To think this is a ticking time bomb (people priced out of housing)

[Batmanisreal]

It’s becoming clear that there is a problem with people not being able to afford housing like they used to be able to. This has been made worse by the introduction of right to buy by Thatcher in the 80s which reduced the numbers of council houses. The price of housing is going up and up, so more people are having to rent on the private market.

So what happens to these people who are privately renting homes, when they get to retirement age? If they can’t afford their rent?

I was lucky enough to be able to buy my house. I have young children who, by the time they get to the age I was when I bought my house, will probably not be able to afford to buy like I was. There’s a very big chance they will have to rent, possibly for the rest of their lives.

People who rent on the private market are at the mercy of whatever rents the landlords want to charge for those properties. And with more properties being rent out as short-term lets this is only going to make the situation worse.

I worry that we are heading for a situation where elderly people will end up on the streets, because there won’t be enough affordable or social housing to supply them with housing if they become homeless in the event of them not being able to afford their private rent anymore.

As a parent, I just find the whole situation so depressing.

@Passaggressfedup

The biggest difference between generation is not col but entitlement.

May I refer you to this graph which shows how housing prices have shot up far higher than wages. THAT is why young people complain about housing costs. They were far more affordable for the older generations.

"people are voting to enrich themselves, totally not caring about the huge debt that is being transferred onto other younger people. It's incredibly selfish and entitled."

Actually @user1471538275 that is just too cynical.

Everything I do, every plan I make is to support my child's future, and has been for the last 18 years. I'm a single mum, no support from his dad, yet I will pay off his student loan somehow, because I want him to focus on his studies rather than worry about money. And when I'm not doing that, I'm trustee for our local youth club trying to help others.

But you do you !

A few decades ago, you didn't have to spend half your take home pay on a rented bed sit! It would have been far cheaper in proportion.

we have had a lot of threads lately about housing and I’ll make the point I always do - older people like me need to see and appreciate how lucky we were. At the age of 23 I was a newly qualified teacher on 17k a year. So was DH. We bought a house at 85k which was 2 and a half times our combined salary. A newly qualified teacher today is on about £31k. Two and a half times would be 155k. Yet the house DH and I bought is now worth 270k.
Now we made sacrifices- we lived in a shared property before we bought to save up a deposit and we had the crappiest furniture you’ve ever seen but we were still enormously lucky. I wish others my age could see how much harder it is for young people. Both my dc are saving to buy. They are going to have to make a lot more sacrifices than their parents did and will probably have 30 year mortgages.

Nail on the head with all your points. I fully agree, especially the stupidity of a succession of governments who've not even started to scratch the surface to solve the very obvious problems facing us.

May I refer you to this graph which shows how housing prices have shot up far higher than wages. THAT is why young people complain about housing costs. They were far more affordable for the older generations
I am in no way denying this. I'm denying that it's impossible to buy a property as a young person. In 2000, you were unlikely to borrow more than 2.5 time your income. Banks will now consider 4 times and some more.

At the time, you were expected to have paid off your property by 50, certainly no later than 60 years old. Nowadays, it's more 65 or even 70.

Nail on the head. When average house prices have over doubled compared with average wages, THAT is the problem facing young people. Netflix subscriptions and costa coffees are a drop in the ocean and trivial compared with the huge increase in housing costs, plus stamp duty and all the other costs of buying a home which have likewise rocketed out of proportion to wages.

Youngsters of today live in a completely different economy, a completely different culture, a completely different world. It was my generation (late gen X/ xennial) for whom it changed, the principle cause was housing, and the older generations wouldn’t listen to us. How dare that generation despise the current youngsters and their world? They created it. And their levels of ignorance are deliberate in the face of the evidence and all reason.

A newly qualified teacher today is on about £31k. Two and a half times would be 155k. Yet the house DH and I bought is now worth 270k
Nowadays, you could borrow 4.5 times your income. £62k combined would be £279k which would allow you to buy the same property.

Yes, it means paying for longer years. Interest rates went much higher than it is now though. First time buyers can get no deposit mortgages or 5%and there is even a new scheme which allows you to buy at a very good discount.

