# A Living Wage For London



## citydreams (Jun 6, 2006)

It's been calculated again, this time by economists at the GLA.

How much do you reckon?


----------



## BlackSpecs (Jun 6, 2006)

15k.....?


----------



## Sweetpea (Jun 6, 2006)

Not what I'm "living" on that's for sure. 

£35,000?


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 6, 2006)

It's an hourly rate isn't it? 

£6.70 sticks in my head from last time because I remember laughing my bollox off at it? I suppose it's a few pence more at about £6.90 or so. Which is about half what a realistic figure is.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 6, 2006)

the big factor is housing costs, at a stretch i could probably live on 15k as i only pay about 200 quid a month for my bit of the mortgage, but average rents are fairly high i would have thought


----------



## citydreams (Jun 6, 2006)

LGA Economists said:
			
		

> The Family Budget Unit, estimates the costs of a ‘Low Cost but Acceptable’ (LCA)budget for a selection of typical or model families. This approach calculates the wage required to meet those costs, and is also termed the Basic Living Costs approach.
> 
> Next, using the ‘Income Distribution’ approach, 60 per cent of median income is taken as the poverty line. This is consistent with the Government’s usual definition of relative poverty. This approach estimates the wage required to achieve 60 per cent of median income for the same typical or model families.
> 
> ...



Which basically means it's not a living wage at all, it's an average of what everyone earns.




			
				GLA said:
			
		

> The Living Wage Unit will continue to undertake research in particular to increase our understanding of the patterns of low pay in London, and trying to improve our estimates of the incidence of low pay in London.



wankers


----------



## Sweetpea (Jun 6, 2006)

marty21 said:
			
		

> the big factor is housing costs, at a stretch i could probably live on 15k as i only pay about 200 quid a month for my bit of the mortgage, but average rents are fairly high i would have thought


Yup, that was my reason for quoting high. My living costs are "Graciously subsidised" but looking around at average rental it looks as if a Londoner could easily lose £10 -15k to rent, another £1,000 to Council Tax, £2,000 on utilities? Then food =£ Travel =£ Clothing


----------



## trashpony (Jun 6, 2006)

So basically that's still £2 an hour more than minimum wage. No wonder we have more children living in poverty in London than in the rest of the country


----------



## marty21 (Jun 6, 2006)

Sweetpea said:
			
		

> Yup, that was my reason for quoting high. My living costs are "Graciously subsidised" but looking around at average rental it looks as if a Londoner could easily lose £10 -15k to rent, another £1,000 to Council Tax, £2,000 on utilities? Then food =£ Travel =£ Clothing



we're lucky in a lot of ways, we bought at a time when prices were very low, i doubt i could afford to pay the mortgage on this flat now if i was buying it today (actually i doubt i would be able to get a mortgage on it)


----------



## Sweetpea (Jun 6, 2006)

Speak for yourself, I'm a tenant 
(you wouldn't want to live next to me  )


----------



## subversplat (Jun 6, 2006)

If you interpret it as "Living in London costs £7.02 an hour" that works out to be  £61,000 a year. Plenty enough for me


----------



## scifisam (Jun 10, 2006)

£7.02 for a 40 hour week works out at £14601.60 per year, gross. Tax on that would not be too bad, since it is a low income; student loans wouldn't have to be paid back; most people would be able to get working tax credit to top it up (whether they have kids or not). Even without taking WTC into account, I'd say that roughly £970 per month net (I'm hazarding a guess at tax and NI taking out 20% of income; correct me if that's eqregiously wrong) is easily enough to live on. Even if you go down to a 35-hour week it's liveable.

Rent for a room in a shared house? £350-£400 pcm (you can get cheaper, but it's not always easy, so I've gone for the higher end of the range). In some areas you can get a small flat for little more than that. Add in council tax (if it's not included in the rent), bills (again, presuming they're not included), travelcard (if necessary), food and social costs, and it's still not bad. Luxurious, no, but fine as a basic living wage.


----------



## toggle (Jun 10, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Luxurious, no, but fine as a basic living wage.




especially when you have to support a family on that.


----------



## feyr (Jun 10, 2006)

i earn £ 6.06 an hour. gah


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 10, 2006)

The cost differential between London and the north is staggering, IMO.  In Hull, I could rent my own flat and live reasonably well on a take-home pay of about £8k per year.  I'd never live in London if I weren't earning a reasonable salary.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 10, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> especially when you have to support a family on that.



I do support a family on less than that.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 10, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I do support a family on less than that.



 

With no benefits of any kind? How many people?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 10, 2006)

Just me and my daughter. I did apply for benefits, but it got screwed up and eventually I gave up - trust me, in my position anyone would have; it wasn't worth the effort and stress. 

Background: I'm a PGCE student and get the teacher training bursary of £6000, plus student loan in theory, but in practice I have only got another thousand in student loan and grant (I'm also theoretically exempt from council tax, if the council would accept that I live alone). I don't get any other help with childcare costs - oh, I do get child benefit though. 

My rent's quite cheap, and it has been very, very hard, but I'm still here on way, way less than £900 pcm. In fact, when I was working I only briefly went above the £15,000 threshhold and didn't have any money problems at all at that time. I'll be on a normal wage from next month - I shall live like a King!

£14,600 gross wouldn't afford a great standard of living, but you could live on it. If someone's paying £10,000-£15,000 to rent then they really need to move flat!


----------



## citydreams (Jun 12, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Background: I'm a PGCE student and get the teacher training bursary of £6000, plus student loan in theory, but in practice I have only got another thousand in student loan and grant .



Sorry for being nosey.. do they not give you the £6000 until you pass the PGCE?


----------



## subversplat (Jun 12, 2006)

£14,600 is more than I've ever earned in my life. Even when I worked in London


----------



## citydreams (Jun 12, 2006)

to be fair, I think scifisam has got his sums wrong..  no-one pays you for your lunch hour, so the annual wage, less bank holidays is really around the £12k mark.


----------



## arty (Jun 12, 2006)

less any days you're sick, less any holidays you take (often unpaid in the first few months of a job), no it's fuck all really.


----------



## Zappomatic (Jun 12, 2006)

When a job is described as 35 hours a week, that doesn't mean 35 hours spent on the working day - it means the time you're actually working and paid for, so not getting paid for a lunch break is irrelevant. My working week is 9 to 5.30, Mon to Fri, but I get an hour and a half of unpaid breaks each day so that takes what would be 42.5 hours a week to 35 hours. And isn't it quite normal to get paid for bank holidays, time off sick and holiday?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> to be fair, I think scifisam has got his sums wrong..  no-one pays you for your lunch hour, so the annual wage, less bank holidays is really around the £12k mark.



I wasn't counting pay for lunch hour. You can check my figures yourself. It's not unusual to work 40 billed hours, but I did mention that even at 35 hours (40 minus 5 hours for lunch), it's not that bad either - it's £12,776. With a regular tax code and NI on top, that's £873pcm net. Hard to live on, but not impossible - very hard to support a family on, but theoretically you wouldn't have to (thanks to WTC), and in practice you would usually get quite a big top-up. 

Lots of employers don't pay for sick days, true, but they are legally obliged to pay for bank holidays if that's your rostered day on. If they don't pay holiday pay, like with some temp agencies, then the hourly rate is supposed to be increased, as holiday pay is also a legal obligation (20 days minimum), no matter how long you've been there.

That kind of money wouldn't enable a great lifestyle. It would pay the rent and bills, some childcare (which would mostly be taken care of by WTC anyway, at that wage), and leave some money for going out and so on. 

(FYI, I'm a she, though I wouldn't expect anyone to know that from my name).
e

Citydreams - you're thinking of the 'Golden Hello,' which I think I will get when I start my job (not everyone gets it). The £6000 I'm talking about is the teacher training salary, paid monthly during the course (well, paid for none months of the ten month course, anyway).


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Luxurious, no, but fine as a basic living wage.



You're having a bubble mate.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Sorry for being nosey.. do they not give you the £6000 until you pass the PGCE?



You don't get it (if you qualify for it at all) until 1 year and 1 term later.  You do your PGCE.  Then you do your NQT year.  Then you have have to work one whole term - then you get it - although people I worked with got it by the October half term.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

I've said numerous times that I left the country primarily because of the impossibility of finding secure accommodation in London. This is the real problem. I was on 22K, not great money but not poverty wages by any means: and I couldn't find so much as a studio flat to rent on anything like what I could afford.

But the odd thing was, I _could _afford to go out, to have a holiday or two, to live pretty well by the standards of the world generally. Obviously I wouldn't accept it if somebody on 40K told me I was doing all right - I have a real and justified animus against people on comfortable incomes telling the less comfortable what they should accept - but nevertheless, leaving questions of social inequality to one side for a moment, I wasn't doing so badly _except for the ludicrous level of housing costs_. "Housing ladder" nothing, I couldn't afford to rent a flat on my own, and that as a professional at the age of forty. The result was endemic stress (since without secure accommodation, you can be out on your ear at any time) and a permanent feeling of not being valued by the society to which I contributed.

Wages are important - you won't find me saying any different - but it's housing costs, in London and the South-East, that are the real problem. That's where you need precisely the sort of sizeable government intervention that you are not going to get.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Citydreams - you're thinking of the 'Golden Hello,' which I think I will get when I start my job (not everyone gets it). The £6000 I'm talking about is the teacher training salary, paid monthly during the course (well, paid for none months of the ten month course, anyway).



So one hand offers you a living wage approx £12k a year and the other offers you £6k to get a job where you'd be hoping to be payed more than that.   Welcome to London.

p.s. I only thought you were blokey cause you said you'd live like a king


----------



## Sunray (Jun 13, 2006)

I would go as far as to suggest that you need 18 maybe even 20k to make London comfortable.  

Entirely depends on your lifestyle though.


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

Zappomatic said:
			
		

> And isn't it quite normal to get paid for bank holidays, time off sick and holiday?


It is if you're in a half decent permanent job, but many people who are earning near this "living wage" and who are paid hourly don't get this.





			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I've said numerous times that I left the country primarily because of the impossibility of finding secure accommodation in London. This is the real problem. I was on 22K, not great money but not poverty wages by any means: and I couldn't find so much as a studio flat to rent on anything like what I could afford.
> 
> But the odd thing was, I _could _afford to go out, to have a holiday or two, to live pretty well by the standards of the world generally. Obviously I wouldn't accept it if somebody on 40K told me I was doing all right - I have a real and justified animus against people on comfortable incomes telling the less comfortable what they should accept - but nevertheless, leaving questions of social inequality to one side for a moment, I wasn't doing so badly _except for the ludicrous level of housing costs_. "Housing ladder" nothing, I couldn't afford to rent a flat on my own, and that as a professional at the age of forty. The result was endemic stress (since without secure accommodation, you can be out on your ear at any time) and a permanent feeling of not being valued by the society to which I contributed.
> 
> Wages are important - you won't find me saying any different - but it's housing costs, in London and the South-East, that are the real problem. That's where you need precisely the sort of sizeable government intervention that you are not going to get.



Come off it, on £22k you can easily find a studio flat in London.
I often hear people talking about how hard it is to get on the housing ladder, or to rent a decent place, compared to how it was, say, for their parents, but this is because previous generations didn't expect to buy/rent a house *and *go out every week, pissing £50-100 up the wall, buy a new mobile every six months, have a nice car, flatscreen TV, every appliance going, and  and go on holiday every year with a few short breaks in the meantime.
It actually isn't that much harder now, people just expect way more and refuse to give up certain things.

Only 2 years ago, my partner and I were able to rent a place in London and live reasonably well on a sole income of £17 grand. Yeah, the flat was a bit shit, but if I had a nother 5 grand this wouldn't have been a problem. You can live on £17-18k.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> Come off it, on £22k you can easily find a studio flat in London.


Cobblers, my friend. Not if you also wish to eat and get to work.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

Table 2.1: Basic Living Costs (or LCA budget) for single individuals (aged 16-19 years old) in London, (£ per week, 2004)
Costs	Single young individual
	Full-time
Regional indexed cost of a basket of goods and services	79.35
Council tax	            10.75
Total transport costs	19.20
Childcare costs	             0.0
Total non housing costs	109.30
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/current_issues_note_7.rtf


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

Table 2.2. Bottom quartile of rents of various sizes and types of accommodation (£ per week)
	1 bedroom;	2 bedrooms;	3 bedrooms;	4 bedrooms;	5 bedrooms;	6 bedrooms
Rooms:	74;	37.50				
Sharers:	75;					
Bedsits:	70;					
Studio Flat: no data available						
Flat:	150;	87.50;	68.80;	72.30		
Maisonette:	150;	86.50;	69.30;	100		
House/bungalow/cottage:	144;	88.80;	71.30;	74.80;	69.10;	58.30
Social rented:	50.80;	29.60;	21.90;	18.20		

Source: GLA and CIPFA datasets


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

From 2004:
This week Ken Livingstone suggested that he thought a living wage in London should be £7.70.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/insideldn/politics/politics_260904.shtml


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> So basically that's still £2 an hour more than minimum wage. No wonder we have more children living in poverty in London than in the rest of the country



Around one in seven of London employees receive less than £6.15 per hour and are effectively living on poverty level wages
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/readnews.asp?id=1582


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Cobblers, my friend. Not if you also wish to eat and get to work.


I have a mate on about 18K and he lives in a studio flat.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

Where does he live, how much did the flat cost and where does he work?

I found nothing for less than 600 a month (unless I wanteds to live so far out that the saving would have been lost in extra travel costs) and even that was an exception.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Where does he live, how much did the flat cost and where does he work?
> 
> I found nothing for less than 600 a month (unless I wanteds to live so far out that the saving would have been lost in extra travel costs) and even that was an exception.


He pays about 550 a month in Balham and works in Selhurst (using a car)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Tis fucking tiny though - I'd end up killing myself if I lived there


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> He pays about 550 a month in Balham and works in Selhurst (using a car)


Yeah, I could maybe just about have afforded that: though whether I could have got my six bookcases and a television into the place is another matter. 550 is unusually "cheap" though, don't you think?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yeah, I could maybe just about have afforded that: though whether I could have got my six bookcases and a television into the place is another matter. 550 is unusually "cheap" though, don't you think?


It is pretty cheap. 
I wouldn't live there myself as I said - I would like to live on my own but would probably be have to be on £30K plus to have enough to pay for a one bedroom flat up to the standard I'm used to. That's why I prefer sharing with a mate.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It is pretty cheap.



Yeah. And sometimes you can get cheap stuff, sometimes because it's shite and sometimes because the landlord or landlady is generous (I lived in Oxford for nine years with a bloke who charged far less than a market rent).




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I wouldn't live there myself as I said - I would like to live on my own but would probably be have to be on £30K plus to have enough to pay for a one bedroom flat up to the standard I'm used to.


Well, quite. And that's a _one-bedroom flat_, not a castle.

30K is, I'd guess, above the median salary in London?




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> That's why I prefer sharing with a mate.


I don't. I'm too old for it and I don't believe I should have to anyway.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

You shouldn't have to, no, but it's more practical to do so


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

Not really. Obviously I see what you mean, but if it causes you stress and strife then in the long term it's not all that practical as you have to keep moving on anyway.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

It doesn't cause stress and strife if you find the right person to share with - ie someone with a very similar lifestyle as you and someone with the same standards.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

Hard though, that. And besides, there _are_ people who simply want and need to be on their own.


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Cobblers, my friend. Not if you also wish to eat and get to work.



OK you might be right - *you *can't or couldn't. I, and plenty of others did and do, on a lot less than £22k.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> Come off it, on £22k you can easily find a studio flat in London.



bollocks


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> He pays about 550 a month in Balham and works in Selhurst (using a car)



How can you pay £550/month, run a car and have a life on 18K?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> How can you pay £550/month, run a car and have a life on 18K?


Beats me - he does though!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> OK you might be right - *you *can't or couldn't. I, and plenty of others did and do, on a lot less than £22k.



But its about standard of life.  Working your arse off just to cover rent and bills and not having enough to actually enjoy life?  Fuck that.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Beats me - he does though!



Does he have a life?  I couldn't do it on that money.  Its hard enough on £25K.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

I don't get it. If you're earning £22,000, why can you only afford £600pm on rent? Where does the rest of the money go? £22,000pa is £1,388pm net.

(I'm using this tax calculator, btw.

My friend has a two bedroom flat in a gated development in Whitechapel, ten minutes' walk from the financial district. £600pm. Another friend has a two-bedroom flat, fully furnished, in Penge, zone 3, £650pm. My partner's own rented room in West Ham, which is zone 3 but has excellent transport connections, is £300pm including bills. My houseguest recently went to look at 2 rooms in shared flats, zone 2: one was £320pm inc, one was £345pm inc. Two friends of mine rent an absolutely gorgeous one-bedroom flat with a balcony in Camden - not a cheap area - for £700. 

These are all big, clean flats in pretty good areas (Whitechapel has a reputation but if you visit it you find that it's very much out of date) not too far out of the city. That's a lot more money than you'd pay for something similar in the suburbs or most other cities, but it's not absolutely impossible.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Does he have a life?  I couldn't do it on that money.  Its hard enough on £25K.



£6k and a _great_ life here. Not everything requires spending ots of money.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> £6k and a _great_ life here. Not everything requires spending ots of money.



I don't really believe you tbh.  After rent, bills, council tax, travel I'd be in debt on £6k and I wouldn't have even eaten.  My rent comes to 6K/year on its own.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I don't get it. If you're earning £22,000, why can you only afford £600pm on rent? Where does the rest of the money go? £22,000pa is £1,388pm net.



I'm on £25K and I only get £3 more than that per month.  Pension, student loan and union dues all come out first before I see any of it.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't really believe you tbh.  After rent, bills, council tax, travel I'd be in debt on £6k and I wouldn't have even eaten.  My rent comes to 6K/year on its own.



You caught me out, I'm lying! I must be! Despite the fact that you can check for yourself that that's how much student teachers get. Like I said, I have fairly cheap rent, so that helps a lot.

I am in a bit of debt - well, a few hundred, but that's mainly down to problems with the student loans company (who have, as I mentioned before, additionally paid me about £1000 net this year, which has covered childcare). I couldn't live on this wage forever - it's only bearable because I know it'll lead to a decent wage. In any case, it's a lot less than half the 'living wage' proposed.

I still don't understand how £1,388pm net is so hard to live on if you're renting (buying's a different matter). Council tax, rent, transport, food, bills, I'm adding them up and not coming to anywhere near that. 

I guess this is a very good example of a question where Your Mileage Really Does Vary.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

There's no way you can survive on £6K/year in London.  You're either borrowing money or have parents helping you out.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> There's no way you can survive on £6K/year in London.  You're either borrowing money or have parents helping you out.



you can survive in London on no money.. 

anyway, ScifiSam isn't claiming to be living on only £6k.. that is for the 10 months of the PGCE for which she has also taken out a £1k loan and has accumulated in the space of a couple of months a few hundred quid debts.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 13, 2006)

I get the same 6k bursary.  You get £666.67 every month.  I have to admit if I had to pay my rent and bills out of that (which, luckily, I don't really), I'm not sure how I'd manage - cheap rent or otherwise.  However, I believe ScifiSam when she says she does.  That is pretty impressive though.


----------



## toggle (Jun 13, 2006)

I survived in london on less than that as a student. Then, my shared room in halls cost under £35 per week, I had no bills to pay and no travel costs. 


That sort of rent isn't possible now though.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 13, 2006)

I do also think you should be able to find somewhere to live by yourself if you're earning £22k.  My last flat in Brixton (2 bedroom) was £650 pcm including heating and water bills - it was a lovely flat - a bit old and rough around the edges but really rather nice.

If you're on £22k and getting £1,388pm net then that leaves you with £738 per month for additional bills and living expenses.  It's not tons, but it's not bad either.  I know I managed earning less than that for the past 6 years.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> my shared room in halls cost under £35 per week,.



was TV still in black & white?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

Yup, it's not for the whole year, just for ten months, and, like I said, I couldn't do it long-term. For this year, it's been hard, but doable, not just for me but for all the others on my course, only two of whom live with their parents. The rest also have to pay rent, bills, etc. And again, it's still a lot less than that living wage.

I guess maybe I'm lucky that I don't have any old loans or credit cards to pay off - maybe that's what's taking such a chunk out of other people's earnings.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Yup, it's not for the whole year, just for ten months, and, like I said, I couldn't do it long-term. For this year, it's been hard, but doable, not just for me but for all the others on my course, only two of whom live with their parents. The rest also have to pay rent, bills, etc. And again, it's still a lot less than that living wage.



Did you get your bursary straight away?  Mine didn't starting getting paid until the end of January.   I had taken out the loan so that tided me over and my partner helped me out too, but there are plenty of people on my course, like you, who really needed that money to survive on.  I wondered how they got by!?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> was TV still in black & white?



Oh, I don't think it existed then. *ducks and runs*

One shared room I lived in was £35 per week too, in Pimlico - it was lovely. But that was in 1995-96.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Did you get your bursary straight away?  Mine didn't starting getting paid until the end of January.   I had taken out the loan so that tided me over and my partner helped me out too, but there are plenty of people on my course, like you, who really needed that money to survive on.  I wondered how they got by!?



Yeah, well, almost. The last installment hasn't been paid though, and I don't know why. Why was yours late?

Maybe they just lived on the loan too - if mine had been paid properly, this year would have been fine financially; you do get some help if you have a child, or bizarrely, a partner: one of the students on my course got a dependant's grant because she's engaged and her fiancé had been a student the previous tax year! Lucky! I guess your friends at least knew they would be getting the bursary eventually, so were able to borrow against it.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't think it existed then. *ducks and runs*
> 
> One shared room I lived in was £35 per week too, in Pimlico - it was lovely. But that was in 1995-96.



You have an amazing tendency to find cheap accomodation.

1993 I was in a bedsit on £55/week which was cheap to me and it certainly wasn't lovely.  The bathroom walls were furry, the kitchen stank of cat piss which we could never tell was from the cat or from the landlord's octogenarian mother who waddled around in her night-shirt.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 13, 2006)

Why was yours late?

Lambeth cock up - who seemed to think I was doing an undergraduate degree in German for some reason?

you do get some help if you have a child, or bizarrely, a partner: 

They didn't take my OH into account.  But I was worried they might do in the negative sense.. ie get him to pay for me or something - so I was glad they didn't.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> You have an amazing tendency to find cheap accomodation.



It was only as cheap as that because it was a shared room - the rent for the whole room was £70, which I thought was quite expensive really, but the location made it worth it. However, at that time there were plenty of rooms going for £40-£45pw. This was East London (apart from the shared room, of course).

