Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackgavigan | Hacker News Reader

There's no denying that London's an expensive city but there are plenty of options available for those on a budget: http://www.gumtree.com/flatshare-offered/london

View on HN

Or even get a tube/train map and not live in London. Plenty of people commute to work and seem to cope OK. Living in London is no more a right than owning a Rolls Royce.

Commuting doesn't actually save you any money in most cases. Transport costs eat most of those savings. The thing that commuting gets you is access to a nice area with nice family homes close to good schools.

The cheapest on the first page is £300/month - about 25% more than the £230/month mentioned in the article. The second cheapest is £360/month - almost 50% more. If you're trying to demonstrate that there are alternative cheap places to rent, I'd say you failed.

And all of those rentals will require at least a month's rent up front, which is the main point that the article was addressing - starting out renting is beyond the pocket of many people.

Filtering for <£60, there are still a few rooms in that site, some of which are "no deposit"; e.g. http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-short-term-...

I wouldn't enjoy living there, but it seems better than the boat.

"Found 43,415 Flatshare, Rooms to Rent ads in London"

Gumtree displays 55 ads per page. So, after looking through ~0.25% of the adverts, you concluded that there was nothing cheaper than £300/month? Wow, that's pretty thorough!

It took me less than five minutes to find a hostel-style roomshare for £7 per night (less than £220 per month).

I'd quite happily pay an extra £70 a month if only to get a flushing toilet and a room that doesn't drip water onto my head.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com