h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning folks

We have have threads running which involve people not perceiving the consequences of their actions.

example

1.Young single male, bit of a Jack the Lad, now 26, never thought about next week only about tonight. Now earns £6 per hour on 40 hrs = £240 less (say) 25% for Tax and NI = £180 take home. Minimum house price here is £150K max he can borrow will never raise a mortgage. What hope does he have?

My point?. The lad has had 10 years to think of his future , and to do something about building one. But NOW was always more important

How on earth are we to get the youngsters of today to THINK , - think about what they are doing and what the consquences might be? More importantly perhaps , what it could be if NOW didn't overide the future.

Is it the fault of his parents, or of a society which seems never to consider consequences, and often to expect help when in deep trouble as a result.

Novo

Morning Novo,

This sounds a bit 'when I' but I think it's relevant. We were talkng about this on Saturday evening; four couples, all middle fifties, mostly senior teachers. We all had to borrow to get onto the property ladder in the mid seventies and we all struggled to meet mortgage payments.

What does seem to have changed is the ongoing, financial reliance of grown up kids on their parents to fund a 'I want it now' lifestyle rather than having to go without.

I see an awful lot of youngsters driving around in new cars. Maybe their resources would be better spent on saving for a deposit.

WA

<>

How do you know he's not been a success (on his own terms)? Even if he doubled his income he'd still be miles away from affording a mortgage. The fact is that house prices ten years ago were a fraction of what they are now, and it seems to me to be fairly unlikely that most 18 year-olds are going to buy a flat to cash in on the increased value of it in future years.

The fact is that since Thatcher privatised housing society has become increasingly divided between those who own houses and those who don't. Do you think Jack the Lad's parents used to live in a council house, or bought privately in the 60's and now have a 350k semi somewhere? People with *vast* unearned wealth contribute to their childrens' welfare, increasingly in the form of downpayments on mortgages, further increasing the divide.

People tend to follow what they see around them. Not many people are going to go against what their friends and family are doing, even if it is the 'right' thing to do, and especially not at such a young, impressionable age. So, people whose family and friends grow up surrounded by homeowners will tend to see themselves as being homeowners when they grow up, while people living in council houses will tend not to see themselves as growing up to be homeowners. (Please note the 'tend', I'm not arguing for absolutes here.)

<>

When society is divided into groups of haves and have-nots, whose fault is it that somebody's born into the wrong side?

Morning WA

Good to hear from you again!

The youngsters driving around in cars ( often with very loud music ) illustrates my point.I will elaborate as i reply to Pedro.

Respects
Novo

Morning Pedro,

Afraid you are 'jumping the gun' a bit.

I know the Jack the Lad in question. He is my stepson.......

He grew up with 2 parents in a 4 bed Victorian house of some size, and he has been a success in his own eyes in that he has chased the girls, indulged a passion for VW Golfs and beer, as well as strange substances.

His sister , who is younger, is already married, with children, and is busy making a little busines for herself and her family. So in this case it isn't where he was raised, nor the example set. It is simply an unwillingness to shoulder the burdens of his future. or an inability to see the consequences of actions/non-actions.

However, I agree on the unlikelyhood of a 18 yr old renting a flat, but two or three 'might' band together to rent something - if they spent less on self indulgence - and had an eye on the fuure, they might even be able to jointly buy into a property, and sell at a split profit later.

I fully agree that the housing situation is a mess, but it isn't Thatchers fault - the idea of giving teneants the possibility of owning their homes was percieved as good, at the time. As always the unintended consequences arise and the supply / demand. linked to an economy strong enough to promote heavy borrowing has forced prices to absurd heights.

I reckon that th UK is going to be forced to consider that affordable renting is going to have tocome. A bit like Europe. We won't like it , but I see no alternative. I believe that there are hundreds of empty properties available. The next govt needs to seriously address how to get these onto the rental market.

