BBC: 'How to Break into the Elite'

[HookedSeven]

That doesn’t apply to everyone though, terrible though it is.

As a buy to let landlord, do you think you had it easier than previous and later generations?

The inheritance thing is a bit of a red-herring due to life expectancy anyway. Most people are likely to inherit at the point when they don’t most need it (i.e. after their own children have left home).

[number2]

That doesn’t apply to everyone though, terrible though it is.

As a buy to let landlord, do you think you had it easier than previous and later generations?

Yes I do,
When my father tried to buy his first house in the 60s it was a detached bungalow at around 3k, even though he had almost half that amount in savings his mortgage application-well interview, was turned down probably because he was a coal miner,
Whereas I got my foot on the ladder with a very easy to arrange mortgage for about 14k, which took into account the earnings of myself and missus, subsequently we started in BTL around 2000, again when mortgages were easy to come by.
With property prices so much higher I doubt very much we'd be able to do it now.

[Passenger]

Epictetus said it somewhat earlier than tha plagiarist, abstinent, vegetarian, MP :-)

This was meant as a Joke (but true)

B

Excellent stuff.

[Jdh1]

[QUOTE=HookedSeven;5172089]If the UK rental sector was professionally run and tenants had better rights I’d agree with you. But it’s not. It’s full of amateur buy-to-let landlords who want to park their money somewhere better than the bank.

- - - Updated - - -


What "better rights" would you like for tenants?

[number2]

[QUOTE=Jdh1;5172228]

If the UK rental sector was professionally run and tenants had better rights I’d agree with you. But it’s not. It’s full of amateur buy-to-let landlords who want to park their money somewhere better than the bank.

- - - Updated - - -


What "better rights" would you like for tenants?

Do we now accept that selling off our social housing stock at cut down prices was an error of judgement?

[Jdh1]

[QUOTE=number2;5172243]

Do we now accept that selling off our social housing stock at cut down prices was an error of judgement?

I think it was, although my parents benefitted from it. But moving from where we are today, I'm interested to hear what better rights Hookedseven feels would make renting an acceptable option which would address the problem, in line with my earlier post.

[BillyCasper]

[QUOTE=number2;5172243]

Do we now accept that selling off our social housing stock at cut down prices was an error of judgement?

I think selling social housing and reducing social housing capacity is wrong.

Selling social housing to let’s say families that have lived in a place for a good time at some discounted market rate, but not cut-price rate and then reinvesting to create more or improve capacity is okay with me. Crudely if an authority/association can sell one to build two new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[adzman808]

My parents were ‘boomers’ and ended up in a comfortable situation.

They worked hard, focused on their careers, were frugal, didn’t make flashy purchases and saved whenever they could.

All these things worked out well for them.


I think that’s the big difference these days... millennials will have more careers than their grandparents had jobs. Careers that once were jobs for life are now 10 year max engagements as technology strips the need to have humans on the workforce or someone becomes an expert in a certain type of (say) computer programming that then becomes obsolete.

Property too. My uncles and parents bought family homes in the 70s/80s and struggled, struggled to get a deposit and sometimes struggled to keep up with the repayments.

As you can imagine these homes are now worth many, many times what they cost to buy.

Millennials (and gen X’ers) won’t have this. They’ll have the same struggle and graft to get a family home, but that home is (IMO) unlikely to end up being worth 4, 5, 10 times what it was bought for.

As noted earlier, every generation has areas that are a big struggle. As a blunt statement we could even say that it probably balances out (for example my Mum’s dream of A levels and a degree was cut short at 15 by my grandma’s need for another income to the household, which I suspect isn’t the norm these days when your kid says they want to stay in school)

But the modern generations will see much less return for the hard work and will (on average) end up with much less equity in their lives when they get old.

[HookedSeven]

[QUOTE=Jdh1;5172228]

What "better rights" would you like for tenants?

I think rent controls should be in place. Fairly strong ones exist in Germany and the rental sector is bigger than in the UK so obviously they don’t stop everything working. I think AST contracts are unfair. A tenant should be able to stay as long as they want. The only reason a tenant should be asked to leave is damage to the property or failure to pay rent.

The professional large-scale landlords here in Germany highlight how broken the system is in the UK. I think around 90% or rental properties are owned by individuals rather than companies. In my experience they are often (but of course not always) unprofessional, they view tenants as sources of income rather than customers, and letting agents are equally poor and focused on the landlord rather than the tenant.

