A common enough statement these days is that the young of today are buying their first house later than did the young of our own youthful times. This does have the advantage of being a true statement. But it is also worth musing over why this is happening.

Yes, obviously, there is the price of housing - we really do need to blow up the Town and County Planning Act 1947 and successors, kablooie - and so on. However, there’s something else here which makes this delay a mechanical certainty.

The Times runs a piece about a lady who didn’t go to university and has bought at the age of 23. And that is the crux of the matter. Again, we agree there are other influences, but the crux of the particular point we wish to make here.

Back 50 years some 10 to 12% of the population went on to university. Today that appears to be very close to the 50% target proclaimed. We’ve therefore an extra 40% or so of the population delaying their entry into the world of work and earning by at least that 3 years. There’s also that little point that professional salaries tend to start lower than blue collar ones, it being in the middle and later years of career that they soar above.

So, yes, some substantial portion of the young have less money than the generations before them. Thus they’re buying their homes later. Note that this happens however university is financed, whatever other influences there are on the economy. A huge portion of the age cohort now takes years longer to work and earn. Therefore the things bought by work and earnings are bought later.

A surprise that really, isn’t it?

We should therefore be wary of those insisting that the system must change to deal with this problem. Because it has been caused - in part at least - by that previous system change. If it’s all so awful - people delaying buying their first house - then why not attack the root cause, too many people going to university first?