Is it important to get on the property ladder at a young age ?

I've just been wondering about this

Some people I know (round 23yrs) have bought their own house and i know a lot of people who are considering it now that they have graduated and got a job.

I have never thought about it and have no desire to do so for many reasons

But is it something I would regret or something I should definitely be thinking about now ?

Have you considered buying a house yet and getting a mortgage?

What do you think the right age to do so is ??

I think a lot of young people overrate this and make bad decisions, often influenced by family and friends. The case for it is usually that renting is 'dead money' and that property is an asset that will increase in value so it's an investment. The first part is true but the second part is uncertain, property can increase or decrease in value, people that bought property in the mid 1990s and early 2000s made huge gains on their property because wages were rising fast and also the willingness of mortgage lenders to lend bigger and bigger multiples of someones income was rising, so that always meant more buyers coming into the market, with more ability to spend big to buy, hence house prices were driven up. Since the financial crisis wages have flatlined and lenders have got very shy about lending, and it is likely to be a similar situation for many many years ahead due to the depth of this crisis. So I would think in terms of buying a house as an asset you should expect it to hold its value or make modest gains over a long period, rather than seeing property as a guaranteed gold mine investment.

The other argument that renting is dead money is a valid one because even if your house doesn't appreciate in value, at least you own something at the end of it, so I can understand that as a motivation to buy BUT you have to offset that against the removal of flexibility in the labour market, which is a big thing for young people especially graduates. When you are climbing the career ladder you often have to take opportunities to move in different cities and it is much easier if you are renting, and that mobility can end up meaning faster career progression and higher salary growth. I think when you have made a few career moves and got a good solid job with good income in a location where you know you will want to stay in the long run, it's more sensible to buy then. I do know a few graduates at work for instance that miss out on opportunities because they've rushed to buy houses at 23 or 24 and it does restrict them in career terms.

Obviously if you know you are going to want to be in the location for the long term then that changes it, eg if you want to stay round your family, or if you have a young family/settled relationship etc then you aren't losing anything by tying yourself down.

But as a general rule I think most young people who are in the early stages of a career, and don't have kids, would be better keeping their flexibility and renting, unless they have a reason why they know they are going to want to stay in a particular area for the long term.

I think a lot of young people overrate this and make bad decisions, often influenced by family and friends. The case for it is usually that renting is 'dead money' and that property is an asset that will increase in value so it's an investment. The first part is true but the second part is uncertain, property can increase or decrease in value, people that bought property in the mid 1990s and early 2000s made huge gains on their property because wages were rising fast and also the willingness of mortgage lenders to lend bigger and bigger multiples of someones income was rising, so that always meant more buyers coming into the market, with more ability to spend big to buy, hence house prices were driven up. Since the financial crisis wages have flatlined and lenders have got very shy about lending, and it is likely to be a similar situation for many many years ahead due to the depth of this crisis. So I would think in terms of buying a house as an asset you should expect it to hold its value or make modest gains over a long period, rather than seeing property as a guaranteed gold mine investment.

The other argument that renting is dead money is a valid one because even if your house doesn't appreciate in value, at least you own something at the end of it, so I can understand that as a motivation to buy BUT you have to offset that against the removal of flexibility in the labour market, which is a big thing for young people especially graduates. When you are climbing the career ladder you often have to take opportunities to move in different cities and it is much easier if you are renting, and that mobility can end up meaning faster career progression and higher salary growth. I think when you have made a few career moves and got a good solid job with good income in a location where you know you will want to stay in the long run, it's more sensible to buy then. I do know a few graduates at work for instance that miss out on opportunities because they've rushed to buy houses at 23 or 24 and it does restrict them in career terms.

Obviously if you know you are going to want to be in the location for the long term then that changes it, eg if you want to stay round your family, or if you have a young family/settled relationship etc then you aren't losing anything by tying yourself down.

But as a general rule I think most young people who are in the early stages of a career, and don't have kids, would be better keeping their flexibility and renting, unless they have a reason why they know they are going to want to stay in a particular area for the long term.

I'd never buy in the UK because you just don't get enough for your money.