Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.
Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.
So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).
All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.
And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.
Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.
Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.
Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.0 -
Not sure you’re really understanding what higher living costs mean SC.
Young generation spend a higher proportion of their earnings on housing than previous and have fewer opportunities to buy a house.0 -
-
I think you’re really confusing millennial spending with lower earnings.
It’s not a question of expenditure - it’s a question of earnings after essentials like somewhere to live and getting to and from work.0 -
Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:It’s also rather old fashioned to suggest that smartphones are not essential nowadays too...!
Do you really not understand the difference between a smartphone and an iPhone?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.
Who pays for their phones?0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.
I've spent time without those perks, where do I get my final year pension at 55 from? I've even paid my taxes all my life. I'm no luddite though, so I'm happy for modern science to keep me alive until I'm 90 with the same index linked pension, of course.
Join the public sector if you want a DB pension scheme.
Even if you found one in the private sector you would have to pray every night the company backing it did not go bust. If you do not believe in the power of prayer you would probably opt out0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.
Who pays for their phones?
Bank of mum and dad obviously.
Look at any of those millennial “this is how I can afford to save” and there’s almost always a big chunk paid by mum and dad.
It’s the great taboo in the finances of young people.
Take a look at the proportion of houses bought with “bank of mum and dad” money.0 -
-
For mortgages “bank of mum and dad” is in the top 10 U.K. housing lenders, for example.
I think it’s more than a third of all houses purchased by under 35s get help from their parents - https://www.ft.com/content/8d0dac20-10c ... 89543946230 -
This.Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.
Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.
So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).
All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.
And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.
Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.
Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.
Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.
My first property purchase was a flat in Camberwell. I scrimped for a deposit and went halves with a mate to be able to afford it.
I'd still like to live in George Clooney's house on the shores of Lake Como, but life's a b1tch, eh."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
-
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.
Who pays for their phones?
Bank of mum and dad obviously.
Look at any of those millennial “this is how I can afford to save” and there’s almost always a big chunk paid by mum and dad.
It’s the great taboo in the finances of young people.
Take a look at the proportion of houses bought with “bank of mum and dad” money.
Can we swap bubbles?0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?
Very late 80s or even 1990 for me when bought a terraced house on a main road out in Kingston with a mate.
As a bit of perspective my starting wage was £8,250.
If only I had thought of asking my parents to pay all my bills and buy the house for me.
Steveo - how much had your payments soared and flat plunged by September ‘92?
Millennials might be careful what they wish for as buying property was not always seen as a one way bet.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?
Not far off tbh.0 -
A quick calculation suggests that 8k in 1990 is around 20 k today, meanwhile house prices have raced ahead of inflation...
Of course, there are other factors in play. Young people aren't great with money (although i don't think that being bad with money is restricted to youth) a lot of things are relatively more affordable.
But getting into the property market in the 90s and watching your investment go up by 500% since, and then putting all your success down to working hard, is stupid.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?
Very late 80s or even 1990 for me when bought a terraced house on a main road out in Kingston with a mate.
As a bit of perspective my starting wage was £8,250.
If only I had thought of asking my parents to pay all my bills and buy the house for me.
Steveo - how much had your payments soared and flat plunged by September ‘92?
Millennials might be careful what they wish for as buying property was not always seen as a one way bet.
Are you just ignoring the stats I have linked?
House and rent prices and cost of travel have all grown massively faster than wages.
Why do you ignore that?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.
Who pays for their phones?
Bank of mum and dad obviously.
Look at any of those millennial “this is how I can afford to save” and there’s almost always a big chunk paid by mum and dad.
It’s the great taboo in the finances of young people.
Take a look at the proportion of houses bought with “bank of mum and dad” money.
Can we swap bubbles?
Look at the stats0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.
Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.
So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).
All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.
And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.
Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.
Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.
Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.
You've never actually been to Clapham or Shoreditch, have you, SC.
The cheapest one bed flat in Deptford I could find will set you back £230K, ramping up steeply from there. A couple both on £30K* pa could only borrow about £200K. They might be able to find something in Plumstead, at a push, but they would still need to find somewhere they could rent for a low enough price to allow them to save a £20K deposit.
£30K pa works out at about £1800 per month take home. Rent for a 1 bed in Deptford starts at £900 a month + service charge, so over a quarter of the couple's income on rent
*median salary is still stuck at around £27K.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.
Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.
So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).
All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.
And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.
Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.
Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.
Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.
You've never actually been to Clapham or Shoreditch, have you, SC.
The cheapest one bed flat in Deptford I could find will set you back £230K, ramping up steeply from there. A couple both on £30K* pa could only borrow about £200K. They might be able to find something in Plumstead, at a push, but they would still need to find somewhere they could rent for a low enough price to allow them to save a £20K deposit.
£30K pa works out at about £1800 per month take home. Rent for a 1 bed in Deptford starts at £900 a month + service charge, so over a quarter of the couple's income on rent
*median salary is still stuck at around £27K.
