How is a 400k loan financible without equity? Net equity at €4,500

I'm missing words from you, Mio or Mill would be abbreviations for millions, m is meter, so much for the subject and your profession.

And you bring up volunteering here? These are honorable people who do it out of conviction, but how does that fit with the topic? It's nice that you enjoy other work, but responsibility should be paid or are you the team leader of yourself and the printer next to you?

And how do you come to employees then? Nice that there are trolls around here. I can only think of one thing: "If you have no idea, just shut up" (end of quote).

Oh dear, I almost want to ask about your age and background when you make such extreme claims.

As a child of the early 80s, I naturally have to rely on the statements of the elders. Some of what you describe here aligns with those statements, while other parts less so.
But my intention was not at all to compare wood stoves and central heating here. No one will deny that life in the 60s offered less comfort than today.

However, my thesis was not that everything was better in the past, but that acquiring property for the average earner* in the year 2020 was as difficult from a purely financial perspective as never before. And this thesis is particularly well supported by the property price index.
Unfortunately, links are prohibited here, but the index can be easily found by anyone.

(* Average earner refers to the average salary in the pension insurance)

Unfortunately, there are no figures yet for the 60s; the index only begins in 1975, so let’s simply compare the price development of the last 4 years of the 70s and the 2010s with each other.

The example concerns an average single-family house with an average plot of land.
The median (index = 100) is the year 1990.

Price index comparison from 1975 to 1976: 45.2 / 46.9 (+ 1.7 points)
From 1976 to 1977: 46.9 / 51.5 (+ 4.6 points)
From 1977 to 1978: 51.5 / 57.0 (+ 5.5 points)
From 1978 to 1979: 57.0 / 65.8 (+ 8.8 points)

In comparison, the figures for the last 4 years:

From 2015 to 2016: 172.8 / 184.8 (+ 12.0 points)
From 2016 to 2017: 184.8 / 203.2 (+ 18.4 points)
From 2017 to 2018: 203.2 / 221.0 (+ 17.8 points)
From 2018 to 2019: 221.0 / 237.2 (+ 16.2 points)

So in recent years, we have recorded significant price jumps, which simply did not occur back then. Between 1995 (130.8) and 1998 (126.4), the index even fell. Congratulations to anyone who could buy back then.

In the 2000s, price development stagnated: 2000 (130.8) and 2009 (134.4).

From 2010, things really took off, with the pace accelerating even further in the last 3-4 years:

2010 = 133.9
2011 = 138.2
2012 = 143.6
2013 = 152.0
2014 = 164.3
2015 = 172.8
2016 = 184.8
2017 = 203.2
2018 = 221.0
2019 = 237.2

Of course, one could argue that interest rates are much lower today, but this advantage is offset by the fact that, conversely, more and more equity always has to be put up in order to really get the best interest conditions. And that is increasingly a challenge for the average earner household. No wonder at the above-mentioned pace of price development.

When the older generation today claims that the young can no longer afford property simply because they consume too much, that is a complete oversimplification. As stated above: even with consumption restraint, the leap into property ownership is no longer achievable for the average earner at this rapid pace of price development.

And? My mother was a cleaner and didn’t even earn minimum wage. Should she be ashamed that she earned the money for us kids? It’s really a strange generation nowadays for whom money is worth more than effort and love for the job. By now, I get at least one offer every week from a university hospital or other hospital, but the work and the environment are more important to me than the 1,000-2,000 € net.

I think so too, that’s why I have a healthy attitude towards money and don’t let myself be exploited.

As already said above: Only by giving up consumption is the leap into home ownership no longer achievable for the average earner with this rapid price development.

I basically agree with you, but there is also much more gadget stuff than back then. Just think of all the technical devices that everyone owns nowadays. PCs, printers, tablets, laptops, phones, etc... That adds up to a few thousand euros. And phones are used by many for a maximum of 2 years. Additionally, money is spent much faster on the internet. Two clicks and the new clothes are there without having to get up on a Saturday afternoon. Then there are ongoing costs that didn’t exist back then. Netflix, Spotify, AmazonPrime, etc. These are all consumer goods that didn’t exist back then.

mine too, that's why I have a healthy relationship with money and don't let myself be exploited

That's funny. It's like with freshmen and wannabe movers. They infer gross income from net income.
An example, just for you:
Net income: €3,000
+ €650 company car
+ €500 company pension plan
+ €1,000 company apartment (some of them have that)
= €5,150 net income after adjustments
Plus tax class IV = gross income?

