Only the middle class can’t afford babies
Discussion
With regard to the housing issue, could it be that our culture just needs to adapt its expectations? In the UK, everybody wishes to own a house. Perhaps with the population density this isn't realistic. In many countries renting is seen as much more normal, whether you rent a house or an apartment. Perhaps instead of looking to live in houses we should we wanting to live in apartments instead?
I can see why most people would prefer a house though.
I think that Britons are somewhat unique in their desire to own their own "castle".
I can see why most people would prefer a house though.
I think that Britons are somewhat unique in their desire to own their own "castle".
plasticpig said:
More of a short term solution I feel. If the middle classes aren't having enough children, a stabilising force in society is being eaten away.
I thought we lived in a classless society these days?
I must admit I am not totally sure what people mean by middle class. I see people define themselves as middle class pureley on economic grounds where as my understanding of middle class is a socio-economic one. For instance I know a plumber who describes himslef as middle class and in economic terms he certainly is. In terms of education and backgroung he isnt. There are also kids from middle class backgrounds with degrees working as burger flippers at McDonalds. I am not sure that this stablising force will exist much longer in any event.
working class (and paying tax) is the 'new middle class'.
effort/time-wise you're better off being chav(un-working class) or upper-class (trustafarian).
NiceCupOfTea said:
Great article.
turbobloke said:
That's an example of BLiar's social justice, isn't it? Usually, the translation is 'punish the innocent, free the guilty, reward the bone idle and disincentivise enterprise and responsibility'. Same old.
That translation sums up this government for me.
Yessireee! Same Old (New?) Labour.
The system is complete and utter bollox
This sums it up.
This sums it up.
voyds9 said:
Me and wife are not classed as a family as we have no children we are just a bank account for the government to draw on to support someone elses child.
wd* said:
a two parent/1 child family, with an income of £30k, mum staying at home is £1 better off a month than a single mother on benefit. It went on to say that the same family will pay £7k more a year in taxes than they receive in benefits. The single mother receives £5k a year more in benefits than she pays in taxes.
vixpy1 said:
I need a woman who will stay with me long enough to have babies first
www.russianeuro.com/
fish said:
Right
As a house developer I would like to put some points right on the state of the housing market...
Thanks for posting that, there was loads of stuff I was unaware of. The goverment clearly sees this as another way to get tax from people who are making a nice little earner and the government wants its slice of the cake. I still believe that we are now accepting that to afford houses we need to take out a large mortgage and have two income families to afford it and afford the tax. The government has merely recognised this fact and wants its share of the dosh, what it obviously hasn't thought of (in light of your post) is that new developments are not viable unless it will be willing to subsidise which I guess will just remove the tax it's just put on.
middle class:
middle class people are so inscure that they separate out into lower, middle and upper middle class.
lower middle class people:
have "settees" in their "lounges"
have doilies on their tables
use fishknives
say "pardon?"
Probably say "toilet".
say "serviette"
might say call their pudding a "sweet"
Middle middle class people:
the same but conciously try to use some upper class terms.
use the term "living room".
upper middle class:
Toilet is "loo."
They have sofas in their sitting rooms ("drawing room" is a little pretentious).
Napkins on their tables.
Evening meal is dinner (more formal) or supper (less formal, perhaps in kitchen).
Probably say "Sorry?" or "What?" - never "Pardon?"
of course these are just linguistic class indicators - there are many more. Class has nothing to do with wealth.
middle class people are so inscure that they separate out into lower, middle and upper middle class.
lower middle class people:
have "settees" in their "lounges"
have doilies on their tables
use fishknives
say "pardon?"
Probably say "toilet".
say "serviette"
might say call their pudding a "sweet"
Middle middle class people:
the same but conciously try to use some upper class terms.
use the term "living room".
upper middle class:
Toilet is "loo."
They have sofas in their sitting rooms ("drawing room" is a little pretentious).
Napkins on their tables.
Evening meal is dinner (more formal) or supper (less formal, perhaps in kitchen).
Probably say "Sorry?" or "What?" - never "Pardon?"
of course these are just linguistic class indicators - there are many more. Class has nothing to do with wealth.
D_Mike said:
With regard to the housing issue, could it be that our culture just needs to adapt its expectations? In the UK, everybody wishes to own a house. Perhaps with the population density this isn't realistic. In many countries renting is seen as much more normal, whether you rent a house or an apartment. Perhaps instead of looking to live in houses we should we wanting to live in apartments instead?
I can see why most people would prefer a house though.
I think that Britons are somewhat unique in their desire to own their own "castle".
Surely if there are enough houses for people to rent, there are enough for people to own their own?
I don’t mind owning something small, but I don’t want my existence to be about lining someone else’s fat-cat pocket with rent (as it currently seems to be).
D_Mike said:Agreed. Fortunately it's easier to spot somebody who's upper class, because they always live in a hice.
upper middle class:
Toilet is "loo."
They have sofas in their sitting rooms ("drawing room" is a little pretentious).
Napkins on their tables.
Evening meal is dinner (more formal) or supper (less formal, perhaps in kitchen).
Probably say "Sorry?" or "What?" - never "Pardon?"
of course these are just linguistic class indicators - there are many more. Class has nothing to do with wealth.
xm5er said:I think the old "working/middle/upper" class system is a little passe. It's more like "scrounging/working balls off/idle rich" these days; there is still a class in the middle however. You don't so much get a letter informing you you are middles class - its more a case of regularly signing a form to confirm you're not.
Good Secondly high house prices require two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage.
Banks allowing two incomes to be used to fund a mortgage are what pushed prices to the current level, chicken and egg.
