Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
While I agree there's a lot of unfair dumping on younger generations, I also don't buy in to the complete victim narrative either. I look at my parents experience as an example. Sure, my Dad's uni education was free. And sure they paid a lot less for their house than my wife and I.

But they also lived in a time when food, electricity, transport and all the rest chewed up a much bigger share of their income. Sure, my parents are very comfortable now, but as a kid we hardly ever went out for a meal. The only trip my family took in a plane was when I was I 8, and they saved for a couple of years for that. And my parents weren't battlers, Dad was a fairly high ranking civil servant. But lots of things we enjoy regularly now used to be prohibitively expensive.

It's just, things are different for each generation. The pressures are different, and the pressures are greatest for people in their 30s, when people have realised they need to start getting ahead and are taking their first steps to doing it.

This doesn't mean people now should just suck it up, that they shouldn't push for ways to ease those pressures. But it shouldn't be done in the mistaken belief that other generations sailed through. No generation ever had it easy.

Oh everyone has to work at it. But Baby Boomer absolutely had it easier.

Being part of generation rent, I have a surprisingly insecure homelife. Yes, I get on well with my landlady and there's never been any real bother. But even so, if they decide to sell up, I'm pushed to scratch up a new deposit in time, let alone find somewhere suitable.

With Uni costs going through the roof, people are entering the world of work with a small mountain of debt which will need servicing once they earn more than £17,755 - which I'd definitely hope most post-grads could achieve (the reality of course is somewhat different, which just goes to show the struggle is very real, and colossally unfair).

Job security is also somewhat less these days.

But it's when we're told we're lazy, entitled and feckless. By a Baby Boomer - that's when it rankles.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But it's when we're told we're lazy, entitled and feckless. By a Baby Boomer - that's when it rankles.

This is my feeling as well.

Life is hard. Way it is, and it's not like I think Xers, Boomers, Silents, or Greats (so and so forth) had like the super life and everything was golden. But there's just no avoiding the bitterness that comes from being told by a generation that could simultaneously engage in higher education, home ownership, and savings that I'm some lazy gakker who just wants it easy. Even worse when they try to brag about how hard they worked for it, like somehow I haven't put any effort into anything at all. I could be making twice what I make now and probably still wouldn't be able to own a home and twice what I make now is higher than the median wage of the country! Cost of living ain't as low as it was when you were up and coming, wages haven't kept pace with inflation, insurance has gone through the roof and I sure as hell didn't make that happen. It's been going up since before I was even born.

Especially when the policies of the generations that came before me inadvertently played a role in helping make my situation, complaining to me that it exists or trying to shrug off responsibility and pretend the last 30 years of fiscal and public policy have no role to play is rubbing salt in eyes. Dick move dicks

Well, technically I am a Baby Boomer, born in 1962 at the tail end of the supposed era. I shared only in the tail end of the benefits. I got a not fully subsidised university, and was able to get into the housing market on the first floor (meaning after the boom had started, but before it went too far, so prices were only significantly inflated.)

OTOH I've had my state pension slashed and deferred two years by government fiat after I've already paid up my 30 years of contributions. I've lived through five major recessions, been made redundant, had my salary halved in relative terms (more than that in real terms) and I still have a £95,000 mortgage to pay off in the next 12 years.

The idea that Baby Boomers deliberately set out to shaft everyone who came later is a bit extreme. I mean, I have a wife who isn't a baby boomer and a daughter who definitely isn't. In fact, as she's only 17 she will have things a lot worse that Xillenials, with the cost of a university education approaching £60,000 and climate change ramping up other problems around the world. I didn't spend my life thinking about how to make things worse for them. In fact, as a Liberal Democrat voter, I've voted for tax increases to help address some of these soci0-economic problems.

A lot of what Sebster said is correct. Back in the 60s and 70s, life was simpler and more expensive in many respects. I never had an overseas holiday by flying until I was nearly 30. None of this flying to Prague for £30 each way. There were no computers, there were only 3 TV channels and they broadcast only about 12 hours a day. The range of food available was much more restricted.

I think the most important difference now is that the major life commitments of buying a house are so huge that a lot of young people realistically think they are unaffordable, and spend the money on smaller things instead. I've tried to explain this to my mother, who is 80, and she can't really understand my point.

