The reason young people can't afford to buy houses

[GrabtharsHammer]

Is because they all have iPhones and Sky telly.

So sayeth my mother.

Nothing at all to do with the ridiculous house prices then? They are baby boomers and bought their first house for a few thousand quid on my dads modest salary.

Apparently the youth of today just need to get rid of their gadgets and telly subscriptions and then they will easily afford a deposit and mortgage.

Are everyone's parents this judgemental and out of touch or am I just particularly lucky?

(Fairly lighthearted) AIBU?

I won't rehash the same arguments as it's been pointed out time and time again. Anyone who thinks that 30 somethings today are on an even playing field with the previous generation when it comes to housing has their head very firmly in the sand.

We need to build more houses. Lots more. How many Victorian houses are there in your town? 1930s? Post-war? 1970s? Maybe a few 1990s? My town (population 30,000) has built less than 50 new houses in the last two years. We need to reform the planning laws radically and put an end to the selfish NIMBYism. I don't see why politically appointed councillors get to vote on new housing developments and blocking them when there is no valid planning reason to do so.

Thanks for the little lecture friskyfrog - SO appreciated - but actually, as I've said upthread, my husband and I bought a house last year. Prior to that we lived in pretty shitty, much smaller rental accommodation, all of which cost more than our mortgage payments do now.

Obviously it varies regionally, but where I live no you cannot get 'lots' of single person houseshares for £350 at all, let alone including bills.

Having phone contracts and paid for tv, Netflix and so on might be small change in saving for a deposit but they make one hell of a difference in considering how much you can afford in your monthly repayments.

Given that rents are more expensive than mortgages in many places, most people don't have to worry particularly about the affordability of repayments: they'll be quite a lot less than they were paying in rent. The estimated rental yield for my house is £400 a month more than we pay in mortgage payments (having bought it one year ago): I think that figure is probably a bit inflated (it came from the estate agents selling the house) it is pretty clear that even with maintenance costs we're at least breaking even by paying mortgage rather than rent, and almost certainly saving money.

Labour's hands aren't clean on this almondpudding. The problems started under Thatcher, granted, but they had 13 years to do something about it and didn't. Much of the worst of the boom happened on their watch. I don't trust them to deliver what's needed in respect of housing either. Not disagreeing that we need reform, but I don't see where it's going to come from.

My dad was a teacher in the seventies. He was a head of department.

He walked to work because he couldn't afford a car.

My parents had no central heating and washed nappies by hand with water heated on a coal fire back boiler.

My mum saved up the deposit while living in a 2 bed house with eight other adults. She shared a bedroom with her mother and aunt. Her grandfather slept on a pull out bed in the sitting room.

I am certainly not suggesting Labour's hands are clean! The housing crisis has been decades in the making. They certainly made things worse when in power.

I think everyone needs to lobby their preferred political party to deal with the housing crisis.

Expat DS has paid board since he started his apprenticeship, so not living for free.

&NotCarlyChurchill my parents were as far from wealthy as you can imagine. Solid working class with low paid jobs living in a working class area where many families lived on benefits.

However, they were savvy and always thought long term. It wasn't costing them anything extra for me to remain there, it's not like I was sharing a bedroom with them and the mortgage was still the same whether I was there or not and I put towards food.

They were very keen for me to not fall into the rent trap as my dad called it. They said that as long as I was saving at least 50% of my earnings I could stay with them. They knew the harder I saved, the quicker I could get out on my own two stable feet. What would be the point in encouraging me to leave the nest before I could really fly?

I have friends who left home as soon as they could to start renting, they either still cannot afford to buy or have just bought their first shoebox flat which cost as much as my house whilst I'm two rungs up the ladder in terms of size. I even know one couple who have had to move out of their cool East London flat back in with the females parents so they can save. They are 33. If they'd stayed at home in the first place they would probably have been able to buy that same flat in their 20s.

Sometimes it makes sense to play the long game.

If DD wants to experience house shares and the like, she can buy a two bed a rent the other room out to her mates.

Buying houses is definately more expensive now than ever but not impossible on a normal wage even in London if you're not fussy for your first property.

Labour Party

They're partly to blame for getting us into this mess in the first place.

Agree that people need to get involved in political parties and get policies changed.

