The way society has been organised since the 1980s has meant that, unless they have inherited wealth, all but the most able and determined young people, will struggle to buy their own home.
The reasons for this are complex, but put simply, while building costs have risen because of a shortage of trained labour and building materials being used up in rapidly developing countries, the main reason houses are so expensive is because successive governments have created a shortage of housing to artificially elevated house prices.
To achieve this shortage, the first thing the government did was to sell off large chunks of public housing stock. So worried we're they that those living in their Council House would be reluctant to part with their housing security, they sold off them at a discounted price. Inevitably, after a short while the responsibility for housing shifted from Local Authorities to private builders and landlords.
At the same time as selling off publicly owned housing stock on the cheap, successive governments have exacerbated the shortage of housing by making it easy for those that can afford it to buy as many houses as they like. Demographic changes and out of control migration have played their part too, but engineering a housing shortage is, in my view, the primary reason why young people are unable to buy a home of their own.
There is, however, a silver lining to keeping property prices high as more people will now be forced to live at home until their 30s, 40s and 50s and will, therefore, to be on hand to look after their elderly parents. This care would otherwise be funded by the state through Adult Social Care, but because of the governments policy to price-out the next generation, their parents care will increasingly be off-loaded to the children of those too frail to look after themselves.
This hoodwinked generation, mesmerised by Social Media and the fantasy-world provided by their games consoles, may grow up to think otherwise, but in the meantime it's a win-win for government and the elites they represent.
I'm arguing that the current housing crisis, rather than the supposed headache it's presented to be, will be a huge fiscal benefit to government, because not only is government abrogating responsibility to house the population, they'll no longer have the full cost to care for the elderly either.
In a democracy, we get the governments we deserve, but that doesn't mean that future generations won't ultimately feel conned by suc3ssive governments that failed satisfy their basic need for shelter, or look after mum and dad when they get old.