Novo

Playing Devil's advocate here.
Another thought about Jack the Lad & others who have been more prudent, studied hard etc but still on low incomes - does it matter that they can't afford their own home?

I know we have this ideal of youngsters growing up, moving out & being independent, but it wasn't always so. Is it good that the parents then live on in a house that is larger than they need?

If there was less competition for both rented & bought property, would the prices come down & enable those who really need accommodation to get on the property ladder?

I wouldn't be so sure moving out and becoming independent is an idealogical thing. The lifestyles of people in their late teens/early twenties and their parents are pretty likely to be incompatible IMO.

There have been massive social house building projects in the past: namely after the world wars. They worked well. I know the economy has changed a lot since then, but I think the government has to get its feet wet on this one.

I doubt lack of forward planning, particularly in the youth, is characteristic of any particular society or generation. In my experience, most people simply don't understand money that well. My dad didn't start making pension payments until he was in his late 30s.

Meanwhile, owning a car is stressed as crucial for getting to your place of employment, and also is a sort of rite of passage/status symbol. I'd also add that, since most youngsters buy second hand, the purchase price is normally dwarfed by the insurance and other maintainance costs.

Nice post Bouncy

Novo

Society, or at least its organisation and functioning would crumble to pieces without the 'Jack the Lad', mentioned above, and without the other millions of low paid, yeh, mainly female, some might say 'ill educated', or 'failed' people in society..... The only failure 'Jack the Lad' has been is to fall into the hands of the capitalist exploiters who pay him such a low wage as to be unable to support basic* needs that any person has. Without Jack the Lad's, who'd be cleaning the hospital wards, serving us in the fast food take-aways, answering our calls when we call companys/receptionists, doing our gardening etc....

*housing, food, etc.,.

A sorry state indeed when each and every tax payer in the UK is funding large coorperations to opperate, by 'top up' wage benifits which continually allow such large multinational companys to pay criminally low wages to the staff they employ in order to make vast profets for their shareholders and company execs... I can't see any justification for anyone working 30/37 hours/full time each week not to be clearing £250 as a absolute minamum without government intivention in terms of 'top up' benifits like working tax credit and whatever else now exists..

Jack the Lad, and thousands apon thousands like him/her should have a basic 'human right' to be paid a fair wage as befits a wealthy country like the UK. If he's doing a totally unnecessary 'pointless' 'non existant' job, then let the job not exist, as the advocates of not having a decently high minamum wage would have us believe will happen if the minamum wage were too high...

Maybe Im getting old but your initial post hasnt put me in such a bad mood as they used to Novo

I know lots of people own two and three bedroomed houses but live alone. this is a terrible thing in my eyes but then Im a forawrd looking socialist. you being an inward looking capitalist see nothing wrong with an individual owning as much as their efforts will allow an tough to anyone who you perceive as not working as hard as them.

The difference is not hard work but smart work. Now even if everyone worked as smart as my ex-girlfriend who went from, student nurse to qualified and gradully up the grades with a helping hand from inheritence to owning the same house on one wage, all for herself that her neighbours do, (neighbours who work in two full time jobs and have two children to bring up too) where would we be? Still here Im afraid.

The economy doesnt care about individuals it rolls on relentlessly and doesnt care if Joe next toAalf doesnt work at all while Alf works a 60 hour week. It just needs someone, anyone to add 60 yours of labour to keep the wheels turning. So people smart enough to work 60 hours will keep Joe out of work and even on if he is on benefits the economy will not suffer as long as things get done and Joe spends his benefits on things Alf makes. Alf may never earn a lot for his efforts but that doesnt matter either because someone will spend the profits that come from his labour probably on property forcing up the prices and keeping Alf a rent slave for as long as he can keep going. And the the big wheeel keeps turning....

People arent very smart as a rule and some of them look smart sinply because they make choices that turn out well for them while others look even less smart because they end up with skills the labour market doesnt care for.

You seem to have done fairly well and probably made a good choice by following intituion and good advice, but as someone who was very smart once said: life is something that you understand looking bacwards but live going forwards.


