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?

This was 2013

These threads make me want to cry with frustration. There is data, actual data, out there about wages and housing cost. If you get off your arse and look at it, rather than simply opining on the internet, you'll find that it's demonstrably the case that things now are NOT the same as they were in the 70s/80s or even the 90s.

The equation of hard work with being able to afford a house is just ridiculous. There are macroeconomic trends at work here, to do with the relative value of the wage versus the relative value of a house that have nothing to do with how hard people work. Plenty of the very hardest working people in society live in council housing.

It's like some people on Mumsnet never did any social science at school.

sixteenistherealnumber you say you got a mortgage at 18, in 2000. That is 16 years ago, a lot has changed in 16 years!!!

• basically anyone could self certify for a 100% mortgage then.
• house prices have tripled since 1997
• multiple of house price to earnings has gone from about 3.5 in 2000 to 10 now (nationwide average)

If you were looking for a mortgage now, you would be spending 3x as much money to get the same flat (keeping in mind that wages have remained fairly stagnant) and you would have a bank run through all of your spending history.

Using examples from almost 20 years ago isn't relevant to today - I know couples earning £100k and they are struggling to get a mortgage due to the conditions applied (and they can still only afford a 600sq ft two-bed flat for this, in quite a scruffy area).

We know prices are much cheaper in the NE and Yorkshire. I don't think many of us think youc an get a property for £125k in the London area.

My son (FTB) pulled out of two house sales - one in Aylesbury and one in zone 5 . The first because the new rail link HS2 was going to be not just near by but in the field behind the houses! the second because a stream at end of garden of flat not only over flowed but it seemed to reach almost to the top of the patio virtually into the flat. It just seemed a bit risky although it was very nice and newly done up inside and he then went for a whole house freehold in Chesham for just about the same price as the zone 5 flat but he doesn't work in Central London so the commute time cost is not so important. (He cycles to work)

I do think it's relevant many of those of us who buy have done weekend jobs too by the way. I don't agree that remains impossible today. Yes as 20 years ago if you are on minimum wage work you may have few shifts, have to be available etc but some ways of working are easier nowadays - the Uber driver on the what britain earns programme chooses only to work during the day and stops to collect children from school. Some changes in work have made it easier not harder although I am not suggesting he is highly paid. He works the lowest paid hours because of his children whilst he qualifies as an accountant - long term plan.

I certainly did not mean to imply only women look after parents. I just used the Indian cultural references around me - most people are not from the UK where I live. Also these grandparents people live with as their children married in their 20s are not old for decades and decades. Before then they are live in babysitters, extra pair of hands, extra income in many cases. Inter generational living is very common across this planet. If you keep in with your children a nd parents you will probably never be in dire need even if the state stops paying pensions.

I see Scotland is considering paying a universal income which I've always thought could be a good idea. I wonder what level they will set it at.

shovetheholly I agree, it's so frustrating.

Anecdotal examples about flats selling for £125k in 2013 aren't helpful - these flats just don't exist.

Also, the idea of working several jobs - I am actually quite well paid. But prices are still so extraordinarily high, there is no way I could afford them. I am also sure a lot of these people 'working three jobs' do not have professional careers.

Plus, the 'move to a worse area' idea - I already live in an area which causes a visible reaction from older people when I say it's name! Haha! Where do I move next?!

£350k for zone 3. After scrolling through the houseboats and auction properties and filtering out the over 50s, shared ownership etc there are plenty in Catford and other areas of zone 3 starting at £150k. You personally might not want to live in Catford in a grotty one bedder but it doesn't mean they don't exist

In zone 5 flats are about £275k at the bottom end in our area.

Plus, the 'move to a worse area' idea - I already live in an area which causes a visible reaction from older people when I say it's name! Haha! Where do I move next?!

Tell me about it. Already mentioned this. I live in bradford, last year voted the worst place to live in the UK. I don't even live in a nice area of Bradford either. I'm squished between 2 pretty notorious council estates. The 3 closest high schools have recently been assessed as inadequate by Ofsted. It's a pretty grim area sometimes.

And as for universal income. No one would bother racking up a load of debt and then taking on the responsibility of a doctor or nurse (as I am) for the same wage as the cleaner.

No there isn't - there are then properties to be sold at auction (you can't get a mortgage this way), and shared ownership. If you buy 50% of a property, you also pay market rent on the other 50%, plus service charge. So it isn't cheap at all.

Why are you being purposefully obtuse in the face of evidence? We are giving you facts.

Also - I actually live near Catford, so I'm not that bothered by it!

I would like to understand when we stopped believing that everyone should have a stable home to live in? I've seen political campaigns from the 50s and 60s talking about massive house building projects to create affordable housing for everyone - whether you could buy, or get a secure council house. When did the change happen? And how is it that so many people who lived through those campaigns cannot remember that it used to be different?

