Unemployment & FTBs

lemonjelly

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The larger employers round here now use "flexible" workforces. In part to avoid contractual liabilities of employing permanent staff.

Its a growing trend that doesnt bode well. As to me employment is a 2 way relationship.

This has been a trend of employers over the past 10+ years.

Contract workers = efficiency savings.

Contract workers have little/no job security. For years there was much debate around who employed them (the agency, or where they worked). Generally they have/had worse T&C's of employment (eg no contractual sick pay, no entitlement to holiday pay, pension scheme etc). In the early days, it used to be argued that they had no continuity of service, as every day they were dismissed, and then rehired the next morning, so in fact were never in a position to be able to work at a place for 3 years & get holiday pay & similar benefits.

Also, it removes/reduces the need for HR departments/staffing levels.

There are many employers who will now take people on via agencies for 11 months, then end the contract at 11 months, wait 6 weeks, and rehire them. This way, the employee gains absolutely no employment rights (which are gained following completion of 1 years service).

It was also said that employment is a relationship. I think it used to be. Employment contracts are interesting, because in most contracts the balance of power is 50-50. In employment law, there is no way this holds, the balance of power in such contracts is not 50-50, though it is supposed to be. Employers do not commit to employees anymore, we are commodities to them. Being given a series of fixed term contracts isn't commitment. It is being used. Why then should I commit wholeheartedly to an employer if they're only willing to give me a 9/12/18 month contract, with the possibility of an extention at the end?

The outsourcing etc of employment has drastically changed how employees are percieved, and changed what it is to be an employee. Virtually all this change benefits only the employer.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

yes they are - but there are a number on this site for example that complain that houses are unaffordable to them. should they be complaining or should they be more patient until they are in the "traditional relationship" and then buy?

Why should I have to wait until I'm in what you deem a "traditional" relationship in order to live independently?

I'm not clear if you're advocating that single people can't be homeowners?

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

Why should I have to wait until I'm in what you deem a "traditional" relationship in order to live independently?

I'm not clear if you're advocating that single people can't be homeowners?

it was a question i wasn't saying this had to be the case .

it was in reply to this

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

single ftbs feel a relatively recent phenomenon tbh.

i'm saying that it's obviously more difficult for single people to be home owners.

i think that the number of single FTB's has increased by quite a bit in the last 20 years, was this the case in the 70s?
due to the increasing number of 1 bed flats, it seems to have added another initial rung on the housing ladder.

another thought is maybe people are being pushed by peer pressure into this "traditional relationship" so as to get on the housing ladder.

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

due to the increasing number of 1 bed flats, it seems to have added another initial rung on the housing ladder.

I think you maybe a bit confused so if I may help you out.

FTB's have been priced out for years, and the bottom couple of rungs of the ladder have been propped up by BTL.

You could have said Millets camping equipment added another rung - that might be nearer the truth.

LydiaJ

Don't forget that the proportion of single parent families is much higher than in the 70s - and that's both because of women having children while not in a "traditional relationship" and because of couples splitting up (and I believe there is usually increased relationship breakdown in a recession). These families come from all socio-economic classes. A lot of people on here seem to think that everyone can be divided into three categories - "households with two incomes" and "people for whom a 1 bed flat would be suitable" and "lifetime benefit-scrounging single mothers". It's not true.

I make no claim to know whether this fact will have any significant effect on HP, or what kind of effect it will have. I am just pointing out how the demographics have changed.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

it was a question i wasn't saying this had to be the case .

it was in reply to this


i'm saying that it's obviously more difficult for single people to be home owners.

i think that the number of single FTB's has increased by quite a bit in the last 20 years, was this the case in the 70s?
due to the increasing number of 1 bed flats, it seems to have added another initial rung on the housing ladder.

another thought is maybe people are being pushed by peer pressure into this "traditional relationship" so as to get on the housing ladder.

Aha! Thanks for the explanation. Apologies for the misunderstanding - just liking the debate;)

My brother married & bought 5 years ago. He & his wife are having to work, following children she's working 4 days a week to keep heads above water. Fingers crossed their employment stays secure...

