In work poverty due to overpriced housing costs

Bonniepurple

SingleSue wrote: »

I studied hard at school, I put in the hard work in my career by working all the hours I could and went the extra mile until I was a high rate tax payer....unfortunately however, we were then hit with disabilities which derailed everything.

On paper, I have failed. I am now in a minimum wage, very part time hours job and live in social housing, in reality though my life just took a different turn and I am proud of what I have achieved on my alternative path.

I'm not jealous of others though, life is life and sometimes it throws you lemons (or as ex hubby used to say "S**t happens")

I also worked really hard at school and Uni (I’ve got 2 degrees), but I can’t cope with full time work. It took me long enough to get a job, and even now I’m extremely junior.

Kim_kim wrote: »

I’m also a contributor, I think it’s about 35k isn’t it, per person to be a contributor rather than a benefiter.

But I think it’s a national shame that we have people sleeping on our streets, we are supposed to be a first world country.

I am a taker. Even if I worked full time (which various conditions and disabilities mean I can’t) I would probably still be a net taker as a civil servant. I do give in other ways though. I’m a school governor in 2 schools. DH and I keep an eye on elderly parents. We are trying to guide our children through the maze that is life in 21st Century Britain.

Queenriderbrekke wrote: »

Partly what has changed is peoples expectations.

When my husband and I married and started on the property ladder we had a registry office wedding and a reasonably cheap little evening party with a buffet. Nowadays many couples seem to think they need to spend absolutely thousands on stag/hen parties/weddings/honeymoons.

It was a struggle to get the deposit for a house but we managed it by playing monopoly and chess in the evenings instead of going to the pub or out for meals on dates:)

When we moved into our house, we couldn't afford furniture so only thing we had new was the oven.

Second hand washing machine (Twin Tub then lol) with a leak that you had to mop up after using. Carpets that other relatives had stored in their lofts when no longer needed and a worse for the wear set of awful brown and metal chair and sofa.

Not many make do and mend these days and tend to want it all with no compromise.

Our first bought property was a repossession, so we needed everything. Our second (current) property had belonged to someone who went into sheltered accommodation and so we were very grateful for the fridge, freezer, cooker and washing machine that they left behind - less things to plug in on moving day! Our sitting room furniture comes from the local Lions’ Club. In fact, most of our stuff is second or third hand. However, we do have up to date (ish!) gadgets. It’s what’s important to individuals.

Cakeguts

I just want to say that people with children are not the poor. Poverty is not about money it is about lack of choice.



The poor who sofa surf or who have to live with parents because they have no choice are those who are disabled or have a severe mental illness. They cannot have families, relationships, or a normal life wherever they live because as a country we concentrate too hard on people who have children but don't want to work hard at either looking after them or housing them. If you choose to have children you also choose to house them. That doesn't have to be 6 month tenancies but it will be if you stop paying the rent or get into arrears. There is a benefit system that acts as a safety net for people who need a top up in housing costs but still people don't pay the rent and spend the money on gadgets that they don't need.



200 hundred years ago people lived without televisions, computers, mobile phones, cars, central heating, holidays, fridges, washing machines etc. These are all luxuries not one of them is a necessity that will cause you to die if you don't have it.



If you have children and you can't afford to buy a television then you don't buy one. The same goes for any other luxury item. In this country in the early part of the 1930s most people did not own a television or a computer and they were not less intelligent than we are. If you need information there are public libraries.



When I bought my first house most of my furniture and all my carpets were second hand. I had a black and white television because I couldn't afford the licence for a colour one. Now everyone has to have a colour television it has become a necessity but of course it isn't a necessity it is a luxury that people seem to think that they are entitled to have even if they can't really afford it. There is nothing wrong with reading a book borrowed from a local library instead. In fact children would be better off doing this than watching the television.



What the country is short of is supported housing not more family housing. We have enough family housing. What we need is housing for people who don't have a choice. You don't see them because the have to live with parents or relatives so they don't tend to get counted as being homeless.



I would like those people who have chosen to have children to think a lot more about those who cannot have relationships, or children, or any other normal choice simply because they do not have the kind of housing that they need. It is ultra selfish to complain about lack of choice if you have all the available choices like moving to a cheaper area but choose not to when there are so many disabled adults who have no choices at all.



I am pretty sure that if people cut out all the luxuries like having children, televisions, computers, mobile phones, pets, holidays, washing machines etc they would have enough to pay for their housing. Yes having children is a luxury that many people can't have it isn't a necessity you won't die if you don't have a child. You can't have everything if you want all the luxuries then something else has to go.



People need to take more responsibility about the choices they make. If you can't afford to bring up and house children then don't have them. Children don't ask to be born. It is always the selfish decision of their parents to have them.

Arklight

lisyloo wrote: »

Won’t market forces sort this out.
So for example if we couldn’t get nurses in Surrey then we’d either have to pay them more of work out a way or encouraging them to live their e.g. supply accommodation.

The fact that nurses, bin men, bus drivers are willing to work in Surrey/London and we don’t have massive shortages means the pips aren’t really squeaking yet.

If it was so bad then they’d all be seeking work elsewhere and there would be shortages surely?

So where do the nurses/bin men/bus drivers of Surrey live?
Rented?

And crucially it’s either not bad enough for them to move or they have other reasons not to move that are stronger than the desire to own a home?

