To disagree with my work colleagues in thinking that the cost of living is a potentially serious social problem?

[Livingtothefull]

I was having a discussion with a few work colleagues, they were all 50-60 somethings and own their own properties, only small mortgages left etc. We are based in one of the major cities in the UK.

I said that it was a big problem that a lot of people, despite working hard & having good jobs and/or professional qualifications, couldn't afford to buy property and much of their salary went on rented accommodation which left them very little disposable income….also many jobs were insecure which left them worrying about being able to afford rent or to save.

I have previously talked to a few (mostly younger) people who are in this position. One person who is a police officer in his 30s complained that he had been a police offer for 12 years, been promoted but still couldn't get on the housing ladder.

I suggested to these colleagues that there was something intrinsically wrong when a police officer - doing a difficult, sometimes dangerous and necessary role - couldn't afford to buy himself even a small flat.
They all quite vehemently disagreed with me; their response was, that rather than complain about the cost of living, people should just go wherever the work and job security is and where housing is more affordable, and if that means moving away to a cheaper area then so be it (one or two of them pointed out that they had had to do this when they were starting out).

I was really quite surprised at their response: is it just me who thinks this way? How are people with personal/family ties to where they live supposed to just up & move? What about essential workers like nurses/police officers who are needed everywhere, not just in affordable areas?

I do feel that the 50-60s are a luckier generation (I belong to it btw) & I was surprised at their response, some of them have DCs? I do feel things are tougher for the younger generation & it can be difficult to get ahead, I think I have quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from them (no massive student loans in my day either). I just felt that the colleagues I spoke to weren't aware of how much the world has changed - but would be interested to know what others thought about this.

I think part of the problem is when our parents say "we brought our house for 3 times our salary" what their dc is hearing is "I can buy a house for 3x my salary"
When they see they can't get a house for that price (because it's 10x their income) they will have the money to spend on holidays etc.
Why would you save for something which is virtually unobtainable when you can have other things?

The media are fuelling all this inter generational conflict. You’ll see plenty of references to generation rent in the guardian and to rich pensioners and blah blah.

The other part of the issue Anatidae is that some of the older generation are so scathing about the younger generation [my parents for example]. They truly believe that the reason the younger generation cannot afford to buy a home is due to their drinking takeaway coffees and owning a mobile phone "We never had that in our day" they say "That's why we were able to save and buy a home [which then appreciated in value and were able to use the accrued capital to purchase their next bigger home, etc, etc]"...

Yeah Mum and Dad, you bought a 3 bed family home on one average income [Dad's], ran a second hand car [as I do and many of my peers do, we definitely don't drive fancy new cars unless they were given to us as a company perk] and holidayed in the UK [as we do with one Easyjet trip a year to Europe for Christmas to visit DH's elderly father who otherwise would spend Christmas alone].

Mum and Dad are both comfortably retired and have now decided that mobile phones are essential [although they do not of course need them for work purposes] and are very happy to while the day away in Starbucks or Costa which did not exist in their younger years and may have done the same then if it had been possible. They are also able to afford multiple overseas trips to far flung places and own buy-to-let property....

But they look at the youth of today in their rented premises and berate their lack of motivation and work effort and say 'Well, if only they would sacrifice their use of a mobile phone and Sky and not buy a car and stop drinking coffee at coffee shops... well then of course they could afford to buy a house. But no, they want everything handed to them on a plate, don't they, not work hard for what they want like we had to".

It's the bloody hypocricy and blinkered attitude that gets my goat tbh,

all the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands

It's not just fewer hands, it's a geographical problem.

Look at the High Speed Railway project.

It's a joke if people think Birmingham is in the North of the Country.

The amazing house price inflation mainly affects some parts of the country. Where I live you can buy the first house we bought for £70k.

sea

I get your point - people look back through the blinkers of their own experience and sometimes can’t see the situation of others. That’s frustrating.

I certainly don’t think all people are like that. My own parents live in a modest house on modest pensions. We have talked about all this and we agree that life was just different then - in some ways lower pressure and in some ways much worse. They had true poverty, the end of rationing, areas still reeling from being shelled, parents sometimes coming back traumatised or not coming back at all from the war. The generation before then, who actually fought or lived through the depression, well they were made of sterner stuff.

