Under-30's being priced out of the UK

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 19 Oct 2014, 14:26

Britain is on the verge of becoming permanently divided between tribes of haves and have-nots as the young increasingly miss out on the opportunities enjoyed by their parents’ generation, the government’s social mobility tsar claim.

The under-30s in particular are being priced out of owning their own homes, paid lower wages and left with diminishing job prospects, despite a strong economic recovery being enjoyed by some.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... an-milburn

I'm in my early sixties, retired and comfortable.

I'm afraid that future generations won't have anywhere near the same financial and welfare opportunities that my parents and I have experienced over the past 50 to 60 years for a variety of different reasons.

This doesn't bode well for the future, not only for those currently in their twenties and thirties but also for my generation, who will, no doubt, be subjected to an increasingly angry display of resentment.

Collectively, we've trashed the planet, used up all of it's precious resources and ******* up the financial system.

I'm ashamed to be a baby boomer.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Oct 2014, 15:52

If a baby boomer's kids are struggling to pay their mortgages off or even to get on the property ladder, then the baby boomer should sell his/her houses and give his/her kids the money to pay theirs off so long as they can go and live with them till they die. Or, alternatively, allow their kids to come and live in their house, mortgage free, as their own home so long as their kids let them live there with them till they die.The payback for the kids is that the baby boomer guarantees to leave them the house in their will.

This issue is entirely solvable for young folks. All it takes is the will on the part of the baby boomer generation. The problem is not the fact of baby bloomers having ended up with all of the wealth tied up in real estate (which is not their fault, it's just an accident of history). The problem is that many of them (I am not necessary including you in this), for all of their anguished hand-wringing, are too bloody selfish to be prepared, when push finally comes to shove, to do the right thing in terms of rectifying this intergenerational disparity of wealth.

Are you prepared to do the right thing? Or, have you done it already, in some form? In which case, I sincerely say bravo to you. If not, why not, given your expressed acknowledgement of the problem?

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 19 Oct 2014, 16:58

If you have a declining population which we would have if it wasnt for the suicidal practice of importing people to replace us, house prices would not be rising or have risen and we would not have this problem.

If you increase demand on a thing in limited supply normally prices go up, if demand falls ie by a falling population prices fall .

If you had people fleeing the uk house prices would go down

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 19 Oct 2014, 17:12

You have a thread on your fear of the far right and that we need to fight them , in this thread you have a fear of high house prices which are caused by your open border policys to the third world .

Earlier I was reading about jack london and the biographer said about him he was a life long socialist but also a life long believer in a sort of survival of the fittest superman theory, and these were like too horses dragging him in two oppersite directions, but somehow he managed to ride those horses without seeing the madness of his position.

Thats your basic problem, if you had spent your life supporting the far right and they were successful, house prices would be fine young people would not be priced out of the house market. instead you and your friends have opposed them and you wind up in this situation your complaining about .

kinda humourous

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Oct 2014, 17:21

jonny2mad wrote:If you have a declining population which we would have if it wasnt for the suicidal practice of importing people to replace us, house prices would not be rising or have risen and we would not have this problem.

If you increase demand on a thing in limited supply normally prices go up, if demand falls ie by a falling population prices fall .

If you had people fleeing the uk house prices would go down

That's complete Bollocks.

Of course demand has risen to some extent due to a rising population. However, the population since, say, 1980, has risen by about 25%. House prices, however, have risen five to tenfold in that same time period. Both large scale immigration and insane rises in house prices are correlationally related, they are not casually related. House prices rose because of a massive push to inject debt into the economy by our central banks in order to provides consumers with the necessary purchasing power to keep our unsustainable model of perpetual growth going. Large scale immigration policies have been the order of the day of governments of whatever political stripe in order to keep pay and conditions down in order to maintain profits as part of the maintenance of our unsustainable model of perpetual growth. Now, of course, there are lots of secondary consequences of both of those policies and they have to be dealt with. But, enough with this bullshit. You'll be saying immigrants are responsible for global f***ing warming next.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 19 Oct 2014, 17:31

stevecook172001 wrote:If a baby boomer's kids are struggling to pay their mortgages off or even to get on the property ladder, then the baby boomer should sell his/her houses and give his/her kids the money to pay theirs off so long as they can go and live with them till they die. Or, alternatively, allow their kids to come and live in their house, mortgage free, as their own home so long as their kids let them live there with them till they die.The payback for the kids is that the baby boomer guarantees to leave them the house in their will.

