chem1st Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Since the 80s there has been a real explosion in unemployment, and housing tenure began to change for the worse too. A young man reaching adulthood today is twice as likely to be murdered as he was in the 80s (More often than not with a knife by his unemployed peers). He is far more likely to be unemployed, and if he is employed, he is very unlikely to have a job for life, he might be working on a temporary contract, through an agency, or part time. He has little security of earned income. Income security is low. A person is likely to have to move to find work. The social safety net of benefits has been falling in real terms [bar housing benefit, but we will come to that later] (vs inflation) for a long time too, wages have also been falling in real terms, so much so, that many people now rely on tax credits to top up their wages! So a person today has lower security of unearned income/benefits if he has no income whatsoever. Housing costs are ridiculously expensive, and security of tenure practically non existent. Council rents have risen above inflation every year for 10 years running. Private rent has risen too. Housing has been demolished, to force up prices, and houses cost more vs average income than at anytime in at least the past 60 years. Mortgage rates may be at the lowest they ever have been, but it doesn't make them any more affordable, as prices have risen so much, mortgage rates are unlikely to fall much further. For many today, home-ownership is but a dream, home-ownership has been falling since 2002. No new council housing has been built since the 1980s, it has been demolished, sold via RTB or transferred to HAs, some HAs have built housing, but not enough to counter the fall in the amount of council housing. Immigration has been rampant, and put extra pressure on housing, and forced wages down. People with lower incomes are now having to pay more, for less housing (e.g. a shared room, or a room in a shared house). A young man today is unlikely to get a council or housing association property. He will have to be housed at great expense to himself (or the state via housing benefit - which has risen with the cost of housing, and effectively creates a floor price for renting, buying etc.), he will have little/no security of tenure. In 6 months time he is likely to have to move. A person becoming an adult today has less security of income and even less security of housing. They are likely to have to move, and move often, never setting down roots. In essence, it would be foolish for them to help out in the local community (or more to the point, the local communities they pass through), for they have neither the time to see anything through, or are unlikely to gain anything from doing so. They don't really belong to their community, or if they do, it's for a 6 monthly/temporary basis. Without security of employment (income) or benefit (income), or housing, a person cannot really belong to a community. If your to live a transient lifestyle, there is little point in trying to contribute (for the long term) in the communities you pass through, you should seek to take as much as possible before you leave, and accumulate what you can, before you finally find somewhere you can set down roots and contribute too for the long term. So considering the precarious employment of today and the precarious housing. For an increasing amount of the population (in particular the younger population), has it become foolish to contribute to the local community that you temporarily reside in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Since the 80s there has been a real explosion in unemployment, and housing tenure began to change for the worse too. A young man reaching adulthood today is twice as likely to be murdered as he was in the 80s (More often than not with a knife by his unemployed peers). He is far more likely to be unemployed, and if he is employed, he is very unlikely to have a job for life, he might be working on a temporary contract, through an agency, or part time. He has little security of earned income. Income security is low. A person is likely to have to move to find work. The social safety net of benefits has been falling in real terms [bar housing benefit, but we will come to that later] (vs inflation) for a long time too, wages have also been falling in real terms, so much so, that many people now rely on tax credits to top up their wages! So a person today has lower security of unearned income/benefits if he has no income whatsoever. Housing costs are ridiculously expensive, and security of tenure practically non existent. Council rents have risen above inflation every year for 10 years running. Private rent has risen too. Housing has been demolished, to force up prices, and houses cost more vs average income than at anytime in at least the past 60 years. Mortgage rates may be at the lowest they ever have been, but it doesn't make them any more affordable, as prices have risen so much, mortgage rates are unlikely to fall much further. For many today, home-ownership is but a dream, home-ownership has been falling since 2002. No new council housing has been built since the 1980s, it has been demolished, sold via RTB or transferred to HAs, some HAs have built housing, but not enough to counter the fall in the amount of council housing. Immigration has been rampant, and put extra pressure on housing, and forced wages down. People with lower incomes are now having to pay more, for less housing (e.g. a shared room, or a room in a shared house). A young man today is unlikely to get a council or housing association property. He will have to be housed at great expense to himself (or the state via housing benefit - which has risen with the cost of housing, and effectively creates a floor price for renting, buying etc.), he will have little/no security of tenure. In 6 months time he is likely to have to move. A person becoming an adult today has less security of income and even less security of housing. They are likely to have to move, and move often, never setting down roots. In essence, it would be foolish for them to help out in the local community (or more to the point, the local communities they pass through), for they have neither the time to see anything through, or