Let them be bored

I know some of my readers are home-educators but there may be some of you out there who are dreading the next six weeks, having to listen to your little angels scream "I'm bored!!!" all day long.  Either that or they're making your life a misery because you won't take them to a theme park twice a week, as well as swimming, bowling, ice skating, a trip to the beach, and other money-consuming wants. 

Today's children seem to have the instant gratification bug, wanting everything today and more tomorrow.  To their parents I say this, did your parents do all that for you when you were a child or were you encouraged to make your own entertainment.  And that didn't mean being stuck in front of the TV (or in this age, a computer or game console) all day, every day either.  Tell your parents that you were bored and I'd lay odds on the response being "tough!" or "so what?".

If you are already wilting at the thought of keeping them entertained and amused all holidays without having to take out the mortgage required to cover all what they'd really like to do, I have a few suggestions.

• Let them be bored.  With a bit of luck they might actually (re)discover their imaginations and make up their own games.
• If they say they're bored, give them a household chore to do and make them do it.  Next time boredom strikes they'll either ask if they can help with anything (you can hope) or they'll have hated it so much they'll put more effort into finding something to do that's more fun.
• If they ask to go somewhere and you are willing to consider it, tell them that there are certain things around the house that need to be done first.  If they leave it all to you it will take too long and you won't be able to go.  If they help it will all be done very quickly and you'll have more time to spend doing that fun thing.
• Limit those big days out to one or two for the whole holiday.  They'll appreciate it so much more (eventually).
• Explain to them how much all these days out and activities cost and that you don't have all that money just lying around waiting for them to spend.

• If they're old enough suggest an 'entertainment budget' figure for them for the entire 6 weeks.  If they go and blow it all on a day out, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MORE.  This is a life lesson about budgeting and will do them good in the long run when they start to live an independent lifestyle.  You are doing them no good whatsoever by encouraging them to think that what they want is the only thing worth spending money on.

A good number of children expect their parents to just hand over cash for anything, and unfortunately there are a good number of parents who do - whether that be from guilt for both parents working, or to keep the peace because of the temper outbursts that follow if the parents say no.  If this is your child, ask yourself how they learnt to kick up a fuss to make you give in.  That's right, it's because that is what you have been doing since they were tiny.  "Ah, it's not nice to see him/her so upset" so the child gets rewarded for making a scene.  Whereas if you had stuck to your guns when they were tiny they would now understand and accept that no means no.

This is not a dig at anyone in particular, but a kick up the backside that some parents need to remember that their children are just that, children, and that whilst their wishes will be considered, the FINAL say is the parents.

Common sense is beginning to prevail

I was going to post yesterday about the Wrestling World Cup Final except that Blogger wouldn't let me in for some reason.  As most of the world has already commented on it I won't waste time.

Instead I'll turn my attention to this.  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is considering banning self-certification mortgages.  About time too!!  When these 'modern' mortgages were announced a few years ago I said that it would all end in tears.  I mean, where is the sense in lending people hundreds of thousands of pounds without them having to prove they can pay it back? 

The 'old-fashioned' multipliers were there for a reason.  They made sure that you had some money left to live on after paying the mortgage AND made sure you could continue to afford the payments if the interest rates rose.  These days people have mortgages that they can barely afford, let alone heat their property and feed themselves.  I don't know what they're going to do when interest rates do rise again - and they will.  A rise of 0.5% is going to catch a lot of people out and start a whole raft of repossessions.  When we got our first mortgage interest rates were about 10%. We asked our advisor to work out what the repayments would be if rates rose to 15%, something he said wouldn't happen.  Well it did, and we could still afford it (just).

Look at what has happened to energy and food prices in the last couple of years.  Prices have rocketed, beyond what most people (experts and jo public alike) would have expected.  It isn't just the traditional poor and/or working class who are having to decide whether to eat or heat their home.  This is spreading upwards through the other social classes too.  I wonder if this is what Labour meant by 'social mobility'.

More sensible mortgage lending will have a downward impact on house prices as less people can get a mortgage to afford the current silly prices; though there may be an increase in price as less people can afford to move (supply and demand at work).  Hopefully, prices will settle to levels that are affordable for our young people.   

Let's look at an example.  Average starting salaries for graduates are between £20,000 and £25,000 (and assume that those without a degree will have an average start of much less).  The average price for a one bedroom shared ownership flat (part buy-part rent) seems to be about £40,000.  Owning your flat outright averages at about £100,000.  This would be unaffordable to the graduate under the 'three times your salary' rules.  The graduate would need a very large deposit AND have some to pay the legal fees.  Like I said, prices are probably going to come down until they reach a level that people can sensibly afford.

I'll be honest and admit I have no idea how the part buy-part rent system works.  Obviously the total outgoing must be considerably less than the mortgage would be on the true value of the property, but I do wonder how the difference is made up.  Rents can only be lower than the mortgage outlay if the money borrowed (by the housing association) to buy the property is much less than it's value. 

The rise in the number of properties available by this method shows how unaffordable property has become to vast portions of society.  Maybe we should be doing like our continental cousins, where renting is the norm.  It's only in the past 50 years or so that owning your own home has been attainable by the vast majority of the population.  Before then this was only for the rich.  Are we back to this?  Do we want to be back to this? 

I must admit that, having sampled renting and ownership, I prefer ownership.  We can decorate how we want, rip out a fireplace that we don't like (or a kitchen or a bathroom) and, unless we are being repossessed (or compulsorily purchased to make way for a new road), we are not beholden to our landlord's whim as to how long we can stay there.  My home is my security blanket (apart from my family, of course).  It is here waiting for me when I get back from work.  It is somewhere I can shut the door and keep the world out.  I can put my feet up and relax.  It is comforting, and I'd hate to lose it.  That doesn't mean I'll never move from here.  Far from it, I have some very definite ideas of where I'd like to live.  It's that I am not constantly aware that the next letter from the landlord could be the 'adios' letter.  This place is mine for as long as I want it.

Well, this has been a meander through the world of property possession, hasn't it.  I hope you followed it.