[HookedSeven]

[QUOTE=number2;5172243]

Do we now accept that selling off our social housing stock at cut down prices was an error of judgement?

I always thought that was wrong. It’s hard to make a compelling case that it was fair.

[Jdh1]

I wouldn't knock young people, many of whom work very hard and strugle to progress. However, to suggest that earlier generations had it significantly easier is perhaps a bit simplistic. Buying a property was easy? Well take a look at the interest rates throughout the 80's and early 90's...conservatively around 5 or 6 times what they are today. Personally, I gave up and sold in 1991 when it all got too much.

Property aside, well from my observations, young people seem to have it a whole lot better. Their cars are modern with all panels the same colour (Never spent more than £300 on a car until my thirties), their holidays are frequent and exotic (a maximum of ten days a year for me back then and very basic, Often a caravan) they eat out and socialise all the time (once a month in my twenties for eating out...and usually pizza hut...pub once a week and no alcohol at home) their homes are filled with brand new furniture, gadgets and appliances (not hand-me-downs from older relatives) and many have significant contracts on entertainment packages, phones and other discretionary items (Such things weren't available back them obviously.)

I have no empirical evidence to support it, but I think previous generations were better at deferred gratification, whereas the current one is more disposed towards having it now. That's fine, but it's not compatible with moving forward over the long haul.

[Jdh1]

[QUOTE=HookedSeven;5172273]

I think rent controls should be in place. Fairly strong ones exist in Germany and the rental sector is bigger than in the UK so obviously they don’t stop everything working. I think AST contracts are unfair. A tenant should be able to stay as long as they want. The only reason a tenant should be asked to leave is damage to the property or failure to pay rent.

The professional large-scale landlords here in Germany highlight how broken the system is in the UK. I think around 90% or rental properties are owned by individuals rather than companies. In my experience they are often (but of course not always) unprofessional, they view tenants as sources of income rather than customers, and letting agents are equally poor and focused on the landlord rather than the tenant.

The change you're suggesting to the AST is about to be implemented - landlords won't be able to remove a tenant if they are complying with the terms of their tenancy. As a private landlord myself, I genuinely have no idea why this change in the law is necessary because I can't imagine what other circumstances you would attempt to remove a tenant. I say 'attempt' because it isn't easy!

I have to disagree with you on rent controls. Maybe my experience isn't typical everywhere, but the market controls the rent pretty well. I think the situation in London can be different and that's what people focus on. The danger is that in putting something in place to deal with the rental market in London, you're going to kill the private sector in other parts of the country. You may think that's a good thing, but who will take up the slack? Private landlords are already selling up in droves because the government have made it less financially, practically and administratively desirable to be a private landlord (take it from me, most of the time it's really not worth it!). People have to live somewhere.

Will/could big companies move in and professionalise the thing? They may do, but certainly not at anything like the price tenants are currently paying in poorer areas of the country. The numbers just won't work.

[HookedSeven]

I wouldn't knock young people, many of whom work very hard and strugle to progress. However, to suggest that earlier generations had it significantly easier is perhaps a bit simplistic. Buying a property was easy? Well take a look at the interest rates throughout the 80's and early 90's...conservatively around 5 or 6 times what they are today. Personally, I gave up and sold in 1991 when it all got too much.

Property aside, well from my observations, young people seem to have it a whole lot better. Their cars are modern with all panels the same colour (Never spent more than £300 on a car until my thirties), their holidays are frequent and exotic (a maximum of ten days a year for me back then and very basic, Often a caravan) they eat out and socialise all the time (once a month in my twenties for eating out...and usually pizza hut...pub once a week and no alcohol at home) their homes are filled with brand new furniture, gadgets and appliances (not hand-me-downs from older relatives) and many have significant contracts on entertainment packages, phones and other discretionary items (Such things weren't available back them obviously.)

I have no empirical evidence to support it, but I think previous generations were better at deferred gratification, whereas the current one is more disposed towards having it now. That's fine, but it's not compatible with moving forward over the long haul.

Do you wonder which came first ? Do they do everything you say because that’s what they ultimately want (and don’t care about the long term), or do you think they view housing as unobtainable, they get virtually zero interest on savings (maybe even negative in real terms), and just want something. I’m not saying it’s the latter by the way, just posing the question.

And I’m a saver so historically low interest rates are a big negative. The people they benefit most are the over-stretched debtors. Everything should have been allowed to crash down in 2007. Without that people lose sight of risk.

