Do you find this purchasing pattern wasteful/unusual?

[Shellydon]

This is really normal for my area. 

[maize]

I'm very grateful we were frugal when we were young and energetic.

 

These days my life is so busy and I have so many people to take care of it is a lot harder.

 

We were real penny pinchers for the first seven years or so of our marriage and the money that is now equity in a house and paid off student loans is serving us well.

Edited January 30, 2018 by maize

[Seasider]

I'm very grateful we were frugal when we were young and energetic.

 

These days my life is so busy and I gave so many people to take care of it is a lot harder.

 

We were real penny pinchers for the first seven years or so of our marriage and the money that is now equity in a house and paid off student loans is serving us well.

Same.

[Tsuga]

I do agree that this attitude "I'll never have a house anyway" is too common among younger people.  At least in my world (noting I come from poverty and my fam / friends tend to be of modest means), it is definitely not true that you can't buy if you set your mind to it.  But you have to be flexible in your thinking.  You might have to buy a less-than-perfect dwelling and do some work on it, or share with someone you aren't married to, or live in a neighborhood that isn't impressive.  Very few people I know over age 30 are in rent - including people who dropped out of school to have babies etc.  (I have no idea how much of that translates to the UK though.)

 

I think when people frame it this way "less than perfect" and "not that impressive", people get the sense that maybe in some past time you could save up for a home with bathrooms, bedrooms, and no asbestos, for around 5x the median salary. And maybe that is the trade-off some people are making. But a lot of the conversation is driven by people living in major metros, and not just because we moved here to be cool, but because we moved to jobs.

 

Like... in Seattle, "not fancy" essentially means this: 

 

https://www.redfin.com/city/16163/WA/Seattle/filter/max-price=250k,min-beds=1,min-baths=1,min-sqft=500-sqft

 

That's at least 500 sq feet, 1 br, 1 bath. Under $250k. If you expand the map, you'll find many more in the far south, but not much else to the east or north.

 

Warning: long explanation of true high COL areas and real estate speculation below:

 

The median household salary in Seattle is $80,000. That's gross, not net.

 

The median home price (median, not average... ) is $725,000. Even if you go to the poor areas, the median is well into half a million dollars. Poor people just don't live in Seattle, the end.

 

So like, twice to five times what you should be looking at on an $80k salary even in not fancy areas, just say within a couple transfers.

 

So if you shouldn't buy a home that is more than 2.5 times your salary, the average worker in Seattle, and mind you this is someone with an engineer's entry level salary, or a manager and a teacher, these are not poor people, here is what you need to do:

 

1500 rent 500 food 200 utilities 400 transport 500 health insurance and costs 400 student loans 70 personal care including hair, soap, clothing, laundry especially in a studio etc. 55 telecommunications (Internet and phone, not unlimited) 1666.666667 federal income tax 5291.666667   You Spend: 63500 You Make: 80000 You can save: 16500 To buy a 1 br house in 10 years in Seattle assuming a crazy growth slowdown and 0% inflation for ten years, an insane assumption but let's pretend millennials are idiots:   $550,000 Down payment of 20%: $110,000.0     Years of saving by a presumable engineer/tech worker with NO kids, NO entertainment, NO health issues, NO exercise expenses, max $40k student loans, an $80k starting salary,  low rent, no retirement savings, no emergencies, extremely frugal transport choices and a pay as you go phone plan from AT&T to cover all his internet needs:   6.7

 

If you do retirement, then a single engineer needs to spend a decade saving. If you're a teacher, a writer, even an analyst... forget it.

 

Start to fill that in a bit more with "uh oh, I got sick", "I lost my job during the downturn that was required to keep prices from ever rising again", "someone hit my $1,000 1995 Civic in a hit and run and now I need to find a new one in a city of 500,000 people doing the exact same thing and I can't find one for under $1,000" and you will see why people are so despondent.

 

Fill it in with realistic inflation and you can see why in so many cities, people give up. You can't keep up with inflation.

 

Anyone who lives in Seattle and works full time knows that these are possible, but extremely frugal prices for most things. 

 

The only way to do it is to move far away from the city, about 40-50 minutes. But--and I actually graphed this before I said screw it, I'm not working for the city, I'm going to make a buttload of money instead--the cost of housing is almost exactly inversely proportional to the cost of additional hours of childcare, gas, car repair and amortization costs. Like, however much your mortgage goes down, your gas, child care, and car maintenance costs will go up, nearly to the dollar.

 

In other words, you aren't getting ahead of the supply and demand curve unless you have some kind of capital to shore up investments, because you are the same as all the other schmucks living here in Seattle.

 

In case anyone was thinking of moving to Seattle. We are crowded and bitter, so don't bother, lol!

 

And if you think Tacoma is better, it's actually worse.

 

Median household income: $51k

Median rent: $1,200

Median home price: $300,000 (but who cares because you can't save because that rent situation is just stupid! And in addition, you're bidding against Seattlites making too little to buy in Seattle, so they are coming down there and investing in telecommuting data plans and driving to the city twice a week because and I quote all my colleagues "you guys we are so screwed in Seattle, we have to go somewhere else").

 

So, I get where you are coming from, SKL. Yes, in some parts of the country, if you work in a professional job and are in a smaller area with more transport, you can make it work.

 

But a huge proportion of millennials are actually living on the West Coast where the market is in fact insane.

 

And you know what the worst part of it is? Everyone could live completely frugally and save like crazy. But even if that didn't tank the economy, it would still have the knock on effect of raising home prices because of supply and demand and willingness to pay. And in fact that is one reason housing is so expensive in Seattle, because people are actually pretty frugal. Everyone I know saves like crazy for limited housing and then they will all compete against each other when they are trying to buy. So, that's great.

 

The joke around my workplace is that we are going to build houses out of avocado toast. Like gingerbread houses, but avocado toast with gluten free cracker roofs. But really everyone is waiting for all those new condos and apartments to come on the market.

[Arcadia]

But a huge proportion of millennials are actually living on the West Coast where the market is in fact insane.

 

And you know what the worst part of it is? Everyone could live completely frugally and save like crazy. But even if that didn't tank the economy, it would still have the knock on effect of raising home prices because of supply and demand and willingness to pay. And in fact that is one reason housing is so expensive in Seattle, because people are actually pretty frugal. Everyone I know saves like crazy for limited housing and then they will all compete against each other when they are trying to buy. So, that's great.

 

The joke around my workplace is that we are going to build houses out of avocado toast. Like gingerbread houses, but avocado toast with gluten free cracker roofs. But really everyone is waiting for all those new condos and apartments to come on the market.

