So basically nothing has changed. People still make do. We forge our lives out of whatever material is around and make the best of it. Old people are a huge expense that young people pay for - whether they like that fact or not. This generation will not get those services and backstops to their lives.
We totally agree house prices and rental are mad atm! We disagree on how lucky the boomers were. Houses don't cost what the sale price is. They cost what the total mortgage pays back and there's a vast difference in historically low interest rates we have seen for the past 15-25 years compared to the 70s/80s when 9% was low and peak was 17%. What should really be compared is what the percentage of total paid back is compared to wages over that time. Someone taking a mortgage in the 70s (boomers) will have paid a much higher percentage back than someone taking a mortgage out now! That is the reality, not a straight line easy to target number like the sale price of a house. Rent is obviously a different matter because you have nothing to show for your money. I'm pretty sure if times were reversed in terms of interest rates, all of these narratives would constantly be banging on about the interest rate and total cost of a mortgage and not just the board price of a house, but they aren't and no-one ever mentions that if there was no inflation, we earnt the same then and now that a 150k mortgage in 1975 total cost paid back would cost way way more than a mortgage now. A 150k mortgage taken now and assuming a 5% interest rate throughout will cost £236k overall. Applying historic interest rates for 1975 say at an average of 10% through the term to the year 2000 would be £362k! These are the numbers that matter not the sale price of a house! The mortgage's cost was 1.5x more over the term!
This is for Lincoln. Using the above example of how much a mortgage would pay back as a percentage! I have taken the average (not first home) price of a house in Lincoln for 1975 and 2025. I have taken the average (not minimum) annual wage in Lincoln for both years! When you factor these things in the price vs wages has gone up slightly: from 6x to 6.55x. However the average salary to how much the mortgage actually cost over the 25 years it has gone down significantly...........unless you can find an error there. I didn't take care to get it right:
That’s a stretch. What matters is your relative wealth before and after. Property made the boomers rich and is making the young suffer.
Look at my calc above This is why I can afford a 15 year mortgage and not a 25 year one (in Lincoln) And bear in mind that is 1 person's annual wages. My wife's and mine combined is circa £45k before tax.......which is almost non existent in this age of high free tax bands for low earners
My Mum and Dad are both boomers (1948 & 1952) Property didn't make them rich because they still live in it! They made nothing from it. They don't expect to either as if they pass without the government robbing it from them to pay for care (if needed) it will pass to me and my sister...............which is kinda the point of why they bought it in the first place. There was a culture back then of not just putting a roof over your head but also of being able to pass something on to your children when you're gone........even at the lower level which they were. Nothing for them to be ashamed of at all. If you want to go the route of "they should pay for their care" they have lived their whole lives pre retirement with no break from work, high income taxes, paid all the way through. They already paid their bit into the pool for their care. If you want someone to blame for the profit on property then take one look at the BBC demographic where they constantly put shows on lauding those that buy up the cheap properties in order to achieve rental yields or max profit! Those guys take first time buyer homes and then jazz them up so so they are a level above basic so they are then out of reach for first time buyers and aimed at the level of income above!
