I will probably be going against the grain here, but I managed to rent a flat by myself while in university years ago with a part time job in a supermarket at weekends and applying for some hardship funds and other money available at the time.
Rents have risen a lot since then, but is it really impossible for someone in work to be able to afford rent? Or are they insisting on living in a fashionable part of town? (For me independence from my parents was quite a high priority in those days).
In a lot of areas normal jobs are literally impossible to do at the moment. It isn't a matter of whether or not people want to do them. In my city in a non-US country you actually are doing something illegal if you go to work in certain industries or undertake extremely common activities that were normal 6 months ago. This is unique and far beyond anything me (or my parents) have ever known. No obvious end to a lot of this is in sight.
You didn't manage to rent a flat by yourself. You were given money to do so, by your own admittance. I don't blame you for taking advantage, but you're using it to argue that young people can or should be able to make it on their own. You've just got anonymous parents supporting you in place of your own parents.
Sorry but that doesn't address the issue at all. I got the majority of money through working, and that was at weekends and holidays, I wasn't in a position to work full time, which i am assuming the people in the article are. The university hardship funds were a bit of extra money, but not a huge amount. No one has explained what has gotten so expensive that a full time low wage job can't support it.
Not in my case, I was easily able to afford rent and I’ve stayed employed throughout the pandemic as a tech worker.
The challenge has been maintaining my sanity. My previous apartment was small and didn’t have space for a good home office setup since I never expected to work from hone when I leased it. Additionally, I was having little social interaction due to the pandemic since Texas wasn’t doing a good job preventing spread early on.
My other reason for moving in with my parents was that my company did a lot of business in the travel industry and I feared layoffs. Not having to worry about my living situation while looking for another job in the midst of a crisis was a huge relief in my mind. Fortunately, I’ve been able to stay at the same company so far.
If being independent is the absolute most important thing to you, that’s great. But I’d argue that America’s individualistic culture is one of the biggest reasons we’re struggling to get past this pandemic. People demand the right to ignore basic public health requests, and it’s a major problem.
While I’m sure they’ve gone down a little in certain urban cores, like SF, they remain absurdly high in the midsize, Midwestern city where I grew up and now live. When I moved back, apartments here were going for only a bit less than what I paid in Los Angeles and seem to have not gone down at all. Home prices also remain artificially high because there are less listings and more interested buyers.
This is something that really depends on where you live more than anything. I will say there is no state currently where you can afford an apartment by yourself making minimum wage.
I've seen this claim and associated study pop up a couple of times. The study is done year on year and it's been amusing watching the increasingly long lengths they go to to hide the fact that their comparing _average_ rent for a _two bedroom_ apartment to the _minimum_ wage.
Anecdotally, this is simply not true. I lived in a fairly nice area next to my university for the better part of the past five years at well below the poverty level. (~$10,000) per year so far less than minimum wage.
I'm mostly voicing a much more general confusion here. I think you have to bolt down our [lets be honest] mostly imaginary system to reality in some spots. Rents can simply be adjusted to whatever people can pay. That way there is no technological or economic progress to be had for those at the bottom. The fix is in?
Or let me put it like this: If I want a banana I want to pay for what it costs to grow the banana, the packaging, the logistics of it and for those who perform the miracle of trade. If all the steps involved also involve maximizing wealth extraction from those employed in those steps by [any and all means!] my banana will naturally grow in price to the point where my minimum wage has doubts if it can afford it. Not just now but forever! Regardless of anything.
Regulation cant be like: We will cap the price of bananas at this point since everyone involved in making them happen for me has to pay rent that grows along with the kiwi's. I very much doubt we cant fix rent. There might be a layer or 2 of maximized wealth extraction above it. Those are not impossible to fix. If we had real collective goals we could just be like: It wont happen - forever! and get a really cheap but highly profitable banana in return.
Note: I can stack bricks and run tubes though them. Its not hard and not a lot of work. IOW: I'm not impressed by a concrete box. End of the day my government owns all the land.
You clearly do not understand the economics behind renting. Wealth extraction as you call it, isn't pure profit for the layers above. Your rent pays for the landlord's mortgage, maintenance, inspection and risk being taken on from a tenant. Your landlord pays the bank, who use the money to pay off their own obligations, including your grandparents pension plan. It would never be possible to adjust that system.
The other reason things are so high is there are too many people and not enough houses, so there's little opportunity for competition.
When, if or where people are either poor or primitive enough it works like this: You build a house then you live in it.
There is nothing in this that suggests one needs to spend 1/4 or 2/3 of the productive labor in their lives to maintain the house.
