Full time employment is pretty much a necessity to stay alive”

Presumably the landlord wants to be as certain as he can be that the rent and other outgoings will be paid, and like many landlords he doesn’t want a tenant who is on benefits. With rents so high, someone working part time would not be a good bet.

Income is what matters not whether someone works full time, part time or not at all and how secure that income is.

I do not even understand the last sentence of the OP. Is she saying that no one under 30 should have a full time job?

Full time employment has always been a necessity to cover ones living expenses. I have never had a part time job, as a casual worker or in my profession where the salary would have paid all my day-to-day expenses.

I don’t really understand the question, but I do think it’s entitled of people to expect to work part-time and get a full-time salary from top-ups paid for by the state. I know a couple of people who are indignant at the idea of increasing their hours as they would lose benefits. It makes me wonder why anyone bothers working and paying taxes.

When I was at uni as a postgrad I worked two part time jobs and still managed to get a Masters (with distinction).

So I dont have much respect for people who get off with working only 16 hours a week and being subbed out by the taxpayer unless they are studying, disabled or too sick to do a full time job.

Couldn’t agree more, Doodledog and BL. I have always worked full time (frequently 70 hours pw).

My point is the poser said full time employment was pretty much a necessity to stay alive!

What else do young people expect?

Indeed. Jobs which pay enough to cover all your outgoings are unlikely to be less than full time.

They expect to doss around on 16 hours a week and be propped up by universal credit. The sanctions do not go anywhere near far enough although I understand there are tougher new laws coming in.

They don't always get offered full time work by their employer though. Others may be on these iniquitous zero hours contracts.
Employers expect more flexibility these days, than when a full time secure job was a reasonable expectation.

My DH works full time for Royal mail. As people are leaving because of their change in ethics, the new staff coming in are only being offered Zero hours contracts.

I do agree with you, but the big people at the top don't care or think about how hard or difficult it is for the Joe public to get on in the real world.

The sooner the better BL. I am sick of hearing about people who don’t work more hours because it would affect their benefits. There’s a huge difference between ‘genuinely can’t’ and ‘don’t want to’.

Another reason the employers don't offer full time is because they then don't have to enroll the employee in the workplace pension.
If employers can get the Government to top up wages instead of them treating people decently, then they will.

Other jobs are available.

Is income less secure if working two part time jobs?
Not sure. Maybe?

There are other jobs out there, absolutely and his huge, billion pound company he works for is just an example of the many others who offer the same same thing.

Do they think the world owes them a living? 🤔

All of my adult children and spouses work FT, even though they each have two children as well. My dd with children went down to PT work - 4.5 days instead of FT. Because she is conscientious, she found she was still putting in the same amount of graft anyway so she reverted back to PT and got paid for that extra half day.

My AC are 30 and 32 and both of them, and all their friends have been in full time employment since leaving uni . They are all in the London area and yes f/t employment is a necessity.
So presumably the landlord wants to ensure that they can afford both the rent and the deposit.
Plus landlords can be picky in todays market, as there is a shortage of rental properties.

I don't think that the number of hours worked should be anything to do with a landlord. If a renter can afford a property, and can provide references etc. if required, that should be sufficient.

Some zero hours contracts forbid the worker from working for anyone else. Finding two part time jobs to fit in with each other is not easy.what is easy is to apportion blame without a proper understanding.

I believe a law is proposed to make it illegal for a landlord to refuse a tenant in receipt of benefits. In 2020 a judge ruled that a landlord was in breach of the Equality Act by refusing a tenant in receipt of benefits because of disability.
Many people’s full time employment is low paid and without the top up from UC and its Housing Allowance they would find most rents unaffordable.
The housing situation is stacked against people on lower incomes even if they work full time including some nurses, care workers, teaching assistants, etc.
I understand why a landlord needs tenants who can pay the rent obviously, but f/t work is not a guarantee of that.

Yet another reason why private landlords will be selling up.

Do they think the world owes them a living? 🤔

I doubt that many people do think that. For generations and generations people have had to work to support themselves and their families. Apart, of course, from the wealthy who lived on a different planet (and still do).

But in this day and age, when people within a society are so highly interdependent and society itself so wealthy, it would seem reasonable to me that people in work, each contributing a vital piece of the network that supports us all, should be able to expect sufficient monetary reward for their contribution to enable them to live a reasonably comfortable life without having to resort to charity or state top up.

Goodness, Adam Smith was more or less saying this nearly 300 years ago...

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.

He has some disapproving things to say about the wealthy, BTW 😆

Germanshepherdsmum

Yet another reason why private landlords will be selling up.

Would that be a bad thing?. Those properties are not going to disappear so is unlikely to lead to more homelessness. In fact, it could help many first time buyers get out of the rental market and onto the property ladder.

I agree, Maisie that everyone should indeed get a ‘fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work’ but that’s not the impression I had from the OP. I read it that the would-be renter’s complaint was that he works PT, therefore earns PT wages which isn’t sufficient to cover the rental costs. The solution is in his own hands.