I agree with the sentiments in your first point, but the reality is that whatever system/rules we have, there will always be those who are motivated to try and skew things in their favour (the extend to which they succeed and/or are seen to succeed is a measure of how much of a problem this is).
Re. your second point, I have a real problem with the emotive language "crisis..vicious..poverty" and the ideas behind it.
1) In this country we have been brainwashed into thinking that we must aspire to own property. Renters are much more "mobile" if they want to be and "secure" if they don't want to be - they can move to a new location to take up new work without the time and (large) costs associated with buying/selling/owning. Many people in many parts of the world, including the UK (and indeed several of my neighbours) live long, contented and productive lives in rented dwellings of one sort or another. A healthy rental market is almost certainly "a good thing" for a country/economy.
2) Even in this country, mass property ownership is a relatively new invention - driven by lenders being enabled (since the 1980s or so), by deregulation, to lend to those who then bid up the prices of existing houses - in certain areas, but not in others. Prior to the 1970s/80s, buying a house - or most anything else - with borrowed money was very difficult.
3) As above, an even newer invention is the expansion of "buy to let" - again driven by deregulation of lending - causing more money to be thrown at the market.
4) Regarding the proportion of houshold income, food takes up much less than in did historically, housing surprisingly similar to historical averages (barring some hotspots).
It was the illegal and cynical corruption of lending against property, mainly but not exclusively in the US, which stored up the problems which have led to negative real intererst rates post-2008 (talk about a wealth tax - it's already been happening!). The fact that a house which was worth £20K 20 years ago and is now worth £400K, or whatever, is really simply an indication of how we have debased our currency.
An excellent way to bring house prices down would be to put the brakes on all lending against property, however, spookily, there would still be those who couldn't afford to buy property (and actually, I don't see why that should be a problem).
This pretty much.
As a person whom has lived in privately rented accomodation all my adult life (51 now) since the age of 17, I can say I've also seen the flip side of the housing situation up close with family members and friends. My (older) cousin bought a house in Bradley Stoke in the late 80's, then spent the next roughly ten years being unable to sell it due to negative equity when it turned out half the houses built on those estates were garbage - he couldn't even get buildings insurance.
My father bought a £325,000 house in an affulent area just by the Epsom racecourse only to learn, that the "comprehensive" survey was anything but and the exterior walls were bowing out because when the pevious owners did the loft converstion they just CUT OUT all the crossbeam supports and didn't replace them. 4 years and almost £90,000 in legal fees the surveying company was forced to pay for the remedial work, which was significant and expensive.
A member here and his wife, now in thier 60's, bought a house in the 80's in an affluent area in Bristol only to find about 10 years ago that the house was slowly sinking on one side, subsidence, which was DENIED in the survey report he had done, but afaik cracks in the walls dont appear on thier own - he has no idea if he's going to even be able to sell, the only hope he has right now is that he's got an official survey (paid for by the house insurers) stating no subsidence; if another survey says there is - he's boned.
A friend in Wales bought a property in Brecon, only to find out after the sale had been signed that there was a boundary dispute with the neighbour, which led to him having to give HALF his driveway on the side of the building to next door, because at some point in the past a previous owner had effectively stolen that land from the then neighbour. It's my personal beleif many solicitors and those who do surveys etc cannot even remotely be trusted to do thier jobs properly, and for a high value house it might be worth getting TWO independenet ones done.
When owning a house - work on that house is ALWAYS ongoing, and I don't mean redecorating, I mean actual work and remedial work - the young who seem to think getting a house is all roses and caviar are fools, it'll cost you thousands a year ON TOP of the mortagage payments and you'll spend more time than you realise staring at various types of "U bend" or fixing some other issue because you can't afford a plumber at £50 an hour plus callout.
Renters get to pass all that along to the landlord - true story - our cooker (a range hob) broke on XMAS DAY (for the second time). Now because it's a HMO with 6 bedrooms, no cooker is a big deal, and because it's a 6 bed, a basic standard 4 ring hob just doesn't cut it. I contact the landlord whom assigned the job of sorting the replacement to me (I've been managing this place for 15 years) £1700 later (inc installation fees etc) and we have a new cooker.