There is a teacher and nurse shortage in London (and everywhere else, by about 40,000 each). Not noticeable perhaps unless you are admitted to hospital or you have children in school being taught by a succession of unqualified cover supervisors.

Market forces should bring up very low wage jobs, but we pay in work benefits to people to top up their incomes from their low wages. Which is another form of corporate welfare, the only kind of welfare the government is really keen on funding.

It makes little sense to me when you have cleaners in One Canada Square claiming housing benefit and Universal Credit just so they can live in London so that astoundingly wealthy corporations can pay them minimum wage to do low skill but essential jobs.

If companies in Canary Wharf want cleaners I would say they can pay the going rate to employ a cleaner, not pay a rate no one can live on in London and have the taxpyayer top the wages up with benefits. I know they are used to taxpayer bail outs but maybe it should stop somewhere...

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

I am baffled by this persistent and weird idea that the supposed social utility of a job should somehow increase the wages of those who do it...

Good luck in that nursing home.

Zero_Sum

lisyloo wrote: »

Won’t market forces sort this out.
So for example if we couldn’t get nurses in Surrey then we’d either have to pay them more of work out a way or encouraging them to live their e.g. supply accommodation.

The fact that nurses, bin men, bus drivers are willing to work in Surrey/London and we don’t have massive shortages means the pips aren’t really squeaking yet.

If it was so bad then they’d all be seeking work elsewhere and there would be shortages surely?

So where do the nurses/bin men/bus drivers of Surrey live?
Rented?

And crucially it’s either not bad enough for them to move or they have other reasons not to move that are stronger than the desire to own a home?

The ones that are willing to work in London are generally immigrants who are willing to live in cramped (often illegal) conditions. And this whole situation feeds into Brexit & why London wanted the status quo, and the rest of the country are fed up

Arklight

Zero_Sum wrote: »

The ones that are willing to work in London are generally immigrants who are willing to live in cramped (often illegal) conditions. And this whole situation feeds into Brexit & why London wanted the status quo, and the rest of the country are fed up

London voted Remain because Londoners love housing immigrants (who can't vote) in cramped conditions and paying them low wages and the rest of the country that doesn't live in London voted to free them?

Okay.

snowqueen555

I wouldn't call myself poor, but I can't afford a property where I am. I have lived in a house share for the past 7 years so have been able to save on a low salary, no holiday for 5 years. I realise I need to move away from the area, or find a better paying job, or find a partner. At this point in time I have no career/relationship so moving to a cheaper city seems like the path of least resistance.

I have a few friends with kids who have chosen to rent a 2-3 bed house over a small 2 bed flat (and save some money). Unfortunately for many, a sacrifice has to be made but many people do not wish to do it.

I am just unlucky to live in an expensive city. If I were in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Newcastle I could afford a low end 2 bed flat/house on my own.

ska_lover

MobileSaver wrote: »

As you work with a homeless charity, would you disagree that many homeless people are in the situation they are in because of bad choices they themselves made in the past?

Maybe I'm heartless but I do not have too much sympathy for people who went down the path of drink, drugs, gambling or criminality while I worked my backside off every day for years and made sacrifices to get to where I am today.

What you say is not an uncommon opinion, but I feel there is a much bigger picture

Really it is not for me to judge. I don't walk in their shoes.

There are a lot of other factors involved that you haven't mentioned.

Few examples are:

Domestic violence
Loss of relationship
Job loss
Bad mental health
Abuse
Home destroyed by fire
Teenagers being kicked out by parents
Left the care system, or the Army
Landlord selling their home

are just a very few issues I have noticed - these people have often worked their backsides off, for years, same as you...Until that defining event that made them homeless

So many different stories and people from many different backgrounds

Some people are just down on their luck. At the end of the day, it really is just as simple as that.

I don't do paid work for the Charity, I just volunteer for the night shelter when I can

The whole thing really opened my eyes

Yes there are substance abusers, + of those sometimes come with far reaching medical or psychological issues .

And you get the ones who keep circling the system, as once housed, there is little support and they end up overwhelmed due to mental health issues, and it all goes wrong and back they come...to the devil they know......and I do strongly feel there should be a support package in place for Homeless when they are housed, for the first few months at least.....especially the street homeless who might need support

Edit to add, there are also a lot of substance abusers (at least in my town) who masquerade as homeless and beg during the day, and go back to their own home at the end of the day. There are at least half a dozen well known faces in my town, who do this. It gives the genuine homeless unnecessary additional bad image

ska_lover

snowqueen555 wrote: »

I am just unlucky to live in an expensive city. If I were in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Newcastle I could afford a low end 2 bed flat/house on my own.

Would you consider moving?

Arklight

MobileSaver wrote: »

I did look for official, impartial stats but couldn't find any; do you have a source for the reasons the majority are homeless?

My own (admittedly brief) search seemed to indicate the main reason for homelessness was ex-cons and so my lack of sympathy (for many although not all) stands. Even the main homeless charity, Crisis, lists criminality as the first reason causing homelessness:

I'm surprised you didn't find anything. If you google "homelessness mental health", "homelessness domestic violence", "homelessness foster care," or any of the other terms I mentioned there is a wealth of evidence.

Prison is certainly a factor in homelessness, but the UK incarcerates more people, for more minor crimes, than anywhere else in Europe, and the contributing factor to those crimes tends to be - mental illness, foster care, abuse in childhood, etc etc.

One could argue that the people who are good at crime don't end up on the streets, or in prison.