I think the two reasons the baby boomers get attacked most are house ownership and pensions. The reason for that is we see lots of buy to let landlords and lots of protective "I'm alright" behaviour from people who are generally of that age, and many meleinals see their pensions being cut whilst having to pay in more to cover holes thay did not create.

I don't think anyone thinks individuals are blaimed, but there is a feeling that we are paying for baby boomers pensions and damaged by their house ownership.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I think the two reasons the baby boomers get attacked most are house ownership and pensions. The reason for that is we see lots of buy to let landlords and lots of protective "I'm alright" behaviour from people who are generally of that age, and many meleinals see their pensions being cut whilst having to pay in more to cover holes thay did not create.

I don't think anyone thinks individuals are blaimed, but there is a feeling that we are paying for baby boomers pensions and damaged by their house ownership.

Pretty much this.

My parents are Baby Boomers, but like KK, typically vote Lib Dem - so as two individuals they're not so bad.

But my aunt? Wow. Perfect example of the spoiled brat psychology of a baby boomer who had everything, and now won't share. Buy To Let portfolio, penny pinching, constantly fretting about money, money, money.

So as individuals, culpability will of course vary. As a generation? Well, I didn't vote to be effed in the A at any point, did I?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The idea that Baby Boomers deliberately set out to shaft everyone who came later is a bit extreme.

I said inadvertently

Policy isn't so easy to predict that one could purposefully screw over an entire generation. As Gordon Ramsay would say "take ownership of the ship and stop shifting the blame." At some point it be really nice for people to recognize that we can take responsibility from our feth ups without giving up the pride in our accomplishments. Lacking that, the least that could be done is stop screwing with me. Do I seriously need to read in major publications how I've killed department stores? That's what Xers were accused of in 1990! How the feth are we getting blamed for it XD

I don't think anyone thinks individuals are blaimed, but there is a feeling that we are paying for baby boomers pensions and damaged by their house ownership.

We are paying for their pensions (along with other entitlements) and we are damaged by their house ownership. The former wouldn't really bother me if I had any hope I'd ever see one myself (and if the the people getting them weren't blocking welfare and support for others). The later only bothers me when some plush old guy is gonna try and lecture me about why I don't own a house yet. Even if I could afford a house I wouldn't buy one just because it's a waste of money. I'd rather buy a condo. There's a difference between acknowledging and feeling disgruntled with a reality, and thinking someone purposefully set out to ruin me. The only person who I honestly felt ever set out to ruin me was that girl in third grade who tripped me at the start of a round of tag. Damn girl was playing by Without a Paddle rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But my aunt? Wow. Perfect example of the spoiled brat psychology of a baby boomer who had everything, and now won't share. Buy To Let portfolio, penny pinching, constantly fretting about money, money, money.

I think this is a major component of the bitterness too really.

How many of us have adults in our own families who engage in generation bashing? I do, and while my parents have never directly bashed me because they're not monsters that doesn't mean I don't feel anger listening to them rant about how lazy the young people these days are, and how they want everything for free. I'm one of those "young people" and if you were living my disappointments yourself you wouldn't be saying the things your saying. That's really hard because I imagine most of us love our parents and our families, but in my experience everyone has at least one immediate or expended family member who dismisses us an infantile newt from the porch of their nice house collecting the money I pay into social security.

 daedalus wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Unless a job will get me into a better living situation, I don't really see the point in throwing myself full force into things.
I suppose some jobs still have advancement, (mine does not) but I have gotten to a point where I could never afford to go to school or pay off the debt and live at the same time.
And being very weird and unpopular with the ladies means I won't get married or anything.

So what I have now, the 1 bedroom apartment, is as good as it will ever get.
Regardless of what I actually ever do.
There is only so high I can climb and that isn't that high, so I have lost all desire to work harder, I don't care about buying copious amounts of warhammer that much, can't travel since my job rarely gives days off and while they say you're allowed a holiday they don't really like to actually give your days to you, and they keep throwing more work with no more pay and no more hours.
Personally I hope I don't live to be old, then I am fethed.

