To think there is a serious problem with the housing market in this country

[Kitchendisco21]

I was just about to buy my first home having spent 10 years saving a deposit. Thanks to the stupid help to buy intervention, the houses I was able to buy are now 50k more expensive so I am completely priced out. I am so utterly sick of it.

And no, I can’t move elsewhere/ get somewhere smaller/eat fewer avocados! I have been saving for a decade.

Aibu to be so fed up. I read last week that 98% of keyworkers couldn’t buy a home in the uk now. When will people actually wake up & see what a major problem there is? I am so angry.

[quote 1dayatatime]@LindyLou2020

"UK population 1961 - 52.6 million
UK population 2021 - 67.61 million
In 60 years, an increase of 15 million.
Surely the elephant in the room is that that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE......

+++++

A 15 million increase over 60 years would require a house build of 250k house per year, whereas in the last 20 years it's been around 150k per year. There are two elephants here increase demand (more people) and insufficient supply ( not enough houses being built). Basic economics means that if demand is greater than supply then prices will go up.

Interestingly the only time when supply outstripped demand was in the late 60s and 1970s (house build of around 300k) which resulted in housing being more affordable- I guess it's a coincidence that this is the same period when the current boomers were buying their first homes...[/quote]
So you're back blaming the "boomers"?
Not government actions or policies then - but EVERY SINGLE "BOOMER"?
Incredible.
You haven't denied the fact that there are too many people, and the level of population growth is unsustainable, unless you want the whole country built on.

@Iamthewombat

Alternatively, I could choose not to bin money for this significant financial hurdle in their lives & spend the monthly excess on takeaways of differing varieties. But I think that would be short-sighted of me

[quote 1dayatatime]@LindyLou2020

"UK population 1961 - 52.6 million
UK population 2021 - 67.61 million
In 60 years, an increase of 15 million.
Surely the elephant in the room is that that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE......

+++++

A 15 million increase over 60 years would require a house build of 250k house per year, whereas in the last 20 years it's been around 150k per year. There are two elephants here increase demand (more people) and insufficient supply ( not enough houses being built). Basic economics means that if demand is greater than supply then prices will go up.

Interestingly the only time when supply outstripped demand was in the late 60s and 1970s (house build of around 300k) which resulted in housing being more affordable- I guess it's a coincidence that this is the same period when the current boomers were buying their first homes...[/quote]
Not to mention family breakdown. Historically a family would have required 1 house (say a 3 bed), now we have the absurd situation where a couple split and then set themselves up in 2 x 3 bed houses so they can shuttle the children back and forth.. I wonder if everyone who is so against 2nd home owners would consider split families in this category? or is it the case that their ire is only reserved for those who have 'holiday' homes that they consider unworthy. The point is that there are so many variables in regards to peoples choices that there is no simple answer. BTL has been made a very hostile environment by the govt in terms of taxes etc yet the average renter seems to think that all landlords are rolling in money. People who bought a studio can't understand why some people think they should be able to buy a house as their first purchase! Each case has so many variables and one area is tackled invariably there are a whole load of unintended consequences.

I think people may like to have more than one dc in the UK but cannot afford the housing or the opportunity to access affordable/council housing,

Tony Blair has a lot to answer for

I don't think 15 mil population increase needed 15mil houses being built (250k a year for 60 years) Unless all 15 million planned to live by themselves in a house...
We don't need a house per person. That's unrealistic. But we do need more AND bring back to use the empty ones

@Iamthewombat

Parents have always passed money down to their children to buy houses and other big things though, it's not new. Yes it keeps prices up but it isn't going to change. I started saving for my DD the week she was born. Her grandparents save for her too. I'm not going to stop doing that, it's the responsible thing to do for my child given that I have enough spare income to do so. Why wouldn't I want to give my DD a leg up when I can?

Who said that you couldn’t do it? Do keep up. If you do it, though, don’t complain about high house prices.

I don't complain about it. We managed to buy our first house in our twenties in the south east five years ago, as did most of our friends. I don't think houses are unobtainable for most (with London as the exception).

@Iamthewombat

do keep up.

I must say, the art of debate seems to have passed you by! Why revert to rudeness? Just no need is there?

