It is Obvious

Chris Rick has got altogether too much to say

A hole in the ground (2)

Posted by chrisrick13 on March 19, 2010

It is obvious: society is changing.

I commented a while ago that with lots of school and university leavers not getting jobs, a whole generation of first time buyers were going to go missing.  They are living at home, putting off getting married and, if they can get a job, are saving for a deposit on a house.  There absence will be bad enough for the housing market.

Not only am I funding 3 generations of pensions (previous, my own, my children’s) I am also running a social services operation looking after unemployed children that I already paid taxes for to have covered by the state.

I heard today that the average age of a first-time buyer was 37.  I find that a little hard to believe, but I am happy to accept that it is a lot higher than it was just a few years ago.  This has a further implication I had not thought of before.  Many people are sponging off their parents and then getting married with money enough to move into a 3 bedroomed-semi and have a family.  Not so long ago they were doing everything they could as two individuals to get into a 1 bedroomed flat, ‘get their foot on the ladder’ as early as possible and then later sell both to move into a bigger place together.

Therefore there are a large number of small properties that now have no buyers – they are all living at home saving.  When they do come to the market they will be looking at bigger places.  Of course everything has a price if you are psychologically prepared to accept it, even if it still leaves you owing money.

It is obvious: society is changing but the housing stock can’t change fast enough to match it.

Advertisements

One Response to “A hole in the ground (2)”

  1. Bill said

    I’m not sure that this is true. Surely the single-parent families (or perhaps boy-friend/girl-friend living apart) are driving things down towards single bedroom or perhaps two-bedroom flats rather than larger houses? As the state supports by the benefit system (to some extent) single mothers living alone there is a financial inducement for couples not to co-habit. The argument only apples to where the parents are comparively wealthy (or at least more affluent than their kids) so that there is a major financial benefit in living at home? Perhaps the parential restrictions are a fairly major factor in motivating kids to move out…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: