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.

That's a really good point about people prioritising money elsewhere (leisure) because even if we didn't we'd never be able to buy.

I would have to go 15 years without phone/coffee out or my annual holiday that costs me no more than £1500 in total (including spends) to afford a deposit on even the most basic accommodation where I live.

What then? I give up the whole of my ds childhood of holidays etc and then prices rise again and I still can't afford it? Or I take on a mortgage in my 40's for a short period at high return?

I've not liked the fact I'm in a first floor flat as ds has grown up. But I've been very greatful for a HA affordable property.

Now he's a teen I've started to plan how I will decorate and update over the next few years as we get rid of toys etc and it's likely not to be worn down so quickly.

OnionShite, I think it is overly simplistic to just say it is harder now or it was harder then. When was then? I bought my first house in 1973, I bought at the tail end of a boom. People who bought in 1971 had a much easier time than I did.

When you say it is harder are you just talking about price of houses or are you looking at costs i.e. interest rates? Have you thought about what women were earning in the 60s and 70s? Women complain about unfairness in salaries now but it is nothing to what it was then. I remember working in an office with six men and six women, we were doing the same thing and the men were earning more than double what the women did, they had families to keep you know and we were earning pin money.

Why don't my kids want doer uppers? Because they don't. Like most of their friends they went to uni and lived in houses with central heating and double glazing and thought they were roughing it because the furniture was old and the house was untidy. No way would they want to rough it in a cold damp house for months or years while they saved to do it up.

Are you just talking about the South East? London? Because in lots of places a couple earning NMW can easily afford a decent house.

Like I said it is tough but saying it is tougher than "then" is simplistic. I bet you anything a young teacher or nurse in say Bradford has an easier time getting on the housing ladder now than their equivalent did in London 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

So if you want everyone in cheaper parts of the country and anyone older than you to sympathise then good luck. I know I had it hard in the 70s and I know some people didn't. I know some people bought right to buy council houses in London and have made a million not having made as much effort as I did. Welcome to the real world of grown ups.
They would be hard pushed to buy a smaller house than my first house.

YANBU
These people just fail to engage with the facts about how much it costs to cover housing costs today. They have no idea or choose to have no idea.

It’s like an empathy bypass.

Also the classic argument about live where it’s cheaper.

So, let’s take London. House prices and rents are escalating. What happens when police officers can not afford to live in London. Or paramedics. We have an increased threat of terrorism and taking the flawed logic, the police officers and paramedics all live somewhere cheap and don’t actually work in London anymore.

Then what.

People are actually stupid if they don’t think the cost of living matters.

Well you're not allowed to for a start....but don't let facts get in your way. But the fact is lots of us lucky boomers worked for years before we hit our 20s and we didn't get 5.6 weeks holiday a year as an entitlement and lots of us worked 5 and a half days a week. I don't go whining about how lucky people are to have what they have now, why are you so bitter to begrudge people what they have?

Well no actually. If you want to look at the facts, you should be looking at how much a house costs now in relation to the average salary and how that has changed since the 1970s. It may have been hard for some people in the 1970s, but if you look at the price to income ratio, you will see that it is much harder for far more people now!

Have a look at what happened to prices in the 1970s, it is so simplistic to talk about "The 70s" as there were vast changes due to inflation. You also need to say where you are looking, I think some places are more afford able now and some much less affordable.

If people just want to talk about the South East then maybe they should say so. Vast areas of the country have nice houses that are affordable for a couple on NMW.

Vast areas of the country have nice houses that are affordable for a couple on NMW

Do you live in a bubble where no one in London and the South East earns the NMW?

why are you so bitter to begrudge people what they have?

I'm not at all bitter. I own a house in London so I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

Also, the biggest barrier to buying a home now is a deposit. Less of an issue back then.

Plus the level of social housing available was much higher - creating a better more secure home for people who couldn’t buy.

The cost of living is more than just buying a home.

People who rent are on very shaky ground.

The world is different. Stick your head above the parapet and learn how other people live, really learn instead of basing it on a narrow slice of “information”.

Grannytomine, the way you describe your kids does not describe my experience. Thinking through my university friends, none of us really had cars in out twenties, many still rent with little hope of buying and it is only relatively recently (mid to late thirties) that any of us have bought homes. Maybe it is down to area again? My two youngest are in their 20s, lots of their friends have bought or are in the process, most had cars in sixth form never mind their 20s. Maybe not living in a city made that more of a priority?

I don't know what your first house was like, obviously, but I know when my parents were young there was the concept of a starter home with the idea that you would be able to move somewhere larger as the family grew. Now I think many people are not hoping to buy their 'first' home but their 'only' home as the thought of the costs of selling and moving again are too much and often people are buying at a time children are also settling into schools etc so it is understandable that they want those homes to be family-sized if at all possible. Well we would have liked the larger family home but could only afford a starter and yes the costs of estate agents and solicitors was an issue then, of course because of inflation the costs would seem low now but as a proportion of salary they were still high. My first home when we married was rented, then 2 years in the doer upper and yes we moved just as the eldest was starting school. Not ideal then or now.

