In work poverty due to overpriced housing costs

Arklight

lisyloo wrote: »

So the responsibility lies with the viewer to change their perception?

I don’t blame people for the cards they are dealt but what they choose to do (including choosing to become a soldier) they need to take responsibility for, no?

Studies into attribution theory show that people usually assume others deserve their failures, Conversely, when it comes to ourselves, we usually attribute our failures to bad fortune outside our control, but ignore our own leg-ups and attribute our successes to our own genius and hard work.

A case in point is Donald Trump who appears to genuinely believe he is self made, and refers to a "very small" million dollar loan from his father, which on investigation was actually more like $60 million.

I'm not sure if you're implying that soldiers deserve to end up on the streets. I am fairly sure that's not mentioned in the recruitment campaigns when they're teenagers.

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/armed-forces-veterans-homeless-crime-prison-mental-health/

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

Studies into attribution theory show that people usually assume others deserve their failures, Conversely, when it comes to ourselves, we usually attribute our failures to bad fortune outside our control, but ignore our own leg-ups and attribute our successes to our own genius and hard work.

A case in point is Donald Trump who appears to genuinely believe he is self made, and refers to a "very small" million dollar loan from his father, which on investigation was actually more like $60 million.

I'm not sure if you're implying that soldiers deserve to end up on the streets. I am fairly sure that's not mentioned in the recruitment campaigns when they're teenagers.

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/armed-forces-veterans-homeless-crime-prison-mental-health/

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.



Our policy makers prioritise people who have made bad financial choices and had children they can't afford or are trying to live in an area they can't afford over people who have no choices because they are disabled physically or have a bad mental illness.



What we need is more housing for people who have disabilities either physical or mental not more family housing. People with choices don't need the taxpayers to house them. It is the vulnerable people with no choice who need the housing.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.



Our policy makers prioritise people who have made bad financial choices and had children they can't afford or are trying to live in an area they can't afford over people who have no choices because they are disabled physically or have a bad mental illness.



What we need is more housing for people who have disabilities either physical or mental not more family housing. People with choices don't need the taxpayers to house them. It is the vulnerable people with no choice who need the housing.

Housing for children?

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

Housing for children?

It is the responsibility of their parents to house them. Once someone makes the choice to have a child they become responsible for housing that child. It is all down to the choices they make.



Disabled people often don't have these choices.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is the responsibility of their parents to house them. Once someone makes the choice to have a child they become responsible for housing that child. It is all down to the choices they make.



Disabled people often don't have these choices.

It's the responsibility of their parents to house them up to the point they fail to do that, then it becomes the responsibility of the local authority and social services.

As they'll generally try not to split families up this usually means the parents being housed, along with the child.

Do you have a different solution to this?

lisyloo

Arklight wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're implying that soldiers deserve to end up on the streets.

Absolutely not, I value those who do that job greatly.
However it’s pretty obvious it’s a dangerous job (not because of PTSD but because you might get killed). I don’t think this needs pointing out at recruitment, I think it falls into the eye wateringly obvious category that fighting wars with guns is more dangerous than working in an office.
I just think (like our criminal justice system) there should be some moral hazard.

So for example if someone commits a crime (say burglary) we don’t say, never mind it’s not your fault we’ll let you off (although there should be help available to rehabilitate).

I do think help should be available for those with PTSD and others and to an extent there is help available e.g. GPs will help addicts who want help.
However I’m sure you’ll agree it’s complicated, soldiers in particular being a group who would see it as weak to ask for help.

I would like to see more help for homeless in general, but I’m not sure they would all be housed if say housing was 50% cheaper.
High cost housing may not help but I don’t think there’s many on the streets simply for financial reasons (if they only have financial problems they should be able to access benefits and have friends and family as well).
Its more complicated that just high housing prices which means people have to share, move or buy less housing. It rarely means they literally can’t get any at all, so is not high on the list of direct causes.

lisyloo

Kim_kim wrote: »

Because potentially they may have to move every 6 months. They may have to change schools frequently.

I don’t think this is true that people in rented all move every six months and it’s always outside the school catchment area.
Yes sometimes they may have to move when they don’t want to because lanlord is entitled to their place back.
They be very unlucky (if they are decent tenants) to have this happen regularly and also unlucky not to be able to find anywhere at all in the same school catchment area.
Landlords actually like good tenants who pay on time and look after the place.
If you know people who are being chucked out every six months then chances are there is more to that story than meets the eye.

I’ve been in my place 5 years now, but I also chose a landlord who wasn’t likely to want to sell up I.e. had an interest in being a professional lanlord long term.
You can’t see into the future but you can vet you landlord, pay on time and look after the place.

lisyloo

bertiewhite wrote: »

I'm struggling to work out what you're trying to infer by "take responsibility for"? Are you saying "they knew what they were letting themselves in for"? If so, then who will keep you safe at night?

If you are a fire fighter then you might expect at some point in your career to get burnt or suffer from smoke inhalation?
If you are a policeman you can expect to get punched, spat at at some point during your career?
If you are a soldiers you have a higher risk of death.
These are to me eye wateringly obvious facts.

There should be good benefits for work related deaths, injuries but beyond that it’s a risk and if you’re not willing to take that risk then isn’t it eye wateringly obvious you shouldn’t go into that career?

Help and money should be available to help with PTSD but
It can’t then be used as an excuse to for a life of crime and I’m not out of line with the criminal justice system.

I didn’t say no one should do it and I’m glad there are people that choose that path and we should look after them.

lisyloo

Kim_kim wrote: »

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.

And do you think they are there because they cannot possibly find somewhere cheaper/smaller/share/move or because there are other issues that prevent them seeking help such as alcohol, drugs, mental illness?

Immigrants come here a live densely.
I’m not saying that is good, but it is possible to do that to get off the streets or move somewhere a lot cheaper if you have no family or job.

If your only issue is high house prices and you have family, friends and health then you should be able to sort that one way or another even if it it means some sacrifice/compromise somewhere along the line.

I’m currently living away from home as that’s the only way DH could find work.
Do I endlessly complain about my lot?
No we make the best of it and work around the issues.
For people who are healthy there are options. Some are just complaining that it’s not on a plate on their doorstep.
Those who’ve done well on these boards are in general not people who’ve never faced adversity and just got lucky. In general They are people who’ve made sacrifices and compromises along the way to get where they are.

lisyloo

Arklight wrote: »

Good luck in that nursing home.

What does that mean?
As a private payer westernpromise will have no issues finding a very nice nursing home with very nice nurses.

Perhaps he/she might even change their mind about those people needing to feel ashamed (some of them work 12 hour shifts).

Won’t need your good wishes though if adequately self-funded so your comment doesn’t make sense.