What happens when people can’t afford to actually get to work?

[Standbylove]

We have this scenario potentially cropping up, one of our team members is struggling for money since the cost of living has risen - they are tied into a large mortgage and even though we are paid well she’s finding it hard to find the money to make the 50 mile commute daily. It’s starting to make her stressed and anxious.
We don’t really have a WFH policy but the job could be done WFH but then that would open the can of worms for the whole organisation.
Surely this is going to crop up more and more. I wonder how sympathetic businesses will be….

You change governments. In my country they have made commuting to work entirely free on the trains

The further you move out the more costly it is to do the job.
I know lots of people don’t take into account commute costs when looking for their dream home in the countryside or get starry eyed when they look at what they could afford miles away from where they work. Or don’t take into account that they could be made redundant and find themselves in the position that we did where the choice of jobs on the area you have moved to is limited and the only way back to employment is to move but it is a chicken and egg situation.
Without a job you can’t move but you can’t get a job because you live too far out.

So who pays for the trains?

it is an employer and employee problem/solution.

We have increased wages 8% and pay more than the HMRC wfh weekly rate, offering 50/50 wfh / office split. In some instances we make loans to employees repayable out of future bonuses and pay rises. All we ask is for a discreet and transparent disclosure of their personal position so we are not being taken for a ride.

What did you all do in the pandemic if you don't have a wfh policy?
Your organisation must be very old fashioned if you think wfh will open a can of worms!

As the poster said, it’s free, so that must mean that the staff all work for nothing, the electricity is a gift from the generators, and perhaps the government ministers come out at the weekend to carry out maintenance.

I wonder why they don’t just make everything free really; food, clothing, housing…

There’s an easy fix that many companies are already doing - hybrid wfh

It’s not a can of worms it’s moving with the general trend

I understand the practical need for belt tightening, but I don’t really understand the mentality of ‘well things are shit for us, so why shouldn’t they be shit for other people?’

I actually think people should feel entitled to be able afford their life. Especially if ‘affording their life’ simply means ‘meeting their basic commuting needs in order to work’.

Large corporate employers could help to improve things by at the very least giving their employees fair pay rises to match inflation. They could also offer flexible WFH options.

If they choose not to, that just says to me that they’ll find some other mug who will work harder for less and just drive the job market down for everyone else. The only motivation for this is pure greed and profits.

I don’t think everyone should just roll over in acceptance of that and start downsizing.

At least speak to the employer first and explain the situation- see if WFH is an option. If more and more employees face the same issue, employers will have to tackle it.

What I have noticed over the years is that people are very very picky when choosing where to live.

Practicality has been replaced by feelings. Bog standard estates in the burbs that serve a purpose and have good transport links are disregarded in favour of terrace cottages in the centre of town that they cannot afford and if they can’t afford what they want, then they stay renting.

Lots of people say they can’t afford to live within a reasonable commute of their jobs. I think though when you look at their circumstances, it is more a case of they can’t afford what they want in terms of space, location and what they think they deserve rather than not actually being able to afford anything.

Maybe the government will realise the years of subsidies for large companies making huge profits in the form of working benefits are now shooting people in the foot. It has kept wages low. If companies cannot afford to pay wages to attract employees without top up they are not a viable business model. Every area needs a mix of people. As a pp said expensive areas still need carers, retail, NHS..if they can't afford to commute then the expensive areas will have to do without the services they provide or pay properly.

