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.

Well that's not entirely true as I work as an admin assistant in the late 90s and earned 10k pa @nd houses in my part of the Midlands were as little as 28-32k! I didn't however have a tv and I'm not entirely sure flat screen tvs existed. I didn't have a microwave either. I did have a massive fuck off violin though and I used to ride it into town strapped to the back of the bus, it's how me and my family got to work. It wasn't unusual in those days. People expect too much now.

so did my dad chaletdays but they also got more for their money in those days too ,even with two wages we couldnt [ thats dh and i]afford to buy the nice three bed semidetached , on a nice estate that i grew up in ,eventually upgraded to a four double bed semi detached [ my mum had started working then too] its just the way it was then.

people could do far worse than 'bury' sophieelmer i grew up there its hardly the back of beyond its got some great surrouding areas a good town center and not far from manchester.

High house-prices are not unique to the South-East. I live in a very naice area further North and a half-decent house is around £350,000.

Yeah yeah Owl Lady. That joke's getting boring now.

There's myriad reasons why people cannot afford houses now. No one's saying that raised expectations is the only one, just that it's a contributory factor in many -but by no means all - cases.

I think we'd be better off with a properly regulated rental sector and less pressure on people to buy houses. At the moment, the prospect of still renting in middle and old age just isn't attractive because you would be in such a vulnerable position.
But in many European countries it's seen as quite normal. It allows for much more flexible life styles, as well as more security.

Owl Lady My niece is looking for work She was recently told to apply via an app. Could you explain how shes expected to do this without a smartphone?

Employers and jobcentres EXPECT you to have these things. Universal Credit is going to need to be applied for online.

Eventually everything is. So other organisations are expecting too much no?

Two income families can't afford what one income family could precisely because there are now more people working which keeps wages low. And work can be outsourced to cheaper workforce in other countries.

I also think that the fact that there are more dual income families now, has pushed up house prices commensurately. When mortgages were based on one income, there was, to an extent, a ceiling on house prices. However, now families have two earners, house prices have increased to take advantage of this. Win win for the banks and building societies!

"half-decent" houses are not starter homes...

the house I live in now is worth 6 times what a starter home is worth in my area today.

Starter homes here are worth less than 3 times the national average salary of £26,500.

I don't live anywhere unusual from what I can see, just not in the SE/London.

I also think that the fact that there are more dual income families now, has pushed up house prices commensurately. When mortgages were based on one income, there was, to an extent, a ceiling on house prices. However, now families have two earners, house prices have increased to take advantage of this. Win win for the banks and building societies!

I moved to the UK 4 years ago. I would say a lot of young people in the UK are complaisant and workshy. Most of my other foreign friends are in similar positions to myself, we work full time plus do part time consulting as a side activity and already own our own homes with large deposits in areas with exceptional schools and local amenities.

The difference is priorities; we have prioritised our future children’s educations and family environment over other unnecessary expenses. There are a massive number of 25-30 year olds in the UK that are only just waking up to the reality that they might have to put in the hard yakka to achieve the life they want.

Anyone who thinks life was better 50 years ago than it is today is living in lala land and needs to open their eyes to the opportunities that are right in front of them.

The cost of renting is another factor that makes it difficult to buy a house. Many tenants find that regular rent increases and having to move whenever the landlord decides to sell up (so having to scrape together another deposit, letting agent fees etc) eats up your savings. Unless you're in a council/housing association property, or are really lucky with your landlord, it can be really difficult.

The cost of renting is another factor that makes it difficult to buy a house. Many tenants find that regular rent increases and having to move whenever the landlord decides to sell up (so having to scrape together another deposit, letting agent fees etc) eats up your savings. Unless you're in a council/housing association property, or are really lucky with your landlord, it can be really difficult.

Helenadove, you do know I was joking

I'm sick f these threads full of people who lived with their parents until they were 40 and worked four jobs and never went on holiday and black blah blah. It's unrealistic for MOST people fir a whole host of reasons.

It's not expecting too much to want secure, suitable housing to live in when you have worked all your life whether you have a flat screen tv or not.