With that in mind sholdnt we be seeing that the policies of the last 50 years regarding housing have had mixed effects. Theo boom in post war house buliding enshrined the idea that we should be living in nuclear families. something that had never happened before in a widespread way. Now everyone feels a failuer if they dont have a pile of bricks and mortar to call thier own...and if they dont feel that way there are plenty of people like to tell them they should. We have buy to let mortagages and people converting bedrooms into ensuite bathrooms all for profit they could live without while people die from TB in railway arches. People using gfts or inheritence from wealthy parents buying up as much property as they can and selling it on when prices rise while families lucky enough to be working work hard but still cant afford to buy.

Yeah everyone working as hard as they can to grasp as much wealth as they possibly can is great idea.

Why is it so important to 'get on the property ladder'? So you borrow hundreds of thousands of pounds? Struggle for the next 25/30 years to pay it off, working yourself into the ground in the meantime, hardly seeing your family? What's the point of living then?

I have lived for the past 6 years in 'social' housing. I spent the first three in a one-bed flat with my three boys, my partner could not even live with me. The boys had to share the one bedroom and I slept on the sofa. It took my council 3 years to move me to another property. (I cannot afford to buy - £150,000 for a two bed terrace, which insufficient for my needs any way)

I can just about afford the rent and don't any help with the council tax have all my bills to pay etc.

We need more 'social' housing, not the 'mews' 'ticky-tacky' boxes they are currently building and selling for a small fortune all over the place.

There is one aspect of home ownership that hasn't been mentioned; the sense of worth that owning your own home brings. Yes, yes, yes, I know this is a generalisation, but it's a perfectly observable phenomena.

People who own their houses tend to take care of them better and to take a pride in the area around them. As a postman, I would walk streets where you could tell which houses were council and which were private. In most (but by no means all) cases, the privately owned houses were better cared for. Yet, within a few hundred yards you could hit an area of housing that was, quite frankly, a shit-hole.

Owning a home means having a stake in your community. This isn't to say that all council housing schemes are dumps, they most certainly aren't, but there's nothing like a bit of healthy self-interest to keeping a neighbourhood tidy and relatively low-crime.

There has been much gnashing of teeth in the media that, despite massive investment & regeneration, the area where the kid was left to bleed to death in a stairwell is still as high-crime as ever. They may have improved the surroundings, but nothing has been done to change the mind set of those that live there. The people still have no stake in the community.

Scotland is significantly different from England with respect to council housing. In my experience (and I accept it's not all-encompassing), people in England automatically sneer at council estates. In Scotland, we have a longer tradition of council housing. Being from a council estate in Scotland isn't quite the class indicator that it is in England. I have seen areas with endemic high crime (Methilhill) entirely transformed by private ownership.

Yes, we need more affordable social housing, but I would like to see the tenants have a stake in it. Perhaps by passing ownership over to the tenants after ten years occupancy?

Jumping the gun, eh?

If you're talking about your stepson in particular, then how the hell should I know? If you're trying to extrapolate to youngsters in general, then where your Jack the Lad grew up isn't particularly relevant.

As for young people thinking of the present, rather than the future, well what's new? At 26 he's got plenty of time to sort his life out. Personally, if given the choice between owning a flat, or getting laid all the time, I'd much rather have been shagging like a bunny for most of my 20s in a rented flat (or at my parents, or whatever).

<>

This seems to me to betray what your idea of success is: get settled down in your own home. If some people don't share your ideas, then big deal. It's a big, bad old world, so enjoying it while you can is a sensible option, depending on how you look at it.

<>

This thread title is... consequences. Funny that.
The idea of forcing tenants to buy, or making them move home (or lose their home) is not *quite* the same as the right-to-buy. I think the Tories knew well enough that, with their policies, they would increase how unequal society would be.

