To think these baby boomers are missing the point?

[Hundredacrewoods]

I grew up in an area where house prices have quadrupled since 2000. I consider this an intergenerational equity issue. Whenever the topic of house prices and 'millennials' comes up with my parents' generation, all I hear is how hard they worked and how much they sacrificed to get on the property ladder. AIBU to think that they're missing the point? No one is denying that they worked hard and sacrificed. The point is that if they worked just as hard today, and made the same sacrifices, it wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

I think she means as a child. But Maccy d's didn't exist until about 1980 so you'd have struggled to organise a party in one much before that

Gosh boomers were paying for their own parties as children, no wonder they are always congratulating themselves on how hard they worked all their life

You can make many generalisations about the boomers re wages, job security, ability to buy a house that are backed up by data.

Is there any evidence to say millennials are spending more than boomers did as a percentage of take home pay? Round where I am the cafes and restaurants are mostly used by boomers and there are hardly any pubs or clubs left open.

But Maccy d's didn't exist until about 1980 so you'd have struggled to organise a party in one much before that

But Wimpy came to the UK in the 50s!

How did they last so long with NO CUSTOMERS while generations of non millenniums were all so sensible and didn't spend their money in frivolity like the spoilt kids of today do???

Strange???

Babyboomer is such a broad term. I also think it has much to do with whether family helped with purchase. I'm technically a late boomer, and most of my friends are roughly 5 years older. Every one of them got on the property ladder early, with help from family. Not having that help, we saved hard for 8 years to buy first house for $250,000, with $35,000 down payment. Lived there for 14 years, bought next house for $750,000 with $250,000 down payment. Lived there for 15 years, just bought for $1,250,000. Each house roughly the same size, no discernible difference, but in different cities in same area. Seller of current house bought for $45,000 in 1973. He is one very happy boomer today, now living in inherited home without mortgage.

We scrimped and saved and spent very little to make these purchases. The only ones in our circle still paying a mortgage for many years made for interesting social dilemmas. Fortunately, my earning potential has continued to make .

My DS has almost no chance of being able to purchase in the area given prices and his wage level. We would be willing to help some, but are not in a position to provide the enormous down payment needed. He doesn't believe it will ever be possible, so eats out regularly and spends quite freely. I can't really blame him - it all seems so impossibly out of his reach, so what's the point in saving.

It is a dilemma of the times - and prices keep going up.

See 2018 gets it

It's not an admission of laziness to admit to some degree of preferential timing/environment is it?

And that we are going to believe a 16 year old can earn enough in a year to buy a house as a cash buyer hmm Is her business a major cocaine importing emporium

She is 18 and no not anything illegal just 3 -4 shifts of anything between 10-14 hours at £10 per hour + tips + other part time work and she brings in around £500 per week

With no real expenses she saves virtually everything. And a flat at auction can be as little as £40,000.

I think she needs to be extremely careful. If it was as easy as extending the lease and selling on it would be a lot more than that. There are places with some seriously dodgy covenants, my Dad had issues with one with his office. She would be much better if she has 40k finding herself a permanent job and getting a mortgage on something mortgageable.

She is 18 and no not anything illegal just 3 -4 shifts of anything between 10-14 hours at £10 per hour + tips + other part time work and she brings in around £500 per week

£500 a week is still only 26k a year and that's before tax, quite a way off 40k

Sorry, Olliversmumsarmy, I think you're completely away with the fairies. A 16 year old saving enough to buy a property outright in a year? Fanciful bollocks.

Oh sorry she's 18. Still bollocks.

Only a small proportion of boomers got to retire at 60 or 65.
Also did anyone mention negative equity. Not always been easy in the past to buy something cheap and use it S a stepping stone for something better.

£40k after tax is £55.6k gross, or working 107 hours per week at £10 per hour.

Baby boomers were born at the right time as it were.

I understand people’s resentment at the so called luxury life style of them but having no mortgage allows me to help out my grandchildren at uni.

Still when JC gets into No. 10, he will tax the baby boomers and give the money to those who are younger 🙄

Pancakeinmybelly
I remember wimpy in the 70's. I went with my friends mum. She was very unusual because she worked full time and got luncheon vouchers. That's what she used to take us there. As for my family we never ever got take aways or went out for meals. When I was a teenager and in early 20's we never went out for meals, only drinks. Didn't really get takeaways either, unless it was a bag of chips. Different times.

Nowhere did I say DD would have enough in one year. I said by next year she would have enough to buy for cash.
She has been doing this for a few months now.

As she is self employed she gets paid gross and the property will be an investment owned by her company.

As for getting a full time job and a mortgage why would she go down that route when
A. Apparently you have to have a degree to get a job and it wouldn't pay what she is earning.

B Those with full time jobs and a mortgage seem to be the ones that are struggling.

And

C she really loves her part time work and is getting her business off the ground at the same time.
She would struggle getting up in the morning and commuting to the same place every day. She loves the different places she gets sent to and the different people she meets.

Also just because someone buys for cash doesn't mean a property isn't mortgageable.
Don't know where extending a lease came in.

