Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

50% Of Graduates Living With Parents


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

The mystery is why we need scientists and geologists to shift parcels at Amazon. Well I do, it's a job creation scheme for University towns, a boon for BTL and a rite of passage for the students. Not surprising that the towns not on the public sector gravy train like Mansfield, Burnley and Blackpool kicked the shit out of the government at the Brexit vote. How dare they pour all their money into the parasites of Cambridge.

Quite,lots of graduates in non graduate jobs.I thought it was bad in the mid 90's.

People banging on about graduates 'earn loads over their working life' are grasping at stats of a very few people who graduated in the late 60s/early 70s. These people pre-date even the red brick unis never mind the ex polys.

There's already stats showing people who studied arts + humanities earn less than people who left school at 16.

Its wrong that the risk/price of failing to get a good job falls on the student. It needs to fall on both UKGOV and the HE establishment. Maybe then theyd stop lying about $$$$$ from a degree. There needs to be some sort of feedback o Uni funding and the number of its grads who go and get wellpaying jobs.

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

You are only as good as your last gig.

So a degree is good at getting you into your first job and reassuring an employer that you have the fundamentals.

Ultimately though, if you are building a career, your degree has given you an in, but you then need to work your tits off in your first job to build up your skills.

2 or 3 years later, you can then start moving up - the harder you work in your first couple of jobs (particularly the first 5 years) at building your core skillset, the more 'chips' you will have to cash in later in your career.

In my experience, that's how it works in the IT world anywho - and most graduates I meet (which is not tonnes, but a few) tend to know this coming out of uni. (and if they don't, I'll drum it into them :-)

The big problem I see - is that even if a graduate builds an amazing career and does really well (50k to 80k basic) then they still will have little hope of getting on the housing ladder in the SE without some kind of inheritance or 'marrying well'; so what encouragement are we giving graduates to bother with all this.

(example in point, older sibling comes back from Uni to live with parents as cannot afford any better - what encouragement does that give younger sibling to bother with uni?)

I stand firm that having a career and a marketable sklilset is the best thing you can ever invest in, but I can see why people might start not bothering given the debt and silly house prices involved. Hence my fear that unless we have a HPC, it feels a bit like we are letting BTLers and Property 'Mad Gainz' asset strip our next generation and ultimately our entire economy.

This is almost entirely right (also working in the IT world), the bit about a degree getting your first job is 100% right. I have found that people will forgive one bad gig on the basis that face didn't fit/over or miss sold the role etc. I've also found some companies care about your degree even 10, 20 years after you got it. My advice is avoid such companies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

I'm going to be a bit contriversial here and make the case that living in your parents until they die and you inherit has been the historical norm for centuries.

I doubt there was a time in history quite like the 60's where people could leve their parents home and buy their own place. Most people probably stuck in large family homes and inherited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

I'm going to be a bit contriversial here and make the case that living in your parents until they die and you inherit has been the historical norm for centuries.

I doubt there was a time in history quite like the 60's where people could leve their parents home and buy their own place. Most people probably stuck in large family homes and inherited.

Feudalism, illiteracy and dying of infectious illness were also the "historical norm for centuries", shall we bring those back too? I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we took away your right to vote, after all universal suffrage is less than 100 years old, just a historical blip really.

Edited by Dorkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

I'm going to be a bit contriversial here and make the case that living in your parents until they die and you inherit has been the historical norm for centuries.

I doubt there was a time in history quite like the 60's where people could leve their parents home and buy their own place. Most people probably stuck in large family homes and inherited.

Feudalism, illiteracy and dying of infectious illness were also the "historical norm for centuries", shall we bring those back too? I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we took away your right to vote, after all universal suffrage is less than 100 years old, just a historical blip really.

Feudalism and illiteracy are not historical norms. They where norm during the dark ages. If you go further back you will find that rome and greece both had substantial literacy, and greece had democracy for a very very long time.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

The point I'm making is that for thousands of years, families where larger and tended to live together, and probably for good reason. Take for instance, someone born in a large family.

If this man/woman stays at home with his/her parents and works, s/he can save a large sum of money from not renting. Some money goes to support the family for food and other necesities. At a point in time, this person would have saved enough to buy outright. Renting on the other hand would see a transfer of wealth from the working person to a rentier. I think a model based on living with the parents would solve the rentier society that we have, pushing down house prices and keeping money in the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

If this man/woman stays at home with his/her parents and works, s/he can save a large sum of money from not renting. Some money goes to support the family for food and other necesities. At a point in time, this person would have saved enough to buy outright.

