Young spend three times more on housing than grandparents

[Electricity]

17 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Cars are good example, when I was first driving most cars would be ******ed by 70-80k miles, these days youl easily get two or three times that mileage out of any half decent car.

Really everything is better just that people who don't know any better think otherwise

Why would a manufacturer go from process A to process B if the end product wasn't overall better for the consumer?

What many don't realise or take into account is that cost is part of the equation for consumers.

Sure you can build a food processor that lasts 50 years and costs 1 months pay. Or you can build one that lasts 5 years and only costs 5 hours pay. You can't say oh look in the past things were built to last 50 years without quantifying the cost difference too

Nobody would want to return to food processors costing a months wages even if they did last 50 years.

 

[Electricity]

23 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Cars are good example, when I was first driving most cars would be ******ed by 70-80k miles, these days youl easily get two or three times that mileage out of any half decent car.

 

Oh and of course industrial equipment like power stations

A modern CCGT fired plant is really an amazing piece of kit. In many ways they are more advanced than nuclear plants and work right at the edge of physical limits.

Not only are they extremely powerful extremely effixent extremely compact but they last decades and only need 40men to mana 1GW plant. That's not 40 men on site all at once that's 40 men to cover 24/7/365!

30 years ago we had coal plants crap dirty large expensive and polluting plus they took 400 men to operate.

 

Not to mention the modern age machines of computers! For all intents they really didn't exist 30 years ago for the public. A computer today is as powerful as 100,000 computer then! Let's not forget about that or ignore it! Much much better made than the olden days! Plus all the things they give us like totally free education and information and entertainment.

[sPinwheel]

4 hours ago, Dorkins said:

You sure about that? Homeownership was higher 30 years ago than it is today, it was still possible to support a family on a single average wage, real wages were rising and occupational pensions were generous. People had running water, gas and electric, TVs cars and white goods, holidays to Tenerife or the costas...

Yes but ipods.

[Dorkins]

14 hours ago, Electricity said:

For instance you suggest women didn't work in the past, well that simply isn't true. Just look at the census data it clearly shows a lot of women did in fact work 30 years ago and 60 years ago and 90 years ago.

 

Ownership certainly isn't worse than in 1987.

Looking at england it says ownership was 64.3% in 1987 and in 2016 it was 62.3% so it is down only 2% points.

I never said women didn't work in the past, just that it was possible to support a family on a single wage. There's a big difference between needing both adults in the house to be in full time work just to cover the mortgage/rent+childcare each month and having the second adult working but not because the household finances require it. The first situation is much more stressful and less flexible.

So, er, you admit that homeownership is lower now than it was 30 years ago. That kind of goes against your claim that living standards are higher now than in 1987. Plus in 1987 most renters lived in social housing with secure tenure whereas now most renters live in private rentals with almost no security thanks to the assured shorthold tenancy.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Dorkins

[Electricity]

15 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I never said women didn't work in the past, just that it was possible to support a family on a single wage. There's a big difference between needing both adults in the house to be in full time work just to cover the mortgage/rent+childcare each month and having the second adult working but not because the household finances require it. The first situation is much more stressful and less flexible.

So, er, you admit that homeownership is lower now than it was 30 years ago. That kind of goes against your claim that living standards are higher now than in 1987. Plus in 1987 most renters lived in social housing with secure tenure whereas now most renters live in private rentals with almost no security thanks to the assured shorthold tenancy.

 

I'm not convinced that most the women working 30 years ago were working despite not having too. IMO its a myth and a ridiculous one at that that women in the past didn't have to work. My mother worked my grand mother worked and my great grand mother worked (on both sides of the family) and yes they had to work and despite both parents working they struggled and were poor by modern standards. Its just a silly myth that continues to this day. Women did work in the past most of them did and they had to and despite both sets working people were a good deal poorer compared to today

Ownership is about 2% point lower than 30 years ago that isn't a big drop. And I've explained that some of it is structural eg we now have so many students most of whom have to rent. Likewise we have many more migrants who have to rent. If you look at British born citizens and exclude students and migrants you would find that ownership isn't 2% lower it is likely higher than 30 years ago.

Also we have more residential floorspace per person than we did 30 years ago both in owner and rental households.