And if the average deposit for a first-time buyer is likely to be 20k or more (I hear 80k in London), how long would they need to save if they cut out completely on the things on your list. And do you seriously think most twenty somethings have everything and do everything you list ? Where does the money come from ?

[Thewatchbloke]

Do we now accept that selling off our social housing stock at cut down prices was an error of judgement?

The way it was implemented was an error of judgement, not the reasoning behind it. The aging LA housing stock was sold to long term tenants at a discounted price, the issue for me was the income wasn't re-invested in new build modern LA housing stock. The rule should have been whatever numbers were sold should then have been built new, the local authorities had (and have) enough brownfield sites and scale of operations for it to work but but without legislation forcing them to rebuild there was only one way it was all going to go.

[Maysie]

@OP: This will probably sound harsher than I mean it to but... how do you expect not to have class-based elitism in a monarchy?

I think you have missed the point of my post, besides, I am pretty sure that class based elitism exists in areas which are not monarchy's.

What point are you trying to make?

[HookedSeven]

[QUOTE=Jdh1;5172290]

The change you're suggesting to the AST is about to be implemented - landlords won't be able to remove a tenant if they are complying with the terms of their tenancy. As a private landlord myself, I genuinely have no idea why this change in the law is necessary because I can't imagine what other circumstances you would attempt to remove a tenant. I say 'attempt' because it isn't easy!

I have to disagree with you on rent controls. Maybe my experience isn't typical everywhere, but the market controls the rent pretty well. I think the situation in London can be different and that's what people focus on. The danger is that in putting something in place to deal with the rental market in London, you're going to kill the private sector in other parts of the country. You may think that's a good thing, but who will take up the slack? Private landlords are already selling up in droves because the government have made it less financially, practically and administratively desirable to be a private landlord (take it from me, most of the time it's really not worth it!). People have to live somewhere.

Will/could big companies move in and professionalise the thing? They may do, but certainly not at anything like the price tenants are currently paying in poorer areas of the country. The numbers just won't work.

The big reason to boot out a tenant would be a private landlord deciding to sell up (either forced through it being an unviable business, or just because they want the funds for something else). Obviously selling with an in-situ tenant with an indefinite right to stay wouldn’t make a sale easier.

When a landlord sells a house it doesn’t disappear ! Either another landlord buys it or a owner-occupier buys it. Why would there be slack ? The housing stock doesn’t change.

They work here in my poor part of Germany. If they don’t work it’s because house prices themselves are unsustainably high. What advantage does a private landlord have, surely economy of scale favors the business (assuming the private landlords pay their taxes).

[VDG]

And I’m a saver so historically low interest rates are a big negative. The people they benefit most are the over-stretched debtors. Everything should have been allowed to crash down in 2007. Without that people lose sight of risk.

It also impedes and prolongs recovery, we have been witnessing in the past decade..

[Jdh1]

Do you wonder which came first ? Do they do everything you say because that’s what they ultimately want (and don’t care about the long term), or do you think they view housing as unobtainable, they get virtually zero interest on savings (maybe even negative in real terms), and just want something. I’m not saying it’s the latter by the way, just posing the question.

And I’m a saver so historically low interest rates are a big negative. The people they benefit most are the over-stretched debtors. Everything should have been allowed to crash down in 2007. Without that people lose sight of risk.

And if the average deposit for a first-time buyer is likely to be 20k or more (I hear 80k in London), how long would they need to save if they cut out completely on the things on your list. And do you seriously think most twenty somethings have everything and do everything you list ? Where does the money come from ?

It's a much bigger question, but my view is that the media...both social and traditional...paints a lifestyle picture which is unrealistic for the average young person to live up to. But it doesn't stop them wanting it, and going out on a limb to get close to it. My generation's exposure to such unhelpful role models was more limited.

[HookedSeven]

It's a much bigger question, but my view is that the media...both social and traditional...paints a lifestyle picture which is unrealistic for the average young person to live up to. But it doesn't stop them wanting it, and going out on a limb to get close to it. My generation's exposure to such unhelpful role models was more limited.

Yes that’s probably true. Most of that’s ultimately driven by business though, and those businesses are not generally under the control of Millennials. Maybe your generation had better role models in positions of influence (i.e. their parents’ generation) than this current generation (my generation and your generation).

Don’t you think we’re ultimately responsible ?