The millennials (born in the 80s) we know who bought in the 2009/2010 property downturn had the downpayment saved and some help from parents. The younger millennials we know who could save for a downpayment are staying rent free with parents here.

 

We are looking for a retirement/vacation home and waiting for the next property downturn to buy.

[Catwoman]

I'm very grateful we were frugal when we were young and energetic.

 

These days my life is so busy and I gave so many people to take care of it is a lot harder.

 

We were real penny pinchers for the first seven years or so of our marriage and the money that is now equity in a house and paid off student loans is serving us well.

There’s a lot to be said for being frugal while you’re young, but there’s also a lot to be said for enjoying being young and carefree, as the young woman who wrote the article seems to be. I think it depends on your personal circumstances and responsibilities. If you’re married with kids, the frugal route makes a lot more sense than spending more freely, but if you’re single, it’s a great time to really enjoy yourself because you don’t really have to worry about anyone but yourself.

 

I was single in my 20s, and I don’t regret any of the money I spent traveling, shopping, and going out all the time. It was a wonderful time in my life and if I had it all to do over again, I wouldn’t change a thing. I had no interest in staying home and missing out on all of the fun with my friends! But I never went into debt during those years and I still managed to save money, so even though I was far from frugal, I was still sensible enough to think of my future.

[hornblower]

Except income and housing costs tend to inflate at very similar rates. Both keep pace with inflation when averaged out over time. Her earning power should also increase. We aren’t static cases.

 

Sure, maybe over TIME but our lifespans are only so long.  I'm still waiting for Vancouver's real estate to crash & everyone to finally come to their senses. My house was insane when we bought it & now it's a crazy level of lunacy & still prices keep going up. 

 

Vancouver median real estate is 17 times median income. 

 

London's median multiple is 14. 

 

As a comparison, Oklahoma city is 3.8 

 

My kids are going to be living in my home as long as I can convince them to because this.is.insane. Incomes are NOT keeping up here at all. 

 

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/report-calls-vancouver-most-unaffordable-real-estate-market-in-north-america

[Crimson Wife]

Except income and housing costs tend to inflate at very similar rates. Both keep pace with inflation when averaged out over time. Her earning power should also increase. We aren’t static cases.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Housing costs have gone up WAAAAAY more than incomes over the past 40 years.

 

The median home price in the U.S. adjusted for inflation in 1980 was $93,400. Today it's $206,300. And that's the overall U.S. median. In many areas, housing is double, triple, or even more.

[Tsuga]

 

 

The millennials (born in the 80s) we know who bought in the 2009/2010 property downturn had the downpayment saved and some help from parents. The younger millennials we know who could save for a downpayment are staying rent free with parents here. 

 

We are looking for a retirement/vacation home and waiting for the next property downturn to buy. 

 

 

Staying rent free is great, but unrealistic for many.

 

Your advice is great, but it's not about saving. It's about getting lucky, having connections to make the right purchase at the right time. You don't need to give up avocado toast or wine for that. All you need it mom and dad.

 

This time around, to avoid buying at the top of the curve, we bought with more debt. Don't follow the market. It is paying off heavily. Saving would have screwed us over because for every pre-packaged salad I passed up, the cost of housing would have increased at about twice the rate I could earn interest on that cash, if not more. In order to keep up with inflation, we would have needed to save not just for a down payment, but an additional $1,000-$1,500 per month to buy the same house in the future. That's how much prices rose.

 

We will also get more property, most likely, in the downturn, but NOT by frugal living. That got us absolutely nowhere.

 

Working for pharma and tech, buying into the game as early as possible. That's how you get property. Not by saying to yourself "maybe today I'll have CupONoodles at my desk, and by the end of the year I'll have a whole additional $1,848 for my dream house or rather just literally any house at all, possibly a condo, or maybe the way things are going, a little shack in Nickelsville."

 

Nickelsville, my friends:

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tsuga

[Seasider]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Housing costs have gone up WAAAAAY more than incomes over the past 40 years.

 

The median home price in the U.S. adjusted for inflation in 1980 was $93,400. Today it's $206,300. And that's the overall U.S. median. In many areas, housing is double, triple, or even more.

Compound that by the HGTV effect and you have buyers willing to do whatever it takes (dual income, extraordinary mortgages) to pay those high prices.

[Laurie4b]

Yes, I find that very wasteful spending. She spends a huge percentage of her income on entertainment: food and drinks out. While people eat out more than they used to, my head is still spinning from that percentage of income spent on entertainment. 

[Crimson Wife]

I just talked his over with my husband, trying to figure out where the disconnect is coming in. I think it’s that medical and education expenses have far outpaced salaries, and so the issue is not that housing has some out of line cost with salaries on average, but that the imbalances in those other assets mean there are more expense demands on those incomes overall that is skewing perceptions. Housing and wages aren’t the issue - it’s those other expenses eating larger portions of the pie. And that is exacerbated when one chooses to live in a market where housing does outpace the local prevailing wage. That is a fixable and separate issue though.

 

Medical and higher education have far outpaced salaries, but so has housing. Even if medical and higher education expenses had kept in line with wages, people would still be struggling to pay for housing. And it's not just McMansions but also modest apartments too.

 

[Tsuga]

I just talked his over with my husband, trying to figure out where the disconnect is coming in. I think it’s that medical and education expenses have far outpaced salaries, and so the issue is not that housing has some out of line cost with salaries on average, but that the imbalances in those other assets mean there are more expense demands on those incomes overall that is skewing perceptions. Housing and wages aren’t the issue - it’s those other expenses eating larger portions of the pie. And that is exacerbated when one chooses to live in a market where housing does outpace the local prevailing wage. That is a fixable and separate issue though.

 

Housing has outpaced salaries to an insane degree in many parts of the country.

 

CrimsonWife provided a very specific example, but I can provide more:

 

 

That peak is exactly where you would have bought if you were in Generation X, lol.  You'd have saved up dutifully for 10 years. Millennials don't work with Boomers, they work with us. And they see what we did. And they see how even people like me who buy tracfones and Toyotas with dents gave up on a 20% down payment.

 

McMansions, lolololol. Honestly. I know one family in my social class that has granite countertops. Dual income, both in finance, they probably make no less than $300k per year, most likely far more but they are pretty humble people so it's hard to tell. By their cars and vacations, knowing that they almost certainly pay cash for nearly everything, I'd say a half a million a year. They are very down to earth people and enjoy their wealth but aren't showy. They have what appear to be granite countertops.