House prices are ridiculous in comparison to earnings but this has only been the case for the last 10-15 years in most areas. I am in my mid thirties and j manages to buy a house in 2000 before prices went crazy stupid. I was very young in house buying terms and I did sacrifice a lot to get on the propert ladder, including a couple of friendships as I was busy saving for a deposit when my friends wanted me to go out drinking and on holidays with them. I must have come across as very boring but those same friends are now unable to get into the property ladder due to the crazy price rises. I don't regret giving up a party lifestyle for a couple of years as I have been able to buy a bigger house in a nicer area due to doing well out of the property market.
I feel more sorry for today's young generation (those under 30) who didn't have the chance to buy when houses were relatively cheap and might not ever get on the property ladder now.
I live in a northern town and my first terraced house cost £25k in 2000, that same house is about £120k now which in comparison to other areas is still quite cheap. I was earning £9k when I bought it and interest rates were not as favourable as they are now but even so, somebody on average salary would need to borrow more multiples of their salary and save a bigger deposit than I did to buy that house.

So all you home owners who get that it's damn near impossible to buy now, would you be willing to take a massive hit on your houses worth?

Because if all it is is supply v demand then building a whole bunch of houses would solve the problem of them being too expensive but would reduce the amount some of you plan to use in retirement and put some of you in negative equity. But maybe your kids would stand a chance of buying rather than living in a (shitty) rental or moving far away so you don't get to see them and your grand kids much.

So all you home owners who get that it's damn near impossible to buy now, would you be willing to take a massive hit on your houses worth?

That is the million dollar question.

I can't blame one political party either. My current house has risen faster in value under the current Tory govt than it did in the last few years of labour. Supply is the main problem, we just don't have enough housing to go around which means the small amount that is available is very expensive.

So all you home owners who get that it's damn near impossible to buy now, would you be willing to take a massive hit on your houses worth

I would, so long as it was a whole market fall so that my house falls by a similar percentage to other houses in the region. A 20-30% across the board reduction in prices would make it easier for people to get on the property ladder and that will eventually include my children (hopefully).

I've just bought a house with my partner at 29 years old, we could have bought earlier but we've spent money on stuff we really didn't need over our years, so have debts upto our eyeballs, but even then we've only been saving deposit for over a year now and rest of it is being provided by the HTB scheme.

I can agree in somewhat to what the OP is saying though, I was in a similar position, but I still know friends who are in that position and will be for a while because instead of investing in their future with training up to try and change jobs to a better paid career they're quite happy to spend £40/50 each weekend in the pub instead, among other things, I've scaled back my spending to be able to afford a nice house. I can agree saving £20 a month on a phone contract doesn't look like a lot, but if you add it all up with the other unnecessary spends it can be quite a lot.

It isn't a massive privilege to have parents who live in a house with more than one bedroom. It's pretty normal, and I don't know any rich people.

I know plenty of people who charge adult children board, but not rent.

Olderthanyouthink, it would make no difference to me if house prices dropped. My house isn't some kind of investment for retirement.

When I retire, I'll sell the two bed house and move into a two bed flat that will cost about the same but be more accessible. It doesn't make any difference to me if my house is worth less, because I use it to live in!

Because you quoted me at 10.47 saying I was lucky because I had wealthy parents who let me stay at home rent free. They aren't wealthy by a long shot, they just thought renting was BS so encouraged me to stay at home and save and helped me get a deposit quicker by not charging rent even though I know they probably could've done with the extra cash. They thought not charging rent was for the greater good.

Obviously it varies regionally, but where I live no you cannot get 'lots' of single person houseshares for £350 at all, let alone including bills.

So where do you live then, Margaret Mayfair?

Here's a two person share in Ealing, London for £550. www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-55958329.html

And here's a one person share in Ealng, London for £425. www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-45588903.html

LOADS of single and double room houseshares all round the home counties commutable to London for under and around £500 pm if you care to look.

Don't let facts get in the way of your rhetoric though.

My best friend does, at 30, still live with her parents. But it's a 2-hour commute to work, she spends £600 on train tickets each month, and she can't stay out later than 10.30 because she has to catch the last train home. She had to turn down a job because the very earliest train wouldn't get her there in time.

This was me. If I hadn't moved in with dp I would have been forced to move into a rental because my commute from my parents house was unsustainable in the long term and relied heavily on the Goodwill of my dad to wake up at 4 in the morning to drive me into town to get the first bus. It's no good good to say just stay with your parents and save. It just isn't always a practical option.

I am nearly 30 and have just bought a lovely flat in an expensive city in the SE, by myself. I have a fairly average wage, an iPhone and go on at least one holiday a year. I saved 20k over 4 years which has enabled me to put down a deposit.

BUT this was only possible because I lived in cheap, disgusting house-shares (would have been more expensive to live alone or with my boyfriend), got rid of my car and walked everywhere, maintained a steady responsible job that's viewed as very boring to my creative yet low-paid friends, did overtime or extra work whenever I could and only bought cheap or second-hand clothes and furniture.

Something has to give; you can't have it all.

If you're a couple with no caring responsibilities, are prepared to sacrifice some things, and don't live in London, buying a property is entirely possible.