To hate the "if young people gave up iphone and starbucks they could afford a house" attitude

[Creambun2]

Some people really do believe that young people giving up a mobile phone would lead to them being able to afford to buy a house?

The attitude from certain boomers that "I worked hard and had nothing so I could buy in my 20s" and then it is drilled down that they only needed a mortgage of 2/3 times their salary.

Sorry for the shit DM link but this article is simply written to reinforce these stupid views about young people: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5321703/Woman-reveals-bought-home-20.html

So much unsaid in the article, like where she lived when saving £500 a month (at home rent free presumably), how she describes herself as debt free (really - mortgage paid off @ 21?) and how gasp she has also been to India etc. Lucky she lives in a place where flats are 120k.

Que the comments section being full of the typical baby boomer attitude of lazy youngsters.

I’m too young to be a baby boomer and too old to be a millennial (just). I bought a cheap, shit flat that no one in their right mind would have considered living in (zone 4 London). I bought at 24, while my friends moaned that having a mortgage was “scary” and wanted a 2 bed flat in a desirable area. Their delaying things cost them dearly as it turned out. Was definitely much easier to buy property then, you didn’t need much evidence of income and no one asked for detail about spending habits. Bought with partner and had small sum from parents (we had about £14k deposit). I received a £1k bonus which I put towards my flat fund whilst my friends bought 28 inch massive TVs! Day to day life was cheaper then - we rarely got taxis, always had cheap drinks, mobile phones were rubbish anyway, internet was dial up and about £10, people didn’t buy expensive computers, or coffees. Eating out was a tenner in a curry house. Holidays were backpacker style.
So in summary I think it was much easier to buy somewhere (especially if you could compromise and put up with living in a shithole) but day to day living was less luxurious than it is now.

he DM and its ilk are trying to divide young and old. The majority of 'older people' are not self-satisfied arrogant gits, but thinking, sympathetic members of extended families and communities.

It is not a DM issue, the Guardian and Independent (before it became the equivalent clickbait partisan rag) was happily promoting londoners, baby boomers to outprice locals in northern towns on BTL and student flats for decades during the boom years.

Now the inevitable snake has eaten itself because foreign investment has taken hold has it become a right wing/daily mail conspiracy

Plus Sloth, although it is obviously difficult for you, what people in London often seem to forget (well, ok, what a lot of people that post on MN often forget - I'm not going to fall into the same trap with these generalisations ) is that the vast majority of the population of the UK - or even just of England, don't live in London.
Various posters have said that it can be possible to buy now without inheritance, etc., and it can, for some people.
As Gutrotweins says, this is just the DailyFail trying to stir again.
There is definitely some truth in attitudes and expectations being different, but, as ever there is no 'whole generation' thing, and the question is far more complicated than spending less on coffee and phones. Plus, we all live with what is around us at the time we are living - it doesn't matter if your parents or grandparents had life that was 'easier' or' harder' - it's different, but we all have to deal with what is there now.

I can see both sides of this generational conflict.

The millennials have a point. Too many Boomers don’t understand the extent to which student debt and escalating house prices in parts of the country have so far outstripped salaries and that affordability is at historic lows.

The Boomers also have a point. They scrimped, saved and went without to be able to afford their first houses to an extent which millennials can’t even begin to imagine. In the 70s and 80s nobody who was supposed to be saving for a house deposit spent the equivalent of hundreds of pounds a month on mobile phones, take-aways, convenience food, nights out, restaurants, clothes, shoes, games, weekends in Barcelona etc etc etc.

@BackForGood oh of course. I'm not a native Londoner and I'm fully aware that choosing to live here and work in an industry which is centred here is to some degree making a rod for my own back. But like you said there is also an assumption made by some of what my lifestyle might be like, that it's all 4-figure rents for a nice house, holidays and daily lattes, and for the majority of people I know here who are in a similar position to me, that's not the case at all! Ironically in my experience, the millennial-aged London renters I know that are most likely to fritter away money on expensive luxuries are the ones with well-off parents who know they can bank on help with any future house deposits.

I do agree that generalisations on any demographic are unhelpful, because the issue isn't that black and white

You know the Daily Mail. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and it was BOLLOCKS. She still has a mortgage, she got the deposit and it's a flat not a house.

Boomers never had the pressures of modern day people. Mum and dad got them
a job with friends they knew, in their home town, accessible by public transport, Monday to Friday, at a reasonable wage. There were no trappings to be bought beside furniture or a rare car, - no mobiles, no sky, no cars laptops, wifi, etc. No one needed to get to work 60 miles away every day including Saturdays and Sundays.

Young people get an exceptionally hard rap today. It's unfair to treat and judge them by their old standards like they wouldn't want to be judged by THEIR parents standards!

Agree to an extent. Depends what they are spending all their money on - Starbucks and a mobile phone probably won’t make much difference. TBH when I was young I spent disposable income on clothes, going out with friends etc (no mobile phones then - jeez I’m old!) and still managed to buy a house but I didn’t spend it on expensive cars etc instead of saving for a house so like a PP yes and no.

