How can people be so greedy?

blue_monkey_2

I've just been doing the ironing and thinking about the people shouting at me earlier for my comments but if life has been one of not knowing mums who worked then surely you would not know any different. In the village where I grew up there were 2 sides, the council estate side and the richer privately owned side. In the council side (where I lived) the kids were all out playing, the dads went to work the mum stayed at home, there was a ldy on the other side of the road and she used to do homework and we would spend many an hour sitting on the floor sorting white felt tip pen nibs and putting the fuses into plugs while the mums all sat around drinking tea (ah, I see now she was onto a good thing!!). That was the way it was, on the richer side there were not really any children, it was more middle aged people, kids left home and people worked. This is what is was like. How would you know any different, would you not just assume everyone else was doing the same. Even my husbands mum never used to work and he is the same age as me. So this is why I mentioned it. As for family bringing us up, our family moved out of North London to the countryside so there was never family to help out. I think this was the case for a lot of people around here. Most of the people living around here now are the same ones I grew up around and their families are now also living here.

However, the other side of this is that even if I was to go to work (and I did not have to pay for childcare) we still would not have to be able to buy in this area. We would have to move many, many miles away to be able to afford somewhere - and then we would have no one to look after the kids and cost of childcare would have to be bought in and then we would not be able to afford to buy somewhere anyway.

What I was trying to say is that these days everything costs so much more and we *want* so much more that mums go out to work and the kids are bought up by other people. Older kids are left to their own devices (no, not everyone I appreciate this) and then in the same breath we complain that the kids are running around 'feral' with no-one to look after them, where are the parents, why don't they care/aren't they bothered. But the mums have to go to work to pay for what they want/need these days. I collect my son with a lady who looks after her 3 grandchildren all day, she complains about doing it but says she feels she has to. the daughter has mentioned hat the baby (12 months) was growing up and she wanted another one. No intention for her to look after it, that was the grandmothers job as she was going to go to work (the grandmother did say if she had more she would not look after the children anymore and quite rightly so!!). So why have another child if you don't want to look after it. This is what I struggle to understand. Surely our parents have bought up their children and deserve more in life than being full time 'nannies' to their grandchildren until they are in their 70's and 80's? I just do not understand it - but that is probably because I would not like it to be expected of me.

We do not have fancy lifestyles by any stretch, we have a car but I rarely go out in it as I don't want to have to pay £1.06 a litre for petrol, generally it is used for weekend shopping trips and the like. If we go to the cinema we go on a Saturday when it is £1 each, or bowling on Saturday mornings at £1 a game and the kids play, not us, as it saves money. My friends are all off to concerts and the theatre but we can't afford to do this but I am able to be at home with my kids - and I know what I prefer - I can do the theatre stuff when they are older, I can do big holidays when they are older, I can buy a house when they are older.

I don't know, I see so many changes from when I was a child, life wasn't perfect for us as we neverhad bikes, we never had new clothes - always ones from jumble sales, didn't have stacks of toys. If you visited the park or went to the local ford you'd have to fight for space, now no-one bothers I don't think that we have ever seen anyone else down there when we have been. The kids love going down there in the summer and catching little fish in nets, just like I used to. There is more to life than owning your own home, I appreciate this, but kids need security - not another 6 month lease with the worry of what will happen if the landlord decides to sell as the market is dropping - as another mum who just recently signed a 6 month lease has found out is happening to her, where do they go after this that will be 2 moves in 7 months for the childre - is this healthy?

Anyway, I have gone on long enough, I guess there is not an answer, I think there is greed but this would be on the part of the Estate Agents, wouldn't it? They are the ones who set the house prices, not the person selling. They have to sell at the market rate so they can buy somewhere else. This house has been on the market for 3 months and viewings have tailed off - one in the last month so the price has been dropped already. There is no way we can afford it though, it will be bought by another developer who wants to stick an extention on the side and sell it as a 5 bedroom house. When did 'families' start needing so much room s that mum, dad and 2 jkids had to have a 4 bedroom house plus study, dining room and ensuite bathroom (each) an a converted loft. Things like this do price 'ordainry Joe' out of the housing market.