I've been single throughout, or rather never been in a secure enough relationship to consider buying together. I've been employed since graduation (11 years) & for 5 years have had 2 jobs. Yes I have been saving on an ongoing basis - after all, the bigger deposit, the lower/more affordable mortgage, right?

Wrong, with the rate of HPI, year on year buying somewhere has become more & more unrealistic,

(until Christmas, if some posters are to be believed;))

Thing is, I now feel that many homes aren't worth the asking price. This further reduces my choices.

LydiaJ wrote: »

Don't forget that the proportion of single parent families is much higher than in the 70s - and that's both because of women having children while not in a "traditional relationship" and because of couples splitting up (and I believe there is usually increased relationship breakdown in a recession). These families come from all socio-economic classes. A lot of people on here seem to think that everyone can be divided into three categories - "households with two incomes" and "people for whom a 1 bed flat would be suitable" and "lifetime benefit-scrounging single mothers". It's not true.

I make no claim to know whether this fact will have any significant effect on HP, or what kind of effect it will have. I am just pointing out how the demographics have changed.

Great point.

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

Yes I have been saving on an ongoing basis - after all, the bigger deposit, the lower/more affordable mortgage, right?

this what i'd say and everyones personal circumstances are very different, so you would choose what you expect to happen:

1. Increased savings and house prices drop. your LTV reduces as your deposit increases and house prices drop, however you will pay higher mortgage payments and continue paying rent.

2. use savings as a deposit, Higher LTV but cheaper mortgage rate and don't pay rent. house prices drop - do the price drops (in your area) minus the mortgage savings and not paying rent benefit you?

3. use savings as a deposit, Higher LTV but cheaper mortgage rate and don't pay rent. house prices rise (in your area) - the price rises plus the cheaper mortgage payments and not paying rent will mean you've saved money than both the above scenarios.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

this what i'd say and everyones personal circumstances are very different, so you would choose what you expect to happen:

1. Increased savings and house prices drop. your LTV reduces as your deposit increases and house prices drop, however you will pay higher mortgagepayments and continue paying rent.
2. use savings as a deposit, Higher LTV but cheaper mortgage rate and don't pay rent. house prices drop - do the price drops (in your area) minus the mortgage savings and not paying rent benefit you?
3. use savings as a deposit, Higher LTV but cheaper mortgage rate and don't pay rent. house prices rise (in your area) - the price rises plus the cheaper mortgage payments and not paying rent will mean you've saved money than both the above scenarios.[/QUOTE]

3 has always (& still is?) the plan. However, the problem (certainly since around 2001-2) has been HPI has given the impression that despite hard saving, increases in prices have (until recently) wiped the benefit of the savings, or even outstripped them.

Changes in employment haven't helped, even though it was career progression, it meant less continuous employment and therefore less likely to get a mortgage.

I have a good size deposit. Regular employment. Difficulty now, is finding somewhere I feel is fairly priced & in the right area.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I have a good size deposit. Regular employment. Difficulty now, is finding somewhere I feel is fairly priced & in the right area.

LJ you are most probably the least VI poster on here.(didn't cut the whole quote to save on screen space)

I can never tell if you are bear or bull. You get my "realist" stamp of approval

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

this what i'd say and everyones personal circumstances are very different, so you would choose what you expect to happen:

1. Increased savings and house prices drop. your LTV reduces as your deposit increases and house prices drop, however you will pay higher mortgagepayments and continue paying rent.
Lower LTV = lower interest rate. Higher deposit = shorter repayment period to repay capital. Rent lower than mortgage outgoing so increased savings. Cheaper way of buying house in long term.
2. use savings as a deposit, Higher LTV but cheaper mortgage rate and don't pay rent. house prices drop - do the price drops (in your area) minus the mortgage savings and not paying rent benefit you?
Higher LTV = higher interest rate .
3. use savings as a deposit, Higher LTV but cheaper mortgage rate and don't pay rent. house prices rise (in your area) - the price rises plus the cheaper mortgage payments and not paying rent will mean you've saved money than both the above scenarios.

My comments are made in the context of my locality. Where renting is cost effective in comparison to purchasing a 2/3 bed house.
As there is an excess of rental property available.

The average potential FTB would struggle to raise a sufficent deposit in a high cost property area.