are unlikely to gain anything from doing so. They don't really belong to their community, or if they do, it's for a 6 monthly/temporary basis. Without security of employment (income) or benefit (income), or housing, a person cannot really belong to a community. If your to live a transient lifestyle, there is little point in trying to contribute (for the long term) in the communities you pass through, you should seek to take as much as possible before you leave, and accumulate what you can, before you finally find somewhere you can set down roots and contribute too for the long term. So considering the precarious employment of today and the precarious housing. For an increasing amount of the population (in particular the younger population), has it become foolish to contribute to the local community that you temporarily reside in? In short, no. I don't accept your suggestion that 'there's little point in trying to contribute' to a community, even temporarily. There are well documented benefits (not least to physical and mental health) to volunteering. I also find your sugestion that ''you should seek to take as much as possible before you leave, and accumulate what you can'' a grotesquely selfish and antisocial one. That might be the way you choose to live your life, but it certainly isn't mine, and fortunately it's a view that's by no means universally held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 In short, no. I don't accept your suggestion that 'there's little point in trying to contribute' to a community, even temporarily. There are well documented benefits (not least to physical and mental health) to volunteering. Granted, but you'd agree it makes more sense to contribute to a community you belong to. I also find your sugestion that ''you should seek to take as much as possible before you leave, and accumulate what you can'' a grotesquely selfish and antisocial one. That might be the way you choose to live your life, but it certainly isn't mine, and fortunately it's a view that's by no means universally held. Isn't that business? And seeing as your travelling for work, you should aim to make as much as possible, before you leave, in order to be able to build a better life elsewhere. Surely your own personal housing and income needs come higher up your personal priority list than the moral fabric of a town you will merely work in for a short period of time, and most likely become unwelcome in afterwards... In a 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' type of way. How are you going to build a community, when the people resident there have little security of income/tenure, they have more pressing needs to be dealing with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 And he warned the housing shortage was damaging the lives of the young. Mr Clark said: ‘It’s destroying family life in so many ways. How can a family put down roots if they’re on six months’ notice to quit on a buy-to-let? ‘Young parents are having to spend more of their earnings on rent, and less on their children. Living in tiny flats and houses without the gardens they played in as children. Leading isolated lives, miles from where their children’s grandparents and other relatives are.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045371/Planning-reform-High-house-prices-destroying-family-life.html#ixzz1ZtiAZHLq How can they get involved with the community, when they have no security of tenure? Quite frankly, with such a short tenure, what is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Meh, I've been doing work in the community for years, and have enjoyed most of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFloppy Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 *snipped* In essence, it would be foolish for them to help out in the local community (or more to the point, the local communities they pass through), for they have neither the time to see anything through, or are unlikely to gain anything from doing so. They don't really belong to their community, or if they do, it's for a 6 monthly/temporary basis. Without security of employment (income) or benefit (income), or housing, a person cannot really belong to a community. If your to live a transient lifestyle, there is little point in trying to contribute (for the long term) in the communities you pass through, you should seek to take as much as possible before you leave, and accumulate what you can, before you finally find somewhere you can set down roots and contribute too for the long term. So considering the precarious employment of today and the precarious housing. For an increasing amount of the population (in particular the younger population), has it become foolish to contribute to the local community that you temporarily reside in? No and heres why. Meh, I've been doing work in the community for years, and have enjoyed most of it. Well done you:thumbsup: What is it you do in the community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 No and heres why. Well done you:thumbsup: What is it you do in the community? Over the last several years, I've worked for nearly every Charity in Sheffield, doing IT work and various other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 No and heres why. Well done you:thumbsup: What is it you do in the community? Rich is on benefits and has a council property with security of tenure. It would be interesting to see if Rich would be prepared to work in the community if he had to work 40 hours a week, spend half his money on rent and have no security of tenure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 Meh, I've been doing work in the community for years, and have enjoyed most of it. Suppose you had to work 40 hours a week and spend half you money in rent, in a place where you have only 6months security of tenure. Would you work in the community then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Rich is on benefits and has a council property with security of tenure. It would be interesting to see if Rich would be prepared to work in the community if he had to work 40 hours a week, spend half his money on rent and have no security of tenure. Stop trolling, I do NOT live in a Council House, I rent from South Yorkshire Housing Association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.