Looking on the accomodation sticky at the top of this thread I see a lot of rooms that aren't miles away from that either - less than I was expecting them to be. 

Gaijingirl - how bizarre. Maybe they were processing forms that had accidentally slipped down the back of filing cabinet and crossed into a parallel universe. It's the only reasonable explanation for why so many seemingly normal people can muck so many things up.


----------



## toggle (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> was TV still in black & white?




This was 12 years ago. The neighbours really didn't like students living on low rent in their midst. Then it was south kensington


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Does he have a life?  I couldn't do it on that money.  Its hard enough on £25K.


He manages fine - just had a massive bender of a weekend with him - he doesn't have any debts mind.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But its about standard of life.  Working your arse off just to cover rent and bills and not having enough to actually enjoy life?  Fuck that.



I guess this is the key paragraph on why we're disagreeing on how much is a living wage. To me, a living wage _is_ only enough to cover rent, bills, other essentials and a bit left over for the fun stuff (I do include having _some_ left over for fun stuff and emergencies - otherwise it wouldn't be a living wage, it'd be a surviving wage). It might not be enough for holidays, gadgets and expensive outings. They're what you get when, hopefully, you've done OK at work and started earning more. 

It also might not be enough to run a car in London, because of insurance and parking, but a car isn't as essential in London as it is in most places (and anyway, I was taking travelcards into account when working out what I think a person would need to live on).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

I think people are disagreeing about what constitiutes a good living and that changes the more you earn.
I used to live on 11k about 5 years ago, but I went to the pub once a month and clubbing once every two.
Now I earn more, a living wage constitutes being able to afford to go out every week and to go on holiday once or twice a year.


----------



## Kanda (Jun 13, 2006)

I doubled my salary in 4yrs and am still skint all the time, and I don't have any debt


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But its about standard of life.  Working your arse off just to cover rent and bills and not having enough to actually enjoy life?  Fuck that.



judging by some of the responses here (and my own experience) it ain't that hard to rent a studio flat in London for £600. Even if you pay £700 that leaves you with plenty leftover if you earn £22k. 

I guess everyone needs a different amount to enjoy life.
Some people might blow £50-£100 on a night out, while I might go to a soundsystem dance for maybe £5, have a couple of drinks before, a couple inside, smoke a couple of spliffs, total cost maybe £15-20. 
people also spend inordinate amounts of money on shit they don't need, or maybe they do need them to enjoy life, but other people don't.

This thread is about a *living *wage anyway, not how much people need to have the particular lifestyle they might desire, which is obviously much higher for many people.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> you can survive in London on no money..



Not really, no.  You can beg for money but you need some money, even if only to get the bus.




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> anyway, ScifiSam isn't claiming to be living on only £6k.. that is for the 10 months of the PGCE for which she has also taken out a £1k loan and has accumulated in the space of a couple of months a few hundred quid debts.



Oh, I thought that's what they were saying, that they could survive on £6K/year.


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

you do need money for food, but the bus can be free


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

dbl post


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I do also think you should be able to find somewhere to live by yourself if you're earning £22k.  My last flat in Brixton (2 bedroom) was £650 pcm including heating and water bills - it was a lovely flat - a bit old and rough around the edges but really rather nice.
> 
> If you're on £22k and getting £1,388pm net then that leaves you with £738 per month for additional bills and living expenses.  It's not tons, but it's not bad either.  I know I managed earning less than that for the past 6 years.



I couldn't survive on that.  Not after paying bills, credit cards, travel expenses, food, clothes.  Well maybe I could survive, but I couldn't _live_ - I wouldn't have a social life, I'd be a hermit.  That's no life as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> you do need money for food, but the bus can be free



until you get caught and have to find £100 fine


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> until you get caught and have to find £100 fine


You can get away without paying that usually


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I don't get it. If you're earning £22,000, why can you only afford £600pm on rent? Where does the rest of the money go? £22,000pa is £1,388pm net.
> 
> (I'm using this tax calculator, btw.
> 
> ...


Right. Now I can't remember exactly how much I had to live on every month when I was in Brixton - my wageslips are about a thousand miles away - but it wasn't that much, since there were, as Blagsta observes, items such as pensions to consider. That was a sizeable amount - amidst the great fuss made about these public sector pensions everybody's apparently getting, it's rarely observed that they also cost a bit, too.

I also had to pay back about a hundred a month to meet the debts I'd incurred in order to qualify as a librarian.

I also had to pay my share of council tax.

After paying for my monthly Travelcard I seem to recall having about five hundred a month: not nothing, and I imagine theoretically I could have paid another couple of hundred a month on rent, if I'd wanted to have no life and no holidays.

I didn't live lavishly or anything like it: I didn't have overseas holidays or expensive ones, nor did I go out or go away a lot. But was I really supposed to spend more on rent than on all my living expenses combined, in order to have, if I was lucky, a studio flat, and no life to speak of? It was bloody tight enough as it was and I should object very strongly to any suggestion to the contrary.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not really, no.  You can beg for money but you need some money, even if only to get the bus.
> .



what do you need to get the bus for?

seriously, my cousin lived on the streets in london for years, never drawing a penny of dole.  she's a bit of metalist though.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I guess this is the key paragraph on why we're disagreeing on how much is a living wage. To me, a living wage _is_ only enough to cover rent, bills, other essentials and a bit left over for the fun stuff (I do include having _some_ left over for fun stuff and emergencies - otherwise it wouldn't be a living wage, it'd be a surviving wage). It might not be enough for holidays, gadgets and expensive outings. They're what you get when, hopefully, you've done OK at work and started earning more.
> 
> It also might not be enough to run a car in London, because of insurance and parking, but a car isn't as essential in London as it is in most places (and anyway, I was taking travelcards into account when working out what I think a person would need to live on).



If I'm working my arse off (if anyone's working their arse off), then the reward should be more than simple survival.  Simply surviving ain't any sort of life.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> judging by some of the responses here (and my own experience) it ain't that hard to rent a studio flat in London for £600. Even if you pay £700 that leaves you with plenty leftover if you earn £22k.
> 
> .



I'm sorry, it gives FA left over.  I couldn't afford a flat on my own and live in London.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> what do you need to get the bus for?
> 
> seriously, my cousin lived on the streets in london for years, never drawing a penny of dole.  she's a bit of metalist though.



Well clients of mine need to get the bus (despite living on the streets) to get to appointments that they can't walk miles for due to having DVT or other medical problems or disabilities.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 13, 2006)

It would give absolutely stuff all left over. It sounds fine when you do the calculations, until you actualy start having to calculate the things you're paying for too.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Right. Now I can't remember exactly how much I had to live on every month when I was in Brixton - my wageslips are about a thousand miles away - but it wasn't that much, since there were, as Blagsta observes, items such as pensions to consider. That was a sizeable amount - amidst the great fuss made about these public sector pensions everybody's apparently getting, it's rarely observed that they also cost a bit, too.
> 
> I also had to pay back about a hundred a month to meet the debts I'd incurred in order to qualify as a librarian.
> 
> ...




Exactly.


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If I'm working my arse off (if anyone's working their arse off), then the reward should be more than simple survival.  Simply surviving ain't any sort of life.



I agree it ain't ideal, but as a "living wage", below which noone should be able to pay, I think £22k would be more than enough,as you can live comfortably on it, I've lived comfortably on less.

and no, living on the streets ain't really another good option, even though it's obviosuly possible.

as for the bus fine, speak with a foreign accent, you're going back to your country in 2 days (i.e. before any fine notice will arrive), you've got no ID on you, and they really can't be arsed to hassle you for too long. You do need a certain amount of bullshit ability though.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> I agree it ain't ideal, but as a "living wage", below which noone should be able to pay, I think £22k would be more than enough,as you can live comfortably on it, I've lived comfortably on less.



I'm guessing you're still fairly young?  In my mid 30's there's absolutely no way that I can live comfortably on £22K in London.  I could do it in Birmingham, but not in London.  I spent all my 20's being flat broke, I'm never going back there, its shit.


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

just noticed the pensions bit, and to be fair, I never paid into a pension when earning £17k, so I take your point, but still think you're mixing up what you think you need in order to have a decent life with things that you actually do need.

I don't get it really, like I said, 2 of us lived on £17k in a studio flat, went on holidays, went out at the weekends, etc. I din't buy a lot of clothes or other stuff, and buy most things cheaply, but it can't just be that I'm better with money than you.
Maybe it's coz I'm a tight fecker.


----------



## arty (Jun 13, 2006)

31, not sure it makes much difference (unless you have kids of course)


----------



## Disco Squirrel (Jun 13, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Beats me - he does though!



He's on a bit more than that, about 25K now I think but for a while he was on about 20K.  

You've just got to budget for everything.

I pay nearly £700 on my morgage so have to very careful on what I spend but I manage it somehow.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> 31, not sure it makes much difference (unless you have kids of course)



It certainly makes a difference to me.  I spent my 20's living in shitty accomodation, not being able to afford nice clothes or holidays.  I ain't going back to that.  Its not like I'm extravagant - I don't go clubbing, I only go to the pub once a week, I do a lot of my food shopping in Brixton market, I get the bus not the tube to work.  But I do live in a nice flat and have a computer, net connection, hi-fi, DVD player, go on holiday once or twice a year (not extravagant - Easy Jet flights and self catering in Spain or Germany) - all the little luxuries that make working in a demanding job worthwhile.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 13, 2006)

I should be getting the full calculations from the Family Budget Unit tomorrow.
I wonder whether they've included trips up north to see your sick mother, a bottle of wine on your birthday or a bag of coal for xmas day


----------



## Crispy (Jun 13, 2006)

I'm on 20k and was on 18.5 before that, and I've always saved money each month while living in London. Still do. I just have a frugal attitude to life. 'A quick can of coke' or getting the tube when there's a bus, or buying ready meals are all things I don't usualy do. It all adds up. Got a social life and holidays too.

EDIT: Not got a pension though.


----------



## secretsquirrel (Jun 13, 2006)

Jesus this just reminds me how you cut your cloth to fit. In the mid-90s my earnings started at around £120/week after tax (not sure what that is per year - not much), rising to £14k then £16k. At the time each seemed do-able. Now, I dunno _how_ I did it.

£120 meant me living in a dodgy council sub-let in Dalston (£35/week), taking the bus or nightbus to and from work (shifts in a nightclub) (about £15/week) with £20/week for food shopping, £10/week on staff meals, £10/week electricity key and whatever was left for everything else.

£14k-£16k meant I could live in a tiny flat in Camden sharing with 2 others (3 bedrooms, mine was the smallest and cheapest, no living room or 'owt)

I remember going out with someone who earned £20k and it seemed like a fortune. Then I got there and realised it wasn't. 

And all the way through I managed to rack up extra debt which, of course, needed to be paid back which also took - and is still taking - a significant chunk out of my salary. *sigh*


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 13, 2006)

^
this is my point really.  You managed that by living in crap accomodation, eating cheap (probably crap) food and racking up loads of debt...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 13, 2006)

From personal experience, it wasn't really possible to live on £15k (1999; £965 a month, net - I remember it well!)

I seem to remember thinking I was OK when I got over about £20k.

Doing a quick calc on a minimum subsistence budget, sharing would come to about £635 (350 room + 85 Zones 1&2 Travelcard + 120 food + 30 clothing + 40 miscellaneous expenses + 10 phone). This is the absolute minimum and relies on finding a cheap room in an owner landlords house in Zone 2 where council tax and bills are not levied separately; having no debt to repay; making no pension contribution; making your own lunch; relying on an existing stock of clothing and buying cheap replacements. The £70 a week or so "change" is not enough to raise this above a fairly miserable standard of subsistence and any unexpected expense would literally wipe out that month's "disposable" income.

The figure for your own place has got to be closer to £900 as a studio is likely to be £500+ pcm rent, plus £100+ a month on council tax and bills. It may well also be in Zone 3 or beyond so stick another £15 on travel costs. 

Throwing in £300 a month "disposable", a realistic £50 of debt repayment and a sensible £50 a month pension contribution brings us to a minimum sum of £1300 net required. I see from my own budget that my fixed expenses in my own place actually come to just over £1000 before food, clothes etc so this is probably not too far off.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 13, 2006)

A lot of people here should consider working for the CAB!

Fact is a lot of you are quoting unrealistic figures for what is not really "living" in any sustainable sense - i.e. there is only so long in life you can go without buying new shoes or escape the occasional more significant expense.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jun 13, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> what do you need to get the bus for?
> 
> seriously, my cousin lived on the streets in london for years, never drawing a penny of dole.  she's a bit of *metalist* though.


Led Zep fandom run in the family then?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 14, 2006)

> I still don't understand how £1,388pm neso hard t is to live on if you're renting



agreed, blagsta you earn more money than hundreds of thousands of people in this city bringing up kids on less than that

even to my parents who were northern upper working class, two holidays a year would be the ultimate in indulgence

whilst i agree that the standard of living across the board is shite dont forget how lucky you are


----------



## Sweetpea (Jun 14, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> agreed, blagsta you earn more money than hundreds of thousands of people in this city bringing up kids on less than that
> 
> even to my parents who were northern upper working class, two holidays a year would be the ultimate in indulgence
> 
> whilst i agree that the standard of living across the board is shite dont forget how lucky you are


I’ve refrained from contributing to the thread because I’m not sure what the debate seeks to prove: that what is currently considered a living wage is ludicrously low (I agree) or that some people’s idea of what constitutes a “lifestyle” is somewhat detached from the reality for far too many.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

No, that's tosh. People are well aware that they're better off than the genuinely poor (anybody who thinks otherwise should reread my first posting on this thread) but that's still not to say that they're well off or that they're spending extravagantly in any way.

Let me give you that figure again: after rent, council tax, transport etc I had five hundred a month left over. Sounds a lot? Well, firstly let me point out there are people reckoning I could have afforded to live in a studio flat, which would have taken a couple of hundred a month off that. That would have meant taking my available income down to three hundred - less than half what I'd be paying in rent - which would be about _seventy quid a week_. Which is hardly more than benefit levels! A _few quid_ more than if I wasn't working at all! And people are telling me I could have afforded that? As far as I'm concerned it absolutely proves my point - that all I could afford to do in London was be a lodger.

A couple of other points. First, I was only on 22K towards the end, i.e. after four years of working in my job - you can assume that for each previous year I was on about a thousand per annum less.

Secondly I think it's worth bearing in mind how London _makes_ you spend money by nature of its very size. Where I am now, for instance, I am three minutes away from my flat. If I want to eat I can go home and eat something that will be both cheap and nutritious. When working in Hammersmith and living in Brixton there was no such option. Even if I'd had time for breakfast in the morning, I'd still have to get lunch from a sandwich place or the canteen or whatever. That costs money and once you multiply it by 22 working days in the month, it's a substantial chunk out of your wallet.

But then, what happens if you have to be out in the evening? Let's suppose I had a chess match for Streatham and Brixton chess club: perhaps at the Barbican (or rather worse, in the Surrey League at Guildford, which is not in zone two and would take another hefty bite out of my spending money). Well, we start at seven so there's no way I can go home and eat first, is there? So I've got to go and buy some food, and if I'm going to get anything hot how much is that going to cost? Eating in London eats money. Amazing how that five hundred disappears without trying and without being extravagant.

I lived and worked in London for four years and only at the end - when I happened to be living in a place with a sub-market rent - did I have any money spare. Other than that it was a real struggle, _despite living, as the cheapest option, as a lodger_. I'm forty, I know a bit about the world and about saving money _with which I am damned careful_ (how many other people have a figure, in different-coloured ink, in their filo which they amend every time they go to a cashpoint?).I know what poverty is and I know what being comfortable is, and I was neither: but no close to the latter than to the former. Don't anybody tell me different.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Even if I'd had time for breakfast in the morning, I'd still have to get lunch from a sandwich place or the canteen or whatever. That costs money and once you multiply it by 22 working days in the month, it's a substantial chunk out of your wallet.




Why can't you make your own lunch/dinner and plan ahead?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Ah, Hollis in with the stirring spoon again.

I didn't always have a lot of time, Hollis, nor did I necessarily have a kitchen to myself in the evening. I plan ahead quite a lot, thanks very much.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Ah, Hollis in with the stirring spoon again.
> 
> I didn't always have a lot of time, Hollis, nor did I necessarily have a kitchen to myself in the evening. I plan ahead quite a lot, thanks very much.



Ah rather quick to personalise!  

Fine - you don't have time.. plenty of other people do.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

So they do. Perhaps they're not still on the way back from Guildford, or from overtime, or perhaps the kitchen's free when they get back. And perhaps they're not knackered. I had two stress-related breakdowns in my time in London, which makes me more than a little touchy about suggestions that I should have found more time to do things.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> So they do. Perhaps they're not still on the way back from Guildford, or from overtime, or perhaps the kitchen's free when they get back. And perhaps they're not knackered. I had two stress-related breakdowns in my time in London, which makes me more than a little touchy about suggestions that I should have found more time to do things.



Well this thread isn't just about you.. its about a living wage.. and I think you'll find alot of people on lower wages cook stuff for themselves..

For example.. I don't think I ate out once -takeaways or anything - during my first 3 years in London.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well this thread isn't just about you.. its about a living wage.. and I think you'll find alot of people on lower wages cook stuff for themselves..


They probably do. I cooked for myself as many evenings as I was able to, was in and wasn't knackered. I didn't have time to then go on and cook a second time for the following lunchtime - let alone the following evening - and nor should I have had to.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 14, 2006)

Agreed, but you would generally make a sandwich / make double and keep half for lunch / buy things from the supermarket to take in to work, rather than actually cook a meal, surely?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

I'm not sure I follow you - I was OK until the last clause of the sentence.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 14, 2006)

Well, one wouldn't cook a whole meal for the following lunchtime.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Ah, I'm with you now. Well, you could, but it limits your options since not everything's suitable for saving, putting in the fridge, picking out again the next morning, taking to work and heating up in the microwave. And it doesn't help much when it comes to being out the following evening.

Thing is, you can always find ways you can save. You can always find ways you can settle for less. But frankly I find it a bit much, to be honest. I mean, I _could_ have lived on benefit levels and survived. Where do you draw the line? I personally draw it at being forty, having spent thousands retraining and then being unable to afford to live on my own unless I lived on stuff all and spent my whole live trying to find new ways to save money. (Or, indeed, being told that I should do so.)


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 14, 2006)

A lot of people seem to be including a travel card as a necessity in their budget. I haven't had one for years - a bike can be loads cheaper.

A zone 1-2 travel card is £888 a year (£1023 if you buy monthly ones). A cheap decent 2nd hand bike is an one off payment of, what, £150, maintenance £30 a year. I still use public transport occasionally but I reckon cycling saves me a good £700 a year.

eta - yes, I know not everyone can cycle for various reasons but a large majority could ithey chose to.


----------



## miss direct (Jun 14, 2006)

I think people have a tendency to spend whatever they earn. 

And if someone has to pay off credit cards/loans/a pension, then obviously their view of a living wage is different from someobody who is debt free. 

To me a living wage is one where you can pay your bills without worrying and have enough left over to enjoy yourself reasonably (not get pissed every night but at least go out once a week), and should also allow people to save. 

Ridiculous private rents mean many people can't afford this. I spend the vast bulk of my monthly pay on rent which is wasted money.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

miss direct said:
			
		

> I think people have a tendency to spend whatever they earn.
> 
> And if someone has to pay off credit cards/loans/a pension, then obviously their view of a living wage is different from someobody who is debt free.
> 
> ...



Yes - but private rents is hardly a new thing.. as I understand it they're more affordable now than they've been for years. - especially if there's two of you.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> eta - yes, I know not everyone can cycle for various reasons but a large majority could ithey chose to.


In London? No thanks. Why should people risk their lives and breathe in pollution just so some pillock can tell them it'll save them money?


----------



## miss direct (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yes - but private rents is hardly a new thing.. as I understand it they're more affordable now than they've been for years. - especially if there's two of you.



I wouldn't know because this is the first time I've rented on my own. It p's me off having to pay 75% council tax when there's only me. The whole world seems to revolve around families and couples and it's very hard to get by on your own. I'm getting into more debt just living on the wage I get at the moment.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 14, 2006)

Cycling's loads of fun you curmudgeon  and is not that much more dangerous than walking round a city. Faster than any other mode of transport for <4 miles too.

Anyway, I understand your position. It's perfectly possible to live in London on that wage, but not for extended periods of time whilst also having A Life. You'd always have to compromise.

I compromise by buying very few new clothes and cycling everywhere. Besides, it sounds like you're happier where you are now and that's the main thing


----------



## trashpony (Jun 14, 2006)

miss direct said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know because this is the first time I've rented on my own. It p's me off having to pay 75% council tax when there's only me. The whole world seems to revolve around families and couples and it's very hard to get by on your own. I'm getting into more debt just living on the wage I get at the moment.



What really pisses me off is the people who say 'oh well, you're alright, you get a 25% discount'. Yes but I have to pay that ALL BY MYSELF  

The world is designed for couples and families


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 14, 2006)

> In London? No thanks. Why should people risk their lives and breathe in pollution just so some pillock can tell them it'll save them money?



maybe because cyclists breathe less pollution that many other road users (particularly drivers):
http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/viewer.php?fd=73 eta - that link doesn't seem to work but this a quote from the pdf it is supposed to point to:


> Everyday cycling, where the individual breathes more heavily without feeling out of breath, will benefit health. Research indicates that cyclists and pedestrians absorb lower levels of pollutants from traffic fumes than any other road users.


and that, on average, a  regular cyclist lives two years longer than a non-cyclist:
http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/health3.php

In 2003, there were 40,000 deaths through physical inactivity and 113 deaths from cycling. 

Also, of course, because it is cheaper.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Cycling's loads of fun you curmudgeon  and is not that much more dangerous than walking round a city. Faster than any other mode of transport for <4 miles too.



Well that's one thing I'll agree with Donna on.. I tried cycling for 18 months.  I gave up in the end.. - too dangerous, too unpleasant.. I know you'd be very unfortunate to actually be killed on the road in London - there's something like 20 deaths a year iirc.  But all the near misses and stress it caused made it simply not worth while.


----------



## miss direct (Jun 14, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What really pisses me off is the people who say 'oh well, you're alright, you get a 25% discount'. Yes but I have to pay that ALL BY MYSELF
> 
> The world is designed for couples and families



Not to mention TV licence by yourself, water rates by yourself (may be cheaper to have a meter if you live alone), electric is probably lower if you live alone so that's okay.