[Dorkins]

2 hours ago, Electricity said:

I'm not convinced that most the women working 30 years ago were working despite not having too. IMO its a myth and a ridiculous one at that that women in the past didn't have to work. My mother worked my grand mother worked and my great grand mother worked (on both sides of the family) and yes they had to work and despite both parents working they struggled and were poor by modern standards. Its just a silly myth that continues to this day.

If you want to trade anecdotes, my 1920s-born grandparents on both sides raised their families on a single man's wage despite them all leaving school at 14 and doing blue collar jobs. One side of the family were secure tenants in a 2 up 2 down council semi, the others moved out of London after the war and bought a house. My 1950s-born parents both worked in their early 20s until my mother got pregnant and stopped working, only going back to work once the youngest was in school. Doesn't look like a myth to me.

Here's the historic male and female employment rates. If women have always had to work, how did the 50% of families in the 1960s with a non-working woman in them survive? Did they all die of starvation or exposure on the street? Or was having two earners in the house something that families could and often did do, but didn't need to?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Dorkins

[Thorn]

6 hours ago, Electricity said:

 

I'm not convinced that most the women working 30 years ago were working despite not having too. IMO its a myth and a ridiculous one at that that women in the past didn't have to work. My mother worked my grand mother worked and my great grand mother worked (on both sides of the family) and yes they had to work and despite both parents working they struggled and were poor by modern standards. Its just a silly myth that continues to this day. Women did work in the past most of them did and they had to and despite both sets working people were a good deal poorer compared to today

Ownership is about 2% point lower than 30 years ago that isn't a big drop. And I've explained that some of it is structural eg we now have so many students most of whom have to rent. Likewise we have many more migrants who have to rent. If you look at British born citizens and exclude students and migrants you would find that ownership isn't 2% lower it is likely higher than 30 years ago.

Also we have more residential floorspace per person than we did 30 years ago both in owner and rental households.

That's odd - I thought the UK has some of the tiniest houses going. Please show your evidence of this increase in residential floorspace per person?

[Electricity]

4 hours ago, Dorkins said:

If you want to trade anecdotes, my 1920s-born grandparents on both sides raised their families on a single man's wage despite them all leaving school at 14 and doing blue collar jobs. One side of the family were secure tenants in a 2 up 2 down council semi, the others moved out of London after the war and bought a house. My 1950s-born parents both worked in their early 20s until my mother got pregnant and stopped working, only going back to work once the youngest was in school. Doesn't look like a myth to me.

Here's the historic male and female employment rates. If women have always had to work, how did the 50% of families in the 1960s with a non-working woman in them survive? Did they all die of starvation or exposure on the street? Or was having two earners in the house something that families could and often did do, but didn't need to?

 

Here is the ONS graph for women labour force participation rate over the last 23 years

 

As you can see there is a very small increase in the number of women working since 1994

So while it is true fewer women worked 23 years ago its hardly any difference at all just 3.2% points. Its not night and day like some are trying to paint.

In fact I would suggest that the small increase in women working might be down to the fact that women have fewer children now (so can return to work sooner) and many more women are now childless so never had to take time out at all.

So at least for the last 23 years its definitely false to suggest far fewer women worked, more or less the same proportion of women worked back then as to now.

 

Also another ONS page says

'Over the past 40 years there has been a rise in the percentage of women aged 16 to 64 in employment and a fall in the percentage of men. In April to June 2013 around 67% of women aged 16 to 64 were in work, an increase from 53% in 1971. For men the percentage fell to 76% in 2013 from 92% in 1971.'

 

So it went from 53% of women working to 67% of women working over a 40 year period. More women do work, or rather women on average work more years now than 40 years ago because 1: they have fewer kids and 2: they could retire at age 60 forty years ago so a lot (most) of them were retired age 60-64 and were given a pension hence weren't in the figures.

Also something you and I have missed is that fewer men now work. What's that about? The fall in the percentage of men working is bigger than the rise in the percentage of women working. So overall the average household isn't working more they are working less.

Also not forgetting the quality of jibs have improved. It kooks like some people literally spend half or more of their work hours browing the web talking on forums and checking up Facebook. That's a world apart from a coal miner working in a pit 1km below ground destroying his Heath and lungs

[Electricity]

59 minutes ago, Thorn said:

That's odd - I thought the UK has some of the tiniest houses going. Please show your evidence of this increase in residential floorspace per person?

