2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

Orpheo

pushedtothelimit wrote: »

Agree, totally. I'm 25 and got married this year. We both have good careers and we rent. This year we had to move in February (LL wanted to move back in to property) and again August (LL was having an affair and so moved us out so he could move in). This has probably cost us about a grand in extra agency and moving fees and incredible amounts of upheaval and upset. The instability and lack of security is an enormous issue for us and is truly a barrier to us starting a family. We really want to have a family and could survive well enough on one wage (currently, we are just pushing all my salary into savings in the hope that one day we might be able to own) but the insecurity of renting strikes fear into us as we are very scarred from our experience.

This is your personal view formed from your own personal experiences. Fair enough. You say you are scarred from your experience of having to move house? Bless. Let's hope life doesn't throw any real problems at you.

Orpheo

olly300 wrote: »

I suggest you talk to adults who had father who was in the military or worked around the world and followed them, if you think moving a lot helps the child feel secure.

As a child gets older they rely more on their peers.

I didn't say that moving a lot helps a child feel secure. You just put those words in my mouth.

One of my very close friends was an American military brat, and he is very outgoing, adaptable and talks about his "issues", so you haven't presented me with any new insights.

lostinrates

Percy1983 wrote: »

True its millions of years or random chaos.

Back to stability, I do agree that a loving etc is a huge part of stability, but so is not having to move every year. If I change my childs school every year how will they ever form lasting friendships, at what point would they stop trying because it will all change soon anyway. The thought of moving every year stresses me just to think about it and its not even happening to me so it would be stressful if I had to and of course children would pick up on that stress.

In short I have delayed having children until I can provide what I deem to be a stable environment and support my children in full, I don't expect anybody else to pay for my decision to have children, basically taking full responsibilty for my choices in life.

I disagree with this. As a child who moved A LOT during primary school years and before I have people I'm still in contact with. One of my dearest friends I was at school with for a year when we were 9. Moving a lot gave me very valuable different skills. I make friends quickly, am open to different social situations and enjoy communicating with people of divergent backgrounds and opinions. I learned the ''traditional'' way from my family was not the way everywhere. Because a lot of this moving was abroad and I had to travel alone I also learnt to be content with my own company and to be ''brave'' and that smiles get you more help from strangers than grumpiness.

edit: to catch up with conversation: I felt secure when I knew where everyone was, I like a certain amount of shake up to routine and I do not believe moving to follow my fathers' career made me feel insecure. In fact it was also a bonus I felt comfortable with that when the time came to follow DH for his career.

pushedtothelimit

Orpheo wrote: »

This is your personal view formed from your own personal experiences. Fair enough. You say you are scarred from your experience of having to move house? Bless. Let's hope life doesn't throw any real problems at you.

We had to move house the first time 5 weeks after my husband was diagnosed with cancer, in the middle of treatment. It was hugely stressful, as was having to do it again 6 months later.

Does that count as a 'real problem' now?

Orpheo

pushedtothelimit wrote: »

We had to move house the first time 5 weeks after my husband was diagnosed with cancer, in the middle of treatment. It was hugely stressful, as was having to do it again 6 months later.

Does that count as a 'real problem' now?

Be fair, you said that moving house had left you scarred.

Your husband's cancer was indeed a real problem; moving house is just one of those things. That you were forced to do it is just circumstances, which sometimes conspire against us. But that doesn't make renting less stable than buying. What if you need sudden boiler repairs that cost £1000? What if you wake up to find your ground floor flooded? What if your house begins to sink into the ground or gets heaved out of the ground? Life throws crap at you, but it throws good things at you too, lots of good things in my life have come through my daughter.

lostinrates

pushedtothelimit wrote: »

We had to move house the first time 5 weeks after my husband was diagnosed with cancer, in the middle of treatment. It was hugely stressful, as was having to do it again 6 months later.

Does that count as a 'real problem' now?

That is immensely stressful. I'd like to see a change to UK tenancies to make them more secure.

It would be equally stressful, I guess, if illness meant, for example, you had to sell a home to downsize while undergoing medical treatment because you couldn't pay the mortgage.

pushedtothelimit

lostinrates wrote: »

That is immensely stressful. I'd like to see a change to UK tenancies to make them more secure.

It would be equally stressful, I guess, if illness meant, for example, you had to sell a home to downsize while undergoing medical treatment because you couldn't pay the mortgage.

I agree.

Luckily, we had the foresight to have invested in income protection insurance so were covered against lost income over and above standard sick pay. If/when we get a mortgage we will be sure to invest in adequate protection for mortgage payments too.

Unfortunately, you can't insure against the *ahem* affairs of your landlord.

Percy1983

Orpheo wrote: »

Be fair, you said that moving house had left you scarred.

Your husband's cancer was indeed a real problem; moving house is just one of those things. That you were forced to do it is just circumstances, which sometimes conspire against us. But that doesn't make renting less stable than buying. What if you need sudden boiler repairs that cost £1000? What if you wake up to find your ground floor flooded? What if your house begins to sink into the ground or gets heaved out of the ground? Life throws crap at you, but it throws good things at you too, lots of good things in my life have come through my daughter.

If I buy it isn't 'just one of those things', yes I am aware many things will try to trip me up in life, I don't want 'having to move because my LL feels like it' to be one of them.

As much as you can argue its fine, to many of us the thought of our home being potentially being taken away at a months notice makes us feel its not not our home, would make us feel very insecure and be enough for us not to have children until its sorted.

Orpheo wrote: »

If you choose not to have children then I respect that right, but it is not acceptable to suggest that that choice is the only "rational" or "responsible" thing to do,

Because it so responsible to just have children whenever you want and expect everybody else to pay for them?

Orpheo

Percy1983 wrote: »

Because it so responsible to just have children whenever you want and expect everybody else to pay for them?

When did I say this? Quote me.

You are the second person to put words in my mouth.

I have said before in this thread that if you have children you man up and take responsibility.

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

Genetics is not a lottery.

okay, scientifically flawed analogy. however having children is not what determines which genes survive longterm. even if blue eyed blonde haired people continue to have children blonde hair and blue eyed genes will most likely disappear. take it down a few generations and your individual decision as to whether you have children has little to no bearing on the genes you carry being carried on.