 

All the other dual income families around here, medical and tech, research and tech, admin and teaching salaries? I mean from $100 - $300k per year I promise you we are not buying McMansions.

 

I seriously think only people in Texas are buying granite but that's instead of real estate. And that's great but can we stop this myth that the whole country lives like the Real Housewives of Atlanta?

[KungFuPanda]

At first glance it seems wasteful, but if I decide to “just stay home and cook†I have my husband and children to talk to. If you’re single, you’ve got to leave the house to spend time with people. I’m guessing this occurs over coffee and meals.

 

I’m also beginning to wonder how lucrative home ownership really is and how much is just a forced investment account. No one really wants to add the real cost of all the nuckles and dimes a house eats or the work it requires.

Edited January 30, 2018 by KungFuPanda

[PeacefulChaos]

Sigh.

 

My thoughts on this are colored by my feelings on this, which are complicated.

 

I'm a millennial and we don't own a house, either.  We are supposedly 'looking' but I'm not really looking forward to the prospect of owning a home or moving to it ... I hate moving.  :lol:  

 

I 'get it' when people say that buying a house is a good thing.  I really do.  I fully understand 'why' we 'should want to'. 

 

But that doesn't mean I actually want to.  Right now we are able to rent a house for less than half of what everything else in our town costs to rent.  Maybe right at half.  Our utilities are covered.  And things are still tight sometimes.  

 

And it's really easy to look at other people and say, 'oh, that's wasteful' but everyone is wasteful in one way or another.  And all the articles about how 'if millennials would just __________' really mean nothing to me.  We don't buy coffee except for the coffeemaker.  We barely eat out, ever.  And for someone to then say, 'Well it could be never' I'm just like :rolleyes: ... ok, whatever.  

 

I think there are just sacrifices that I'm not willing to make, and I think that's ok.  I don't think that's unwise.  I think it's doing what needs to be done to keep our home running smoothly and not go insane.  

 

I can't stand Dave Ramsey because to him, there is no sacrifice too great for wealth.  And I just disagree.  I won't exist on rice and beans to pinch pennies on a grocery bill.  I won't not get my hair dyed to save $240 a year.  It's just not going to happen.  If other people do those things, great, good for them, not my business.  But to expect that everyone should be willing to sacrifice anything just for some extra money is beyond my realm of understanding.  

 

I know that's not what the article was about, those are just the thoughts it brings up for me.  :P  Which I know are very colored by my personal life.

[PeacefulChaos]

Ah...the HGTV effect.  Thats EXACTLY what our realtor called it.

 

We listed our house in August of 2014.  It closed on 2/22/16.  Of that time, 6 months was spent doing the rehab after the pipe burst (which was upstairs, which is why both floors had to be renovated etc.)  We went through TWO realtors.

 

Another home in our neighborhood that had the SAME FLOOR PLAN, but didn't have a fence, was close to a retention pond that had an unfortunate incident (no I won't detail, but your guess is probably right.) and was 5yrs older.......sold within 2wks for over $170k.

 

Why?  "fancy."  I know that in many areas this is discounted, but for middle parts of the country, HGTV effect is real.  "Fancy" is real and "functional" is secondary.  Because FUNCTIONAL can be found in most places.  Stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, hardwood throughout.....THAT was the difference.  We asked our landlord to write a letter of reference because our credit is trashed because of a 2/22/16 short sale....because....builder grade. 

 

SO....$170k, 2 weeks on the market vs $140k short sale, 18 months on the market, SAME floor plan, SAME age and functionality of floors, fixtures etc....."fancy" really is the difference.  People who talk about this as a factor aren't just poo poohing the real issues of finding housing in the extreme areas of the country.  The issues of "fancy" have a real impact on peoples lives

 

It's like that here, too.  Actually it's affecting us because so many people are having to do 'fancy' to cater to most buyers, but then that takes it over what we want to pay.  So here it's either fancy or in terrible shape (not cosmetic shape - that we can fix.  like, structural damage, cracked foundation shape).

 

I'm like what happened to the days when people were willing to buy a house and do a little something to it?  Everyone now wants 'move in ready' - I can get that for some people, but most, I'm like, really?  You aren't willing to slap some paint on the walls or fix a couple small things before you move in?  

 

So weird.

[Catwoman]

Ah...the HGTV effect.  Thats EXACTLY what our realtor called it.

 

We listed our house in August of 2014.  It closed on 2/22/16.  Of that time, 6 months was spent doing the rehab after the pipe burst (which was upstairs, which is why both floors had to be renovated etc.)  We went through TWO realtors.

 

Another home in our neighborhood that had the SAME FLOOR PLAN, but didn't have a fence, was close to a retention pond that had an unfortunate incident (no I won't detail, but your guess is probably right.) and was 5yrs older.......sold within 2wks for over $170k.

 

Why?  "fancy."  I know that in many areas this is discounted, but for middle parts of the country, HGTV effect is real.  "Fancy" is real and "functional" is secondary.  Because FUNCTIONAL can be found in most places.  Stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops, hardwood throughout.....THAT was the difference.  We asked our landlord to write a letter of reference because our credit is trashed because of a 2/22/16 short sale....because....builder grade. 

 

SO....$170k, 2 weeks on the market vs $140k short sale, 18 months on the market, SAME floor plan, SAME age and functionality of floors, fixtures etc....."fancy" really is the difference.  People who talk about this as a factor aren't just poo poohing the real issues of finding housing in the extreme areas of the country.  The issues of "fancy" have a real impact on peoples lives

 

But the things you're talking about add value to a house because they cost more money, so it makes sense that the other house sold for a higher price.

 

It's expensive to have hardwood floors installed in an entire house, and it's a real nuisance to have it done after you move in because all of your furniture has to be moved out of the way, and if the floors aren't pre-finished, there's dust and odors and you can't really be in the house while the work is being done. I can absolutely understand why someone would pay extra for a home with hardwood floors throughout -- I have done it myself. Granite countertops are expensive, as well, and stainless steel appliances are usually more costly than white or black appliances of similar quality. Builder grade may be functional, but higher end fixtures may be of higher quality and hold up a lot longer than the builder grade. Truthfully, a $30k price difference between a "functional" builder grade home and a "fancy" upgraded version of the same house doesn't sound out of line to me.

[Catwoman]

It's like that here, too.  Actually it's affecting us because so many people are having to do 'fancy' to cater to most buyers, but then that takes it over what we want to pay.  So here it's either fancy or in terrible shape (not cosmetic shape - that we can fix.  like, structural damage, cracked foundation shape).