I think there are lots of people out there working in demanding professional jobs, that are well, but not exceptionally paid, who just couldn't take on something else without risk to their health.

When I was in London I was on £50,000-£60,000, working about 60 hours a week. And don't see how I could have managed another job on top of that, I was shattered my downtime.

I have know FTBs turn down a garden flat in a very posh area of zone 3 within walking distance of shops and transport for £125000 for less reason than having to replace a shower room.

I've been lurking on this thread but oh my god this is the biggest load of bollocks I've seen so far.

user147 I didn't say it was easy for any 18 year old to be able to buy a house today. However if an 18 year old is fortunate to have a steady job which pays enough and gas a deposit then I see no reason why they should not be able to get a mortgage. Mortgages should be given based on affordability, not age. My post was responding to somebody who said she didn't think 18 year olds are responsible enough to pay mortgages - it wasn't about financial feasibility in 2016.

I'm actually quite shocked that banks will give an 18 year old a mortgage. I didn't have a clue at 18 hence blowing my student loan on crap.

My actual words are above. Never said i didn't think 18 year old should get a mortgage, just shocked that they are.

How likely is that to happen now though, considering they have to stay in some sort of education? I don't know how it works but hoe realistic is it for an 18 year old to get a mortgage now?

Please tell me- where are the garden flats in zone 3 that cost £125,000??!

I'm pretty sure they do not exist! If they did I am sure we would have bought a couple of them...

Where we are looking- zone 4/5- 2 beds are pitched at around £350, 000 regardless of what condition they are in

4. However lots of other EU states have people happy just to rent and indeed live in flat - see Paris etc. The English psyche has traditionally liked to own if we can and to have our space away from other people rather than being cooped up next to others but as people say your studio flat you own might be more cramped and near others than the 3 bed rented place

BOLLOCKS! my ENGLISH grandparents were happy to rent when renting meant they had a lifelong home, and they could plant a rose bush in the garden and expect to still be there to see it grow.

Most English people would be happy to rent in a more European rental market where your rented apartment is your home.

The English renters do not have higher expectations than Europeans or their grandparents, they just want a HOME rather than temporary lodgings where they can't even hang a family picture and can only HOPE to be allowed to stay in for more than a year at a time!

Well most banks state in their lending criteria that you have to be 18 to get a mortgage. I don't see why it would be shocking that they would be prepared to lend to an 18 year old who can prove that they have the means to repay. If an 18 year old has enough steady income and a big enough deposit why should they be refused any more so than somebody aged 40 in an identical position?
I do accept that hardly any 18 year olds would have enough steady income nowadays to get a mortgage though, but if they do.......

I don't think the banks were irresponsible for giving me a
Mortgage when I was young bit around the same time my grandmother who was living on pension credit was given £18,000 in loans and she couldn't repay them. That was more shocking.

Yep, exactly user. It shouldn't be a race to the fucking bottom. The expectation that people should be thankful for paying £300k for a flat that's in a terrible condition is plain silly.

There are two things that worry me here. The first is a failure to understand macroeconomics, and the lack of engagement with the actual data that I mentioned upthread. There are some very clear, obvious trends wrt to wages and housing costs, and no amount of people telling us that they worked hard in the 1980s to afford their place contravenes that data. FFS!

The second is the blithe acceptance of "market conditions" as some God-given, unalterable thing. Markets are shaped by policy, they can be regulated and they can be changed. When on earth did we lose this vital sense that we can build society in the image that we want - that it is something manmade, in which we can intervene for the better?

If English people are only
Concerned with having a secure home and not actually owning a home why was right to buy so popular? Those who bought under right to buy had secure tenancies.

£350k for zone 3. After scrolling through the houseboats and auction properties and filtering out the over 50s, shared ownership etc there are plenty in Catford and other areas of zone 3 starting at £150k. You personally might not want to live in Catford in a grotty one bedder but it doesn't mean they don't exist

haven't you just explained the problem? Yes, you can get something absolutely shit in some unheard of zone 18 area. What this means is most of London is out of reach for most Londoners.

This is what happens when you turn homes into investments.

DH's GPs bought under right-to-buy not because they weren't happy renting or living in their home, but so that their children could have some of the security they had, because their children weren't going to get it the same way they did. Obviously. Because it was all being sold off.

So owning a home isn't just about not wanting to rent and be insecure but also about having something to pass onto offspring then?

I wouldn't mind renting if it was secure and affordable - it isn't in the private rental market.

You are stuck on one year contracts, which allow the landlord to put up the rent each year by whatever value they like.

Houses are also rented assuming a working adult will be paying for each room - say in the region of £700-900 per room in the London area.

To rent a three bedroom house on my street costs £2,600 a month - up from £1,800 a month five years ago. Is this secure or sustainable for the tenants? Where are we supposed to get the extra £800 a month from?

Those rent increases are shocking user147. There should be a cap on annual rent increases. There needs to be more regulation in the rental sector.