Guess what happens in a financialised economy if every FTBer is able to rock up with a £100k deposit? House prices go up to compensate and the mortgage sits on top of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Feudalism and illiteracy are not historical norms. They where norm during the dark ages. If you go further back you will find that rome and greece both had substantial literacy, and greece had democracy for a very very long time.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

The point I'm making is that for thousands of years, families where larger and tended to live together, and probably for good reason. Take for instance, someone born in a large family.

If this man/woman stays at home with his/her parents and works, s/he can save a large sum of money from not renting. Some money goes to support the family for food and other necesities. At a point in time, this person would have saved enough to buy outright. Renting on the other hand would see a transfer of wealth from the working person to a rentier. I think a model based on living with the parents would solve the rentier society that we have, pushing down house prices and keeping money in the family.

Which would only work if you limited your jobs to your parents' town. Who has that luxury these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

Feudalism and illiteracy are not historical norms. They where norm during the dark ages. If you go further back you will find that rome and greece both had substantial literacy, and greece had democracy for a very very long time.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

The point I'm making is that for thousands of years, families where larger and tended to live together, and probably for good reason. Take for instance, someone born in a large family.

If this man/woman stays at home with his/her parents and works, s/he can save a large sum of money from not renting. Some money goes to support the family for food and other necesities. At a point in time, this person would have saved enough to buy outright. Renting on the other hand would see a transfer of wealth from the working person to a rentier. I think a model based on living with the parents would solve the rentier society that we have, pushing down house prices and keeping money in the family.

I agree, I think it is more the norm than people realise and it might be a contrary view but amongst high performing and economically successful groups in society like the Asian community. Pooled resources can be a win/win and not just financially, family childcare by the family, family elders have company etc

We have a history of it in our family for one reason or the other and financially definitely worked.

The key is a strong family with an eye on future generations, the easy divorce mentality of today doesn't lend itself to this way of living with the constant dilution of assets and disposal of family homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Feudalism and illiteracy are not historical norms. They where norm during the dark ages. If you go further back you will find that rome and greece both had substantial literacy, and greece had democracy for a very very long time.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

The point I'm making is that for thousands of years, families where larger and tended to live together, and probably for good reason. Take for instance, someone born in a large family.

If this man/woman stays at home with his/her parents and works, s/he can save a large sum of money from not renting. Some money goes to support the family for food and other necesities. At a point in time, this person would have saved enough to buy outright. Renting on the other hand would see a transfer of wealth from the working person to a rentier. I think a model based on living with the parents would solve the rentier society that we have, pushing down house prices and keeping money in the family.

I could even be persuaded that having larger families living together might even be a good thing for society, there's certainly a case to be made, only that isn't really the point.

Multigenerational families in a single home is a feature of poor countries. No one has chosen this, it's a clear sign that we are getting poorer.

The standard economic statistics only really measure progress towards the implicit goal of an insecure, unequal, neoliberal, utopia. It's this sort of statistic that gives a more realistic picture.

Yes, things were worse 50 or 100 years ago, but we've had decades of economic growth since then.

If people can't afford to do things they took for granted 20 years ago - leave home, give up work to have children or retire, then 20 years of economic growth is all a lie.

Edited by BuyToLeech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411

Guess what happens in a financialised economy if every FTBer is able to rock up with a £100k deposit? House prices go up to compensate and the mortgage sits on top of that.

I disagree. If there were a large enough change in cultural norms, where the case I made would be commonplace, the demand for rental properties would be less than half of what it is today. No rental demand, no BTL "business" model. (And possibly no foreign invstors either).

This would dramatically reduce demand and push down prices. Houses would be seen as dwelings and not investments.

Additionally, debts would be lower as there would be a smaller need for bank loans, saving many people the interest of the loans.

Which would only work if you limited your jobs to your parents' town. Who has that luxury these days?

True.

I agree, I think it is more the norm than people realise and it might be a contrary view but amongst high performing and economically successful groups in society like the Asian community. Pooled resources can be a win/win and not just financially, family childcare by the family, family elders have company etc

We have a history of it in our family for one reason or the other and financially definitely worked.

