millenials can't afford houses because they're brunching (or not)

Radicalnan. You have summed it up perfectly as has Gillybob.

Is it too late radicalnan?

For some holidays and a few tattoos?

I really worry for my children and GC, they live in an era where the hope of job security is a dream, long term rental is difficult to find. They are going to have to retire so much later than us, and all this we live longer does not equate to physically or mentally demanding proffesions. They have to pay for things that my generation took for granted: University,prescriptions, dental care.
Should we ever be part of the blame others for there poverty of money or opportunity because we are doing okay is shameful to our generation.
Yes we worked hard, but we had security and opportunity.
Yes we earned our pension, they do too and they face the future of retiring later with no or very small pensions.
Lets support a push for improvement for them rather than compare in a race to the bottom. They have pressures that we could not understand and vice versa.

The intergenerational envy which is deliberately being whipped up is presumably to deflect attention from the both the deliberate and the unintentional mismanagement of the country's finances by government, banking and business.

Whether things are fair or unfair between the generations I would just like to draw attention to the unpredictability of life and how this impacts on an individual's finances.

When my DH and I started out together in 1977 interest rates were at 14%, a mortgage was only allowed after rigorous tests by building societies to prudent savers who had kept accounts with them for years, H.P. was only a few years old and credit card debt nonexistent. There was no mobile telephony, no internet, no social media. Most people were in blue collar jobs and paid in cash weekly in little brown envelopes. Women were not given mortgages in their own name and certainly did not enjoy equality in the workplace. There were no women in the city, no female-only online startups and no female CEOs. Only about a quarter of the population went on to tertiary education.

These things which we now take for granted have had a stratospheric influence on the lives, finances and prospects of ourselves, our children and our grandchildren: some positive, some not. For example, mortgages can now be obtained for 1% instead of 14% interest, while, however, students who attend university now have to pay fees. Swings and roundabouts.

The point is that few of the items on the above list were easily predictable in the 1970's and, therefore, those who doomsay and prophesy that todays' generation will have no pensions and will have to work until they are a hundred are probably totally wrong. Necessity is the mother of invention and discoveries, political decisions and new processes will alleviate probems identifiable now.

Of course it is not in the interest of those who would keep us in thrall by fear to admit it but things in general and the world are steadily improving.

I have no doubt someone will sort out pensions, retirement, Alzhemer's, the housing crisis and all manner of current ills. And then new ones will develop brought about by the change that made things better in some ways.

Doom-mongers of the world:- cheer up!

Iam68now - that's funny, reminds me of my old Dad who used to say 'we need another war to sort everyone out' I used to cringe, but taking it NOT literallly I now understand what he was alluding to.

Another of his phrases "Hitler had the right idea he just went too far" ... hmmmm not sure about that one though!

Desdemona A £3 coffee a day is £15 a week, £60 a month and £720 a year (roughly). I think I would take a flask too!

Yes £720 (or whatever) is a lot of money but hardly the deposit for a mortgage. Might be very lucky if it covered a months rent in some areas.

Re renting in France, I suppose it depends on the area, but when I was staying at a BiL's place in Burgundy not long ago, someone remarked to a French neighbour we know well, that unlike us Brits, the French are not obsessed with owning their own homes.
'But they are!' she said. 'They are!' (Exact words, she has very good English!)
Again, presumably it will depend to some extent on area and how affordable properties are.

According to a Swedish friend, buying in Sweden is becoming far more common than when she was young. Her son with 3 young children recently moved for the 3rd time in not many more years, doing up and making a bit on each move. That is in Stockholm, where prices have also rocketed.

Lilyflower - thoughtful post. Thank you.

But I'm still fed up with being thought 'lucky' by my children's generation because we worked hard and saved hard for everything we now have and with no help from family - we did not expect them to help us, either. Just as I am also very angry at being called 'racist' because I voted for Brexit. That is still being whipped up the media, too.