And of the major factors pushing up house prices, you're bang on about low interest rates, but also the number of people per household has been falling for decades, thereby pushing up demand for housing. Whose fault is that? Not even Thatcher would get the blame from me..

As others have said, it's only recently that it's started to become an expectation that people buy their own houses. And as SWL says, there is something to say for it. I live on an estate of mixed private and council houses, and it's interesting to look at how people have improved their own house to make it different from what was identikit 1950s housing. I've heard some rather scathing comments about the taste of some of these renovations, but they're an indication of pride.

The term New Labour used to use is the 'stakeholder society'. The idea is that if people have something to gain personally from the success of society, then people buy into it. Conversely, when people feel alienated and cut off from what others enjoy, they behave destructively. The question is, how to make people feel included.

On the question of consequences, I think something to remember when thinking about the behaviour of teenagers and young adults is that many aren't really able to think about long term consequences very well. It's partly because youngsters experience time differently to older people (remember how long summer holidays used to feel?), and so thinking ahead is harder for them, because it seems much more remote.

Work now or you'll fail your GCSEs and won't get into college is meaningful to most 16 year olds, but work now or you'll never get onto the property ladder generally isn't - that's just too far ahead and just too alien an idea. They will in many ways be a different person by the time that happens.

Nice one Pedro, and Blicky too......

Actually he's a good lad, and will probably make it in the end. I would not have labelled him had you not 'seemed' to assume that I was doing my Old Codger bit, and having a go at youth in general!, when I was really thinking that you get out what you put in ( althoughluck certainly plays a part - both good and bad.

I just wish disposable income was disposed of in a creative way
Not just in his case but in others who bemoan what they have wasted /enjoyed.

Novo
(blackcat)

That's surely down to personal preference. One man's wasted expenditure is another man's essentials. If you feel an expenditure is wasted it's because the purchase hasn't lived up to your expectations in some way.

I know people who seem to me to fritter away a great deal on consumables & entertainment, but it's their choice what to do with their disposable income.

Just to add my little input from someone sort of in the same position as the example given in the first post.

I am currently 25 and I do not own my own home either. I went to university, with all the debt that entails, got a good degree and started working on what was at first a pitiful wage that has steadily increased over the last 4 years. All this time I have been renting a place, until recently when I was transferred to Paris by my company, in South London with 3 friends.

The rent took between 3/4 and half of my salary every month, yet I wanted to be independent and not leech off my parents (who incidentally have not contributed financially at any stage).Between paying off my student loan; trying to bring my overdraft under control, council tax, utility bills and the like I can barely afford to rent. So where am I supposed to get the deposit for a house from?

The truth is you don't have to be a Jack the Lad spending all your money on cars and beer (something I wish I could do, but can't afford to...) to be stuck renting and not making provision for the future. Most people my age are exactly in the same position as me (except of course the people who decided to stay at home, get mummy and daddy to pay for everything, save all their salary and then can afford to buy).

To be honest, home ownership is going to become something that is increasingly hard to do, and be far from the norm...

To pick out the single bit of the debate I was interested in .

Indeed it *was* Thatchers fault. Not in the giving coucil tennants "the right to buy" I support that whole heartedly. But rather the prohibition on that money being spent on new social housing.

If new, cheaper social housing was being built it would have had the followig effects:-

Deflationary pressure on rent levels, making "buy to let" a less profitable (and therefore less attractive) option

Deflationary pressure on house prices, meaning the costs of houses owuld nopt have raised out of all relation to earnings.

IMO this would have been a much better situation for everone apart from large lenders.

And now Blair is too scared to upset the house price apple cart bychaning the law. Obviously this is just a please the voters issue nad has nothing to do with his huge mortgage on that house in Chelsea he bought a few years back

Its important to get on the property ladder because its probably the best form of investment. And you'll probably need money for when you're older - the state pension ain't up to much.

So sadly the best form of investment is only available to those who already have significant amounts of money, which they can guaruntee they won't need to access in a hurry before they pay off their mortgage.

Yeah, its a bit of a .