To disagree with my work colleagues in thinking that the cost of living is a potentially serious social problem?

[Livingtothefull]

I was having a discussion with a few work colleagues, they were all 50-60 somethings and own their own properties, only small mortgages left etc. We are based in one of the major cities in the UK.

I said that it was a big problem that a lot of people, despite working hard & having good jobs and/or professional qualifications, couldn't afford to buy property and much of their salary went on rented accommodation which left them very little disposable income….also many jobs were insecure which left them worrying about being able to afford rent or to save.

I have previously talked to a few (mostly younger) people who are in this position. One person who is a police officer in his 30s complained that he had been a police offer for 12 years, been promoted but still couldn't get on the housing ladder.

I suggested to these colleagues that there was something intrinsically wrong when a police officer - doing a difficult, sometimes dangerous and necessary role - couldn't afford to buy himself even a small flat.
They all quite vehemently disagreed with me; their response was, that rather than complain about the cost of living, people should just go wherever the work and job security is and where housing is more affordable, and if that means moving away to a cheaper area then so be it (one or two of them pointed out that they had had to do this when they were starting out).

I was really quite surprised at their response: is it just me who thinks this way? How are people with personal/family ties to where they live supposed to just up & move? What about essential workers like nurses/police officers who are needed everywhere, not just in affordable areas?

I do feel that the 50-60s are a luckier generation (I belong to it btw) & I was surprised at their response, some of them have DCs? I do feel things are tougher for the younger generation & it can be difficult to get ahead, I think I have quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from them (no massive student loans in my day either). I just felt that the colleagues I spoke to weren't aware of how much the world has changed - but would be interested to know what others thought about this.

Certain relatives of mine who have hit 65 get free rail/bus travel, that is more than my severely disabled, wheelchair-bound DS gets. These are people in excellent health, mortgage free, travel the world etc….some of them are honest enough to admit that it is ridiculous to receive this benefit & they don't need it.

^
This is so true. Many older people are getting these benefits they really do not need while others are not getting enough to get buy. The system is so messed up.

Indeed JustHope…thanks for that & yes it is messed up. We have recently gone through the process of applying for the Personal Independence Payment which replaced the old Disability Living Allowance (even the new phraseology sets my teeth on edge. My darling DS is a joy but cannot, and never will be, independent).

This meant filling out a 40+ page document which is gruelling to fill out as it involves every single aspect of how DS disability impacts on his life. You have to go through that process to understand what it is like. It matters not that we had to go through the same process to apply for his DLA originally and that his is a lifelong condition…because the govt have seen fit to change the benefit, the whole process has to be gone through again.

The purpose of changing the benefit (we were told by the govt) was 'to ensure that benefits were targeted towards those who need them most' (which to me read as 'to find excuses to deny benefits to several people who need them albeit not "the most"). Anyway DS got his benefits as he so obviously qualifies; but imagine how we feel, having gone through that process, to see benefits showered on those who don't need them by dint of their being over 65.

What I hate about that new phraseology is the idea that: rather than just living with a disability, the disabled have to 'aspire' towards independence. We are all meant to 'aspire' (a very Tory ideal) however heavily the odds are stacked against many of us.

Doesn't help when nurseries are an extortionate amount.

Means one parents has to stay at home for three years.

Hard to aspire towards independence when your legs don't work.

Definitely agree with the free transport comment above.

My parents are retired, pensions, homeowners, two cars paid for and still get a free bus pass.

Why? Totally pointless.

But stop buying Costa and you'll be in that 3 bed detached house before you can say extra shot of syrup please.

You cant have a working society if everyone just moves to where the pickings are good. Society is something we co-operate to build, it doesn't just happen by itself.
The pure free market economy concept has been debunked. The ideal society is a mixture of soft socialism for social issues and controlled capitalism for the business side of things.

Unfortunately many people are selfish, and will do whatever they believe is in their best interests short term; even if that means other people come to harm.

Thanks oldlaundbooth, it would be great if my DS could be independent but he is wheelchair bound, half his body doesn't work and he has a mental age of approx 4.

I am not worried for myself - I will be OK - but am worried sick for DS future in a country which seems to regard the disabled as scroungers. Just read the Daily Rag to see how benefit claimants are regarded. I want to be confident that this is a civilised country which ensures everyone is supported especially the most vulnerable…at the moment I'm not.

And when I try to explain this to my colleagues what is their response? 'I don't understand why anyone like you who is a home owner, wouldn't support the Conservatives'.

I am in my 50s and it was the norm to move away for a job and to move again for promotion.
I am now one of those squeezed in the middle with elderly parents and child to support and a mortgage due to divorce.
Each generation has its problems and grumble about the last generation.One thing is true though it is much easier to fritter money away now than when I was saving for a house because there was nothing much to buy,eating out didn't happen and evening entertainment centered around the pub.

I'm 53, left home at 18 and moved 300 miles away from my family, friends and boyfriend for work in 1982. Lived in a flat in a pretty deprived part of town and cried every day from homesickness. I had no central heating, no washing machine, no phone (landline) and no car. My boyfriend used to hitchhike up the motorway to see me on weekends, getting lifts from long distance lorry drivers as he couldn't afford a car or the train fare.

When I eventually bought my first flat about five years later (after living in a caravan in which the gas bottle froze mid winter leaving me with no heating), I couldn't afford curtains and there was a weekend I ran out of money and food. All my furniture was donated from friends and family.

Then negative equity hit when interest rates went up to 17% and many people lost their homes.

