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?

Brighton & Hove have gone crazy due to all the families selling up and fleeing London. It's pushing already-installed families further along the coast.

The upside may be that areas along the coast regenerate, but only if new local economies emerge that bring jobs to those high-unemployment areas.

Ultimately,I guess we're all destined for france!

Suprised no one has mentioned Buy To Let as a cause of the housing crisis. Many first time buyer type properties have been bought up by babyboomers who have massive equity in their own homes and tax breaks.

There's a slight chance that things might improve for the next working generation if and when a crash happens and these properties are offloaded. But for those in their 20's and 30's who've bought in the last few years it'll be bleak indeed. I deeply regret being too cautious and holding off from buying between 2001-2004 (when I finally took the plunge in N London) but even then prices seemed unsustainable! Things held steady for the first year or so and now they've kicked on again, but it can't last. At least I can be fairly confident that we've dodged negative equity, but we missed the boat really. To afford a house we'd have to move North but I'm not sure I'd want my DS to go to school in London anyway.

Brighton prices are not much different to London now and I know a few people who are going back as they are commuting and not really any better off time/money wise.I moved here 9 yrs ago but certainly couldn't afford it now

yeah, but the quality of life for families in Brighton is incomparable to London, though!

buses with buggy space, changing facilities everywhere...and civilised people. take that constant fear of being mugged or verbally abused away, and everyone becomes nicer. rudeness is contagious and it's now endemic in london life.

Like bagsundereyes, our mortgage is similar to bonne baguettes. But our childcare costs are less than half. I am not sure how she manages.

I agree brummie I love it here on its own merits regardless of house prices and living etc

yes, but BrummieOnTheRun, Brighton is also being changed because of the influx of Londoners...

It is much LESS friendlier, more trendy and unwelcoming. It feels less safe, much more crowded and more hyped up.

House prices are stupid, especially as Brighton has lower than average wages, despite having much higher than average housing costs.

The Brighton that Londoners dream about moving to is now London by the Sea. The Brighton that of 15 years ago is sadly missed by many, who have since had to move somewhere else.

The thing that made it a fab place was its uniqueness. The London influx have trashed that. It is becoming as split as London, with poverty concentrated on the poor estates while rich money and media types head for the seafront and suburbs near the stations.

Harrumph

think brighton is far less grimy than it was 15 years ago

Bundle - possibly less grimy, yes. But a nicer place to live? Not for many of those born and bred...
Nicer than London though - of course...

Gee you have a good point - the reason prices have gone up is demand has increased across the whole of the market. London/SE is probably very dense in single occupier households - more than it has ever been before - thus pushing up prices.

The interest rate rises take about 12/18 months to filter down and I think that we will begin to see much of the buy to let coming onto the market and thus prices will begin to come down.

In response to OP - the average family is of course a myth - as much as the average mum etc I wonder if this is cyclical - thinking back to the Victorians where London was populated with wealthy & poor before the rise of the middle classes.

I see the gap as more than just wealth - it is in education, health, public services and social responsibility.

katepol, completely with you on housing costs vs wages. I was completely unprepared for over 35% drop in salary, while childcare costs are not massively different.

on politeness of society, though, I wonder if it's a nationwide downward trend? London is more marked because there are many more 'flash points' due to over-crowding.

katepol has a very good point. Anywhere that receives a great influx of wealthier, or more money to spend on a house types from london or elsewhere, pushes the price up of that area and often prices 'locals' out of the market. Whitstable is a prime example

"I wonder if this is cyclical - thinking back to the Victorians where London was populated with wealthy & poor before the rise of the middle classes. "

well labour has been doing an excellent job of vilifying the 'middle class'... that's broadly translated as anyone on 'average' (back to averages) or slightly above-average income who tries to get their child into a good school or university. if the tax, benefit and education policies are an attempt to wipe them out then it sounds like it's working.

Brummie - that's a thought...

It does seem to me that the middle classes are the one putting the most in and getting the least out...

?

Actually I regret linking the class issue and the income issue because I think it's irrelevant these days.

It's about (positive) values and aspirations which are nothing to do with income or social status.

Hmm, interesting report.
Can't find how they define average though? Live in London and mostly happy here despite property prices etc etc, hoping not to join mass exodus. But what on earth counts as average?

Why is this put out as a UK wide report when it's about London?

Looks like it covers all of England, Wales and Scotland, but quite a few of the key points the researchers have made focus on London. Dull Londoners think they're the centre of the universe as usual, I know.

Life outside London, (with Scotland down the bottom somewhere) here:
pagewww.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/research/transformation/wpc_pct_bymeasure.html

Or here
www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/research/transformation/wpc_pct_bymeasure.html

Average families (non-poor, non-wealthy) gone down from 70 per cent to 50 per cent to only 38 per cent in my constituency over the period measured.

I don't think 'twas always thus. When I was little we lived in a four bed detached in a desirable, commutable village in Yorkshire. My father was a junior manager in the public sector when they bought and my mother a SAHM, then a journalist on a local paper. Our neighbours had ordinary, middle class jobs - teachers and so on.

OK, my mother had inherited a bit from the sale of her parent's house (a three bed cottage, nothing fancy). But when we moved to a four bed semi in a desirable part of a desirable city, Chester. (Note for southerners - it's a bit like the Northern equivalent of the stockbroker belt). Again, neighbours were teachers and public sector managers and so on, not wealthy upper middle class with serious inheritances and trust funds. I'm sure teachers starting out today could not afford to buy either of those houses (noticed the first one is £350k on a recent visit back to see my Godmother).

Average for London is skewed by high City salaries.