I'm 33 and make double the median salary for my area. I live in what's effectively a 3 bedroom apartment with my girlfriend, paying for it all on my income, and I make enough money to keep saving and buy myself shiny things whenever feels good.

You... might want to consider a new job. It's a strange thing to me that people willfully work jobs that don't give time off and are borderline abusive to their employees. My girlfriend does that even though she could probably get a job with actual benefits pretty much anywhere else out of some misguided sense of "loyalty". I ask how that's possible when they're not loyal to her, but that's another rabbit hole. I just shake my head.

Also, if you want to be more popular with the women, maybe stop referring to yourself as "Rainbow Dash"? Might help you get taken more seriously.

Well that was an old and stupid name and a forum for model soldiers isn't exactly (usually) a really serious place
I have been looking for a new job but, pickings are slim, hard when all the people you go up against are far more educated then you.

My biggest issue with the opposite sex isn't my bizarre personality per say, though a lot of the time it is, but general awkwardness and a host of other issues derived from mental illness (an embarrassing topic to discuss)
But I care about work and my own life then I do about dating and meeting girls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that you are making twice the median salary seems to indicate that a very large number of people don't have better jobs because for whatever reason they are just not looking for them, or that these better jobs are not actually out there and you are very fortunate.

Either way there is a reason why your salary is not the median.

I'm probably quite fortunate. I'm just confused with why I'm not seeing the people close to me striving for that same fortune.

I was reading your replies more from a "why isn't everyone just trying harder, bootstrap people" standpoint, so I think I was addressing a generalization you didn't actually make.

As I've sat here thinking about it, it occurs to me that since I'm referring to specific people, and not just "those kids these days", perhaps the only reasonable thing to do is actually ask them and see what they say. I suppose I shall withdraw my point until I can do that.

I have the same situation with my younger brother. I'm first generation college, and after ups and downs I have an advanced degree, a nice government job, a good pension in my future, a family income in the to 25% of earners, and a nice 3 bedroom house for us and our kids.

My younger brother...really doesn't have anything close to that. He never had a real plan or ambition for anything else after high school. His plan was to just work at the warehouse where my dad worked, and that was pretty much it. No desire of any kind to head to college, and while we were a small town we also had the regional vocational technology school in our town where he could have gotten cheap/free training to pick up a trade (I'm a big proponent of "everyone should get an education, college or vocational training" vs just "everyone should get a college degree"). At one point he was going to join the army, but backed out before heading to basic. He did the oilfield thing, but was laid off when the oil economy tanked over the past few years. He finally got a CDL, which was a big step up in job opportunities for him. We had many talks about why he doesn't pursue even simple opportunities for improvement, but I haven't gained much insight there.

So while I appreciate my station in life and understand that I've had a good combination of luck and opportunities with the right skills at the right time, I also understand that it's not just for a lack of boot-strapping that most people find themselves in less fortunate situations. But man, could my brother benefit from finding his bootstraps and giving them just a little tuck.

I've never heard of vocational school, I don't think we have those in Canada.
I remember my step mother saying something about community collage which I don't think we have either.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Millinial Here
as a 20-30 year old, im often told that im horrible with money and that i spend all my savings on too many trips(I do, but lets see why)
Sociology tought me that quite a bit of your formative years are your 14-21 when it comes to alot of stuff. What happened when I was 16?
The market crashed. So I saw alot of people lose their home, lose their car and lose alot of stuff
Why should I spend so much money for something that will just up an disppear. Why should I save when the savings might just disappear because the previous generation gakked up. Maybe I want to spend it on a nice sandwich now, then nothing later on?

I think that's fine so long as you recognize that saying 'feth it' is your decision and not something society forced you into. Perhaps it could actually keep you in a happier frame of mind than if you were worrying about the future. One could say that it's an attitude bound to lead to trouble later on, but ultimately maybe it really isn't any worse than living for the future when you put them on the scales.


Somewhat of an aside here, but one of the most important things I've learned is that living life in a thankful state of being is one of the real keys to happiness. Note that you can achieve this whether you have a little or a lot, and can fail to achieve this whether you have a little or a lot.