Yes, 30 years on I'm in a relatively good position but it's been a long hard slog which it also was for my parents. They had lived through rationing as children and also moved 250 miles away from their home city when they got married in the 1950s in order to find work. They described how they used orange crates for seating in their first house as they were so poor. My Dad worked on a building site to raise enough money to put himself through university. He was a teacher and had to beg the bank manager for his first mortgage when he was late twenties.

It's a myth that it's all been plain sailing for previous generations - I just think we had lower expectations. However, in terms of the welfare state, which was relatively new in the 50s, 60s, 70s yes we probably benefited more.

And yet later they were complaining about rising crime rates. To me so many of these things are connected. Although crime can never be excused, a few individuals are more likely to turn to crime of they don't feel they have a stake in society.

And lower numbers of police officers who don't have the resources to investigate 'minor' crime such as shoplifting, car theft, home burglary.

I'm in my 50s and dh is 62 and I hate being linked in with people this this. We're not all like that by any means. We didn't meet until we were in our forties and neither of us had money or properties - circumstances had dictated we either couldn't or didn't. Now we are definitely JAMs - extremely lucky to have a house ( interest only mortgage though) which is worth a fair bit of money now, but neither of us have well paid jobs and we struggle a lot. Middle DC is off to university next year and that is really worrying as we know we won't be able to help. We manage but we also care about what's going on-I work in the homeless sector, dh in the police and it's bloody low paid and hard. It's not all of us - it really isnt all of us so called 'baby boomers'

I think this is a SE England problem rather than a general cost of living problem.
It's cheap and easy to buy properties in most places in the UK, and there are jobs and opportunities everywhere.

Most places outside SE England did not suffer negative equity problems.
When demand outstrips supply there will be problems.

Yes, but very few 23 year old nowadays can afford to even buy a 'doer upper'onemorecupoftea

I think it's wrong to assume that young people today just want it all too soon and are not prepared to suffer in pursuit of their goal of being a home owner.

A 'doer upper' is still out of reach of many average salaries, particularly in London where I live [and I live here for work as does my DH... we would find it difficult to do the jobs we do elsewhere, the employment situtaion is not great in other parts of the country].

We are in South East London in one of the cheaper boroughs and house prices are still approx 10 times our salary for a fairly standard 3 bedroom family home. In comparison mobile phone contracts [mobile phones can also be very necessary for the jobs the young do today / 24 hour culture of work particulalry for those on zero hours contracts - not unusual at all amongst my generation either and I
am in my 40s] and holidays in the UK and to EU destinations [pre- Brexit] are relatively affordable due to low cost airlines. So all those saying 'well the young seem to be able to afford a mobile phone contract and hens/stag dos in Paris' are not seeing the relative cost comparison and understanding why home ownership may still not be within reach of this generation, particularly with wage stagnation which has not kept pace with the cost of living and property prices. Even for a £300k 'doer upper'.

I agree with you the cost of housing is ridiculous and prohibitive.
However I have family members who grew up in absolute poverty and saved money to buy eventually. And interest rates were much higher in the 80s and 90s.
Short term spending on nonsense is much greater these days.
People consider a wedding, holiday, car, sky and coffee to be obligatory, rather than save money long term.
But still the cost of housing means many will live a terrible quality of life when they retire if they haven't bought somewhere and that is extremely unfair.

A two bedroomed house with garden needing very little work will cost around £110K here, a 20 minute commute to the heart of the capital.

oh, and the 'doer uppers' are often purchased by the 'buy to let' landlords who then get a team of carpenters, painters and decorators in to do the dirty work at no inconvenience to themselves except financial outlay... which they fully expect to recoup in high rents when they get the young family moving in who cannot afford the cost of buying their own property.

Another point is 1st time buyers are usually a lot older than our they were in my parents' generation. I was 35 with 3 children already established at local schools/nursery. My parents were 23, no ties and could move between areas and owned a 4 bed house by the time they me at 26 & later my 2 sisters. Their first house was only about as much as their combined salaries. I find the "move to a cheaper area" etc rather patronising, we're not early 20s newlyweds.

People consider a wedding, holiday, car, sky and coffee to be obligatory, rather than save money long term.

Again, I think for many it's less about what's 'obligatory' and more about motivation to save. For many, the motivation to save comes when you can see that is you save X amount of income per month for X amount of time you could afford to buy that 'doer upper' on the outskirts of town.

But if feel you can never ever afford even the 'doer upper' why wouldn't you spend the money instead on a holiday or car?
TBH most of my peers only buy cheap second hand cars or have a company car anyway, they generally holiday in the UK and yes might meet friends for a coffee out somewhere but this is because they live in a small flat and would prefer to get out and about rather than invite people to their [overcrowded] home.

speakout where is that? I really don't believe you!

It's not patronising to point out that if you choose to live in an area where demand outstrips supply then prices will rise.

It's simple economics.

A two bedroomed house with garden needing very little work will cost around £110K here, a 20 minute commute to the heart of the capital.

Which capital and what are the employment opportunities like there?

Me and DH are a doctor and teacher. We moved back to our hometown big northern. City when we qualified, instead of going to London like most of our friends. That meant we could afford to get a house and start a family.
But.... our mortgage and childcare takes up most of or income. It’s certainly tight. Our baby boomer parents are all retired on massive pensions, and kindly help us out with childcare. They always seem a bit surprised that we don’t piss money up the wall like they do, on constant expensive holidays and ‘gift buying’
I don’t think this situation can go on much longer. It sometimes feels (when I’m feeling moody) that the older generation is having a party at the expense of the young.