LA AMÍGDALA Y SUS FUNCIONES

In this section we examine the relationship between employment status and housing outcomes using the indicators outlined in Section 7.1.

Affordability

There are large variations in the proportions of individuals living in households where gross housing costs exceed the affordability threshold of 40 per cent. Among working households and on the basis of gross housing expenditure the failure rate is lowest in Hungary, Sweden and Portugal where it is between five and 7.5 per cent; it is much higher at around 15 per cent in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (Figure 7.4).

The ‘failure’ rate is consistently higher among the short term workless and is, apart from in Portugal, more than twice as high as those in work. There is an especially high increase in the failure rate of more than 3.5 times in Sweden (Table BW5). There is a further rise in the failure rate among the long term workless in all countries other than the Netherlands. The failure rate among the long term workless remains lowest in Portugal at under 15 per cent (13.9%) and just over 20 per cent (21.0%) in Hungary.

Between 30 and 40 per cent of the long term workless fail the affordability threshold in Sweden (32.7%) and the Netherlands (37.4%), rising to almost half (47.5%) in Germany and more than 60 per cent (61.1%) in the UK.

Figure 7.4: Percentage exceeding 40% affordability threshold on (a) gross and (b) net housing expenditure

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

DE H NL PT SE UK

Percentage(gross)

IW OWS OWL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

DE H NL PT SE UK

Percentage(net)

IW OWS OWL

IW = in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Gross = left hand graph; net = right hand graph

Source: Tables BW5, BW6

Housing allowances make very little difference to the ‘failure’ rate among the working population – all percentage point reductions in the failure rate based on net expenditure compared to gross expenditure are smaller than 1.5 (Figure 7.5). However they do make a large impact on the failure rate of short term workless households in the Netherlands (where the failure rate falls by 12.1 pp) and the UK (where it falls by 10.4 pp). They also reduce the failure rate among the long term workless in the Netherlands (7.6 pp) and Sweden (12.3 pp), and especially in the UK where the failure rate halves (falling by 32.2 pp) (Figure 7.5).

Figure 7.5 Percentage point reductions in failure of 40% affordability threshold arising from housing allowance

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentagepoints

IW OWS OWL

IW = in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Source: Derived from Tables BW5, BW6

Nonetheless, the overall picture is that:

 the ‘order’ of failure rates remains broadly similar between countries: those with the lowest failure rates among those who are in work, also have the lowest failure rates among those who are out of work.

 in every country the failure rates are higher among the short term workless compared to the people who are employed; and (on the basis of net housing expenditure) the failure rate among the long term workless is higher than among the short term workless.

 housing allowances make little difference to the unaffordability rates for people in work in all of the countries, but in the Netherlands and the UK they do make substantial impacts on the failure rates of short term workless households; and in Sweden and the UK on the failure rate of long term workless.

Objective overcrowding

There are very large variations in objective overcrowding among the workless between countries (Figure 7.6). With exception of Hungary fewer than a quarter of workless people are overcrowded (on the objective measure), and in four countries fewer than one in ten is overcrowded. It is notable that the ‘order’ of overcrowding between countries remains largely unchanged whichever employment category is considered.

This suggests that the level of overcrowding in the country as a whole principally influences the situation regardless of employment status.

There are very low levels of objective overcrowding among the short and long term workless in the Netherlands, for example (1.5% and 1.6% respectively). Objective overcrowding rates among short and the long term workless are under 10 per cent in Germany and the UK, and just over 10 per cent in Portugal. In Sweden overcrowding exceeds 20 per cent while Hungary registers very high levels – in excess of 60 per cent.

Figure 7.6 Levels of objective overcrowding

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage

IW OWS OWL

IW = in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Source: Table CW1

The objective overcrowding rate is higher among the short term workless compared to those in work in four of the six countries. The increase (in percentage points) is negligible in the Netherlands), but more than 15 pp higher in Hungary and Sweden. The exceptions to this pattern are Portugal and the UK (Figure 7.5). The objective overcrowding rate is higher among the long term workless than among those who are in work in four of the six countries, the exceptions being Germany and Hungary. In one country only (Portugal) the objective overcrowding rate among the long term workless is lower than those in work. This evidence suggests that worklessness is generally but not necessarily associated with higher overcrowding rates, and the situation is generally but not always worse among the long term workless.

Subjective overcrowding

There are large variations in subjective overcrowding among the workless between countries (Figure 7.7), although these are more compressed compared to the objective overcrowding measure (Figure 7.6). Fewer than 30 per cent of people are overcrowded on this measure regardless of employment status in all of the countries and with the exceptions of the short term workless in Portugal and the long term workless in the UK fewer than one quarter are overcrowded.

It is notable that the ‘order’ of overcrowding between countries remains largely unchanged whichever employment category is considered, but with the exception of the long term workless in the UK and Portugal. In contrast to their objective overcrowding rate, the subjective overcrowding rate of the long term workless in the UK is the highest of any employment category in any of the six countries. Conversely the subjective overcrowding rate among the long term workless in Portugal is much lower than the general rate. Nonetheless, apart from these cases, the general picture it is that the level of overcrowding in the country as a whole principally influences the situation regardless of employment status.

