Workers on the breadline.

[Cyclone]

But gives access to the catchment areas of the better schools which is what we're debating. The person wanted their children to go to the better schools. Nothing wrong with that is what I was saying. Each to their own.

 

I agree, but if they impoverish themselves then it's questionable whether the children actually benefit overall.

 

And you did claim that moving there made them more affluent, when in fact it doesn't at all. Affluence isn't about what you appear to have, it's about what you actually have.

 

---------- Post added 09-10-2014 at 15:38 ----------

 

This is because the children from a more affluent area have an unfair advantage.

It is the reason that the Country is run by public school boys and it is a scandal.

 

The "unfair" advantage is mainly that their parents care about the education of the children, and the same is true of most of the children in the school. So the children get support at home, and less disruption in class.

[Aspinal]

I agree, but if they impoverish themselves then it's questionable whether the children actually benefit overall.

 

Most people know what they are taking on when they stretch themselves, financially, they are just willing to sacrifice for their children for the longterm. No pain no gain.

 

Affluence isn't about what you appear to have, it's about what you actually have.

 

You don't appear to have it if you actually have it. If you buy and move into a more expensive house in an affluent area, then you actually have it. You own the house. You now own and live in an affluent area. You are therefore, affluent. For the duration of time you manage to keep the house, you are affluent. Nothing fake about it. The house is real and they own it.

[aliceBB]

You don't appear to have it if you actually have it. If you buy and move into a more expensive house in an affluent area, then you actually have it. You own the house. You now own and live in an affluent area. You are therefore, affluent. For the duration of time you manage to keep the house, you are affluent. Nothing fake about it. The house is real and they own it.

 

No. Affluence is not being mortgaged up to your neck and having to worry how you are going to pay the gas bill, or pay for your child to go on a school trip. Affluence is having more than average in terms of material possessions and having easy access to money, whether it is your own savings or loans which you can easily afford to repay.

 

Living in a house in an area where most people are affluent does not make you affluent. That depends on your income and your ability to support the lifestyle to which you aspire.

[Cyclone]

Most people know what they are taking on when they stretch themselves, financially, they are just willing to sacrifice for their children for the longterm. No pain no gain.

 

 

 

You don't appear to have it if you actually have it. If you buy and move into a more expensive house in an affluent area, then you actually have it. You own the house. You now own and live in an affluent area. You are therefore, affluent. For the duration of time you manage to keep the house, you are affluent. Nothing fake about it. The house is real and they own it.

 

That would be true if affluence was only defined by the value of your house.

[Aspinal]

No. Affluence is not being mortgaged up to your neck and having to worry how you are going to pay the gas bill,

 

People who mortgage themselves up to move to a better area are not worried about it, they are happy about it because they planned it that way. They knew they were moving up and understand they will feel pain before gain. In the meantime they get to enjoy a nicer area and better school. The children will be happier as a result. People who do this rarely get repossessed, most repossessions happen in less affluent areas. Lots of stats available on this.

 

Living in a house in an area where most people are affluent does not make you affluent. That depends on your income and your ability to support the lifestyle to which you aspire.

 

Owning a house in an affluent area does make you affluent regardless of the stretch. Because house prices rise and debt diminishes. it makes perfect sense to max out and feel pain to move up the ladder. The more expensive the house you own, the bigger the rise when the rise comes. The debt eaten up by the rise. It's easy to plan for this over a decade.

 

---------- Post added 09-10-2014 at 17:32 ----------

 

That would be true if affluence was only defined by the value of your house.

 

The house is the most valuable asset for most people and therefore does define the affluence of most people. Generally, the wealthier you are, the more affluent the area you will live.

[Cyclone]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/affluence

 

It doesn't appear to be defined by having a great deal of debt, but overall not very much in the way of actual wealth.

 

---------- Post added 09-10-2014 at 17:43 ----------

 

Going back to the behaviour you are defending.

 

We have a friend who has moved to what they think is a better area so as their kids can enrol into what is deemed to be a better school.

Now this is all well and good [in some folks eyes that is] but in doing so Our friends have stretched their finances to the very limit due to the increased mortgage and travel costs to work etc.

 

It sounds from that like the kids in question will have to give up a lot else in their childhood for the chance to go to a better school and live in a different area.

And their parents are probably sacrificing even more and most likely more stressed about their finances than they previously were.

 

---------- Post added 09-10-2014 at 17:46 ----------

 

The house is the most valuable asset for most people and therefore does define the affluence of most people. Generally, the wealthier you are, the more affluent the area you will live.

 

You miss my point.

 

If affluence is defined by wealth, and the house is the largest asset then it works like this.

 

Wealth = house value - mortgage.

 

So moving house, at least on the day you move, reduces your affluence, since there are large costs involved in moving that are spent and can't be recouped (stamp duty, solicitors, estate agents, removal men, etc...)

 

Over time your wealth will increase as you pay off the mortgage and potentially as the house capital value increases. But you were going to pay off the old mortgage as well, so the only real gain is speculative and based on the increase in house values.

[Aspinal]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/affluence

 

It doesn't appear to be defined by having a great deal of debt, but overall not very much in the way of actual wealth.

 

Some of the richest people on earth have the most debt. Anyone buying a house in an affluent area that will stretch them financially will have had to come up with a large deposit, legal and moving fees. They must already have some level of wealth to even consider the move. They must have planned for the initial struggle or they will lose the new house in the first few months.

 

As I've said throughout, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to move to a better area to gain access to the better schools. They should certainly not be attacked for it or thought less of. If you go and talk to any old person in a nursing home, they will all say they wish they had taken more risks in life.

[poppet2]

Another reason to bring back the Grammar schools. At least you had one in every local area without having the hassle of having to move.

 

At the moment you are disadvantaged if you are not affluent and can't afford to move to a catchment area with a 'good' school.

Edited October 9, 2014 by poppet2

[Aspinal]

Another reason to bring back the Grammar schools. At least you had one in every local area without having the hassle of having to move.

 

At the moment you are disadvantaged if you are not affluent and can't afford to move to a catchment area with a 'good' school.

 

I think Alice is right, it isn't just the school, the parents are a big part. If you have successful parents you have a much bigger chance of becoming successful yourself regardless of schooling.

[Anna B]

Those are the benefits the poster described their friend desired and decided to go after. My point is that she shouldn't pull her friend down for wanting those things. I would want my children to grow up in the nicest house I could stretch to and be in the catchment area for the best schools. These are decisions for each person, there's no right or wrong. From what I can see, the best school exam results are achieved in the better schools which happen to be in the better areas.

 

As a mother and an ex teacher, I would say that if I had to chose between a more expensive house in a better area, that needed both parents working to pay for it, and a cheaper house in a tougher area, which allowed one parent to stay at home to look after the children, I would chose the cheaper option. Particularly while the kids are at primary school.

 

The influence of good parenting, having the time and energy to do things with the children, and being there for them full time during their formative years IMO outweighs the benefits of a better school.

 

Research has shown that it is good parenting, parental involvement and support which has the most influence on educational outcome during the early years, (and I would argue later years too,) rather than the actual school, (anyway, all schools want a good outcome for their pupils.)

 

Of course, that does nothing to help those poor parents who both have to work just to afford a roof over their head. They have no choice and no support from anybody.

(I also know there are good working parents, but the constant juggling and sheer tiredness does take its toll on family life whichever way you look at it.)