----------



## secretsquirrel (Jun 14, 2006)

miss direct said:
			
		

> I think people have a tendency to spend whatever they earn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Cycling's loads of fun you curmudgeon  and is not that much more dangerous than walking round a city. Faster than any other mode of transport for <4 miles too.


Mmm, but I worked six miles away from where I lived (and further, when I moved to East Dulwich) and besides which, I was often in town or in Surrey after work so it wasn't simply a case of cycling back home again.




			
				Crispy said:
			
		

> Anyway, I understand your position. It's perfectly possible to live in London on that wage, but not for extended periods of time whilst also having A Life. You'd always have to compromise..


More than compromise: it consisted of simply not being able to be on my own, or to et properly (no time for breakfast) and having to commute for hours a day and....all that for fuck all money and a couple of breakdowns and cheeky fuckers telling you how you ought to save more money.




			
				Crispy said:
			
		

> I compromise by buying very few new clothes and cycling everywhere.


I'm still wearing some of the same clothes I had ten years ago.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

secretsquirrel said:
			
		

> Yup. A good friend of mine who's been an accountant/financial director all her life reckons it's because a lot of people are aspirational so are always looking beyond what they currently earn to where they'd like to be and spend accordingly (around 10% beyond their means).


I think this is horseshit - and I wouldn't mind the finanical director's salary. 10% more than I got paid? Don't make me laugh. I accounted for every penny. Aspirational my arse.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 14, 2006)

miss direct said:
			
		

> Not to mention TV licence by yourself, water rates by yourself (may be cheaper to have a meter if you live alone), electric is probably lower if you live alone so that's okay.



Not much mind - not as if you watch half the television or only have the fridge running half as much!

In general it is a *lot* cheaper as a couple...


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> ..or to et properly (no time for breakfast) and having to commute for hours a day and....



Just as an aside why did you never have time for breakfast?   - Personally I went for years thinking I "didn't have time" etc.. it only takes 10 minutes..


----------



## secretsquirrel (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I think this is horseshit - and I wouldn't mind the finanical director's salary. 10% more than I got paid? Don't make me laugh. I accounted for every penny. Aspirational my arse.



Please note the use of the words 'a lot' and not the use of the word 'all'. I 'did' London for 14 years, I always lived in house shares and, for the last few, I cycled everywhere. But I can still admit that I could have been more prudent as a single person with no dependents. I wasn't. I have debts. And not all incured by just surviving but by my own extravagence. That was the case for me, again I'm not saying it was the case for _everyone._


----------



## secretsquirrel (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Just as an aside why did you never have time for breakfast?   - Personally I went for years thinking I "didn't have time" etc.. it only takes 10 minutes..



Yeah. And on that note I did (and still do) have breakfast at work most days. By taking it with me or having the stuff there to make it. Same goes for lunch. Still spend too much on food though


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Just as an aside why did you never have time for breakfast?   - Personally I went for years thinking I "didn't have time" etc.. it only takes 10 minutes..


Tell you what, Hollis, I'm not going to have you telling me what I had time for in the morning when I was knackered already. OK?


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Tell you what, Hollis, I'm not going to have you telling me what I had time for in the morning when I was knackered already. OK?



So basically you couldn't be arsed to make breakfast.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> So basically you couldn't be arsed to make breakfast.


Like I say, Hollis in with the stirring spoon. An insolent jerk.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Here's how you do it.. come down the stairs. put 2 slices in the toaster.    have a shave.. come back.. 2 slices of toast!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Don't _you_ have to add another ten minutes for posting something stupid and provocative on the intenet?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 14, 2006)

before i had a kid i was earning about 25k (gross) as a single bloke

i paid about 500 a month in rent which left me with nearly a grand to do with what i pleased, when i used to go up north blokes a lot older than me whod worked all their life thought i was minted, people live differently up there, rarely eat out, drink in cheap boozerz, coke is pretty hard to come by etc

i didnt realise it at the time, but i do now i am pretty much living on a poverty income but i was fucking minted

spent every weekend off my face at a party, blatted around to festivals all summer, ate take aways or in the caf' nearly all the time, was down the pub non-stop etc

it was a life of pure decadence, even though id often run out of cash and whinge about being skint, but when you know youve got a big fat cheque turning up every month you can always blag, borrow money and it rarely affected my lifestyle


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Don't _you_ have to add another ten minutes for posting something stupid and provocative on the intenet?



Stupid?  Telling you how its done mate.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Thanks.

Here's how it's _actually_ done. Next time you're thinking of giving unwanted and insolent advice to sombody for no better reason than to wind them up, try saving yourself the time and _don't do it_. That way you will be more rested when you get home and less liable to behave like a prick.


----------



## miss direct (Jun 14, 2006)

I buy breakfast at work. 47p for a fried egg on two toast, or 40p for 2 toast with butter. 

Or sometimes I pop into Tesco on the way to work and get a bagel (30p) and a bag of apples and grapes (40p)

Yes, I could make it at home. However, I don't feel like eating as soon as I get up, I feel a bit nauseous and prefer to wait an hour or so. 

I'm not going to apologise for that! It's hardly an extravagance. 

On the other hand, if someone pays £5 for breakfast in a posh cafe every morning and then moans that they have no money, they can't really complain.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> Here's how it's _actually_ done. Next time you're thinking of giving unwanted and insolent advice to sombody for no better reason than to wind them up, try saving yourself the time and _don't do it_. That way you will be more rested when you get home and less liable to behave like a prick.



Why is it insolent?  I've just explained how you can have 2 slices of toast in the morning - something apparently you haven't yet worked out for yourself.

Also bananas are cheap, quick and easy, you can normally pick one up on the way to work.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Why is it insolent?


Because I've already observed that I was so shattered by working in London that I had two stress breakdowns as a result. One kept me off for five weeks, one for thirteen. In that light, for you to tell me how I should have been getting up earlier in the morning is both insolent and contemptible.

But not out of character.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Because I've already observed that I was so shattered by working in London that I had two stress breakdowns as a result. One kept me off for five weeks, one for thirteen. In that light, for you to tell me how I should have been getting up earlier in the morning is both insolent and contemptible.
> 
> But not out of character.



Dear oh dear!!  

Fine, so part of your problem with living in london was that you were ill - this really has nothing to do with 'a living wage' then does it? Most people are more than capable of finding time for some breakfast in the morning.


----------



## Giles (Jun 14, 2006)

I think much of the difference of opinion in this thread comes down to:

the difference between what you can get by on for a limited time, and what you can get by on possibly for the rest of your life. Most people, me included, have lived on not very much as students, and during the first few years after finishing college, Uni, or whatever. At that time of life, most people put up with grotty accommodation, house-sharing, etc etc. It is easier to put up with this if you can see light at the end of the tunnel in terms of a high probability that in 3 or 4 years time, you are going to be earning significantly more money. Also, if you know you are only in povery for a determined time, you don't have to factor in long-term costs like pensions (who does, in their 20s, apart from well-paid accountants?).

But if you are doing a job where you know the pay is NOT likely to improve much, then you have to consider a slightly higher cost of living: do you want to live in a house-share til you retire? and then there is pension cost as well.

I think it is only fair to consider a difference in what you would "put up with" for a few years, in the almost certain knowledge that things will get better, and what you would accept for the rest of your life.

All of the above said, I know people who are living on benefits in London on a fuck of a lot less than everyone was lamenting that they couldn't manage on, on this thread.

Giles..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Dear oh dear!!


That smiley means "cool". Would you care to explain what in particular you consider "cool"?


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

*...*




			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> That smiley means "cool". Would you care toexplain what in particular you consider "cool"?



I'm telling you to 'chilll outt maaaan'.. - okay?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I'm telling you to 'chilll outt maaaan'.. - okay?


Your absence would make that a great deal easier.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Fine, so part of your problem with living in london was that you were ill - this really has nothing to do with 'a living wage' then does it?


Actually it has everything to do with it. The requirment to live in an insecure situation and to live on an inadequate income causes stress which makes people ill. This is not a difficult point to grasp.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 14, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> All of the above said, I know people who are living on benefits in London on a fuck of a lot less than everyone was lamenting that they couldn't manage on, on this thread.
> 
> Giles..



This is true, although once you get down in the low teens there is probably not much difference. On benefits accommodation and council tax are paid for - these account for 50% of many people's salary.

There is also a cost associated with going to work which you might not incur if on benefits. Often when I'm off and there's noone around to tempt me out and go and spend money I can go without spending anything at all.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Actually it has everything to do with it. The requirment to live in an insecure situation and to live on an inadequate income causes stress which makes people ill. This is not a difficult point to grasp.




There's numerous reasons why people end up with stress.. and this isn't the thread for it.

If we're talking in general then you're saying that on £22k you don't have time to make breakfast in the morning/lunches etc.  Sorry, but that's crap.. you didn't - but as a generalism the point doesn't stand.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> There's numerous reasons why people end up with stress.. and this isn't the thread for it.


Actually, it is. The consequences of not having a living wage include stress. It is certainly rather more pertinent than having you picking at scabs.




			
				Hollis said:
			
		

> If we're talking in general then you're saying that on £22k you don't have time to make breakfast in the morning/lunches etc..


No, I'm not and you know very well I'm not.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 14, 2006)

With all due respect Donna you were not living on an inadequate income for someone with no kids.  You were earning more than millions of people in this country earn (even taking into account the fact you lived in London) and often earn for their entire life.

I'm doing a bit of casual work at a community project/training centre in tottenham right now and if you told the people attending there that 22k was an inadeguate income (and many of these people have kids) youd be laughed out of Tottenham

Perhaps it was the stress of living in London as much as the conceived poverty you had to endure that caused you problems


----------



## Hollis (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Actually, it is. The consequences of not having a living wage include stress. It is certainly rather more pertinent than having you picking at scabs.




Well, we haven't really established yet that you didn't have 'a living wage' have we?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 14, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> With all due respect Donna you were not living on an inadequate income for someone with no kids.


Well, giving my housing costs I believe that I have established otherwise. I've shown that in order to have accommodation on my own I would have had to reduce my available income almost to benefit levels. I think that's a case made.


----------



## Giles (Jun 14, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> before i had a kid i was earning about 25k (gross) as a single bloke
> 
> i paid about 500 a month in rent which left me with nearly a grand to do with what i pleased, when i used to go up north blokes a lot older than me whod worked all their life thought i was minted, people live differently up there, rarely eat out, drink in cheap boozerz, coke is pretty hard to come by etc
> 
> ...




A lot of people are in this situation when they have nothing but pleasure to spend their money on. 

Where it changes is when you want to have a family and then need much more expensive accommodation than a room in a house-share, and at the same time have much higher general costs.

That'w when London can seem very expensive, even if you are on £35K or something.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> agreed, blagsta you earn more money than hundreds of thousands of people in this city bringing up kids on less than that
> 
> even to my parents who were northern upper working class, two holidays a year would be the ultimate in indulgence
> 
> whilst i agree that the standard of living across the board is shite dont forget how lucky you are



Oh piss off with your sanctimonious tone.  I know that a lot of people survive on far less than I do.  The point is that _they shouldn't have to_.  The thread is about what is considered a "living wage" - the figures that are being quoted are a "surviving" wage.  But living?  I don't think so.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> A lot of people seem to be including a travel card as a necessity in their budget. I haven't had one for years - a bike can be loads cheaper.
> 
> A zone 1-2 travel card is £888 a year (£1023 if you buy monthly ones). A cheap decent 2nd hand bike is an one off payment of, what, £150, maintenance £30 a year. I still use public transport occasionally but I reckon cycling saves me a good £700 a year.
> 
> eta - yes, I know not everyone can cycle for various reasons but a large majority could ithey chose to.



There's not always somewhere to put a bike once you get to work.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2006)

secretsquirrel said:
			
		

> I always lived in house shares and,



Why should people _have_ to live in houseshares?  Its OK in your 20's, but now I'm in my mid 30's I really don't want to take a gamble and live with strangers.  I want my own place.  If I ever split up with my missus, I wouldn't want to go back to living in a shared place.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> With all due respect Donna you were not living on an inadequate income for someone with no kids.  You were earning more than millions of people in this country earn (even taking into account the fact you lived in London) and often earn for their entire life.
> 
> I'm doing a bit of casual work at a community project/training centre in tottenham right now and if you told the people attending there that 22k was an inadeguate income (and many of these people have kids) youd be laughed out of Tottenham
> 
> Perhaps it was the stress of living in London as much as the conceived poverty you had to endure that caused you problems



This is bollocks though.  Just because some people survive on far less than £22K, it doesn't make it right...especially when you think about all the people earning millions in the city.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 14, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> There's not always somewhere to put a bike once you get to work.


There isn't _always_ a place for people to keep bikes at work and, even if you cycle most days, there will be days when it is inconvenient. However, in most circumstances, if you want (and are physically able) to cycle to work in London, you'll find a way round it.

I'm not and never was saying that everyone who is a bit skint should, to paraphrase Mr Tebbit, get on their bikes to get to work. I was just pointing out that something which a lot of people deemed essential (a travel card) can be considered, by others, to be unnecessary.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 14, 2006)

I agree.  I have yet to reach the dizzy heights of £22k (at least in this country), I'm 33.  However, I do make my own lunches and cycle to work - really out of choice, I resent paying loads of money for shit sandwiches and I prefer cycling to the noise and pollution of public transport - so it's a win-win situation.  (Plus believe me, if you _really_ want to cycle you will find a way around the bike storage/shower problems) 

I feel that even on £22k I could have afforded a studio flat or even a one bedroom flat and still had some money left over for fun.  In fact I know plenty of people who do just that.

However, living that way is not for everyone.  Not everyone wants to cycle to work and some would prefer to buy sandwiches rather than make their own.  For some people the paybacks of living in London don't compensate the drawbacks - I would say that Donna is one of those people.  Obviously Donna - _you_couldn't live the lifestyle you wanted on 22K but _I _and some other people can and do.   I guess it comes down to what lifestyle you want.   

All of this being said, it doesn't solve the problem of people on such wages wanting to buy.  (Although my partner and I managed it - but again by making lifestyle choices that not everyone would want to follow).


----------



## arty (Jun 14, 2006)

Donna, judging from some of your posts on this thread I'd guess that your breakdowns/stress weren't entirely caused by living in London, but probably at least partly due to an innate propensity to get stressed.

as another aside, not amied at you Donna, I hear everyday people saying they don't have time for breakfast, don't have time to cook, exercise, or whatever, when often the reason they don't have time for anything is because the spend 4-5 hours everyday watching the fucking idiot box.

as for the living wage thread, gaijin has just summed it up really.


----------



## Giles (Jun 14, 2006)

It's all about people's expectations, isn't it?

People feel that they have a right to have a lifestyle that a generation ago or less, most people would have thought of as luxurious.

But in a way this expectation is reasonable cos it is based on the fact that if you see many other people around you with that lifestyle, you feel you should have it too.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2006)

I'm amazed that so many people seem happy to accept shit wages and an exorbitant cost of living.


----------



## Sweetpea (Jun 14, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm amazed that so many people seem happy to accept shit wages and an exorbitant cost of living.


What do you suggest they do as an alternative?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2006)

Sweetpea said:
			
		

> What do you suggest they do as an alternative?



I don't have an answer, but being happy that most people get paid shit money when some people get paid millions for fuck all don't sit right with me...


----------



## Kanda (Jun 14, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm amazed that so many people seem happy to accept shit wages and an exorbitant cost of living.



I tend to agree with you. I also agree I have nfc how to fix it.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> I don't have an answer, but being happy that most people get paid shit money when some people get paid millions for fuck all don't sit right with me..



of course 99% of the world is being shafted, its called capitalism, what you doing to change it?

having said that to hear people whinge when they earn far more than most working people who have children to raise can be a little bit distateful dont you think

like i said when i was in a position to earn as much as you i look back on those times as a time of decadence

id love to live in a world when everyone lives on a wage that can enable them to do whatever they want, but we dont

theres people bringing up kids on a lot less than you earn so think yourself lucky

for most people on the planet unfortunately life is a constant struggle, wrong but thats how it is

to hear some bourgeois twat whinging about how they cant do exactly what they want on the money they earn is likely to get peoples backs up

a living wage pays for food, shelter and energy, thats the situation most folk have to livre under



> Why should people have to live in houseshares?



because you choose to live in a highly densely populated city (and are lucky enough to have that choice)

why do you think you have a right to not share a place, and whats wrong with living with other people, thats what human beings have done forever

get a grip man, compared to most of the country youre doing pretty well


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> It's all about people's expectations, isn't it?
> 
> People feel that they have a right to have a lifestyle that a generation ago or less, most people would have thought of as luxurious.
> 
> ...



NOTE: None of this post is intended to be directed towards any particular poster, though I know that general comments can easily be taken in a personal way. I was thinking about this before the last two pages of this thread were even posted.

Agreed. You put into words what I was thinking. I just don't see 'being able to live alone in a studio flat' as an entitlement. I don't see holidays, gadgets or expensive nights out as entitlements either. I think we should all be able to pay our bills, go out and have fun and not stress about money - and that is possible on a pretty small income. Anything above that counts as luxuries.

I can totally see why lots of people would want more, though, especially as they get older and their peers have big houses with gardens. (What's the betting that the rest of this post will be ignored and this line will be selected for replies, if any?)

Can you imagine your Grandparents moaning about not being able to have their own flat, just to themselves, when they were young? Can you imagine them depressed at the idea that they can't go on holiday abroad? (Although that can be cheaper - financially - than holidaying in this country, which is a shame, but yet another different topic). I guess maybe the fact that working-age people now _do_ moan about it could be a good thing: a sign of increased living standards.

They're still choices, though, aren't they? If you choose to define a living wage as including a flat to yourself then, well, that's your choice. 

Society is not set up for people living alone because people living alone is a very new phenomenom. The social costs of living alone are pretty high - I know, I'll probably be asked to provide cites for that. I _do_ think that people should have the choice of living alone, and I hope the laws on council tax, etc, will change, but it's not surprising that they haven't changed yet. 

(If the TV licence were charged per TV it would be fairer for everyone, but that's another thread).

Somebody earlier mentioned emergency costs. I had also mentioned them briefly, when I was working out how much essentials would cost. They certainly are an essential cost of living. 

Many years ago I watched a 'life swap' TV programme which had a Young Conservative living the life of a single Mum for two weeks. She (the Mum) had two jobs and a small income. At the end, among many other comments which cheered me in the way they showed how far the Young Con had come in terms of empathy, he stated that he hadn't found the money as bad to live on as he thought. Of course, in those two weeks he hadn't had to buy school shoes or school uniform, kitchen equipment, pay for a school trip, any of those other incidentals which can put a breaking strain on a small purse. Those are essential. In my considered opinion, backed up by working out how much things actually cost, £12,500 (based on a 35 hour week, which is a short week) allows enough for that. Just enough - but enough.

I didn't reply to this thread before, btw, because I was out at a gig (I was playing. If I hadn't been, entry was £5). I spent a total of £2.50 on drink and approximately £1.60 on travel extra to my college travel for that day. Tomorrow I'm out at a bar which has cheap drinks usually and half-price drinks on Thursdays: I'll spend a fiver maximum. This weekend I have free entry to a Foo Fighters gig because I'm doing a Worker's Beer job there. Before that I'm meeting friends at the V&A, for the price of one tube journey. I'll also be taking my daughter to the City Farm (free) for a pottery class (£2) and going to a friend's for a party (the price of a bottle of wine and an 80p bus journey).  Maybe on the way I'll get some spring rolls for an easy snack (I can't eat sandwiches) - £1. Or perhaps I'll pick up a basket of fruit for £q at Old St station (having first checked it for rotten plums). Again, this is on an income far below what anyone would consider a living wage. 

(The above is in response to the suggestion that people on low incomes could not have enjoyable lives. Just in case anyone jumps on me as a profligate mother: My daughter's going to visit her cousins or I wouldn't be going out as much as that). 

It's not like I have special insights into cheap London. It's all there for the taking. 

I think I'm just coming at it from the other side to some people in this thread: I'm thinking 'if I can do it, why can't they?' and they're thinking 'I can't do it, so no-one else can either.' Both sides are flawed, I guess. Mine is because of the aforementioned keeping-up-with-the-Joneses Mentality (only meant far less negatively than that phrase implies), due to increased standards of living, theirs is because of the numbers.

Donna, personally I wasn't trying to tell you what you should do with your money - that's up to you. I'm still surprised that your money was so tight on that income, but I apologise if you felt like you were made to justify your life choices.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> because you choose to live in a highly densely populated city (and are lucky enough to have that choice)
> 
> why do you think you have a right to not share a place, and whats wrong with living with other people, thats what human beings have done forever
> 
> get a grip man, compared to most of the country youre doing pretty well




For many of us it's not a choice (excuse the teenage angst).  

The fact is that we live in a society whereby we have determined a poverty threshold in which to live below it is considered unacceptable.  You may think it crass in that people are starving elsewhere, but no matter how bourgeois they appear our aspirations are (and please tell me otherwise) well founded.

Our fathers and forefathers struggled to make ends meet to give us the oppourtinity to live in the most civilised (sic) city in the world.  We deserve and should shout until we're blue in the face to have a foothold in (a pseudo-utopic) civility.

Yes, this thread is about a living wage, and yes, everyone has a right to demand a level that is suitable to themselves as to what that level should be.

To argue that a family in totenham would laugh in the face of a single earner on 22k is offensive.  The (means tested &c) benefits available to a couple with 2 children is around £227/week.  Even on £5.05/hr a family of 2 full time workers with 2 children is able to have a take home wage of £562/week.  Far more than Blagsta has I wager.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> The (means tested &c) benefits available to a couple with 2 children is around £227/week.  Even on £5.05/hr a family of 2 full time workers with 2 children is able to have a take home wage of £562/week.  Far more than Blagsta has I wager.



Please can this not be a thread about benefits v. earned income? There are always way too many inaccuracies in working people's estimations of how much people on benefits get and it always turns into a heated argument.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Sorry, I was just trying to highlight that what people earn is not the same as what they have to live on.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> To argue that a family in totenham would laugh in the face of a single earner on 22k is offensive. The (means tested &c) benefits available to a couple with 2 children is around £227/week. Even on £5.05/hr a family of 2 full time workers with 2 children is able to have a take home wage of £562/week. Far more than Blagsta has I wager.
> Reply With Quote



can you try that again and make some sense, full benefit to a couple with two kids who werent working would come to slightly less than 200 a week plus hb admittedly

thats to support 4 people

2 people on a fiver an hour working 40 hours weeks would come to 400 quid a week less tax, about the same as blagsta is earning, except it would have to support four people not one

muppet


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

According to the GLA Economic Department, a single person with no children on £7/hr has a disposable income of £17.8/week.