[jwg663]

The way it was implemented was an error of judgement, not the reasoning behind it. The aging LA housing stock was sold to long term tenants at a discounted price, the issue for me was the income wasn't re-invested in new build modern LA housing stock. The rule should have been whatever numbers were sold should then have been built new, the local authorities had (and have) enough brownfield sites and scale of operations for it to work but but without legislation forcing them to rebuild there was only one way it was all going to go.

My recollection was that local authorities couldn't use the monies from discounted sales to rebuild as the legislation was framed to prevent that. (It's very Thatcherite: why sell council houses & use the money raised to build more council houses when you want people to own their own homes & not pay rent to the council?)

There was also the double-whammy that, as rent income reduced over time, there was less money for LAs to maintain existing stock, let alone afford to buy land & build.

[Passenger]

Do you wonder which came first ? Do they do everything you say because that’s what they ultimately want (and don’t care about the long term), or do you think they view housing as unobtainable, they get virtually zero interest on savings (maybe even negative in real terms), and just want something. I’m not saying it’s the latter by the way, just posing the question.

And I’m a saver so historically low interest rates are a big negative. The people they benefit most are the over-stretched debtors. Everything should have been allowed to crash down in 2007. Without that people lose sight of risk.

And if the average deposit for a first-time buyer is likely to be 20k or more (I hear 80k in London), how long would they need to save if they cut out completely on the things on your list. And do you seriously think most twenty somethings have everything and do everything you list ? Where does the money come from ?

The effects and impacts of the banks risk taking were 'socialised' upon the average joe and the prudent were and continue to be penalised as the value of money was devalued. Welcome to debt serfdom, though I still don't think folks should just roll over, in fact I'm quite impressed with the development of the FIRE movement and philosophy among some of the millenials.

If you're a couple in London without kids, earning 40 k each, with discipline you could probably jointly save 2000 to 2500 per month, so 3 plus years to earn and save the 80 k deposit. Though the question then becomes one of what and where does your roughly 400k purchase get you and is it really worth the bother/safe/risk...Must admit I left London when a modest 1 1/2 bedroom flat in Clapham reached about the half million mark, god knows where they are now since it's unwise to look back, it all stopped making sense to me at least from the liveable, qualitative perspective though I'll admit to still holding a couple of rentals there. In my defence our tenants typically stay for years since we treat them as people and not just profit centres.

[Jdh1]

[QUOTE=HookedSeven;5172298]

The big reason to boot out a tenant would be a private landlord deciding to sell up (either forced through it being an unviable business, or just because they want the funds for something else). Obviously selling with an in-situ tenant with an indefinite right to stay wouldn’t make a sale easier.

When a landlord sells a house it doesn’t disappear ! Either another landlord buys it or a owner-occupier buys it. Why would there be slack ? The housing stock doesn’t change.

They work here in my poor part of Germany. If they don’t work it’s because house prices themselves are unsustainably high. What advantage does a private landlord have, surely economy of scale favors the business (assuming the private landlords pay their taxes).

Well if you'd like to stop those two reasons for asking a tenant to make an orderly exit, you won't find any support here. The new legislation, rightly in my view, allows the landlords to get the property back if they want to sell it. Who in their right mind would become a landlord if they were locked into it until they die, even if their life changed significantly or the whole thing was losing money?

A property doesn't disappear if a landlord sells it, of course. But if the landlord sells because the business is no longer attractive, it's not likely to be attractive to other private landlords either. That means a sale in to the private sector, and a loss from the pool of properties available to people who can't get a deposit together. What happens when the pool gets smaller but demand stays the same? Rents go up. Rent controls will only reduce the pool further meaning some people in vulnerable groups literally have nowhere to go, rather than simply being unable to afford what's available. You can't force private individuals and companies to rent property at an uneconomic rate.

Now this all may bring you round to state intervention to provide rental accomodation, but that's a different arguement.

[Jdh1]

Yes that’s probably true. Most of that’s ultimately driven by business though, and those businesses are not generally under the control of Millennials. Maybe your generation had better role models in positions of influence (i.e. their parents’ generation) than this current generation (my generation and your generation).

Don’t you think we’re ultimately responsible ?

In the sense that each generation is a product of the previous one, there has to be truth in that. But to allow young people an 'easy out' like that is to deny them the opportunity to take responsibility for their own outcomes, and to ultimately take the actions necessary to give the best chance of it all working out for them in the end.

