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

I found the OP confusing. Thanks for interpreting it, SueDonim.

I absolutely agree that the minimum wage should be enough to live on, and also to have some ‘extras’. Nobody should work full time and not be able to pay the rent, or work just to live. The system that allows employers to pay starvation wages knowing that they will be made up by benefits should stop though. It basically means that taxpayers are funding their profits.

I can understand the need for benefits if someone can’t get a full-time job, but the expectation should be that they will do so as soon as possible. Who wouldn’t prefer to work part-time and get a full time salary? I’m sure everyone would love that, but it makes a mockery of those who get up every day to go to work.

Doodledog

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.

Absolutely.

Ilovecheese

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 didn't know employers could actually forbid you to work for another employer - but their contracts do sometimes make it very difficult to do so because of their demands. If you have to be available - at the drop of a hat, so to speak, you're not going to last very long with a company that expects you to be on stand-by, when you tell them that you're working elsewhere on the occasion that they want you.

The gig economy has its downsides and that's one of them.

I don't know this chap, but I know of him as he's the son of a friend... he's exactly in this position. He's trying to find another part-time job to supplement the first. It's been almost impossible. Pay is pretty poor, too, so he flits from one contract to another (that offers better pay). The worst aspect for him is, he said, that he can't budget properly.

With such little investment in the workforce, I wonder if the gig economy is good for long-term growth?

SueDonim

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.

Absolutely, the FB thread is very interesting, full of posters angry that to live in a nice house then you have to work hard, they all seem to be out of work due to MH issues or working part time and getting top ups.

Why doesn’t he look for a full time job?

I expect this young man is a victim of the zero hours contract which no longer applies only to delivery drivers. He might very well be working 50 hours a week but his contract won't reflect that. Landlords these days want to see evidence of everything. In Bristol it's become so bad I'm surprised they're not asking for DNA tests. It's bad out there and maybe we should look more closely before we judge young people. Besides, it's far more likely for a woman with children to be working part time and topping up with Universal Credit.

I am so bored about continually hearing about 'the wealthy', without anyone ever defining what they mean. What income makes one wealthy, Does it depend on your background and how you got your money, or how long you have had it. How many people have incomes exceeding the minimum wealth income. Is wealth variable depending on where you live. You need much more money to be wealthy in London, where a 4 bedroomed house and often smaller, costs well over £1 million compared with large areas in northern England where a large farmhouse conversion can be bought for well under £500,000.

For goodness sake will one of those who love damning the wealthy give us a definition of exactly who they think they are talking about.

The wealthy doesn’t really mean truly wealthy, it means middle income people who have worked hard for their salaries and pensions all their lives. There are too few truly wealthy to make any difference if they were taxed more. The only way more taxes are really raised is by taxing middle income people a lot more.

Oldnproud

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 imagine some properties will sell into rentals, some will sell to homeowners, and some be demolished for new build because property age and useful lifecycle.

Perhaps the FB post is not helpful relaying how many people are in full time employment. What are housing and rental prices. With one half the country working class, OP is not a surprise.

The majority of the population ae working class - inother words they need to work for their living to earn the money they live on.

here is an intersting link. Most people are only 2 1/2 pay cheques away from homelessness www.thelondoneconomic.com/property/insecure-britain-we-are-two-and-a-half-pay-cheques-away-from-homelessness-on-average-173401/

It’s very difficult for a single person to pay rent on anything liveable because on top of the rent there is also council tax and bills, you do need a full time job. It’s obviously much easier for a couple sharing

Landlords want a tenant that can pay the agreed rent and want to contact employer to check the employment status, in many cases that is not as secure as the tenant has said. Particularly for graduates who havn’t found the position they wanted, a non graduate would usually have settled into secure employment at 30. To reduce the number of applicants landlords often state “Single Professional”

Our place is currently rented, and yes, the agent did check with employer re status, salary and secure position and reference- and we are very glad they did.

I too worked many hours during my career and didn't think twice about it, that was just what you did to get ahead and support your family. However I'm now beginning to think a bit differently and wonder if younger people are right to get more of a work/ life balance. My daughter is in a very stressful job and can't retire until she is 68, she is now considering working only four days a week to do other things.
This means giving up on her idea of moving to a nicer, more rural house. Different scenario I know but times are changing.

tbh I wish I could go 3 or 4 days a week as well. Working in 'fast paced, target driven' workplaces is soul destroying.

I think it's absolutely fair enough to work part-time if that suits your life balance etc, but it is not ok to expect everyone else to support you to do so.

It may be that AI will do some of the work, and free people up to work fewer hours, and I'd love to see that happen; but unless or until it does I don't think that benefits should make up part-time wages to full-time. For one thing, it allows unscrupulous employers to make profits from the compulsory taxation of everyone who works, and for another it is unfair to those who work full-time for the same money.

I would have loved to have worked fewer hours, but in my job as a transactional lawyer it was totally impossible. The timing and pace of transactions are entirely dictated by the client.

I think benefits only make up wages in situations where people cannot work full time - single parents with small children, disabled people who for any reason cannot manage a full weeks work.

I found when I changed from 5 days a week to 4 I was doing the same amount of work, staying later at work but receiving less pay. It was worth it,though, with 4 kids to look after I needed a day off. Sometimes people need to think of their mental health!

I always worked 3 or 4 days but they were 12hour shifts including nights, pay was good but it was tough. On the other side security was good there was no likelyhood of loosing the job, so life was juggling work, kids and the occasional holiday I had no other expectation.

After 35 yrs of doing that I’d had enough its OK when you’re young, now I do 3 shifts 20hours someone else can do the hard graft. To be honest I have no sympathy with youngsters who say they are stressed I did it so can they.

I remember when I was teaching part time, my allocation of lessons rose to 23/40, over four days, so I was paid pro-rata, whereas some full-time colleagues taught the same number of lessons or fewer and were on a full time contract. Actually there was great rejoicing when one of the most idle was made redundant. Not that this is strictly relevant to this thread, but illustrates the lack of parity in various jobs even in the same sector.

I was thinking it is not anyone’s business whether people work full time or not and I wouldn’t rent off someone who asked a question like that. Cheek !

I don’t think it should matter to a landlord either, so long as the tenant can afford the rent. I’m not sure whether the OP is asking whether landlords have a right to know, or is commenting on the fact that some feel entitled to full-time pay for part-time work.

In todays climate part time work is only possible if you have another source of income such as pension/side hustle or investments etc. I was extremely fortunate to be able to give up paid employment at 60 and draw my state pension. Although I chose to go on working it was doing consultancy and office or internet based work. My LL at the time never realised I had left the uni and retired. It was none of their business so long as I was able to continue to pay the rent.

People like employers and landlords have no business prying into your private financial affairs so long as you meet the terms of your contract with them.