So did you all get a letter telling you that you are now middle class because you went onto higher education and now have a job, damn mine must have got lost in the post.
R988 said:
lots
Ironically, you are being outbred by the chavs, better hope they dont vote
Yeah, but I'm educated and have transferable skills (except spelling, however) and terefore if thisgs get really bad then I may be able to leave. ie emigrate to somewhere, where I don't pay for other peoples brats.
Andy
polus said:
Surely if there are enough houses for people to rent, there are enough for people to own their own?
Correct.
I don't buy into this idea of the current price boom being caused solely by a housing 'shortage' - for prices to double in five years, surely the population would have had to double as well. I read a study a while back, can't remember the exact details but the suggestion was that demographics is causing an upward pressure of only 1 or 2 percent - nowhere near the scale of increases we've seen.
This is a classic asset price boom fuelled by cheap credit, the fashion for buy-to-let, greed and fear. Too many amateur investers have been suckered into buying properties that would otherwise have gone to first-time-buyers. For the majority who did this since August 2004, with a mortgage greater than 80% of the value, most of the time the yields don't cover their costs, due to the resulting oversupply in the lettings market keeping rents flat or pushing them down. So they rely on future capital gains - but who are they going to sell to in the future to realise those gains? A first-time-buyer? Unlikely, given that they can't afford current prices. Another buy-to-let invester? If he can find one dumb enough. It's starting to look like a pyramid scheme.
Meanwhile, with all these potential first-time-buyers forced into renting, who are the folks with 'next-rung-up' properties going to sell their houses to? And so on up the chain.
The total household debt figure in this country now exceeds the annual GDP. We avoided the global recession in the early 2000's by putting it on the credit card. The trade deficit is four times what it was in the early 90's. Retail has fallen off a cliff. And people say house prices only ever go up. Fine, I could believe it if the economic fundamentals didn't look so dire. Where exactly is all this money going to come from to pay these ever-increasing prices? Especially if the flow of cheap credit is turned off.
There is an interesting article here, I didn't know about the 'carry trade', but it looks like we may be about to say goodbye to 0% credit cards.....
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/money/m
This is the sort of thing that could lead to global credit tightening.
An interesting read, though I feel that the case is often that the middle class, middle earners are not having babies more because they don't want to sacrifice the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves, rightly or wrongly. They feel that they have worked hard to afford the house/cars/holidays lifestyle and are simply not ready to stop maintaining that in order to have children. After all, if someone came up to the majority of people on these boards and said, "You can have a car or a baby but you can't have both." then I suspect the car would win.
silversun said:
An interesting read, though I feel that the case is often that the middle class, middle earners are not having babies more because they don't want to sacrifice the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves, rightly or wrongly. They feel that they have worked hard to afford the house/cars/holidays lifestyle and are simply not ready to stop maintaining that in order to have children. After all, if someone came up to the majority of people on these boards and said, "You can have a car or a baby but you can't have both." then I suspect the car would win.
I think that's certainly true in a lot of cases, but I still think affordability is a significant factor as well, perhaps even more so.
"Pah! Young people today, they want everything! When we started out, we had nothing!"
I'm sure that the majority of young graduates now trying to make a life for themselves whilst carrying five figures of student debt would be very grateful for the opportunity to start out with nothing.
JoolzB said:Now this is the thing that dominates British politics - look at Uncle Dave Cameron and see what he's had to do to the Tories to get them ahead in the polls... Due to the habitual 'breaking down' of society through successive errors by government (Labour as well as Conservative) there is an increase in the number of teenage mothers, one-parent-households and single poepl living alone. A significant minority of these rely totally on the state and yet it seems to be these people who will vote for a government in order to keep their benefits than the huge number of people out there who voted for Maggie Thatcher and now vermently deny ever supporting her.
Tony like previous governments realise that there is a problem with single mothers and other benefit sapping spounges taking the mickey but unfortunately nobody will have the guts to actually do something about it, there will always be "do gooders" forming an opposition.
To get into power, you have to appeal to the masses, not just the right wingers who actually could run things a lot better. As time progresses, the percentage of the masses made up by government-dependents increases and suddenly you're in a catch 22.
If Dave has the bottle, he'd pander and the masses to get in and then follow a traditional Tory agenda to slim the social state in a big way. But can it happen again like it did in the early 80s? That's a tough question....
First, Hi every body. Ive been visiting Piston Heads for Quite a while, but this is the first time Ive felt worked up enough to post.
My wife and I have an averageish annual income but cant afford to have children, because if we do our income will almost half and theres no way we will be able to afford rent, food, bills, ect.
To try and relieve this situation we are now both working full time jobs and also trying to start our own bussiness. This means both of us are working 80+ hours a week, with no return from the bussiness for at least another 3 months. Meantime all around us scummy lie in bed till noon then watch trisha gits are getting benifits for having more scummy kids and im paying for them.
Sorry for the rant but this is something that realy boils my pee.
P.S. All spelling and grammer mistakes are a result of a poor education.
Steve
My wife and I have an averageish annual income but cant afford to have children, because if we do our income will almost half and theres no way we will be able to afford rent, food, bills, ect.
To try and relieve this situation we are now both working full time jobs and also trying to start our own bussiness. This means both of us are working 80+ hours a week, with no return from the bussiness for at least another 3 months. Meantime all around us scummy lie in bed till noon then watch trisha gits are getting benifits for having more scummy kids and im paying for them.
Sorry for the rant but this is something that realy boils my pee.
P.S. All spelling and grammer mistakes are a result of a poor education.
Steve
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff