I live in London and am 31 but yet I know very few people who would be trapped renting all their lives.

[lavender2023]

I am wondering if this is atypical? I am talking about people I know personally. Of course we know people who rent or live with parents. Those who live with parents (long term) tend to be in 2 categories:
(a) long term sick or serious mental health issues; often not working, probably would struggle to buy or even rent their own place with or without a housing crisis as their problems are bigger than that (its a shortage of sheltered housing rather than housing per se)
(b) from cultures where this is normal and even expected.

The people I know who rent tend to be recent immigrants (last 2-3 years; the immigrants I know who have been here long enough to obtain ILR all own, including me) or they are renting for lifestyle reasons (could easily afford to buy but choose not to; or like someone I know whose parents own an apartment that he can live in rent free (but he wants to live in central London). I know two people in social housing but I would argue they are reasonably secure. Many of my neighbours are renters but then again many of them appear to be immigrants from places like HK (and are probably pretty recent).

Almost everyone I know who bought in London has received help from parents including me and DH (who live in his mum's house rent free for 3 years). Most people we know have gotten actual cash though. I used to know far more colleagues in my age group who rented but now that I am 31, most seem to have bought and the younger ones are increasingly staying at home while working in London. Given that the latter is what Dh and I did as young graduates in London, I highly doubt they would be forced into private rental as DH and I managed to save £90k in 3 years when living at home which still counts for something even in London with the current mortgage rates.

Logically, my experience is not the reality. the home ownership rate for those under 40 is something like 50%. So there are a lot of people out there in private rental. Yet I feel like it is something I read about in the papers. Is this why there has been no political consensus on the housing crisis because middle income people are insulated from it (even in London where the housing crisis is most acute). I must imagine people in cheaper areas must be truly insulated from it because a friend of mine on (less than £30k) can afford to buy a modest flat in the midlands on his own.

DH does have family who are in long term rental (don't think its choice) but they live in a different country so probably not fair to compare.

DH's sisters also chose to leave the UK rather than live with MIL. They rent and would probably be renting for the foreseeable future. But the housing market where they live is completely different and I am only talking about people I know in the UK.

That could also be a factor- perhaps people in DH's community who would otherwise be stuck renting in London or Manchester choose to leave for the promised land (literally!) and therefore they are no longer relevant in my assessment. They also leave literally months after graduating from university so i have no idea how their lives would have turned out here. And since many of the people I know are from DH's community, this also affects my view of the world.

Yes OP I think your worldview might be quite narrow, which is why the housing crisis isn't apparent to you or your circle. But it remains to be said I admire your family's acumen. I don't think this generation would be willing to sacrifice to that extent though, neither the dc or their parents!

I think this is a very interesting and valuable debate, and OP I'm sorry if I came across harsh - I think you've handled yourself very well and I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Britain is just kind of insane (and I think different from most if not all other countries) in that we have a very specific class system that's not necessarily linked to money or income. I don't know if this is correct (since obviously I don't know every country) but I've heard it said that Britain is the only country in the world where you have working class millionaires and penniless upper class people. And class in this country is just so complex and based on a million different subtle factors and markers and that intersects with generational changes and social mobility in all kinds of ways, and concepts of class and how we codify and conceptualise class have changed massively just over the past few decades (especially in terms of archetypes of what working class means - ie there used to be a strong working type archetype of the hard worker, proud of his strong work ethic, proud to be working class, who believed in hard work and education; now there's a whole relatively new working class archetype which is basically "tracksuit wearing chav watching their flatscreen on benefits).

It's like, if you hear the term "working class" do you think Pitman Painters, Corrie, or Shameless. Do you think miner/factory worker, or benefits. And how does that encompass people whose upbringing in practical terms might code middle class/affluent but who might simultaneously be considered culturally working class because of their dad or grandad's job.

I don't know. I'm thinking out loud. It's something that's discussed in my industry a lot, so I'm always interested to see this debate happen elsewhere.

The thing is the middle class/working class/upper class classifications in the UK seem to be more about values than money.. money plays a part too but when you have David Beckham identifying as working class, it loses a bit of meaning when we are talking about economic mobility and privilege.

I have often argued that the middle class is dying and it's more about the 1% vs the 99%. Of course the 99% would encompass a wide range of people on different incomes and lifestyles. But what they have in common is that they rely disproportionately on income and like the working classes of previous generations, are slowly being eclipsed by the rentier class.. what the Tories are very talented at is pitting people who feel they are middle class against people who feel they are working class when actually they are very much in the same boat (though of course some have a more comfortable ride). As Orwell said, all we have to lose is our haitches.

I posted this because I wanted to collect views on this subject. My initial thought at the fact that most people I know are homeowners (but not through their salaries alone) actually was how far the middle class had fallen. From my perspective, my friends who are being subsidized by the bank of mum and dad are the sign of a faltering middle class. And the fact that it is so widespread means that the middle class is terrified at their children falling further down the social scale, hence taking proactive steps to protect them. It is probably existential.

Who wants to sell their house to give their kids a deposit, who wants to give their children large sums of money for a roof over their head. It's a sign that people are valiantly trying to maintain their status but most family fortunes (proper ones) run out within 3 generations. The fact that most people I know (on 'good' incomes or otherwise) need subsidy from their parents (cash or rent free living) to buy a house or flat that would have cost 3 times the salary of the average London worker in the 1970s shows how the value of wages have fallen in relation to capital. The middle classes do not typically have a lot of assets other than pensions and the roof over their heads, they are often defined by their professions and if the value of their professional wages have fallen against the value of assets (property), then they are a fallen class and only being held up by the inheritances of previous generations (which will run out or diminish in value in relation to the assets of the global elite).