This issue is entirely solvable for young folks. All it takes is the will on the part of the baby boomer generation. The problem is not the fact of baby bloomers having ended up with all of the wealth tied up in real estate (which is not their fault, it's just an accident of history). The problem is that many of them (I am not necessary including you in this), for all of their anguished hand-wringing, are too bloody selfish to be prepared, when push finally comes to shove, to do the right thing in terms of rectifying this intergenerational disparity of wealth.

Are you prepared to do the right thing? Or, have you done it already, in some form? In which case, I sincerely say bravo to you. If not, why not, given your expressed acknowledgement of the problem?

Married - no children. What do you suggest?

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 19 Oct 2014, 17:44

stevecook172001 wrote:
jonny2mad wrote:If you have a declining population which we would have if it wasnt for the suicidal practice of importing people to replace us, house prices would not be rising or have risen and we would not have this problem.

If you increase demand on a thing in limited supply normally prices go up, if demand falls ie by a falling population prices fall .

If you had people fleeing the uk house prices would go down
That's complete Bollocks.

Of course demand has risen to some extent due to a rising population. However, the population since, say, 1980, has risen by about 25%. House prices, however, have risen five to tenfold in that same time period. Both large scale immigration and insane rises in house prices are correlationally related, they are not casually related. House prices rose because of a massive push to inject debt into the economy by our central banks in order to provides consumers with the necessary purchasing power to keep our unsustainable model of perpetual growth going. Large scale immigration policies have been the order of the day of governments of whatever political stripe in order to keep pay and conditions down in order to maintain profits as part of the maintenance of our unsustainable model of perpetual growth. Now, of course, there are lots of secondary consequences of both of those policies and they have to be dealt with. But, enough with this bullshit. You'll be saying immigrants are responsible for global ******* warming next.

How in a country with less and less people would the banks be able to raise house prices, you have a house and this year you have four people interested in it, in ten years two person interested in it then one person interested in then no ones interested in living there.The banks may be playing a factor but I think the bigger factor is increased demand.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 19 Oct 2014, 17:47

if theres no one to take out a mortgage how would the banks sell that mortgage

boisdevie · Post by **boisdevie** » 19 Oct 2014, 17:57

I'm trying to redress the balance by selling my house, getting something cheaper and giving my kids 10k each. Their granny who doesn't give a shit will soon have 200k sitting in the bank but that's ok because she's worked hard all her life blah blah blah. So she'll be busy going on cruises whilst her granchildren are passed the shitty end of the stick.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 19 Oct 2014, 18:15

boisdevie wrote:I'm trying to redress the balance by selling my house, getting something cheaper and giving my kids 10k each. Their granny who doesn't give a shit will soon have 200k sitting in the bank but that's ok because she's worked hard all her life blah blah blah. So she'll be busy going on cruises whilst her granchildren are passed the shitty end of the stick.

The way the NHS is shaping up, she'll need that £200k for her long term health care needs.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Oct 2014, 18:38

Shortfall wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:If a baby boomer's kids are struggling to pay their mortgages off or even to get on the property ladder, then the baby boomer should sell his/her houses and give his/her kids the money to pay theirs off so long as they can go and live with them till they die. Or, alternatively, allow their kids to come and live in their house, mortgage free, as their own home so long as their kids let them live there with them till they die.The payback for the kids is that the baby boomer guarantees to leave them the house in their will.

