Can’t afford to rent or buy - don’t know what to do

[Deleted User]

Slinky said:

I'm just wondering if the dissatisfaction with your current lifestyle is more to do with a lack of a romantic relationship in your life? If you don't have the partner you want, sometimes the only thing you can do is fiddle with things you can change, like your job, your location, etc, because a relationship requires you finding that right person to have it with, and that isn't always easy. 

I know you mentioned previously you don't feel you are able to conduct a relationship with somebody as a person living at home with their parents, but if you found yourself being happier through spending time with another person, perhaps you would feel your life had more purpose and you could focus on moving in a shared direction.  

Maybe you could consider trying to find that special person now, rather than waiting for that 'perfect' time when you have a home of your own. Sods law will be they live somewhere completely different to where you plan to move to.

Yes, possibly. You're right that things are never likely to fall in place just as you want them to. I'm not going to discuss anymore on here as there are too many 'university of life' types being a bit mean. But thanks for your considered response and to the others who have made helpful suggestions. 

[Deleted User]

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

Purbeck14 said:

A couple on 'Location, location, location' last night put their requirements into AI (Chatgpt?) and it produced  the 'perfect location' for them, Phil found them a house there. Of course it does help when you have 700K! Might be an interesting little experiment to try though. 

EDIT as I've just read a bit of your previous thread, where you state  your type of work and really London being where that  work is but that you didn't feel able or willing to pay commuting costs too far out. So really travelling  a distance to continue working in London doesn't seem feasible for you? Which is fair enough. 

I think the UK isn’t really the right place for long commutes. I know some people can accept paying 6-10k a year just on getting to their office but I find that to be unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport. 

. 

Sorry, but how can people spending £6K - £10K on getting to their office be "unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport"?? Do you think these people should commute by car and cause even more traffic congestion? Go to St Albans on any weekday before 9.00 am and see how many people get on the London trains. Imagine all those people driving into London.

Because it's extortionate. It doesn't happen in other countries because they wouldn't accept it. I currently live just outside London and it costs me 560GBP a month to go into the office (If i go in five days a week). 

Public transport should be affordable or free. 

What do you consider affordable? How many countries have free public transport other than over very short distances? 


How would you finance free public transport for everybody? Where would the money come from, because you are talking billions of pounds annually? Why should ordinary taxpayers subsidise commuters, because that is what would happen. As I said in a previous post, pensioner bus passes benefits are being eroded, for example you have to pay one pound if you travel before 9.30 am on the bus.  


Don't get me wrong! Free public transport is a fantastic idea in theory, but in practice about as likely to happen as your next door neighbour being an advance member of a party of invading Martians!


Finally as you are so passionate about this, have you written to your MP to elicit their views on the matter?

If you'r going to pretend that it's reasonable for people to have to pay over 400 a month to get to work in central London from Hemel Hempstead, then you're welcome to do so. I've no interest in having a debate about it. 

There are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to London by train daily from Beds, Bucks, Cambs, Essex, Herts, Kent, Surrey, Sussex. If the fares are so unreasonable then why haven't they started petitions demanding lower fares.


As I see it you have a choice in no particular order


1. Stay in London with parents or house share


2. Buy/rent within commutable distance of London, but pay (in your opinion) unreasonable fares


3. Move to a different part of the country where you can find  suitable work, afford to buy/rent and do not have unreasonable commuting cost


4. Find a job which pays you enough to buy/rent in London

Obviously petitions have been started over fare prices. I find it hard to believe you can live in this country and not be aware of the huge discontent over travel costs. The fact that people pay these prices isn't saying much.

Thanks for the advice. I agree that these are the options. 

lincroft1710

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

Purbeck14 said:

A couple on 'Location, location, location' last night put their requirements into AI (Chatgpt?) and it produced  the 'perfect location' for them, Phil found them a house there. Of course it does help when you have 700K! Might be an interesting little experiment to try though. 

EDIT as I've just read a bit of your previous thread, where you state  your type of work and really London being where that  work is but that you didn't feel able or willing to pay commuting costs too far out. So really travelling  a distance to continue working in London doesn't seem feasible for you? Which is fair enough. 

I think the UK isn’t really the right place for long commutes. I know some people can accept paying 6-10k a year just on getting to their office but I find that to be unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport. 

. 

Sorry, but how can people spending £6K - £10K on getting to their office be "unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport"?? Do you think these people should commute by car and cause even more traffic congestion? Go to St Albans on any weekday before 9.00 am and see how many people get on the London trains. Imagine all those people driving into London.

Because it's extortionate. It doesn't happen in other countries because they wouldn't accept it. I currently live just outside London and it costs me 560GBP a month to go into the office (If i go in five days a week). 

Public transport should be affordable or free. 

What do you consider affordable? How many countries have free public transport other than over very short distances? 


How would you finance free public transport for everybody? Where would the money come from, because you are talking billions of pounds annually? Why should ordinary taxpayers subsidise commuters, because that is what would happen. As I said in a previous post, pensioner bus passes benefits are being eroded, for example you have to pay one pound if you travel before 9.30 am on the bus.  