But it's a typical amateur mistake to try to calculate and compare gross income from net income. Well, you're just a mover after all

As a child of the early 80s, I naturally have to rely on the statements of the elders. Some of what you describe here aligns with these statements, while other parts less so.
However, I was not trying to compare wood stoves and central heating here. No one would dispute that life in the 60s offered less comfort than today.

But my thesis was not that everything was better in the past, but that acquiring property for the average earner* in 2020 was as difficult as never before from a purely financial perspective. And this thesis is particularly well supported by the real estate price index.
Unfortunately, links are forbidden here, but the index can be easily found by anyone.

(* Average earner refers to the average salary in the pension insurance)

Unfortunately, there are no figures for the 60s yet; the index only begins in 1975, so let's simply compare the price development of the last 4 years of the 70s and the 2010s with each other.

The example concerns an average single-family house with an average plot of land.
The median (index = 100) is the year 1990.

Price index comparison from 1975 to 1976: 45.2 / 46.9 (+1.7 points)
From 1976 to 1977: 46.9 / 51.5 (+4.6 points)
From 1977 to 1978: 51.5 / 57.0 (+5.5 points)
From 1978 to 1979: 57.0 / 65.8 (+8.8 points)

In comparison, the numbers from the last 4 years:

From 2015 to 2016: 172.8 / 184.8 (+12.0 points)
From 2016 to 2017: 184.8 / 203.2 (+18.4 points)
From 2017 to 2018: 203.2 / 221.0 (+17.8 points)
From 2018 to 2019: 221.0 / 237.2 (+16.2 points)

So, in recent years we have had significant price jumps, which simply did not exist back then. Between 1995 (130.8) and 1998 (126.4) the index even fell. Congratulations to anyone who was able to buy back then.

In the 2000s, price development stagnated: 2000 (130.8) and 2009 (134.4).

From 2010, things really took off, with the pace increasing again in the last 3-4 years:

2010 = 133.9
2011 = 138.2
2012 = 143.6
2013 = 152.0
2014 = 164.3
2015 = 172.8
2016 = 184.8
2017 = 203.2
2018 = 221.0
2019 = 237.2

Of course, one could argue that interest rates are much lower today, but this advantage is offset by the fact that, conversely, more and more equity capital must be raised in order to really get the best interest conditions. And that is increasingly a problem for the average household. No wonder at the above-mentioned pace of price development.

When the older generation claims today that the younger generation can no longer afford property solely because they consume too much, that is absolutely one-sided. As already said above: Only by abstaining from consumption can the jump into home ownership no longer be achieved at this rapid price development for the average earner.

That is a really interesting presentation, thanks. I always want to remain open to learning!
In 2006, an acquaintance wanted to sell a house and could hardly find any interested buyers, except for one who offered a laughably low price by today's standards for a really nice 2.5-family house.
The identical house was then partially sold as condominium units, and with each part you could see the jumps in price and demand; for the last part, he then achieved more just under a day after listing the ad for the main apartment than he had unsuccessfully asked for in 2006. The final price was really hefty and previously unimaginable.
But— and now we come to your point— for what he then wanted to buy, he had to pay the equally crazy price.
These jumps are usually not in line with a salary.
In my opinion, the craziness of the price increase, which might still continue, must be called sick, and you are absolutely right about that. Saving or abstaining alone does not accomplish anything; I have children myself, possibly around your age, and therefore also know their situation.
My objections were rather aimed at pub talk phrases that you hear today as someone affected (save your money, then you can build) or that I sometimes read (in the past, you quickly had a house because everything was easier).
In my view, it is simply the case that you cannot compare these two things in any respect, building a house has remained the same word but the content is entirely different. To do justice to anyone, I therefore try to evaluate the respective situation (difficult today) without placing it in the context of a long-past time in a different world.