 

I'm like what happened to the days when people were willing to buy a house and do a little something to it?  Everyone now wants 'move in ready' - I can get that for some people, but most, I'm like, really?  You aren't willing to slap some paint on the walls or fix a couple small things before you move in?  

 

So weird.

 

It's like on House Hunters where the people hate the house because it needs so much work... which basically means that they don't like the paint color on the dining room walls.  :svengo:

 

I think the house flipping shows have been bad for people looking for homes, too, because lots of people with absolutely no experience whatsoever have decided that they will make their fortune by flipping houses, just like they see on television -- except that half the time these amateur flippers don't know what they're doing and although the house might be pretty to look at, who knows what's hiding behind those neutral gray walls? 

[Catwoman]

I am not going to argue or not whether or not hardwood floors and granite countertops are worth $30k.  My point is 12 months on the market AND the fact that it severely impacts our ability to find a functional rental two years later.  Two weeks vs 12 months (again, NOT counting the 6 months on the market for rehab.) 

 

My point, which, with your "I have paid that difference myself" you have essentially proven, is that when people talk about paying for "trendy" neighborhoods.....they aren't poo poohing the costs of high dollar neighborhoods.  They are staying that "trendy" is affecting them in very real ways.  The willingness for someone to pay more for hardwood floors and and granite counters means that my ability to actually buy a home in the midwestern US is actually affected.  That is the point. 

 

I'm very sorry that you had a bad experience, but I don't think you can say that things like hardwood floors are "trendy."  And you weren't talking about one house being in a high end neighborhood and the other being elsewhere; as I understood it, both houses were in the same neighborhood, but one had higher quality finishes throughout. Don't you think higher quality finishes should command a higher price than builder grade finishes? If you were to buy a brand new home, the upgrades would cost a lot extra, so why wouldn't the owners set a higher price on their home when they put it up for sale? And why shouldn't buyers be willing to pay extra for those upgrades?

 

I don't think I'm understanding your reasoning.

[KungFuPanda]

But the things you're talking about add value to a house because they cost more money, so it makes sense that the other house sold for a higher price.

 

It's expensive to have hardwood floors installed in an entire house, and it's a real nuisance to have it done after you move in because all of your furniture has to be moved out of the way, and if the floors aren't pre-finished, there's dust and odors and you can't really be in the house while the work is being done. I can absolutely understand why someone would pay extra for a home with hardwood floors throughout -- I have done it myself. Granite countertops are expensive, as well, and stainless steel appliances are usually more costly than white or black appliances of similar quality. Builder grade may be functional, but higher end fixtures may be of higher quality and hold up a lot longer than the builder grade. Truthfully, a $30k price difference between a "functional" builder grade home and a "fancy" upgraded version of the same house doesn't sound out of line to me.

I agree. I think the silver appliance thing is silly and counter-top fad-hopping is eyeroll worthy, but the floors seem less frivolous and what probably really moved that house.

[Tsuga]

It's like that here, too.  Actually it's affecting us because so many people are having to do 'fancy' to cater to most buyers, but then that takes it over what we want to pay.  So here it's either fancy or in terrible shape (not cosmetic shape - that we can fix.  like, structural damage, cracked foundation shape).

 

I'm like what happened to the days when people were willing to buy a house and do a little something to it?  Everyone now wants 'move in ready' - I can get that for some people, but most, I'm like, really?  You aren't willing to slap some paint on the walls or fix a couple small things before you move in?  

 

So weird.

 

A lot of people are in your situation as well. But realtors don't want to sell to people like us. They want to sell to people who can't manage money at all. That's where their margin is.

 

The money coming in is excess investment money used to rent homes out. You can't save as fast as appreciation, so investors (who make money off of appreciation) always have an advantage. They buy the houses and drive up the prices for the rest of us.

 

We managed to get a fixer in a very unusual situation and got lucky. So, so lucky. But it was due to a family's misfortune, and I think of them every day. A lot of families bid on the same houses we did, so they ended up almost as expensive as the homes that have been remodeled. Like you only get a tiny discount for a home that requires thousands of dollars of minor repairs--requires, not "wants", but I mean thinks like replacing the water heater or a whole window.

 

In addition, our agent and their agent and the homeowner all broke the law. They took letters and chose the owners. :\ Technically this is not allowed because of  the Federal Fair Housing act which doesn't allow discrimination on basically anything about the buyer at all. 

 

But from what I have seen, the only way to get a good price on a fixer in this town is if you find a sentimental seller who is still alive, who will sell to you because they care about you. It is so hard to find. We found someone to help us. We wrote a letter and we wished them well and we told them how much we loved the home and how we would take care of it and I will because they helped us out so, so much, just by not letting a bidding war start.

 

And then people come on from Texas and Missouri and wherever and insist that if we just wouldn't have deluxe cable and granite counter tops, we'd be able to save $30k.

 

No, we would not. Because we don't have those things, or new cars, and we still haven't saved that money!

 

 

 

 I don't think you can say that things like hardwood floors are "trendy."

 

Trendy is probably the wrong word but they are definitely considered higher end and not because of some intrinsic value in terms of energy efficiency, quietness, or anything else. They just look nice. Disclaimer: we tore out our carpet which was equal parts energy efficient and hideous, and went for hardwood. But only because it was fancier. (Edit: to back up my frugal cred, we tore it out ourselves and there was wood underneath.)

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tsuga

[Tsuga]

ALSO... for real estate, a parody of House Hunters;

 

(warning: language and dark humor)

 

And from Twitter, your favorite, "I'm an artisinal cat walker and he live blogs his paranormal research, we're looking for a house under $700,000 in downtown Vancouver B.C.!" views:

 

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/04/house-hunters-insane-budgets-become-twitter-meme.html

 

Buzzfeed hits it on the head. I mean if you have ever thought, "YOU CAN PAINT THAT!!!" this blog entry is for you:

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/annakopsky/annoying-house-hunters-moments?utm_term=.mdQO6V436#.kvZGEBQwE

 

 

 

I'm partly laughing but also this is a really fancy kitchen and maybe if we win the lottery, we'll do this.

[KungFuPanda]

Are hardwood floors and "higher quality finishes" worth 4 to 8 yrs of savings?

 

 

I mean, that's really what we are talking about right? $30k in the US in th sales price difference on a house, vs 35k pounds (sorry, can't find the proper symbol on my keypad....I did look!)

 

You say you are "willing to pay $30k" for thse higher end fixtures. Are you ACTUALLY willing to spend $30k of actual saved dollars, that it took you SIX YEARS to save....for hardwood floors? Or do you really mean, you are willing to take on $30k more in a mortgage? Because...there's a difference. Buyers are much more willing to spend $30k when it's money they are borrowing.