Some of those rich fethers you come across who are unhappy as hell? They are that way because they aren't thankful -- they look at life in terms of what they deserve or what they're owed, and fail to recognize the breaks they got and times at which others helped them.

So I hope that some of you Millennials who have been having such a rough time of it don't fall into this trap. Because rest assured that a lot of the negative feelings about not getting what you think you're worth can stay with you even after you're making good money. You may scoff at this advice now, but it's an absolute truth that you'll understand later.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But my aunt? Wow. Perfect example of the spoiled brat psychology of a baby boomer who had everything, and now won't share. Buy To Let portfolio, penny pinching, constantly fretting about money, money, money.

I obviously don't know her personality, but she could be a good example of what I describe above.

I don't think being frugal and careful about money is a character flaw, however. That doesn't have to turn one into Ebenezer Scrooge.

Being good with money is fine. The economy would collapse if we didn't have them to match the big spenders.

But, this particular person is all about money, and nothing but. Borrow money off her parents to start her portfolio - never paid it back, still took her full slice of the inheritance pie. Freaked out - properly freaked out - when she found her two brothers had also borrowed money of their parents.

If I've ever met an avatar of everything pathetic and feeble about Baby Boomers, she's it. Everything has to be her way. Everything. We once went out for a family lunch. Nothing special, just a trip to the pub up the village. She moaned and moaned and moaned about the table we were sat at. Given it was the extended family (I don't get up north much, and this was my way of seeing everyone at once. And on neutral ground), the pub didn't have an alternative. So she insisted we go elsewhere - and then sulked when she didn't get her own way.

That behaviour doesn't describe an age range, it's a personality type.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That behaviour doesn't describe an age range, it's a personality type.

So you're saying it's wrong to paint an entire generation with a broad brush?

 LordofHats wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
This thread is like all of my anxieties over the last few years rolled into one giant sob story.

I just want to point out that it is hilarious that sob story on forum ends up being Sisters of Battle Story, cause who the endures more indignity, relentless exploitation, and sheer abandonment in the game and lore of 40k than the Sisters of Battle

Do they have plastic models yet?

Noticed that too.

We are all Sisters of Battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 sebster wrote:
While I agree there's a lot of unfair dumping on younger generations, I also don't buy in to the complete victim narrative either. I look at my parents experience as an example. Sure, my Dad's uni education was free. And sure they paid a lot less for their house than my wife and I.

But they also lived in a time when food, electricity, transport and all the rest chewed up a much bigger share of their income. Sure, my parents are very comfortable now, but as a kid we hardly ever went out for a meal. The only trip my family took in a plane was when I was I 8, and they saved for a couple of years for that. And my parents weren't battlers, Dad was a fairly high ranking civil servant. But lots of things we enjoy regularly now used to be prohibitively expensive.

It's just, things are different for each generation. The pressures are different, and the pressures are greatest for people in their 30s, when people have realised they need to start getting ahead and are taking their first steps to doing it.

This doesn't mean people now should just suck it up, that they shouldn't push for ways to ease those pressures. But it shouldn't be done in the mistaken belief that other generations sailed through. No generation ever had it easy.

Oh everyone has to work at it. But Baby Boomer absolutely had it easier.

Being part of generation rent, I have a surprisingly insecure homelife. Yes, I get on well with my landlady and there's never been any real bother. But even so, if they decide to sell up, I'm pushed to scratch up a new deposit in time, let alone find somewhere suitable.

With Uni costs going through the roof, people are entering the world of work with a small mountain of debt which will need servicing once they earn more than £17,755 - which I'd definitely hope most post-grads could achieve (the reality of course is somewhat different, which just goes to show the struggle is very real, and colossally unfair).

Job security is also somewhat less these days.

But it's when we're told we're lazy, entitled and feckless. By a Baby Boomer - that's when it rankles.

Exactly.

I bought into the middle class idea that if you did well in school, applied yourself, then you'd get a job and life's options would open up. That didn't happen. Little did I know the social contract I was being groomed to sign was already breaking a decade before I was born and by the time I reached adulthood had pretty much been destroyed.

 gorgon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Millinial Here
as a 20-30 year old, im often told that im horrible with money and that i spend all my savings on too many trips(I do, but lets see why)
Sociology tought me that quite a bit of your formative years are your 14-21 when it comes to alot of stuff. What happened when I was 16?
The market crashed. So I saw alot of people lose their home, lose their car and lose alot of stuff
Why should I spend so much money for something that will just up an disppear. Why should I save when the savings might just disappear because the previous generation gakked up. Maybe I want to spend it on a nice sandwich now, then nothing later on?

I think that's fine so long as you recognize that saying 'feth it' is your decision and not something society forced you into. Perhaps it could actually keep you in a happier frame of mind than if you were worrying about the future. One could say that it's an attitude bound to lead to trouble later on, but ultimately maybe it really isn't any worse than living for the future when you put them on the scales.

No, Society 100% pushed me in this direction, I would love to live on my own, run the air conditioner when I want, sit around and do nothing and not hve my parents yell at me
But its impossible, a single room apartment here is almost 1000$ a month. That is before whatever isnt included.
I want a good life, but the previous generation cocked it up for us and blame us
Yes, ofcourse Millinials cant afford diamonds WE CANT AFFORD FOOD

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

No, Society 100% pushed me in this direction, I would love to live on my own, run the air conditioner when I want, sit around and do nothing and not hve my parents yell at me

Sure. Maybe it's society's fault. It's YOUR life. You get to choose how you respond to whatever forces that caused whatever issues you have..

But its impossible, a single room apartment here is almost 1000$ a month. That is before whatever isnt included.
I want a good life, but the previous generation cocked it up for us and blame us
Yes, ofcourse Millinials cant afford diamonds WE CANT AFFORD FOOD

 daedalus wrote:
I suspect a big difference is California cost of living versus Missouri cost of living.

A lot of that is because you live in California. Around here, a nice two bedroom townhouse with a finished basement is $850. What do northern Cali prices look like?

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-expensive-is-san-francisco-2015-9

San Francisco is notorious for its jaw-dropping real estate prices.

The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment stands at $3,460 a month.

But it's not just housing expenses that will eat away at your paycheck. In general, the total cost of living in San Francisco is 62.6% higher than the US average.

Granted, that is San Francisco which is going through a housing crisis thanks to Silicon Valley, but it ain't cheap to live in NorCal.

 daedalus wrote:



A lot of that is because you live in California. Around here, a nice two bedroom townhouse with a finished basement is $850. What do northern Cali prices look like?

around here, a 1 bedroom/one bath is around 1100$
And I blame San Jose for this and the damn tech boom

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the most important difference now is that the major life commitments of buying a house are so huge that a lot of young people realistically think they are unaffordable, and spend the money on smaller things instead.

I think this is certainly the case in the States and especially true for the generation that came of age in the wake of 2007-08. One of the reasons is because the quality of life one can afford while renting doesn't necessarily match up to the quality of life one can afford over and above the cost of a mortgage on a property that "matches" the former. That is to say, thinking of oneself as upper middle class, if you were to buy a house that you might think of as appropriate to that class, would force you to adopt a lower middle class life style in other respects. So there is a misalignment there, and the lack of job security doesn't make people any more willing to embrace it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the most important difference now is that the major life commitments of buying a house are so huge that a lot of young people realistically think they are unaffordable, and spend the money on smaller things instead.

I think this is certainly the case in the States and especially true for the generation that came of age in the wake of 2007-08. One of the reasons is because the quality of life one can afford while renting doesn't necessarily match up to the quality of life one can afford over and above the cost of a mortgage on a property that "matches" the former. That is to say, thinking of oneself as upper middle class, if you were to buy a house that you might think of as appropriate to that class, would force you to adopt a lower middle class life style in other respects. So there is a misalignment there, and the lack of job security doesn't make people any more willing to embrace it.

Wait, is renting cheaper than a mortgage in much of the US? I know there are rent controls in certain places, but as a general rule? Here the barrier to buying is the deposit and actually getting the mortgage, but once you have it you'll always be paying less (often significantly) monthly in mortgage repayments than you would in rent for an equivalent property.

Hilarious. Yes, the baby boomers had some good luck, and yes, some baby boomers are cutting the ladders behind them. They're the highly visible minority.

