|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 15, 2024 11:29:12 GMT
It makes no odds, nobody, especially most of the younger people can buy the houses anyway. I don’t know why anyone thought they would be any different, MPs thinking only of themselves as usual… This If you take my area of mid norfolk if you were to build AFFORDABLE homes they’d have to be fifty / seventy thousand or even more cheaper than the current prices This isn’t going to happen young couples cannot afford to buy a house at current prices Speaking to my neighbour the other day they rent from a social housing group rent around £400 pound a month A identical house opposite has just been advertised to rent £900 pound a month private landlord This is where radical reform is required but what the solution is I don’t think anyone knows
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 15, 2024 11:35:06 GMT
I guess a lot depends on the younger population wanting to sustain the older population though. When you say “sustain” what does that incorporate? Health care, social care and enough people paying tax to fund the state pension. Younger people will help support older people because they help them through the job they do which gives them an income. The state pension is a social contract - we pay in and support pensioners during our working years knowing we will benefit when we retire. The current working generation could choose to rip up the contract but many would never be able to retire or end up in abject poverty. If we had a policy of reducing the birthrate we would either have to increase immigration to make up the shortfall or accept the older generation will have to put up with worse care and a lower pension. This is a challenge in many developed nations. Birthrate on poorer countries are high because more children die and parents expect to look after them in their old age. When countries develop infant mortality improves and care is taken up be the state and birth rates drop because raising children becomes financially unattractive. Some parents should take more responsibility but reducing birth rates really isn't something we need to do. What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 15, 2024 12:01:58 GMT
Health care, social care and enough people paying tax to fund the state pension. Younger people will help support older people because they help them through the job they do which gives them an income. The state pension is a social contract - we pay in and support pensioners during our working years knowing we will benefit when we retire. The current working generation could choose to rip up the contract but many would never be able to retire or end up in abject poverty. If we had a policy of reducing the birthrate we would either have to increase immigration to make up the shortfall or accept the older generation will have to put up with worse care and a lower pension. This is a challenge in many developed nations. Birthrate on poorer countries are high because more children die and parents expect to look after them in their old age. When countries develop infant mortality improves and care is taken up be the state and birth rates drop because raising children becomes financially unattractive. Some parents should take more responsibility but reducing birth rates really isn't something we need to do. What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax? True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 15, 2024 13:32:25 GMT
What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax? True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them. I’m sure she’s not the only one. These things are never as straight forward as people think when making grand statements. There’s always a lot of grey.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2024 13:42:45 GMT
I’m very curious/quite concerned about overpopulation myself. I think it will be the single biggest challenge of “Gen Z”. Education sounds like a better option that forced abortion! I hope that they’d stop at the former but I’d be surprised personally if some extreme measures were not taken eventually. I am absolutely against the government getting involved in families and forcing them to do stuff. Just seems a really dark path. Haven't we already worked it out? Economic growth, education, women's rights etc. Most countries that do that are no longer having too many babies. It just takes decades for population to then level off. The only way to make it go faster is to start killing people and I'm even more against the government doing that! The challenge with the population leveling off is that the economic prosperity of the country will then dwindle, which is why govts bring in more and more immigrants to help inflate it. At some point, (at least) one generation will be getting screwed. Personally, I do think that it will be the elderly first, I.e., cutting off expensive social care programs for the infirm. I can see life being very different in 20-30 years, with the push for AI and robotics coupling a general desire of people to want to work less.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 15, 2024 14:14:07 GMT
