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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
OK, for comparison - I live in the affluent South-East of England, between the cities of Southampton and Winchester. By US standards probably counts as being in the suburbs of both of them.

Our house is apparently 2142 sqft, which is pretty big by UK standards but sounds like not especially so by US standards. Our neighbours are all very affluent, we have a project manager, an ex financial director, a GP, and a pair of senior air traffic controllers.

We bought our house around 4 years ago for £560k. And we certainly don't have a quarter of an acre of land...

2100 sq ft. isn't small by US standards, I'd personally rate it at around "average" . . . Not as in, mean median and mode average, but by our standards it's not especially big, but its not very small either.


One thing to consider in these discussions is that while people like Cuda are talking about acres of land and manufactured homes/trailers for $80k, in a LOT of the country that isn't feasible, or where it is, you're talking about the sticks. The "norm" for my area you're looking at $250k minimum. . . and you have choices: a bit of land with "not so great" house (wife's co-worker just did this), or "pretty good" house with not so much land (as I did, 2400 sq. ft. on 0.1 acre in an HOA plot) . . . But in my area that quarter million price tag is starting to become a floor/basement price as values continue to rise, and inventory continues to be fairly low. I'm seeing a lot of housing available in that 2200-3000 sq. ft. range that starts at 275k. . . with quite a bit of new construction tracts that are in the low 300k range. which seems to be around the national averages.

Man, I knew that housing prices were much higher in other areas, just not that bad. We also have slightly lower wages here. I guess I just misunderstood exactly how disproportionate the wage to home value is in other areas.

BTW, I wasn't talking a trailer. There are actually some fairly decent pre-fab homes out there where you'd never tell unless you knew it before hand. It's actually quite fun to see a truck pull up with all the walls in bundles, and see the framing of a house go up in a couple days.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

This. I was very lucky that my old man was incredibly smart with money and made lots of good investments in his early adulthood. he was able to help me get on the property ladder (although I did save a large portion of my own income to contribute) And set me up with an investment portfolio ISA which gives much better interest returns.

Also - if you don't have access to a parent or other family member who's good at this stuff and is willing to teach it to you, actually teaching yourself is a fething nightmare. There is so much terrible, awful, just abysmal "advice" floating around out there about investments, to the point I'm almost convinced that Financial Advisors go out and post it deliberately to muddy the waters so much layfolk have no choice but to go and pay them to do it

well yeah, theyre not going to give you the means to do it yourself are they.. that's just bad business. Personally I'm happy to pay a percentage to have someone who knows do it for me as I have no idea.

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.

It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

Lots of wisdom here. It wasn't until I did my stint in financial services that I realized how many mistakes I'd been making. And I was a guy with an advanced degree and a saver raised by parents who were savers. There's almost always something you could be doing better, but it's not something they teach in schools like they should.

Wow US housing is cheap!
To buy the house I live in right now, built in 1978 and requiring about 30k in renos to get it back up to code, and 800 Sq ft. can easily be sold for 300k+.
Of which, I have to provide a minimum 10% down payment.

We have savings and put money every month into it for the past 4 years and we're 1/8 of the way towards that down payment.
Couple this with at least $2k+ a month just in rent and utilities, and one can see how difficult it can be to do anything without luck or major assistance.

For those of you in the US touting how easy and cheap it is to buy a house, don't assume it's that way everywhere. Americans are very lucky to have such a cheap housing market.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well yeah, theyre not going to give you the means to do it yourself are they.. that's just bad business. Personally I'm happy to pay a percentage to have someone who knows do it for me as I have no idea.

Aye but we aren't talking the top end tricks here, we are talking at the most basic end of the chart. Asides a fair bit of investment requires quite a bit of time to keep on top of, so for many people it is indeed easier and more profitable to have an investor spend all day doing that whilst they do their regular life and work.

I think if government were serious about solving problems such as the debt crisis then they'd start at school with a significant investment in proper financial teaching. And by proper I mean more than a few hours at the end of their school years, I mean a proper full lesson and teaching plan that is conducted over several years with proper repetition of information to ensure it is actually taught and not just told (there's a lot of life-skills in school that is told but not taught - mostly because its tick-box style and doesn't feature an exam which contributes to the all-powerful league tables)

 Henry wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


being in the forces is the best thing I ever did for my financial situation. it gave me huge opportunities to save decent amounts of money. Nowadays its not as good, as they started slashing the commitment bonuses and expenses. the shame is that you see so many servicemen/women waste all that opportunity and end up in debt same as those who didnt join up. I was lucky to get all the full commitment bonuses before they canned them.

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is the pensions. They've torn them to pieces. I'm lucky that I acquired fifteen years of pension75, with my remaining years on pension15. I'm on to a good deal, I know that. For the kids today it's not worth the effort. I tell them either go full career and retire at 55 or get in, get the education and qualifications, then get the hell out as soon as they can.