I've browsed through their calculations and take umbrage with a lot of the figures they've used, especially the way they combine housing costs and transport costs.  They have comissionend a sample of 8,000 advertised rates which comes out cheaper than a previous sample of 40,000 housing benfit figures.  Additionally, their transport costs are based on a monthly travelcard for zones 1-3, yet clearly their housing costs are based on greater london as a whole.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> muppet



do you really expect me to respond to that?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

i dont care

id quite like you to get your facts right though, it aint rocket science, its just adding up


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> According to the GLA Economic Department, a single person with no children on £7/hr has a disposable income of £17.8/week.



so since blagsta and donna earned almost double that then that would make their disposable income about 200 quid a week

not bad eh

given i live on about 80 a week and have a little boy to look after one wk out of 3


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> i dont care
> 
> id quite like you to get your facts right though, it aint rocket science, its just adding up



Shame you can't do it then, but seeming as you don't care it's not really suprising.  

My figures are from the GLA Living Wage Unit, "The Living Wage for London" May 2006

try reading it again, but this time take your head out your arse and apply a bit of common sense.  if you can.  muppet.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> so since blagsta and donna earned almost double that then that would make their disposable income about 200 quid a week
> 
> not bad eh



no.  still bad.   the GLA figures don't look like they add up.  the main point about their calculations is that they take the average of costs through london thereby placing their model family/unit as partially paying social housing which is totally misguided.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout, things are getting much harder for affording the basics.  When my parents were starting out, they were both part time teachers.  They could afford to purchase a 4 bedroom house on their salaries.  With a garden.  I can't believe as a kid I didn't think we were that well off, as we lived in a relatively poor area (Hackney).  If they were starting again now, they would only be able to afford a one bedroom tiny apartment.  So probably couldn't have had 2 children.  So this stuff that everyone is much better off now is nonsense.

Here in China, I live in a very spacious apartment.  I have a salary which is average for EFL in China.  Yet can live reasonably well on that.  The same standard of living would not be available to me (when rent etc are taken into consideration) for much less than about 40k in London - yet my wife says we are poor even in Chinese standards!  Think about that.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But its about standard of life.  Working your arse off just to cover rent and bills and not having enough to actually enjoy life?  Fuck that.


Isn't this thread about a 'living wage' and not living in poverty?

I have survived on benefits of c.£45 plus HB which didn't actually cover the full rent before (I ended up with a few people sleeping in the lounge and other rooms). Assuming HB of £70 that's £115/week. If you are working you have the extra expense of a weekly travelcard plus you end up paying tax etc.

You can live in London on £150 take home - half of which goes on rent, leaving you about £12/day to survive on, which is completely possible (although you hit problems when large bills arrive because at this level you never save up any money)

Depending how much tax and NI you pay, 35hrs of minimum wage will give you more than this.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> A lot of people are in this situation when they have nothing but pleasure to spend their money on.
> 
> Where it changes is when you want to have a family and then need much more expensive accommodation than a room in a house-share, and at the same time have much higher general costs.
> 
> ...



I agree.  When I was in London I was on about 19k, it was alright, but I was living at my parents house and was single with no kids.  I don't know how anyone can afford to support kids on much less than 40k or so when you take rents in the private sector etc into account.  It may be doable if you can get a council flat.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> smokedout, things are getting much harder for affording the basics.  When my parents were starting out, they were both part time teachers.  They could afford to purchase a 4 bedroom house on their salaries.  With a garden.  I can't believe as a kid I didn't think we were that well off, as we lived in a relatively poor area (Hackney).  If they were starting again now, they would only be able to afford a one bedroom tiny apartment.  So probably couldn't have had 2 children.  So this stuff that everyone is much better off now is nonsense.



If the stuff about people being better off now is nonsense, then why are so many people expecting an awful lot more than they would have in (at a guess) the 70s? 

Hackney's a weird area regarding property prices, anyway. The values have increased ridiculously in the past few years. The reason your parents were able to afford that house may well have been because it was seen as such a poor and bad area. Oh, I wish it had such a reputation again! I wish the rich bastards had never realised that Vicky Park is great and easy to get to the financial district! Rents here are still not bad though. 

It's also a weird place in that I know an awful lot of low-income families who have large homes with big gardens, in Hackney, that aren't council, and the prices are still far lower compared to most of London - especially considering how Central it is. Maybe a lot of those people bought their houses before the Vicky Park housing boom, and are the cause of the low rents, via sub-letting.

That said, if your parents started as teachers now, without kids, they'd get a housing grant (for a smaller home if they had no kids as yet, which is fair enough), they'd be high on the list for shared ownership and, if renting, would be able to get cheap housing association flats. Actually, they might not be able to get any of that as _part-time_ teachers, I'm not sure, because it's so rare to start out teaching in a part-time job.

Yup, buying a home is still difficult for almost everyone in London compared to most of the rest of the UK. I don't, however, despite being a Thatcher's child age-wise, consider home ownership to be an entitlement.

Renegade Dog (and Citydreams, on the same sub-topic):



> It may be doable if you can get a council flat.



Most (not all, but most) families can get council or housing association homes if they're on a low income. It's not unreasonable to take social housing into account when calculating living costs for low-income families.  

citydreams - I appreciate the point you're making re benefits. It's just that, on other boards, I've seen that issue degenerate so quickly into sniping and miscalculation that I don't think it needs to be added to this pot.

However, if we really wanted to add benefits into the pot, then we could easily add Working Tax Credit, which is not just available to parents. When it's paid on time and accurately, it pretty much negates all the complaints about low pay.  

And Renegade, £40k to support a family? Blimey, how many kids are you planning on having?


----------



## Dowie (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This is bollocks though.  Just because some people survive on far less than £22K, it doesn't make it right...especially when you think about all the people earning millions in the city.



I think this is where it all stems from - comparisons with others, materialism etc...

fact is 22k is easily enough to get by on in london for a single person - yeah there are people earning many times more than that but there are also people earning a lot less - for every city boy/yuppie type on 100k there is probably another homeless person on feck all

I know plenty of people on 16 - 17k in London that still manage to go out drinking at the weekends etc...


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> of course 99% of the world is being shafted, its called capitalism, what you doing to change it?
> 
> having said that to hear people whinge when they earn far more than most working people who have children to raise can be a little bit distateful dont you think
> 
> ...




you have a few anger issues don't you?  You also seem fairly content to accept the status quo, rather than get angry that the "living wage" is being set at such a ridiculously low level.

Get over yourself, you're not the only one who's ever been totally skint.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> citydreams - I appreciate the point you're making re benefits. It's just that, on other boards, I've seen that issue degenerate so quickly into sniping and miscalculation that I don't think it needs to be added to this pot.
> 
> However, if we really wanted to add benefits into the pot, then we could easily add Working Tax Credit, which is not just available to parents. When it's paid on time and accurately, it pretty much negates all the complaints about low pay.



I see where you're coming from, but the GLA's own calculations include benefits so I think it is only right to try to understand them fully.

They class a couple with no children on minimum wage as not entitled to any benefits.  If one parter is part time they are entitled to £33.1




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> Most (not all, but most) families can get council or housing association homes if they're on a low income. It's not unreasonable to take social housing into account when calculating living costs for low-income families.



Again, I think you're right in that social housing is an entitlement but, leaving aside the dubious question of availability at present, I would make my case based on the possibility of marginal employment.  That is, there is forecast to be another 500,000 people living in London by 2016.  At least 1/5 of them will be on minimum wage.  Social housing will not be an option


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I just don't see 'being able to live alone in a studio flat' as an entitlement.



You don't see having a safe and secure place to live as an entitlement?  How odd.  Its not even like a studio flat is asking much.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Dowie said:
			
		

> I know plenty of people on 16 - 17k in London that still manage to go out drinking at the weekends etc...



Do they have a pension or savings?  How about home insurance?  Can they afford to take time off if they're sick?  What about saving to be able to pay for further education?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> so since blagsta and donna earned almost double that then that would make their disposable income about 200 quid a week
> 
> not bad eh
> 
> given i live on about 80 a week and have a little boy to look after one wk out of 3



You think I earn £14/hr?  Ha!  I wish!  What was that about adding up?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> given i live on about 80 a week and have a little boy to look after one wk out of 3



The point is though, *that you shouldn't have to*.  Stop making our like you're a martyr.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Isn't this thread about a 'living wage' and not living in poverty?



Well quite.  The "living wage" is being set at poverty levels.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> plus you end up paying tax etc.
> 
> You can live in London on £150 take home - half of which goes on rent, leaving you about £12/day to survive on, which is completely possible (*although you hit problems when large bills arrive* because at this level you never save up any money)



So its not actually possible is it?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

Dowie said:
			
		

> I think this is where it all stems from - comparisons with others, materialism etc...
> 
> fact is 22k is easily enough to get by on in london for a single person - yeah there are people earning many times more than that but there are also people earning a lot less - for every city boy/yuppie type on 100k there is probably another homeless person on feck all
> 
> I know plenty of people on 16 - 17k in London that still manage to go out drinking at the weekends etc...



Yeah, I know there's homeless people on feck all.  I work with them.  I also have friends living on far less than £22K.  That's not the point.  The point is (as I have mentioned already) that to work your arse off merely to be able to afford the rent and bills is a shitty way to live and it ain't right.  I'm really fucking surprised that so many people on here seem to be happy to live on fuck all.  It ain't right.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> The point is though, that you shouldn't have to. Stop making our like you're a martyr.
> Reply With Quote



youre the who came on here whinging about how poor you are


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> You also seem fairly content to accept the status quo, rather than get angry that the "living wage" is being set at such a ridiculously low level.



far from it, its just that single people on 25k arent really my priority


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 15, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You can live in London on £150 take home - half of which goes on rent, leaving you about £12/day to survive on, which is completely possible (although you hit problems when large bills arrive because at this level you never save up any money)
> 
> .



So you can't live on £150 because by your own admission you can't afford to pay your bills.

edit: blagsta beat me to it


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> far from it, its just that single people on 25k arent really my priority



whereas acting the prick is.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm really fucking surprised that so many people on here seem to be happy to live on fuck all.  It ain't right.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> youre the who came on here whinging about how poor you are



Errrr...no I didn't.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> far from it, its just that single people on 25k arent really my priority



OOooh, because you're such a martyr aren't you?  You _really_ need to get over your ego mate.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> far from it, its just that single people on 25k arent really my priority



btw, I'm not single


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

im not the one complaining, i get by, dont like it much but i do

i just originally pointed out that when on was on the money you earn i felt pretty minted

and if youre living with a partner then whats the problems, one bed flat for £150, 75 quid a week each, leaves you nearly 300 quid a week to spend on whatever you want

youre loaded mate, get over yourself


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 15, 2006)

As a bit of an aside, if all the people currently living in shared houses or as lodgers in London were able to afford to live on their own in a studio or one bedroomed flat, where would you choose to build all these new studios and flats?


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> As a bit of an aside, if all the people currently living in shared houses or as lodgers in London were able to afford to live on their own in a studio or one bedroomed flat, where would you choose to build all these new studios and flats?



there's a growing trend for flats to be converted into studios pretty much in the same way that houses were converted into flats over the last twenty years.


----------



## miss direct (Jun 15, 2006)

Just as an aside, I do think the right to live alone if you choose to is a basic right. 

For 6 years I shared with other people (sometimes friends, sometimes strangers) and at times it was so awful it really affected my whole life. 

The right to be able to go back to somewhere at the end of the day where you feel comfortable and are not subjected to other people smoking/screaming/being filthy dirty/whatever else is a basic right in my opinion. 

It's not exactly a huge luxury just to have one little space to yourself. I do worry though that if I lost my job for some reason I would become homeless because, as I'm only 23, the government would only pay for me to have a room in a shared house. So not only are they anti-people living alone, they are also anti young people.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

that doesnt really answer the question though does it

its a valid point, physical space is a factor in  a city like london which is why id argue that a place to yourself is not a right if youve got no kids

its just not practical


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> and if youre living with a partner then whats the problems, one bed flat for £150, 75 quid a week each, leaves you nearly 300 quid a week to spend on whatever you want



good luck finding a one bed flat in London for £150 ...


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

piece of piss round finsbury park way


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> good luck finding a one bed flat in London for £150 ...



Going cheap in Wood Green!

http://www.findaproperty.com/area.aspx?areaid=0236&opt=prop&salerent=1&bedrooms=1&abeds=1&type2=1


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> piece of piss round finsbury park way



err - no it isn't

when was the last time you rented a flat in finsbury park? A studio maybe but a one bed for two? Very doubtful


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> im not the one complaining,



Yes you are.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> i get by, dont like it much but i do



You seem to be painting yourself as some kind of martyr.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> i just originally pointed out that when on was on the money you earn i felt pretty minted



I'm guessing you didn't have debts, were happy to live in a sub-standard accomodation, didn't pay insurance, into a pension, have a partner earning a few grand less than you that had tuition fees for a course to pay - all the things that grown ups do y'know?




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> and if youre living with a partner then whats the problems, one bed flat for £150, 75 quid a week each, leaves you nearly 300 quid a week to spend on whatever you want



Tiny one bed flat?  You're having a Stefi mate.  Two people and a cat, one who is currently studying (as well as working full time), the other starting a course in September (as well as working full time), with all the stuff (books, music etc) that people in their 30's accumulate, in a tiny one bed flat?  Are you serious?




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> youre loaded mate, get over yourself



If you think £25K is loaded, you need to get out more.


----------



## miss direct (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> that doesnt really answer the question though does it
> 
> its a valid point, physical space is a factor in  a city like london which is why id argue that a place to yourself is not a right if youve got no kids
> 
> its just not practical



Well I don't live in London and wouldn't be able to afford to live on my own there so would be forced to share. 

In any case, how much space does a single person take up anyway? I live in a large house which has been converted into 5 flats, 2 single and 3 couples, one with a kid. So 9 people in total live in the 'house', so I can't see how that is any less than would live in it if it was a shared house instead of flats. Um, if that makes any sense!

I'm not exactly saying a place of your own is a right, just the right to be somewhere you feel comfortable and not be forced to share with horrible people. 

Some people share with friends and like sharing and are happy to do so. I would be happy to share a nice house with nice people but that's not always possible (especially when moving to a new city for work)


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Going cheap in Wood Green!
> 
> http://www.findaproperty.com/area.aspx?areaid=0236&opt=prop&salerent=1&bedrooms=1&abeds=1&type2=1




translated: 1 room above shop.  has working toilet.  you pay us more than you can afford.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> As a bit of an aside, if all the people currently living in shared houses or as lodgers in London were able to afford to live on their own in a studio or one bedroomed flat, where would you choose to build all these new studios and flats?



I dunno, we could divide up all the big houses that posh people have but don't need.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Going cheap in Wood Green!
> 
> http://www.findaproperty.com/area.aspx?areaid=0236&opt=prop&salerent=1&bedrooms=1&abeds=1&type2=1



That's a studio hollis


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> good luck finding a one bed flat in London for £150 ...



Try SE London. That's £650 a month - you should be able to find something OK for that. My own is 2 beds in a nice road and is £750.

And - stop press - it really isn't that bad round here!


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> That's a studio hollis



I know for a fact the £160 week one is a 1 bed flat - because i have nice couple who used to live there.

They're all listed under the 1 bed flat rather than the studio category.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> that doesnt really answer the question though does it
> 
> its a valid point, physical space is a factor in  a city like london which is why id argue that a place to yourself is not a right if youve got no kids
> 
> its just not practical



You seem to think its OK for people on low incomes to accept a raw deal.  Very wadical of you.


----------



## miss direct (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I dunno, we could divide up all the big houses that posh people have but don't need.



 Yes, and what about those posh free flats all the MPs get? I'm somehow doubting that they are grotty studios.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> According to the GLA Economic Department, a single person with no children on £7/hr has a disposable income of £17.8/week.
> 
> I've browsed through their calculations and take umbrage with a lot of the figures they've used, especially the way they combine housing costs and transport costs.  They have comissionend a sample of 8,000 advertised rates which comes out cheaper than a previous sample of 40,000 housing benfit figures.  Additionally, their transport costs are based on a monthly travelcard for zones 1-3, yet clearly their housing costs are based on greater london as a whole.



And why do you not believe these figures? These actually square very well with my own experience of what I got paid and what I had left "disposable".


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Try SE London. That's £650 a month - you should be able to find something OK for that. My own is 2 beds in a nice road and is £750.
> 
> And - stop press - it really isn't that bad round here!



Try telling some people that..


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Try SE London. That's £650 a month - you should be able to find something OK for that. My own is 2 beds in a nice road and is £750.
> 
> And - stop press - it really isn't that bad round here!



There actually isn't a lot for that. Honest - I've just looked. For two people?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

http://www.woosterstock.co.uk/Letti...00&beds=0&kw=&o=Price&s=All&prices=pw&from=20

SE London, the way forward for those of us of more modest means. OK, so the ones towards the bottom of the page(s) are a bit shit but there are some OK ones too.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> There actually isn't a lot for that. Honest - I've just looked. For two people?



As I say - my place, £750. 2 bedrooms each 15 ft x 15 ft. Private block. Gardens. 5 mins station, supermarket, pubs. Respectable and quiet area within 15 mins of the City.

People just seem oblivious to the (relatively) low cost down here and blindly subscribe to the received wisdom that "London is euniversally expensive" and "SE London is all shit" and "if it ain't on the Tube it don't exist" and "overground takes bleedin' ages" etc etc etc

Come to the mystic land beyond the river my friends... that mysterious empty corner of the Tube map... an enchanted land where dragons roam and people walk on all fours... where you can find flats for less than £600 a month


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> As I say - my place, £750. 2 bedrooms each 15 ft x 15 ft. Private block. Gardens. 5 mins station, supermarket, pubs. Respectable and quiet area within 15 mins of the City.
> 
> Come to the mystic land beyond the river my friends... that mysterious empty corner of the Tube map... an enchanted land where dragons roam and people walk on all fours... where you can find flats for less than £600 a month



Fancy subletting it?  

I don't think you're wrong, there are great places around though they are in the minority.  Mostly you need to be the first at the door and have your deposit to hand.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> As I say - my place, £750. 2 bedrooms each 15 ft x 15 ft. Private block. Gardens. 5 mins station, supermarket, pubs. Respectable and quiet area within 15 mins of the City.
> 
> People just seem oblivious to the (relatively) low cost down here and blindly subscribe to the received wisdom that "London is euniversally expensive" and "SE London is all shit" and "if it ain't on the Tube it don't exist" and "overground takes bleedin' ages" etc etc etc
> 
> Come to the mystic land beyond the river my friends... that mysterious empty corner of the Tube map... an enchanted land where dragons roam and people walk on all fours... where you can find flats for less than £600 a month



Errm - I've lived in London for 20 years, 5 of them in South London - my sister lives there, my ex lives there and so do a lot of my friends. But thank you for the handy advice 

The point I was trying to make is that, while you might be able to find a flat for £150 a week, it's not really adequate for two people long term. Yes, you can get by - but this all comes back to how you define 'living wage' as opposed to 'survival wage'.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

It comes down to what people are willing to settle for.  Some people very little it seems - they seem content that people on low incomes have few choices...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Errm - I've lived in London for 20 years, 5 of them in South London - my sister lives there, my ex lives there and so do a lot of my friends. But thank you for the handy advice
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that, while you might be able to find a flat for £150 a week, it's not really adequate for two people long term. Yes, you can get by - but this all comes back to how you define 'living wage' as opposed to 'survival wage'.



Well, perhaps it comes down to age / stage of life. You can get a flat quite adequate for 2 people for £150 a week in this area and (like me) the extravagance of a spare room for all your shit and really rather spacious for 2for £175. This is fine until you want kids - I think this flat would be OK for one up to the age of 2 or 3. You then have to start looking at shared ownership / garden flats / cheaper houses / key worker / an optimistic application for LA housing etc. Hopefully by this stage of life earnings have picked up a bit too.

The rents quoted are the norm rather than the exception for this area and perosnally I feel that I and my neighbours (all of whom I know, incidentally) "live" rather than just "survive"!


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, perhaps it comes down to age / stage of life. You can get a flat quite adequate for 2 people for £150 a week in this area and (like me) the extravagance of a spare room for all your shit and really rather spacious for 2for *£175. *
> 
> The rents quoted are the norm rather than the exception for this area and perosnally I feel that I and my neighbours (all of whom I know, incidentally) "live" rather than just "survive"!



Yes - which isn't £150!


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Yes - which isn't £150!



Erm yeah but as I say £150 gets you something fine for your couple in their 20s. This one at £175 is *more* than you really need, loads of space and an extra level of comfort - and an extra £25 between 2 is not that much.

Where it gets tricky is if you are single or if you are a couple but only one is working.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> Tiny one bed flat? You're having a Stefi mate. Two people and a cat, one who is currently studying (as well as working full time), the other starting a course in September (as well as working full time), with all the stuff (books, music etc) that people in their 30's accumulate, in a tiny one bed flat? Are you serious?



 so what do you want a mansion

trash pony i spent the beginning of the year looking round finsbury park for flats and saw loads of quite nice ones for around 150-165, i decided to share in the end so when im able to start work again ill have more cash



> I'm guessing you didn't have debts, were happy to live in a sub-standard accomodation, didn't pay insurance, into a pension, have a partner earning a few grand less than you that had tuition fees for a course to pay - all the things that grown ups do y'know?



yeah i had some debts but only due to past extravagances, i lived in a pukka shared flat on the hackney road, didnt have a pension but couldve afforded one if id wanted

btw i was doing exactly the same type of work as you and my colleagues didnt particularly seem to think they were on such a low income, they all had one or more holidays a year, posh phones, organic salads for lunch, drink/drug problems that kind of thing

im not saying things are perfect, but like someone said earlier on this thread its much more to do with people expectations being much higher these days

i was 19 before i first went on holiday abroad, my mum was 35, my nan 65

you seem to me to have enough cash to live on, insurance to protect your possessions (which presumably you paid for), regular holidays

just saying your doing better than most thats all

(why dont you try having this conversation with some of your clients, im sure youll get lots of sympathy)


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

btw matrydom implies some sort of choice

i didnt choose to be this skint and im doing everything i can to get out of it


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> so what do you want a mansion



Yes, that's exactly what I want. 




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> yeah i had some debts but only due to past extravagances, i lived in a pukka shared flat on the hackney road, didnt have a pension but couldve afforded one if id wanted



I don't want to live in a shared flat - why should I have to?