Don't get me wrong! Free public transport is a fantastic idea in theory, but in practice about as likely to happen as your next door neighbour being an advance member of a party of invading Martians!


Finally as you are so passionate about this, have you written to your MP to elicit their views on the matter?

If you'r going to pretend that it's reasonable for people to have to pay over 400 a month to get to work in central London from Hemel Hempstead, then you're welcome to do so. I've no interest in having a debate about it. 

There are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to London by train daily from Beds, Bucks, Cambs, Essex, Herts, Kent, Surrey, Sussex. If the fares are so unreasonable then why haven't they started petitions demanding lower fares.


As I see it you have a choice in no particular order


1. Stay in London with parents or house share


2. Buy/rent within commutable distance of London, but pay (in your opinion) unreasonable fares


3. Move to a different part of the country where you can find  suitable work, afford to buy/rent and do not have unreasonable commuting cost


4. Find a job which pays you enough to buy/rent in London

Obviously petitions have been started over fare prices. I find it hard to believe you can live in this country and not be aware of the huge discontent over travel costs. The fact that people pay these prices isn't saying much.

Thanks for the advice. I agree that these are the options. 

Probably because I have either driven or walked to work it hasn't affected me personally. But I have seen TV interviews with commuters when rail fare increases are announced. The commuters moan but seem just to accept it, they don't en masse stop using the trains or even if they do start petitions, they don't appear to be successful.

Bonniepurple

elsien said:

I don’t live in Brum, but I live quite close to it. Good theatres good places to eat, handy  countryside not too distant if you like walking. Good for the motorway networks in all directions.
As with anywhere, some lovely areas and others that I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.

For what it’s worth, someone was stabbed and killed at the end of my road last year. And they have been some issues with drug dealing. I still consider my area a  perfectly safe place to live. 

FWIW, a teenager stabbed another teen to death outside my Mum’s house, about a mile from us a couple of years ago.  We live in a leafy village in Gloucestershire.  

OP, life is what you make it.  I’ve lived in a house share, by myself in a freezing rental property, with my husband in a poorly built ex HA rental before we moved to a repossessed house that needed everything doing to it.  We’ve lived in 2 cities and a couple of small towns/villages.  We chose to move back to my husband’s hometown as we like it and it has what we need in terms of facilities and transport links.  I would not have moved if it was one road in and out and limited shops/employment/commuting opportunities.

theoretica

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?  If cost of living in or commuting to London fell, I bet employers would take advantage and many salaries would come down as a fair chunk of the argument for needing higher salaries would have gone.  Maybe there would be a brief time when employees felt better off, but I am cynical enough to think it wouldn't last.  Why should employers be subsidised to be based in places people their employees can't afford to live and need long commutes?

RHemmings

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?  If cost of living in or commuting to London fell, I bet employers would take advantage and many salaries would come down as a fair chunk of the argument for needing higher salaries would have gone.  Maybe there would be a brief time when employees felt better off, but I am cynical enough to think it wouldn't last.  Why should employers be subsidised to be based in places people their employees can't afford to live and need long commutes?

Has this happened in other countries where travel is cheaper? E.g. in New Zealand there is now a good rail link from Hamilton to Auckland (where house prices are more expensive than in London). It's about £20 a day to get from Hamilton to Auckland return. Has this led to wages in Auckland reducing? The same argument can be applied elsewhere. 

There are a lot of factors influencing how much people are paid. I don't think that the cost of public transport is among the biggest. 

elsien

Luke451 said:

wildbilljones said:

Angelica123 said:

Out of curiosity, are your friends partnered up/looking to settle down? It's likely if they are, then there is a possibility they won't stay in London (unless they are on very high salaries). Early to mid-thirties was when many of my friends started to leave London to start families. 

I have a fairly small friendship group. One bought a small flat about 5 years ago with m a 50k contribution from his father. Another is about to buy a London flat with 200k deposit from his parents. Another works as a developer and earns a very good salary, he's bought alone. I have other friends who have coupled up and bought in Brighton or who rent flats together as couples. 

It's not only about friends. My work is in London, my family is just outside London, I play for several sports teams in London etc. I know these things can be found elsewhere. I am a bit reluctant to throw myself into another witness protection scheme type experience though. As I know I'll likely become very depressed on my own in a place that I don't like. I'm coming to terms with that being the only real option though. 

You forgot one critical point, in UK, the people move in less than 10y from the moment you arrive, even your shiny place in London could become a nightmare.

There is no safe even in this jungle, but if I were you, I'd start buying in a more human city, London is a jungle, including its surroundings.

You're a cheery little soul, aren't you?

lincroft1710

RHemmings said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?  If cost of living in or commuting to London fell, I bet employers would take advantage and many salaries would come down as a fair chunk of the argument for needing higher salaries would have gone.  Maybe there would be a brief time when employees felt better off, but I am cynical enough to think it wouldn't last.  Why should employers be subsidised to be based in places people their employees can't afford to live and need long commutes?

