Generation rent article in today's paper

FTBFun

edgex wrote: »

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

Really? Admittedly I work in London but I was on £23k in 2005 as a trainee.

Graham_Devon

I think it's been accepted that people can't buy down here. It's been accepted for some time. Indeed, groups of people in Cornwall got together to make their stand, but didn't get anywhere.

However, this lack of affordability is hitting more and more of the country as we pass through the months and years.

I don't think we can just write that off as something that has to be accepted, as it doesn't have to be. Just need the right politicians to make the right choices for the people they serve. Unfortunately, we don't have them, and unfortunately, at the moment, the grouped voice of these people is not enough to combat the voices of those 10 years older doing very nicely thanks very much.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think it's been accepted that people can't buy down here. It's been accepted for some time. Indeed, groups of people in Cornwall got together to make their stand, but didn't get anywhere.

However, this lack of affordability is hitting more and more of the country as we pass through the months and years.

I don't think we can just write that off as something that has to be accepted, as it doesn't have to be. Just need the right politicians to make the right choices for the people they serve. Unfortunately, we don't have them, and unfortunately, at the moment, the grouped voice of these people is not enough to combat the voices of those 10 years older doing very nicely thanks very much.

I usually find myself underwhelmed when people make a stand about such things as the solutions seem to involve a transfer of wealth from those who took opportunities to those that didn't.

I've never been to an ante-natal appointment, scan, missed every first step, first words, never seen a nativity play or been to many parent teachers meetings. In the first 5 years of my son's life I worked 7 days a week. We were skint and low paid - one of us packing up work seemed incomprehensible - my wife went back to work when my first child was 3 months old for a laughable net income increase.

There were no nursery vouchers, WTC or willing/ able grandparents to help out. It wasn't the 60's or 70's but the mid 90's. Slowly but surely things got better and pay rises, bonuses and job changes made a big difference.

We did that so we could afford to have a house and children that wouldn't have to live on benefits (like we did as kids). We didn't do it for the benefit of people who simply are not willing to put themselves out in the same way just a few short years later.

The people who say it's just not worth working may as well pack it up - that's the attitude of people who are unlikely to see a promotion or bonus anyway.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I usually find myself underwhelmed when people make a stand about such things as the solutions seem to involve a transfer of wealth from those who took opportunities to those that didn't.

I've never been to an ante-natal appointment, scan, missed every first step, first words, never seen a nativity play or been to many parent teachers meetings. In the first 5 years of my son's life I worked 7 days a week. We were skint and low paid - one of us packing up work seemed incomprehensible - my wife went back to work when my first child was 3 months old for a laughable net income increase.

There were no nursery vouchers, WTC or willing/ able grandparents to help out. It wasn't the 60's or 70's but the mid 90's. Slowly but surely things got better and pay rises, bonuses and job changes made a big difference.

We did that so we could afford to have a house and children that wouldn't have to live on benefits (like we did as kids). We didn't do it for the benefit of people who simply are not willing to put themselves out in the same way just a few short years later.

The people who say it's just not worth working may as well pack it up - that's the attitude of people who are unlikely to see a promotion or bonus anyway.

What you say is correct, but I think we are talking about two disctintly differing scenarios.

The very fact that there weren't any of the benefits you mention is a major point. Rightly or wrongly, when looking out for ones self, you have to weigh up the loss of benefits with the income earnt.

You've put an emotive slant on what I stated, which has, in all honesty, won that argument. However, the distinct difference here is that the jobs that are available around me don't generally offer promotion. Certainly no bonuses. That's a whole different arena, something totally alien to many working in the south west for a south west company. If they work in the South West for a large city or multinational, then sure, bonuses kick in. I get the feeling I sound like PN, but that's presumably because what's stated is correct, and we both see the same thing form approximately the same area.

I just think were talking 2 very different scenarios and probably basing our thoughts on that. What's key to remember is that none of us are right and every family is different.

There is, unfortunately, a problem whereby working actually gives you very little back. When weighed up against actually being with your family, many, IMHO, quite rightly decide that family is more important than an extra 3k a year (for instance) after childcare costs.

As I say, i can't really deny anything you have stated. All I can do is offer an alterrior viewpoint, from what seems, an alterior lifestyle. On a personal level, if it was the choice of netting an extra 3k a year, or being there for scans, first words etc, I'd forgo the 3k. (3k just an example based on a full time job down here after childcare costs....not even looking at other benefits). Whether that's right or wrong is down to personal opinion.

Edited to add: That 3k a year more today would have, I'd have thought, amounted to a lot more in the mid 90's. Childcare was cheaper and easier. You didn't lose out to "entitlements" (horrible word) if you worked more. You just simply earnt more, with a lower childcare cost attached. Maybe if today was on the same level as the mid 90s, then that 3k would turn into 6-9k extra and become "worthwhile" again. I dunno. I used to be very against people on benefits, but I've had the opportunity to work with someone (lone parent) to try and get them a job. I couldn't find a way of working, and keeping their home. There was simply no way for them to work and keep the same standard of living for her and her 2 children. Therefore my suggestion, much to my disgust, was to stay on benefits and work with us up to 14 hours a week instead of full time.