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> btw i was doing exactly the same type of work as you and my colleagues didnt particularly seem to think they were on such a low income, they all had one or more holidays a year, posh phones, organic salads for lunch, drink/drug problems that kind of thing



The cost of living has gone up a far whack recently in case you hadn't noticed.  Wages haven't exactly followed.  I certainly can't afford organic salad lunches, I bring my own sarnies in.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> im not saying things are perfect, but like someone said earlier on this thread its much more to do with people expectations being much higher these days
> 
> i was 19 before i first went on holiday abroad, my mum was 35, my nan 65



Yeah and I used to live in a cardboard box in middle of motorway.  




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> you seem to me to have enough cash to live on, insurance to protect your possessions (which presumably you paid for), regular holidays



I struggle to pay my bills.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> just saying your doing better than most thats all



I'm well aware of that - hey, I even said so in my posts.  Try reading them.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> (why dont you try having this conversation with some of your clients, im sure youll get lots of sympathy)




You reckon?  Most clients I talk to know that to survive off benefits and have your own flat they need to be bringing in at least £1300/month.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> btw matrydom implies some sort of choice
> 
> i didnt choose to be this skint and im doing everything i can to get out of it



You seem to think that you're some kind of hero because of it.  You have a few ego problems mate.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> You seem to think that you're some kind of hero because of it. You have a few ego problems mate.



i dont think im the one with a problem, where have i claimed that im some kind of hero, all i did was say what my income was and that i get by on it  

i dont understand why you have such an issue with that, as i said youre the one moaning about being on a low income (when you clearly arent in comparison with most people)

would you be happier if i was moaning about how skint i am or how shit my life is ... well im sorry but its not

just because i dont need loads of money to be relatively happy doesnt mean i consider myself a hero for fucks sake

or should the people on genuinely low incomes not post on this thread, i mean what do we know about a living wage

sorry ill go if you want and leave you to your middle class angst



> I don't want to live in a shared flat - why should I have to?



you dont have to weve established that

but if you were earning less and made the choice to live in london then you probably would have to because as has been said where are all the extra flats gonna come from given theres already a massive housing shortage in london



> Yeah and I used to live in a cardboard box in middle of motorway



you seem reluctant to address the issue, preferring to take the piss, but the fact is, as you yourself prove expectations have risen massively amongst our generation compared to those of our parents and grandparents

people now think a holiday abroad is a right, that their own flat even when single is a right

most people used to live with their parents till they got married and had kids, or lived in digs like arlington house (which was originally set up for blokes coming to london to work)


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> I struggle to pay my bills.



try cutting out one of the holidays abroad

(btw which bills ... mobile, broadband, digital telly? all luxuries)


----------



## subversplat (Jun 15, 2006)

Reading this thread has really made me glad I've permanently opted out of the renting rat race


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

have you moved into a cave


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout - you need to start actually _reading_ people's posts, rather than assuming.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> try cutting out one of the holidays abroad
> 
> (btw which bills ... mobile, broadband, digital telly? all luxuries)



If you're studying, net access is not a luxury.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> If you're studying, net access is not a luxury.



some people might suggest that studying was a luxury

it shouldnt be but its something lots of people cant really afford to do


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> some people might suggest that studying was a luxury
> 
> it shouldnt be but its something lots of people cant really afford to do



same with clothes.. we should all just huddle together in the evenings... that'll sort out the housing crisis.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

*smokedout*

If you're not gonna bother reading what I write and responding intelligently, then just don't bother at all.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> same with clothes.. we should all just huddle together in the evenings



charity shops mate

i have read what youve posted, and many people would argue that study and even university is a luxury/indulgence, although i probably wouldnt

but lets face it youre not doing a job that requires a degree, so those years at university could be considered an indulgence

i understand the frustration of having to share at our kind of age, although with two of you i fail to see why you would have to

but thats london, its my choice to be here (well, kind of, though i couldnt go far if i still wanted to see my kid) and the reality of life in london is that youre pretty likely to have to share if youre single, or not on a fat salary

but this thread was about a living wage, and i find it a little insulting to the majority who are managing to get by on a lot less than you earn and raise kids in many cases for you to decide that youre not on a living wage

you are, youre just not rich


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

Why do you want to bring everyone down to a level of poverty?   Why not bring everyone *up*?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> but lets face it youre not doing a job that requires a degree



Errrr...you don't even know what my job is.  What was I just saying about assumptions?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> for you to decide that youre not on a living wage



I didn't say that.  What was I just saying about actually _reading_?

Foolish boy.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

youve said you work with street homeless people

ive never come across a job doing that that requires a degree, been in the sector 10 years on an off


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why do you want to bring everyone down to a level of poverty?   Why not bring everyone *up*?



This would be a great idea but my limited grasp of economics suggests it wouldn't be possible as if people had more money then rent (for example) would cost more and then the money wouldn't be worth as much and so on and so forth... such is capitalism


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> youve said you work with street homeless people
> 
> ive never come across a job doing that that requires a degree, been in the sector 10 years on an off



One of the reasons I got my job was on the basis of having a degree in multimedia & graphics.  Assume away _mate_.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> This would be a great idea but my limited grasp of economics suggests it wouldn't be possible as if people had more money then rent (for example) would cost more and then the money wouldn't be worth as much and so on and so forth... such is capitalism



That's a bit of a naive view.  Keynsian economics suggests that an increase in government spending has a multiplicative effect on an economy creating additional net worth as money is circulated several times before coming back to the govt in the form of taxes / savings.

Additionally, by creating a basic living wage you are, in effect, creating security in the same manner as Gordon Brown's highly respected decision of putting control of interest rates to the independent Bank Of England.  i.e it allows people to plan for (and spend for) the future, creating jobs, which creates money...


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

http://www.lookproperty.co.uk/index1.html

http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/indexareav.asp?AREA=Bethnal_Green

http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/indexareav.asp?AREA=Bethnal_Green

The top one here:

http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/indexareav.asp?AREA=Bethnal_Green

Another for £155pw:

http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/indexareav.asp?AREA=Bethnal_Green

A 2-bed for £160pw:

http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/indexareav.asp?AREA=Bethnal_Green

Lots of places for £150pw or very close to it. It's not as if I spent a long time searching. 

Blagsta, you even think that a one-bedroom flat isn't good enough for you? I'm sorry, but your standards aren't really reasonable. And you're encouraging this in your clients, too! Way to make people dissatisfied. 

Net access is a luxury, even if you're a student, because you do have computers at uni. It is very helpful to have at home, but it's quite possible to study without going on the internet. Hell, sometimes the damned net can be a deterrent to studying! Still, it is one of the smallest of the bills most people have, and it can save money in its own way to - you might stay indoors and mess around on messageboards one night instead of going to the pub to talk.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a naive view.  Keynsian economics suggests that an increase in government spending has a multiplicative effect on an economy creating additional net worth as money is circulated several times before coming back to the govt in the form of taxes / savings.
> 
> ...



Keynesian economics.. abit out of date..


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Keynesian economics.. abit out of date..



how so?


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> how so?



I think it went out the window in the late 70s in the form suggested by Keynes.. govt's still recognise they've to stimulate demand, but tend to do it through interest rates & monetary policy rather than pure fiscal policy.  Also there's a much greater recognition of the importance of the supply side..i.e. how effective markets are in actually operating.

See - you could put the whole absence of affordable housing for single folk down to chronic market failure combined with inept state management of housing. - The worst of both worlds.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> If you're on £22k and getting £1,388pm net then that leaves you with £738 per month for additional bills and living expenses. It's not tons, but it's not bad either. I know I managed earning less than that for the past 6 years. .






> I couldn't survive on that. Not after paying bills, credit cards, travel expenses, food, clothes. Well maybe I could survive, but I couldn't live - I wouldn't have a social life, I'd be a hermit. That's no life as far as I'm concerned



youve certainly implied it, you make the point that after your pension etc your on about the same as donna was



> One of the reasons I got my job was on the basis of having a degree in multimedia & graphics. Assume away mate.



well i dont even have a levels and ive got jobs no problem in all areas of the sector including project management


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I think it went out the window in the late 70s in the form suggested by Keynes.. govt's still recognise they've to stimulate demand, but tend to do it through interest rates & monetary policy rather than pure fiscal policy.  Also there's a much greater recognition of the importance of the supply side..i.e. how effective markets are in actually operating.



It didn't go out the window, rather Maggie T. became a monetarist hussy jumping on any theorist with a new equation.  The basic premise of the multiplier effect has never gone away. 

Certainly supply side has had to take a greter role as the BoE are now in control of demand side and monetarism has been shown to be fool's gold.

The interest in General Equilibrium economics is greater today more than ever since economists 'realise' that g.e. is not stationary.  However, translating it from academic papers into reality is still the same old conundrum.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> http://www.lookproperty.co.uk/index1.html
> 
> http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/indexareav.asp?AREA=Bethnal_Green
> 
> ...



Only the first one of those links work and it's a studio flat. I don't know how old you are but when you're in your mid-30s, do you hope to be living in a studio flat with your girlfriend? 

I don't think that's a brilliant way to live personally. I know people do but to me, that's survival, it's getting by. It's not living.

And where on earth you get this 





> I'm sorry, but your standards aren't really reasonable. And you're encouraging this in your clients, too! Way to make people dissatisfied.


 from I've no idea. Has Blagsta actually said that or are you making massive assumptions?


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

citydreams said:
			
		

> It didn't go out the window, rather Maggie T. became a monetarist hussy jumping on any theorist with a new equation.  The basic premise of the multiplier effect has never gone away.
> 
> Certainly supply side has had to take a greter role as the BoE are now in control of demand side and monetarism has been shown to be fool's gold.
> 
> The interest in General Equilibrium economics is greater today more than ever since economists 'realise' that g.e. is not stationary.  However, translating it from academic papers into reality is still the same old conundrum.



Rather before Ms.T.  No the premise hasn't.. just that it aint quite as simple as giving everyone a wage increase.

There's a greater recognition of markets and micromanagement.. cool:  )

For example, suppose wages are raised so everyone can now afford a single bedroom flat - what exactly's going to happen??


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Only the first one of those links work and it's a studio flat. I don't know how old you are but when you're in your mid-30s, do you hope to be living in a studio flat with your girlfriend?
> 
> I don't think that's a brilliant way to live personally. I know people do but to me, that's survival, it's getting by. It's not living.



Then you buy a nice house in Dagenham.  

http://www.findaproperty.com/agent.aspx?agentid=6412&opt=prop&pid=137262


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Only the first one of those links work



Bugger. Sorry, I don't have time to correct the links now - they were supposed to link directly to the flat in question, rather than to the front page. 



> and it's a studio flat. I don't know how old you are but when you're in your mid-30s, do you hope to be living in a studio flat with your girlfriend?



The link, as you say, is buggered; it was supposed to point to the one-bedroom flat that's third down on that page. I wouldn't expect two people (of any age) to live in a studio flat, so I only linked to one-bed flats (and one two-bed). Gah! 



> And where on earth you get this  from I've no idea. Has Blagsta actually said that or are you making massive assumptions?



From his comment about talking with his clients about how much they would need to live on. Where else would they all get the same high estimate from? But you're right, it is partly an assumption on my part, so my bad.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Then you buy a *nice house* in *Dagenham*.
> 
> http://www.findaproperty.com/agent.aspx?agentid=6412&opt=prop&pid=137262



Tautologous


----------



## Kanda (Jun 15, 2006)

Nobody should have to live in Dagenham!


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Then you buy a nice house in Dagenham.
> 
> http://www.findaproperty.com/agent.aspx?agentid=6412&opt=prop&pid=137262



20 mins to Fenchurch Street - zone 5?

You're talking crap.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> And you're encouraging this in your clients, too! Way to make people dissatisfied.



Christ, I wish people would actually *read* what I write, not just read what they thought I wrote.  x 10 billion


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> youve certainly implied it, you make the point that after your pension etc your on about the same as donna was



Well I as I said - I guess it depends on what you're willing to settle for.  You seem fairly happy to get screwed.  Well not all of us are thanks.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> well i dont even have a levels and ive got jobs no problem in all areas of the sector including project management



So get a job and stop whinging about how hard done by you are then.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Where else would they all get the same high estimate from?



From realising that living in London is expensive?  They may have drug problems, but they ain't stupid.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> So get a job and stop whinging about how hard done by you are then.



ive got a two year old to look after a lot of the time, and as he officially resides with his mum i wouldnt be entitled to any support with childcare

i dont believe your getting screwed on 25k, sorry mate, people who work inMcD's are getting screwed


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> stop whinging about how hard done by you are then.



where have i whinged about how hard done by i am

i thought it was you doing that


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> ive got a two year old to look after a lot of the time, and as he officially resides with his mum i wouldnt be entitled to any support with childcare



Eh?




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> i dont believe your getting screwed on 25k, sorry mate, people who work inMcD's are getting screwed



So you think that rent in London is fair?  That council tax is fair?  That the excessive profits and the bills they charge of utility companies are fair?  That water bills are fair, even though they don't mend leaks?  Really?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

I bet you think that striking tube workers are whingers too eh?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> Eh?



its aint rocket science, i have a child to look after part time so i cant work



> So you think that rent in London is fair? That council tax is fair? That the excessive profits and the bills they charge of utility companies are fair? That water bills are fair, even though they don't mend leaks? Really?



thats not the point, the point was how much is a living wage

of course i support the tube workers, and id support key workers in calling for higher salaries, but i wouldnt support them in whinging about what is quite frankly a living wage

(most tube workers earn less than you, its only the drivers who earn a decent salary)


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

This is where I refer you to my earlier comments about actually reading the bleedin' thread.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

i have and ive posted examples of your comments above

fact is 25k for someone with a kid in london is barely a living wage

25k for a childless couple when the other person is working as well means your doing pretty fucking well imo

but then most couple wouldnt turn there nose up at a 1 bed flat


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you think that rent in London is fair?



I think that it is not nearly as high as the reputation of the city would have you believe, and it's not surprising that rents are higher in the capital city. That's the way property works. Increased social housing stocks would help mitigate the 'unfairness,' but unfortunately that's not as much of a vote-winner as right-to-buy schemes. Grants for key workers help, too (although they need to be expanded in scope, I reckon - it's definitely unfair that Prison Officers don't get grants). 



> That council tax is fair?  That the excessive profits and the bills they charge of utility companies are fair?  That water bills are fair, even though they don't mend leaks?  Really?



I don't, personally, but the unfairness of those charges is not exclusive to London.

Tube workers are definitely better discussed in a different thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> i have and ive posted examples of your comments above
> 
> fact is 25k for someone with a kid in london is barely a living wage
> 
> ...



Christ, I dunno why I bother.  

Look it's quite simple.  The gist of my argument is this -
the living wage is set far too low
even £25K (which I know is a lot better than a lot of people get) isn't enough in London if you want to live in a nice place, pay your bills, have some reward for working, eat decent food, have a pension etc - all of which I feel should be entitlements.
People should be brought *up* to a decent standard of living not dragged down

Your argument appears to be - accept the status quo and tough shit and be quiet about it.  I reject that utterly as conservative bollocks.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I think that it is not nearly as high as the reputation of the city would have you believe, and it's not surprising that rents are higher in the capital city. That's the way property works. Increased social housing stocks would help mitigate the 'unfairness,' but unfortunately that's not as much of a vote-winner as right-to-buy schemes. Grants for key workers help, too (although they need to be expanded in scope, I reckon - it's definitely unfair that Prison Officers don't get grants).



Oh look, another "like it or lump it" attitude.  




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> I don't, personally, but the unfairness of those charges is not exclusive to London.



No, but its part of the argument though.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Christ, I dunno why I bother.
> 
> Look it's quite simple.  The gist of my argument is this -
> the living wage is set far too low
> ...



I don't want to get into any kind of fight, but I would simply like to say I disagree (but not in a gloves off kind of way!)  .  I've never earned as much as £25k - not even £22K and I feel that I _have_ had a decent standard of living.  I feel very grateful for what I've got (not implying that you don't) and at the same time, I don't feel like I am "settling" for anything in particular.  I do feel a little bit like - am I the only one who thinks that's actually quite a lot of money?   It's true there are people out there with loads more, but to be frank, I'm not particularly interested in many of the things they own/do. Also there's loads of people out there with loads less.  TBH.. if there's anything I feel I lack living in London - it's time.  I often think I'd be happy with less money and more time.  I do also think that living in London you see a lot of extremely wealthy people and it can sometimes seem like that's the norm... but it's not.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I don't want to get into any kind of fight, but I would simply like to say I disagree (but not in a gloves off kind of way!)  .  I've never earned as much as £25k - not even £22K and I feel that I _have_ had a decent standard of living.  I feel very grateful for what I've got (not implying that you don't) and at the same time, I don't feel like I am "settling" for anything in particular.  I do feel a little bit like - am I the only one who thinks that's actually quite a lot of money?   It's true there are people out there with loads more, but to be frank, I'm not particularly interested in many of the things they own/do. Also there's loads of people out there with loads less.  TBH.. if there's anything I feel I lack living in London - it's time.  I often think I'd be happy with less money and more time.  I do also think that living in London you see a lot of extremely wealthy people and it can sometimes seem like that's the norm... but it's not.



And that's fairynuff.  You're happy with what you have.  We're struggling.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh look, another "like it or lump it" attitude.



What's the solution then? How would you suggest London rents are made cheaper? I'm not saying like it or lump it - I'm saying change it or lump it, and in any case it's not as bad as the doom-mongers say. 



> No, but its part of the argument though.



Kinda, but not one that can really go anywhere. 

Blagsta, I honestly do think your 'minimum standards' are far too high, but I also honestly don't understand why, on your income, you find it so difficult to meet those standards. The figures just don't add up. Maybe your landlord or someone is ripping you off?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> And that's fairynuff.  You're happy with what you have.  We're struggling.



What is it you want that you don't have?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> What's the solution then? How would you suggest London rents are made cheaper? I'm not saying like it or lump it - I'm saying change it or lump it, and in any case it's not as bad as the doom-mongers say.



I don't know what the solution is.  A fair rent act?  More social housing?  Better wages?  A revolution?




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> Kinda, but not one that can really go anywhere.



Really?  Re-nationalisation might help.




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> Blagsta, I honestly do think your 'minimum standards' are far too high, but I also honestly don't understand why, on your income, you find it so difficult to meet those standards. The figures just don't add up. Maybe your landlord or someone is ripping you off?



I have debts I'm paying off (student loan and credit cards), a pension I'm paying into, my partner earns a lot less than I do but has tuition fees to pay.  I'm also in private psychotherapy (try getting long term psychotherapy on the NHS - nigh on impossible).  I'm also not willing to live in shared student type digs anymore and I don't see why I should be forced to.

I'm just wondering what you take issue with in my standards?  Decent housing?  A pension?  Decent food?  What?  I also wonder why you think its OK that people on lower wages have less choices.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> What is it you want that you don't have?



I'd like to be able to afford to go abroad without having to put it on credit, I'd like to not be into my overdraft at the end of every month, I'd like to be able to buy a property etc


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'd like to be able to afford to go abroad without having to put it on credit, I'd like to not be into my overdraft at the end of every month, I'd like to be able to buy a property etc



I've done all those things on my wages.  It hasn't been easy, but it is do-able.  It might take some time and you have to go a roundabout way to do it.. but you can!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I've done all those things on my wages.  It hasn't been easy, but it is do-able.  It might take some time and you have to go a roundabout way to do it.. but you can!



I'm telling you, I can't.  Buy decent property on £25K?  Don't be soft.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't know what the solution is.  A fair rent act?  More social housing?  Better wages?  A revolution?



A fair rent act would lead to a huge drop in supply of homes to rent - sometimes the rents are that high because they need to be, to pay off the owner's mortgage. The owner's not going to charge less than his/her mortgage payments. I could see unofficial rents being added on to the official rent (high 'service charges,' probably); these costs wouldn't be covered by housing benefit, so anyone in the private rental sector would be in deep trouble. 

Actually, more realistic housing benefit rates would help - and make it available to working people, too, (without the 200 page form and three month wait for payment). 

Better wages would just lead to higher rents. Rental costs in London are demand-led, in the sense that the reasons landlords can charge what they charge is that people will pay it, and supply-led in the sense that there just isn't that much room to expand in London. The more money there is availble, the more wil be spent on rent. The better income people have, the more property prices will rise, which would in turn lead to higher rents.



> Really?  Re-nationalisation might help.



It probably would. I meant that it wouldn't go far within the context of this discussion, which is about a living wage for _London_.



> I'm just wondering what you take issue with in my standards?  Decent housing?  A pension?  Decent food?  What?  I also wonder why you think its OK that people on lower wages have less choices.



A huge private pension is a luxury, yes. 'Decent food' can be had on tiny amounts of money. You think a one-bedroom flat isn't enough for a couple without children, and I disagree with that. I also disagree that having 2 holidays a year is a basic need. 

Of course people on lower wages should have fewer choices - when it comes to luxuries, not basics. Generally, excepting a few city fat cats, people get higher wages for good reasons: for longevity of service, the amount of training they've had to go through, the supply level of the skills they have, etc. Someone who's gone through medical school for years, paying for that, and then worked ten years in a difficult job, should be rewarded by having more choices of luxuries than someone who hasn't done any of that.

_Edited for coding._


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm telling you, I can't.  Buy decent property on £25K?  Don't be soft.



I'm not being soft.. honest... you might not be able to go out and buy somewhere by yourself straight away, but you can get there in the end, if you think long term.

This is how it worked for me.

I applied for shared ownership to every single housing association in London.  (As did my mother who earned less than 22K and has 50% of her own place now).  Several years after doing that I met my boyfriend.  He - despairing of never being able to buy either - clubbed together with two friends.  They bought a flat together - nothing flashy, they couldn't afford it.  The flat made money over two years.  They sold it and split the profits.  Meanwhile I took a job I really didn't want to do (I had been working freelance but it would've been really hard to get a mortgage doing that) and did it for two years in order to have a decent credit rating and be bank friendly.  Then together we used his profits and our various credit cards (on which we borrowed lots of money short term) for a deposit.  We then bought somewhere a bit bigger than we need - not some nice period property but it's comfortable.  Now we have lodgers which means that we can actually meet our mortgage.  It's a long haul, but the end result should be that we end up having a reasonably sized flat for the two of us.  We're still not just the two of us, but we're making sacrifices now for the future good - and it turns out that we quite like having lodgers anyway - we're careful who we choose and we've met some pretty interesting people!

I _know_ that's not perfect, but it beats sitting around being pissed off that I don't earn enough to buy my own place - because from where I'm sitting that's not going to change any time soon. If that's what you really want you might have to settle for less than that in the short term in order to get what you want in the long term.  And we're really happy. 

