to worry how average people in the next generation will ever afford a pension or home

[pettywitchinlondon]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108441/Generation-Y-left-pick-6trillion-tab-Report-warns-children-born-1980-2000-face-apocalyptic-levels-debt-Government-spending.html

I'm not quite sure its apocalyptic , but certainly its worrying. Life will still function, but for the majority owning a home or ever retiring looks unlikely.

My dad was a blue collar worker in the north, working on a production line. He retired at 60, with 45k lump sum and 14k a year pension for the rest of his life. This job was enough to support a family on one income and pension only cost 20-30 a week when he was earning. I doubt anyone doing the job these days could afford a lifestyle anywhere near the same, especially as there are less of these types of jobs.

I'm ok, but only because I was born and didn't have to pay tuition fees, graduated and there were plenty of jobs and am a high earner. But even for people like me its got a lot harder in the last decade.

Living standards look like they will start to fall.

I think if you search you will find this has been discussed extensively recently.

I doubt anyone doing the job these days could afford a lifestyle anywhere near the same

But people don't want that lifestyle, they want MORE. They want new cars, smart phones, take aways, foreign holidays, nights out, designer clothes, sky TV, the list goes on.

Did your father provide these for his family in the previous generation? I'm guessing not.

I do appreciate it's hard for young people to get on the property ladder these days, but I also believe, cut out the luxuries and it's more than possible (apart from in areas with extortionate housing). Same with pensions.

I searched. No one has discussed this new report.

This type of thread really annoys me as it assumes that everyone lives around London or the South East. Houses in the North and in the Midlands are still affordable. People won't be able to retire as early as they have been but they will live longer so retirement won't be any shorter than for the majority of previous generations (not including baby boomers).

I don't think people want more, they just want to make use of technological advances. Why shouldn't they? Roads often aren't safe to cycle and buses are expensive. Thus a car is an essential to many. As is a phone.

Are houses in the north cheap where there are jobs though? Doesn't matter if they are a bit cheaper if no one can get a secure job

The topic has been done to death actually. Complete with all the baby boomer comments. I doubt the report is earth shattering but as you haven't formatted the link and it's Daily Mail anyway I'm not going to find out from that source.

Mary no they're not. Not if you're EARNING a NW wage they're not. Ok...you can apparently still get 3 bed terraces for threepence ha'penny in Liverpool...in the most deprived areas with no jobs...so...not sure your thoughts are relevant.

I think there is often more choice than people think. www.mrmoneymustache.com Has an interesting take on this.

It's not just the south east and London that is expensive, it's the south, the south west, pockets around major cities etc (Bristol anyone?)
Housing is too expensive and so too is travel now

I really think the vast majority of hardship comes from housing being too expensive

I don't own my own home, I don't wear designer clothes, I don't have foreign holidays, we have a take away maybe one a month, we never go out! Narrow minded ridiculousness

It is a fine balance I think. Many do expect 'higher' standards of living in part because of the media and a more powerful consumer culture. But on the other side, you are right. Things are very different. My dad took early retirement at 54 and still has a better pension than Dh will have when he retires at 67...not to mention the large sums they have made on the properties we lived in. However it was very telling when dad went into m&s to buy a shirt (he wears things until they die), picked up the one he wanted, got it to the till and found out it was £35. He nearly had a heart attack! He never spends that much on himself...needless to say he didn't buy it, much to my mum's annoyance.

Problem is, housing is affordable if there are two of you.

If you're single it's harder. Much harder.

I'm in the Midlands and I just bought my first house at 21. My partner did a tour in Afghan and I've scrimped and saved to do so. I do find though that our achievement is downplayed by older family members who don't realise how hard it is to get onto the property ladder now. Someone went when I told them I was so proud of ourselves as they got a 100% mortgage on their own when they bought their house thirty years ago.

This type of thread really annoys me as it assumes that everyone lives around London or the South East.

