Under-30's being priced out of the UK

[raspberry-blower]

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

That's when the Ponzi scheme that is banking sector crashes. AGAIN.
Then the banks get bailed out - does the banking sector get reformed? Nope

One thing that has been missing in the debate so far - why is there such an emphasis on home ownership in the Anglo-Saxon world?

[snow hope]

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

That's when the Ponzi scheme that is banking sector crashes. AGAIN.
Then the banks get bailed out - does the banking sector get reformed? Nope

One thing that has been missing in the debate so far - why is there such an emphasis on home ownership in the Anglo-Saxon world?

TPTB or 1% get rich through debt - mortgages are long term debt obligations.... they rub their hands in glee at this....

[ceti331]

The damage was done when people launched so enthusiastically into property as a safe 1way bet. The people wanted a ponzi scheme, they got it.

also I hypothesise the property ponzi scheme was used to hide our own peak oil happening in 1999.

when capitalism is working right fluctuating prices are supposed to incentivise innovation... we've got the internet now which should mean less need to be in a specific location for intellectual work.. innovators should be working around the high prices by doing more teleworking;
But I think it is basically one of many symptoms of the worlds' overall Overshoot situation.

r.e. immigrants - surely someone has to have money or income to buy the house/pay the mortgage. So this would really be a problem with bank lending too much or excessive welfare.

I'd be more worried about foreign wealth asset stripping at this stage... if the UK decided, through collective will, that its main industry was going to be "House Price Inflation" then the inevitable end result is that those houses will be "exported" to pay the debt.

+1 to Steve Cooks comments about one generation investing in its next, rather than against it.

[RenewableCandy]

I dispute all that.

I at least (and most of the people I knew at the time) wanted a place of our own so that no-one, and nothing, could bugger us about. Landlords may sell up, they may move back in, they may gratuitously up the rent, they may fail to get stuff repaired, they may do all this either maliciously or by accident or desperation, but either way you just get dropped in it. Until you buy, then, ta-daa, no landlord, only you.

[biffvernon]

All of that, plus owning your own meant you could knock a wall down here, build a new one there, without asking the landlord's permission. Freedom to do one's own thing. The Ponzi scheme thing was not a factor at all.

[ceti331]

I dispute all that.

I at least (and most of the people I knew at the time) wanted a place of our own so that no-one, and nothing, could bugger us about. Landlords may sell up, they may move back in, they may gratuitously up the rent, they may fail to get stuff repaired, they may do all this either maliciously or by accident or desperation, but either way you just get dropped in it. Until you buy, then, ta-daa, no landlord, only you.

(i)mortgage: pay for the capital (cash loan)
(ii)rent: pay for the use of the capital (the property)

these should be equivalent (either you have the capital or you don't); but as long as I can remember, people advised that scenario (i) results in getting some magic free money.

[Tarrel]

The planning system has a lot to answer for. It is still far too difficult / expensive to acquire a small piece of agricultural / forested land, self-build a house on it and live a semi-self-sufficient lifestyle.

I think we have to accept that things have changed, and that the era of abundant cheap energy and resources that gave the boomers their (our?) good times is gone for good. Youngsters (and everyone else, for that matter) need to find a different way to live that fits in with the new realities. Everyone's obligation is to make the necessary changes in our legal / economic / social / governmental systems so that these new ways of life can be adopted readily and effectively.

Comparing youngsters' "wealth" with boomers' "wealth" is futile. But ignoring the needs and welfare of our future generations has to be unacceptable. Boomers wield power; financially, influentially and politically. Even if we can't directly support a young person, we can question the policies that prevent them following their own, new paths, and support policies, ideas and organisations that help them flourish.

A couple of "lights at the end of the tunnel" from Scotland, within my own sphere of interest:

Scottish Woodlots - inspired by an idea from British Columbia, this organisation connects owners of neglected woodland with, typically, younger folk with forestry experience, to allow the forester to lease the woodland at an affordable rent and bring it back into management.

Woodland Crofts - an extension of the crofting idea to encourage community ownership, and letting-out, of tracts of woodland to individuals who wish to make a living from woodland, either by directly sourcing their food, shelter and heating needs from the wood and/or generating a small financial income.

There is an element of tension in the latter, between the ethos of crofting and the planning system. Crofting encourages (well, requires) that the crofter live on or near the croft. However, building on croft land is still subject to the same planning rules as anywhere else. So, if the council structure plan discourages the development of housing in scattered rural areas, and encourages it on the edges of towns (as is the case in Highland), this is a barrier. Similarly, the general reluctance to allow building of a residence in woodland is a major hurdle, croft or no croft.

Finally, I do agree that we have lost touch with the idea of sharing wealth and resources through the generations within the family. My wife was brought up with the ethos that you inherit wealth from your parents (even modest wealth like a couple of grand in a savings account, or a bit of land, or some decent tools), but it's not yours. Your responsibility is to safeguard it, make it work, and grow it so that even more is passed on to the next generation, and so on. (This wasn't an issue for me, as we had little in my family, but her family left her a reasonable sum which I am benefitting from, so I feel obliged to adopt the same ethos). Some generations are blessed with luck, good circumstances (e.g. practically free energy), and these generations contribute more to the growth than others. (Like a good growth year on the rings of a tree). Other generations have it the other way round. But the problem is mitigated if the sharing and passing down the generations continues. It only becomes a big problem if everyone adopts the "f*ck you Jack, I'm alright" attitude to the next (or previous) less-advantaged generation.

[RenewableCandy]

What Tarrel said.

[kenneal - lagger]

What Tarrel said, also, but this does clash with the socialist point of view that every one is equal and should start equally from the beginning and be reliant on the state. Tarrel's point of view is very much the conservative, and Conservative, point of view that we should build our wealth for future generations.

[PS_RalphW]

a little local news.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... price-rise

If we cashed in we would have about 23 times the pre-tax income from my job - before the capital gains tax bill, anyway.

However, if I don't find another job we will actually find the income from the rent we get (after expenses) would leave us having to economise (and we are pretty economical in good PS fashion already).

It's all just electrons in the ether.

[biffvernon]

Move to Lincolnshire and retire.

[PS_RalphW]

Tempting, but the kids are at school for the next 8 years, and we don't want to disrupt them, being adopted and more than usually sensitive to such things. Moving 6 miles to our current village was enough upheaval.

Anyway, I like Cambridge

[RenewableCandy]

What Tarrel said, also, but this does clash with the socialist point of view that every one is equal and should start equally from the beginning and be reliant on the state. Tarrel's point of view is very much the conservative, and Conservative, point of view that we should build our wealth for future generations.

I think what he said is beyond Left and Right in ordinary politics: the Right (as they are now) witter on about individuals as the only measure that matters: by that measure, I'd want to use up all my own wealth in old age: in fact I'd rather pass it on, as it's now the case that wealth gained from work alone will not put a roof over one's head. If work still paid properly as it did when you could afford to live in Notting Hill as an apprentice ( ) or if students still got grants, one could be more relaxed about letting the next generation in the family start their adult life without tangible assets.