Figure 7.7 Levels of subjective overcrowding

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage

IW OWS OWL

IW= in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Source: Table CW3

The subjective overcrowding rate is higher among the short term workless compared to those in work in five of the six countries, the exception being the Netherlands (where it falls by 1.9 pp). There is only a small increase in the UK (1.1 pp) while the increases in Germany (4.6 pp), Hungary (5.4 pp) and Sweden (4.1 pp) lie in the range 4-5.5 pp. The

subjective overcrowding rate among the long term workless is higher than among the short term workless in only two countries – Sweden and the UK. The increase in the UK is very large indeed (10.9 pp compared to the short term workless). In four of the six countries the subjective overcrowding rate is lower among the long term workless compared to the short term workless. The differences are small in Germany (1.5 pp) and Hungary (1.2 pp), but very large in Portugal (9.1 pp). In Netherlands and Portugal the subjective overcrowding rate is actually lower among the long term workless than those in work, and the differences are not trivial (being 4.8 pp in the Netherlands and 5.6 pp in Portugal).

On this indicator it remains generally the case that the housing outcome is worse for the short term workless compared to those in work, but it is not generally the case that the position of the long term workless is worse than the short term workless. Indeed it is sometimes better than among those who are in work.

Physical quality

In three of the countries fewer than half of people experience one or more physical defects with their dwelling, regardless of employment status (Figure 7.8), although in five the ‘failure’ rate among the working population is less than half. In the case of Portugal more than half of the entire population experience at least one defect. The

‘order’ of the ‘failure’ rate between countries remains very similar whichever employment status is examined.

The ‘failure’ rate is higher among the short term workless compared those living in working households in four of the six countries, the exceptions being the Netherlands (where there are 7.1 per cent fewer short term workless living in housing with at least one defect) and Sweden (where there is a small (0.8 pp) difference). Among the short term workless, the failure rate is around 10 pp (9.7 pp) higher in Germany and 20 pp (20.1 pp) in Hungary.

Figure 7.8 Percentage failing one or more indicators of physical quality

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage

IW OWS OWL

IW= in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Source: Derived from Table DW2

The failure rate among the long term workless is greater than among the short term workless in four of the six countries, the exceptions being Germany (where the difference is small) and Hungary (6.6 pp). The biggest increases in the failure rate among the long term workless compared to the short term workless are in Sweden (10.1 pp) and the UK (11.6 pp).

The failure rate among the long term workless is consistently higher than among those who live in working households. The difference is very small in the Netherlands (1.3 pp).

The differential is by far the highest in the UK where the differential is more than 20 percentage points (20.2 pp).

Neighbourhood quality

Most people, regardless of employment status (with the sole exception of the long term workless in the UK) do not report problems with neighbourhood quality (Figure 7.9).

However, there are large variations between countries within employment status categories, with, for example a quarter of people in work reporting one or more neighbourhood quality problems in Sweden, but 45 per cent (45.2%) doing so in the Netherlands. More than one-third of short term workless people live in households reporting neighbourhood quality problems in four countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK) and more than 40 per cent of the long term workless do so in the same four countries. The ‘order’ of failure rates is fairly consistent across employment status categories.

The failure rate among the short term workless is higher than among the working population in four of the countries (Germany, Hungary, Portugal and the UK), but always by less than five percentage points. There is no difference between the groups in Sweden, but the Netherlands reports a surprising and large (11.4 pp) lower failure rate among the short term workless compared to the working population.

Figure 7.9 Percentage failing one or more indicators of neighbourhood quality

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage

IW OWS OWL

I W= in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year

Source: Derived from Table EW1

In five of the six countries the failure rate among the long term workless is higher than among the short term workless, the exception being Portugal (where the failure rate is 2.5 pp lower among the long term workless). The largest increases are in the Netherlands (9.8 pp) and Sweden (9.9 pp) – the only two countries where there difference between the short term workless and the working population was either zero or negative. In all countries other than the Netherlands the failure rate among the long term workless is higher than among the working population.

Neighbourhood services

Most people in all countries other than Hungary do not report problems with access to neighbourhood services, regardless of employment status (Figure 7.10). There are nonetheless large differences in failure rates within employment status categories between countries. For example, the failure rate among those in work in Sweden is one-quarter (25.5%) but in Germany it approaches one-half (47.1%). Similar differences occur among the short term working population although the distribution is smaller among the long term workless. The ‘order’ of failure rates remains the very similar

between countries across employment status categories, although the UK performs worse among the workless categories and Sweden among the long term workless.

There is no pattern of higher failure rates among the short term workless compared to the in work population: in only two countries (Hungary and the UK) do the short term workless have a higher failure rate; in the other four countries the in work population have the higher failure rate. These differences are quite large – always more than five percentage points and in the case of Portugal more than ten (10.5 pp).