A ton of baby boomers also worked jobs today's kids wouldn't do at any price, and lived in conditions today's kids would run away from screaming. My mom worked in a nursing home until she had kids, then as a cleaning lady after we were old enough. My dad started working in a tannery until he started an aluminum siding business, which he did in the summer, and he spent his winters trapping mink and muskrat. In the winters they heated the house with a wood stove in the winters to save on heating oil costs, until probably around 2005.

Their parents came over from the Netherlands after WW2, kids in tow. No social safety net to get them going, they were directed to Northern Ontario to start chopping lumber until they found something better, which they did, but not that much better.

So hey, millennials, you ready to get in a canoe and fish dead animals out of the frozen water and skin them to make a living? Ready to clean people's toilets and kitchens to make ends meet? Ready to chop your own wood to save a buck on winter heating? Are you raising vegetables and chickens in your backyard? If not, stop pretending society has stolen your future out from under you. A lot of the baby boomers worked their asses off and scrimped and saved to build a better future for themselves, and there wasn't any social contract to help them out either. No free university education, no great job waiting for them.

It's the same for every generation, don't kid yourself. A small portion of them get a free ride and the next generation looks at those guys and feels cheated. You're not being cheated, people, you're ignoring all the normal shlubs who had to do what you're doing now - bust your hump and sacrifice to scrape by.

 John Prins wrote:
Hilarious. Yes, the baby boomers had some good luck, and yes, some baby boomers are cutting the ladders behind them. They're the highly visible minority.

A ton of baby boomers also worked jobs today's kids wouldn't do at any price, and lived in conditions today's kids would run away from screaming. My mom worked in a nursing home until she had kids, then as a cleaning lady after we were old enough. My dad started working in a tannery until he started an aluminum siding business, which he did in the summer, and he spent his winters trapping mink and muskrat. In the winters they heated the house with a wood stove in the winters to save on heating oil costs, until probably around 2005.

Their parents came over from the Netherlands after WW2, kids in tow. No social safety net to get them going, they were directed to Northern Ontario to start chopping lumber until they found something better, which they did, but not that much better.

So hey, millennials, you ready to get in a canoe and fish dead animals out of the frozen water and skin them to make a living? Ready to clean people's toilets and kitchens to make ends meet? Ready to chop your own wood to save a buck on winter heating? Are you raising vegetables and chickens in your backyard? If not, stop pretending society has stolen your future out from under you. A lot of the baby boomers worked their asses off and scrimped and saved to build a better future for themselves, and there wasn't any social contract to help them out either. No free university education, no great job waiting for them.

It's the same for every generation, don't kid yourself. A small portion of them get a free ride and the next generation looks at those guys and feels cheated. You're not being cheated, people, you're ignoring all the normal shlubs you had to do what you're doing now - bust your hump and sacrifice to scrape by.

A lot of economists would blow holes in your "argument" here.

Read Robert Reich's work on the break down of the American manufacturing industry in the 70's and 80's and the change in the social contract between corporations and workers during that same time period.

It absolutely isn't the same for every generation. Globalization and the internet have fundamentally changed how many industries work today. Were you or your parent's generation dealing with that? Automation is now the next thing to cripple jobs. Which is leading some countries to begin looking at universal income as a way to stave of the inevitable decline in jobs and growth of an angry, mob of young people who cannot function in society in the same manner as previous generations. But, yeah, it's all the same, we just need to hump and sacrifice more.

nfe wrote:

Wait, is renting cheaper than a mortgage in much of the US? I know there are rent controls in certain places, but as a general rule? Here the barrier to buying is the deposit and actually getting the mortgage, but once you have it you'll always be paying less (often significantly) monthly in mortgage repayments than you would in rent for an equivalent property.

As a very generalized rule:

The monthly cost of renting an apartment is less than the monthly cost of renting a house, but the monthly mortgage payment of a house is lower than the monthly rent for the same house.