 

When it's money they are going to need FOUR to EIGHT years of actual home coffee making and home cooking and not fulfilling a "social obligation" people aren't so willing.

 

People with allergies would probably save or finance for hard floors if they’re not taking out more mortgage to cover them. Replacing floors requires so much disruption and heavy lifting that I can see wanting it done before move-in.

[Catwoman]

Are hardwood floors and "higher quality finishes" worth 4 to 8 yrs of savings?

 

 

I mean, that's really what we are talking about right?  $30k in the US in th sales price difference on a house, vs 35k pounds (sorry, can't find the proper symbol on my keypad....I did look!)

 

You say you are "willing to pay $30k" for thse higher end fixtures.  Are you ACTUALLY willing to spend $30k of actual saved dollars, that it took you SIX YEARS to save....for hardwood floors?  Or do you really mean, you are willing to take on $30k more in a mortgage?  Because...there's a difference.  Buyers are much more willing to spend $30k when it's money they are borrowing.

 

When it's money they are going to need FOUR to EIGHT years of actual home coffee making and home cooking and not fulfilling a "social obligation"   people aren't so willing. 

 

Why are you making this about me? :confused: We're not talking about me, because I pay cash for my houses, and I'm not your target market, but I would absolutely pay far more than $30k extra for a house with higher quality finishes, and I have done just that. I'm willing to pay more upfront because I don't want to have to deal with renovations to make the house look the way I want it to look, and because my dh wouldn't be doing the work, I would have to go through the nuisance of hiring contractors and having workers in my house for weeks or months on end. Believe me, it's totally worth spending more money on a house that's already done the way I want it.

 

What I'm saying is that upgrades have monetary value. Maybe you don't care about them, but that doesn't mean they have no value. 

 

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. You don't have to spend more money on high end finishes if you don't feel they are worth it to you, but other people do value higher quality finishes and are willing to pay for them. Why does that bother you? And why do you care if other people take on a higher mortgage to get the kind of house they want, rather than settle for a lesser quality house, if they can afford the slightly higher monthly payment?

 

I still don't get your point. It seems like you are resentful because a house similar to yours sold faster and for a higher price than your house. I understand being upset that you had so many problems with that house, and it's hard to see someone else's house sell quickly while you're still waiting for a buyer. But you're not comparing apples with apples. The other house may have had the same floor plan as yours, but if it had higher quality finishes, it makes perfect sense that it would have sold for a considerably higher price and to a different buyer.

 

I still feel like I'm missing something. Please believe me when I tell you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I'm honestly trying to understand what you mean, and I'm very sorry if I'm making you angry.

[Carol in Cal.]

Back to the OP, I was thinking about this and, you know, when I graduated from college I had never had a reasonable income before, and all of the sudden I was able to live independently and even have a little fun.  For the first time in years I had weekends off, although I worked a lot of overtime during the week (in my engineering job), and I lived 3000 miles away from where I had grown up so there was a lot of exploring to do.

 

I thought about being super frugal which is more or less how I had always been and how I was raised, and I decided that I would give myself two years to enjoy myself frivolously and then would buckle down and start saving and being more prudent.  EXCEPT, I was so embarrassed to have all this income and not be saving at all that I signed up for the ESPP, which got me a 15% discount on company stock with 10% of my salary going into it.  

 

I learned to ski, I bought skiis (it was so much cheaper then), I explored the whole area, I bought a few antique country furnishings that I still have and love.  I flew home for Christmas, which I thought was unbelievably exotic.  I bought my first dress hat, at Marshall Fields.  I experienced the seasons for the first time, and snow, and saw ice on a pond, and HAD a pond in my back yard.  I taught myself how to make Chinese food,  out of sheer withdrawal symptoms, LOL, and organized a foreign food dinner club.  I joined a charismatic college prayer Bible study, and a conservative and funloving Lutheran church.  I played a lot of volleyball.  

 

It was great.  

 

And then after two years I started being careful and saving very seriously, and bought my first house as a single woman.  I got a much bigger loan than the banks would have given me as it was owner financed.  I had NO margin in my income anymore, ate a lot of frozen bean burritos to get by.  

 

Both of those lifestyles were very satisfying.

 

I would not have missed either one.  

 

The key is not to get trapped in either one, if possible.

 

I know that I have benefited from grace, privilege, good advice, and very hard work, and couldn't have gotten so far without any of those elements.

[Laura Corin]

Except income and housing costs tend to inflate at very similar rates. Both keep pace with inflation when averaged out over time. Her earning power should also increase. We aren’t static cases.

London house prices are a special case. Due to housing policy, London can't just spread. They go up by much more than inflation.

 

https://goo.gl/images/8H94sa

[Tsuga]

Why are you making this about me? :confused:

 

I'm 99.999% sure it's not about you personally.

 

Also, if you buy houses (plural!!!) cash, then there's a good chance you aren't really sensing the economic strain most people are feeling. 

 

Happysmileylady is trying to explain the difference between places where buyers have leftover disposable income to spend on things that are not, strictly speaking, necessary, versus those of us in hot sellers markets on the coasts, in which many people just filter "granite" out of their real estate search because even though it's like a dentist and an engineer, we can't afford it.

[Catwoman]

People with allergies would probably save or finance for hard floors if they’re not taking out more mortgage to cover them. Replacing floors requires so much disruption and heavy lifting that I can see wanting it done before move-in.

 

I agree. And people with pets often prefer hardwood floors, as well, because they are much easier to clean than carpeting.

 

 

 

Edited to remove my reply to happysmileylady because she posted and explained what she meant while I was typing this!

Edited January 30, 2018 by Catwoman

[Catwoman]

It's not about you and I am not angry at all (though I am probably up too late lol.)

 

It's about the idea that "trendiest neighborhoods" don't make a difference. 

 

This country has areas where housing costs stupid amounts of money.  Crazy stupid amounts.

 

There are other parts of the country where housing isn't so crazy supid.  Very very large parts of the country in fact, where a large percentage of the country is actually living. 

 

And in those places...."trendy" and "fancy" and "higher end" actually does make a very real difference.  The dollar amounts might be different.  But the impact really isn't so different.

 

 

That's my point. 

 

 

I'm up too late, too!  

 

Thanks for clarifying -- I do understand what you mean, as we have homes in both the NYC area and in the midwest.

 

Sorry I was a little slow on the uptake!  :)

[Catwoman]

I'm 99.999% sure it's not about you personally.

 

Also, if you buy houses (plural!!!) cash, then there's a good chance you aren't really sensing the economic strain most people are feeling. 