The key is a strong family with an eye on future generations, the easy divorce mentality of today doesn't lend itself to this way of living with the constant dilution of assets and disposal of family homes.

I know one guy form work who borrows from the family. No interest. Usury free.

I could even be persuaded that having larger families living together might even be a good thing for society, there's certainly a case to be made, only that isn't really the point.

Multigenerational families in a single home is a feature of poor countries. No one has chosen this, it's a clear sign that we are getting poorer.

The standard economic statistics only really measure progress towards the implicit goal of an insecure, unequal, neoliberal, utopia. It's this sort of statistic that gives a more realistic picture.

Yes, things were worse 50 or 100 years ago, but we've had decades of economic growth since then.

If people can't afford to do things they took for granted 20 years ago - leave home, give up work to have children or retire, then 20 years of economic growth is all a lie.

It's a feature because they can't afford. There isin't an alternative.

But in the UK, with the relative high wages that can be earnt here, compared to dakadakastan for example, you can save a lot of money to purchase a house of your own.

My wife and I have spent an aproximate £76,000 in rent+c tax since 2008.

If we didn't have to pay that, and we lived in our parents (which couldnt have been the case as they live abroad) and we placed that money on a tracker of some sort, thats half a house.

The Palace of Westminster?

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

I disagree. If there were a large enough change in cultural norms, where the case I made would be commonplace, the demand for rental properties would be less than half of what it is today. No rental demand, no BTL "business" model. (And possibly no foreign invstors either).

+1 my son is at home he is 26. High performer (not showing off but illustrating the thinking ) just into six figures as youngest sales manager in a tech business.

He has an American girlfriend and flys to New York about once a month (helps he works for a US business so can play with his holidays a bit) cheap as chips. Saves a 4 figure sum most months (the income isn't consistent)

Keen golfer plays off 2 (so London not an attractive place for him ) has no interest in spending a £1000 or more a month on rent for no material benefit. He is 35 minutes from London on a slow train of which there are 3 an hour, tube 12 mins away by car. Many of his 15 reports have no option but to rent in London, family too far away. So they have to earn probably £24k just to stand still. Then you factor in the additional benefits:

As a family we have three cars which we share between 4 people my daughter at home (22) cheaper all round

I have some of his savings, and I joke that they are in my new BMW motorbike. He thinks I am joking! when he calls in will cash in some longer term investments.

My daughter works for another US well known software company, has to travel to another office twice a week which frankly has p**** her off! so she asks which car needs fuel and takes that one and sticks it through, haven't used my own company fuel cards for months.

The point is it's like the cycling team this is about daily marginal gains as well as the bigger rent picture.

The caveat is my wife and planned for this when we brought the biggest house we could get in 2009 even though we could of cut debt and brought a smaller one.

Many families aren't in mine or my families fortunate position but many are and choose not to take the longer view because it is their 'right' to live like they were child free in their 50's - Selfish F**** and sorry to say a high proportion of boomers my generation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414

+1 my son is at home he is 26. High performer (not showing off but illustrating the thinking ) just into six figures as youngest sales manager in a tech business.

He has an American girlfriend and flys to New York about once a month (helps he works for a US business so can play with his holidays a bit) cheap as chips. Saves a 4 figure sum most months (the income isn't consistent)

Keen golfer plays off 2 (so London not an attractive place for him ) has no interest in spending a £1000 or more a month on rent for no material benefit. He is 35 minutes from London on a slow train of which there are 3 an hour, tube 12 mins away by car. Many of his 15 reports have no option but to rent in London, family too far away. So they have to earn probably £24k just to stand still. Then you factor in the additional benefits:

As a family we have three cars which we share between 4 people my daughter at home (22) cheaper all round

I have some of his savings, and I joke that they are in my new BMW motorbike. He thinks I am joking! when he calls in will cash in some longer term investments.

My daughter works for another US well known software company, has to travel to another office twice a week which frankly has p**** her off! so she asks which car needs fuel and takes that one and sticks it through, haven't used my own company fuel cards for months.

The point is it's like the cycling team this is about daily marginal gains as well as the bigger rent picture.

The caveat is my wife and planned for this when we brought the biggest house we could get in 2009 even though we could of cut debt and brought a smaller one.

