Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

A Book For All Of Us On Here!


Recommended Posts

I think that the bankers is a subject for a different thread :) or maybe several threads.

Just to clarify, I will never critisize the hard work of the boomers - as Greg Bowman points out in another post, they've had to deal with real howlers in the 70s and 80s.

My problem is two-fold: First, the imbalance between work and capital that has become flagrant in the last decade. Second, the insistence by many people (many boomers, but also other other age groups) that they are just reaping the benefits of their hard work, while in fact most of their current wealth has accrued from financial speculation (riding a bubble that the banks helped create) rather than hard work.

I agree that boomer wealth is just an effect - maybe we have different views on the original cause :)

EDIT: added final line.

Bump for Stars

Learn from DL.

So whats the cause?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This is a very good point which is not made often enough. Young people have very little security in their employment, housing, pensions/savings, and have been loaded up with debt through the education system. Without a sense of belonging, few people are interested in being good workers and good citizens.

This is a good point and a huge problem on so many levels. It isn't purely to do with financial pressure, it has to do with post-1960s and then post-1979 culture as well. The implications of this are hard to imagine at the moment but unlike the boomers raging at "The Man", the developmental stage of making peace with the establishment won't help. I don't believe this is quite the same thing as David Cameron's "Broken Britain" which as usual just concerns the sort of people who draw attention to themselves through their bad behaviour, it goes a lot deeper and certainly isn't quite as simple as people just being disaffected or angry (indeed, they aren't really, if only the cause of their discontent was so easy to identify).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good point and a huge problem on so many levels. It isn't purely to do with financial pressure, it has to do with post-1960s and then post-1979 culture as well. The implications of this are hard to imagine at the moment but unlike the boomers raging at "The Man", the developmental stage of making peace with the establishment won't help. I don't believe this is quite the same thing as David Cameron's "Broken Britain" which as usual just concerns the sort of people who draw attention to themselves through their bad behaviour, it goes a lot deeper and certainly isn't quite as simple as people just being disaffected or angry (indeed, they aren't really, if only the cause of their discontent was so easy to identify).

At the most fundamental level, economic activity and behaviour is about effort and reward. Hunter-gatherers or crofters don't waste their time and effort doing things that don't improve their long term standard of living. Sadly HPI and stock market bubbles have broken the link between effort and reward for the average working person. Why work hard when your house is earning more than you do? Why save when negative real interest rates will only steal your money out from under you? Why bust a gut to get ahead at work when inflation, the taxman and your landlord will take three-quarters of each extra £ anyway? The top tiers of society are taking all of the economic surplus, so there is really no point in working your way up from the bottom third to the middle third: your standard of living will be pretty much the same no matter what you do. I don't know about the rest of the country, but a family in London/SE might as well be on benefits as a £25-30k wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice way to bring the topic back to HPC :)

Most of the complaints against the 'boomer generation' would evaporate if it was possible to acquire a plot of land cheaply and build a house on it... I'd certainly be happy. Why do I care if the boomers sod off to Australia on holiday? I only care if I'm paying for their lifestyle, e.g. by paying through the nose for a resource that is plentiful*

* e.g. why should it cost £300k for a 3 bed in Fort William? Scotland has the same population density as Tunisia or Syria! :rolleyes:

Because people are willing to pay it, and other people are (or were) willing to lend them the money?

In my old home town (Lincoln) you can buy a 3 bed terrace house within 5 mins walk of the city centre for around £65 - £75K. Smallish, but still a solidly built Victorian 3 bed terrace. Don't need to earn very much money to afford that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people are willing to pay it, and other people are (or were) willing to lend them the money?

Housing is a non-negotiable outlay for most people: it's either pay the asking price, or live on the street... so they pay the price <_<

And the drug dealers banks are more than happy to help a customer become addicted get into debt for life.

In my old home town (Lincoln) you can buy a 3 bed terrace house within 5 mins walk of the city centre for around £65 - £75K. Smallish, but still a solidly built Victorian 3 bed terrace. Don't need to earn very much money to afford that.

Ah, but is it in a chav warzone? :)

Can an average wage buy an average house in an average part of town?

What really bugs me is why can't I go to a rural place in the UK (I gave Scotland as an example, but it applies anywhere), buy some land at its real value (and seeing as we are paying farmers to not grow stuff, that land must be worth sod all!) and build my own house on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really bugs me is why can't I go to a rural place in the UK (I gave Scotland as an example, but it applies anywhere), buy some land at its real value (and seeing as we are paying farmers to not grow stuff, that land must be worth sod all!) and build my own house on it.