This issue is entirely solvable for young folks. All it takes is the will on the part of the baby boomer generation. The problem is not the fact of baby bloomers having ended up with all of the wealth tied up in real estate (which is not their fault, it's just an accident of history). The problem is that many of them (I am not necessary including you in this), for all of their anguished hand-wringing, are too bloody selfish to be prepared, when push finally comes to shove, to do the right thing in terms of rectifying this intergenerational disparity of wealth.

Are you prepared to do the right thing? Or, have you done it already, in some form? In which case, I sincerely say bravo to you. If not, why not, given your expressed acknowledgement of the problem?
Married - no children. What do you suggest?

That's absolutely fair enough Shortfall. You don't have that moral dilemma to consider.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Oct 2014, 18:41

Shortfall wrote:
boisdevie wrote:I'm trying to redress the balance by selling my house, getting something cheaper and giving my kids 10k each. Their granny who doesn't give a shit will soon have 200k sitting in the bank but that's ok because she's worked hard all her life blah blah blah. So she'll be busy going on cruises whilst her granchildren are passed the shitty end of the stick.
The way the NHS is shaping up, she'll need that £200k for her long term health care needs.

Again, though, that would be selfish since her grandkids will be in even more need of it for the same reason. There is absolutely no moral justification for the older generation hogging that wealth from their offspring.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 19 Oct 2014, 18:47

stevecook172001 wrote:
Shortfall wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:If a baby boomer's kids are struggling to pay their mortgages off or even to get on the property ladder, then the baby boomer should sell his/her houses and give his/her kids the money to pay theirs off so long as they can go and live with them till they die. Or, alternatively, allow their kids to come and live in their house, mortgage free, as their own home so long as their kids let them live there with them till they die.The payback for the kids is that the baby boomer guarantees to leave them the house in their will.

This issue is entirely solvable for young folks. All it takes is the will on the part of the baby boomer generation. The problem is not the fact of baby bloomers having ended up with all of the wealth tied up in real estate (which is not their fault, it's just an accident of history). The problem is that many of them (I am not necessary including you in this), for all of their anguished hand-wringing, are too bloody selfish to be prepared, when push finally comes to shove, to do the right thing in terms of rectifying this intergenerational disparity of wealth.

Are you prepared to do the right thing? Or, have you done it already, in some form? In which case, I sincerely say bravo to you. If not, why not, given your expressed acknowledgement of the problem?
Married - no children. What do you suggest?
That's absolutely fair enough Shortfall. You don't have that moral dilemma to consider.

That's where you're wrong though Steve. I'd like to think that my wife and I could make a difference before shuffling off to Valhalla.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 19 Oct 2014, 19:36

House prices are high for several reasons. People are living in smaller families. Massive migration of jobs towards the south east. There is a far higher expectation of home ownership at a younger age - or was until recently. People are living longer, so children are waiting longer for their inheritance. Mortgages have been much easier to get, and with a finite supply, this drove up prices as people signed up to ever longer debt periods in order to get on the ladder. Slippery slope.

I always worked on the assumption of paying off debt in full as fast as possible. I also got lucky and married someone who has inherited a pot. My own inheritance is draining away in care home fees. Still too soon to relax, printed out my CV today, at least another 15 years before state pension age.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 19 Oct 2014, 19:59

PS_RalphW wrote:House prices are high for several reasons. People are living in smaller families. Massive migration of jobs towards the south east. There is a far higher expectation of home ownership at a younger age - or was until recently. People are living longer, so children are waiting longer for their inheritance. Mortgages have been much easier to get, and with a finite supply, this drove up prices as people signed up to ever longer debt periods in order to get on the ladder. Slippery slope.

Two years ago my nephew and partner signed up to a 37 year mortgage.

I always worked on the assumption of paying off debt in full as fast as possible.

Glad to hear it.

When times were good (?), too many of my contemporaries opted for flash cars, flash holidays etc.. They are now paying the price for their over zealous and debt laden life styles.