Gotcha. I can understand your situation completely. I lived just outside of London for two years and my parents and I were astonished at the cost of real estate in the United Kingdom and Europe in general. Is that due to taxes or just a high demand for property (e.g. not enough land for everyone, so the cost increases?)
As someone else has pointed out, the starting salary in the UK seems to be close to the starting salary in the States (where I am posting from) but the main difference is the availability of fairly inexpensive property and land, especially in the state that I'm from, Texas.
For instance, with enough searching, an individual in Texas could purchase land for about $8,000-$10,000 per acre. That's just the raw land, but it usually has water and electrical hook-ups. Obviously, planning and building a house increase the final cost, but it's not uncommon in Texas to have people buying several acres with a very comfortable house.
Granted, many locations in the United States, especially around major urban centers (e.g. Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc) don't have land in abundance, and thus property prices are much, much higher.
I can definitely see the case for renting, especially if you are living in a larger city because of your profession. But due to the availability and relative affordability of land and houses in the United States, home ownership has become a fairly common goal for many families, hence the large and rapid growth of the suburbs outside of the cities.
Again, speaking from a Texas perspective, I believe there is a law that allows you to declare your house as a "homestead" so that if you lose your job, and aren't able to make payments, the bank cannot seize it for a certain amount of time. This is intended to allow you time to go find another job without forcing you and your family from your home.
I can definitely understand the fear of having that much debt, especially with job security as shaky as it is these days, especially for people just entering the working world, but you'd also have to take into consideration that the majority of American's purchasing homes tend to be further along in their life, usually around 35-40 years of age and thus are less likely to switch or lose their jobs. By that point, most people probably have some savings to tide them over if they did lose their jobs, so again, home ownership and the debt that goes along with it, isn't too big of a concern.
I guess for me, a home represents more than a montetary investment, although it certainly represents one for many individuals. Honestly, my family has had a 150 acre farm in Ohio for the last 75 years that has been passed down from generation to generation. It's completely paid off and if anyone ever needs to retire, they can live out there. I'd tend to think of a house, not as something to be flipped to make a profit, but more of a gift and a legacy for my children to have something to call their own when the time comes. There's nothing more secure than having a property that is completely paid off and that you hold the deed to.
I would assume that we're both fairly close in age...I'm 20, but I'm definitely looking forward to purchasing land and building a house.
Well, I did take the most expensive example in London. Property is much cheaper in other areas. However, that's not to say that it's still affordable. The housing crisis in Britain shouldn't be underestimated. House prices have been outstripping increase in earnings for many, many years now, and we're only just beginning to feel the pinch. The situation can only get worse.
In no way do I feel sorry for myself in all of this. Like I said before, I think I'd rather have the security of freedom from debt free than the security of home-ownerships - and that's a personal choice. Furthermore, I have no real emotional attachment to any particular area, and will always have a decent job (probably), so I'll never struggle to find somewhere to live. It's people who can't afford to live in the areas they grew up in that I feel most sorry for. Those who live in rural villages close to major cities where property prices have sky rocketed because city folk are buying up property in their village as 'weekend homes', or live in areas which have now become attractive holiday destinations. The biggest outrage in all of that being that the reason some people can't afford to live in the areas they (and several generations before them) grew up is because property is being bought up and then being left empty - contributing nothing to the local economy (in fact, taking away from the local economy as someone who lived in the house permanently would be buying goods and services 7 days a week), and weakening the constitution of the community.
As you can see, I am REALLY against second home ownership. It's shallow, self-indulgant and destroys lives. It rips the heart of local communities and local economies and has no place whatsoever in a nation undergoing a housing crisis.
And of course, because Thatcher and her subsequent ideologues saw "no such thing as society", all our social/council housing was sold off, meaning that the destitute, desperate and hopeless now struggle to even find a roof over their head to rent. There barely exists a safety net for those left out of the property boom because they were born too late and don't earn enough. Furthermore, lack of social housing means that the most overworked and underpaid who sweep our streets, nurse our sick and teach our children can't afford to live anywhere near their place of work in comfort because local authorities are being forced to sell off the property they used to maintain for staff to live in.