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I say, i can't really deny anything you have stated. All I can do is offer an alterrior viewpoint, from what seems, an alterior lifestyle.

Alterior? I'd have picked an alternative(?) word.

Anyway, as you state, there is no "right" or "wrong" in this and your point about the, for example, £3k is easier to consider if it is just £3k.
But of course it is the unseen costs of missed years of advancement and career development that are often not considered. If they're never an option then fair enough but I'd guess too many people consider the very short term impact/differences only.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is, unfortunately, a problem whereby working actually gives you very little back. When weighed up against actually being with your family, many, IMHO, quite rightly decide that family is more important than an extra 3k a year (for instance) after childcare costs.

I suppose in a way I was 'lucky' in that I didn't have to weigh up the costs of spending more time with my family vs. the extra income as there was no choice.

It's amazing how the benefits system has developed in just a few short years. Child poverty has been reduced but the growth of the entitlement culture is easy to see. There's also an argument that increased benefits are subsiding low paying employers and low pay is always going to be a hindrance to home ownership.

Graham_Devon

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Alterior? I'd have picked an alternative(?) word.

Anyway, as you state, there is no "right" or "wrong" in this and your point about the, for example, £3k is easier to consider if it is just £3k.
But of course it is the unseen costs of missed years of advancement and career development that are often not considered. If they're never an option then fair enough but I'd guess too many people consider the very short term impact/differences only.

I guess it boils down to one point. Your employment.

Who you work for, what you do, and the size of the company / prospects available to you. Just thinking about my immediate close friends. One works for a tyres and exhaust company. Already as high as he can go, manager of the branch. One works for a logistics company, and yes, theres scope to become manager, but that's about it.

Both of their partners are in the caring arena. So theres absolutely no chance of bonuses or career progression there. Ultimately extremely low pay too.

All those people caring, laying roads, emptying dustbins, serving you in Next, Tesco, Sainsburys. All the plumbers, builders, mechanics, drivers, teachers, midwives, policeman etc. They are jobs. Not "Careers" in the main. A few will make a career out of being a policeman and work up the ranks to a senior position, but not most, it's impossible. For all those couples with jobs such as this, jobs which are needed to keep the country going, bonuses and promotions don't come into it. A midwife gets the same bonus as someone does down a manhole cover doing a site inspection. Nothing. Paying someone 600 quid a week to look after your children out of school term time while you earn £400 a week just isn't viable.

I'd guess most jobs are like this in the South West, with very few being career based high flyers. That's not to say there aren't these career focused people making 40-50k a year, of course there are. But I'd guess many more are raising kids on salaries based on the jobs listed above.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I suppose in a way I was 'lucky' in that I didn't have to weigh up the costs of spending more time with my family vs. the extra income as there was no choice.

It's amazing how the benefits system has developed in just a few short years. Child poverty has been reduced but the growth of the entitlement culture is easy to see. There's also an argument that increased benefits are subsiding low paying employers and low pay is always going to be a hindrance to home ownership.

I think what you have said is the biggest difference. The lack of choice.

I applaud you for what you did, and honestly believe the country would be a better place if things were still the same. As it is, they are not, and drip feeding people benefits cash while keeping wages low is creating this issue for many families.

It becomes a very easy choice to make if you face paying a childminder on a salary of under 20k. Is it worth it when you consider the loss of benefits at the same time? Not really. Life is a lot easier if you have a partner doing all the family stuff, rather than cramming it all in after work for no financial gain.

Would it be worth it if you had no choice and no benefits to lose;. Almost definately.

chewmylegoff

edgex wrote: »

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

i know someone who joined GT's birmingham office as a newly qualified accountant (ACA) in about 2005 and he was on £35k then (which was about £5k shy of what he would have got at the same firm in london at the time). when he left in 2009 his salary was a lot more than that.

a quick google tells me there are plenty of jobs for newly qualifieds in birmingham advertised at around £30k. even if you're a bit of a spaz (or an ACCA as they are also known) it looks like you could make at least £25k.

i am sure there are newly qualifieds earning £20k in birmingham (probably AATs, or part time), but i am also sure that is not an average for someone with ACCA, ACA, CIMA etc.

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

given that you're unlikely to pay asking price, and that you will need at least a 10% deposit to buy you're probably only lookinng at an ~£85k mortgage on a £100k flat.

chewmylegoff

SecureOnTheLadder wrote: »

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times, there is absolutely nothing wrong with renting, if that is all you can afford. In all walks of life there are winners and losers, and as such, homeowners and renters.

well, given that this is apparently your second post, i should think you are limited to having said it a maximum of twice.