You can do this. It costs around 30k to build the average house including providing all the services (assuming that you are near to some connection points). Factor that upto 50k to account for the fact that its a one-off and then you only need to buy the land. A farmer would probably biteyour hand off if you offered them a fair deal for a small plot of his land: They are struggling at the moment to make the balance sheets work as we import a lot of our groceries these days.

Edited by Neil B
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can do this. It costs around 30k to build the average house including providing all the services (assuming that you are near to some connection points). Factor that upto 50k to account for the fact that its a one-off and then you only need to buy the land. A farmer would probably biteyour hand off if you offered them a fair deal for a small plot of his land: They are struggling at the moment to make the balance sheets work as we import a lot of our groceries these days

Likely to get planning permission for such a venture? :lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the most fundamental level, economic activity and behaviour is about effort and reward. Hunter-gatherers or crofters don't waste their time and effort doing things that don't improve their long term standard of living. Sadly HPI and stock market bubbles have broken the link between effort and reward for the average working person. Why work hard when your house is earning more than you do? Why save when negative real interest rates will only steal your money out from under you? Why bust a gut to get ahead at work when inflation, the taxman and your landlord will take three-quarters of each extra £ anyway? The top tiers of society are taking all of the economic surplus, so there is really no point in working your way up from the bottom third to the middle third: your standard of living will be pretty much the same no matter what you do. I don't know about the rest of the country, but a family in London/SE might as well be on benefits as a £25-30k wage.

I think that is true but I also think it goes deeper than that. We are not purely economic entities although I concede that is an important part of our lives. People did used to think that there was honour in being a good citizen and being a good worker, if you try and suggest either now people will look at you like you are insane. We know for a fact that there is little link between what you earn and what you do outside the connection that action has to economic structures (anyone who disagrees with this is invited to do the work of a City trader with starting capital of 50p and get back to me with an end of year profit report). What I think has happened is we have been reduced to economic entities (mostly Thatcher, but a good chunk of that is actually the related greed-culture and consumerism and also the decline in "deference" and religious observance) and now even that isn't paying off. It turns out you can opt out of the system a bit, you can be underemployed for example, but then all there is is a great yawning emptiness as you walk away from the only game in town. What people have done is moved a great deal of their sense of self into the economic sphere. I know it sounds a bit woolly and many of the econo-autists here won't understand but I think you can see the problems this creates everywhere.

Edited by Cogs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely to get planning permission for such a venture? :lol::lol::lol:

Look out for derelict cottages. If there's an existing building, then far easier to get PP. Also a good indicator that the farmer couldn't give a toss about the land.

I'm beginning to considering this, as city life is loosing it shine...

Not sure about the 6-12 months in a caravan tho!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is true but I also think it goes deeper than that. We are not purely economic entities although I concede that is an important part of our lives. People did used to think that there was honour in being a good citizen and being a good worker, if you try and suggest either now people will look at you like you are insane. We know for a fact that there is little link between what you earn and what you do outside the connection that action has to economic structures (anyone who disagrees with this is invited to do the work of a City trader with starting capital of 50p and get back to me with an end of year profit report). What I think has happened is we have been reduced to economic entities (mostly Thatcher, but a good chunk of that is actually the related greed-culture and consumerism and also the decline in "deference" and religious observance)  and now even that isn't paying off. It turns out you can opt out of the system a bit, you can be underemployed for example, but then all there is is a great yawning emptiness as you walk away from the only game in town. What people have done is moved a great deal of their sense of self into the economic sphere. I know it sounds a bit woolly and many of the econo-autists here won't understand but I think you can see the problems this creates everywhere.

I guess you are saying we have too much economy and not enough society. I think that's true, I was born in the 80s so I can't really comment but older people do seem to remember times when everybody knew their neighbours and kids could play in the street without getting an ASBO. I think a big part of the change has been the massive increase in the use of cars. How many people have not walked out the end of their road once in the last 12 months? I bet it's a lot. When you drive miles to the supermarket, drive the kids to school, drive 20+ miles to work every day, drive 50+ miles to visit the relatives at the weekend it doesn't really matter where you live, you might as well be living on the Moon and using a teleporter to get around. Flush toilets and central heating don't have to be incompatible with a society in which people walk or cycle and spend time forging connections with people who live nearby.

UK car use:

1096.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the group as a whole (complainers) is that they're not mobilised. I can't think of hearing the case in the media from either a pressure group or individual. I'm mid 20's, most people I know are still more concerned about enjoying their weekends, football etc. than understanding the financial system, even for those in 'good' jobs and with decent educations. I'd imagine the awareness for current graduates/uni students is even lower. Forums like this are very much a minority pursuit

You might also like to consider why a Conservative politican such as Willets (a boomer himself) is suddenly so interested in touting the idea of generational wealth re -distribution.