 

Happysmileylady is trying to explain the difference between places where buyers have leftover disposable income to spend on things that are not, strictly speaking, necessary, versus those of us in hot sellers markets on the coasts, in which many people just filter "granite" out of their real estate search because even though it's like a dentist and an engineer, we can't afford it.

 

Thanks, Tsuga!  :)

[Tsuga]

 

I just don't think you can compare linoleum and laminate with genuine hardwood flooring. 

 

Well you can though. Because if land is pricey enough, then the cost of time it takes to re-do floors properly, and the interest you could potentially earn on that money in the meantime, could make it less profitable to renovate, than to just wait on the house, invest the money elsewhere, and then sell.

 

This is because in certain neighborhoods (basically all but the most fancy), there are two types of buyers: those who will rent it out and those who can't really afford it (dual income families that want to be near work of at least one of them).

 

... n/m I see my point was made above.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tsuga

[Carol in Cal.]

The millennials (born in the 80s) we know who bought in the 2009/2010 property downturn had the downpayment saved and some help from parents. The younger millennials we know who could save for a downpayment are staying rent free with parents here.

 

We are looking for a retirement/vacation home and waiting for the next property downturn to buy.

Depending on where you're looking, you might want to buy now.

A lot of the foothill and mountain communities' real estate prices never did recover from the last downturn, except for the extreme locations right on scenic rivers and lakes.

[Catwoman]

Glad I could make myself clear. Sorry it took so long lol

 

 

And with that...

 

It's 1:30 in the freaking AM. I am going to have a hell of a time getting up in the morning to do school with 3 kids.

 

Night!!!

 

:laugh:

:lol: Good night!!!

[Arcadia]

Depending on where you're looking, you might want to buy now.

A lot of the foothill and mountain communities' real estate prices never did recover from the last downturn, except for the extreme locations right on scenic rivers and lakes.

We are looking at college towns like SLO, The Dunes/East Garrison area. We went to Mountain House to look and while the single family homes are lovely and big at Umbria, my husband’s company shuttle bus only goes to and from Dublin/Livermore. We want locations where if our kids need free lodging as adults, jobs (even if it’s just private tutoring) are still relatively easy to find.

 

Where I am staying now is really convenient for jobs so I am spoilt. I can easily get a job as a tutor too. We rather have a smaller place but higher employment prospects.

[Meriwether]

I think the spending is wasteful, kind of. I married directly after graduating college. Dh and I made some good financial decisions early on. We lived on much less than our dual income and put the savings toward our first house. We could have spent that money traveling or having fun. We didn't, and it has made a real, significant different in our lives. Sometimes I wish that we had done more fun things when we were younger and didn't have children, but we definitely made the best decision for us at the time. And I had four college years where I was only responsible for myself. I wasn't living the high life, but I had my fun. Now we spend money like crazy. Kids activities. Homeschool materials. Books. So many books. We don't drink alcohol, but I spend at least as much on books in a month as she did alcohol. And all our spending in the last decade has cost us in housing. We decided we couldn't afford to buy a place in the country. We both grew up on farms and always thought we would end up on an acreage. If we had saved more of the money that went to fun, we could have done it. I don't think she needs to eat rice and beans and stop doing fun stuff, but I do think she could save significantly more. There may come a time in her life when she'll wish she had.

[Carrie12345]

Just focusing on the house aspect for a second... I don't find it surprising for many 20-somethings or even 30-somethings to assume completely bypassing home ownership. 

 

Our expectations are often formed by watching the generation before us.  I expected to buy a starter home, grow my family, sell my little house to a younger couple and move into Our Real Home, just like I saw everyone do while I was growing up. (To be fair, my parents didn't move. They had an addition put on that involved rebuilding almost our entire house.  The things equity can do!)

 

Instead, I've been paying a fixed, reasonable rate mortgage for 12 years and still owe at least $15k more than my house is now worth before considering the costs of reasonable repairs that come with living in a tiny house with kids and pets for 12 years.  Three of my five kids will be fully grown before moving is an affordable option unless good fortune happens to come our way.

 

Even though it seems likely that my kids could become homeowners if they want to be in our particular area, I doubt they'll have the expectations and optimism with which I went into it. I sure hope they don't!  I'm glad to have stable housing, but it has most definitely not been a stable investment.  We could have spent the last 12 years in a relative mansion and technically been ahead tens of thousands of dollars.

[MotherGoose]

I'll point out that this article was in response to another (maybe two) talking about how it is impossible to save enough, even by giving up luxuries like avocado toast.

 

It isn't really about whether she is spending too much as it is about whether financial stability is out of reach for that generation.

I think she misses The entire point that you can't buy an $350k property on a $35k salary. If you are young and single and making that money you can't afford to buy a place in the city. She could, though, buy a place in another setting. She also doesn't really seem to want a house. It seems to be a "poor me" piece.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Just focusing on the house aspect for a second... I don't find it surprising for many 20-somethings or even 30-somethings to assume completely bypassing home ownership. 

 

Our expectations are often formed by watching the generation before us.  I expected to buy a starter home, grow my family, sell my little house to a younger couple and move into Our Real Home, just like I saw everyone do while I was growing up. (To be fair, my parents didn't move. They had an addition put on that involved rebuilding almost our entire house.  The things equity can do!)

 

Instead, I've been paying a fixed, reasonable rate mortgage for 12 years and still owe at least $15k more than my house is now worth before considering the costs of reasonable repairs that come with living in a tiny house with kids and pets for 12 years.  Three of my five kids will be fully grown before moving is an affordable option unless good fortune happens to come our way.

 

Even though it seems likely that my kids could become homeowners if they want to be in our particular area, I doubt they'll have the expectations and optimism with which I went into it. I sure hope they don't!  I'm glad to have stable housing, but it has most definitely not been a stable investment.  We could have spent the last 12 years in a relative mansion and technically been ahead tens of thousands of dollars.

 

I never thought I'd own.  My parents never did.  I had no concept for what home ownership was even like. 

[Laura Corin]

I think she misses The entire point that you can't buy an $350k property on a $35k salary. If you are young and single and making that money you can't afford to buy a place in the city. She could, though, buy a place in another setting. She also doesn't really seem to want a house. It seems to be a "poor me" piece.

 

In her defence, jobs for journalists are scarce elsewhere.  Local newspapers are now being run by two old codgers and a dog.  Almost everything else runs from London. And if you go too far out of London and commute in, your transport costs mount up pretty fast for public transport or driving.