With that said, and leaving apartments out of the equation, renting a house vs buying a house comes with a couple issues that can complicate things:

- You already mentioned the initial barrier of needing a down payment and qualifying for a mortgage. Often it is easier to just pay $100 more a month than coming up with a $30,000 down payment.
- Flexibility: It's easier to rent if you are needing flexibility. Maybe your job requires frequent moves around the country. Maybe your job does not have a reliable income. It can be easier to move to another home, or to a cheaper home, if you are renting.
- Added costs of home ownership vs renting that are not reflected in the mortgage payment. HOA fees, homeowners insurance vs renters insurance, having to pay a couple thousand dollars out of pocket because your water heater is broken vs calling the landlord and telling him to fix your water heater. Needing to pay yourself $X each month to build up an emergency fund to pay for all the things that you would call someone else for. So in the end it might be cheaper to rent on a monthly cost.

So once you look at all the additional factors, buying a house can be more expensive than renting a house. But you are also giving up a lot of benefits like taxes (although you can argue that it's stupid to pay interest on a loan just so that you can get a smaller amount of that money back in taxes), and unless we have another economic meltdown you could be building equity by not renting.

nfe wrote:
Here the barrier to buying is the deposit and actually getting the mortgage, but once you have it you'll always be paying less (often significantly) monthly in mortgage repayments than you would in rent for an equivalent property.

The down payment is also the major obstacle here. Although you don't have to pay a substantial (10%+) down payment, the result of not doing so is a higher monthly bill - which can be as much as or even more than rent, even before considering mortgage insurance, home owner's insurance, property taxes, and (certain) utilities.

EDIT: or yeah, what d-usa said

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Granted, that is San Francisco which is going through a housing crisis thanks to Silicon Valley, but it ain't cheap to live in NorCal.

One could move to a cheaper area, though.

As I said a while back, I think there may be some generation shifts with regard to lifestyle priorities. More Millennials may be more willing to sacrifice financially for the chance to live in a more appealing area, while prior generations may have been more willing to sacrifice with regard to where they live for the chance to be in a better financial situation.


With regard to the whole rent/mortgage thing, I think most homeowners (at least in the U.S.) would tell you that it's the many costs of owning a house that wrecks one's finances moreso than the mortgage itself.

Gorgon, that's surely true - but it was the mortgage itself in the wake of the financial crisis ... which is why I mentioned this traumatizing a certain demographic.

Overall, home ownership (within reason) is more advantageous than renting unless you need maximum flexibility for moving between regions. The fact that so many people find themselves "stuck" in renting despite having fairly stable jobs is a problem, IMO.

 John Prins wrote:
Hilarious. Yes, the baby boomers had some good luck, and yes, some baby boomers are cutting the ladders behind them. They're the highly visible minority.

A ton of baby boomers also worked jobs today's kids wouldn't do at any price, and lived in conditions today's kids would run away from screaming. My mom worked in a nursing home until she had kids, then as a cleaning lady after we were old enough. My dad started working in a tannery until he started an aluminum siding business, which he did in the summer, and he spent his winters trapping mink and muskrat. In the winters they heated the house with a wood stove in the winters to save on heating oil costs, until probably around 2005.

Their parents came over from the Netherlands after WW2, kids in tow. No social safety net to get them going, they were directed to Northern Ontario to start chopping lumber until they found something better, which they did, but not that much better.

So hey, millennials, you ready to get in a canoe and fish dead animals out of the frozen water and skin them to make a living? Ready to clean people's toilets and kitchens to make ends meet? Ready to chop your own wood to save a buck on winter heating? Are you raising vegetables and chickens in your backyard? If not, stop pretending society has stolen your future out from under you. A lot of the baby boomers worked their asses off and scrimped and saved to build a better future for themselves, and there wasn't any social contract to help them out either. No free university education, no great job waiting for them.

It's the same for every generation, don't kid yourself. A small portion of them get a free ride and the next generation looks at those guys and feels cheated. You're not being cheated, people, you're ignoring all the normal shlubs who had to do what you're doing now - bust your hump and sacrifice to scrape by.

All the evidence, which shows that house prices in the U.K. and US have gone up faster than wages, inequality has increased and living standards have decreased. Most baby boomers did not do what you claim, and there is no way someone could afford to even live now the way you claim your parents did.

 gorgon wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Granted, that is San Francisco which is going through a housing crisis thanks to Silicon Valley, but it ain't cheap to live in NorCal.

