Generation rent article in today's paper

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Does this mean that most couples you know with kids don't have two working parents?

I don't know a single couple with kids that don't both work full-time. The best I can do is someone on maternity and going back full-time and another at the end of maternity working 6 months at 3 days/ week before going full-time.

All the people you know with kids work full time?

How old are the kids in general? And how are they looking after the kids? Grandparents / Nursery etc?

High flying jobs or more routine jobs?

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All the people you know with kids work full time?

How old are the kids in general? And how are they looking after the kids? Grandparents / Nursery etc?

High flying jobs or more routine jobs?

It's not that astounding.
Like wotsthat I don't know ANY SAHM's. I know one who applied to reduce to 3 days a week (doing same job) and was accepted, and another who did that but works 4 days.
Yes the kids are cared for in a variety of ways but often a mix. eg grandparents one day and nursery the others etc.

High flying jobs? Depends on what you mean. Yes, well above nat min wage but not lawyers etc.
£30k jobs up to £50k jobs I'd guess. Age has something to do with that. I don't know many (any?) women who've had kids in their 20's.

Graham_Devon

Well it's surprising to me. I can honestly say I only know of one couple who both work full time and have 2 young children. However, their grandparents live up the road and are happy to collect and take to school etc.

The rest I know, all work, but all work with one full time and one part time. Maybe it's due to the type of jobs down here. I guess living in a city with decent career opportunities things may be different. Certainly working full time in a clothes shop, tescos, office etc wouldn't be worth the nursery fees.

I guess a 30-50k job would make a huge difference. I'm talking more 16k jobs. The sort PN often refers to down here as the norm. It doesn't make it worth it full time with fees for childcare.

Only jobless people I know are single parents, for whom in many cases, they would be worse off working, so can see their point.

I also don't know anyone simply unemployed and dossing.

the_flying_pig

ok article in that it repeatedly mentions price [£160k] vs. earnings [£26k] rather than stupidly painting looser lending, which would push prices higher, as a panacea.

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe it's due to the type of jobs down here. I guess living in a city with decent career opportunities things may be different. Certainly working full time in a clothes shop, tescos, office etc wouldn't be worth the nursery fees.

I guess a 30-50k job would make a huge difference. I'm talking more 16k jobs. The sort PN often refers to down here as the norm. It doesn't make it worth it full time with fees for childcare.

Agreed. The Mrs is from Cornwall, and frankly, I'm always amazed at just how poor/deprived large parts of the county are, and whilst Devon is certainly better it too suffers from a lack of large industry/corporations.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, same down here.

But most couples I know who both work full time don't have kiddies.

Most of them have kids.

We are talking about buying house initially the mortgage repayment at 6% would be about £1175
Net income would be £3200. If after a couple of years one person went part time and earns up to tax allowance income would be about £2300 + £140 child benefit(2 children) and tax credits not sure what if any that would be so not totally unaffordable.

My example was for Surrey where average income is higher than national average. Unfortunately in places like Devon where house prices are above or near national average and wages are below things become much more difficult.

edgex

vivatifosi wrote: »

Yet another article asking how when the average salary is £26k people can afford the average house of £162k. Surely the answer is you buy something cheaper than £162k.

I live in Hertfordshire, one of the most expensive areas of the country and a reasonable commute for London. You can buy one bedroom flats here for upwards of £80k and there's a reasonable selection under £100k, not shared ownership either. If people really want to buy their first property it is still possible.

theres a lot of people who are nowhere near this average salary though, eg you can get a newly qualified accountant for ~£20k around here, nurses are ~£21k
pay rises are small, if any

asking prices on 1bed flats are around £100k
so were talking about a 5x mortgage!

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Why don't young people move out for better paid work?

They do. But when you are part of a couple, that may not be quite so easy. And worth remembering you also lose your grandparents as babysitters etc.

If local pay means that they can't afford to have kids and work to support them it doesn't seem that attractive. Kids bought up in a workless environment are more likely to end up in the same situation themselves and spend their lives as net benefit recipients.

I'm not talking about a workless environment. I'm just stating I don't know anyone in a couple with (at least younger children) who both work full time, apart from one couple.

Most I know one parent works full time and one part time, in general. This allows for work to take place when the kids are under the natural childcare of the school, or for part time evening work when one parent is back home.

Without a proper support network, be that full time childcare or full time grandparents acting as parents bringing up the children, 2 parents working full time would be difficult. It obviously happens all over the country, but generally I find it only happens when the parents are career focused and in high paying jobs, where it's still worth working after childcare fees. This is more likely to be confined to cities due to the jobs there.

For example, one partner working as an engineer and another as an office manager would bring in about £46k gross combined down here. Childcare fees however (for one toddler for example) would swallow up approximately (based on what I pay for a couple of sessions) £10,800 a year.

Not really worth working for the lower paid person.

moneyinmypocket

If you can't afford to have kids don't have them

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most I know one parent works full time and one part time, in general. This allows for work to take place when the kids are under the natural childcare of the school, or for part time evening work when one parent is back home.

Without a proper support network, be that full time childcare or full time grandparents bringing up the children, 2 parents working full time would be difficult. It obviously happens all over the country, but generally I find it only happens when the parents are career focused and in high paying jobs, where it's still worth working after childcare fees.

In the context of generation rent though what's the solution?

If £16k is the normal wage in the South-West (it's not but I'm using your figure) and therefore £24k is a full time plus part time wage then a couple with a 3.6x mortgage and 10% deposit are looking at a £96,000 house.

That's going to limit their options. House prices aren't going to come down to meet their requirements and even if they did they'd be outcompeted by people who were better off.

Sometimes it has to be accepted that things won't just work out unless you do something drastic. Move away, get more qualifications, work two jobs, longer hours, get a house before having kids, try and choose a father for your children that's going to stick around, etc.

It also has to be accepted that some people just won't be able to buy. Most likely those earning low wages in expensive areas.