 

We have more homes per person than we did 30-60-90 years ago. A lot of homes have also been extended or had loft conversions while almost no homeowner has though oh well my house is too big let me demolish a bit of it to make it smaller

If we look at say 1971 census it shows

19.26 million homes and 55.9 million people. Let's assume the average home back then was 70sqm. It gives 24.1 square meters residential floorspace per capita

Now we have 28.5 million homes and 65.6 million people. Let's assume the average house is now 72sqm a little bigger die to extensions and loft conversions. It gives 31.3 square meters residential floorspace per capita

So since 1971 to now we have gone from roughly average 24 sqm of housing to 31 sqm of housing per person.

That is approx 30% increase in housing floor space per capita. That is a large increase

[iamnumerate]

9 hours ago, Electricity said:

 

We have more homes per person than we did 30-60-90 years ago. A lot of homes have also been extended or had loft conversions while almost no homeowner has though oh well my house is too big let me demolish a bit of it to make it smaller

If we look at say 1971 census it shows

19.26 million homes and 55.9 million people. Let's assume the average home back then was 70sqm. It gives 24.1 square meters residential floorspace per capita

Now we have 28.5 million homes and 65.6 million people. Let's assume the average house is now 72sqm a little bigger die to extensions and loft conversions. It gives 31.3 square meters residential floorspace per capita

So since 1971 to now we have gone from roughly average 24 sqm of housing to 31 sqm of housing per person.

That is approx 30% increase in housing floor space per capita. That is a large increase

Look at some of the tiny flats that are built now days I am not sure that your assumption is correct.

BTW I think some things are better now and some worse (almost everything could be better if it weren't for unaffordable housing).

For example I knew people in the 80s who didn't have a phone and my Grandad got lung cancer from passive smoking at his office - neither of which would happen today.

On the other hand my parents have a neighbour who lives in a £600k  house which an unskilled labourer bought in the 1950s.

Edited September 25, 2017 by iamnumerate

[iamnumerate]

14 hours ago, Dorkins said:

If you want to trade anecdotes, my 1920s-born grandparents on both sides raised their families on a single man's wage despite them all leaving school at 14 and doing blue collar jobs. One side of the family were secure tenants in a 2 up 2 down council semi, the others moved out of London after the war and bought a house. My 1950s-born parents both worked in their early 20s until my mother got pregnant and stopped working, only going back to work once the youngest was in school. Doesn't look like a myth to me.

But how much effort was looking after a house in the 50s without mod cons?  I don't think you are comparing like with like.  Saying that I don't think you are entirely wrong.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Look at some of the tiny flats that are built now days I am not sure that your assumption is correct.

BTW I think some things are better now and some worse (almost everything could be better if it weren't for unaffordable housing).

For example I knew people in the 80s who didn't have a phone and my Grandad got lung cancer from passive smoking at his office - neither of which would happen today.

On the other hand my parents have a neighbour who lives in a £600k  house which an unskilled labourer bought in the 1950s.

There are some benefits to being around now but overall I'm finding every new thing that has much of a physical impact on the country is making it a more and more unpleasant place to live in. Crazy housing costs are just the icing on that cake.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, Riedquat said:

There are some benefits to being around now but overall I'm finding every new thing that has much of a physical impact on the country is making it a more and more unpleasant place to live in. Crazy housing costs are just the icing on that cake.

What in particular do you think makes the country less pleasant?  Don't get me wrong I think there are some bad problems today - most caused by Government policies.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

What in particular do you think makes the country less pleasant?  Don't get me wrong I think there are some bad problems today - most caused by Government policies.

Everything that's been built in the last century or so pretty much, both in quality and quantity. Of course go back to that point and working and living conditions were prettty dreadful. It's all so grimly lifeless, impersonal, and depressing now. Every new anything feels like another nail in the coffin. A lot of it may be needed, that just makes it worse. And various attitudes annoy me too but I suspect they've always been there, we're just better able to pander to them now.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

Everything that's been built in the last century or so pretty much, both in quality and quantity. Of course go back to that point and working and living conditions were prettty dreadful. It's all so grimly lifeless, impersonal, and depressing now. Every new anything feels like another nail in the coffin. A lot of it may be needed, that just makes it worse. And various attitudes annoy me too but I suspect they've always been there, we're just better able to pander to them now.

Do you live in a pre 1900 house? I think 20th century houses up until the 1970s look good.  I went to see a friend in a 1970s house yesterday and inside it looked great - but the outside was a bit weird not as nice as Victorian houses which is a bit strange as technology should have made house building easier.