It is a fact that younger generations will have to wait a lot longer to retire though Lilyflower I am 54 and have been given a predicted retirement of 67yrs and 7 months. But of course the goalposts will probably move again and it may become 70. The young ones (my children are in their 30's) will be well into their 70's when they eventually retire. Many of them (sadly) may never live to see it.

I didn't have any help (practical or financial) from family and sadly I will not be in a position to offer it to my children either.

I don't want to sound like a doom and gloom merchant but this is reality.

When we married in 1945 after being in the Forces all we could get was an attic room in London. The then LLC wouldn't help even though we had a baby and I had spinal problems because we weren't on the list like those who had stayed at home. When baby was six months old we were evicted and were homeless. MiL in Biirmingham took baby in although she still had five school age children in a small council house and we had a bedsit in London until my boss found a top floor flat for us. No bathroom, shared lav. We were there for ten years until we were able to buy a house which was going cheap because it needed renovation. Each generation has its problems.

Young relatives of ours spent £25,000 on their wedding. I suspect a lot of the people who came they hadn't seen for a long time and haven't seen since, and they cost about £150 a head to feed and entertain.

That said, I really don't know how people afford a house now; a property we lived in some years ago is now on sale for £600,000. We sold it for £140,000 twenty years ago. The deposit now is £60,000. Were I about twenty five I think I might look at these impossible figures, think of the potential ghastly millstone around our necks, and then rent. And probably go out for breakfast!

In the 50s my parents bought a 4 bed house in what is now a pretty expensive area, on one very ordinary salary. OK, they were always broke, but it was just do-able.

Many years later, when she was complaining that young mothers shouldn't go to work, they should stay at home and look after their children, I tried explaining to her how times had changed, and that they wouldn't have been able even to begin to afford that house now, on just one ordinary salary.

She didn't want to hear that. I remember adding, did she realise that even a small one bed flat around our way cost at least £60k now?
Heaven knows how long ago that was - it'd be more like a minimum of £275k now.

I was a newly divorced single woman in 1976 and I had a mortgage in my own name. I was a shorthand typist or secretary at the time

Have the couple got children yet ? I know people buy once they decide to embark on parenthood . Otherwise, let them enjoy their breaks.

We bought our first house in a SW London suburb in the mid '70s, cost us £20,000 and we lived on macaroni cheese for some years. Even then we had to borrow the deposit from family as our combined incomes would not give us enough mortgage for the whole price.

We went back to visit friends last week and saw a man in our old front garden, he offered to show us the house (much improved and enlarged kitchen!). He obviously felt that we had lost out by selling in 1980 - they now fetch well over £1m...

It just isn't possible for a normal human being to buy anywhere in this sort of area today, and OP is right about kids not being willing to forgo any instant gratification in favour of saving for a house.

We left London 10 years ago so that we could help our kids buy homes and don't regret it for a moment, though we could never afford to go back to our old stamping ground now.

Just to say, I agree with those who say the current situation for young people is very different from the one we worked hard in, and took on a mortgage only after raising a huge deposit.
And to those who say the housing situation in UK is a disgrace - it has become like that mainly because there's a shortage of supply.
In France,about 4 times the area of the UK, there's so much more land to build on. Our little house here is virtually worthless, we could never sell it, because there are thousands others like it on the market.

When I bought my first tiny studio flat about 40 years ago, I was teaching full-time, but I also had a Saturday job in the market, taught 2or3 evening classes and had a few private pupils. I had no help at all from my parents. I don't know how I did it really. The flat appreciated sufficiently in a couple of years for me to buy a 3 bed roomed end of terrace on a new estate when I sold it. I was so pleased that I hadn't gone on paying rent, which is how I started out. We sold the second house and with the help of an inheritance, could afford a 4 bed roomed detached, where we still live.