Also, the biggest barrier to buying a home now is a deposit. Less of an issue back then. Again I ask when was "then?" For an older house in the early 70s the building society wants a 20% deposit. You could get 95% mortgages but not for the older, cheaper, terraced houses. Saving for our deposit cost us thousands as house prices rocketed. When we started saving we could have had a three bed semi with garage in a nice area for the price we paid for a run down terrace in a not so nice area 2 years later. Timing is everything.

Plus the level of social housing available was much higher - creating a better more secure home for people who couldn’t buy That is very true, the right to buy scheme whilst brilliant for the people who benefitted has caused terrible problems for the next generation. I am sure no one realised the awful consequences.

Do you live in a bubble where no one in London and the South East earns the NMW? Of course not and if you asked me if prices in London and the South East were a problem I would agree. In other parts of the country it might be less of a problem and in some places no problem at all.

In other parts of the country it might be less of a problem and in some places no problem at all

Have you checked or is this just an assumption.

Timing is everything

But you are basing this on your own experience. The timing now is not great for many many people in all parts of the country.

That's great for your children and their friends. I think you should be proud of them rather than sounding disparaging of them on an open forum.

I am interested in where all these places where a couple on nmw can easily buy a nice house are? And how many of the jobs are permanent and secure? If they have a child, how do they afford the child care? It's certainly not anywhere round here (and I am no in the SE).

The arguments on here are exactly what I mean - pitting generations against each other. granny is correct in her statements that quite a lot of stuff was way worse in the 70s. It just was. Sexism was endemic, there was no concept of average kids from working class homes going to uni etc. I remember the miners strike and the pits closing and the sheer deprivation that followed - it was awful.

Can we not see that BOTH statements are correct?

1. There was plenty that was shit and awful and tough about the seventies and eighties that is much better now (the internet, university access, sexual equality, childcare provision, reduction in serious poverty as in no indoor plumbing in some areas etc etc.)
2. There is plenty of stuff now that was better in the seventies (relative wage to buy ratio, fewer consumer goods that are a necessity, no social media, lower population, better pensions, jobs for life.)

Both these statements are correct. What’s not correct is for one generation to say that another had it easier across the board. It does us no good to argue like this.

Turn your rage (and you should be angry) on the people who own 95% ofbthe land and who land bank to drive up development prices. To housebuilders who lobby to reduce minimum standards and space. To a government that thinks that tax credits is better than forcing companies making billions to pay decent wages. To companies who lobby for less power for unions. To companies who siphon off YOUR tax pounds in shady PFI deals. These are the people who are wrecking society. These are the people keeping you in debt and in poverty.

It’s not millenials being feckless and it’s not pensioners being smug (although of course both exist .) it’s the system, and it’s stacked against you.

I still want to know where the £110k two bed terraces are with a twenty minute commute to the capital, I shall buy one!

Granny, then= 70s, 80s, even 90s. The period during which the people OP is talking about would've, as a cohort, been able to get on the ladder. Pre boom. These were all periods during which, despite some other issues such as a few years of high interest rates, homes were lower ratios of average earnings than now. And required deposits that were lower multiples of average earnings than now. This making it easier to purchase than now. This isn't a generalisation, it's fact. You either agree with it or be wrong. Those are the choices.

The fact that you try to muddy the waters with talk of things that were worse in the 70s that weren't housing affordability suggests you might have an idea of this, actually. Much better to change the subject. In a minute we'll have whatever Xenia is called now telling us all about her Victorian Grandad, as though that has any relevance at all.

Lastly, those areas of the country with areas that are affordable for a couple on 2 x NMW fuck the singles. Get a look at how many people are able to command full time NMW locally then report back. They key figure is multiple of local median earnings.

My parents bought an 8 bed mansion in the 80s for less than 30k. What does 30k buy today? Not even a beach hut or a garage. I blame Kirstie and Phil and anyone that owns more than one house.

NameChanger I presume that was during the recession and was in someway a very undesirable property. In 1980 the average wage was £6k, so that property was 6 times average wage. But was still much cheaper than the vast majority 8 bedroom houses then.

This 8 bedroom house is £240,000, just a bit more in real terms than what your parents bought.

www.dawsonsestateagents.co.uk/SearchPropertyDetails.aspx?propid=36708_0485

Yes garden I know, you are quite right. However a pp was claiming that you can buy a decent two bed terraced house within a 20min commute of the capital. I would love to know where these mythical houses are, it's certainly not England! Maybe Wales? Scotland? My job does not exist outside of London, so I'm rather limited in terms of where I can live unless I retrain completely. I have a house, but that was with a decent salary and a parental leg up. Many people don't have those advantages. Everyone should be able to afford a home, and not be enslaved to landlords or banks forevermore. It is killing creativity in the economy, Many people cannot afford to take the risk of starting their own business. But I suppose all this is good news for corporations and banks. Lots of willing pliable wage slaves.

For me one of the biggest challenges is the Stamp Duty. I can’t afford to move from a place I am miserable living at the moment because I either have to try and save to pay the Stamp duty/solicitor and estate agents or get into debt to pay it all. To move will cost me at least 8k and that’s before even stepping in the door of a house.