Supply and Demand in action......

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Pobby wrote: »

However, the life style choice of being single and having kids, all with state funding was a big no no. .

As it will be again soon enough.

ukcarper

Pobby wrote: »

Interesting debate regarding benefits. How the last 40 or 50 years have changed. Of course there were situations like Singlesue, who no fault of her own, found herself in or indeed younger women with children being widowed early.

However, the life style choice of being single and having kids, all with state funding was a big no no. Oh the shame when the lass next door became pregnant. There was no choice. She married the guy and Mother was too ashamed to go to the wedding. Morals were far different then. I certainly don`t recall the state providing housing and an income.

As I remember, you had few options. To have the child and be supported by the guy or other family. To give the child up for adoption ( often very painful ) or the very worst and consider an abortion.

When do you think that change took place

Pobby

May be it was our generation, free love and all that. Although I think that was a bit of a myth. You know, the more I think of when the less I am unclear about it. Most of our friends up to the late 80`s, when we moved, were fairly middle class. Teachers, business people. We all got on with things and guess we never noticed.

The first time was after our move to a west country town of less than a 7.000 population. Through my business I met a lot of youngsters and i was appalled being told by a single mother to be that she was " entitled " to this, that and the other thing. That would be the end of the 90`s. So when was this change?

Clearly at some point a government made it an extremely attractive possibility. However this seems to be a sacrifice of responsibility. I over heard a conversation a while ago. This woman was saying to someone that she couldn`t be !!!!!!!!! to pay her water rates and was now in £2,000 worth of debt with it. By the way, this was being said loudly in a pub. It would appear that some nice woman came around and they would possibly write it off but help her to budget in the future!!!!!

When I think about it though, this kind of attitude comes from the top. I refer to MPs expenses.

Hamish your point about that lifestyle choice being taken away, not that I don`t 100% agree with you. ( Never thought I would say that, lol).

However how do you change it and change it to what? Not only do I work but i also do volly work and know a huge amount of people. I know a number who have taken this route of popping out kids. Many of them drive a car, huge TVs and seem to do all right. Don`t get me wrong. The ones I know happen to be nice folk. Not the white cider swigging variety but I could not have this conversation with them as they wouldn`t get.

It is a life style choice that has been freely promoted by the last 2 governments.

Prudent

I used live in Aberdeenshire. I lived in two villages one within a twenty minute commute of the city and one about 45 minutes out. Last year I posted a thread on here about the first house I lived in. My parents bought in 1978/9 for £12,000. It sold for £479,000. They then moved in 1982 to another house as they wanted more land. At 45 mins drive from the city it was considered to far in the sticks to get commuter prices. They paid £27,000 for the house, out buildings and 12 acres. Now these properties are selling at prices that are just silly.

Hamish's threads have made me have a look at both these villages. In the later the cheapest property for ages has been £275,000. It is smaller than my three bed semi in a nice area of a nice town in Central Scotland which would sell for £135,000 ish. I am a single mum on an ok wage (a teacher). If I wanted to move back to Aberdeenshire I would have to rent. I love where I live, so fortunately it is not an issue.

Edit: given the discussion here I would like to point out that I didn't become a single mum by choice and have worked full time, bought my own house and believe it was my choice to have a child and my responsibilty to support her.

ukcarper

Pobby wrote: »

May be it was our generation, free love and all that. Although I think that was a bit of a myth. You know, the more I think of when the less I am unclear about it. Most of our friends up to the late 80`s, when we moved, were fairly middle class. Teachers, business people. We all got on with things and guess we never noticed.

The first time was after our move to a west country town of less than a 7.000 population. Through my business I met a lot of youngsters and i was appalled being told by a single mother to be that she was " entitled " to this, that and the other thing. That would be the end of the 90`s. So when was this change?

Clearly at some point a government made it an extremely attractive possibility. However this seems to be a sacrifice of responsibility. I over heard a conversation a while ago. This woman was saying to someone that she couldn`t be !!!!!!!!! to pay her water rates and was now in £2,000 worth of debt with it. By the way, this was being said loudly in a pub. It would appear that some nice woman came around and they would possibly write it off but help her to budget in the future!!!!!