(I guess it helps that I know people who've been living here - in Brixton - for almost 20 years who had to do exactly what we've done - buy with friends, take in lodgers etc etc - and they're very happily settled now with a nice place in France and a huge number of friends who originally lodged with them and still live in the area) 

I hope you do find a way to get what you want.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm telling you, I can't.  Buy decent property on £25K?  Don't be soft.



Yeah, that would be difficult, definitely. Not impossible though - I've seen houses in the East End for just over £100,000. But owning property is a not a basic right.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Rather before Ms.T.  No the premise hasn't.. just that it aint quite as simple as giving everyone a wage increase.
> 
> There's a greater recognition of markets and micromanagement.. cool:  )
> 
> For example, suppose wages are raised so everyone can now afford a single bedroom flat - what exactly's going to happen??



I'll tell you once I've done my Phd.  But isn't that the crux of redistributionary politics?  So much money is wasted on exports cause we don't have the industry to take care of ourselves. If money was better allocated then a multiplier effect can create a social industry.  But then No Clause4, No Class War


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Yeah, that would be difficult, definitely. Not impossible though - I've seen houses in the East End for just over £100,000.



I don't want to live in the east end.




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> But owning property is a not a basic right.



Why isn't it?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I'm not being soft.. honest... you might not be able to go out and buy somewhere by yourself straight away, but you can get there in the end, if you think long term.
> 
> This is how it worked for me.
> 
> ...




So you didn't actually do it on less than £25K.  You did it with the help of friends (I'm not prepared to buy with friends), selling other property, with credit and with lodgers.  That's not buying on £25K.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I hope you do find a way to get what you want.



I second that.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I second that.



Don't get me wrong, my life could be (has been) far worse.  I just take issue with people who think that £25K is a lot of money, cos it fucking ain't.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So you didn't actually do it on less than £25K.  You did it with the help of friends (I'm not prepared to buy with friends), selling other property, with credit and with lodgers.  That's not buying on £25K.



The point I'm trying to make here is that if you want it to happen you have to make it happen. And yes, I was earning less than 25K when I bought it.  We saved money for the deposit, using a variety of methods - which most people have to do.  You might not get exactly what you want straight away, you might have to compromise to get what you want.  But that's not just what it's like living in London... that's life.  You can't just stamp your foot and expect to get what you want just like that - just because some other people seemingly have it so easy!!  

That being said I do know someone who _did_ buy a very nice 1 bedroomed flat on less that £25k.  She got a good mortgage advisor and did one of those self assessment mortgages (I believe they were pretty creative in doing it!) and bought her flat in Lee Green.

Another one bought a flat through auction... pretty risky, but she asked for help from as many people as she knew.   It needed a _lot_ of work doing to it - now it's gorgeous and worth several 100K more than when she bought it!  

Honestly, if it's worth having, it's not going to come easily.  You see so many people in life to whom things do come easily and many are no happier!  Believe me, when you get the keys to your flat after all the effort we made, you really really appreciate what you've got!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

We probably will buy in a couple of years, but the only way we can afford to do so is cos my other half works for the NHS and can get keyworker status.  Other than that, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Honestly, if it's worth having, it's not going to come easily.  You see so many people in life to whom things do come easily and many are no happier!  Believe me, when you get the keys to your flat after all the effort we made, you really really appreciate what you've got!



btw, I find that rather patronising


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> btw, I find that rather patronising



Ok.. I'm sorry... I didn't mean it to come out patronising.. I was just thinking about the day we got possession and came round with our keys.. after everything.. and it was such a long haul, with so many disappointments - we lost loads of money trying to buy another flat first.. I was so happy.  I'm the only person in my family (apart from my mother on shared ownership) to own a place to live and I never thought it would happen.  That's all I meant.    I honestly do mean all this with the best will in the world and I do understand your frustration.


----------



## cyberfairy (Jun 15, 2006)

Have not read through whole thread but just wanted to say that when I lived in London was on eight quid something an hour for a qualified teaching job in a pretty shitty place. Five years later, am in Bath on six fifty an hour wth no holiday pay for a place with an Outstanding Ofsted rating. Beer etc is still nearly three quid or over a pint, a scummy room in a student flatshare is normally over seventy quid a week, the council tax is extortionate, there are no late buses or clubs, most restaurants are far pricier than London due to no competiton,' ethnic' food such as olives and hummous are only to be found at Waitrose etc and so expensive, there are no late night shops,parking is expensive and difficult and traffic is a nightmare. The average houseprice is 220 grand for a 2 bed terrace in unfashionable area and most people i know are under ten grand a year, including me despite a degree and two jobs. 
So count your blessings 
I still love bath though


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> I don't want to live in the east end.



so lets summarise, you take home nearly 1,400 a month after ppension, union, student loan and pay 6k rent  ayear, leaving you about 900 quid a month

i dont know whether thats your total rent or whether you and your partner split it, if you do then you should maybe think about getting a cheaper place

presumably you also split bills, council tax etc

you refuse to live in a one bedroom flat which is perfectly adequate for a couple, you refuse to live in the east end (and i assume se/nw london where you could find a place just as cheap)

in fact you say you couldnt possibly live in a two bed flat because of all the stuff youve accumulated which presumably you paid for at some time

you 'need' to pay for private healthcare and refuse to rely on the nhs

you 'need' broadband because youre studying (im guessing on a fee paying course because i dont see how youd get any funding for studying otherwise)

you dont see any way that you could eat well cheaply

and you accuse me of having conservative values ffs

like i said earlier in this thread, youre minted mate

you want the right to have two foreign holidays a year

bet your parents are rich aint they, you dont have a fucking clue how life is for most folk, you demand things as a right that are a far away luxury for most of the population

i find it quite offensive


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

Rich parents?  Yeah, that's right mate.    Fucking arsehole.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> in fact you say you couldnt possibly live in a two bed flat because of all the stuff youve accumulated which presumably you paid for at some time



Btw, I didn't say anything of the sort.  As I said - please read my posts or just fuck off eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> you 'need' to pay for private healthcare and refuse to rely on the nhs



No, I didn't say that either.  Wanker.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> Two people and a cat, one who is currently studying (as well as working full time), the other starting a course in September (as well as working full time), with all the stuff (books, music etc) that people in their 30's accumulate, in a tiny one bed flat? Are you serious?


+

you keep accusing me of not reading what you posted, then when i quote you you go all quiet

so from the above, which you posted, what else am i supposed to deduce


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> +
> 
> you keep accusing me of not reading what you posted, then when i quote you you go all quiet
> 
> so from the above, which you posted, what else am i supposed to deduce



Try reading it again.  *Properly* this time.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

I'll make it easy for you.

"Two people and a cat, one who is currently studying (as well as working full time), the other starting a course in September (as well as working full time), with all the stuff (books, music etc) that people in their 30's accumulate, in a tiny *one* bed flat? Are you serious?"


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> I'm also in private psychotherapy (try getting long term psychotherapy on the NHS - nigh on impossible).



i tried reading it again, you said you couldnt live with your partner in a tiny (which wouldnt have to be tiny for about 160 pw, could be quite spacious)
one bed flat particularly because of all the books/music youve accumulated

so im sorry if i take your words at face value, i cant read your mind


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> i tried reading it again, you said you couldnt live with your partner in a tiny (which wouldnt have to be tiny for about 160 pw, could be quite spacious)
> one bed flat particularly because of all the books/music youve accumulated
> 
> so im sorry if i take your words at face value, i cant read your mind



You don't even read your _own _posts properly do you?

I'll make it easy on you again.  You posted "in fact you say you couldnt possibly live in a *two* bed flat because of all the stuff youve accumulated which presumably you paid for at some time"


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

you do know that one bed flat would generally mean a one bedroom flat as opposed to a studio dont you

its not my fault if youre incapable of making yourself clear


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> you do know that one bed flat would generally mean a one bedroom flat as opposed to a studio dont you



Duh, really?  




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> its not my fault if youre incapable of making yourself clear



Try looking in the mirror sometime.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

ok, fair enough that was a typo, and there was me thinking you were actually showing a hint of realism

so you concede that you wouldnt be prepared to live in a one bedroom flat
fuck man, even the couples i know who i consider quite posh only have one bed flats if they dont have kids


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

Of course I would if I absolutely had to.  The point is, I shouldn't have to.  As I already said, my partner is studying, she needs the quiet space for books (of which we probably have several hundred) and to study.  Not to mention we're planning on having kids in a year or two.

What I don't get about your attitude (as I have said many many times on this thread) is why you seem insistent on everyone being dragged down and that we should all be content with out lot.  I find that a deeply conservative attitude.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

If I was single I'd happily live in a one bedroom place - but then I wouldn't be able to afford it.  Actually if I became single, I'd consider moving back to Birmingham.  Rents there are half what they are in London.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

Actually what bothers me most about your attitude is you aiming your anger at the wrong person.  Me and my missus are both from lower middle class backgrounds, parents didn't have much money when we were growing up (only time I went abroad with my family as a kid we went camping in France - it was all we could afford), we're both doing socially useful jobs, both politically socialist, neither of us extravagant.  We both do stressful and emotionally demanding jobs and don't get paid a huge amount for it (me more than her).  All we want is a nice life and you're aiming your anger at me and telling me I should shut up and be thankful for what I've got.  Well fuck that.  Aim your anger at the government, at the people who control housing markets, at local councils at big business at capitalism.  Not people like me.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 15, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> So you can't live on £150 because by your own admission you can't afford to pay your bills.


Not really - the "big bills" I am talking about don't refer to basic utility bills - I mean things like buying new clothes or household/white goods or other one-off items of expenditure. It also reflects (in my case) a lack of planning or saving (even £5 a week can help save up a 'fund' for occasional larger bills, but in fact this 'rainy day fund' typically got spent on non-essential consumables (beer, tobacco, weed, magasines). 

I still stand by my claim that you can live on £150/week: in fact I have lived on less - the HB didn't actually cover all my rent (being about £5-10/week short) and JSA was c. £45/week - so basically it was 'rent plus £40 for living on'. It is perfectly possible, although not that pleasant if you are a habitual consumer who can't adapt to a non-consumerist lifestyle, won't seek out the cheapest bargains, tries to keep up with the spending patterns of people earning a lot more than you or is otherwise not in the best physical or mental health. It would also be very hard if you had debt, any expensive addictions, people to look after and so forth.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> The point is, I shouldn't have to



why ffs sake, thats more than most people have, if you have kids its a bit different (id recommend it btw  ) but the fact is to assume you should have the right to accommodation which is way more than you realistically need is insane

its the wierdest politics ive ever heard, at least tories acknowledge that you have to work for privilege, you seem to think that it should be handed to you on a plate

i cant imagine any socialist demanding the right for couples without kids to have a spare room

id like a spaceship. in fact i demand it and anyone whos says im not entitled to it is a tory


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

im not particularly angry, more bemused that you can think this way


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Not really - the "big bills" I am talking about don't refer to basic utility bills - I mean things like buying new clothes or household/white goods or other one-off items of expenditure. It also reflects (in my case) a lack of planning or saving (even £5 a week can help save up a 'fund' for occasional larger bills, but in fact this 'rainy day fund' typically got spent on non-essential consumables (beer, tobacco, weed, magasines).
> 
> I still stand by my claim that you can live on £150/week: in fact I have lived on less - the HB didn't actually cover all my rent (being about £5-10/week short) and JSA was c. £45/week - so basically it was 'rent plus £40 for living on'. It is perfectly possible, although not that pleasant if you are a habitual consumer who can't adapt to a non-consumerist lifestyle, won't seek out the cheapest bargains, tries to keep up with the spending patterns of people earning a lot more than you or is otherwise not in the best physical or mental health. It would also be very hard if you had debt, any expensive addictions, people to look after and so forth.




^
that ain't living in my book - that's surviving.  Not being able to afford to buy clothes?  Bollocks to that.  Oh and btw, beer is not "non-essential".


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Well quite.  The "living wage" is being set at poverty levels.


Or you could argue that "poverty" is set at "living wage" levels.

Apart from people living rough on the streets (I have a few friends who have had to do this for several years - in fact we have someone living with us now rent-free who we invited in off the street) there is almost no comparion with "poverty" in a global sense - living on less than $1/day - and the way anyone lives in the UK. 

People in the UK have access to free health care, free food, free shelter, free education and so forth. It is a farce to try and compare this with the vast number of people starving to death or dying through lack of basic health care, clean water and so forth. 

The average person in the world has about £70/week (this figure is adjusted to accunt for the purchasing power of the local currency in question based on a basket of local goods and services) and this typically has to cover *everything* including rent, health care, food, and often things like school fees as well. This average (which is also typical for 'medium income' countries like Russia and Brazil) hide the large numbers of people in very poor countries, far below this level.

It is a fucking joke to have people compare the lifestyle enjoyed by 99% of UK residents with "poverty" as understood by the vast majority of the world's population today.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> why ffs sake, thats more than most people have,



Yes, I'm well aware of that.  But it shouldn't be.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> if you have kids its a bit different (id recommend it btw  ) but the fact is to assume you should have the right to accommodation which is way more than you realistically need is insane



Its not way more than I need.  As I just said, I don't understand why you don't aim your anger at the people who _do_ actually have way more than they need.  The people with holiday homes, a house in Surrey and flat in central London for example.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> its the wierdest politics ive ever heard, at least tories acknowledge that you have to work for privilege, you seem to think that it should be handed to you on a plate



You think a 2 bedroom flat is a "privilege"?    And you call my politics weird?   




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> i cant imagine any socialist demanding the right for couples without kids to have a spare room



I can't imagine any socialist thinking that people should settle for less, that everyone should be dragged down to a lowest common denominator just 'cos they don't have lots of money and power.  That's a conservative attitude.  Personally, I want things to be shared equally.  You seem happy to let the people at the top have shit loads and for the people nearer the bottom to fight over the scraps.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> id like a spaceship. in fact i demand it and anyone whos says im not entitled to it is a tory




You're being a twat now.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> im not particularly angry, more bemused that you can think this way



The feeling's mutual.  I can't understand why you think people shouldn't have decent housing.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Or you could argue that "poverty" is set at "living wage" levels.
> 
> Apart from people living rough on the streets (I have a few friends who have had to do this for several years - in fact we have someone living with us now rent-free who we invited in off the street) there is almost no comparion with "poverty" in a global sense - living on less than $1/day - and the way anyone lives in the UK.
> 
> ...




IMO, its relative poverty that is more meaningful.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...+poverty&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> id like a spaceship. in fact i demand it and anyone whos says im not entitled to it is a tory



Oh btw, I didn't call you a tory.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is a fucking joke to have people compare the lifestyle enjoyed by 99% of UK residents with "poverty" as understood by the vast majority of the world's population today.



Yes!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

relative poverty


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> relative poverty




Yes.. I saw that the first time around.     Anyway, I'm off out to a free night out with some nice people.  Have a nice night all!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2006)

Its a different link. 

Have fun.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> The feeling's mutual. I can't understand why you think people shouldn't have decent housing.



i dont, i believe everyone has a right to a decent home

but can you imagine if everyone demanded the right to a two bedroom flat with no kids, its insane, its way more than you need or most people would even want

i just cant understand how you can think this is a right, you work in housing ffs, you must be aware that more and more single homeless people are being offered bedsits and studios rather than one bed flats

how do you suppose we could live in a society where everyone has so much more space than they need, would you still demand a spare room if you had kids

you prepared to pay more tax to fund it, youre not thinking logically, from each according to ability, to each according to need

thats need, not desire, imo youre the one coming across like a tory by demanding that what you desire should be rightfully yours regardless of the consequences to others

and as i said earlier, as a anarcho-socialist whos spent my life working with people who are vulnerably housed, and as someone in a position where i hardley live like a king these days

my priorities will never be someone who earns a grand and a half a month after tax, has no kids and just demands the right to a spare room

thats not about trying to drag everyone down, its about concentrating resources where theyre most needed and not on people who demand more than they need when actually theyre doing pretty well



> I don't understand why you don't aim your anger at the people who do actually have way more than they need. The people with holiday homes, a house in Surrey and flat in central London for example.



my anger isnt directed at them so much as the system which allows them to exist while some live in such desperate straits at times, but at least theyve earnt their money for the privelege and arent just demanding that it should be provided to them on a plate



> You seem happy to let the people at the top have shit loads and for the people nearer the bottom to fight over the scraps.



given how most people in this country (not to mention the rest of the world) actually live id say you were closer to the top than the bottem


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

to back that up the at a rough calculation based on the figures in this report 78% of people in the uk live on an average household income of less than 40k gross

less i imagine than you and your partner receive combined, the difference being many of those are bringing up children and the figures are skewed on the high side by the super rich


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 15, 2006)

sorry, I've missed a lot of this but is Blagsta seriously saying that he/she and his/her partner should not have to live in a *one* bedroomed flat in London? What a fucking joke. 

A one bedroomed flat is designed for a couple for goodness sake. When me and my partner were looking for somewhere to live, no way did we expect to get two bedrooms. Why would we need them, we've only got one bed.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> sorry, I've missed a lot of this but is Blagsta seriously saying that he/she and his/her partner should not have to live in a one bedroomed flat in London?



yup, its his right dontcha understand, as a socialist (giggles)


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> A fair rent act would lead to a huge drop in supply of homes to rent - sometimes the rents are that high because they need to be, to pay off the owner's mortgage. The owner's not going to charge less than his/her mortgage payments.



Ever considered that "buy to let" has driven prices up? That it is one of the prime reasons why prices no longer have any relation to earnings? That growth in the availability of landlord finance coincided with the exponential growth in prices in 1999-2002?




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> A huge private pension is a luxury, yes.



Have you ever done the sums for how much a person needs to save? Luxury my f***ing arse. What sort of premium do you think one can afford out of £900 a month net pay? I'll tell you - not a big enough one.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Ever considered that "buy to let" has driven prices up? That it is one of the prime reasons why prices no longer have any relation to earnings? That growth in the availability of landlord finance coincided with the exponential growth in prices in 1999-2002?



Yes, I have. But in the real world people do sometimes buy houses in order to let them out. They also often - like gaijingirl - sublet a room or two to help make up the mortgage payments. This is the reality, can we agree on that? Well, when considering the possible solutions to a problem I like to consider the reality of the problem, rather than the way I think it should be. Having things 'the way I think it should be' is the goal, not the starting point.  



> Have you ever done the sums for how much a person needs to save? Luxury my f***ing arse. What sort of premium do you think one can afford out of £900 a month net pay? I'll tell you - not a big enough one.



I'm sorry, I can't parse that paragaph at all. Your angry swearing may have got in the way of you writing coherent sentences.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> ^
> that ain't living in my book - that's surviving.  Not being able to afford to buy clothes?  Bollocks to that.  Oh and btw, beer is not "non-essential".


You are a spolit twat.

Any spare tax money should go directly to helping people in real poverty and dealing with important issues effecting the world, not bailing out halfwits like you because you can't afford a new plasma screen, a spare room or a foreign holiday.

If you really care that much pull your fucking finger out of your arse and get a second job, set up a company and work your fucking arse off for the money, stop pissing money away on booze and fags and get a fucking grip on your pathetic and child-like idea that the world owes you a 'living' - in fact recognise that you have more than enough money to 'live' on - more than the vast majority of the world's population - and ask yourself exactly why you feel that you in particular deserve extra money or why exactly a foreign holiday is your 'right'.

This isn't socialism - this is 'spoilt brattism' and 'I want more ice-cream otherwise I will scream and scream'-ism. What the fuck do you contribute to the world, to other tax-payers or to your customers or employer that they should start to subsidise ever single whim you have or turn over all their money to you or people like you? Why are you in so much more need of money than people far poorer than you?

In short, you are utterly full of shit.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> This isn't socialism - this is 'spoilt brattism' and 'I want more ice-cream otherwise I will scream and scream'-ism. What the fuck do you contribute to the world, to other tax-payers or to your customers or employer that they should start to subsidise ever single whim you have or turn over all their money to you or people like you? Why are you in so much more need of money than people far poorer than you?



To be fair, all the extra things he thinks are his entitlements (the flat, etc.,) he also counts as entitlements for everyone - not just him.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 16, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> To be fair, all the extra things he thinks are his entitlements (the flat, etc.,) he also counts as entitlements for everyone - not just him.


I wonder how much tax everyone would have to pay for even just the UK population to all be given several foreign holidays a year, large falts and all the beer they could drink? Let me guess - a 100% tax - no private property - the state doling out limitless money to everyone? Yeah right!

This isn't even beginning to address the issue of global poverty. As I have pointed oput the average person in the world lives on £70/week total (including all rent, services, health, education and so forth). This means that a "fair share" for everyone wold be at this amount - which means that even if we accept the principle that all the world's resources should be shared equally amongst all the worlds people, this comes to noweher near 22k per year or whatever it is Blagsta is demanding as his "fair share".

This is also ignoring that the total amount of 'wealth' is not a static thing - that once people's motivation to do any work is removed a lot of things don't get done, that the track record for government'sd taking everyone's money then doling it back out via provision of what they think everyone wants (or more typically what they think people *should* want) is utterly abysmal, and so forth.

I am in favour of redistribution of wealth to prevent people living in poverty and I am in favour of providing everyone (in the UK but more importantly all around the world) with the *basics* for life - food, shelter, clothing, clean water, health care, primary and secondary education, protection from violence, access to justice, equality under the law and respect for the political and human rights...

...but beyond these basics there is no reason why people have a claim on the results of other people's hard work, initiative or good fortune, and there is no way that Blagsta or anyone else is somehow automatically entitled to foreign holidays, beer and as many extra rooms as they dream up 'needing' for all their excess consumer books or can argue that the lack of these is "poverty" - utterly laughable when you consider what *real* poverty is.


----------



## Giles (Jun 16, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Yes, I have. But in the real world people do sometimes buy houses in order to let them out. They also often - like gaijingirl - sublet a room or two to help make up the mortgage payments. This is the reality, can we agree on that? Well, when considering the possible solutions to a problem I like to consider the reality of the problem, rather than the way I think it should be. Having things 'the way I think it should be' is the goal, not the starting point.



I think that you will find that owner-occupiers are prepared to pay more for their flat/house than investment buyers.

Investment buyers logically will only pay up to a price that makes sense in terms of the likely rent paying the mortgage. 

Prices in London went past that point years ago, and have kept increasing. This is driven by people buying to live in, not buying to let.

And also, the greater availability of places to rent has actually reduced rents, and increased what people expect to get for their rent money in terms of quality, over the last 10 years or so.