Many families aren't in mine or my families fortunate position but many are and choose not to take the longer view because it is their 'right' to live like they were child free in their 50's - Selfish F**** and sorry to say a high proportion of boomers my generation

I think you (and not just you) are making a separate point: as an individual, is it bad to stay living with your parents past a certain age?

I would agree with you: it depends on circumstances but in general, no. It could be very good economically and big families can be wonderful.

My point is that when we see this increasing at a population level, that is a sure sign people are getting poorer. The cost of housing is impacting their choices in a way it didn't a few years ago.

This is despite to the pull factor of an increasingly centralised economy, where people have to move for work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416

It's not much of a revelation that staying with parents can save you money. Sure, it can also starve the landlord industry which will bring prices down. But if you believe that wiping out BTL is the right thing to do there are more effective ways to do it with policy.

Too many people can't realistically stay with parents indefinitely and live either the life they want or a good one period. Job opportunities and abusive parents are top of the list of problems. I don't fancy throwing these people to the wolves while we hope that a massive cultural shift might bring prices down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

What happens if your parents are control freaks? If I lived at home I probably would not be allowed to cycle.

I agree with your parents. Tyre marks on carpets are not pleasant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

I've got working kids at home as well. It works, it's cool. Why not?

They can afford to buy but don't want to. They've got mobility and the financial resilience of a growing stash of cash. The wider family benefits from the arrangement - they chip in to household running costs and their presence justifies us staying in family home which otherwise would be too much house.

I fail to see the downsides. I suppose if you and your kids don't get on it might be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

I agree with your parents. Tyre marks on carpets are not pleasant.

Skid marks are worse.

To be serious, my wife and I have been discussing this. Both of our kids will be going away for four years. We see this as an opportunity to move to somewhere much cheaper. The reason places are cheaper is because there is no work. We work from home so it does not matter to us but we have two options - staying where we are in Surrey at stupid rents so the kids can return and find work - or moving somewhere much cheaper but with little prospect of the kids living with us and having decent opportunities.

I guess we will move somewhere much cheaper and have to use the saved money to help the kids in the short term if needed.

That said, one of the joys of renting is that if you had a 4 bed house with the kids living with you, it is not much of a jump to rent two properties with 2 beds each - one for you, one for the kids once they are able to fly the nest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Interesting comments, we seem to have a culture of you're a loser/big kid if still at home past a certain age. I must admit I have sort of been conditioned to think that too, I moved out as soon as I realistically could and I remember it to be the best decision I ever made (and I generally got on well with my parents). The increase in getting laid opportunities probably swung it, asking a girl back to your place at 45 and having to sneak past your parents' bedroom probably isn't cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Interesting comments, we seem to have a culture of you're a loser/big kid if still at home past a certain age. I must admit I have sort of been conditioned to think that too, I moved out as soon as I realistically could and I remember it to be the best decision I ever made (and I generally got on well with my parents). The increase in getting laid opportunities probably swung it, asking a girl back to your place at 45 and having to sneak past your parents' bedroom probably isn't cool!

Taking her to a flash hotel with all the money saved not paying rent sounds like a winner though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Interesting comments, we seem to have a culture of you're a loser/big kid if still at home past a certain age. I must admit I have sort of been conditioned to think that too, I moved out as soon as I realistically could and I remember it to be the best decision I ever made (and I generally got on well with my parents). The increase in getting laid opportunities probably swung it, asking a girl back to your place at 45 and having to sneak past your parents' bedroom probably isn't cool!

To be fair, if you're 45 and living with your parents the only way your gonna manage to bring a girl home is with a combination of chloroform and rohypnol.

You'll be telling your parents to keep the noise down so they don't wake her up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

To be fair, if you're 45 and living with your parents the only way your gonna manage to bring a girl home is with a combination of chloroform and rohypnol.

You'll be telling your parents to keep the noise down so they don't wake her up.

Thanks, now having to clean the wine off the iPad screen which I spit out laughing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425

To be fair, if you're 45 and living with your parents the only way your gonna manage to bring a girl home is with a combination of chloroform and rohypnol.

You'll be telling your parents to keep the noise down so they don't wake her up.

I dunno. I've been on the other end of that. That is, the man brought back to a girlfriend aged 40-ish living with her parents. No problem with them: we get on well.

OK, she had moved in with the parents as a carer when they were both unwell. She's still there now, and perfectly happy with that.

Link to comment
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.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information