Used to work near the jct in the early 90s and have been know to roll up my trousers, take my socks off, jump on the fixie and join the wvbkfest that is Shoreditch.
You need to factor in Rick’s mum and dad assertion to your affordability calculations0 -
I remember my payments going up pretty significantly as interest rates soared in the early 90's. In the end my mate bought my half a few years later - if it had been an open market sale I probably would have lost 10% but I somehow persuaded him to buy my half at cost.Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?
Very late 80s or even 1990 for me when bought a terraced house on a main road out in Kingston with a mate.
As a bit of perspective my starting wage was £8,250.
If only I had thought of asking my parents to pay all my bills and buy the house for me.
Steveo - how much had your payments soared and flat plunged by September ‘92?
Millennials might be careful what they wish for as buying property was not always seen as a one way bet."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not ignoring it, but there's nothing I can do about. My point above was that regardless of rising prices, you still have to search out more affordable places - in the late 80's for me it was Camberwell; recently for you it was Cambridge. And you have make sacrifices or change your tactics accordingly. Did you get any financial help from your parents BTW?Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?
Very late 80s or even 1990 for me when bought a terraced house on a main road out in Kingston with a mate.
As a bit of perspective my starting wage was £8,250.
If only I had thought of asking my parents to pay all my bills and buy the house for me.
Steveo - how much had your payments soared and flat plunged by September ‘92?
Millennials might be careful what they wish for as buying property was not always seen as a one way bet.
Are you just ignoring the stats I have linked?
House and rent prices and cost of travel have all grown massively faster than wages.
Why do you ignore that?
And as SC points out, it is not always a one way bet. See what happens in the next year or two?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Jez mon wrote:A quick calculation suggests that 8k in 1990 is around 20 k today, meanwhile house prices have raced ahead of inflation...
Of course, there are other factors in play. Young people aren't great with money (although i don't think that being bad with money is restricted to youth) a lot of things are relatively more affordable.
But getting into the property market in the 90s and watching your investment go up by 500% since, and then putting all your success down to working hard, is stupid.
Many people did not buy property because they thought it too risky. Ironic that millennials are now gagging to borrow multiples of their salary to buy into a falling market. Imagine how they will whine if their property is worth 30% less that what they paid for it for a decade because that is what happened if your hero bought in 88 rather than the 90s. And then allow for his endowment being screwed.
As to your 500% you will have to show me the workings as I have never known anybody include any costs in their house price inflation. Even now people would need 2% growth a year to cover interest plus another 1% amortising costs of buying a selling.
I suspect like most I have earnt salary multiples of what I have made in property and have made far more out of shares.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I remember my payments going up pretty significantly as interest rates soared in the early 90's. In the end my mate bought my half a few years later - if it had been an open market sale I probably would have lost 10% but I somehow persuaded him to buy my half at cost.Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Of course not, it was the late 80's. And relatively affordable areas will be different now. I presume you didn't pay half a million for yours?Rick Chasey wrote:Presume you didn’t pay half a million for it...?
Very late 80s or even 1990 for me when bought a terraced house on a main road out in Kingston with a mate.
As a bit of perspective my starting wage was £8,250.
If only I had thought of asking my parents to pay all my bills and buy the house for me.
Steveo - how much had your payments soared and flat plunged by September ‘92?
Millennials might be careful what they wish for as buying property was not always seen as a one way bet.
Not as lucky as you but my mate got so loaded in the City he let me chose when to sell.0 -
I'm certainly not doing that. The value of my house is pretty academic unless I downsize or die. My hard work/career strategy etc has been more relevant in determining how I have done when I exclude the property part.Jez mon wrote:But getting into the property market in the 90s and watching your investment go up by 500% since, and then putting all your success down to working hard, is stupid.
The bank of mum and dad factor is the re-balancing of property wealth between the generations in action. And like other things in life, some will be luckier than others in this respect."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.
Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.
So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).
All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.
And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.
Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.
Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.
Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.
You've never actually been to Clapham or Shoreditch, have you, SC.
The cheapest one bed flat in Deptford I could find will set you back £230K, ramping up steeply from there. A couple both on £30K* pa could only borrow about £200K. They might be able to find something in Plumstead, at a push, but they would still need to find somewhere they could rent for a low enough price to allow them to save a £20K deposit.
£30K pa works out at about £1800 per month take home. Rent for a 1 bed in Deptford starts at £900 a month + service charge, so over a quarter of the couple's income on rent
*median salary is still stuck at around £27K.
Used to work near the jct in the early 90s and have been know to roll up my trousers, take my socks off, jump on the fixie and join the wvbkfest that is Shoreditch.
You need to factor in Rick’s mum and dad assertion to your affordability calculations
It's changed out of recognition since our office was there and that was only 6 years ago. It's all high end offices ovetspilling from the City now. Clapham hasn't been cheap or nasty for decades.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It is people not having this attitude and treating their home as an investment that has screwed the market.Stevo 666 wrote:I'm certainly not doing that. The value of my house is pretty academic unless I downsize or die.
It could bite them one day.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