[HookedSeven]

A property doesn't disappear if a landlord sells it, of course. But if the landlord sells because the business is no longer attractive, it's not likely to be attractive to other private landlords either. That means a sale in to the private sector, and a loss from the pool of properties available to people who can't get a deposit together. What happens when the pool gets smaller but demand stays the same? Rents go up. Rent controls will only reduce the pool further meaning some people in vulnerable groups literally have nowhere to go, rather than simply being unable to afford what's available. You can't force private individuals and companies to rent property at an uneconomic rate.

Surely every house sold from the rental sector into the owner-occupier sector reduces the size of the rental sector. How can demand stay the same ? Who bought the ex-rental house ?

[HookedSeven]

In the sense that each generation is a product of the previous one, there has to be truth in that. But to allow young people an 'easy out' like that is to deny them the opportunity to take responsibility for their own outcomes, and to ultimately take the actions necessary to give the best chance of it all working out for them in the end.

I basically agree with this, but the ‘easy out’ is just an explanation for their predicament not a solution. They can level the at blame previous generations all they want but that isn’t going to positively change their life.

But remember I’m only really saying that previous generation have some culpability for their predicament. And given that these previous generations had easier starts (IMO), I take exception when they generalize the millennials as being lazy, spoilt, excessively consumeristic, etc.

[doctorj]

I’ll contend it’s generation millenial that doesn’t have a clue. Not a clue how to survive on the cheap, not a clue how to make sacrifices, not a clue how to be resourceful and not expect everything handed on a plate.

Yes, I’m aware of the growing disparity between income and house prices. On the other hand:

1. Only a generation ago the “wife’s” income was taken into account for assessing how much could be borrowed to a much lesser extent than now, eg a typical ratio was 3x income of “main earner” plus 1x wife’s income.

2. Borrowing limits as multiple of income have generally increased.

Because how else could people ever buy a house? I have a decent paying job and bought a one bedroomed flat in a not terribly salubrious area with a mortgage of 5 x salary.

[doctorj]

Shelter is of course a basic necessity, but owning your shelter isn't. Widescale property ownership is a relatively recent development, and much more popular in the UK than elsewhere. For most people, the benefits of property ownership are overstated. They spend decades paying a mortgage (mainly interest) which is in excess of what they could be paying in rent. The benefits only start to materialise some 25-30 years hence. So the millennials aren't at much of a tangible disadvantage in the short term, and in the long term, many will inherit high value property anyway - something which the previous generation didn't do so much.

Yes, yes, we should all be happy paying our rent to the squire and should know our place.

[doctorj]

I would say that the UK is one of the best places in the world for anyone with ambition who is prepared to work hard.

I grew up on a council estate and when I proposed to my girlfriend in 1970, I had £4 in the building society and a rusted out Minivan.

I retired in 2010 on a six figure income and owned four houses. It's all down to graft and determination.

To be born British is to win the lottery of life.

To claim that you have to be born in the Elite is true up to a point, but it is a convenient excuse for an awful lot of people who just like moaning about how unfair life is.

What percentage of people from your council estate, and estates like it, came to be part of the elite?

What percentage of people who started elite, stayed part of the elite?

These children could all be given equal opportunities in education and employment, but they definitely aren't. Things are stacked against them.

Cases like yours where people succeed against the odds are mannah for people who want to keep the status quo, and make sure their children keep those opportunities of becoming journalists, bankers, lawyers, judges, all professions where private educations prevail, contrary to the proportion of children who go to public schools overall.

[hogthrob]

Personally, I fear that the ability to purchase a home will be the least of future generations' worries. When I'm in a mood for worrying, I worry about climate change, the mass migrations potentially at country / continent level) that may cause, automation of many jobs causing mass unemployment, the global political shift to the right, and all the social issues those things will bring. Heck, it might even come that mobility is an advantage, and property ownership is a burden.

Hmm,. Is this getting a bit political for The George?

[RD200]

What percentage of people from your council estate, and estates like it, came to be part of the elite?

What percentage of people who started elite, stayed part of the elite?

These children could all be given equal opportunities in education and employment, but they definitely aren't. Things are stacked against them.

Cases like yours where people succeed against the odds are mannah for people who want to keep the status quo, and make sure their children keep those opportunities of becoming journalists, bankers, lawyers, judges, all professions where private educations prevail, contrary to the proportion of children who go to public schools overall.

I was born and brought up on a council estate. The percentage of people who became part of the elite off that estate was 0%.
The original inhabitants on our estate and the other 2 in the Village were post war ex servicemen/women.
It's got to be said that although none ended up as part of the elite, only a tiny percentage over 30odd years ended up as scrotes.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

[RD200]

the global political shift to the right, and all the social issues those things will bring.