When I think about it though, this kind of attitude comes from the top. I refer to MPs expenses.

I'm not sure when it happened too but I would say it was going on before NU-Labour were elected so it either started under the previous Conservative Government or before that and they didn’t stop it. I think people expecting a new Conservative government to stop it might be sadly mistaken although it would be nice if someone did.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Prudent wrote: »

Hamish's threads have made me have a look at both these villages. In the later the cheapest property for ages has been £275,000. It is smaller than my three bed semi in a nice area of a nice town in Central Scotland which would sell for £135,000 ish. I am a single mum on an ok wage (a teacher). If I wanted to move back to Aberdeenshire I would have to rent. I love where I live, so fortunately it is not an issue.

There are still villages in Aberdeenshire within commuting range of Aberdeen where prices are reasonable.

Were the villages you mention North of Aberdeen? As it does seem to be mroe expensive than the South.

Edit: given the discussion here I would like to point out that I didn't become a single mum by choice and have worked full time, bought my own house and believe it was my choice to have a child and my responsibilty to support her.

Well said. I wish more people had your outlook.

Prudent

The villages were both north of Aberdeen. The first one was close to Dyce which seemed to push the prices higher.

ukcarper

I think Liphook and Bordon in Hampshire illustrate the problem

Borden Army town no railway station 3 bed semi £180k
Liphook nice town with railway stations 3-bed semi £265k

They are 5 miles apart

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Prudent wrote: »

The villages were both north of Aberdeen. The first one was close to Dyce which seemed to push the prices higher.

Thanks. I thought so.

South has been cheaper for some time due to the better dual carriageway commute opening up a much larger choice of destinations within a reasonable drivetime.

North is more limited, but those working in and around Dyce have little choice, as the commute through the city is horrific. Even more so nowadays, but the Aberdeen bypass opening should level the playing field a bit, as the Southern shire will open up as a commute for the Dyce workers.

LydiaJ

Single mothers and MPs ... if you tell people that there is free money or stuff available for them and all they have to do is claim it, then the vast majority of people will claim whatever they are allowed to claim. There are some who will bend the rules, and lie on their forms, to get more than they should be entitled to, yes, and we can and should oppose that because it's wrong.

However, the "normal" people, the "honest, decent" people, will fill in their forms truthfully and claim what they have been told they can claim. It doesn't matter whether its universal child benefit, or free TV licences for the over 70s, or a free coffee with your copy of the newspaper - almost everyone will do this. There are a few very principled people who disapprove of handouts in general or specific handouts in particular, and who will make their own arrangements and pay for things they could get for free, but they're rare.

Take me, for example. I'm a single mother. Why do I work?
Well, partly because I have an interesting career and two jobs that I love.
Partly because I've always worked - apart from 4 years as a SAHM when my then husband was earning enough to support me. When he lost his job, I went back to work. When he left me, I increased my hours.
Partly because I am better off working than I would be on benefit.
Partly because there is nobody in my family or my circle of close friends who has been a single mum living solely on benefits, so it's not there in my mental map of potential life choices.

But why do I work 65% of full time?
Well, partly because both my jobs are demanding ones that you have to take home with you in the evenings.
Partly because my children have been devastated by the double blow of Daddy firstly leaving and then dying, and they need more of my attention than I could give them if I worked full time.
But also partly because I can afford to. I used to be part time because child/working tax credit would make up the gap in what I got by combining my earnings and the maintenance that late-nearly-ex used to pay. Now I have a patchwork of income sources - two part-time salaries, widow's pensions from two schemes, widowed parent's allowance, and child/working tax credit. It adds up to enough to live on. It doesn't run to foreign holidays, but that doesn't matter to me as much as being able to do school pickup myself twice a week and not having to spend all evening working every day of the week.

There's no point in blaming today's single mothers for making use of the handouts that are provided for them. People respond to incentives. They always have. Changes to any system have unintended consequences. They always have. So I categorically disagree with Hamish when he says that I could have stopped my post after saying that breeding for benefits ought not to be available as a lifestyle choice. To say that without giving any serious thought to how to do things is just facile. How on earth to provide for the unfortunate without enabling the work-shy is the big question, not a mere detail.