Oh, and here in East Herts if average salary is £23k then 'average Joe' has no chance with properties costing around £250k. And this is cheap because the house doesn't have central heating!! it does have enough room on the side though and the only person to ask for a 2nd veiwing came bac with builder and is putting in for 'provisional' planning permission. Another family home out of reach then - if it was not already. Maybe the people buying them to make bigger and make a few ££ are greedy as well.

Pez2

Phirefly wrote: »

I agree, a decent standard of living shouldn't have to come at the price of social breakdown. But if everyone (who is physically and mentally able to) put maximum effort into improving their own lot then we wouldn't have to rely on investment in the social fabric quite so much.

That said, while you're coming form a broadly socialist perspective and I'm coming across as a raving capitalist, much of what you say does ring true.

I disagree for two reasons.

Firstly, there are certain aspects of 'the social fabric' that can't be replaced or substituted by any amount of paid employment. Spending time with your family is one obvious example. No matter how much you earn doing overtime, it's hard to argue that that's a sufficient replacement for time spent with the family. And there almost certainly must come a point where any economic contribution you make to society as a whole by that extra work is more than offset by the losses to society due to family breakdown. And yet because we can't put a cash figure on those social losses we tend to just ignored them.

Secondly, while I don't believe that the economy is a zero-sum game (I'm actually more capitalists than socialist), I do believe certain elements of our economic organisation are essentially zero sum. In particular, in an advanced capitalist society it seems inevitable that the earnings structure is pyramidal in shape, with a very small number of high earning, high net worth indivdiuals, a moderate number of middle income individuals, and the majority somewhere near the bottom on relatively low or lowish incomes. IMO capitalism can lift the pyramid as a whole, but it can't change the shape, and hence society as whole has to ensure that the people at the bottom can still expect a decent standard of living. It's no good arguing that everyone should aspire to be a succesful businessperson or a white collar professional or to undertake some other high worth profession, which is what seems to be the prevailing philosophy of the UK at the moment, as only a minority of people will ever be needed for those roles. The majority will have to be cleaners or waiters or shop assisstants or any one of a number of low-paid professions. If relatively well paid people like the OP feel like they're struggling then what chance to do all those people have?

Phirefly

GavP wrote: »

If relatively well paid people like the OP feel like they're struggling then what chance to do all those people have?

But her perception of 'struggling' seems to be the injustice of her inability to afford a house...

blue_monkey_2

I think the OP was saying that the price of housing was high, but if they went on to have a family then this fiancee would have to leave work leaving them unable to pay for the house. I got that between them they could buy as long as they did not want a family or their situations changed.

This is what I was trying to say really, I think these days you do get a choice - having a family or having somewhere SECURE to live. Renting is an option but as you rarely get a longterm secure tenancy there is always the possibility that you are moving on every 6 months. And if there is nowhere in that area to live (as there is not around here) then the kids are going to be uprooted from schools/friends every 6 months too.

I think that everything needs to feel secure, not that the place they live is theirs, but they are secure and that they have 'roots'.

I also think that everyone migrating from the south to the East, West, North, whatever means the property prices in that area will also rise because there is a need for it. How many people want to leave their friends/families/jobs though? This goes back to wanting security.

blue_monkey_2

Phirefly, it is also the rents that are unaffordable in the private sector too. To rent a house costing £750 a month (that is cheap as it is more £900+) my husband had to be bringing home £2350 a month. Which he does not do. The council deemed this an 'executive wage'. So if you cannot afford to rent, buy and there is no council houses to live in, what then happens? Where do families live? I can appreciate that single people can go into lodgings/a shared house, but families cannot do this so what happens to them? You could choose to not have a family instead so you can afford the rent/mortgage (as many people I know are choosing to do).... but does this not bring a whole new generation of problems?

Dylanwing

But her perception of 'struggling' seems to be the injustice of her inability to afford a house...