Health care, social care and enough people paying tax to fund the state pension. Younger people will help support older people because they help them through the job they do which gives them an income. The state pension is a social contract - we pay in and support pensioners during our working years knowing we will benefit when we retire. The current working generation could choose to rip up the contract but many would never be able to retire or end up in abject poverty. If we had a policy of reducing the birthrate we would either have to increase immigration to make up the shortfall or accept the older generation will have to put up with worse care and a lower pension. This is a challenge in many developed nations. Birthrate on poorer countries are high because more children die and parents expect to look after them in their old age. When countries develop infant mortality improves and care is taken up be the state and birth rates drop because raising children becomes financially unattractive. Some parents should take more responsibility but reducing birth rates really isn't something we need to do. What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax? That's a completely different issue and anyway if you decrease the birthrate and the percentage of those out of work is the same you have even fewer paying tax. Are you saying as well as denying people the right to have children you also want to force them to work? Without introducing a police state how are you going to do this? Your vision of the future sounds awful.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 15, 2024 14:25:43 GMT
What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax? True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them. In my generation it was a realistic expectation that you could get a mortgage and pay it off before you retire. For many in the current generation that is just a pipe dream. Is it any surprise they are opting out if a system that turns them into wage and mortgage slaves with no prospect of owning their own home and a comfortable retirement? The current generation need help, not vilificatuon by a generation that has done alright for itself. Homes need to become affordable again and then young people might have an incentive to re-engage. And if that means squeezing house prices for us old farts by a massive government funded building programme so be it. As others have pointed out unoccupied properties and land is another option - councils should be given greater powers to allow compulsory purchases and stop speculators sitting on empty homes and unused land.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 15, 2024 14:45:34 GMT
What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax? That's a completely different issue and anyway if you decrease the birthrate and the percentage of those out of work is the same you have even fewer paying tax. Are you saying as well as denying people the right to have children you also want to force them to work? Without introducing a police state how are you going to do this? Your vision of the future sounds awful. I think you’re going a bit extreme and over the top on my comments there but that’s not surprising and seems a common denominator of killing discussion with certain posters. (highlighting a comment, magnifying it and making it into something completely different). I’d say it’s just a case of me having traditional values namely That a child should be bought into the world with good loving parents who want to do all they can to give their child the best chance of a happy safe future regardless of money. Are you aware of the baby P case? What are your thoughts re the parents (if you can call them that) in that case? Should they have been monitored more closely prior to the birth of baby P? Should he have been taken into care immediately ? A deterrent and sending a clear message is a more natural way of saying to potential parents if you’re going to have a child you need to as a minimum love and care for them (not be rich). Do you think that’s a little draconian? In relation to working. Other than education for life what are the alternatives ? Are you not of the belief that people shouldn’t pay their way in life? In relation to my police state vision if everyone was to go with your idealistic view of a no work no safeguarding future how much better would the U.K. be ? One things for sure nothing would get done because everyone would want to get paid for doing nothing. Sounds wonderful but not sure it’s self sufficient. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 15, 2024 15:28:58 GMT
That's a completely different issue and anyway if you decrease the birthrate and the percentage of those out of work is the same you have even fewer paying tax. Are you saying as well as denying people the right to have children you also want to force them to work? Without introducing a police state how are you going to do this? Your vision of the future sounds awful. I think you’re going a bit extreme and over the top on my comments there but that’s not surprising and seems a common denominator of killing discussion with certain posters. (highlighting a comment, magnifying it and making it into something completely different). I’d say it’s just a case of me having traditional values namely That a child should be bought into the world with good loving parents who want to do all they can to give their child the best chance of a happy safe future regardless of money. Are you aware of the baby P case? What are your thoughts re the parents (if you can call them that) in that case? Should they have been monitored more closely prior to the birth of baby P? Should he have been taken into care immediately ? A deterrent and sending a clear message is a more natural way of saying to potential parents if you’re going to have a child you need to as a minimum love and care for them (not be rich). Do you think that’s a little draconian? In relation to working. Other than education for life what are the alternatives ? Are you not of the belief that people shouldn’t pay their way in life? In relation to my police state vision if everyone was to go with your idealistic view of a no work no safeguarding future how much better would the U.K. be ? One things for sure nothing would get done because everyone would want to get paid for doing nothing. Sounds wonderful but not sure it’s self sufficient. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I agree parents should take responsibility for their children and I agree people who are capable should pay their way in life. And the majority of people do. The thing is I don't perceive we have a massive problem and you think we have. We have a benefits system and there are some people who take the piss. It's called the freeloader problem and to my knowledge there isn't a perfect solution. You can get rid of benefits but that penalises those that genuinely need them - including children who happen to have freeloading parents. I don't think this generation of parents are any worse than previous generations. Some awful things went on in the past and some awful things happen now. I really don't think we ever lived through some golden age. I don't think what we are doing is too far off the mark and if anything the current benefits system should be improved especialy in terms of addressing child poverty - even if the parents are to some degree culpable for their poverty. It is you who isn't happy with the current situation but you haven't really explained how you are going to improve things. What policies would you like to see implemented to solve what you have identified as issues? The only reason I'm saying your vision of the future is awful is because the only practical solutions I can see seem far worse than what we have. Please put me right in terms of what can be done.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 15, 2024 17:16:44 GMT
True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them. In my generation it was a realistic expectation that you could get a mortgage and pay it off before you retire. For many in the current generation that is just a pipe dream. Is it any surprise they are opting out if a system that turns them into wage and mortgage slaves with no prospect of owning their own home and a comfortable retirement? The current generation need help, not vilificatuon by a generation that has done alright for itself. Homes need to become affordable again and then young people might have an incentive to re-engage. And if that means squeezing house prices for us old farts by a massive government funded building programme so be it. As others have pointed out unoccupied properties and land is another option - councils should be given greater powers to allow compulsory purchases and stop speculators sitting on empty homes and unused land. It's Stoke on Trent, if you can't get a degree, a decent job and then - living rent free off your mum and dad - see that you can probably get yourself on the property ladder easier than anywhere else, then you're not going to get anywhere. I don't know how old you are but I've cut my cloth accordingly and managed to do all that you mention, whilst paying off student loans etc, and I've still got 20 odd years to go to the point I might retire. It's all about priorities. Opting out after 3 months in the world of work isn't going to help you achieve anything. The generation you're talking about is the best informed there has ever been. It might just be the human condition but they seem to be making the same ignorant mistakes many before them have made, despite them believing in their superior intellect and morals.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 15, 2024 17:57:46 GMT
In my generation it was a realistic expectation that you could get a mortgage and pay it off before you retire. For many in the current generation that is just a pipe dream. Is it any surprise they are opting out if a system that turns them into wage and mortgage slaves with no prospect of owning their own home and a comfortable retirement? The current generation need help, not vilificatuon by a generation that has done alright for itself. Homes need to become affordable again and then young people might have an incentive to re-engage. And if that means squeezing house prices for us old farts by a massive government funded building programme so be it. As others have pointed out unoccupied properties and land is another option - councils should be given greater powers to allow compulsory purchases and stop speculators sitting on empty homes and unused land. It's Stoke on Trent, if you can't get a degree, a decent job and then - living rent free off your mum and dad - see that you can probably get yourself on the property ladder easier than anywhere else, then you're not going to get anywhere. I don't know how old you are but I've cut my cloth accordingly and managed to do all that you mention, whilst paying off student loans etc, and I've still got 20 odd years to go to the point I might retire. It's all about priorities. Opting out after 3 months in the world of work isn't going to help you achieve anything. The generation you're talking about is the best informed there has ever been. It might just be the human condition but they seem to be making the same ignorant mistakes many before them have made, despite them believing in their superior intellect and morals. Brilliant post and from someone that lives in the real world and not cloud cuckoo land