Progress is to reduce the maintenance cost. The lower it is the lower the salaries can be which increase productivity exponentially.
IOW grandpa's pension plan is for a large part to continue to pay for housing. He spend his entire life busting his ass but some how didn't manage to earn a place to live.
It's still possible possible to build a house today and live in it, and there is plenty of land, even some going for cheap. But most people don't want that because they make that trade off for today's luxuries.
Ok, I will give you that London prices are silly, but it isn't the norm as far as the UK goes. And again I shared a flat, why does no one under 30 expect to do this any more?
Well, people live in flatshare a lot. I don't think you can ask why they don't do it when they do it ^^
One cultural thing I noticed in London and I assume in the UK at large is the lack of studios. There are plenty of 1 bedroom but there aren't studios (200-300 sqft).
If you go to Paris for comparison, you will see an incredible amount of studios.
It makes a world of difference when you get 25+, you make a living and you want to be independent (forget about dating and getting married otherwise). In the absence of studio, you're forced to pay up a lot to get a one bedroom (more than what low end jobs earn so they're stuck with flatmates).
I started as a trainee broadcast engineer in London on £17,800 a year in 2003. This left me with £1,082 a month (back then student loan payments were far higher than now). Rent for a tiny bedsit with a shared bathroom was £520 a month, 2 mile walk from work. I could live further out, but commuting costs outweighed any savings.
That's the equivalent of £828 a month now. Bills were included.
You can actually pick up a studio flat for £737 in the same area, which actually looks better - it's about 60 square feet which I think it a little smaller than the one I had, but it has it's own toilet. Council tax is on top of that at £45 a month, but still fits in the budget, just.
Assuming the same 50% of take home wage in rent, or a net wage of £1500pcm, would be about £21k/year
My £17800 salary in 2003 would be £28,300 today, or net of £1900pcm, so could afford (on the same ratio) £910 a month, which gives you a fair amount of choice at the moment in W14 according to rightmove.
I'm surprised as I felt renting was far harder now than 20 years ago, but seems it might be slightly better. Of course rents on tiny studios are presumably depressed because of covid19, I'm not sure what they were this time last year.
Where I live, most property agents will do a credit and income check, and would turn you away for not meeting the "minimum income level" for renting those places.
Even if you feel you can afford spending 50% of your income, it doesn't follow that you can easily find a landlord who allows it.
If you have a bad credit rating, as many people do these days, it will be even more difficult as more landlords check that than income.
In my case, where I am currently living, I had insufficient income at the time I moved in to qualify, and was only allowed to rent on the condition that I paid 12 months rent up front. And then I had to do it again the following year. Obviously that's only available to people with decent savings.
But that's no different to 2003 (you could have a guarantor - typically a parent - who would be on the hook for your rent if you didn't pay it)
Before I started looking I was under the impression things were harder now then they were in 2003, but it seems not, at least in this one case (tiny studio/bedsits in a dodgy part of west london) -- unless asking prices on rent are massively depressed due to covid.
In 2006/7 I lived in Tunbridge wells, paying £800pcm for a 2 bed flat that looked almost identical to this one, although it was in the next door house and had a garage instead of a parking spot.
Things seem to have become more difficult to obtain in some cases. Back in 2003, nobody asked me for proof of income for renting. Just basic credit checks (which don't directly know about income or bank balances). Proof of income is more recent.
(And difficult if you're self-employed with highly irregular income, I found.)
If using a guarantor, a guarantor has to pass similar checks.
Guarantor works a lot better for a young person starting out in a cheap-ass room in a shared place, whose parents expect this. For a flat and an older adult with retired parents on a low pension, or their own housing costs, not so much.
Good like finding a guarantor if your parents or friends:
- don't have enough spare income to cover your rent in addition to their own expenses
- don't pass the credit check themselves
- can't pass the proof-of-income check themselves
- don't have enough assets to use as security
- are not happy using their assets as security for you (e.g. their limited life savings or their one and only home)
Some people don't have parents, and these days, quite a lot of parents rent precariously too. They would be turned down as guarantors.
More parents renting is a factor which has changed in recent years.
I imagine most people don't have friends who would be willing to be long term rent guarantors, even if they could be.
>Things seem to have become more difficult to obtain in some cases. Back in 2003, nobody asked me for proof of income for renting. Just basic credit checks (which don't directly know about income or bank balances). Proof of income is more recent.
Because they can ask those things more quickly and easily now. There's a bunch of jerks in California who are hellbent on connecting every DB in the world to every other DB that we can thank for this.