The pattern is more consistent when the failure rate among the long term workless is compared to the short term workless: the failure rate is higher among the long term workless in four of the five countries. The difference is small in Germany (0.8 pp) and the exception is Hungary. The greatest difference is in Sweden where the long term workless have a failure rate 20 pp (19.5 pp) higher than the short term workless.

Figure 7.10 Percentage failing one or more indicators of access to neighbourhood services

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage

IW OWS OWL

IW= in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Source: Derived from Table FW1

The failure rate among the long term workless is greater than among the working population in four of the six countries, the exceptions being Portugal (-1 pp) and Germany (-4.8 pp). The failure rates of the long term workless compared to the working population are greatest in Sweden (11.9 pp) and the UK (14.9 pp).

The overall pattern is less clear on this indicator. Only in the UK do the short term workless have a higher failure rate than the in work population and the long term

workless population have in turn a higher failure rate than the short term workless. The disadvantage of worklessness (compared to working) is apparent in the long term workless category in only four of the six countries.

Dissatisfaction

Dissatisfaction levels among people in work show great variations between countries, being under five per cent in the Netherlands and Sweden, more than 15 per cent in Germany and Portugal and more than one-third in Hungary (Figure 7.11). The general level of dissatisfaction among people who are workless reflects the general level in each country. In five countries there is a higher level of dissatisfaction among the short term workless than among those who are working, with an especially higher level among the short term workless in Hungary (9.9 pp).

Figure 7.11 Percentage dissatisfied with housing

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

DE H NL PT SE UK

Percentage

IW OWS OWL

IW= in work; OWS = out of work for less than one year; OWL out of work for more than one year Source: Table GW1

In five of the countries the level of dissatisfaction among the long term workless is greater than among the short term workless, although the difference varies and is greatest in Germany (9.1 pp). In every country the rate of dissatisfaction among the long term workless is higher than among those in work. The difference is over five percentage points in Portugal and Germany, approaching 10 pp (9.3 pp) in the UK and almost 15 pp (14.8 pp) in Hungary. The difference is negligible in the Netherlands (0.1 pp) where dissatisfaction rates are generally very low.

Summary

Between indicators the analysis shows that:

 Overall there is a strong relationship between employment status and housing outcomes.

 Across the eight indicators people who are out of work are almost always more likely to have poorer housing outcomes than people who are in work.

 The tendency for workless people’s housing outcomes to be inferior to in work housing outcomes is reflected among both short term workless and long term workless. However, the tendency is greater among long term workless.

 The relationship between employment status and housing outcomes is strongest in relation to affordability and dissatisfaction .

Between countries the analysis shows that:

 Workless people as a whole have a higher chance of poor housing outcomes across all eight indicators in Hungary, Sweden and the UK; on seven of the eight in Germany and six in the Netherlands and Portugal.

 The short term workless are more likely to have poorer housing outcomes on all indicators in Hungary, on seven in the UK and six in Germany, Portugal and Sweden.

 In the Netherlands the short term workless are more likely to have poorer housing outcomes than those in work on only four of the eight indicators, suggesting that that short term worklessness is less damaging than in the other countries.

 Long term worklessness is most likely to increase the chances of poorer housing outcomes compared to short term worklessness in Sweden and the UK where this applies across all eight indicators. It is least likely to lead to poorer housing outcomes in Hungary where the long term workless are less likely to have poorer outcomes than the short term workless on half of the indicators.

 Hungary, Sweden and the UK exhibit a tendency for long term workless people to have a greater chance of poorer housing outcomes than people in work on all eight indicators; in Germany this applies on seven.

 The weakest link between long term worklessness and poorer housing outcomes compared to the in work population occurs in Portugal, where the link applies to only five of the eight indicators.

7.4. The Housing Outcomes of the Working Poor and the Workless Poor In this section we examine the housing outcomes of the working poor and compare them to the workless poor.

Affordability

There are relatively small variations in the proportions of working poor and non working poor people with gross housing expenditure in excess of 40 per cent of net income in Hungary, Portugal and Sweden (Figure 7.12). Although very high proportions (60 per cent and more) of the working poor exceed the 40 per cent affordability threshold on gross expenditure in the Netherlands and the UK, much higher proportions of workless poor do so: three-quarters of short term workless poor and 80 per cent of long term workless in the UK, with respective figures of 85 per cent of short term poor workless and three-quarters of long term workless poor in the Netherlands. In Germany the proportions of short term poor workless exceeding the gross threshold are greater than the working poor, and the proportions of long term workless poor greater still (9.6 pp).

Figure 7.12 Percentage of poor exceeding 40% affordability threshold on (a) gross and (b) net housing expenditure (poor)

 Gross

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage IW

OWS OWL OW

(b) Net

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DE HU NL PT SE UK

Percentage(net)

IW OWS OWL OW

IW = in work poor; OWS = poor out of work for less than one year; OWL poor out of work for more than one year; all

IW = in work poor; OWS = poor out of work for less than one year; OWL poor out of work for more than one year; all

In document La inteligencia emocional en el Contact Center del banco Santander Serfin (página 48-53)