CHILDLESS UNDER-35s STRUGGLE ON LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THEY NEED
The risk of young singles having less than 50% of the income required for an adequate standard of living has nearly doubled, a new study has shown.
In recent years, the percentage of single under-35s surviving on under half of what they need has increased from 9 to 17 per cent. This was also the group that saw the fastest increase in worklessness during the period, suggesting the general economic context is a major driver of this trend.
The study – by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation – looked at the early part of the recession, from 2008–2010. It found that the living standards of families with children — both couples and lone parents — were holding up pretty well, despite this group having the highest risk of a less than adequate standard of living.
The report states:
“The group that emerged from this analysis as the one to be worried about is single people without children, living alone — especially those below the age of 35. This is a very diverse group, but it is one that saw a big downward shift in living standards and some serious increases in people experiencing hardship.
“These are people likely to face severe hardship, relying mainly on benefits which provide only about 40 per cent of the income needed to meet an adequate standard of living.”
The study also highlighted the fact that those on low incomes – including young singles – are feeling the pinch disproportionately. Inflation is being felt most strongly by this group because the prices of items most prominent in a basic household budget, such as food and heating costs, have been rising faster than average. For this reason, low-income groups started to feel the effects of stagnant wages and rising prices earlier than others, and could go on feeling it for longer into the future.
*Are you single and struggling?
Is your income enough to survive on? What do you think of this report’s findings? Are single under-35s being forgotten amidst the politicians’ rhetoric about ‘hardworking families’?
Perhaps Graduate Fog should start a dating service to get young singles into relationships to improve their economic outcomes?
You could call it Fog Dating.
I sound like I’m kidding, but seriously… As a young, single male without kids and parents who can keep me at home, I am literally at the bottom of the pile when it comes to affordable housing. I’d love to meet someone for love, but how sad it is that economic factors might actually play into that decision…
I know what you mean. Though luckily what I get – when it arrives – is at least enough to rent a room, service debts and leave little else. It could be worse.
Though on the romance front the benefits system is actually stopping me from living with my girlfriend at the moment, because they won’t say whether or not I’d get 6 months’ worth of contribution-based JSA if I lived with her (I wouldn’t get income-based living with her), so since I need a little money a month to service overdrafts from uni I’m not taking that risk. Since my parents (who you can live with a still get the dole) live in the countryside (even worse on the job front) that’s not an option either.
So instead I’m claiming more off the state (JSA and Housing Benefit) – and handing most 70-80% of it straighr over to landlords to rent a room (luckily my family help a little – specially when they suspended HB for a month when I was foolish enough to actually work a couple of days) – compared to 40-50% when I worked full-time.
And personally I don’t find food – as in the basic sustenance needed to live (e.g. frozen burgers (possibly with horse in), frozen veg, pasta, noodles, rice etc.) if you buy it in the right places and have a freezer – anywhere near as bad an expense as rent – rent is the real killer.
I think there is this big assumption that all single under 35s have parents who can just bail them out which is why we simply are not a priority to this government.
I don’t know the exact intricacies of the system but the impression I get is that if you are in need of welfare the provision for single people is evidently lower than for people who are part of a couple and/or who have a child. But I would have thought that in a city a single person is much more likely to just rent a room (rather than an entire flat) and thus save mnoey on accommodation.
But from my own personal standpoint I cannot empathize with the view that it is more difficult for a single person to meet expenses.
a) We are more mobile than married people with children are. I am fortunate enough to have been able to move country 3 times during the past 2 years, which probably wouldn’t have been possible had I been married/with children. The cost of relocating for us is lower.
b) We tend to have fewer expenses than married people with children. I can deliberately choose a smaller room to rent since I need less space. I need less food than 2 people and a child would need. I do not require a car unlike a family might. I do not have to worry about things like childcare, vaccinations etc. so can easily save a higher proportion of my income than a married person on the same income. Also unlike a married person you don’t have a partner who has a claim on your cashflows (i.e. your present and future earnings) in the event of a divorce.
c)If you aren’t partnered with someone you can usually devote more time to your work (in the office, at a separate training course, at a networking event) and find more time to prepare for certifications that can advance your career. You’re unlikely to have a partner nagging you to be home at a certain time and you won’t have childcare which you need to attend to.
So to summarize a single person who is not in receipt of welfare is able to devote more time to advancing his/her career whilst being better able to minimize his/her expenditures – which means he/she has more savings and is likely to be more financially stable and better able to react to changes in circumstances (loss of job, company merger, relocation).
Given that couples tend to simply rent a room together thus pretty much halving the rent I don’t see how you can say that rent is cheaper for a single person.
@ jacob.
I didn’t think this was common for couples to rent a *single room* (i.e. just one bed, a small desk and maybe a wardrobe (12 square metres) together. How do they both sleep there – assuming there is no room on the floor for a separate mattress? I guess it’s feasible if they work separate hours – e.g. one person works from 8am – 6pm and the other works evening/night hours from 7pm – 5am?
@Fluff
Cohabiting couples in a houseshare will usually rent a room with a double (or at least large) bed, and both sleep in that bed. Why on earth would they need a separate mattress on the floor?
And trust me, they do – I briefly shared a room with an ex – though that used to be a lounge so was large enough for a desk, two chairs, TV and small sofa with the kitchen separate so wasn’t as cramped as some of these arrangements are. I’m pretty sure many couples with children are also forced by finances to live in such arrangements (if they can find a landlord who will accept).