I think it's going to be industry specific and also depend on how many people are affected, because any employer who is losing staff and unable to recruit others should be looking at the reasons why and addressing that.
Unfortunately so, so many will not consider it's because they don't pay enough for what they want people to do, or as in the case of social care, that their workers are subsidising their profits by using their own cars, only having a % of the costs paid and also paying minimum wage - people have just about scraped into making a bit of a living up until now, they literally cannot afford to do it any longer.
The employers that catch on to this and invest in and support their own business in order to make it viable for employees will be the ones who keep their employees. Unfortunately many will (and already are) wring their hands, lamenting that they don't know why they can't get staff, refuse to look at or act on the reasons and will run out of staff, and with no staff there's no service to provide. Then they'll likely blame the 'work shy' for the problems, rather than realising at the moment everyone has to change, a lot of employers have had it really good in terms of how they pay and treat staff for a long time, and they're not taking kindly to that changing, and it's not even because people are demanding more, it's because it's not viable any more for many individuals.
For others it will be employees that have overstretched themselves on a personal level and the employer either already has or is starting to address reasons why they may be losing staff - if they are more than usual, and then yes, some people will have to look at changes in their own lives around non essentials and luxuries, around moving to cheaper areas - though again some will not take kindly to this as that type of thing is usually reserved for poorer people, not people who 'work hard' and have a 'better job'.

So schools in expensive housing areas don’t need teachers then?

I'm an employer. We run a very family friendly company and if an employee came to me with concerns like this I'd be very worried for them, but there is only so much you are required to do, or can do, as an employer. Our costs are rising massively too - there's no such thing as a price cap on business electricity!

The employee can make a request for flexible working, but that doesn't mean it will be granted.

Depending on who the employee was, we might offer an interest free travel loan, but that obviously needs to be repaid, so it is only kicking the can down the road.

We already have a hybrid WFH/Office arrangement in place as it does work for us. Companies where they don't have one but where it is entirely possible are likely reluctant to implement it because their own management skills mean they can't monitor it to ensure it works efficiently.

@Standbylove Has your colleague always had a 50 mile commute (each way or in total?)? If not, did they move or did the company move?

Typically many people (myself included) moved further out from their work places to afford a bigger property but still get city wages. I work in the London suburbs but live in the Home Counties and have a 45 mile round trip each day. That's costing me around £30 more a month now with the increase in fuel costs.

Unfortunately in many cases it will mean businesses lose staff as they try and work closer to home or at home (although, if you're working in the office at least your own electric bill is reduced and someone else is paying for the heating).

It is an employee's market in many sectors at the moment. We're desperate for staff but can't find any as there's so few people on the market. Those that are available get snapped up on much increased salaries compared to a few years ago (someone previously recruited at £23k would now cost us £30k!) because the demand is so high, so changing jobs will be the most likely option for many that can't afford their commute any more.

Whilst I agree that care workers - including childcare workers - are low paid, I often wonder how many of the people bemoaning the lot of the low paid are the same people complaining that childcare is far too expensive, or who are aghast that granny’s house is to be sold to meet her care costs (“but what about my inheritance! It’s not what she would have wanted!”) or, even worse, attempting to participate in schemes to hide an older person’s assets from the local authority to swerve care costs (“they worked all their lives for what they have, why should the council get it!”).

I’m suggesting that the intersection of the venn diagramme is quite large.

The references to ‘massive profits’ supposedly made by the employer usually give it away. As in, the people complaining that care is too expensive and simultaneously think that the staff delivering the care should be paid more don’t intend to pay more themselves for that care. No. The wicked businesses should pay, them with their massive fat cat profits. I don’t work in the care sector but I do work in finance. It is really difficult to make money in childcare and care homes.

Most of that is because the people buying the services - childcare or care of the elderly - are incredibly price sensitive. In a nursery they want a high ratio of fully qualified staff to children, for example, and expect the nursery to be open early and late, but can’t see why they should pay more than £50 a day, and even that is considered too expensive.

In the care home context, the local authorities can’t pay high fees for elderly people with no assets (really or purportedly) because everyone is so keen to hide elderly people’s assets from the council, meaning that the cost of care, for most councils, quickly becomes unmanageable. So the care homes don’t make much from that type of resident. When the elderly person’s money is used towards care fees, there is outrage at the cost. How do you think that carers can be paid properly in this scenario?

