How household expenditure has changed over the years

[whole diary]

[grahame]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/bulletins/familyspendingintheuk/financialyearendingmarch2016

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/london-household-spending-outstrips-the-rest-of-the-uk/

[LiskeardRich]

Where do I get housing, fuel and power for £300 a month?

[Western Pathfinder]

I wish I only spent less than £20:00 A week on fags and booze I don't think the chart is quite correct.

[LiskeardRich]

I wish I only spent less than £20:00 A week on fags and booze I don't think the chart is quite correct.

For me that part is correct, no fags, and I'll grab some of the 3 for £5 ciders in the supermarket, maybe 1 a night.

But I agree some of it's just unrealistic, a look on right move in most areas £75 doesn't even get a room in a shared house/HMO!

[stuving]

I wish I only spent less than £20:00 A week on fags and booze I don't think the chart is quite correct.

Or else you aren't average enough.

[TaplowGreen]

I find servants are much more expensive these days, and I can't find a chimneysweep for love nor money.

[LiskeardRich]

I find servants are much more expensive these days, and I can't find a chimneysweep for love nor money.

I can recommend one in Cornwall! He goes by the name of Dirty Dirk!

[JayMac]

I find servants are much more expensive these days, and I can't find a chimneysweep for love nor money.

I can recommend one in Cornwall! He goes by the name of Dirty Dirk!

Van Dyke?

Ah... misread. Thought that said Dick.

[grahame]

Where do I get housing, fuel and power for £300 a month?

I wish I only spent less than £20:00 A week on fags and booze I don't think the chart is quite correct.

I suspect the decrease in average household size and the significant increase in retired households has a dramatic effect on the figures.  And as this is average household not average person, single person households which tend to be pensioners / paid off mortgage types will have a disproportionate effect if you're thinking you're looking at the figures for average people.

And I would be surprised if we spent more than £10 a week on fags and booze - so I fear we're bringing the side down.

Note the 2005/6 chart I captured was inflation adjusted

[stuving]

I suspect the decrease in average household size and the significant increase in retired households has a dramatic effect on the figures.  And as this is average household not average person, single person households which tend to be pensioners / paid off mortgage types will have a disproportionate effect if you're thinking you're looking at the figures for average people.

Over just ten years, it can hardly be dramatic.

I was going to say that squeezing more people into fewer houses must push up the average number of people per household, but you would need to check up on the definition of "household" to see if that holds. Round here there have been more houses split into flats, but also more with a lockable room per tenant plus the common areas - I think that will count as one household, but I'm not sure.

Though again, not a dramatic shift.

[grahame]

2011 - compared to 2001 ... from a census data release:

The number of households in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) on census day was 26.4 million.
There were 22.1 million households in England, 2.4 million households in Scotland, 1.3 million in Wales and 0.7 million in Northern Ireland.
The number of people living in households in the UK on census day was 62.1 million.
The average household size in the UK was 2.3 people per household, compared to 2.4 in 2001.
The number of people living in households in the UK increased by 7.5 per cent since 2001, whilst the number of households has increased by 8 per cent resulting in a decrease in average household size for the UK.
Two people households accounted for the largest number of households in the UK, at 9.0 million households (34 per cent of all households with usual residents).

Average household size decreased as the number of households grew faster than the population.   Hardly dramatic, I agree - but the figures are to 'only' one decimal place which makes them too granular to be useful - change could be anywhere from 0.01 up to 0.19 at an amplitude of 2.35 - so that's a swing anywhere up to 8%.

[grahame]

A further look at "households" - came across data for Carmarthen (North Ward) during other research and has shown what a high proportion are owner / occupiers and pensioners - almost certainly helping to cut down some of the household costs.   Mind you, that should also cut transport costs.    Attachment from 2011 census - http://www.carmarthenshire.gov.wales/media/588635/Wards.pdf

[stuving]

When looking at the housing costs figures, you need to consider what's been counted:

In this section we will look at the average weekly amount spent on housing and household goods and services. In order to provide a more complete view of housing costs, we do not use the classification of individual consumption by purpose (COICOP) definition of housing as some expenditure is excluded. The housing costs discussed in this section include:

    net rent (that is, the amount payable by a household after housing benefits have been deducted)

    mortgage payments

    repairs and maintenance

    home improvements

Note that council tax is excluded. However, other costs are dealt with on a cash-flow basis - ignoring what's interest or repayment, and excluding what's covered by benefits. (That's unusual - and quite different from the national Accounts methodology.)

Later it says that the average (nett) cost of rent just for tenants (36%) is £92.

So the average over all households is misleading. That's always the case with a bimodal distribution - two subpopulations with quite different averages. Often the average falls in a gap between the two peaks in the distribution (density) where there are hardly any members of either.

[stuving]

I guess it would be useful to know what a "household" is in this survey. A couple of links into the NSO heap of stuff lies:

The LCF is a voluntary sample survey of private households. The basic unit of the survey is the household. The LCF (in line with other government household surveys) uses the harmonised definition of a household: A household comprises 1 person living alone or a group of people (not necessarily related, living at the same address) who share cooking facilities AND share a living room or sitting room or dining area.

Members of a household are not necessarily related by blood or marriage; resident domestic servants are included as part of the household. The survey includes private households only. People living in hostels, hotels, boarding houses or institutions are excluded unless they form a private household within the institution (e.g. a warden living in a self-contained flat within a retirement home). Households are also included even if some or all members are not British subjects.

That will look familiar to anyone used to historical censuses, where you often see a family plus lodgers and servants as one household, while the aunt living at the same address is a separate household (presumably occupying one room). And, of course, 100 or more years ago what we now call overcrowding was pretty much the norm.

[LiskeardRich]

When looking at the housing costs figures, you need to consider what's been counted:

In this section we will look at the average weekly amount spent on housing and household goods and services. In order to provide a more complete view of housing costs, we do not use the classification of individual consumption by purpose (COICOP) definition of housing as some expenditure is excluded. The housing costs discussed in this section include:

    net rent (that is, the amount payable by a household after housing benefits have been deducted)

    mortgage payments

    repairs and maintenance

    home improvements

Note that council tax is excluded. However, other costs are dealt with on a cash-flow basis - ignoring what's interest or repayment, and excluding what's covered by benefits. (That's unusual - and quite different from the national Accounts methodology.)

Later it says that the average (nett) cost of rent just for tenants (36%) is £92.

So the average over all households is misleading. That's always the case with a bimodal distribution - two subpopulations with quite different averages. Often the average falls in a gap between the two peaks in the distribution (density) where there are hardly any members of either.

Any household working 24 hours or less on minimum wage with kids will be getting close to 100% rent paid by housing benefit, added to people with their mortgage paid off probably will see a good percentage paying zero for mortgage or rent which would now explain the figures being so low.