I'm a tail-end gen-X / early millennial and I'm looking at the kids of today with sympathy.

You may be a fortunate exception to the general rule.

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well yeah, theyre not going to give you the means to do it yourself are they.. that's just bad business. Personally I'm happy to pay a percentage to have someone who knows do it for me as I have no idea.

Aye but we aren't talking the top end tricks here, we are talking at the most basic end of the chart. Asides a fair bit of investment requires quite a bit of time to keep on top of, so for many people it is indeed easier and more profitable to have an investor spend all day doing that whilst they do their regular life and work.

I think if government were serious about solving problems such as the debt crisis then they'd start at school with a significant investment in proper financial teaching. And by proper I mean more than a few hours at the end of their school years, I mean a proper full lesson and teaching plan that is conducted over several years with proper repetition of information to ensure it is actually taught and not just told (there's a lot of life-skills in school that is told but not taught - mostly because its tick-box style and doesn't feature an exam which contributes to the all-powerful league tables)

Being a tutor for mostly kids in middle and high school, I have to agree with the "tick-box" style you mention because, at least in Canada, the only careers and civics course that is mandatory is in Grade 10 and it's basically a joke of a course. Kids are barely told how to format a resume and any idea of handling finances is not even mentioned. Even for Grade 12 business class, it was effectively bare bones and none of it really practical as far as what to do when you get a job. Don't get me wrong, you need to take your own initiative when it comes to learning how to save and invest, but the fact that this crucial part of adulthood is never delved on for school is what makes me think how much of our education system needs an overhaul.

Late to the party but just wanted to add my situation to everyone else's and it's pretty similar.

I've just finished an MSc and I'm graduating this month. When I got my BSc last year, I knew that I was immediately going into a Masters because there was absolutely no chance of getting a job in industry unless I had one.
Luckily, the Uni I got into is well enough known and the Masters was industry focused so the dissertation/research project is industry backed but that's not even a guarantee of a job these days. We get talks and all sorts with the promise of potential jobs but at the end they say they aren't hiring/don't hire grads because of the risk.
So I'm applying for as many "graduate" jobs as I can but I'm being rejected because of my lack of experience. Apparently a graduate job is 0-3 years experience. I'm now living at home while I search for a pub job or some other type of work. I can't even imagine buying a house right now because I can't get a well paying job.
I'm considering doing a PhD just to get paid a reasonable amount doing something I actually want to do but I don't really want to be a student into my mid-twenties.

 Ghool wrote:
For those of you in the US touting how easy and cheap it is to buy a house, don't assume it's that way everywhere. Americans are very lucky to have such a cheap housing market.

There's also something to be said about how cheap commuting can often be in the US.

I mentioned earlier that nowhere within an hour's commute of my girlfriend's office averages less than £400 per square foot for a home. Well, she lives about an hour and fifteen minutes away by train instead - and her commute is £450 a month. And compared to my friends in Israel, we have it easy.

So it's often difficult to move far enough from the major job markets to afford a home whilst still being able to afford to get to that job market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm considering doing a PhD just to get paid a reasonable amount doing something I actually want to do but I don't really want to be a student into my mid-twenties.

Do not, under any circumstances, do a PhD unless you really want to do the specific project. It will be a horrible experience if you're not enthusiastic about it - even people who love what they're doing tend to find it utterly tedious towards the end. And it'll be on a low income to boot (if you even get full funding and a stipend, which are very competitive).

 cuda1179 wrote:

BTW, I wasn't talking a trailer. There are actually some fairly decent pre-fab homes out there where you'd never tell unless you knew it before hand. It's actually quite fun to see a truck pull up with all the walls in bundles, and see the framing of a house go up in a couple days.

Sorry. . . lol, I'm just used to people talking up manufactured homes/trailers as being more than they are From your description it almost sounds like giant sized IKEA or something, which would be entertaining to watch at the least.

 Ghool wrote:
Wow US housing is cheap!
To buy the house I live in right now, built in 1978 and requiring about 30k in renos to get it back up to code, and 800 Sq ft. can easily be sold for 300k+.
Of which, I have to provide a minimum 10% down payment.

We have savings and put money every month into it for the past 4 years and we're 1/8 of the way towards that down payment.
Couple this with at least $2k+ a month just in rent and utilities, and one can see how difficult it can be to do anything without luck or major assistance.

For those of you in the US touting how easy and cheap it is to buy a house, don't assume it's that way everywhere. Americans are very lucky to have such a cheap housing market.