The point is that if an auction property is cheap there is a reason for it. It isn't just because no one else has thought of it. It is likely to have a very short lease for example, this is one of the potential pitfalls and where it is coming from. Please if she goes down this route get proper legal advice.

I have put places in auctions a couple of times. Both times after I had been messed around with FTBs for too long and I needed a place sold.
Nothing wrong with either of those places. Perfectly done out. Long leases etc.

You do know you can view places and look at the legal pack before hand.

Just because a flat is up for auction doesn't mean it has a short lease.

Yeah obviously but just because a property is auctioned doesn't make it cheap. The point is that if it is cheap it is cheap for a reason however it is sold. You keep talking about it being possible to buy a flat at auction for 40k, I have advised that she needs to be very careful I don't see where the controversy is in that.

The places sold at auction cheaply for 40k usually need another 100k spent to stop them falling down or tens of thousands in renewing a lease or building work or are in very deprived areas. You would obviously need this all in cash.

Someone upthread mentioned the "normal people" like teachers etc.

Pay (relative to cost of housing & other economic factors) has changed a bit, but teachers/doctors/lawyers etc tend to earn above the average amount. If we think that a young couple with the income of two entry-level professional jobs are "average" then of course we're getting a skewed figure.

It doesn't matter if you're looking at twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Most people before the age of 25 couldn't afford to buy a home unless they were earning the kind of money that is typical of graduate-level jobs (and Oliver's mum, they can earn money other ways, I'm just setting a benchmark here).

Most of my cousins are in their mid 20s. They are all saying that they can't afford a house unless they live at home for years first, have a partner with a good income, and then live with almost no luxury. Well, that's exactly what it has been like. Single people in their 20s, even baby boomers, couldn't afford a mortgage on their own. Couples in low income jobs couldn't afford a house as a couple. Rents are comparatively high and it takes a lot of hard work and deprivation to make the first step.

I think that somehow we've lost sight of just how grinding the early years can be, and have started to believe a media dream of early home ownership, life in our 20s being about fun, and having disposable income etc. Really, it's either or: really sweating it to get a first home (as a couple) OR having fun and spending money.

How the money breaks down is different, but the basic principle is the same.

Remember the phrase "life begins at 40"? That's because people used to spend their 20s scraping together every penny and trying to set up home. Then their late 20s/30s were the child rearing years, and their 40s would be the first time ever that they had a hope of some free time and some spending money.

Here is the experience of my parents:

My father left school at 14 with no qualifications.
He got an apprenticeship.
He then met my mum who worked until I came along. They still lived in a rented house.

After living together in a rented house for about 5 years they bought the house they were living in for £13k
By this time my father was 25 and self employed.
My mother didn't work.
They bought a house on a single wage.
The house is now worth about £500k

My dad did work hard. They did have a 15% mortgage. They didn't ever have a single holiday, ever, of any sort.

They also drank like fish and both smoked 40 a day. Yes, 40 a day.

There is no way that a single wage earner who left school without a qualification and a partner and child to support could ever buy their house.

She would struggle getting up in the morning and commuting to the same place every day.

What, you mean like the majority of adults?

Most people before the age of 25 couldn't afford to buy a home unless they were earning the kind of money that is typical of graduate-level jobs

Both of my parents left school in the 60s aged 16 with no qualifications (they took O-levels but didn’t pass any, as was the norm then). They both went to work as clerks for the DSS, where they met. That wasn’t a well-paid job - my uncles were steelworkers and tradesmen, and looked down on my dad and his rubbish salary. My mum is still in a similar job, and is paid £18000 these days.

They got married in 1972, aged 20 and 23, and immediately bought a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Doncaster for £4000. Mum then left work to have me. It was seen as a perfectly normal thing for young couples to do - all of my aunts and uncles bought their own homes when they got married. That is not the case now, is it?

Sashkin The vast majority of people then could not even get a mortgage for a 3 bedroom semi detached house unless well paid. Getting a mortgage was really difficult then. So there is more to that story than you know. Also in 1970 the average weekly wage was £32.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/05/health.drugsandalcohol

If the house really was only £4000 this was substantially less than the average house price. In 1972 the average house price was £6,000. So they bought a house two thirds of the price of an average house price. The equivalent today is £150,000. I know that is above inflation, but it is less than your comment would seem to suggest.

Not sure what part of it you find hard to believe tbh. The numbers sound about right - I remember my mum found an old payslip in the loft and she was paid £26 per week (she was a supervisor, my dad wasn’t so she would have been on a higher salary than him).

£26 x52 = £1352 annual salary.
So presumably could borrow up to 3x that =£4056
Plus they had been saving before they got married and had a decent deposit.

There are similar properties on Rightmove now for £130000. Still completely out of reach for most people on £18000 clerical salaries these days. It was a whole newbuild estate full of young families (not professionals!), so clearly some people were being approved for mortgages in 1972 . Maybe South Yorkshire was a special economic zone. Maybe Bawtry building society had a rogue manager.

There are so many weird assertions on this thread - people on non-professional salaries have never been able to afford to buy houses; nobody has ever been able to have a university education, family, house and a pension; nobody could get a mortgage in the 70s... all demonstrably not true.