Saying that I guess the problem was ultra fashionable design.

[rantnrave]

11 hours ago, Electricity said:

 

We have more homes per person than we did 30-60-90 years ago. A lot of homes have also been extended or had loft conversions while almost no homeowner has though oh well my house is too big let me demolish a bit of it to make it smaller

If we look at say 1971 census it shows

19.26 million homes and 55.9 million people. Let's assume the average home back then was 70sqm. It gives 24.1 square meters residential floorspace per capita

Now we have 28.5 million homes and 65.6 million people. Let's assume the average house is now 72sqm a little bigger die to extensions and loft conversions. It gives 31.3 square meters residential floorspace per capita

So since 1971 to now we have gone from roughly average 24 sqm of housing to 31 sqm of housing per person.

That is approx 30% increase in housing floor space per capita. That is a large increase

Those population figs don't look right - or is this England only?

[Riedquat]

30 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Do you live in a pre 1900 house? I think 20th century houses up until the 1970s look good.  I went to see a friend in a 1970s house yesterday and inside it looked great - but the outside was a bit weird not as nice as Victorian houses which is a bit strange as technology should have made house building easier.

Saying that I guess the problem was ultra fashionable design.

My house is 19th century (don't know exactly when). Old house with at least the basic modern conveniences like running water and electricity is a pretty good combination IMO. I find all 20th century ones bland and impersonal at best, and there's an ever-increasing belt of them surrounding most places like flab around an obese slob. The technology has made house building easier, and is what has produced that change. Plus a lot of the real rubbish from ages past has long vanished anyway. It's not just houses though, tin box industrial estates, tin box shopping centres, every "improvement" on the railways, roads etc. It just isn't a pleasant environment, and in many / most cases it's been achieved by trampling over something rather less lifeless. You can point at all the problems of the past that have been thankfully confined to history, but there's quite a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Electricity]

People have warped views of the past, think it was much better than the present they are of course completely wrong

People have no idea of what it actually was like living in the past, one of my poor grandmothers died a few days after dropping boiling water on herself. It wasn't like today walk into a shower and turn it on and a boiler fires up. You had to heat water on an open fire and transfer it to a bathtub. Very dangerous and very bad for your heath (open fires that is) and it was such a long costly process that people only really bathed once a week! I recall older generations telling me that a bath would be reused eg the kids would often bath in already bathed in water. I cant go a day without a shower it is two un-comparable worlds

As for old homes being built great and new ones crap, that is also not comparing like with like. For a start there were nice big old homes built and also small shit ones built. I live in a nice big house built in 1905 and a few streets down there are rows of terrace homes built the same year that are two up two down with a toilet in the garden (although most have since built tiny extensions on the ground floor off the kitchens as a bathroom). No front gardens/drive at all anyone walking past is literally 1 foot from your living room window which means you can never really open the curtains unless you want strangers starting at you as they walk past. When people think of old homes they think of the nice big old ones not the tiny crap ones which were the majority. Even if you hold that it was true, a lot of the homes in the past were built by child labor 15 year old boys I doubt many of you would like your 15 year old sons working on construction sites especially if the conditions were like 100 years ago

I blame the media, they make the past look romantic and great. Healthy sexy fit actors living in a western town riding horses and getting into gun fights where the hero always wins and saves the day. That wasn't life, life was wiping your **** with a rock or some leaves bathing once a month pulling your own rotting teeth out hoping you dont get an infection that will likely kill you and living day to day but they dont show those bits in the movies.

[Electricity]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

My house is 19th century (don't know exactly when). Old house with at least the basic modern conveniences like running water and electricity is a pretty good combination IMO. I find all 20th century ones bland and impersonal at best, and there's an ever-increasing belt of them surrounding most places like flab around an obese slob. The technology has made house building easier, and is what has produced that change. Plus a lot of the real rubbish from ages past has long vanished anyway. It's not just houses though, tin box industrial estates, tin box shopping centres, every "improvement" on the railways, roads etc. It just isn't a pleasant environment, and in many / most cases it's been achieved by trampling over something rather less lifeless. You can point at all the problems of the past that have been thankfully confined to history, but there's quite a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Speaking of babies, life was so hard in the past that very often children were by modern standards treated badly. I dont know if it was down to having 5-10 kids each so each one had less value or simply that feeding yourself/family was most peoples daily tasks that they hadn't much more time and energy for anything else.

Also nutrition is much better today than in the past, im sure a lot of people will cry that is BS but its very easy to prove. My children are taller than me, I am taller than my parents and they were taller than their parents. This is down to nutrition (probably protein) during the formative years. Food was so expensive peoples diets were primarily cheap-er lower-er quality foods like potatoes and bread which are lower in protein. Because food is so cheap today we almost forget about the struggles pretty much all our ancestors went through to just avoid hunger.

[Electricity]

1 hour ago, rantnrave said:

Those population figs don't look right - or is this England only?

 

UK population

1971 = 55.9 million people & 19.3 million homes = 24.1sqm/capita @70sqm/home

2016 = 65.6 million people & 28.5 million homes = 30.4sqm/capita @70sqm/home

Even assuming homes have not gotten any bigger (that is to say zero loft conversions and extensions) we find that people have 26% more residential floor space each

[Electricity]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Do you live in a pre 1900 house? I think 20th century houses up until the 1970s look good.  I went to see a friend in a 1970s house yesterday and inside it looked great - but the outside was a bit weird not as nice as Victorian houses which is a bit strange as technology should have made house building easier.

Saying that I guess the problem was ultra fashionable design.

 

Part of the problem is modern regulations

I am sure builders would be quite happy to build solid double bricks walls which was the norm 100 years ago, they are cheaper and quicker than double brick/block plus insulation layer in between. And many people would prefer that construction method. However the general public doesn't understand that it would mean £400-500 more a year in gas bills.

Also builders in real terms were paid much less 100 years ago. I'm sure if building companies could pay 1/4th the wage to the builders they could build bigger/better houses for the same sums but that is not what we want.

[Mrs Bear]

15 hours ago, Electricity said:

 

We have more homes per person than we did 30-60-90 years ago. A lot of homes have also been extended or had loft conversions while almost no homeowner has though oh well my house is too big let me demolish a bit of it to make it smaller

If we look at say 1971 census it shows

19.26 million homes and 55.9 million people. Let's assume the average home back then was 70sqm. It gives 24.1 square meters residential floorspace per capita

Now we have 28.5 million homes and 65.6 million people. Let's assume the average house is now 72sqm a little bigger die to extensions and loft conversions. It gives 31.3 square meters residential floorspace per capita

So since 1971 to now we have gone from roughly average 24 sqm of housing to 31 sqm of housing per person.

That is approx 30% increase in housing floor space per capita. That is a large increase

Around here, I should  say that at least every other 2, 3 or 4 bed house has had a loft conversion or a kitchen/downstairs extension, and many have had both.  

They are nearly all either Victorian/Edwardian or else on a large estate of 1930s houses, some of which were very small to start with.  

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Bear said:

Around here, I should  say that at least every other 2, 3 or 4 bed house has had a loft conversion or a kitchen/downstairs extension, and many have had both.  

They are nearly all either Victorian/Edwardian or else on a large estate of 1930s houses, some of which were very small to start with.  

True but there are also houses which are converted into flats.  A friend's parents bought their house for £3k 51 years ago (£68,721.85 at 2016 prices) and when she sold it, the buyer was going to make it into 3 flats - and sell them for a lot more than £70k each.

Proof that more homes does not always mean more space, in that cases a lot less per home. 

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, Electricity said:

 

Part of the problem is modern regulations

I am sure builders would be quite happy to build solid double bricks walls which was the norm 100 years ago, they are cheaper and quicker than double brick/block plus insulation layer in between. And many people would prefer that construction method. However the general public doesn't understand that it would mean £400-500 more a year in gas bills.

Also builders in real terms were paid much less 100 years ago. I'm sure if building companies could pay 1/4th the wage to the builders they could build bigger/better houses for the same sums but that is not what we want.

As someone who lives in a Victorian house, I am not 100% sure that is true, I need to find a friend who lives in a modern house to compare.  (I don't think I know anyone though).

I thought most of the cost was the land?

[iamnumerate]

2 hours ago, Electricity said:

 

UK population

1971 = 55.9 million people & 19.3 million homes = 24.1sqm/capita @70sqm/home

2016 = 65.6 million people & 28.5 million homes = 30.4sqm/capita @70sqm/home

Even assuming homes have not gotten any bigger (that is to say zero loft conversions and extensions) we find that people have 26% more residential floor space each

I don't think you can make any assumptions about home size either way.