I agree it is industry specific. The “everyone wants their little house in the country and should move closer to work if the commute is too expensive” view only works if people who live in expensive areas are happy to forgo essential services, supermarkets, cafes etc

but I can’t get public transport to my job 10 miles away without it taking 90 minutes on a bus, heading in one direction to another town and changing bus. I can’t cycle as the roads are too dangerous & I work weird hours so cycling in the dark. And crossing dual carriageways. So that’s a no go either. No trains anywhere nearby.

We live somewhere with good transport - we don't drive so it's always considered but last 12 months bus and train strikes are causing us problems.

I know other parts of the country have had issue - saw Sheffield has real problems with their buses at the moment companies gone bust and others cutting back services. I think it was in south east many lost their jobs as train service was so bad - I think that was happening in a northern town as well at one point.

Lots of people say they can’t afford to live within a reasonable commute of their jobs. I think though when you look at their circumstances, it is more a case of they can’t afford what they want in terms of space, location and what they think they deserve rather than not actually being able to afford anything.

In city DH used to work in we could only afford two bed that needed a lot of work and there odd system worth schools - we have run risk of needing to get them to three different primaries and had issues entire secondary schooling getting them in and out. How utterly foolish to consider size of house needed in relation to existing family members and our kids schooling.

Maybe people who work in hospitals, schools, supermarkets etc in expensive areas only deserve bedsits. Maybe we should go back to nurses’ accommodation? They don’t deserve to have families, that’s just for people who can afford to live near work.

Government subsidies?

People shouldn’t pay more than £50 a day for childcare. The cost of childcare was prohibitive for most people before this, now it’s even more so. Same with care homes. It’s too expensive for ordinary people to afford without selling off every single asset and possession. It shouldn’t be like that.

What on earth do you think “deserve” is supposed to mean here though? People don’t “deserve” anything. They earn what an employer is willing to pay, and if that isn’t enough to live on it if they are unable to work then the state taxes higher earners to subsidize or support them.

The idea of “deserve” doesn’t enter into this at any stage.

Let’s take you as an example, what size house do you think you “deserve”, and where? How new do you deserve your car to be? What sort of hotel do you “deserve” for your holidays, and how many times per year?

Ceredigion: Why are so many young people leaving?

The 2021 census revealed that since 2011, Ceredigion has seen a 28% drop in the number of 15 to 19-year-olds.
Over that time, the number of 40 to 44-year-olds fell by 26%, the survey showed.

She said job vacancies were going unfilled, including in the health and care sectors.
...

Wyn said young people leave to find work and study, adding: "There's a very clear route for people to leave to go for education, to go for work, but not a very clear route to come back."
Asked what would help, he said: "Improved transport, business grants, certainly for people moving back early in their career.
"Improvements in the ability to buy houses. It's almost impossible to rent houses in west Wales."

I think it can end up a regional issue if things aren't tackled and there are areas with better cost of living and more opportunities to move to.

That’s going to require some massive pay cuts for nursery staff and child minders. Are you proposing to take up the job when they all start leaving?

You can interpret it however you like, all I’m saying is that If there are to be essential services in expensive places then those on lower wages have to be allowed to live further away without being sneered at for wanting a house big enough for their lifestyle - children, pets etc. saying “just move closer to work or resign” isn’t going to help anyone.

People need to cut their cloth according to their means though. Patently explaining the options to someone who can’t afford the big detached house and the commute shouldn’t be necessary, but sadly sometimes does seem to be.

No-one “deserves” a five bedroom house in a nice town.

It’s all very well saying move but it’s highly likely the property market is about to crash and many people will find themselves in negative equity and won’t be able to move.

Why are you talking about five bedroom detached houses in nice towns? That’s not what I’m talking about. In my nearest city people move to get their children into the best schools and house prices rise accordingly. The teachers can’t afford to live nearby, they live in towns further away, more run down but where they can afford more than a bedsit - a two-bedroom house with a little garden perhaps. They want children and that’s normal. If they can’t afford to get to work then it is very much an employer and local problem