Current Account

The Economics blog

High house prices are putting off couples from having children

Shelter research shows 63 per cent more families are feeling the squeeze.

By Anna Wilson Published 28 August 2012 13:17

Children gaze down the stairwell of a 1950s slum; but poor family housing isn't consigned to history. Photograph: Getty Images

It’s a sad reality that in Britain we get used to putting up with the impact that the high cost of housing has on our lives. We accept having to spend an hour getting to and from work every day as we can’t afford to live any closer to our jobs. We think of the family homes we grew up in with nostalgia rather than aspiration, accepting we are unlikely to live anywhere similar. We pay half our salaries to keep up with our rent or mortgage, leaving little over for the rest of our lives.

However this week another impact has come to light that has serious implications for both individual families and for society as a whole. New research we have carried out at Shelter has identified a staggering 63 per cent increase in the number of people putting off having children because of the lack of affordable housing. Over a million people are delaying having a family because of housing costs. And we’re not just talking for a few months – one in four of those delaying said they have been doing so for more than five years.

Being in my mid-thirties, this is a picture I can identify with. I have seen numerous friends wanting to start families but unwilling to do so until they can buy their own home, not seeing their rented flat as a suitable place to raise a child. Others have had to move away from their families to be able to buy a home and start a family, having to give up the support networks and childcare options that are so important for young families. Some have had one child and stopped there, not out of choice but because they couldn’t afford to live anywhere that could accommodate more children.

And these are all people who work hard, who save, who do everything they can but who still can’t achieve the security and stability that was a given for previous generations.

So what can be done?

Clearly the high cost of owning your own home is not going to change overnight. So the million families renting (a number which has almost doubled in the past five years) need to ensure a rented place can feel like a suitable home to start and raise a family in. Landlords can evict them or raise the rent at any time. When you have children to consider, particularly if they are school age, for many this is just not a workable option.

Longer term we need action to bring down the cost of buying a home. Decades of underinvestment have left the supply and demand for affordable homes completely out of kilter. Earlier this month we saw levels of housebuilding fall yet again, down almost a quarter over the past year. When people’s lives are being put on hold in this way, this is simply not sustainable. We must see more homes being built that families across the country can afford so we can put a halt to this deeply concerning trend.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Anna Wilson

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Wed, 2012-08-29 10:16 — hugh markey (not verified)

If couples wish to choose accomodations over progeny so be it. Old Dizzy first floated the idea of a property owning democracy in mid-nineteenth century. No mention of children.
And now we have those Famous Five Tory MPs, two with roots in the New Commonwealth methinks, claiming that the present population of the UK is riddled with layabouts and benefit scroungers.
No we are definitely not referring to 'Arry Boy.
There is plenty of surplus population out there in Eastern Europe and now that the Iron Curtain has come down these folks are available. Of course those Germans are building factories in the old Warsaw Pack area to keep 'em there - out of the New Reich.
These individuals are eager beavers and speak the lingo even better than us Brits.

Semi-detached

Wed, 2012-08-29 10:16 — hugh markey (not verified)

Semi-detached

Wed, 2012-08-29 09:54 — privet (not verified)

the population increase has not helped the increased demand side of the housing shortage, Economists in Labour must have figured out that the 20% annual increases would have side effects, as well as increased immigration, why?

we are not able to be self sufficient in food production already, at what point in millions do you draw the line for our size of island?

as well as increased pollution, use of resources, global warming, fish stock depletion etc

Wed, 2012-08-29 01:02 — plain john snith (not verified)

Personally, me and Mrs Snith put off having kids until we could afford to move out of London to an area where there were no Afro-Carribeans.

Wed, 2012-08-29 00:43 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Work for a living - maybe you will afford an little house, as my nephew after six years, a radiographer and his lady the same.

Do you ever remember when British by birth and culture had the right to an house if they worked and saved?

Do you remember when radiographers had an above living wage?

Hang on they have been gazzumped by a potential TV series (to be) pop singer, in the future ,and if her mother can prove she has right to stay her - sorted.

Hang on I am going to South Africa to have full housing rights and benefits.

Tue, 2012-08-28 21:56 — Indu Pendent

The last government borrowed and spent £600bn, sold assets and boosted North Sea oil production to pump money into the already booming economy. It was done to boost the feel good factor so that they would win votes and cling to power. The consequence was rampant house prices. The UK population has paid a huge price for it including the younger people who want to set up a family and have kids.

Tue, 2012-08-28 17:34 — nicol (not verified)

Good.

Tue, 2012-08-28 17:08 — TimUK

A few things can be done quickly.
State an intention to secure all existing and future tenancies as indefinite, as they are in Berlin.
Next, control rents. Again, as they are in Germany by the Town Halls. Next - Create tax-based disincentives against the trading of houses as if they were investments without social consequence.
Then tenants can remain in residence as long as they need the property at a fair rent and the landlord has a right-and-proper responsibility, fitting of their role in the fabric of society.
Apply these rules and I suggest that a flood of housing will reach the market and prices will adjust to match our earnings.

The country does not need a socially useless class of landlords that fail to offer adequate housing. Nor can it sufficiently quickly build towns of undersized and overpriced houslets under the pretence that they solve any real problems. Banks will take some pain for their folly in inflating a bubble by wilfully offering 'liar' loans. They must compensate, fail and be replaced with lean banks.

Wed, 2012-08-29 01:09 — JustVisiting (not verified)

Well said. We could do with people who have ideas like you in government... Sadly...

Tue, 2012-08-28 15:13 — Herbert (not verified)

'We think of the family homes we grew up in with nostalgia rather than aspiration, accepting we are unlikely to live anywhere similar.'

Well, I suppose if 'we' hadn't grown up in a series of private flats and then a council maisonette, 'we' might. But as 'we' didn't, 'we' don't. Any more generalisations based on your middle class upbringing?