That worries me too.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

[HookedSeven]

the global political shift to the right, and all the social issues those things will bring.

That worries me too.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

I don’t know the rigidity of the rules here, but let’s not left this thread become political. I think there’s been interesting discussion here so far. It would be a shame for it to get locked or deleted or whatever.

[Maysie]

What percentage of people from your council estate, and estates like it, came to be part of the elite?

What percentage of people who started elite, stayed part of the elite?

These children could all be given equal opportunities in education and employment, but they definitely aren't. Things are stacked against them.

Cases like yours where people succeed against the odds are mannah for people who want to keep the status quo, and make sure their children keep those opportunities of becoming journalists, bankers, lawyers, judges, all professions where private educations prevail, contrary to the proportion of children who go to public schools overall.

What I found interesting in the programme, was the more subtle, often intangible nuances to the working class childs upbringing which went on to affect their ability to do well at interview for example. Essentially caused by a lack of worthiness and self belief.

This financial/class divide also impacts on the ability of young working class graduates to take unpaid 'internships' etc, as a wealthier child is likely to have more financial support from their parents, so is under less pressure to assist financially with their own upkeep.

[Bristolian]

Interesting direction that the conversation has taken – perhaps reflecting the ageing middle-class demographic of our beloved forum.


As previously said here, there is nothing unique about a class system – and that it is based a system that relies on prejudice for its continuation. The 'tells' that allow that prejudice to operate are seemingly insignificant, indeed irrelevant (accent, shoes, holding cutlery) but they plainly provide a useful shortcut to judging social categorisation or else they would not persist.


Anyone who is the victim of inaccurate prejudice rightly feels aggrieved, but as with any form of feeling offended, it relies on the offended to feel the burn. Trying to be offensive to people who simply don't feel offended is not a sound strategy.


If you are looking at making an investment in personnel making or any decision relying on an element of trust in others, you can be forgiven for wanting to shortcut the process to produce a shortlist of likely candidates. Whether this means rejecting anyone with a strong regional accent or simply binning any applicant CVs that don't show an Oxbridge education, rather misses the point that those doing the selecting have the right to make bad choices if that's how they want to live their lives.


I would unhesitatingly say that the money my parents spent on elocution lessons to expunge my Bristolian accent was possibly the most advantageous gift I received from them. By the same token, the very considerable efforts my colleagues presently put into a recruitment process in which candidates' names, gender, education (other than degree result) are redacted has not improved the quality of recruitment result one jot.

[RD200]

I don’t know the rigidity of the rules here, but let’s not left this thread become political. I think there’s been interesting discussion here so far. It would be a shame for it to get locked or deleted or whatever.

It's a thread about class so to someone with a chip on both shoulders like myself, politics is inevitable

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

[rodia77]

I think you have missed the point of my post, besides, I am pretty sure that class based elitism exists in areas which are not monarchy's.

What point are you trying to make?

I think I'm actually one of few here who stayed on topic.
The issue dealt with in the documentary you linked to (I only watched the 6-minute clip rather than the whole thing) is UK-centric, if not UK-specific.
Yes, you can find class-based elitism in different forms in basically every society. What makes a monarchy stand out is that the privilege by birth is officially sanctioned, which (in addition to wealth, connections etc) reinforces the class-based stratification and divides on yet another level.
You asked for thoughts and views, so these were my immediate thoughts as an outsider.

[guinea]

My boss is a Sir. Ex-military, then large consultancy, now Chairman. As establishment as they come.

I'd say I was working class, but none of my family actually worked, so that would be over egging my background.

I really struggle with the subtleties of communicating with him and our CFO, another establishment figure.

To me they come across as so reserved, they could be delighted or raging and I can't tell. But they know exactly how each other thinks. There are a few behaviours that I've worked out, but there must be dozens of times I'm breaking unwritten rules on conduct that I can't even perceive.

Out of the working class that went to my Highland I'm the only guy (I know of) in the years around my age that made it into the top 1% of earners. Loads work way harder than me. It's not effort that makes you successful. You're unlikely to be successful without effort, but it's no guarantee.

[Jdh1]

Surely every house sold from the rental sector into the owner-occupier sector reduces the size of the rental sector. How can demand stay the same ? Who bought the ex-rental house ?

There seems logic in what you say. However, it overlooks one or two things:

- People in the rental sector won't be in a position to buy these properties that come on to the market, not even if market forces cause prices to fall. Why? Because it's the inability to get a deposit together (not an inability to meet mortgage payments) that is the issue. And so...