> Guarantor works a lot better for a young person starting out in a cheap-ass room in a shared place, whose parents expect this. For a flat and an older adult with retired parents on a low pension, or their own housing costs, not so much.
Absolutely. When my mother-in-law divorced and moved into a rented house, I was her guarantor.
I did have parents in 2003, but they lived 3000 miles away in a greek village where there was an ISDN line a 20 minute ride down the mountain, so not too practical. But this artcile is about 18-29 year olds moving in with their parents, not 50 year olds.
> 18-29 year olds moving in with their parents, not 50 year olds.
It applies in that age range as well.
A 29 year old moving in with their 64 year old parent(s) who are themselves poor and renting while on the edge of official retirement age, is going to find their parents probably rejected as guarantors.
> Where I live, most property agents will do a credit and income check, and would turn you away for not meeting the "minimum income level" for renting those places.
This is where room in a shared house comes into play. They're available for $4-500 a month in my city.
Where I live, there's a minimum income level for shared house rooms as well, and the cost of a room can be 50% of someone's income if they are working but poorly paid, so they won't be allowed it.
Luckily rooms are more likely to be rented somewhat informally, or by less stringent agents & landlords, compared with flats, so there's a decent market of these without a hard income requirement, alongside those with the requirement.
TL;DR: London will chew you up and spit you out unless you live so far out that your commute is measured in 1.5-hour increments, or unless you're already rich. A young person is sentenced to renting.
My personal story:
I lived there up until about a year ago, not far from the center. Being a young person, I earned the usual entry-level software developer salary. I tried to live a relatively frugal lifestyle, which included not going out and spending not a whole lot on personal entertainment costs.
The rent was £1500, so I had to rent a flat with my friend. Travel was expensive, and a fixed cost in my circumstances. Bills were not included, so we had to pay those as well. I tried to cut costs as much as I could, and in retrospect maybe I could have cut £80-100 a month from my grocery spending by shopping in cheaper stores, or perhaps even another £50 on top of that if I was willing to trade off some of my sanity/time for the savings. I had some savings, but not a whole lot.
The whole time, I was cutting into my savings each month and literally losing my money by staying in London. Even if I tried to save harder, that would get me nowhere nearer to saving up for a deposit for the next few years.
I eventually decided to leave the city behind and move to Scotland. Instant quality of life improvement, and I actually got the chance to start building up my savings rather than chipping away at them.
There aren't studio or one bedroom below about £1200 a month in London, closer to £1500 toward the center.
You're talking about Kensington in London? That's the center and one of the most expensive location in the city.
Where the fuck do you see a place for £737 in there?
Either it's a flatshare (that's a bit low, must be 6+ people) or you confused 737 per month with 737 per week (that'd be £3000 a month, possible for a luxury 1 bedroom in that area the size of what people consider a 2 bedroom, typical ads that come at the top of rightmove).
reports "Rents in the capital are down 4.2 per cent as tourists stay away and short-let landlords switch to long-term contracts, flooding the market."
I suspect rents on tiny bedsit studios are down even more, especially as weekly commuters no longer need them, and young people move to live with parents.
Wow, they are less than 3x3 meters (10x10 feet) including the corner for shower. The bed is literally touching the cooker/oven in the first one.
That explains the £737. Can't even put a desk to do your homework. Nobody would want to live there, especially with COVID.
Regular studios in student accommodations go for double that in this area. I've actually seen friends paying as much as £2000 a month, when they come from far or from abroad, don't have the luxury to visit 10 properties and landlord won't rent to students with no income.
Yup, but that's what I got for £520 in 2003, and managed to live there just fine. Hell for 2 months I lived there with my girlfriend (now wife) before we moved out towards Reading for an actual 1 bed flat. I was working shifts then though so could drive to work mostly off peak, get free parking, and it was only 7 days a fortnight.
The room in my hall of residence was smaller than that, although being in Exeter it cost far less (£90 a week, so £390 a month).
Of course I had an office to go to for that time, clearly it's different in the last 6 months.
Similar story, also 2003. Think the pay was £24K, but I had to be in for work quite early in the morning so that limited the location. Rent was £800 a month for new building, but in a not-so-nice neighborhood. It was a 1BR, the sort of size that's big for a student but small for anyone else. Had its own kitchen and bathroom.
Moved in with a friend after that, saved about £100 a month, but also in a nicer part of town.
Have to say the budget felt stretched at £24K, luckily that went up a lot pretty fast.
Rents have risen a lot since then, but is it really impossible for someone in work to be able to afford rent? Or are they insisting on living in a fashionable part of town? (For me independence from my parents was quite a high priority in those days).