 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/new-research-some-198-uk-local-newspapers-have-closed-since-2005/

 

[Joyofsixreboot]

Not how I spend my money but, if you choose that because it is what value, go ahead. I've had too many people speak badly about my choices, ie. Not "using" my degree, not pulling my weight, wasting retirement money on having a larger family that I won't judge.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[SparklyUnicorn]

And that’s the kicker. Too many people, perhaps subconsciously, feel entitled to live in a particular area where there may be a mismatch of their salary to what they want to live in, or can afford. We hit that in California all the time. You wouldn’t believe the number of kids who thought they too should live in San Diego, because they were raised there and mom and dad lived there, but they had a job that paid a pittance for the actual cost of the area and refused to move. Never mind that they could have worked in their field in Los Alamos or even Colorado Springs and been able to afford more comfortable housing for the the salary that job paid that, because the index was more favorable. They complained endlessly about the local market as though they were entitled to a certain standard of living in a certain place, no matter their reality. Anchorage too had this - you can’t lose your high paying job and then refuse to move to where the work is, all while whining about how you can’t afford the high cost of living anymore but you could neeeeeever move.

 

It was genuinely weird. These people would never say they felt entitled to a certain home comfort level in a certain location, but their actions all reflected that. And then there were others who were flexible and made it work without living in mom’s 750k basement, and now a decade or two out? That group seems happier AND more successful. What I can’t figure out is if it’s a lifestyle choice thing or more of an attitude in general, than any economic reality. I’m inclined to think it is the former - the willingness to choose situations that might be temporarily uncomfortable or unglamorous for the sake of achieving long term sustainability, stability, and success.

 

It’s that person who could buy the granite but buys the laminate, and is happy about it. And the one who moves to the town where they know nobody because life will be better than sticking it out in an enclave where the is no work or insane costs. But it’s not even that straightforward. Because there are plenty of people with good financial luck in terms of timing who are also this person, and may jet set or live very well too. Maybe it’s just not having a scarcity mindset, no matter the situation, but choosing contentment. I don’t know... It could just be that intangible factor where a person will be happy, because they want to be, and if their circumstances are difficult they are flexible and industriousness enough to do the crazy thing to make them better.

 

 

 

The woman in this article doesn’t feel, to me, like she has this as I’m reading her story. And that’s a red flag. But there are other young adults I can think of, even living with mom and dad or broke as a joke, who I wouldn’t ‘worry’ about in terms of their long term trajectory. They’re the ones who might be poor but they aren’t broke or broken, does that make any sense?

 

I don't know if that's entitlement.  I can understand wanting to remain the area you grew up in. 

 

I just think it stinks.  There are still many needed professions that pay way to low for such an area.  So those people struggle a lot.  For example, those areas have schools so they need teachers.  Where in heck are the teachers living? 

 

That said, I don't mind living in a less expensive area.  My money goes a lot further. 

 

 

[LuvToRead]

I agree. And people with pets often prefer hardwood floors, as well, because they are much easier to clean than carpeting.

 

 

 

Edited to remove my reply to happysmileylady because she posted and explained what she meant while I was typing this!

 

This!  I don't like carpet, and we don't have allergies or pets.  I am willing to pay more money for a house with floors I won't have to do redo.

Edited January 30, 2018 by LuvToRead

[LuvToRead]

We are not rich at all, but I would gladly pay $30,000 more for a house if I meant getting exactly what we want and no work on our part.  When we first got married, we bought what we could afford.  I was a fresh college graduate with loads of student loan debt, so our house was pretty cheap. We have put way more than $30,000 into it over the years.  New roof, siding, floors, windows, exterior doors, added and removed walls, paint, .....  you name it, we've done it. We did the bulk of it ourselves.  Now, as I am getting older, I've realized you either pay for it now, or you pay for it later.  (BTW, we are cash only people too, so the idea that people who borrow are the only ones who are willing to spend more isn't true for everyone)  I actually don't care about stainless and granite, but I am willing to pay more for sturdy and high quality. Sometimes it really is cheaper to pay more up front, when you actually factor in the cost of how much it will cost to do it after buying.

 

Let's suppose there were two cars on the car lot, same year/make/model.  One is bare bones and one has all the bells and whistles. Surely you don't think the bare bones model should cost the same as the one with the bells and whistles.  Shouldn't housing be the same way?

[Katy]

I don't have much opinion on HGTV - if you want high end finishes, you can buy the cheaper place and slowly DIY the upgrades over 5-8 years and end up with a nicer place for less money, but you do have to move into a place without the nice finishes.

 

I do think if she's out of the office researching stories a lot it's likely to be completely reasonable to go out to lunch every day.  It's not like you can microwave your lunch in a random restaurant near your interview.

 

The daily transport fares are a bit odd to me - is there no discount for buying an Oyster Pass, or whatever that transport pass in London is called?

 

Plenty of people buy a cheaper house out of the city.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-4136778/The-cheapest-places-buy-house-commuting-London.html

[Bluegoat]

Staying rent free is great, but unrealistic for many.

 

Your advice is great, but it's not about saving. It's about getting lucky, having connections to make the right purchase at the right time. You don't need to give up avocado toast or wine for that. All you need it mom and dad.

 

This time around, to avoid buying at the top of the curve, we bought with more debt. Don't follow the market. It is paying off heavily. Saving would have screwed us over because for every pre-packaged salad I passed up, the cost of housing would have increased at about twice the rate I could earn interest on that cash, if not more. In order to keep up with inflation, we would have needed to save not just for a down payment, but an additional $1,000-$1,500 per month to buy the same house in the future. That's how much prices rose.

 

We will also get more property, most likely, in the downturn, but NOT by frugal living. That got us absolutely nowhere.

 

Working for pharma and tech, buying into the game as early as possible. That's how you get property. Not by saying to yourself "maybe today I'll have CupONoodles at my desk, and by the end of the year I'll have a whole additional $1,848 for my dream house or rather just literally any house at all, possibly a condo, or maybe the way things are going, a little shack in Nickelsville."

 

Nickelsville, my friends:

 

 

 

You know, I agree with you about getting lucky, and that housing is a big issue.

 

But even with luck, there is a certain extent to which you can make your own.  And one thing that can really enable making your luck is having a bit of savings for ready cash or to save as a down payment or to help secure a loan.

 

It's one thing when you are scraping by with not much possibility to save, which plenty of people are.  But saving enough to be worthwhile would actually be easy for this writer - she could do it and still have a pretty nice lifestyle and lots of fun.  She could easily put together enough to invest a worthwhile amount monthly for retirement, think later on about starting a business, move out of London at some point, take a sabbatical and write a book....