After all his party has an attack of the vapours if any suggestion of wealth distribution between different economic classes in society is proposed..

The defining fact about the UK is not that 45-70 year olds own 50% of the UK wealth (they are after all the largest demographic group by some margin) but that wealth is in fact concentrated in the hands of so very few of them. In fact the richest 1% of the UK population own 21% of the wealth and the top 10% own over half of it.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2

As always when politicians start seizing on an issue (particularly one that is regularly touted by the Murdoch press) then you can be sure there is another agenda beneath the surface. Our kleptocratic financial system is now on life support and needs a drastic infusion of wealth to keep it going. Where better to get that dough than to steal the life savings, pensions etc of a sizeable part of the population. Even better make it a 'generational' issue so you can get a lot of mugs to promote the cause for you at no extra cost. After all you already have a good proportion of the younger population in hoc as debt slaves. All you need to do know is to exploit their resentment to promote the idea of the 'redistribution of boomer wealth' as a hot political topic and you are on your way to achieving your goal. Of course, none of this 'redistributed' wealth will ever find it way to those who feel aggrieved. Instead, i will wind up in the hands of that elite 1% who already have their sweaty palms on most of the loot.

Edited by whatamisery
Link to post
Share on other sites

As always when politicians start seizing on an issue (particularly one that is regularly touted by the Murdoch press) then you can be sure there is another agenda beneath the surface. Our kleptocratic financial system is now on life support and needs a drastic infusion of wealth to keep it going. Where better to get that dough than to steal the life savings, pensions etc of a sizeable part of the population. Even better make it a 'generational' issue so you can get a lot of mugs to promote the cause for you at no extra cost. After all you already have a good proportion of the younger population in hoc as debt slaves.

The bit you are missing is that the inter-generational issue and the wealth concentration issue you describe are both symptoms of the same flaws in the system.

All you need to do know is to exploit their resentment to promote the idea of the 'redistribution of boomer wealth' as a hot political topic and you are on your way to achieving your goal. Of course, none of this 'redistributed' wealth will ever find it way to those who feel aggrieved. Instead, i will wind up in the hands of that elite 1% who already have their sweaty palms on most of the loot.

If we change the system so that young people can live without these gargantuan inflicted costs, what do you think will happen to the various funds and assets many boomers rely on for their comfortable unearned incomes? Do you really think it's reasonable to keep these costs inflicted on the young and productive so many boomers can continue to draw on their unearned teat? The way i see it, this the penalty for drinking deeply from the poison chalice of theft (which the boomers did, despite continuous appeals). Now it seems we may not even have much of choice; the system is collapsing like a bad flan under the weight of all the theft. Many millions have built their houses on theft and made bedfellows with it and call the results of it 'their savings' and unabashedly tell anecdotes at diner parties about what clever thieves they are. We are dealing with a huge system of pure wealth transfer. The young > boomer transfer is not the end of the story, as you say, but it is not particularly separate-able in moral or functional terms from the thievery that creates the idle multibillionaires you refer to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defining fact about the UK is not that 45-70 year olds own 50% of the UK wealth (they are after all the largest demographic group by some margin) but that wealth is in fact concentrated in the hands of so very few of them. In fact the richest 1% of the UK population own 21% of the wealth and the top 10% own over half of it.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2

staggering facts but would ask how many of the top 10% who own over half the UK wealth are late baby boomers (i.e. over 60) and how many are in fact in inherited wealth rather than an accident of the time they were born in.

have to say these boomer bashing threads never let facts get in the way of a contentious topic B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of area? Was it for main or second homes?

(I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious)

I used to work in new housing construction. About 1% of the new builds were small private developers and one-offs. I used to work in all areas of the UK, so anywhere where there is available land. Though, as someone else pointed out, if you manage to find land that has residential planning permission already on it (for example and old house or someone's garden) you are over a huge hurdle. I have friends and collegues who did this but not average houses; they were all pretty special, but always main first homes. Its isnt usually profitable to build a one off for investment purposes as they are generally in rural areas; going back to your original wish to have a nice house in the country, this is what most people want (and its also more difficult to find any available land in a city - the developers will beat you to it). I do know of people with self builds that have a second home, but usually people use the self build as their main home as its personal, high spec, well built and not just an off the shelf mass produced cheap material build.

Edited by Neil B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 434 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.