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 15, 2024 18:28:01 GMT
In my generation it was a realistic expectation that you could get a mortgage and pay it off before you retire. For many in the current generation that is just a pipe dream. Is it any surprise they are opting out if a system that turns them into wage and mortgage slaves with no prospect of owning their own home and a comfortable retirement? The current generation need help, not vilificatuon by a generation that has done alright for itself. Homes need to become affordable again and then young people might have an incentive to re-engage. And if that means squeezing house prices for us old farts by a massive government funded building programme so be it. As others have pointed out unoccupied properties and land is another option - councils should be given greater powers to allow compulsory purchases and stop speculators sitting on empty homes and unused land. It's Stoke on Trent, if you can't get a degree, a decent job and then - living rent free off your mum and dad - see that you can probably get yourself on the property ladder easier than anywhere else, then you're not going to get anywhere. I don't know how old you are but I've cut my cloth accordingly and managed to do all that you mention, whilst paying off student loans etc, and I've still got 20 odd years to go to the point I might retire. It's all about priorities. Opting out after 3 months in the world of work isn't going to help you achieve anything. The generation you're talking about is the best informed there has ever been. It might just be the human condition but they seem to be making the same ignorant mistakes many before them have made, despite them believing in their superior intellect and morals. I think a point that's also missed is there are still cheap houses about. Lots of them in fact. Now they might not be in the best areas and they might not be exactly what a first time buyer nowadays might be expecting. But there is a pathway onto the housing ladder. All you have to do is look on rightmove, all over the country there actually are lots of affordable houses that offer people the chance to join the game. And build from there. That said what I think a government worth its salt should do is breath more life into disadvantaged areas to make these areas more appealing to first time buyers to help stimulate the market. And then, as other posters point out, derelict houses start getting redeveloped and the snowball effect picks up pace. As for brown field land that people think is the solution to all our housing needs. Its not. Its a part of the solution definitely. However not all brownfield sites are viable without huge investment to aid the clean up of horrifically contaminated sites. And indeed some are so contaminated they can never actually meet the health and safety threshold for residential use. Commercial yes.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jul 16, 2024 7:06:05 GMT
In my generation it was a realistic expectation that you could get a mortgage and pay it off before you retire. For many in the current generation that is just a pipe dream. Is it any surprise they are opting out if a system that turns them into wage and mortgage slaves with no prospect of owning their own home and a comfortable retirement? The current generation need help, not vilificatuon by a generation that has done alright for itself. Homes need to become affordable again and then young people might have an incentive to re-engage. And if that means squeezing house prices for us old farts by a massive government funded building programme so be it. As others have pointed out unoccupied properties and land is another option - councils should be given greater powers to allow compulsory purchases and stop speculators sitting on empty homes and unused land. It's Stoke on Trent, if you can't get a degree, a decent job and then - living rent free off your mum and dad - see that you can probably get yourself on the property ladder easier than anywhere else, then you're not going to get anywhere. I don't know how old you are but I've cut my cloth accordingly and managed to do all that you mention, whilst paying off student loans etc, and I've still got 20 odd years to go to the point I might retire. It's all about priorities. Opting out after 3 months in the world of work isn't going to help you achieve anything. The generation you're talking about is the best informed there has ever been. It might just be the human condition but they seem to be making the same ignorant mistakes many before them have made, despite them believing in their superior intellect and morals. I don't disagree with much of what you say buy we must recognise that when it comes to the cost of housing Stoke is a anomaly compared to most of the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 16, 2024 7:58:22 GMT