So again, it is accessible just the same.

But it isn’t the same deal. DH and I mortgage free by 48. Still quite young.

And interest rates were incredibly low for all of my 30’s. I was on 0.5% for years FGS.

But it isn’t the same deal. DH and I mortgage free by 48. Still quite young
Not the same deal but the point of this thread is about affordability to get on the property ladder and the truth is that it IS possible to buy a property for the average couple just as it was before.

I agree with you regarding the housing crisis. It is a crisis and private rents make saving for a deposit exceptionally difficult. I also see people having to houseshare well into their 30s/40s+ which is insane to me.

It also seems increasingly the norm to need two incomes to be able to afford a property which is scary for a single like me who lives in London.

And interest rates were incredibly low for all of my 30’s. I was on 0.5% for years FGS.
Really? It was an average of 4.33% in the 2000 decade. Started at 5.75% (when I took mine). Currently 3.75%.

If you have young children, preschool age, wouldn’t worry. Like most of the world, we have an aging population.
Soon there will be more houses than people, especially as we continue to create new build houses for schemes. The larger supply than demand will bring house prices down enormously.

Some people’s work keeps them in a certain area. And sharing in your older years is grim.

No I absolutely disagree.
I needed a 5% deposit. Yes you can still get these but they aren’t as easy to come by. Many of my friends got 125% mortgages. Unheard of now. My repayments were low as I was borrowing a lot less for a shorter time. This meant I could afford to have children relatively young, was able to redecorate and buy furniture - putting money back into the economy. I am also lucky that I relocated from my home town. My best mate bought a house very similar to mine- bog dtandard 1930’s 3 bed semi for £105k. Hers is now worth 650k.
Of course it’s technically possible to still buy a house now but it was massively easier to do in the past.

I would agree re. Democracy. The issue being people are voting for parties and policies that promise more unfunded spend in exchange for their votes.

Not without upping sticks and moving your entire life to a completely different region of the country, ruining your career and where you will not be very welcome, you cant. And we could only afford to do that in our 40s.

I remember the high interest rates too and was sent out to do jobs for my parents as a child to help afford their mortgage. It was temporary and their mortgage was paid off by their 50s, I’d barely got a mortgage by the same age, after having no choice but to rent. They were barely educated at all, had few qualifications, in low paid jobs, whereas I worked and initially got into professional jobs before technology and the economy conspired to obsolete my sector and render further retraining efforts worthless, and financially impossible actually. Your insistence that it is still possible to buy houses is from a very middle class perspective and is no doubt underpinned by the kind of invisible family support that is so common among the middle classes that you think it’s not worth remembering. It also makes no reference to technological change and a lack of jobs.

That insistence in the face of the lived experience of the working classes with no inheritance or support to give, who took it all to support themselves, is beyond insulting.

(in reply to @Passaggressfedup

Some people think life should be more than simply work and go home.

But it's decades away, so we'll all be dead by the time that happens, maybe our children will see it, but probably too late for them too, as they'll be past middle aged and probably retired themselves. So, maybe our grandchildren just might benefit??

But all that assumes we don't get influx of immigrants from countries where populations are still rising and forecast to continue rising, especially due to climate change as some countries become harder to live in due to water shortages etc.

It's certainly not guaranteed that supply will outstrip demand in the lifetime of anyone on MN.

Yes really. I over paid by 500 quid a month so we could move.
I realise others wouldn’t be on a rate as low as that. I don’t recall it being a tracker but I remember it being very low. In fact when we moved I remember being gutted that we couldn’t port the deal we had.

Define soon? UK population isn't even predicted to peak for another 30 years. Will be a very long time before any significant decline happens.

There are expected to be more deaths than births every year from now on, so it’s started to begin.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgpjd2zzl8o

Out of curiosity I have just trawled through my emails and found one from 2014 when we moved - fixed rate of 3.24%. So even then it was pretty low compared to rates today.

Yes but if you read the article, it tells you that the population is expected to continue growing until the 2050s. So it hasn't already begun.