- They will either be bought by people already in the housing market, or first time buyers not in the rented market. Getting a deposit together AND paying rent is hard. Many previously rented properties will remain unsold for long periods and this creates it's own issue for supply because...

- Even if the properties remain unsold, they are no longer in the rental market. Some landlords will give up and return to the rental market, just as others, influenced by the same factors, decide to sell up. The end result is that there will be a significant fluid block of property that is neither sold nor available for rent. The end result though, is lower supply.

One one thing...

- In many areas (not mine though) landlords have the option to move their property from shorthold tenancy to short term lets in the holiday and travel market where the rules are different and the tax position vis a vis mortgage interest relief, much morer advantagous. Again, a leak in supply. This is already happening quite a bit as things stand, as the growth of the likes or Airbnb is testament to.

[HookedSeven]

There seems logic in what you say. However, it overlooks one or two things:

- People in the rental sector won't be in a position to buy these properties that come on to the market, not even if market forces cause prices to fall. Why? Because it's the inability to get a deposit together (not an inability to meet mortgage payments) that is the issue. And so...

- They will either be bought by people already in the housing market, or more likely, sit on the market for a long time. This creates it's own issue for supply because...

- Even if the properties remain unsold, they are no longer in the rental market. Some landlords will give up and return to the rental market, just as others, influenced by the same factors, decide to sell up. The end result is that there will be a significant fluid block of property that is neither sold nor available for rent. The end result though, is lower supply.

One one thing...

- In many areas (not mine though) landlords have the option to move their property from shorthold tenancy to short term lets in the holiday and travel market where the rules are different and the tax position vis a vis mortgage interest relief, much morer advantagous. Again, a leak in supply. This is already happening quite a bit as things stand, as the growth of the likes or Airbnb is testament to.

All this assumes that people rent because they can’t afford to buy (or at least can’t afford a deposit). I never saw value in the housing market so elected to rent. I can afford to buy and probably would if value returned to the market. If a house sits on the market for a long time then it must be overpriced, and who can afford to let a house stand empty for an extended period of time. For forced sales or those wanting to cash out, prices will have to drop until they reach true market prices.

And I guess Airbnb is an alternative for I’m not sure whether private landlords really want all the extra work and risk. Plus I’d argue this is unethical.

[Maysie]

Interesting direction that the conversation has taken – perhaps reflecting the ageing middle-class demographic of our beloved forum.

I was thinking much the same thing over lunch. The quandary posed by the programme was essentially about class system advantages, but the thread rapidly became more about generational wealth and opportunity differences rather than class differences.

Interesting discussion though - despite taking a few detours!

[oldoakknives]

I was born and brought up on a council estate. The percentage of people who became part of the elite off that estate was 0%.
The original inhabitants on our estate and the other 2 in the Village were post war ex servicemen/women.
It's got to be said that although none ended up as part of the elite, only a tiny percentage over 30odd years ended up as scrotes.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

I too was brought up in a council house in my early years. It was however a world away from some of the estates you see on the emergency services reality programmes today.

How many from that area became part of the 'elite'? Probably not many over the years, if any at all.

I think there are some parts of society that you can't buy your way into, however well off you are. You will never really fit in.

[HookedSeven]

I was thinking much the same thing over lunch. The quandary posed by the programme was essentially about class system advantages, but the thread rapidly became more about generational wealth and opportunity differences rather than class differences.

Interesting discussion though - despite taking a few detours!

My original home is MWR and OmegaForums, and they are the home of thread-drift so blame them :-)

[Maysie]

I think I'm actually one of few here who stayed on topic.
The issue dealt with in the documentary you linked to (I only watched the 6-minute clip rather than the whole thing) is UK-centric, if not UK-specific.
Yes, you can find class-based elitism in different forms in basically every society. What makes a monarchy stand out is that the privilege by birth is officially sanctioned, which (in addition to wealth, connections etc) reinforces the class-based stratification and divides on yet another level.
You asked for thoughts and views, so these were my immediate thoughts as an outsider.

I don't think that simply exists within a monarchy, so does not seem to relate to the BBC programme or the questions it poses as far as I can see, which is why I asked what you meant. My reply was not meant as a criticism, your post just did not explain your view, so I was keen to understand what difference you thought being within a monarchy made to class privileges.

[Maysie]

My original home is MWR and OmegaForums, and they are the home of thread-drift so blame them :-)

It is all good!
It was the small 'spat' I was referring to, not your topic of discussion.