It depends entirely on where you are. Large swaths of the States are just broken in terms of real estate, homes or even just apartments. Some are beyond ludicrous, like San Francisco or Boston, others are dirt cheap because the jobs and industries in the area have utterly collapsed (or where never there in the first place). My parents home town is an empty shell at this point, with the last major job provider getting closed down, and a 'main street' that is half empty shells. On the other hand, when I spent time in New Mexico, large swathes of the areas outside the larger cities struck me like a third world country, with ramshackle sheds dotting the landscape, held together with rope and piled tires keeping the roofs in place.

So while some areas are fairly 'normal,' some pockets are way too low (with no reason to buy there as jobs and services are poor or don't exist) and others are far, far too high, where a job with a decent or even sizeable salary simply won't buy you a home. In the low areas, people have a real hard time selling and getting out.

nfe wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm considering doing a PhD just to get paid a reasonable amount doing something I actually want to do but I don't really want to be a student into my mid-twenties.

Do not, under any circumstances, do a PhD unless you really want to do the specific project. It will be a horrible experience if you're not enthusiastic about it - even people who love what they're doing tend to find it utterly tedious towards the end. And it'll be on a low income to boot (if you even get full funding and a stipend, which are very competitive).

Oh don't get me wrong, I love what I study and I do have a project in mind, but I think it might be better to get some proper experience first and then go back when I'm a bit older. It's just a consideration right now because of the fact finding a job is so difficult.

I think some of the people in this thread forgot to read the original post and the links in it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The general opinion among millenials is that being an adult is stressful, overbearing, and ultimately gakky.

As a sidenote, I gave up on aspirations of buying my own property a long time ago. You can't afford it so put the money into something else. Most of my social circle has no plans to buy housing and will instead just wait 20-30 years until they inherit it. No plans to have kids either.

Added bonus: the world climate is going down the drain and the generation that cause it also denies it's existence. Joke is once again on them though; it's the property they own that stands to be devastated.

between pension collapse, end of life care costs and death taxes I'd be hesitant to rely on inheritance.

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

Life skills should be something taught each year to students and should build year on year with key skills needed in life. Changing a plug head; cooking; basic medical and first aid (why are students not mandated to do first aid courses and pass them?) ; basic home finance; basic home management. These are all skills that, one might argue, parents should teach their kids; however not every parent knows these things well either; nor are they all good teachers. At least in a school environment a minimum standard can be established with a known quantity of learning provided.

Of course the real shocker would probably be that a lot of teachers would need to learn a fair bit of this stuff too! Finance is especially one area that is very dark and grey because most people don't like to talk about it in any great detail to each other. Sure we complain of taxes and the complexity of the system, but no one really sits down to chat about the details. At best they might mention that they got a good rate on their electric bill with a certain company.



The one thing that bucks the trend for modern kids is mobile phones - I'd wager that's at least one area where kids today are getting more general awareness of contracts and "finding a good deal" and of annual contract renewals than many previous generations ever did.

Took me years before I even learnt about things like working tax credit.

We're lucky to have the Internet which makes us able to learn about these things for ourselves, but at the same time the unsavy surfer could easily be misled with misinformation.

One very important thing schools should teach is advertising awareness and resistance. They won't of course because business leaders don't want that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

I graduated in 2005. We called that Civics class. If it was taught with the amount of skill and integrity that my civics teacher taught it with, I understand why kids these days don't know what they are doing.

Fun Fact: I work at a local pizza place right now, because delivering pizzas is more lucrative than working in Healthcare in Illinois, and that teacher comes in all the time to eat with her husband and kids. All three are teachers. She would always harp on us in class about how the service industry needs tips to live. How we should always budget tips in to eating out. Not once have I seen that bitch tip. Not once. It is a running gag at work. "Oh, she is back? I wonder how much she thinks she should tip."

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One very important thing schools should teach is advertising awareness and resistance. They won't of course because business leaders don't want that.

Having just completed a marketing course in my MBA program, I'd posit the idea that its not business leaders don't want it, its that marketing departments are generally that good.

 Overread wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

Life skills should be something taught each year to students and should build year on year with key skills needed in life. Changing a plug head; cooking; basic medical and first aid (why are students not mandated to do first aid courses and pass them?) ; basic home finance; basic home management. These are all skills that, one might argue, parents should teach their kids; however not every parent knows these things well either; nor are they all good teachers. At least in a school environment a minimum standard can be established with a known quantity of learning provided.

The one thing that bucks the trend for modern kids is mobile phones - I'd wager that's at least one area where kids today are getting more general awareness of contracts and "finding a good deal" and of annual contract renewals than many previous generations ever did.

For me at least, these skills were taught in school.

Problem is that no one takes "Home Economics" seriously, and jokes about it being a class for girls to learn "womun's workz."

This might be a little off topic, but it has gotten me curious. What does a $250,000 home for sale look like in your area? If anyone wants to post a link to a realtor's website that would work great.