We talked about how Things are different. They see younger people with huge advantages in some areas - access to education for example that would have been unthinkable for them. Access to the whole world, which is a double edged sword. Because you’re competing globally now, not just against people in your town or even your country. Social media, which they think can be a good tool but has many downsides. The 24/7 work environment and women needing to work and bring up kids, which they think is exhausting, etc etc. It’s a mixed bag. Houses near them can still be had affordably so that’s something they’ve not benefitted from. We all had to move away to get educated and have jobs. That’s just how it is, staying near family is a luxury not a right.

At the same time, absolutely nothing is achieved by this kind of generational conflict, other than stopping people asking the hard questions like ‘wtf is the deal with tax credits’ and ‘wtf do the same people who came over with William the bastard still own all the land?’ And ‘why aren’t amazon paying any fucking tax?’

There’s enough to go around. The rich can even stay rich. They just need to pay their taxes and operate within legal and morally ok boundaries

Young spend three times more on housing than grandparents
"They also have to cope with less space and longer commutes to get to work."

We couldn't afford city DH works in so now he has a long commute did with previous house as well.

My IL used to see him leave really early and get back really late when they stopped over and then have a go at me for not working evening shifts that started before he’d get back but agree kids were too young to leave – apparently other people managed. Most people who did manage it I spoke to had local support networks usually family – which obviously moving round for work we didn’t.

My own parents are as bad – they complain about their children not being able to afford buy near them then complain about every single house building project done near them that could give their kids a chance to do that.

The affordable bit we found is growing in price as many others from nearby cities find they can't afford where they work and it's pushing up local prices - which make me wonder if even this location will be affordable for our children.

While I agree the attitude is wrong, it is true that it is exactly what many of them had to do in their younger days.

During that time, house prices soared, then crashed causing negative equity. Whole industries were destroyed and many out of work. Inflation was high and Norman Tebbit famously told us that his father had got on his bike and looked for work and that we should all do the same.

The same kind of attitudes and comments then as now - except we haven’t yet seen people so desperate they are posting their house keys through the bank letterboxes, and rows of “For Sale” boards for houses that no-one can afford to either keep or buy.

Don’t you remember all that, Op?

When I was young, you could only get a mortgage for 2.5 times your wage as a man, a woman's was not taken into account. Getting a mortgage was hard. If getting a mortgage was the same now, house inflation would not have been possible.

In the old days house prices were 2.5 to 3 times the man’s salary. Nowadays they are 2.5 to 3 times joint salary. Nothing much has changed.

In the old days a women's salary was not taken into account, because of having children. Childcare was in many places simply not available, so few mothers could work full time when children were young.

When we got our first mortgage, in order for my salary to be taken into account, we were required to marry within six months of the mortgage being granted. Otherwise, only (then) dh2b salary would be included and only if he was over a certain age. There was more social housing available - right to buy was only just beginning and private rentals were subject to the fair rent tribunal, which kept prices more affordable.
Regardless of grants etc, only a minority of people went to university, so we were working and saving from a much younger age than most people now. When we got married, it wasn't about 'destination ' weddings, or venues - the choice was church or registrars office. Receptions were often in the church hall, or similar. The cost of weddings these days seem extremely high when often, the money would go a long way towards a deposit for a property in a lot of places.
I am at the youngest end of the baby boomer period. I am not sitting on a fortune - my public services pension will not find much more than a basic lifestyle when it eventually pays out ( only payable upon reaching state retirement age, so about 11 more years for me). My home is a big standard 3 bed mid terrace which needs work doing to it if it's going to see us through. The only reason it's now mortgage free is that dh was made redundant and we chose to use his payout to clear the mortgage. The young family next door bemoan their financial situation, however, since moving in, they have gutted and completely refitted it to their taste because they just 'weren't keen on' the newly fitted kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms etc. (house had been renovated within the few months prior to the previous occupant dying in tragic circumstances). My contempories tended to 'make do' with decor that was serviceable if not perfect. We had second hand furniture. The only new furniture we had when we married was our bed and wardrobes which were a gift. Everything was second hand. Many younger people would not do that today.
I do feel dreadful that my dcs are basically waitwfor us to die in order to be able to own their own homes. I wish it wasn't the case. One is a keyworker in an inner city si, although work is available elsewhere, it's needed here. The other could, and indeed is talking about moving away. They shouldn't have to, but I suspect they will do eventually. I feel sad for any young person in a similar situation, but it is NOT my fault and I won't feel guilty about it.