I have just read Lilyflower's post saying that in 1977 a woman couldn't get a mortgage in her own name, well, I was lucky, because the City Council were giving mortgages to teachers, if they saved a certain amount as a deposit, which I did. Unfortunately, they withdrew the scheme after a few years, leaving me in the lurch and I had to switch to a building society mortgage which was more expensive, still, the council mortgage enabled me to get on to the ladder.

When my fiance wanted to open an account with John Collier in 1969 when he was 21 he had to have his father as guarantor!

When I got married in 1974 I informed my bank of my change of name. They then 'needed to know' my husband's name and his occupation.
I closed the account.
Around the same time, or a little earlier, my mother who had worked for many years rang the taxman about a refund she was due.
She was told that 'this isn't your money, it's your husband's'.
Talk about incandescent!

Also in the early 70s I worked for a while as an air stewardess. When I joined, they had only just started accepting married women - they wouldn't have them before, and you had to leave if you got married, because the job involved at least some nights away and your husband wouldn't like it! Who would iron his shirts and cook his dinner?
How times have changed indeed!

We had a mortgage and a young daughter , we struggled , we had older children , who got work or went to college . We couldn't afford to go out for meals , so , every Saturday night , we popped on our 'posh ' clothes and cooked whatever we were going to eat , I confess sometimes steak /chicken , and sat eating our dinner on our own [ kids out or in bed ] by candle light . Far more romantic than any expensive meal out , and not far to stumble to bed . That was 36 years ago , we still have the same tradition, and as the kids grew they joined us , now all flown we are still there on a Saturday night . Yes the food is slightly posher .

There is an assumption that Britain is overcrowded and that all our open spaces and countryside is being covered in housing. An article in the Observer in 2014 referred to research carried out by the LSE and, in conclusion, reported:

"Cheshire [Paul Cheshire, Professor of Economic Geography at the LSE] lays into "supporters of urban containment policies who argue that Britain is a small island that we are in danger of concreting over", claiming it is a myth because green belts cover one and a half times as much land as all of England's towns and cities put together. "Moreover, there is little or no public access to green belt land except where there are viable rights of way," Cheshire says. "Green belts are a handsome subsidy to "horseyculture" and golf. Since our planning system prevents housing competing, land for golf courses stays very cheap. More of Surrey is now under golf courses – about 2.65% – than has houses on it."

"He calculates that there is enough green belt land within Greater London – 32,500 hectares – to build 1.6m houses at average densities. "The only value of green belts is for those who own houses within them," Cheshire argues. "What green belts really seem to be is a very British form of discriminatory zoning, keeping the urban unwashed out of the home counties – and, of course, helping to turn houses into investment assets instead of places to live." "

Well, there is plenty of countryside still, but it's when you go out on the roads and get stuck in traffic jams for miles that you realise that we have quite a large population for the size of our country.
Of course, more infrastructure - roads, railways would be a good idea but they again will cut swathes through the countryside. The peaceful countryside near where I grew up will have HS2 cutting the village in half plus decimating farms.

Greater London would just become gridlocked.
I am sure the people I know who live in towns and cities would object to being termed as the urban unwashed

Does he intend building should take place in the London parks - which I thought were supposed to be a place where Londoners could go to enjoy what could equate to a 'country walk' on the heath? The parks and trees are the 'lungs of London' - but just fill them in with ever more housing.

"Green belts are a handsome subsidy to "horseyculture" and golf
Ah well, it makes a change from calling country people 'yokels' I suppose!!

Who is this person?
Oh, from the LSE!
If he works in London, possibly lives there, I suppose he may recognise the urban unwashed when he meets them on his daily commute.

A two bedroom house in the "bad" area of town is 13 times our combined annual salary.. but tell me more about how if we'ld just bring a flask our generation have the same opportunities as previous generations did

p.s. nowhere near London!

pps a damp flat'll set you back £850 per month if you want to live somewhere within a commutable distance of employment, and even if you save up and pay 6 months up front you won't be considered if you don't know a home owner who will guarentor you

but yeah! we're all about coffees and instant gratification