@LindyLou2020

So you're back blaming the "boomers"?
Not government actions or policies then - but EVERY SINGLE "BOOMER"?
Incredible.
You haven't denied the fact that there are too many people, and the level of population growth is unsustainable, unless you want the whole country built on.

++++

Governments get elected on policies that are popular with the majority of voters. Any political party that proposed building say 500k houses per year resulting in lower house prices would not get elected. In the 1970s when there were 300k plus new builds per annum was the time when today's boomers were buying their first homes yet few objected and those that did were ignored as new house benefited young families.

Today any new housing development faces strong objections from existing home owners and yes boomers are a large part of that group. It is simply a case of boomers supporting Government policies that built more homes when they needed them and the pulling the ladder up afterwards by objecting to new builds today.

Regarding you point on population increase, yes (if you want to get all Daily Mail) part of that is due to immigration but the majority increase is by far an increase in life expectancy from around 73 in 1970 to 83 today. If agree this increase is unsustainable without the boomers contributing more towards the cost of their increased life expectancy.

Lastly regarding "unless you want the whole country built on", currently less than 2% people of the UK is built on including roads, factories, offices etc. So if the price of making sure no child grows up in poor quality insecure housing and that young families can afford to buy their own homes means that an additional 2% of land gets built and doubling the number of homes then I will very happily be the one pouring the first concrete.

I must say, the art of debate seems to have passed you by

Oh the irony. The first rule of debate is understanding the subject. When you join a debate about high house prices and a broken housing market, declaring that you are already saving deposits for your children because prices are too high, stating that you are ‘not complaining about property prices’ is something of a logical disconnect, eh?

Why not? it doesn't suit you?
Because they are untrue.

We need people for the construction industry, we import them, then demand for housing rises, we wail and import some more to build for the first builders we imported.

There is a demand for housing in Scotland, and a place of public services. We have very low immigration making this a moot argument.

There are people training in the UK to do work in construction so why are they not employed- is it because it's cheaper to employ Eastern European's?

No, it doesn’t matter where you come from, wages are the same in the construction industry. There is a shortage of U.K. skilled labour because there are a lack of decent college courses due to a lack of funding. It is getting better with the modern apprenticeship schemes, but back in the early 2000s I was paying more for trainee plumbers etc than I could charge out our directors at. The influx of skilled overseas labour filled a very large gap and normalised costs back to more appropriate rates.

Maybe the baby boomers weren't interested in brand new cars, iphones and holidays, nor hoped for handouts from their parents
Bullshit. The percentage of salary spent on housing was way less 50 years ago. Social housing was more available, It was much easier to get on the housing ladder with the help to buy schemes of the 80s which has resulted in fewer homes being available. Mortgages were easier to get too. To suggest today’s young people just don’t work hard enough or aren’t willing to make sacrifices is offensive and untrue.

I plan to flog my house, downsize in my mid 60s and hand over deposits to my kids. They wont have to wait till I die.

@Iamthewombat

So the housing market is broken. High house prices. A new generation coming along who need to get on the property ladder. Two of whom are my responsibility. Seeing as you seem to know all the answers, riddle me one please. If you’ve got a workable solution I’d love to hear it, for the greater good of all society and my DS (not that you care, as you’ve previously stated.)

Although the irony in the “I don’t care” statement is that you’re part of a debate that encompasses wider society and the next generation(s) so saying “I don’t care” kinda sums up a logical disconnect if ever there was one....

So the housing market is broken. High house prices. A new generation coming along who need to get on the property ladder. Two of whom are my responsibility. Seeing as you seem to know all the answers, riddle me one please. If you’ve got a workable solution I’d love to hear it, for the greater good of all society and my DS (not that you care, as you’ve previously stated.)

Do I care that young people, and professionals, and families, are priced out of home ownership by people feeding the ravening beast with cheap money? Yes.

I don’t care about whether your kids are your life etc. Which is what I said upthread. Because it is entirely irrelevant to the subject being discussed.

I wanted you to answer the question: can you see that parents gifting deposits to their children pushes prices up because there’s more available money with which to buy limited resources?