Has this happened in other countries where travel is cheaper? E.g. in New Zealand there is now a good rail link from Hamilton to Auckland (where house prices are more expensive than in London). It's about £20 a day to get from Hamilton to Auckland return. Has this led to wages in Auckland reducing? The same argument can be applied elsewhere. 

There are a lot of factors influencing how much people are paid. I don't think that the cost of public transport is among the biggest. 

Do many people commute from Hamilton to Auckland? Are wage levels in Auckland higher than those in Hamilton and if so by what percentage?

RHemmings

lincroft1710 said:

RHemmings said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?  If cost of living in or commuting to London fell, I bet employers would take advantage and many salaries would come down as a fair chunk of the argument for needing higher salaries would have gone.  Maybe there would be a brief time when employees felt better off, but I am cynical enough to think it wouldn't last.  Why should employers be subsidised to be based in places people their employees can't afford to live and need long commutes?

Has this happened in other countries where travel is cheaper? E.g. in New Zealand there is now a good rail link from Hamilton to Auckland (where house prices are more expensive than in London). It's about £20 a day to get from Hamilton to Auckland return. Has this led to wages in Auckland reducing? The same argument can be applied elsewhere. 

There are a lot of factors influencing how much people are paid. I don't think that the cost of public transport is among the biggest. 

Do many people commute from Hamilton to Auckland? Are wage levels in Auckland higher than those in Hamilton and if so by what percentage?

Average salary in Auckland, New Zealand is NZ$75,643. Average salary in Hamilton is NZ$69,372. These figures are from 2022.

For the train, the number of people on the train went up after the fares were cut. (Surprise surprise). But, the scale is small with about 200-300 passengers per day at the time of this article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129304908/half-price-tickets-push-up-april-passenger-numbers-on-hamilton-to-auckland-train  Remember that once you get outside of Auckland, cities in NZ are small as the country is less densely populated. 

The ticket prices were cut to about £4.50 each way as per the article. Bargain. And for Huntly, albeit a very small town, the price was cut to about £3. Huntly is closer to Auckland, and it should be easier to commute. 

Economies of scale should mean that it would be easier for the UK to support train travel at those prices than for NZ. 

I have no idea how many people commute from Hamilton to Auckland, but reading between the lines suggests that they are trying to reduce the number of car commuting journeys. 

Returning to the thread, it seems that it would be easy for people in the position of the OP to find somewhere commutable for reasonable prices in NZ. But, not in the UK it seems. 

lincroft1710

RHemmings said:

lincroft1710 said:

RHemmings said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?  If cost of living in or commuting to London fell, I bet employers would take advantage and many salaries would come down as a fair chunk of the argument for needing higher salaries would have gone.  Maybe there would be a brief time when employees felt better off, but I am cynical enough to think it wouldn't last.  Why should employers be subsidised to be based in places people their employees can't afford to live and need long commutes?

Has this happened in other countries where travel is cheaper? E.g. in New Zealand there is now a good rail link from Hamilton to Auckland (where house prices are more expensive than in London). It's about £20 a day to get from Hamilton to Auckland return. Has this led to wages in Auckland reducing? The same argument can be applied elsewhere. 

There are a lot of factors influencing how much people are paid. I don't think that the cost of public transport is among the biggest. 

Do many people commute from Hamilton to Auckland? Are wage levels in Auckland higher than those in Hamilton and if so by what percentage?

Average salary in Auckland, New Zealand is NZ$75,643. Average salary in Hamilton is NZ$69,372. These figures are from 2022.

For the train, the number of people on the train went up after the fares were cut. (Surprise surprise). But, the scale is small with about 200-300 passengers per day at the time of this article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129304908/half-price-tickets-push-up-april-passenger-numbers-on-hamilton-to-auckland-train  Remember that once you get outside of Auckland, cities in NZ are small as the country is less densely populated. 

The ticket prices were cut to about £4.50 each way as per the article. Bargain. And for Huntly, albeit a very small town, the price was cut to about £3. Huntly is closer to Auckland, and it should be easier to commute. 

Economies of scale should mean that it would be easier for the UK to support train travel at those prices than for NZ. 

I have no idea how many people commute from Hamilton to Auckland, but reading between the lines suggests that they are trying to reduce the number of car commuting journeys. 

Returning to the thread, it seems that it would be easy for people in the position of the OP to find somewhere commutable for reasonable prices in NZ. But, not in the UK it seems. 

One interesting fact about that article is that passenger numbers on Saturday are higher than weekdays, so non commuters seem to be benefitting rather than commuters.Also the underlying reason for the fare reduction was to reduce the number of car journeys, so it seems it is an experiment in reducing carbon emissions/traffic congestion rather than a genuine attempt at subsidising public transport. NZ has a small population, the more populous North Island has less than half the number of people than live in London proper.