[Jdh1]

Yes, yes, we should all be happy paying our rent to the squire and should know our place.

There are plenty of wealthy Europeans who are very happy to rent and don't understand our obsession with property ownership. Renting isn't the sole preserve of the poor, although it has that reputation in the UK.

[Jdh1]

All this assumes that people rent because they can’t afford to buy (or at least can’t afford a deposit). I never saw value in the housing market so elected to rent. I can afford to buy and probably would if value returned to the market. If a house sits on the market for a long time then it must be overpriced, and who can afford to let a house stand empty for an extended period of time. For forced sales or those wanting to cash out, prices will have to drop until they reach true market prices.

And I guess Airbnb is an alternative for I’m not sure whether private landlords really want all the extra work and risk. Plus I’d argue this is unethical.

Sorry, I thought you were saying young people rent because they can't afford to buy? I've already said that renting is a perfectly valid choice, as evidenced by people at all economic levels in Europe. You're right about market forces. My point is that this will put a recurring kink in the supply line, resulting in reduced supply. Short term letting to holidymakers and travellers is unethical? Go on then...

[HookedSeven]

Sorry, I thought you were saying young people rent because they can't afford to buy? I've already said that renting is a perfectly valid choice, as evidenced by people at all economic levels in Europe. You're right about market forces. My point is that this will put a recurring kink in the supply line, resulting in reduced supply. Short term letting to holidymakers and travellers is unethical? Go on then...

There's obviously a large block of young renters that can't afford to buy, but you can't state as you did that all renters can't afford to buy. I'd guess there are enough people in my position to buy if say 10% of rental stock became available at realistic prices (whatever they might be).

And yes, taking housing stock out of existing residential stock and moving it into airbnb is unethical IMO. Feel free to build something new for this purpose.

Sent from my SM-J330F using Tapatalk

[Jdh1]

There's obviously a large block of young renters that can't afford to buy, but you can't state as you did that all renters can't afford to buy. I'd guess there are enough people in my position to buy if say 10% of rental stock became available at realistic prices (whatever they might be).

And yes, taking housing stock out of existing residential stock and moving it into airbnb is unethical IMO. Feel free to build something new for this purpose.

Sent from my SM-J330F using Tapatalk

Okay, so what you're saying is that there are a significant number of people in the UK, who are currently renting through choice, have the cash for a house deposit, and would become homeowners if some of this rental stock came onto the market at a bit lower price? My view, is there aren't, but we'll never know unless it happens.

You've completely lost me on short term rentals via Airbnb etc. To my mind, what's unethical is trying to tell people what they can and can't do with the property they've bought with their own money. Some councils agree with you though (although I'm not sure it's an ethical motivation, more an economic one) because they have passed local laws restricting the number of nights a property can be let each year via this route.

[Thewatchbloke]

My recollection was that local authorities couldn't use the monies from discounted sales to rebuild as the legislation was framed to prevent that. (It's very Thatcherite: why sell council houses & use the money raised to build more council houses when you want people to own their own homes & not pay rent to the council?)

There was also the double-whammy that, as rent income reduced over time, there was less money for LAs to maintain existing stock, let alone afford to buy land & build.

I believe there were mechanisms in place to prevent reinvestment into new housing stock which always seemed a ridiculous state of affairs. As I said it wasn’t the sale of housing stock that I disagreed with it was using the funds generated in other areas that was baffling.

[HookedSeven]

Okay, so what you're saying is that there are a significant number of people in the UK, who are currently renting through choice, have the cash for a house deposit, and would become homeowners if some of this rental stock came onto the market at a bit lower price? My view, is there aren't, but we'll never know unless it happens.

You've completely lost me on short term rentals via Airbnb etc. To my mind, what's unethical is trying to tell people what they can and can't do with the property they've bought with their own money. Some councils agree with you though (although I'm not sure it's an ethical motivation, more an economic one) because they have passed local laws restricting the number of nights a property can be let each year via this route.

Well some people exist with funds ready to go, but yes it’s impossible to know whether it’s a significant number. I know a lot of people in that situation but as an expat with views to returning at some point that’s not a surprise and obviously not representative.

And ethics are a personal thing so I can’t drag you over to my side. Part of the problem is that most buy-to-let are funded with borrowing, so what buyers are doing is leveraging their advantage to get credit (or raise a deposit or whatever). Most of the time it’s not really “their own money”, it’s the banks money. So it’s leveraged speculation.