I knew it would segue into “who wouldn’t give their kids a leg up” and “people have always done it, why shouldn’t I?”. Entirely missing the point which is, can you see that your actions lead to a worsening of the problem that you are attempting to solve?

When people who aren’t very good at logical arguments are called out on their bullshit, it always goes the same way. First the emotional stuff, to avoid the topic (“my kids are my life so anything I do is above criticism!”) then the ad hominem arguments.

Although the irony in the “I don’t care” statement is that you’re part of a debate that encompasses wider society and the next generation(s) so saying “I don’t care” kinda sums up a logical disconnect if ever there was one....

That’s one of those ad hominem arguments that I just explained to you. It means attacking the person holding the opposing position in a logical debate and is a tactic usually employed by the losing side.

[quote 1dayatatime]@LindyLou2020

So you're back blaming the "boomers"?
Not government actions or policies then - but EVERY SINGLE "BOOMER"?
Incredible.
You haven't denied the fact that there are too many people, and the level of population growth is unsustainable, unless you want the whole country built on.

++++

Governments get elected on policies that are popular with the majority of voters. Any political party that proposed building say 500k houses per year resulting in lower house prices would not get elected. In the 1970s when there were 300k plus new builds per annum was the time when today's boomers were buying their first homes yet few objected and those that did were ignored as new house benefited young families.

Today any new housing development faces strong objections from existing home owners and yes boomers are a large part of that group. It is simply a case of boomers supporting Government policies that built more homes when they needed them and the pulling the ladder up afterwards by objecting to new builds today.

Regarding you point on population increase, yes (if you want to get all Daily Mail) part of that is due to immigration but the majority increase is by far an increase in life expectancy from around 73 in 1970 to 83 today. If agree this increase is unsustainable without the boomers contributing more towards the cost of their increased life expectancy.

Lastly regarding "unless you want the whole country built on", currently less than 2% people of the UK is built on including roads, factories, offices etc. So if the price of making sure no child grows up in poor quality insecure housing and that young families can afford to buy their own homes means that an additional 2% of land gets built and doubling the number of homes then I will very happily be the one pouring the first concrete.[/quote]
Your sweeping generalisations about "boomers" are nasty, ill-informed discrimination.

Interestingly the only time when supply outstripped demand was in the late 60s and 1970s (house build of around 300k) which resulted in housing being more affordable- I guess it's a coincidence that this is the same period when the current boomers were buying their first homes

I was born in the baby boom generation. I was in primary school in the late 60s early 70s. I wasn’t buying a house.

The one over riding memory of that time was people didn’t have any money to buy a house. It was about this time that income tax went through the roof and it was the start of unemployment in the millions. It wasn’t a fun time.

It was much easier to get on the housing ladder with the help to buy schemes of the 80s which has resulted in fewer homes being available. Mortgages were easier to get too

What help to buy schemes?

There is a shortage of U.K. skilled labour because there are a lack of decent college courses due to a lack of funding

I agree there is a lack of college courses but I think the problem lies in the fact now if you don’t get the required GCSEs then it doesn’t matter how good a plumber or plasterer you are if you can’t interpret the underlying themes of a poem you can’t ever get on the level 2 or level 3 course to learn and then qualify

@ivelostmymarbles

I totally agree with you op. This country is a joke when it comes to attempting buy a home. I'm currently looking to buy as well and in London and last night on Zoopla I see social housing houses being put on the market starting from 900k. I work in a senior position and my dh is a company director and we are priced out. Someone in that social housing has bought the property for 180k years ago when they had the right to buy and rented it until now and now is asking for 900k guide price. It's a joke honestly especially in London. All these prices are so inflated and is pushing us out from zone 2 where we are currently renting soon we have to probably just about afford closer to the M25 borders. It's really really unfair.

Unfair? What’s unfair about market prices in one of the major capitals of the world being high. Unfair is people not being able to afford to live in the capital expecting to do so and then complaining. It’s not unfair, it’s unaffordable for you. Two different things. It’s unaffordable for many who then choose to live somewhere they can afford. That’s how it works.