And I know what I am talking about.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> i dont, i believe everyone has a right to a decent home



But you don't though as your attitude on this thread shows.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> but can you imagine if everyone demanded the right to a two bedroom flat with no kids, its insane, its way more than you need or most people would even want



I don't know what the vision is that you've got in your head of our flat.  Its hardly palatial.  Its not much bigger than some one bed flats - it has a tiny kitchen, bathroom and toilet.  It just has an extra bedroom.  Space is important to people, it stops them going mad.  If you had your way, we'd be piled up in little cocoons like those sleeper things in Japan.  Fuck that.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> i just cant understand how you can think this is a right, you work in housing ffs, you must be aware that more and more single homeless people are being offered bedsits and studios rather than one bed flats



Yes, I'm well aware of that.  So what?  Why does the fact that that's what is happening make it right?  Why do you think that poor people should get a rawer deal?




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> how do you suppose we could live in a society where everyone has so much more space than they need, would you still demand a spare room if you had kids



Fucks sake, you're not thinking about this are you?  I live in a basement flat in Brixton ffs, not a mansion in Hampstead.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> you prepared to pay more tax to fund it, youre not thinking logically, from each according to ability, to each according to need



Sorry, tax to fund what?  




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> thats need, not desire, imo youre the one coming across like a tory by demanding that what you desire should be rightfully yours regardless of the consequences to others



You're not actually reading my posts are you?  You're just assuming you know what I'm saying.  TRY READING THEM PROPERLY.  




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> and as i said earlier, as a anarcho-socialist whos spent my life working with people who are vulnerably housed, and as someone in a position where i hardley live like a king these days



That's your choice.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> my priorities will never be someone who earns a grand and a half a month after tax, has no kids and just demands the right to a spare room



I'm not asking for you to prioritise me.  Whatever that means.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> thats not about trying to drag everyone down, its about concentrating resources where theyre most needed and not on people who demand more than they need when actually theyre doing pretty well



So why take resources from people nearer the bottom?  That's what I don;t get about you - you've said nothing at all about people who live in big houses in Hampstead, you're aiming your ire at someone who lives in a basement flat in Brixton.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> my anger isnt directed at them so much as the system which allows them to exist while some live in such desperate straits at times, but at least theyve earnt their money for the privelege and arent just demanding that it should be provided to them on a plate



And you call yourself an anarcho-socialist?  What a fucking joke you are.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> given how most people in this country (not to mention the rest of the world) actually live id say you were closer to the top than the bottem



25K close to the top?  You're fucking crazy.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> sorry, I've missed a lot of this but is Blagsta seriously saying that he/she and his/her partner should not have to live in a *one* bedroomed flat in London? What a fucking joke.
> 
> A one bedroomed flat is designed for a couple for goodness sake. When me and my partner were looking for somewhere to live, no way did we expect to get two bedrooms. Why would we need them, we've only got one bed.



I don't get your attitude.  If two people are sharing a flat not as partners, then they have a 2 bedroom flat.  Then what if they get together?  They don't suddenly have less stuff, have less need for space.  You just seem happy to put up with getting a rawer deal just because...well just because that's the way it is.  Happy to accept the status quo.  I find that bizarre to say the least.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> yup, its his right dontcha understand, as a socialist (giggles)



I don't understand why you equate socialism with everyone living in tiny little boxes.  My socialism is about everyone getting a fair share.  Yours seems to be about letting people who "earnt their money for the privelege" have a house in Surrey, a home in the country and a flat in central London.

And you call yourself an anarcho-socialist?  You're not, you're a wanker.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You are a spolit twat.
> 
> Any spare tax money should go directly to helping people in real poverty and dealing with important issues effecting the world, not bailing out halfwits like you because you can't afford a new plasma screen, a spare room or a foreign holiday.
> 
> ...




Another arsehole who thinks that a fair world = everyone living in mud huts.  Grow up teejay and get a life.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> To be fair, all the extra things he thinks are his entitlements (the flat, etc.,) he also counts as entitlements for everyone - not just him.



I'm glad someone's bothered to actually pay attention to what I've actually written.

smokedout, teejay - please learn to READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE not what you assume that I've written.

Thank you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I wonder how much tax everyone would have to pay for even just the UK population to all be given several foreign holidays a year, large falts and all the beer they could drink?



First up, I haven't said that's what I want.  Another example of you not bothering to read properly.




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> Let me guess - a 100% tax - no private property - the state doling out limitless money to everyone? Yeah right!



Yes teejay.   Prick.




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> This isn't even beginning to address the issue of global poverty. As I have pointed oput the average person in the world lives on £70/week total (including all rent, services, health, education and so forth). This means that a "fair share" for everyone wold be at this amount - which means that even if we accept the principle that all the world's resources should be shared equally amongst all the worlds people, this comes to noweher near 22k per year or whatever it is Blagsta is demanding as his "fair share".



Why do you wish to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator?  Do you think being poor is "cool" or something?   




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> This is also ignoring that the total amount of 'wealth' is not a static thing - that once people's motivation to do any work is removed a lot of things don't get done, that the track record for government'sd taking everyone's money then doling it back out via provision of what they think everyone wants (or more typically what they think people *should* want) is utterly abysmal, and so forth.
> 
> I am in favour of redistribution of wealth to prevent people living in poverty and I am in favour of providing everyone (in the UK but more importantly all around the world) with the *basics* for life - food, shelter, clothing, clean water, health care, primary and secondary education, protection from violence, access to justice, equality under the law and respect for the political and human rights...
> 
> ...but beyond these basics there is no reason why people have a claim on the results of other people's hard work, initiative or good fortune, and there is no way that Blagsta or anyone else is somehow automatically entitled to foreign holidays, beer and as many extra rooms as they dream up 'needing' for all their excess consumer books or can argue that the lack of these is "poverty" - utterly laughable when you consider what *real* poverty is.



You do think being poor is cool.  I think Pulp wrote a song about people like you.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

I don't think we should drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Instead, I would rather efforts were concentrated on raising the standards of living of the many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live on far, far less than Blagsta. 

Then, perhaps, we can make it a basic human right to have more than two sleazy jet city breaks a year and free spare rooms for all.

eta



> You just seem happy to put up with getting a rawer deal just because...well just because that's the way it is.



Actually, I don't consider myself to be getting any sort of raw deal. I feel very fortunate to have a nice, one-bedroomed flat in a pleasant area.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

double post


----------



## smokedout (Jun 16, 2006)

> Sorry, tax to fund what?



well you seem to want more money, i presume that youre wages are paid for by the state (whether ESF or supporting people funding)



> I don't understand why you equate socialism with everyone living in tiny little boxes. My socialism is about everyone getting a fair share. Yours seems to be about letting people who "earnt their money for the privelege" have a house in Surrey, a home in the country and a flat in central London.



some would say your getting your fair share and more besides.  Did you check out the figures that placed you economically in the top 22% of the population.  Where im from mate youd be called rich.

People in mansions arent coming on here whinging about how their lifestyle is a 'right' and id be equally scathing of them if they did, but just because youre not as rich as them doesnt mean you aint doing well.



> Yes, I'm well aware of that. So what? Why does the fact that that's what is happening make it right?  Why do you think that poor people should get a rawer deal?



im not saying its right, but i would argue that homeless families be given priority to larger properties, beacuse as ive said over and over theres a housing shortage, and London is a finite space

if we lived in a socialist utopia and razed hampstead to the ground then perhaps everyone could live like you, we dont however which means that very few people get to live like you and should not insult the people who are geuinely suffering under this system by complaining about their petit bourgois lifestyles and having to have borrow money to have that oh so important private therapy and second holiday a year

and if everyone took two flights a year you just see how quickly wed run out of oil and the world would fall apart, not to mention the environment

by the way few socialists would see home ownership as a right as you seem to, after all that was one of your whinges wasnt it

or is home ownership only a right for you and not the rest of society


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> 25K close to the top?  You're fucking crazy.



I'm with you on this one.

UK male median gross annual earnings FY2004/2005: £25,100

Source: Office of National Statistics

Points to note before chuntering back:

1. I know that enormous City salaries distort the averages. This is why I have quoted the median and not the mean.
2. This is the *UK* median, and the London median is several thousands pounds higher. See also point 1 again with reference to the relatively small number of people on stratospheric salaries amongst the UK workforce as a whole.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

What is the mean figure as a matter of interest?

I think a mean would be the more relevant figure in this case - the small number of people earning a great deal of money would not distort the overall mean by much at all when you are dealing with such a huge sample as the uk male working population.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 16, 2006)

the figures i quoted were for total household income, dont forget theirs two of them

and for many that 25k figure is supporting a family of four

i came across the stat, i was also unsure whether people on benefits were factored into that figure


----------



## smokedout (Jun 16, 2006)

> I think a mean would be the more relevant figure in this case - the small number of people earning a great deal of money would not distort the overall mean by much at all when you are dealing with such a huge sample as the uk male working population.



it does when you think some folk earn millions, thats a lot of minimum wage jobs


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

I can't believe that a so called "anarcho-socialist" is actively defending high rents, low wages and people with 3 homes.  Amazing, I've seen it all now.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> What is the mean figure as a matter of interest?
> 
> I think a mean would be the more relevant figure in this case - the small number of people earning a great deal of money would not distort the overall mean by much at all when you are dealing with such a huge sample as the uk male working population.



Mean is: sum of everybody's wages divided by number of people

Median is: if you have (for example) 7 people, the wage of the person in the middle on the salary scale.

As you say, the few rich may not distort the (mean) average too much but the median is generally considered to give a better picture of what the "average" person gets.

For example:

Person 1 is a cleaner and earns £14 000
Person 2 is a Tube worker and earns £22 000
Person 3 is a council officer and earns £24 000
Person 4 is a store manager and earns £26 000
Person 5 is a merchant banker and earns £80 000

These are all fairly typical sorts of wages and most people do actually earn between £15 000 and £30 000. However the mean of the above is £33 200. This doesn't really feel like a useful average salary as only one person actually earns more than this!

The median is £24 000 and from the above this feels like a more "average" figure.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> I don't think we should drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Instead, I would rather efforts were concentrated on raising the standards of living of the many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live on far, far less than Blagsta.
> 
> Then, perhaps, we can make it a basic human right to have more than two sleazy jet city breaks a year and free spare rooms for all.
> 
> ...



Hey another person who can't read!  Maybe we should be investing in literacy classes for the U75 massive!

Look to recap - what I would like is lower rents, a lower cost of living and better wages.  For all.  Its amazing that some people on this thread are actively arguing against that.

Proof that U75 is becoming more conservative?  I think so.


----------



## Ant79 (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> UK male median gross annual earnings FY2004/2005: £25,100
> 
> ...
> 
> 2. This is the *UK* median, and the London median is several thousands pounds higher....



Out of interest, do you know what the London median (and mean) salaries are?  I think I found it once on the interweb, but can't find it now.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Ant79 said:
			
		

> Out of interest, do you know what the London median (and mean) salaries are?  I think I found it once on the interweb, but can't find it now.



Not off hand bro - I did happen to have one quoted.

I got it from http://www.statistics.gov.uk a couple of weeks ago.

I might go and have a look for the other figures


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> well you seem to want more money, i presume that youre wages are paid for by the state (whether ESF or supporting people funding)



I can tell that thinking things through isn't really your strong point.  I'm not neccesarily demanding higher wages.  I would like rents to be fairer, I would like the property market to stop being inflated by people buying property to let and dividing it up into tiny box room flats.  I would like the cost of basic utilities to be fairer and for the utility companies to make less obscene profits (or preferably re-nationalise).

However, there is room for the current top rate of tax to be set at a higher threshold and for a higher rate above that for the super rich.  Or are you, an "anarcho-socialist" ,saying that rich people should pay less tax?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

London median gross weekly earnings April 2004: £545 (crudely, £28 340 a year)

(2004 so you can add about 7-8% to this; London also has highest gender pay gap so male earnings will be well up in the 30s)

Source: Patterns of pay: Results of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 1998 - 2004, ONS
"This article uses the median as its key estimator. It is preferred to the mean for earnings as it is less affected by extreme values and the skewed distribution of earnings data. The median is the value below which 50 per cent of employees fall. However means are still available in the published tables"

Nationally, 2005:

Upper decile (10% earn more): £851
Lower decile (10% earn less): £235

Remember this is full time employees though.

Averages Winter 2005/2006 (means not medians so note my earlier points):

Gross weekly earnings, London: £595
"     "     "     ", London (male): £650
"     "     "     ", London (female): £519


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> For example:
> 
> Person 1 is a cleaner and earns £14 000
> Person 2 is a Tube worker and earns £22 000
> ...



Yes, but I know what a mean is. However, nationally, the real situation is not what you describe as you will have, say, a thousand people earning £20,000 for every one person earing £100,000. In that hypothetical situation, the mean earnings of these 1001 people would be £20,079.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Look to recap - what I would like is lower rents, a lower cost of living and better wages.  For all.  Its amazing that some people on this thread are actively arguing against that.




No, what *you* would like is a large two bedroomed flat so you and your partner can fit all your lovely books in it.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> Yes, but I know what a mean is. However, nationally, the real situation is not what you describe as you will have, say, a thousand people earning £20,000 for every one person earing £100,000. In that hypothetical situation, the mean earnings of these 1001 people would be £20,079.



Yes, sorry I realised that after posting, but left it up as some may find it informative.

I do refer you, though, to the ONS quote about medians vs means.

The ratio may not quite as you venture as should be apparent from the decile values quoted. More information on the skew and distribution is on the ONS site but there is a limit to the magic of statistics so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> Yes, but I know what a mean is. However, nationally, the real situation is not what you describe as you will have, say, a thousand people earning £20,000 for every one person earing £100,000. In that hypothetical situation, the mean earnings of these 1001 people would be £20,079.



And the median £20 000! So even more appropriate


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> And the median £20 000! So even more appropriate


lies, damn lies and statistics!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> No, what *you* would like is a large two bedroomed flat so you and your partner can fit all your lovely books in it.



If you're not going to read the thread properly, then why bother at all?


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

well, I read the bit where you said this:



			
				blagsta said:
			
		

> Tiny one bed flat? You're having a Stefi mate. Two people and a cat, one who is currently studying (as well as working full time), the other starting a course in September (as well as working full time), with all the stuff (books, music etc) that people in their 30's accumulate, in a tiny one bed flat? Are you serious?


and the bit where you said this:



			
				blagsta said:
			
		

> If two people are sharing a flat not as partners, then they have a 2 bedroom flat. Then what if they get together? They don't suddenly have less stuff, have less need for space.



From my reading of your posts on this thread it seems that you feel it is necessary for you and your partner to have a two bedroomed flat because, partly at least, you have a lot of books and music.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> well, I read the bit where you said this:
> 
> and the bit where you said this:
> 
> ...




If your defintion of "reading the thread" is to selectively quote things out of context, then fuck off out of the thread.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If your defintion of "reading the thread" is to selectively quote things out of context, then fuck off out of the thread.



dear oh dear


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

robotsimon said:
			
		

> dear oh dear



I take it then that you're not going to bother reading properly?  I take it then that you just want a row.  You can have one if you want.


----------



## arty (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I can tell that thinking things through isn't really your strong point.  I'm not neccesarily demanding higher wages.  I would like rents to be fairer, I would like the property market to stop being inflated by people buying property to let and dividing it up into tiny box room flats.  I would like the cost of basic utilities to be fairer and for the utility companies to make less obscene profits (or preferably re-nationalise).



and what happens when less houses are divided up into small flats blagsta?
prices go up ffs, it ain't that hard to work out.

no ones arguing with you about utility prices or executive salaries, so do you need to keep bringing it up?

I don't have much sympathy for people whinging about credit card debt. yes, maybe student loan debt could be included in determining a living wage, but as for debts run up on credit cards because you, by your own admission, took holidays when you didn't have the money for it - do me a favour.

all the rest just comes down to the fact that you need much more than most to feel that you have a life that is enjoyable. Probably because you're spoilt and expect too much.


----------



## robotsimon (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I take it then that you're not going to bother reading properly?  I take it then that you just want a row.  You can have one if you want.


I have no interest whatsoever in having a row (like a married couple, how sweet) with you.  I believe it was you who told me to "fuck off out of this thread". 

I admit that my reading of this thread has been, perhaps, imperfect. It is rather long. Furthermore, you are correct in as much as you have made many other comments on various issues in this thread, some of which I agree with and some I do not. However, I did not feel particularly strongly about those comments so I have not chosen to respond to them.

Your comments about your perceived need for larger accomodation, however, I thought were laughable which is why I have chosen to respond to them. Anyway, not much to be gained from continuing this, I'll let you have the last word.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

So by your own admission, you haven't read the thread properly, but this doesn't stop you knowing what my argument is?


----------



## Giles (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I can tell that thinking things through isn't really your strong point.  I'm not neccesarily demanding higher wages.  I would like rents to be fairer, I would like the property market to stop being inflated by people buying property to let and dividing it up into tiny box room flats.



I think that most of the process of dividing large London houses into several flats was done in the 70s and early 80s.

Now, a whole house in many parts of London can be worth more than the three flats it was divided up into. There have been several cases of people buying all the flats and making them back into a family home.

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I think that most of the process of dividing large London houses into several flats was done in the 70s and early 80s.
> 
> Now, a whole house in many parts of London can be worth more than the three flats it was divided up into. There have been several cases of people buying all the flats and making them back into a family home.
> 
> Giles..



Naaah, its still happening in parts of Brixton.  We went to see a few when we were looking to move last year.  A lot of developers have chopped up what may have been 2 bed flats into really tiny shoddy 1 beds.


----------



## Kanda (Jun 16, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> no ones arguing with you about utility prices or executive salaries, so do you need to keep bringing it up?



Since when has 22k been an executive salary??? (Or anywhere near that for that matter)


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> and what happens when less houses are divided up into small flats blagsta?
> prices go up ffs, it ain't that hard to work out.
> 
> no ones arguing with you about utility prices or executive salaries, so do you need to keep bringing it up?
> ...



Spoilt?  Ha!  That's right, I had it all as a kid I did.  

I'm absolutely astounded at the amount of people who are happy to work their arses off and have very little to show for it.  Working just to pay rent and bills is bollocks.


----------



## arty (Jun 16, 2006)

it isn't Kanda, who said it was, what are u on about?


----------



## Kanda (Jun 16, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> it isn't Kanda, who said it was, what are u on about?



The average salarys banded about in this thread is the mid 20k's...  Blagsta saying it's a shit wage to live in London, I agree it's a shit wage. Where did you get arguing executive salaries from?


----------



## arty (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Spoilt?  Ha!  That's right, I had it all as a kid I did.
> 
> I'm absolutely astounded at the amount of people who are happy to work their arses off and have very little to show for it.  Working just to pay rent and bills is bollocks.




yes, it's bollocks. being on a "living wage" for your whole life isn't ideal, it's probably bollocks as you say.

and round and round we go....


----------



## arty (Jun 16, 2006)

Kanda said:
			
		

> Where did you get arguing exectuive salaries from?



read the thread if you really want to know.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> no ones arguing with you about utility prices or executive salaries, so do you need to keep bringing it up?



Ermmm...cos its relevant?


----------



## Giles (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Naaah, its still happening in parts of Brixton.  We went to see a few when we were looking to move last year.  A lot of developers have chopped up what may have been 2 bed flats into really tiny shoddy 1 beds.



What? Dividing existing flats into smaller flats? Or dividing a previously whole house into lots of small flats?

In any case, it is precisely the high cost and lack of flats for people living on their own that much of this thread has been about, hasn't it?

That, and how people don't see why they should live in a house-share after the age of 30 or so.....  

Given this, surely creating 5 one bed flats out of a £1/2m house is a good thing, no? (although I fully accept that the person doing it is not doing so for reasons of altruism).

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Depends how its done.  We saw some really tiny shoddy conversions with no room to swing a cat and cheap ass MDF for £850pcm.  Thats a piss take, but people pay it.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Depends how its done.  We saw some really tiny shoddy conversions with no room to swing a cat and cheap ass MDF for £850pcm.  Thats a piss take, but people pay it.



Well in Wood Green you could get a 2 bed house fully furnished for that much.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well in Wood Green you could get a 2 bed house fully furnished for that much.



Yeah, but the who the hell wants to live in Wood Green?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the who the hell wants to live in Wood Green?



Not me I must admit, but you're not doing yourself any favours here.

A lot of people might feel the same about Brixton!


----------



## Hollis (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the who the hell wants to live in Wood Green?



Well its your choice then isn't it.. you can live in a rabbit hutch or get decent housing in a less fashionable area.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Not me I must admit, but you're not doing yourself any favours here.
> 
> A lot of people might feel the same about Brixton!



Well this is entirely the point - people on low wages have little choice when it comes to accomodation.  I don't think thats right.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Well this is entirely the point - people on low wages have little choice when it comes to accomodation.  I don't think thats right.



Well, it is a bit inevitable. Even if prices across the board were lower there would still be a spectrum of prices from Mayfair to Thornton Heath, reflecting convenience, architecture, amenities, snob appeal etc etc. You can't really expect everywhere to cost the same.

Perhaps what it really comes down to is not feeling that one is at an appropriate point on the scale in relation to one's status, education, efforts etc!

The focus really should be on improving the less nice areas for the benefit of all those who live there and improving the quality of accommodation, by construction of more affordable housing and by better control of the worst excesses of the private sector.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, it is a bit inevitable. Even if prices across the board were lower there would still be a spectrum of prices from Mayfair to Thornton Heath, reflecting convenience, architecture, amenities, snob appeal etc etc. You can't really expect everywhere to cost the same.



After the revolution, we won't have money. 




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Perhaps what it really comes down to is not feeling that one is at an appropriate point on the scale in relation to one's status, education, efforts etc!



Hmmmm...maybe.  Probably in fact.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> The focus really should be on improving the less nice areas for the benefit of all those who live there and improving the quality of accommodation, by construction of more affordable housing and by better control of the worst excesses of the private sector.



Agreed.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well its your choice then isn't it.. you can live in a rabbit hutch or get decent housing in a less fashionable area.



The point is that I want to live in Brixton.  Nowt to do with it being fashionable (is it?), more to do with it being where my friends live.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The point is that I want to live in Brixton.  Nowt to do with it being fashionable (is it?), more to do with it being where my friends live.



Fair enough. I quite fancy Dulwich Village as I dig Georgian architecture. Somwhere round the British Museum / Bloomsbury area would be OK too as it would be handy for work


----------



## Hollis (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The point is that I want to live in Brixton.  Nowt to do with it being fashionable (is it?), more to do with it being where my friends live.



But the threads a living wage for London.

Every city you get more or less expensive areas..