One could move to a cheaper area, though.

Easier said than done.

If you are barely scraping by how do you afford to uproot, find a new job and new housing, when you already aren't getting by?

Yes, moving is the obvious answer but it isn't like everyone can snap their fingers and relocate to a better area. Moving house is a major undertaking when you are just moving across town. Moving between states or even across a state (especially one as large as California) could result in living in a new climate. That is more costs, as your wardrobe needs to change, perhaps your vehicle (if you have one) is inappropriate for the region, etc. Gak's expensive, yo.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Easier said than done.

If you are barely scraping by how do you afford to uproot, find a new job and new housing, when you already aren't getting by?

Especially if you don't have your own transportation, internet access, or phone that some people just say "why do you need it?"

Saying people should just move is the proverbial catch-22 of social commentary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 John Prins wrote:
A ton of baby boomers also worked jobs today's kids wouldn't do at any price, and lived in conditions today's kids would run away from screaming. My mom worked in a nursing home until she had kids, then as a cleaning lady after we were old enough. My dad started working in a tannery until he started an aluminum siding business, which he did in the summer, and he spent his winters trapping mink and muskrat. In the winters they heated the house with a wood stove in the winters to save on heating oil costs, until probably around 2005.

Oh gee. Why didn't I think of that? I mean central PA is just crawling in mink and muskrat, and I guess I just completely overlooked all the fire places in my college dorm because that's such a stand feature in rented spaces right?. I guess I'll just skip on over to the nearest frozen lake with the canoe I don't own when I'm not cleaning toilets and ktichens. Have you seriously not be in an eatery or department store in the last ten years? Who do you think is cleaning those places right now? *this guy* And oh yeah I'll just go raise some farm to table in my backyard... Seriously haven't read the thread for that one have you

But please. Keep telling me how hard Boomers worked and how hard I haven't. Never gets old.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Granted, that is San Francisco which is going through a housing crisis thanks to Silicon Valley, but it ain't cheap to live in NorCal.

One could move to a cheaper area, though.

Easier said than done.

If you are barely scraping by how do you afford to uproot, find a new job and new housing, when you already aren't getting by?

Yes, moving is the obvious answer but it isn't like everyone can snap their fingers and relocate to a better area. Moving house is a major undertaking when you are just moving across town. Moving between states or even across a state (especially one as large as California) could result in living in a new climate. That is more costs, as your wardrobe needs to change, perhaps your vehicle (if you have one) is inappropriate for the region, etc. Gak's expensive, yo.

Obviously it depends on one's particulars. But you can at least search for jobs in other areas thanks to the wonders of the interwebz. Even back when I was young, struggling, and looking for the right kind of work, I had a phone interview for a job 700 miles away. I didn't necessarily want to move there, but if it was going to be an opportunity for me, then it was worth exploring. And if one is actually poor with a small apartment, then a U-Haul rental should suffice for getting one from point A to point B. That's what I did when I ultimately moved 300 miles for a job that was a lateral move (and overall a loss for me since I was going from a shared apartment to footing the bill on my own). But that move also had the promise of more opportunity and it ultimately paid off.

Sometimes you need to take risks, especially if nothing much is going on for you anyway.

And what kind of situations are you talking about that involve radical climate change? Maybe you need a heavier coat if you move north. Maybe you need another pair of shorts if you move south. And exactly where is a basic car not going to operate? You're not helping your case with those kinds of objections.

 John Prins wrote:

It's the same for every generation, don't kid yourself. A small portion of them get a free ride and the next generation looks at those guys and feels cheated. You're not being cheated, people, you're ignoring all the normal shlubs who had to do what you're doing now - bust your hump and sacrifice to scrape by.

It sure is nice to live in ignorance.

Which is a big problem when so many people choose to do it. When you're dealing with people like John who stick their head in the sand and can't be bothered to base their opinions on simple things like 'facts' or 'statistics' and whose interpretation of reality is 'I feel this is right,' there's just no making people like that stop being uneducated donkey-caves.

Interestingly, a new report says that income inequality in the UK has decreased since 2008, however this is as much the result of middle and upper middle class incomes shrinking as working class incomes growing.

It's not the right way to do it.