To cancel my guardian supportership

[SmallBuisnessOwner]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

Ridiculous story's like this of someone 26 with a well paid job working in the media and London spends over 500 a year on coffee. Outside London I don't know anyone like this. Most go out once a week to the pub and get a cheap takeaway occasionally as a treat. I don't think articles like this help anyone.

IME at work it seems to be the younger ones who are going out buying lunch every day, whilst the ones with houses and kids bring lunch from home. The younger ones are also far more likely to have the latest technology.

OK, so the technology thing is easily disposed of - it's often cheap as chips to have a smartphone these days, and many milennials use it as everything from their main phone to their computer. My sister doesn't have a laptop or broadband or a landline, for example - she is required to be contactable all the time by her work, but her phone contract costs less than the cost of broadband+landline+buying a laptop as she does everything on her phone. Whereas older people and boomers are likely to have a landline, broadband, plus reasonably expensive computer equipment. Who's spending more there? And if you live in an economy where you are freelancing or constantly on short term contracts, you are likely to have to use the internet all the time to apply for jobs, be always online, respond to work email - so you need to have a smartphone: it's not even negotiable. Typically it's older people and boomers who are more secure in their jobs who have the luxury of being able to switch off from work when they go home.

Added to that, if you are renting - whether on your own or in a houseshare - you just aren't likely to be able to stay in one place for very long - hence it's better to be contactable via a mobile phone than via a landline. Which you're probably not home for long enough to use much.

On the lunch point. I'm older now, with a family and a flat with a kitchen and a nice bit fridge that's all mine, and I have DC so I'm in a lot of the evenings and weekends, and I don't have a long commute. I can order a big shop from Tesco and make my own sandwiches for the week, yay me! But when I was living in flatshares in zone 5 in London as a 20-something and commuting a long distance (2 hours each way morning and evening, so 4 hours a day), there was (a) no time for me to order a bulk shop, as I couldn't be certain the trains would get me home on time and I often didn't get back until after 10; (b) I had no car so couldn't stock up at the supermarket when I had the chance; (c) I lived in a flat 3 storeys up with no lift; (b) there was not enough room in the shared fridge and tiny kitchen to order more than a couple of things for each person at one time. And I worked bloody hard on a series of fixed-term contracts for a tiny wage and paid am absolutely ginormous proportion of it in renting a room and paying off student debt.

So the whole thing about buying cheaply and making sandwiches and bringing coffee in a thermos yadda yadda, well there were more barriers to that than for the average boomer with a nice kitchen and fridge all their own and a car and a bank account that can spend £80 quid at the supermarket without anything going off. And I wasn't spending any money on running a car, or all sorts of things that older people spend their money on, and buying a sandwich from Pret at lunch made my life with 4hrs a day commuting on public transport a teeny bit more bearable. Because if I had got up at 6am to make myself an egg sandwich from scratch as well I think I would have just given up on life to be honest.

Why don't you ask the young people with the smartphone and the sandwiches about the rest of their expenditure? They are probably not buying the big ticket items that boomers spend their money on (new kitchens, patio heaters, cars, holidays, gardening....) (Office of National Statistics data shows pretty incontrovertibly that it's the boomer age group which actually spends by far the biggest amount of money on holidays, cars, travel, entertainment, luxury items, clothing and household items.) And yet it's a few young people on about £20k a year who buy low value items that keep the service sector economy going that seem to get a massive amount of flak for their "luxurious" expenditure.....tell me, if a millennial's salary is between £20-30k but bog standard 2-bed flats and houses in London are going for at least half a million or more, what's wrong with that picture? Is it the takeaway coffees? Or has something changed since the 1970s when people were advised to spend no more than 3x a single income on a house?

I'm with Notthemessiah - if you're not reading the Guardian and you think of yourself as left-wing then what do you read? I think it has some great contributors - I love Hadley Freeman and Sali Hughes for example, and while I don't agree with everything it says I don't think that article was that bad. As has been said, she could definitely be saving more every month, and even if she doesn't have enough to get a mortgage she's then got a load of ready cash should it be needed. Would love to know where people are consuming their (online) news from. Ta.