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I quite fancy Dulwich Village as I dig Georgian architecture. Somwhere round the British Museum / Bloomsbury area would be OK too as it would be handy for work



Not quite the same though is it?  Having social networks is a neccessity for humans to have good emotional and physical health.  Being near Georgian arhcitecture isn't...


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> But the threads a living wage for London.
> 
> Every city you get more or less expensive areas..



Hollis<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>my point


----------



## Hollis (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Hollis<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>my point




No - the point is that we're discussing a living wage for London.  You now want a wage that allows you to live in Brixton.  Unfortunatly Brixton is now a fashionable area - so everybody pays a premium to live there (unless they've got social housing).

Its the way the housing market works - even in small towns.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not quite the same though is it?  Having social networks is a neccessity for humans to have good emotional and physical health.  Being near Georgian arhcitecture isn't...



I was planning on installing them in the area too, seeing as they also enjoy Georgian architecture to a greater or lesser degree. Besides, several live in Forest Hill anyway which is only down the road.

My physical health will be much improved by Dulwich's verdant lawns and lanes - that and the regular early morning swims in my private pool!

My emotional health will also benefit as I acquire a beatific sense of contentment with my lot, and I do find pebbledash so depressing...


----------



## scifisam (Jun 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I think that you will find that owner-occupiers are prepared to pay more for their flat/house than investment buyers.
> 
> Investment buyers logically will only pay up to a price that makes sense in terms of the likely rent paying the mortgage.
> 
> ...



OK, that all makes sense to me. Mind, I wasn't actually the one was arguing against people who buy to let - that was someone else; I was simply trying to get a point of agreement on the fact that 'some people buy to let.' So you're persuading the wrong person. 

If someone wanted to live where their friends are and that happened to be, say Kensington, then I'd laugh and laugh and show them gumtree.com. However, Brixton really isn't at the top rung of the ladder as an area, is it? 

I'm surprised Brixton's so much more expensive than Bethnal Green/Hoxton. It's very trendy and very close to the city, with good transport connections, lots of parks, etc. Both places have equally bad reputations. They have a lot of similarities, in my eyes, so why the difference in prices? 

Blagsta, I think you need to encourage your friends to move with you to Bethnal Green, buy a house together (there are still quite a few actual *gasp* houses here) and divide it into flats that are actually decent flats by your own standards. Yay, solution! 

But keep quiet about it being a good place to live, please, the house price demons might hear you. 

Otherwise, I've come to think that your idea of a minimum living wage is based on an ideal, not a reality - and it's an ideal that is far better than most people's ideal for a basic (living, not survival only) way of life. For the purposes of this thread, which is about a living wage, it's best to base the wage on reality rather than on an ideal model.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> No - the point is that we're discussing a living wage for London.  You now want a wage that allows you to live in Brixton.  Unfortunatly Brixton is now a fashionable area - so everybody pays a premium to live there (unless they've got social housing).
> 
> Its the way the housing market works - even in small towns.



Yes and my point is that its not right,


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Otherwise, I've come to think that your idea of a minimum living wage is based on an ideal, not a reality - and it's an ideal that is far better than most people's ideal for a basic (living, not survival only) way of life. For the purposes of this thread, which is about a living wage, it's best to base the wage on reality rather than on an ideal model



Amen.

And the multicultural equivalents.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes and my point is that its not right,



So you'd like to be able to afford a place anywhere in London you choose - Hampstead, St John's Wood, Notting Hill.. ?

Its never worked that way.. and to change it you'll need to change human psychology.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I was planning on installing them in the area too, seeing as they also enjoy Georgian architecture to a greater or lesser degree. Besides, several live in Forest Hill anyway which is only down the road.
> 
> My physical health will be much improved by Dulwich's verdant lawns and lanes - that and the regular early morning swims in my private pool!
> 
> My emotional health will also benefit as I acquire a beatific sense of contentment with my lot, and I do find pebbledash so depressing...



i think you missed the point


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Blagsta, I think you need to encourage your friends to move with you to Bethnal Green, buy a house together (there are still quite a few actual *gasp* houses here) and divide it into flats that are actually decent flats by your own standards. Yay, solution! .



why would i want to do that?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 16, 2006)

Sorry, was being frivolous for the moment. It was an outlandish solution so that you could own your own home but live near your friends, and it wasn't intended to be taken seriously.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> So you'd like to be able to afford a place anywhere in London you choose - Hampstead, St John's Wood, Notting Hill.. ?
> 
> Its never worked that way.. and to change it you'll need to change human psychology.



I don't think its right that having less money means that you have to live in crap accomodation.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think its right that having less money means that you have to live in crap accomodation.



And I don't think that a 2-bed flat - or even a one-bed flat - for two people is crap accomodation. Stalemate.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think its right that having less money means that you have to live in crap accomodation.



It doesn't. It means you have to live in less central and less fashionable areas.

You earn a below average salary so should not be surprised to find yourself in a below average position. Capitalism in action and all that.

I do agree though that loads more affordable housing of a decent standard is required to redress the imbalances in the market. No-one should have to live in sub-standard accommodation, I'm sure we all agree.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> And I don't think that a 2-bed flat - or even a one-bed flat - for two people is crap accomodation. Stalemate.



Actually our flat is very nice.  Just a bit expensive.  I do think a one bed flat for a couple is too small though.  My main point is about the outrageous rent prices.  I can't believe that people think rents in London are reasonable.


----------



## LDR (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I can't believe that people think rents in London are reasonable.


They're not.  

I was quite shocked that our mortgage for our three bedroom terraced house was a few hundred quid less than the rent we were paying for a so-so one bedroom flat.  

The property market is so shocking the way it favours the rich.  It's incredibly unfair.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 16, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I can't believe that people think rents in London are reasonable.



They are not as unreasonable as their reputation would have you believe, and they're not unique to London. Witness the poster earlier who talked about the costs in Bath. 

An aside: over on another thread, someone has just accused me of stating that someone on £30k wouldn't be able to afford to rent (I said nothing of the sort, nor anything related to it). You have to laugh.


----------



## Giles (Jun 16, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> They're not.
> 
> I was quite shocked that our mortgage for our three bedroom terraced house was a few hundred quid less than the rent we were paying for a so-so one bedroom flat.
> 
> The property market is so shocking the way it favours the rich.  It's incredibly unfair.



For some reason, one beds always seem to cost the most "per bedroom" to rent (or to buy, actually).

Bigger flats are ALWAYS far cheaper "per occupant" to rent or buy. So you would expect the mortgage to be a fair bit less. 

Generally though, for someone buying-to-let in London now, it is almost impossible to actually cover the mortgage with the rent. Some people are still piling in and are prepared to fund up the difference in the mortgage and the rent from their own money, in the hope of capital growth. A dangerous strategy, I think.

We haven't bought anywhere to rent out in London since 2000, and the last few we DID buy were cheap because they were "unusual" places that not many people saw the point of buying.

Giles..


----------



## smokedout (Jun 16, 2006)

blagsta im sorry, i cant believe how full of shit you are, what youre saying is fucking unbelievable



> Proof that U75 is becoming more conservative? I think so.



i dare you to go on libcom and start a thread about how hard done by you are because you can only afford two holidays abroad and struggle to have a spare room for all your possessions, a private therapist, beer and to live in precisely the area you want to live

i find it funny that you quote commen people, you obviously missed the point of that song, it was about people like you who think youre one of us mate



> I do think a one bed flat for a couple is too small though.



thats because your a wanker, no-one else seems to

are you prepared to answer the question about what would happen to the environment if everyojne on the planet had a right to a spare room and two foreign holidays a year

no you aint because your a spoilt little brat who wants it all on a plate without thought as to how that would affect the rest of society, because all you acre about is your supposed indulgencies wiothout a though as to how that would actually affect the planet

i dare you to go into a working class boozer and follow this line of argument

my guess is you wouldnt walk out

your just a typical middle class pseudo socialist without a cloe or a care about the rest of the world as long as you get your private therapy, two holidays, spare room, chance to but a house, a room full of books and music, broadband, mobile phone and all the other things you think you need

i hope i never end up working with you, your clients must hate you, theyll never tell you of course, they need you, but youre exactly the sort of twat who drags the sector down

i bet you think your great dont you, helping the poor, youre a typical new labour little england wanker who hasnt a fucking clue how most people live

your attitude came through when i pointed out i was trying to raise a child on 80 quid a week and you said i had an ego problem

i tried to ignore that, but ive heard enough, get a fucking grip and learn something about the reality of the world before you call yourself a socailsist again, youre about as much a socialist as tony blair, you care more about your middle class angst than those genuinely suffering

cos youve never had to suffer so you dont know what its like

and if everyone on the planet had your lifestyle then the planet wouldnt last that long

not that its likely to anyway thanks to twats like you


----------



## Crispy (Jun 16, 2006)

giles said:
			
		

> For some reason, one beds always seem to cost the most "per bedroom" to rent (or to buy, actually).
> 
> Bigger flats are ALWAYS far cheaper "per occupant" to rent or buy. So you would expect the mortgage to be a fair bit less.


It's a simple matter of square meterage. All the shared functions of a house have to be replicated for every one bed flat. For example, my shared four bed house, if split into flats, would convert into 1x one bed and 1x two bed flats. This is what makes one bed flats so expensive, and student halls so cheap.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 17, 2006)

just to add for all the talk of median and mean

the most relevent analysis for me is the mode

that is the average salary that is most frequently reported, ie, what most people are actually earning, a statistic rarely recorded, i cant find it anywhere, but one which would show what the most comment average salary in the uk is without it being skwed in any way by the super rich/rich/upper middle class class

i would guess that this figure would be significantly lower than the figures posted

because commen sense says to me that more people work in supermarkets and as busdrivers than earn 25k

notice blagsta hasnt anwsered yet, whats the betting his out on the piss spending his poverty wages


----------



## Ant79 (Jun 17, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I can't believe that people think rents in London are reasonable.



Prices in London are not reasonable if you simply compare the property itself with a propert of the same price somewhere else.

That's because you're not just paying for the bricks and mortar, but you're paying for bricks and mortar AND to have a home within spitting distance of thousands of shops, bars and restaurants, huge and beautiful parks and rivers, World Heritage Sites, world-class museums, a comparitively enormous number of job opportunities, excellent public transport (no matter how much we complain about it), theatres, galleries, amazing markets, spectacular architecture.... etc. etc.

So a 1 bed flat in London might cost twice as much as a 1 bed flat in some small market town 60 miles outside of London, but that's because there you're paying for bricks and mortar and a home where there really isn't an awful lot of things to do within 30 minutes of your front door.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> blagsta im sorry, i cant believe how full of shit you are, what youre saying is fucking unbelievable
> <snip>



If you're not going to do me the courtesy of actually reading and thinking about my posts, then quite frankly I can't be bothered anymore.  Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> They're not.
> 
> I was quite shocked that our mortgage for our three bedroom terraced house was a few hundred quid less than the rent we were paying for a so-so one bedroom flat.
> 
> The property market is so shocking the way it favours the rich.  It's incredibly unfair.



I'm glad someone has the good grace to read my posts properly.  Someone who doesn't feel the need to go on about how radical and anarcho-socialist they are while defending the rights of landlords and rich people who own 3 properties.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2006)

Ant79 said:
			
		

> Prices in London are not reasonable if you simply compare the property itself with a propert of the same price somewhere else.
> 
> That's because you're not just paying for the bricks and mortar, but you're paying for bricks and mortar AND to have a home within spitting distance of thousands of shops, bars and restaurants, huge and beautiful parks and rivers, World Heritage Sites, world-class museums, a comparitively enormous number of job opportunities, excellent public transport (no matter how much we complain about it), theatres, galleries, amazing markets, spectacular architecture.... etc. etc.
> 
> So a 1 bed flat in London might cost twice as much as a 1 bed flat in some small market town 60 miles outside of London, but that's because there you're paying for bricks and mortar and a home where there really isn't an awful lot of things to do within 30 minutes of your front door.




Oh.  Well that makes it OK then.  Phew!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 17, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> They are not as unreasonable as their reputation would have you believe,



Errrr...they are actually.




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> and they're not unique to London. Witness the poster earlier who talked about the costs in Bath.



Yes, there is a problem with rent prices in the SE generally.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jun 19, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> They're not.
> 
> I was quite shocked that our mortgage for our three bedroom terraced house was a few hundred quid less than the rent we were paying for a so-so one bedroom flat.
> 
> The property market is so shocking the way it favours the rich.  It's incredibly unfair.




It's the other way round for me.  Our new mortage payments are more than we were paying to rent a flat and we have had to move from Aldgate to Enfield Lock to be able to afford something.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 19, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> It's the other way round for me.  Our new mortage payments are more than we were paying to rent a flat and we have had to move from Aldgate to Enfield Lock to be able to afford something.



Yeah - with house prices higher now, most people will be paying atleast as much in interest, as rent.  Also you've all the repair and maintenance to factor in.

Its all to do with the fundamentals of demand exceededing supply for housing.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 19, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think Pulp wrote a song about people like you.



Would that be one of the these albums then:

1986 "Freaks"
2001 "We Love Life"

And as for you Blagsta, how about these Pulp singles:

"Wishful Thinking" (1983)
"You're a Nightmare" (1993)
and
"Cocaine Socialism" (1998)


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 20, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> just to add for all the talk of median and mean
> 
> the most relevent analysis for me is the mode
> 
> ...



I'm afraid the mode wouldn't actually be too meaningful - the median does actually serve the purpose you require though.

It would be very hard to calculate and might give some funny answer far removed from a sensible "average", just because a cluster of people happened to earn that figure.

Modes can be calculated for things like number of bedrooms people have or number of cars per household or number of toes people have, but with pay people very often earn "odd" numbers, like £17,261.29 - certainly this is the case with my old work where you get the 3.5% annual rise to the penny. There might be no-one else in the entire country on this but twenty thousand people getting exactly £60,000.00. Probably not but you get the picture.

Modes would work I suppose if you bracketed pay and looked at number earning £12-13k, £13-14 etc


----------



## smokedout (Jun 20, 2006)

> Modes would work I suppose if you bracketed pay and looked at number earning £12-13k, £13-14 etc



well yeah natch

basically its a simple question

what percentage of folk earn 10k, 11k etc or under/over 20k or the national wage ive never seen any figures like that except in locally produced reports (which often tend to show a much different analysis to national averages/medians)

whilst the ones ive seen have generally for areas recognised as being deprived, they are usually the densest areas population wise

ive already shown a link which suggests folk like blagsta are in the top 20% of the population

i suspect things arent as rosy for most as the average/median wage suggests


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 21, 2006)

I think you are probably right. I found a report on "Social Trends" on the Govt stats site which shows household disposable income (rather than actual pay) and shows the distribution on a graph. The averages are past the top of the graph (i.e. the bracket into which most people fall is less than the average) and there is a very very long tail on the graph (i.e. a lot of people with a lot of money, albeit spread over a very wide range) which cause this effect.

So yes the mode looks to be less than the median and mean and things and you are right, it's not as rosy as these figures suggest.


----------



## TeeJay (Jun 22, 2006)

Hopefully this image will work at least for a bit (its on a free geocities site with limited bandwidth so it can only be viewed a few times every 24 hours)







I originally got it from a .pdf of an Institute of Fiscal Studies Report here:

[PDF] Poverty and inequality in Britain: 2005 (page 9)


----------



## citydreams (Jun 23, 2006)

*Gla Meeting Next Week*

The authors of the Living Wage report are presenting their paper next week.

Questions I'm putting forward are:

1.  Whether any forecasts are available to show the effect of 100% take-up of the living wage on housing and employment, ie crowding out of the poorest sections of society?
2. What predictions the LGA Family Budget Unit expect the living wage to be as a result of 100% take-up.
3. Should the GLA really call this a Living Wage when in reality it is an average of several different model families.  The wage falls below what a single mother would need for anything more than basic subsistence in London once the wages of two-children two-couple families are included.  

Please feel free to add your own.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 23, 2006)

Be interested to know what is assessed as a reasonable amount of money to spend on whatever you want (stamps, salsa classes, bingo, beer, tabs. fake tan, gold clown pendants, whatever) after basic survival is taken into account.

What account is taken of the relatively fortunate position of those ensconced in LA housing, ironically subsidised by the genuine poor forced to compete in the open market? Makes a bit of a difference if you have a three bed flat for your family for only £80 a week. There is a step change between the two situations.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 23, 2006)

There are a lot of people on this thread who seem to assume there is a massive difference between someone earning say 11k and 25k. There isn’t. After NI contributions and tax, take home pay is not _considerably_ different. My salary was 10,500k when I worked as a teaching assistant a couple of years ago – my take home pay was approx 850- can’t really remember exactly. I now earn 19k and my take home pay after pension deduction and union dues is less than 1200 - varies monthly as I get a bit extra for unsocial hours. So I get about 300 more, which I think _does_ make a difference between a barely surviving wage and a living one, but is actually fuck all compared to the differences in thousands that many in this city earn. Someone earning 22k like Donna used to or 25k like Blagsta have already stated the approximate amount they take home. Again not _really_ that much more. These are not _significant_ differences in a city that is as expensive as London.

Living in a nice flat in an area that I consider home is a priority for me but its hardly luxury – its fucking cold in the winter, apart from the living room, and the kichen is barely bigger than a cupboard. I love where I live but its not luxury living in the context of the norms of our society. I live in Brixton not fucking Knightsbridge. Blagsta and I did not 'turn our noses up' at 1 bedroom flats – we looked at plenty – and they were small pokey and over-priced and at approx 100 quid a month more each we could get a significantly better flat with 2 bedrooms. Its not a ‘spare’ room but one that is actually used by me in which to work; its not essential and I’m perfectly aware that many people do not have that privilege but I will not accept that it is a 'luxury' in the very wealthy society that England is. Its pretty ordinary - and thats the point surely - that a living wage should allow a standard of living that is considered an _ordinary_ one to aspire to in the context of our current, wealthy, society.

Greater distribution of wealth, more social housing, rent control and control on multiple house ownership would greatly enhance the standard of living for most people. The cost of property is directly linked with the salaries and bonuses of people working in the city – it’s not some natural outcome that we simply need to accept but a product of neo-liberalist economics and government policy. I’m amazed at the lack of political thought on this thread and that some people seem to think that the main difference is between the poor and the average rather than the average and the very rich.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 23, 2006)

Red Cat said:
			
		

> Greater distribution of wealth, more social housing, rent control and control on multiple house ownership would greatly enhance the standard of living for most people. The cost of property is directly linked with the salaries and bonuses of people working in the city – it’s not some natural outcome that we simply need to accept but a product of neo-liberalist economics and government policy.



Rent control doesn't work. Have you been somewhere where they have it? Buildings get run down as it isn't worth maintainign them and it reduces liquidity in the market - i.e. makes it f***ing impossible to find a flat.

As for the City bonuses, I'm not sure this has much effect at "our" end of the market. Those taking home obscene sums do not in general compete in the same market.




			
				Red Cat said:
			
		

> I’m amazed at the lack of political thought on this thread and that some people seem to think that the main difference is between the poor and the average rather than the average and the very rich.



Quite. The graph on the previous page shows this.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 23, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> As for the City bonuses, I'm not sure this has much effect at "our" end of the market. Those taking home obscene sums do not in general compete in the same market.



They effect the buy-to let market which has had a massive effect on property prices


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jun 23, 2006)

Red Cat said:
			
		

> They effect the buy-to let market which has had a massive effect on property prices



To purchase, possibly - although I don't think it is City bonuses behind BTL really. I just don't think that's what they spend their money on.

To rent, I don't think so. Rents haven't gone up all that much in the last few years as BTL has increased in polularity, possibly because there are more flats around fo rent.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 23, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> To rent, I don't think so. Rents haven't gone up all that much in the last few years as BTL has increased in polularity, possibly because there are more flats around fo rent.



Exactly - as my example as Wood Green shows.. you can pick up a decent sized house for £400 a month each! Bargain.


----------



## kingmaker (Jun 23, 2006)

Move the Stock exchange to Birmingham/Leeds/Newcastle or Liverpool.

I'm serious. It makes no sense to have the financial capital, politcal capital, media capital, cultural capital, shopping 'capital' and tourist capital in the same place, and the stock exchange is the easiest to move. 

Then redevelop the rest of the city of London as combined residential/cultural spot a la the Barbican. Housing supply increased, demand reduced all in one fell swoop.

And those disgustingly big city bonuses will at least be helping to regenerate one of the poorer areas of Britain instead of simply pump-priming an already overheating SE housing market.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 23, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> To purchase, possibly - although I don't think it is City bonuses behind BTL really. I just don't think that's what they spend their money on.
> 
> To rent, I don't think so. Rents haven't gone up all that much in the last few years as BTL has increased in polularity, possibly because there are more flats around fo rent.



Wasn't specifying renting - i said cost of property. And as for what city workers spend their money on, its been noted for a good while that people have invested in property rather than the stock market with their bonuses.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 23, 2006)

I'm really not sure its city workers buy-to-let that is the problem.. its the fundamental disparity between population and housing stock, the increase in single-occupancy households, the lack of new builds over the past few decades.


----------



## Dowie (Jun 23, 2006)

kingmaker said:
			
		

> Move the Stock exchange to Birmingham/Leeds/Newcastle or Liverpool.
> 
> I'm serious. It makes no sense to have the financial capital, politcal capital, media capital, cultural capital, shopping 'capital' and tourist capital in the same place, and the stock exchange is the easiest to move.
> 
> ...



there is a bit of a flaw in your plan - the london stock exchange floor closed quite a few years ago - it is all electronic now - sure you could pack up all the computer servers & move them to birmingham if you wanted but it wouldn't make much difference to the region.


----------



## EvieG2017 (Nov 19, 2017)

This living wage depends on a number of factors, I always find it particularly difficult to even calculate as surely everyone's idea of a living wage is different. London isn't cheap, that's not new news to anyone, accommodation can be pricey and travel. 

I'd argue that to live comfortably in London you should aim to be on a wage of £22,000 at least, unless you're happy to live in zone 4 in shared accommodation. Of course if you can save money on travel expenses you are cutting out a large chunk of your total expenses. Oyster cards are expensive to use constantly even if just travelling from zone 3 to zone 1. 

The living wage in London in 2017 is calculated at £9.75 per hour or around £18,300 a year which equates to a take-home salary of £1311 after tax Tax Calculator for £{{earningsSliders.yearly | number : 0 }} salary - Income Tax UK

The U.K's median average salary stands at around £26,000. Surely these simple figures indicate that whilst the London living wage is reasonable, that is in fact not the case at all.


----------