Also a shared flat now is nothing like the shared flats then. With rent control there were very few rental properties and the choice wasnt there. You felt lucky getting someone to rent to you even at an extortionate rent for a shit hole.

You are incredibly naive if you think shared flats nowadays are generally in good shape. Shit hole is the order of the day for many of them in London, with eyewatering rents for anything halfway decent.

It looked to me like rents had dropped last year with the pandemic, but they seem to be going up again?

@safeornotsafe

Bythemilll, it does happen now. If you're on benefits, like if you're disabled, the only landlords who'll rent to you are the slum ones. When there's the no fault eviction clause, there's not much to protect vulnerable tenants.

Yes, this too. Disabled people are completely vulnerable.

As a disabled woman renting I memorably had one landlord tell me bluntly he wouldn't take me on as a tenant in case I died in his flat

@Iamthewombat

You haven’t provided a solution, you’ve simply criticised my choices. Although I like your use of Latin. It somehow makes your point less obvious to idiots like me who contribute to a housing problem by funding deposits for their children’s houses.

But seeing as I’m the idiot & you’re the God of Latin & Housing, please can you enlighten us as to a possible answer to the crisis future generations face? How, exactly, do you propose we, collectively as a society solve the housing crisis whilst on a macro level, being responsible parents to our children & safeguarding their future ability to buy a property?

If you read the post rather than looking for reasons to get into a self-righteous froth you’d see that I have identified the solution. Several times.

Here you go:

Do I care that young people, and professionals, and families, are priced out of home ownership by people feeding the ravening beast with cheap money? Yes.

The answer, of course, is to feed less money to the ravening beast. Don’t buy whilst prices are too high. Don’t buy if you can’t afford a deposit. Don’t buy if you have to borrow more than 80% LTV. Don’t buy if you have to borrow for 30 years or even longer. Don’t buy if you couldn’t afford repayments if interest rates rose to 5%. Stop campaigning for banks to relax lending criteria because you have paid rent for the last three years without missing a payment. Then prices would have to come down, wouldn’t they? But it only works if a critical mass of people do it. You’ll always get the people who think that their children’s desire to own a house at 22 is more important than fixing a major problem that will affect their own children in the future, or people daft enough to think that rising house prices are a universal good (some even thinking that rising prices will help them to upsize...Christ).

@AbsentmindedWoman

Also a shared flat now is nothing like the shared flats then. With rent control there were very few rental properties and the choice wasnt there. You felt lucky getting someone to rent to you even at an extortionate rent for a shit hole.

You are incredibly naive if you think shared flats nowadays are generally in good shape. Shit hole is the order of the day for many of them in London, with eyewatering rents for anything halfway decent.

It looked to me like rents had dropped last year with the pandemic, but they seem to be going up again?

I'm a landlord of an HMO in Scotland, and it is so expensive to comply with the stringent requirements of the local authority (nearly £2000 for the 3 yearly license alone, and I budget another £2000 for the various safety checks and inspections and another £1500 for the changes they introduce that can only be installed by companies run by former employees of the local authority) that not only does it mean my rent is pretty high, but I can't afford to put in the secondary glazing that I would like to.

The last change we had to put in was a special 30 minute fire resistant letterbox that only one company could install at great expense. My flat has a mains operated smoke alarm system with 30 minutes battery back up, tested monthly and logged in its own special book, illuminated signage, special locks that cannot be locked from the inside, a bathroom per 2 tenants, and so on. Some landlords even had to put in sprinkler systems. My flats have to be carpetted in case of noise, and realistically the carpets have to be changed every 3-5 years.

Rental properties aren't the same over the whole country and you can't have extremely high standards and cheap rents.

@woodhill

Tony Blair has a lot to answer for

It was Thatcher who started the fetishising of home ownership.

@Iamthewombat sorry that's not going to happen. Why on earth would someone who is perfectly able to buy in their twenties with a 10% deposit not buy if they want to? Why would people stop giving money to their children to help them if they can? I'm not exactly going to sacrifice myself, or my children', on the off chance house prices might come down.

It was indeed Thatcher that started the disgrace that is right to buy.

It was Blair that encouraged buy to let AND he happily continued right to buy. By 1997 it was impossible to deny the impact of right to buy.