I do like the actual news reports in The Guardian, the daily political live feed and readers comments are good too. I find most of the columnists really smug though so ignore most of those type of articles. I also look at news and political stories on Twitter and the various links to different news sources posted on there.

The thing is the whole ‘millennials can’t afford to buy a house’ thing is mostly just in London and the South isn’t it?

I’m a millennial and most people I know are home owners and it wasn’t difficult - we went to uni, got jobs, saved a bit, bought a house. I don’t know anyone who got substantial help from parents either. House prices where we are aren’t too crazy, it’s a nice area with good schools.

On modest/average incomes and even have takeaway coffee and avocado toast every now and again (although spend nowhere near what the author of that article does!).

I’m a Londoner, and in my mid-to-late twenties lived in Central London, and I used to go to cafés 3-4 times per week for a medium sized coffee and a cake. These were usually for take aways that I’d enjoy on my horrendous journey involving several trains before dealing with my hormonal Year 9 tutor group.

I didn’t drink alcohol then, and I’ve never been a smoker, so my money didn’t get used up on those. My DH and I used to eat in a restaurant once per week though, and often get food from a delicatessen once each week.

I also spent far too much money on clothes whilst living here.

The trouble with living in and/or working in Central London is the temptation everywhere you look to spend. I think there is a general attitude too of, ‘I might as well spend my money and enjoy myself, as I’ll never be able to get on the property ladder.’

I have a friend who is in her 30’s and still lives with her family in a London suburb. She is single, and earns below the average London salary working in central London.

She still manages to take 2-3 holidays per year and has her hair cut, dyed and styled every 8 weeks in a fairly expensive salon. She also has gym membership, a car, pays monthly for her smartphone, buys a takeaway coffee 5 days per week, and goes out for a meal and drinks at least twice per month. She also gets her nails done, and a beauty treatment every month.

I started cutting back with my spending, and it would irritate me that she carried on spending like crazy, as I realised how much money I’d been wasting. I understand now though through talking to her, that she just doesn’t see the point in saving as she doesn’t believe it’s going to get her anywhere.

The property prices go up so quickly here too, that even when you think you might nearly have a deposit together, suddenly those properties are too expensive and you’re back to square one. This kept on happening to my DH and I, but we were extremely fortunate in the end to receive a generous donation from a family member in order to help get onto the ladder. My salary alone though at the time, was exactly double that of my friend’s, and my DH earned more than I did, so I can understand why she seems to have given up.

I do think though that a lot of people like my friend could cut their spending back and save up and invest in properties to rent out in cheaper areas of the country though, then sell these when their value increases, or when they meet a partner to buy with. This is what I would’ve done had I been single.

Wayfarers: absolutely brilliant post. That's the reality of living in shared rented accommodation.
My first two flat shares I had a drawer in the fridge and half a shelf in the cupboard, and no freezer. Nearest supermarket was a 20 minute walk away up hill so I was limited to what I could carry.
Most supermarket online delivery has minimum spend and a delivery charge which increases in the evening. And broadband packages/smartphones are unnecessary luxuries which we should give up if we want to buy houses so how we're supposed to order anything online I do not know.

I currently work three jobs (none full time but some weeks I work more than full time hours)
I worked out that the absolute maximum I can afford to save without scrimping on essentials is £100 a month. That is not a house deposit.

HollygoflightlyI also get my news from the Westminstenders threads on here.

I dont actually have a sponsership, Once I donated a £1, but too busy being genuinly skint.

So all of you supposedly lapsed Guardian readers - what are you all reading now for your news, seeing as there is such choice for those with left of centre views in our very fair, balanced and not at all right-wing media we enjoy in this country?

I'm with Notthemessiah - if you're not reading the Guardian and you think of yourself as left-wing then what do you read

Quite.