This sort of comment really irritates me as it ignores the fact that affordability and cost of living considered as a whole have changed negatively in many parts of the country based on objective measures, and isn't confined to the South East.

It also tends to discount the large part of the population who live in London and the South East (and the South West, parts of Yorkshire, and numerous urban centres) as less important or the issues that affect them not worthy of discussion.

On another thread recently posters said they didn't think the latter mentality existed and that people everywhere were concerned because of the 'creep' effects of affordability issues. Apparently they were wrong.

The 'people are worse off because they want luxuries' brigade never base their statements on any evidence, and ignore objective statistical data on relative affordability of eg housing over the decades.

MrsNextDoor I live in the Midlands. Houses aren't amazing cheap but then they never were. You don't have to be rich or live in a deprived area to buy a house though.

When I was single, I worked a second job in a bar 3 nights a week for 4 years, so I could get together enough for a deposit. It's doable, but a lot of people just don't want to work for it or sacrifice other things.

Petty I'm not saying anyone should go without a phone, of course not. But does anyone NEED to spend £50 a month on a contract for the latest iphone?

I used to live in Lincoln. Just a couple of hours from London on the train, half an hour from Nottingham

Property is cheap as chips there (£120k for 3 bed house in nice neighbourhood) and very low unemployment

Mary could have fooled me! We can't afford one. How do we save up the deposit when we have to budget as we do? We both work...rent is high...as are bills. We don't have a car! We have no hope.

That's because I earn minimum wage and DH not much more. We have a local authority flat and could never buy in this city. It's a NW one with a mixture of "cheap" and "exclusive" areas.

I live in Cheltenham - nice town, always high on the happy factor/standard of living etc. You can buy a 1 bed studio for less than £70k here.

Can be bought by a single average person on national average wage. A couple, or mates buying together (like we did to get on the property ladder) would be able to go up to a flat...

too much doom and gloom sometimes

This sort of comment really irritates me as it ignores the fact that affordability and cost of living considered as a whole have changed negatively in many parts of the country based on objective measures, and isn't confined to the South East.

It also tends to discount the large part of the population who live in London and the South East (and the South West, parts of Yorkshire, and numerous urban centres) as less important or the issues that affect them not worthy of discussion.

It doesn't discount those people at all. I am just making the point that not everyone does and certainly not everyone has to live in London or the Southeast. Therefore it is not true to say that everyone in the next generation will be unable to afford a house.

I moved out of the south many years ago so that I could live in a more affordable area so I am not particularly sympathetic to those that claim it is impossible to do.

Mary well it's nice that you could move. Many people can't though on account of ageing parents and the fact that moving costs hundreds of pounds. And when you can't even save up for a camping trip, that seems rather pie in the sky.

MrsNextDoor People on the lowest wages were not able to buy houses in previous generations either. It is not something that is unique to the current youngest generation and doesn't not signify that a whole generation will be unable to buy a house in the future.

MrsNextDoor People on the lowest wages were not able to buy houses in previous generations either. It is not something that is unique to the current youngest generation and doesn't not signify that a whole generation will be unable to buy a house in the future.

The situation as a whole has changed materially nationally over the last 30 years. You're right. We don't know what the next 30 years will bring, but we know what the last 30 have brought

Now just waiting for 'but interest rates were eye-watering!' argument. I'll get in first - there were only 3 years where mortgage repayments as a proportion of earnings outstripped the average over the last 10 years.

Marynary - exactly that, I could not afford a house until I was well into my professional career,

then had to buy a hovel with a mate, do it up, trade it up, begin again... not called the property ladder for no reason,

nowadays folks seem to expect to buy a place that they will be in for years straight away.

I think one of the main problems for this generation is and will continue to be the lack of jobs in that middle ground.

The job market is becoming more polarised (with the reduction of the public sector and also technological advances. Plus of course globalisation and outsourcing of many typical middle sector jobs).