Report on increasing gap between rich & poor. What's a London without 'average' families like?

[BrummieOnTheRun]

The Rowntree report published today describes the increasing gap between the richest and poorest in society, with increasing segregation between their lives.

One observation in the report is that 'average' families had virtually disappeared in some areas.

As one family amongst what seems like a mass exodus of families from London in the last year, I was interested to read that.

Does it matter if the only families left in large cities like london are the really rich and those reliant on state benefits?

Should cities try to retain 'average' working families, or just let this trend take its course?

This is the beginning of the rise of ghetto society imo. The rich get richer and further removed from the realities of poverty. Poor white males are the worst achievers in our schools now which speaks volumes. Bravo the Labour govts social engineering experiment.

did you see the programme ross kemp did on the gangs of london? he went to brixton and another place (their rivals I think it was) and I was astounded not at hte beliefs but a thte living conditions he described them as 'london slums' surely there's not places like that in london in the 21st century?

It is appalling and there is less and less of a way out. I may be wrong, but don't we have the highest number of children living in poverty in the EU?

i should imagine that home ownership really skews these figures - inner london particularly woudl be very polarised. and my household might appear richer than we are (skint but own house). i've just had a look at key points and they do talk about 'asset wealthy'

any statisticians care to have a look at it?
key findings here

Fishie, I think in a lot of ways London and the major commuter towns living off London are totally unrepresentative.

The use of national averages, whether it's salary, house prices or nursery costs are completely irrelevant in many areas in the SE, and this is what goverment policy is being based on.

Take the Lib Dems pronouncement last week that households on an income of £68k are the "wealthy majority" who should be taxed more punititively.

In London, if you have 2 children in paid childcare and a 75% mortgage on an 'average' priced property (390k in the Islington boroughs) you'll be lucky to have £400/month left once you've paid tax, NICs, council tax, mortgage payments, utilities and bought 2 travelcards to get you to work.

That's not to take anything away from the appalling poverty so many people are living in.

But I don't know what the answer is...we're led to believe the government's spent the last few years throwing money at the poorest families yet still have massive child poverty?

where I live (on the kent coast) is populated by alot of families that uproot from London through soaring housing costs. So it definately is happening

I think the trouble is that you cannot easily live in London on an 'average' wage. Isn't national ave something like £26k? That's not enough to buy a house or flat or pay for childcare or do anything very much.

It is depressing, I agree. House prices must surely account for some of the gap?

And I know this isn't a popular view but £68k really isn't that much if you live in London or the SE, have to buy a house i.e. that'll only buy you a £200k ish morgage (based on nearly 3 x income) and £200k gets you a very small flat in outskirts of London, it certainly doesn't get you a nice area, good state schools, near to transport etc. And that's without considering childcare, utitilies (and elec/gas prices have gone up), council tax, clothing, travel, healthcare like dental/opticians etc etc.

We are a normal household,(ie not mega rich not poor)but still reasonably high earning and London just got too pricy for us, we live a much better quality of life in the provinces and left 2 years ago.
I do however love London, and wish we could have stayed, moving as a family was the best thing we did none the less.
Agree the gap is widening, and yes some of the North London estates I visited were pretty much poverty stricken and frightening.

I agree WWW about needing more than average in London.

yes the 'average' wage is £447/week. In London, it's £572/week. (2006 figs)

The Lib Dems "wealthy minority" with the £70k household income would be able to borrow about £210k. Assuming they have loads of cash for deposits and stamp duty and could buy a place for £250k, they'd just about get a 2 or 3 bed ex-LA flat on one of the council estates in Kings Cross or Islington.

oh i feel strongly about this

i am a londoner, my family has lived there since the beginning of time, near enough. I grew up there. My family is there. I would love to mocve back there.

i just cannot afford to live there. I don't qualify for council/ HA housing, and on our income, even with london weighting we could MAYBE afford a small house in watford. But couldn't actually afford to travel to work or anything.

I agree with you www, I dont see why that is unpopular.

Filly my friends are 'stuck' in a one bed flat with 2 kids in outer london on very average wages (for the uk, not london) They dont even qualify for HA/council. its a joke. Blame maggie thatcher

Yes, FT, we briefly looked at the suburbs and as well as the issue of having to be at the nursery before 6.30 at the latest, you have the £180/month cost each of a 6 zone travelcard. Not feasible for 2 working parents if you both have to commute.

Hi. We live in London (East London). Our family income is 35K. We own our house. I would say we are 'average', certainly not very rich or very poor.

MM, when did you buy your house?

that would be me, fio, if i was there. DP is a higher rate taxpayer. If I went back to work, I'd expect to be earning well over the national average, even with a career break. BUT our equity is just not enough to make a dent in the london housing market, and things like childcare, travel etc would mean we'd be living on value baked beans.

it does need sorting. I don't know many second generation londoners who are still living near their parents, unless they are actually living WITH their parents.

and btw this situation has massively worsened in the last 5 years or so, IMO.

It wasn't just the financial situation that made us move, though.

Clearly the school issue was a massive reason. Our local primary had 75% of children with english as a 2nd language. I am pro-immigration, but seriously worried about the effect that would have on my DD's teaching at a crucial stage in devt.

The rail and tube network effectively exclude parents with buggies. Buses are over-crowded so buggies are the first to be barred. Cars are too expensive to run and there's no parking. Makes it impossible to travel outside your area and enjoy 'London'.

But another major issue was the breakdown in civility over the past couple of years. Aggressive beggers, drunks, drug addicts. Rush hour muggings. Not feeling safe taking money out of the cashpoint. And we felt under siege in a very normal new build development by teenagers constantly trying to break in.

Fio, I got people massively disagreeing with me ages ago when I said I didn't think £100k was that much as an income (I know it's not the same as £68k but it's not that far off). I still stand by that, £100k isn't wealthy imo.

It's a miracle there are any midwives or teachers or dustbin men or nurses in London tbh. given the salary/cost of living equations.

my limited understanding, www, is that they either live with relatives, or have HA houses, or have inherited a house, or else commute from outside london.

my mother is a teacher and she is one of the few in her school who lives in london (ex council house-I know, I know)

one of her collegues also lives in london. She lives in a 2 bed flat with her sister, and her 2 children. She is in her 40s.

I agree, WWW. It may seem like alot to some people, and I myself wish we had a family income approximating that figure. But our basic family income is £45k and we struggle. Once I have paid council tax, the loan I took to buy my car (necessary in the area I live- no public transport), childcare fees and all the other incidentals we have to pay just to stay legal, it doesn't leave much. We don't even own a house, because by the time we were earning enough not to be laughed out of a mortgage brokers, house prices were way beyond us. £100k is a decent salary, but it is not wealthy. One department of DH's boss' company takes that in a month. I too am a Londoner, but have not lived in London for almost half my life. My parents (very comfortable income) left 17 years ago because it had got so expensive. It does seem to be getting worse. I am from Fulham, and can't believe how different it is now to how it was in my childhood. It doesn't bear any resemblance whatsoever.

well 'key worker' public sector employees do at least have concessions made in the form of affordable housing on new devts in some areas, which is a good move.

however there are lots of non-public sector jobs which are at or below the national average. (a friend said their firm is now using archaelogists from eastern europe!)