*My own parents are as bad – they complain about their children not being able to afford buy near them then complain about every single house building project done near them that could give their kids a chance to do that(

Probably because all the houses being built on such [green field] developments are large 4 bed plus houses which are definitely not affordable. Or are flats, which are cheaper, but people don't want to live in them even though people are happy to outside the UK. New housing developments are not built to accommodate what people actually want and need, they're built to make the developers the most money and people just have to take what's available, or not, if they can't afford it.

There are lots of empty homes which are just staying empty instead of being modernised and brought back into use.

There are lots of singletons living in larger houses which they don't really need.

And lots of people extend smaller houses, thus turning what was an affordable home into an unaffordable home.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not the fault of the over 60s that the under 30s can't afford to buy houses. Though if I were over 60 and had some cash lying around and my dc were looking for a deposit, I'd give them the money, rather than making them wait another 30 years for an inheritance.

My FIL complains about homes being built near him. But he is upfront that they are all expensive houses being built, more expensive than he could afford. And not houses for ordinary families.

I agree with you. Despite being one of the luckier generation I still think it sucks for the younger ones. I'm not so altruistic though that I'd want to lose too much of my luckier position.

Yanbu. Dh and are in our 30s with two young dc and we are home owners in a city in the South East. The only reason we have a home of our own is because our parents gave us a significant amount towards a deposit and we bought a 'do-er upper'.
We are in professional jobs and may still.m be struggling to get that deposit together if it wasn't for the money we were given. We are lucky and lots of people are not

I'm in my 40s, but I have benefited massively from no university fees, a low cost of living for many years, low house prices and being able to buy a house when I did. I did move a few times in my 20s for work, but I was able to afford the moves. I know I'm lucky. Some people don't know how lucky they are. Life has got harder and harder for the younger generations.

The fault lies with governments whose policies lead to a situation where house prices are grossly disproportionate to wages

DH and I moved to an affordable area with good jobs and we are very fortunate to be in our twenties and to have a lovely home on shared ownership. Downside is that when we had DS we had no support and our marriage almost failed and we have decided to stick to one child which was never the plan and we get a lot of comments from older generations about how we should have more. People often fail to see how things link together.

YANBU I have a friend, both parents were teachers, raised three children in a large family home in the south east, retired in mid/late 50s, very comfortable, with good pension. Family holidays as a child were mostly in the UK with a few trips to France, her mum didn't work until all three children were in primary school.

My friend and husband, both health professionals (not doctors) in the NHS, one full time, one part time, two children, one preschool. They live in a much smaller house, outside the south east (too expensive) holidays mostly UK, or camping in France. Their parents have a higher income from their pensions than my friend and husband have from their salary. They will never have a home as nice as the previous generation or such a valuable pension, or such an early retirement despite working harder than her parents did.

I should add I also think the same unfairness works at the bottom end as well. In the past people could have got council accommodation and had a secure family life in a decent home. The typical council tenant in the 1970s would have no chance of council housing these days.

Nowadays even houses to do up are hard to find. One estate agent I spoke to said 20 years ago he would take potential buyers to look at 7 or 8 properties, now it’s maybe 1 or 2 if lucky and houses to do up are hard to come by.

In the old days house prices were 2.5 to 3 times the man’s salary. Nowadays they are 2.5 to 3 times joint salary

Not in London they aren't!

Planning rules are terrible and the attitudes towards development are worse. There is so much land which is greenbelt but not suitable for agricultural use. It should be converted to land for housing. I own land which currently has a couple of horses on it. Truthfully it would be better utilized with some housing on it. It's not allowed. Ironic that the horses belong to friends priced out of the village they grew up in.

Around here, the 'do'er uppers' are so crappy, that it would take more money to do them up than they would eventually be worth.

One estate agent I spoke to said 20 years ago he would take potential buyers to look at 7 or 8 properties, now it’s maybe 1 or 2 if lucky
People won't sell because they won't accept that the house is worth less than they want for it