I think people red herring these threads, my dad had an unskilled job and my parents used to own their own house outright! They had us in their 20s (I'm in my 30s now) they drank, went out, we went on holiday to Spain, we had a car, we had one of those wooden veneer tvs. We even ad a utility room

The big difference to me seems to be that 100% mortgages no longer exist. I doubt we'd be on the housing ladder without the 105% mortgage deal we got in around 2000.

We had to save nothing at all. We were in our thirties by then, having lived in shared rentals for many years.

Ah Sorry Owllady.

Trueblue workers had more rights 50 years ago. Now workers rights have been eroded. e.g. workfare didnt exist 50 years ago. How far do you think people would have got when their employer could have made them redundant and replaced them with someone who could have worked for their benefits? If this had happened to my parents 40/50 years ago they would have lost their house.

I think the cost of renting is a huge factor, and it's another with a complex relationship with house prices. The rise of BTL has helped to drive up house prices, and BTL buyers have an advantage in the buying process. However having bought at a higher price, most BTL investors want an immediate return on their investment (covering repayments + costs + profit, and of course many BTL mortgages require this) as well as having an asset that is appreciating in the long term and being paid for through rent. So rents go up, which puts prospective owner occupiers at a further competitive disadvantage.

The dual-income household argument is an interesting one when you look at the data. 67% of women aged 16 to 64 were in work in 2013, an increase from 53% in 1971. For men the percentage fell to 76% in 2013 from 92% in 1971.

So the numerical increase in women working isn't as great as some people may think (many women have always worked). In addition, the majority of women's jobs remain lower paid than men's.

When you look at stats for mothers - records begin in 1996. Then, 67% of married or cohabiting mothers with dependent children worked. By 2013 it had increased to 72% - not really enough to explain a dual-income driven increase in house prices even in the shorter period.

There was a higher % increase in lone mothers working in the same period, from 43% to 60%.

Source: ONS

YY Owllady my dad ..........building site foreman/carpenter

my mum........worked in a chicken factory.....part time when we were little and paid a babysitter when it clashed with my dads hours.

Owned own house. Not many hoildays but that was through choice not because they couldnt afford it. Im not bothered about holidays either.

And i was born in the 70s so my example covers that decade and the 80s.

Your pet dog only fed you for 2 weeks? My grandparents lasted a winter on a gerbil and some acorns and didn't have 5g.

' I would say a lot of young people in the UK are complaisant and workshy. Most of my other foreign friends are in similar positions to myself, we work full time plus do part time consulting as a side activity and already own our own homes with large deposits in areas with exceptional schools and local amenities.

The difference is priorities; we have prioritised our future children’s educations and family environment over other unnecessary expenses. There are a massive number of 25-30 year olds in the UK that are only just waking up to the reality that they might have to put in the hard yakka to achieve the life they want. '

Wow, what sweeping generalisations. So nice to have such judgmental people around us, I'm glad you were welcomed here to lord it everyone else who just aren't as perfect as you.

I've been here 13 years and haven't found that to be true at all.

It's certainly possible for young people to buy a house now, assuming they're able to save up deposits, prepared to take on mortgages at exceedingly high multiples of their salary, and willing to bet that the 300 year low "short term emergency" interest rates are going to stay that way for the next 25 years.

Whether they'd be sensible to do that is another question entirely.

I live in the South East on the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Very few of my friend's parents were home owners. Most rented council houses. Home ownership did increase after that but the idea that in the past everyone was a home owner is not true. Many baby boomers have certainly been fortunate with houses and pensions but that doesn't mean the next generation will be the first to struggle. Houses won't go up until noone can afford them - if no one buys prices will drop until people can afford them.

It's doable for all but the lowest paid, so long as you're not in London or the south East. You just need to buy something "below average", generally, as your first step onto the ladder.

I love how the response to people saying move north is "but there are no jobs!!!!"

Do southerners think that people north of Watford don't work?

Of course there are jobs. They maybe don't pay as much as the equivalent in London pays, but it allows you to live very comfortably.

I'm astounded by the ignorance sometimes.

Houses won't go up until noone can afford them - if no one buys prices will drop until people can afford them.

That would only be true if the market was solely comprised of owner occupiers, or possibly if the state weren't subsidiaing BTL through tax breaks and housing benefit.