No, I think you miss the point. Before the Wicked Witch we had a system of housing that was not perfect, but worked, being a mix of Owner Occupied and Social rented. Selling Council Houses for a pittance made some individuals rich, bought votes and created a short-term boom. Now, the youngsters are paying the price of this folly. Social Housing is scarce, hence the way people buck the system to qualify. Buying is difficult because of competition from amateur BTL'ers, intent on profit, but rubbish in terms of providing the housing needed - Most around my way only want students or professional couples (No Kids), and just on 6 Month terms. What most people actually want is a HOME, be it owned or rented. Government needs to look at mainland Europe where the private sector actually provides that, rather than just being a Del Boy 'Get Rich Quick' scheme, as it has become in the UK. Also, we need to look at second homes, a blight on many parts of the Country.

Addy1

I have only just come across this thread and I am afraid I don't have time to read through the whole thing.

Unfortunately some of us have to go to university to get where we want to go in life. I am just about to qualify as a doctor next month and I am fed up with people saying that young people should forget university and get an apprentiship.
If someone can let me know of such a course for medicine then I will be grateful. But as far as I am aware they do not exist.

Also, to the people who have said 30k must have meant "ocado deliveries" every week, well I have 18k student loan debt, and I have been extremely frugal.

This is the absolute BASIC loan from the government, I was not entitled to any more. If I had been, it would have been simple to rack up 30k in debt. I hav paid more than my loan amount in RENT ALONE over 6 years. So anyone who thinks we are getting Ocado deliveries is living in cloud cookoo land.

We also do not get bursaries like student nurses, and we are the only health professionals who do not get assistance (bar the final year) with fees. Physios, nurses, occupational therapists, speech therapists, radiographers, etc etc all get their fees absolutely FREE.

I have had comments from people before along the lines of why should they fund my education? This coming from Police Officers. I replied that they did not pay for their initial training, nor for their driving training, sargeants exams, etc etc etc. So why should we totally fund ourselves? We also get standard 4 weeks per year holiday (like those in employement) so it is difficult to earn in holidays.

I am not saying we have it the worst off of anyone, but I am training for an important job and while I don't think the government "owes me" anything, I do think that for a job where my only employer can be the NHS, they need to help us out a bit (never mind the naff pay for our qualifications when we graduate, the jobs fiasco etc).

I am in the lucky position to be able to buy a house, simply because I have a partner, who is a police officer and has been in employment and therefore we have managed to save up for a deposit.

If I had been on my own I do not know how long it would have taken.

Pez2

Phirefly wrote: »

But her perception of 'struggling' seems to be the injustice of her inability to afford a house...

So it's unreasonable for a couple on an above average salary to be able to afford a house*? Which income bracket do you think people should be in before they should be able to buy? Top 30%? Top 20%? Top 10%? And then what happens to everyone else who falls below that? 12 month ASTs with the landlord able to turf them out more or less whenever he/she feels like it?

*admittedly the OPs aims for a first home may be a little over-ambitious

MrsE_2

Davesnave wrote: »

OMG, there must be for you dear! With a signature like that, I can't see you enjoying life in Llanybydder, though Llanelli might suit I suppose. (Wales in-joke.)

It has always been the case that those who want the best value need to up-sticks and go to another area. Look at merlinthehappypig's post; North Devon used to be very affordable, just like Pembrokeshire & Ceredigion are now......then the gentrification brigade found it (well, they built a decent road.) On the other hand, kids who do well there don't have to leave the area to get a decent job.....they just can't afford to buy a house!

Swings & roundabouts.

Oh God, I've just upset everyone in Llanelli......as well as Mrs E!

No offence taken as I haven't a clue what either of those places are:rolleyes:
Nor am I ever likely to visit:D

But I don't think its reasonable to suggest that everyone on less than 40k a year needs to move to Wales or north.

If everyone left in the south works for 40k+ whos going to clean, work in shops, works in bars & restaurants.

A town needs people of all skills & wage levels. Houses in the south are just silly. People up north & Wales complain the wages are lower, but the portion of disposible income must be greater.
Yes, I agree the south west has it very hard, lower wages & higher house prices

Addy1

MrsE wrote: »

If everyone left in the south works for 40k+ whos going to clean, work in shops, works in bars & restaurants.

Or be junior doctors, for that matter!