when as many posters have repeatedly stated, the gap between income and prices is larger than it's ever been (looking at the market as a whole and not at the very few locations where there are anomalies to that rule of thumb). And not when there isn't the safety net of social housing to fall back on any more. I'd stake my life on the fact that most of those wishing to buy a home would be more than happy to accept a secure council tenancy instead, rather than remain paying private rent ad infinitum or living with parents.

I mean, where, exactly, do those deriding "the poor" for wanting a secure home, expect them to live ? Do you really believe it's acceptable, in a so-called civilised society in the 21st Century, that so many people have to live with perpetual uncertainty in private lets which, if they receive HB, are very often ill-maintained (because HB lets are in such demand unscrupulous LLs know they can get away with lower standards) ? Would you like to live that for forever more ? Would you be happy to uproot your kids on (potentially) a regular basis with all the disruption to their education that might involve ? Would you like to be scrabbling about to find a new "home" in just weeks, knowing full well that you'll have little or no choice in the matter because you need to be somewhere ?

And yet if "those" people dare to express a wish for their own place they are derided (by some) and told they shouldn't complain because it's always been hard. Well, unless you go right back - to overcrowded Victorian slums and the workhouse - I really do think it's a lot harder now than at any other time in living memory. Generally speaking there's all sorts of pressures which apply to more people than they did for our parents' generation ..... for example, I think it's fair to say that there was more choice of work nearer to most people's homes in the past meaning less commuting costs, as there was far less centralisation of services etc. I realise that has a lot to do with the advent of improved technology but nonetheless the fact remains that long and expensive commutes were less common 40 to 50 years ago. As Housepricewoes points out with the new MMR, commuting costs will have a big impact on loans available thus meaning the idea of moving somewhere "cheaper" isn't always going to be an easy fix.

I don't know what the answer is. Quite clearly, there'd need to be massive intervention re: rental market, property prices, a genuine living wage (and not the insulting figures bandied about which hardly seem much more realistic than NMW is) and so on - and I can't see that happening. Or there needs to be a huge social housing programme launched - with secure tenancies, NO right to buy. But I can't see that happening either. I just don't understand why so few politicians seem to give any sort of shit about the situation - it's a time bomb surely, and I dread to think of how things will be in 10, 20 years time.

But in the meantime, how dare anybody call people entitled for wanting their own, secure, home. It is such a basic human need FFS - we're not talking about fripperies. The vast majority of us want that - so what's the difference if you're (relatively) "well off" or "poor" ? I guess it's acceptable to aspire to your own home if you're lucky enough to earn good money - then I suppose it's certainly not "entitlement" but simply what you deserve isn't it ? But if you dream of a secure home and you don't earn very much (or are unable to work with good reason) then you must be entitled. Jeez, where's the sympathy, where's the empathy ?

SuzzieScotland · 23/04/2014 09:21

Woo

Heaven forbid the top 10% of earners in the country wanting to live in a alright area with a garden.

Why should two highly paid people have to buy an old crack den in a dodgy area.

Grennie · 23/04/2014 09:26

Suzzie - They have often had to as their first home. I rented rooms in shared houses in the 80's where lawyers. teachers, etc lived, and had to rent the spare bedroom to pay the mortgage. They were often in pretty horrible areas.

I totally agree that the disgraceful situation of terrible situations in private lets needs to change, but I do think some people are unrealistic