The Times and the New Statesman. Not much else choice wise really.

I watch the headlines, really briefly, and read books and the London Review of Books. You can find out a lot more about why a conflict is happening in a particular area by reading a history about it than you will ever learn from the news.

Wayfarer - no one is denying the hike in property prices. But hyperbolising weakens your argument. You can live in Zone 5 in a £250,OOO flat and be in Central London in 30 mins.

As Martin Lewis points out, being part of a couple, or two friends sharing, halves the price of buying a property. It's always been difficult for one person to buy without family help. As those who benefited from the post-war expansion in home-ownership die off, more parents/grandparents are in a position to help out than in previous generations. All the boomers I know have done this. None of them had help to buy from their parents.

There is nothing new about older people having more money than younger people. That's how life works. There seems to have been a cultural switch in expectations. Most of my parents' generation lived in rental accommodation all their lives. I couldn't afford foreign travel until my 50s when dcs were off my hands. When we were saving for a flat in our 20s, we had no fridge, no washing machine, no car and no nights out. I shopped on the way home or in my lunch hour. All that was normal.

What is really scandalous is the rental market. The lack of social housing and rent controls has made the waiting to buy far more difficult. There once was a time when mortgages cost more than renting. Now it's often the reverse. And of course that makes it more difficult to save. But just because it's more difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. This young woman is wasting a lot of money.The fable of the ant and the grasshopper still holds true.

And irritating tho' the Guardian often is, we would miss it if it folded.

I switched to The Times this weekend on the recommendation of other MNers and i'm impressed so far

There is nothing new about older people having more money than younger people.

Yes there is, people used to not have oodles of money in retirment. Now the average boomer has more than the average worker at peak earning levels and has far less outgoings and no mortgage. Final salary pensions are not affordable or fair to those that fund them but won't receive them.

It's unrealistic to get people to buy with friends and creates a whole host of problems. It did used to be far far easier to get a house.

I like the times, but I wouldn't pay for it as Murdoch owned. Agree the NS is good. Will still read the guardian online, but won't support it.

The New Statesman? Not exactly left of centre is it?

If you like that and the Times, no wonder you don't like the Guardian - you're right wing!

Right-wing compared with what? The Morning Star?

I don't think anyone is saying the times is very left wing, just a better read and less crappy ridiculous articles.

The mirror is supposed to be similarly left as the guardian.

I find as I get older I'm not hard left on every single issue. Some I'm left some I'm right.

I don't think anyone is saying the times is very left wing, just a better read and less crappy ridiculous articles.

^this

I'm a centrist and I just want to read some well considered and balanced writing.

Op - yes, it was easier, but it still took a commitment to the sort of frugal lifestyle that many millennials would find daunting. Perhaps it was also 'easier' in the sense that early boomers, at least, would not have been used to the standard of living that millennials have enjoyed since birth. (Not their fault, I admit.)

Regarding 'older people', I wasn't thinking of pensioners but parents of millennials. It used to be assumed that people in their 50s would have more money than people in their 20s, just starting out, because they earned more and had had longer to accumulate savings. Now there seems to be a sense of injustice from young people that they can't afford the same lifestyle as their parents. It would make more sense for millennials to compare their lifestyle with that of their parents when they were in their 20s rather than now.

They also don't seem to appreciate the benefits of youth. It's much easier to be hard-up when you have your health and vitality than when age begins to take its toll.

I can't really speak for boomers, because I was a war baby and a childhood spent in 40s austerity has probably influenced me for life, just as the Depression, when she had to share a vest with her sister, did my mother.

I have every sympathy with millennials over housing problems, the cost of childcare, and gloomy projections for the future, which might not happen, but not with the whingeing.

I'm a centrist and I just want to read some well considered and balanced writing.

While not as bad as the Torygraph, I'm not sure I'd call the Times particularly 'balanced' (not that I would call the Guardian balanced either).