I think there is truth on both sides of this story although I wouldn't take the daily wail version as a fair representation.
People who pad their lifestyle with modern luxuries will not be able to save for a deposit.
People who scrimp to save will still be saving for a long time.

YABU for reading the Daily Mail and believing it! Awful paper - fine for a laugh but don't take it seriously.

When my parents were young, it was common for young people to go to the cinema every week, often twice a week. Even people on low wages, even people who were supposed to be saving up, felt entitled to that. These days it's a bloody luxury.

Dh is always telling me how hard up they were when he was young, yet his dad went to the pub several times a week. These days, that would seriously eat into your housekeeping money.

Yes, in some ways our luxuries are things our parents couldn't dream of. But other things, which they not only dreamt of but actually took for granted, are luxuries to us.

I do really feel sorry for the twenty-somethings. When I was that age I earned £9k and self certified to buy a £45k property. It was tough paying the mortgage but doable using the launderette and eating meagrely and of course no sky TV nor mobiles or deposit. I sold the property for £100k 4 years later and never looked back. Luck of the dates I think. Now it's just not possible

My DS is going to be in the same boat and it's hard to think he's gonna have to stay at home way past the age I did to save a deposit

I bought in my mid/late 20s in outer London. I only managed to do that because I made sacrifices, which yes did include keeping an old old phone, and not a £30/month contract type of phone, and yes, no Starbucks, but also no car, no holidays and I lived at home for some years to avoid paying rents. I appreciate that not all can do that but many choose to move out.
So there's a fair bit of truth in it. I appreciate that in the past 5 years, prices have risen a lot so it's harder but definitely when I was buying it was doable with sacrifices.

"I lived at home for some years to avoid paying rents (...) when I was buying it was doable with sacrifices."

No it wasn't. It was doable because your parents saved you £500 a month at the very least for several years. If we assume you stayed 3 years with them, and take £500 as what you would have paid as a bare minimum sharing in London, thats effectively £18K your parents essentially "gave" you - just about the deposit of a small flat.

@userofthiswebsite

Comment above is for you!

If you house share either with partner or friends and buy a house that needs work it is possible especially outside of London further North.

You managed to live with your parents to avoid rent.

Many MNers make their adult children pay “rent”. There are often threads on here asking how much the child should be charged.
Many parents can’t really afford for their children to stay home rent-free... and even if they could, they often make them pay something anyway.

Where I live you can get a 3 bed house for 100, 000, yet a few miles up the road a starbucks and mobile phone contract cost the same, but a house costs double, it's all relative isn't it? I don't have a mortage, but I know plenty of Starbucks loving, iphone using people who do, haha. Actually I prefer Caffe Nero and use a Samsung, so perhaps that's the problem (that's a joke)

Glitter

That's WHY it was do-able. As I was prepared to live at home for a few years so as to avoid paying rent to someone else which I knew would be money down the drain.
As I said above, that's not feasible in all situations, but where it is and people choose not to do that they're choosing to sacrifice saving up for a few years. Me, I sacrificed a bit of independence for a few years.

But I'm glad I did because prices have climbed since.

It isn't easy to get on the housing ladder, and I'm fully aware how lucky I am to have done so a few years back, but people who splash out on other things each month such as that exampled in the title £3 coffee and fancy iphones, just make it harder for themselves.

Well, in London saving money on coffees will certainly get you nowhere.

When I first left university I was very careful with money and was able to buy a flat. This was not in the U.K. but another place that used to be a lot cheaper than it is now. I now live in London, and Am fortunate enough to own a place, although I would like to make a very small move up the property ladder. However, this seems unlikely to ever happen even if stop eating, or paying for any other essentials!

@userofthiswebsite
For many people living at home isn't an option. And these coffees - £2 every working day - that's £40 a month. So a grand total of...£440 a year. So after 3 years, going without your daily coffee will have contributed a grand total of £1300 to your deposit for a house. I mean come on!

I agree. There is absolutely no way I will ever own my own home, in spite of me and DH working hard all our lives. It’s not fair. Added to that, we are paying the Baby Boomers’ pensions!

I will charge my DS rent when he starts working and save it all for him and give it back to him one day without him knowing I'm doing it. My parents did the same for me. I don't agree with charging adult children rent when they are trying to save for a deposit. He could contribute to bills but as we will have been paying it all anyway for 18+ years I can't see there's any point in changing it.

It's not about just giving up coffee though is it!

If you earn NMW, then no, you're not going to be able to buy a flat in London. However if you earn £30k+, especially if you are in a couple, there is no reason whatsoever that you can't save and buy somewhere. As I have seen many, many of my friends do.

I did it, didn't buy a shithole, didn't get a deposit from parents, have never earned more than national average and live and bought flat alone. I don't think I'm that unremarkable.

DH bought a flat in London in 1995 for £140k.

It recently sold for just under £1m.

That difference would involve giving up an awful lot of lattes and very nice iphones.

Boomers never had the pressures of modern day people. Mum and dad got them a job with friends they knew, in their home town, accessible by public transport, Monday to Friday, at a reasonable wage

Way to go. Don't let facts get in the way of your ridiculous generalisations. You could write for the Mail!