[Bluegoat]

It's like that here, too.  Actually it's affecting us because so many people are having to do 'fancy' to cater to most buyers, but then that takes it over what we want to pay.  So here it's either fancy or in terrible shape (not cosmetic shape - that we can fix.  like, structural damage, cracked foundation shape).

 

I'm like what happened to the days when people were willing to buy a house and do a little something to it?  Everyone now wants 'move in ready' - I can get that for some people, but most, I'm like, really?  You aren't willing to slap some paint on the walls or fix a couple small things before you move in?  

 

So weird.

 

This was an issue for us too when we bought a little less than 10 years ago.  People with pretty solid but modest homes would put in these features to sell which meant the price was higher than we could afford.  What was even more frustrating is in some cases that $$ would have been better spent on something less obvious but more basic - like a hot water tank, say.  Or, they would have redone a bathroom that was lovely and in keeping with the house to make it trendy with giant beige tiles and a vessel sink (those made me want to cry.)

[Laura Corin]

The daily transport fares are a bit odd to me - is there no discount for buying an Oyster Pass, or whatever that transport pass in London is called?

 

Plenty of people buy a cheaper house out of the city.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-4136778/The-cheapest-places-buy-house-commuting-London.html

 

The Oyster is just for convenience - lots of people use contactless debit cards now, as there's no difference in price.

 

The article specifically mentions that it doesn't take into account increased travel costs.  As an example, for the suburb where my brother lives, annual train travel into London would cost £2,640.  That's only 36 minutes from London Waterloo.  If you click on the dots on the map in the article, it will give you travel costs.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Laura Corin

[shawthorne44]

I do agree that this attitude "I'll never have a house anyway" is too common among younger people.  At least in my world (noting I come from poverty and my fam / friends tend to be of modest means), it is definitely not true that you can't buy if you set your mind to it.  But you have to be flexible in your thinking.  You might have to buy a less-than-perfect dwelling and do some work on it, or share with someone you aren't married to, or live in a neighborhood that isn't impressive.  Very few people I know over age 30 are in rent - including people who dropped out of school to have babies etc.  (I have no idea how much of that translates to the UK though.)

 

A similar thing was what jumped out at me.   The assumption was that buying in the same area she was renting was the only option.  That makes no sense and I suspect that a different area would be cheaper.   Also, she has a roommate now.  She could get a roommate in the house, too.  Of course, she'd still have to save the down payment.  

 

I had many people tell me how 'lucky' I was to buy my first house for the price I did.  But, then when I'd tell them what I did to the house when I first moved in: new roof, facia, paint the interior including ceiling and replace all carpets.   They'd say, "I'd never buy a house that wasn't Done already."   

[Bluegoat]

And that’s the kicker. Too many people, perhaps subconsciously, feel entitled to live in a particular area where there may be a mismatch of their salary to what they want to live in, or can afford. We hit that in California all the time. You wouldn’t believe the number of kids who thought they too should live in San Diego, because they were raised there and mom and dad lived there, but they had a job that paid a pittance for the actual cost of the area and refused to move. Never mind that they could have worked in their field in Los Alamos or even Colorado Springs and been able to afford more comfortable housing for the the salary that job paid that, because the index was more favorable. They complained endlessly about the local market as though they were entitled to a certain standard of living in a certain place, no matter their reality. Anchorage too had this - you can’t lose your high paying job and then refuse to move to where the work is, all while whining about how you can’t afford the high cost of living anymore but you could neeeeeever move.

 

It was genuinely weird. These people would never say they felt entitled to a certain home comfort level in a certain location, but their actions all reflected that. And then there were others who were flexible and made it work without living in mom’s 750k basement, and now a decade or two out? That group seems happier AND more successful. What I can’t figure out is if it’s a lifestyle choice thing or more of an attitude in general, than any economic reality. I’m inclined to think it is the latter - the willingness to choose situations that might be temporarily uncomfortable or unglamorous for the sake of achieving long term sustainability, stability, and success. Attitude and goals made such a difference.

 

It’s that person who could buy the granite but buys the laminate, and is happy about it. And the one who moves to the town where they know nobody because life will be better than sticking it out in an enclave where the is no work or insane costs. But it’s not even that straightforward. Because there are plenty of people with good financial luck in terms of timing who are also this person, and may jet set or live very well too. Maybe it’s just not having a scarcity mindset, no matter the situation, but choosing contentment. I don’t know... It could just be that intangible factor where a person will be happy, because they want to be, and if their circumstances are difficult they are flexible and industriousness enough to do the crazy thing to make them better.

 

 

 

The woman in this article doesn’t feel, to me, like she has this as I’m reading her story. And that’s a red flag. But there are other young adults I can think of, even living with mom and dad or broke as a joke, who I wouldn’t ‘worry’ about in terms of their long term trajectory. They’re the ones who might be poor but they aren’t broke or broken, does that make any sense?

 

 

There is some truth to people not being realistic about trade-offs.  Living in one of the largest cities in the world, you are never going to be in a 4 bd 1 acre of garden kind of place unless you are very wealthy.

 

However, I think there are other factors that cause real frustration.

 

One is that increasingly jobs are moving to larger cities and away from smaller centres.  There are some places where this is in reverse a little, but London isn't one of them.  In fact it's probably among the worst - London seems like it is sucking in more and more of the economic activity of the whole country all the time.  And at the same time, housing has been badly managed by the government so there just isn't enough and council housing has been more and more privatized.

 

Also in some big cities like London, the new properties that are built are not being directed to most people.  They are giant developments that only the very wealthy can afford, and many of them sit half empty - either bought as investements by people living overseas, or the developers are holding on to them until the market prices go up.

 

And then there are people who are not just deciding to move to the big city for lifestyle - they grew up their, their family and roots are there.  Yes they are pushed out by people with more money - some of whom have been pushed out of other areas in turn by wealthier folks or who had to follow employment.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

This!  I don't like carpet, and we don't have allergies or pets.  I am willing to pay more money for a house with floors I won't have to do redo.

 

I don't think that was the point at all.

 

It's when the market starts to demand these things, people who want to sell make the upgrades and tack the price on to the house. (though they rarely make it back.)  HGTV tends to make people think they really need that stuff.

 

This puts the cost of the house up and means fewer people can afford to buy.  It can begin to affect the whole housing market in some areas as people start to compete for the better off buyers.  Then the hoses that are left tend to be the really worse off ones - not just builder grade but ones with real problems or that have been trashed or are in very bad areas.

 

It ends up that there are no modest homes in the nicer areas.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Bluegoat