Here is what I found in my town:

http://www.nepplrealestate.com/buy/listingDetails.asp

$250k usd is about £200k

I give you what you can buy around me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-68098225.html

2 bed ground floor flat.

 Steve steveson wrote:
$250k usd is about £200k

I give you what you can buy around me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-68098225.html

2 bed ground floor flat.

This is a mile away from me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57549135.html

If it was a mile in the opposite direction, it'd be well over £250k

My now-wife and I intentionally bought a house that was way below what the banks were willing to give us a mortgage for (something like up to £450k). For two reasons, it meant we could cover it if either of us were made redundant, and, we really like going on holiday!

Beside me https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-68142064.html
Where we're looking to move to after my girlfriend finishes her sabbatical - Oh. Rightmove gives me zero results for 200k or less for any properties of any kind. You could have this studio for 250k ($315k) https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-56789439.html

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/49860022?search_identifier=50ea6988050a2a1ecb1a7f9d3d3735fa

Offers over £190k, 760 sq ft, end-terraced house. Gardens, 5 years old. Around 5 miles from the city, but local shops and bus routes.

Herbington wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
$250k usd is about £200k

I give you what you can buy around me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-68098225.html

2 bed ground floor flat.

This is a mile away from me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57549135.html

If it was a mile in the opposite direction, it'd be well over £250k

My now-wife and I intentionally bought a house that was way below what the banks were willing to give us a mortgage for (something like up to £450k). For two reasons, it meant we could cover it if either of us were made redundant, and, we really like going on holiday!

If you go closer to where me and my wife both work this is the only house on rightmove:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-53631615.html

An ex commercial property with planning permission to turn it in to a one bed apartment.

The average UK wage is £28k, so £200k is a good number, as it is 3.5 times a two person income, which has historically been regarded as the multiple to use for mortgages.

It makes me very angry when people say that millennials (of which I am one based on some definitions, Gen X based on others, and between the two on others) are lazy, incompetent or any of those other things. The also seem to think of millennials as children still. Complaining that we want holidays and meals out. I'm sorry, but isn't this what you are supposed to want in our 30's? The occasional holiday? The odd night off? I haven't been on holiday aboard in 10 years. I have only had 4 UK holidays in that time, because I cannot afford any more. I am not poor by any means, but housing taking up a large chunk of my pay, and childcare taking up 90% of my wife's means that we have nothing left. At this age my parents had a 5 bed detached house and had two holidays a year. They we well paid, but not rich by any means.

All of the evidence shows that millennials are paid less, have more debt, due to education and housing, and have to pay more for the basics.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
OK, for comparison - I live in the affluent South-East of England, between the cities of Southampton and Winchester. By US standards probably counts as being in the suburbs of both of them.

Our house is apparently 2142 sqft, which is pretty big by UK standards but sounds like not especially so by US standards. Our neighbours are all very affluent, we have a project manager, an ex financial director, a GP, and a pair of senior air traffic controllers.

We bought our house around 4 years ago for £560k. And we certainly don't have a quarter of an acre of land...

2100 sq ft. isn't small by US standards, I'd personally rate it at around "average" . . . Not as in, mean median and mode average, but by our standards it's not especially big, but its not very small either.


One thing to consider in these discussions is that while people like Cuda are talking about acres of land and manufactured homes/trailers for $80k, in a LOT of the country that isn't feasible, or where it is, you're talking about the sticks. The "norm" for my area you're looking at $250k minimum. . . and you have choices: a bit of land with "not so great" house (wife's co-worker just did this), or "pretty good" house with not so much land (as I did, 2400 sq. ft. on 0.1 acre in an HOA plot) . . . But in my area that quarter million price tag is starting to become a floor/basement price as values continue to rise, and inventory continues to be fairly low. I'm seeing a lot of housing available in that 2200-3000 sq. ft. range that starts at 275k. . . with quite a bit of new construction tracts that are in the low 300k range. which seems to be around the national averages.

Man, I knew that housing prices were much higher in other areas, just not that bad. We also have slightly lower wages here. I guess I just misunderstood exactly how disproportionate the wage to home value is in other areas.

BTW, I wasn't talking a trailer. There are actually some fairly decent pre-fab homes out there where you'd never tell unless you knew it before hand. It's actually quite fun to see a truck pull up with all the walls in bundles, and see the framing of a house go up in a couple days.

Just to demonstrate how much 'land' we own...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12TZWeyi06shASMek0KrjgCeDczrVWhrD/view?usp=sharing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding the £200k challenge - there's nothing in my immediate area that cheap at the moment. This is a mile or so down the road, in the more affordable area...

https://www.sparksellison.co.uk/property/create-property/view-9

Here is what $250K gets you in my area, condos and small town houses basically. The condos usually come with a hefty community fee of some sort also though.

https://www.redfin.com/city/22783/MD/Ellicott-City/filter/max-price=250k