Not so many households can suddenly find £1700 overnight for a new range hob (and yes £1700 as it'll take a lot of use so needed to be good quality).
Owning property can become a noose to buyers, and that's even before you bring the issues of failed relationships into the equation.
While the current laws do not give renters the safety of not being evicted without cause, there have been steps taken to reduce it, and people whom are good tenants are seen as assets to a rental property, not a liability, I should know, I've lived here 15 years and the house has been sold TWICE during my tenancy. From family home > landlord 2 years after I moved (2006) in then again in 2013 when the landlord had to liqiudate her assets to emigrate to New Zealand, she vouched for me as a good tenant who looks after the property, and here I still am.
Renting is not quite the minefield many people (usually the young) lead others to beleive, you just have to be savvy about where, and from whom to rent, and treat the property as if it was your own, which from what I gather seems to be rare, many renters ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG have a reputation for leaving properties in a terrible state, costing the landlords far more than the value of the deposit to put right.
Landlords cannot truly be blamed for the amount of property they own - with the state of the economy etc etc, it's historically become one of the few ways to increase your personal wealth without significant risk - apart from the caveats above and the 2008 crash - My fathers cash and stocks asset value has been diminishing in real terms, year on year since BEFORE the 2008 crash and it's a seven figure sum, under previous economies a liquid asset value larger than £1,000,000 would see excellent returns, not only has it seen no good returns, it's essentially been stagnant for TWELVE YEARS, Twelve years without growth.
Now the picture of why so many people, with assets buy property looks a little different, doesn't it. (my father hasn't BTW - because he also knows the perils of property becoming essentially another mouth to feed and tying up currenty liquid assets)
You cannot also blame landlords for cashing in on a depressed market after 2008 - that's just human nature and I defy almost anyone under 60 to state were they in the same position with some spare cash, they would not have done the same. It also ALWAYS been this way - my great greandmother owned an entire street in Wales many years past, and from all accounts was a very good landlord, fairminded and honest.
Jelly, you talk about pensions etc yet seem to be unaware that in recent years the pension ages were increased significantly? from 60>65 for women (soon to be 66 and will be 68 by 2028) and for men it's 70 I think.
Because of this 5 year increase, many people die before they can even claim their pension benefits that they have paid into all thier lives, and many more, soon after. Also, as mentioned, there's all those pensions pots that got raided by various unsavory types such that an entire lifes worth of scrimping and "going without the latest iPhone" and "no holiday this year" has come to nought.
As droogs said - while seemingly harsh, some of the assessment of the younger generation is fair and pretty accurate - you can't have everything you want AND all of lifes luxuries like netflix, starbucks, new phones every 2 years, beats headphones AND holidays in exotic places. You have to CHOOSE, just like your parents did. The young also forget that many of them have the luxury of still living at home on thier parent's dime, paying little to no rent, but still living what many others would consider a very comfortable lifestyle with wall to wall heating, and broadband on tap - all paid for by SOMEONE ELSE.
I agree things are stacked against the younger generations, and I agree it can paint a bleak outlook, but I also agree it's up to them to do something about it, and one of the first steps is to STOP blaming the older generations - do you honestly think we CHOSE for 2008 to happen with millions losing thier jobs and homes in many cases, AND pensions pots and savings evaporating?
The absolute truth is that for the majority of us, this caka happened to US as well as you, and only a few out of every thousand managed to cash in on it - the rest of us got boned just like you did.
Try to remember that in future, please, before your next indignant /rant at how crap it is for you and it's "our" fault.
and remember one more thing you have, that we do not.
Time.
You've got time to remedy your situations, for many / most of the people who lost a lifetimes worth of hard work, this is the new - poorer - reality and no time to "fix" it.
I'm pretty sure that is the viewpoint that droogs and others are coming from, best remember that too.
Edit: here's a thing, why don't you have this same conversation of "you old people ruined it for us" with your parents and parents of your peers - that'll be an interesting one for you.