This is part of the problem with all of our media - trying to sort the facts from the spin and the opinion. At least on the right you have a choice, ranging from the outright insanity of the Daily Express to the admittedly more considered Times. What does the left have if you take away the Guardian? The Mirror (ew)?

Messiah, i agree, it does seem that the mainstream media is mostly right wing.

Oh, I do read the morning star too when someone I know has an article in it or its recommended to me.

I wouldn't say I was right wing, but I do think Corbyn and momentum are problematic. However, I'm not English and don't live in England so I'm more concerned about local politics. I'm affected by them but the amount of influence my vote has on them is miniscule.

I now subscribe to the Times (plus read articles from other papers/magazines online). I am a lefty and there is a fair bit I disagree with in there but I think they do present a range of views, do actual investigative journalism and overall I am impressed.

It has also stopped me from living in a echo chamber of similar views to my own and in some cases has challenged me to think about things differently - or at least enabled me to formulate my own counter arguments to what 'right wingers' are saying rather than just hearing the left's view either without any counterargument or with a counterargument which misrepresents what is actually being said (ie a straw man argument).

I don't think anyone is saying you'll be able to afford a deposit using the money you save just from giving up coffee, because as others have pointed out that would be ridiculous, even if you went from buying a fancy artisan latte every day to never buying coffee again. They're just using that as an example of an unnecessary expense that people could cut back on if they wanted to save more.

I currently earn a bit under £17,000 a year, which works out to about £1150pcm after deductions. Once you take out rent, council tax and utility bills I'm left with about £550-600 for everything else (I live in the NW so rent is a lot cheaper here than in many places), including food and transport as well as things like hobbies and going out. Until recently I was living within my means but spending the whole amount, or close to it, but a while ago I decided I needed to start saving properly.

I set myself what I thought was quite an ambitious target of saving about £250-£350 per month, so reducing my spending by about half. I always thought of myself as someone who lived quite cheaply but made (relatively) extravagant impulse buys on occasion, so I thought that would be the main area where I cut down. But when I actually noted down what I spent I discovered that it was the smallish things I bought that were really adding up. So I started making cereal or overnight oats instead of buying croissants in Tesco every morning (~£30). I stopped going into clothes shops on my way home and picking up small things I liked but didn't need (~£20). I stopped getting takeaway once a week (~£20-30) and grabbing a box of fancy biscuits or chocolate off the shelf whenever I went shopping (~£10-15). I started bulk buying rice, beans and veg and making stews or curries to take into work, instead of getting sandwiches or chips from the shop every day (~£40). When I went to the pub after work I bought soft drinks or water instead of pints (~£10). And, yes, I stopped buying lattes several times a week and made coffee at home instead (~£40). That was nearly £200 per month saved by making changes I hardly even noticed, just by cutting down on the little habitual purchases that I barely thought about because 'it's only a few quid'.

All told, if I manage to keep going at the rate I have been for the last few months, I could save between £3500-£4000 a year without too much hardship. Even if we're talking about the £35,000 deposit that the woman in the article was hypothetically aiming for (which is significantly higher than 10% of a flat where I live), that would be theoretically achievable in nine or ten years. In ten years' time I'll be 35, which is hardly ancient - even if you add on another five years to take into account holidays and other random expenses, buying a house at 40 is still pretty reasonable.

Obviously, I'm not saying that everyone who can't afford a deposit is in that position because they're frittering away money on little things - I'm only talking about my specific circumstances in my specific part of the country. And in the next ten years I might well get a partner or have children or lose my job or get a new one that pays twice as much, house prices might skyrocket or collapse, the banks might not give me a mortgage anyway even if I can afford to put down a deposit. Or I might be diagnosed with terminal cancer next week and wish I'd blown all my money on a thousand lattes and a holiday in Thailand while I had the chance. I'm just saying that for some people, the idea that we could buy a house if we didn't spend all our money on fancy coffee (among other things) might not be as unreasonable as it first seems.