It's Stoke on Trent, if you can't get a degree, a decent job and then - living rent free off your mum and dad - see that you can probably get yourself on the property ladder easier than anywhere else, then you're not going to get anywhere. I don't know how old you are but I've cut my cloth accordingly and managed to do all that you mention, whilst paying off student loans etc, and I've still got 20 odd years to go to the point I might retire. It's all about priorities. Opting out after 3 months in the world of work isn't going to help you achieve anything. The generation you're talking about is the best informed there has ever been. It might just be the human condition but they seem to be making the same ignorant mistakes many before them have made, despite them believing in their superior intellect and morals. I don't disagree with much of what you say buy we must recognise that when it comes to the cost of housing Stoke is a anomaly compared to most of the rest of the country. This is an interesting guide web-uks-prod-hometrack-frontend.azurewebsites.net/uk/insight/uk-house-price-index/I’d imagine that as a first time buyer your first property is going to be quite a lot below the average cost. I’d say that only the SE and nicer coastal towns would be a huge stretch from that list.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 16, 2024 8:13:18 GMT
It's Stoke on Trent, if you can't get a degree, a decent job and then - living rent free off your mum and dad - see that you can probably get yourself on the property ladder easier than anywhere else, then you're not going to get anywhere. I don't know how old you are but I've cut my cloth accordingly and managed to do all that you mention, whilst paying off student loans etc, and I've still got 20 odd years to go to the point I might retire. It's all about priorities. Opting out after 3 months in the world of work isn't going to help you achieve anything. The generation you're talking about is the best informed there has ever been. It might just be the human condition but they seem to be making the same ignorant mistakes many before them have made, despite them believing in their superior intellect and morals. I don't disagree with much of what you say buy we must recognise that when it comes to the cost of housing Stoke is a anomaly compared to most of the rest of the country. I don't disagree, but there's plenty out there if you look around. It's about getting a foot on the bottom rung, not leaping halfway up the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 16, 2024 8:39:27 GMT
What about if a large percentage of the young don’t pay tax? True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them. To be fair that lack of ambition is driven by the current climate and will only get worse with time. I think the fact this is the first generation which is going to have worse prospects than their parents says alot. If she was graduating in the 90s she wouldn't have a student loan tax (it pretty much is a tax due to the interest rate and most won't pay it off) and she'd be able to afford to put a deposit down after a few months saving. Nowadays many young people don't see the point. Earn more for what? To rent a house and pay someone else's mortgage? And with the way the NHS is and retirement slowly becoming something which the average person doesn't get... I don't blame her. Work less now, go and travel and enjoy yourself while your young and fit and healthy. It's no surprise immigration is on the up and birth rates are declining. There's nothing here for young people anymore to drive ambition.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2024 8:53:48 GMT
True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them. To be fair that lack of ambition is driven by the current climate and will only get worse with time. I think the fact this is the first generation which is going to have worse prospects than their parents says alot. If she was graduating in the 90s she wouldn't have a student loan tax (it pretty much is a tax due to the interest rate and most won't pay it off) and she'd be able to afford to put a deposit down after a few months saving. Nowadays many young people don't see the point. Earn more for what? To rent a house and pay someone else's mortgage? And with the way the NHS is and retirement slowly becoming something which the average person doesn't get... I don't blame her. Work less now, go and travel and enjoy yourself while your young and fit and healthy. It's no surprise immigration is on the up and birth rates are declining. There's nothing here for young people anymore to drive ambition. Fuck me Gawa, there is plenty in the UK to drive ambition. It’s one of the safest countries in the World and it has a hell of a lot less infrastructural problems than many others. I left because I was angry with Brexit. However, there was and still is plenty of opportunities for me to go back and do decent science (though opportunities for science in the US have always been better). People that can’t be arsed are shafting themselves later in life. That’s their decision. If they think that their opportunities are limited now, I wonder what falling further behind their peers will do to their chances of having a decent life?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 16, 2024 9:06:40 GMT
To be fair that lack of ambition is driven by the current climate and will only get worse with time. I think the fact this is the first generation which is going to have worse prospects than their parents says alot. If she was graduating in the 90s she wouldn't have a student loan tax (it pretty much is a tax due to the interest rate and most won't pay it off) and she'd be able to afford to put a deposit down after a few months saving. Nowadays many young people don't see the point. Earn more for what? To rent a house and pay someone else's mortgage? And with the way the NHS is and retirement slowly becoming something which the average person doesn't get... I don't blame her. Work less now, go and travel and enjoy yourself while your young and fit and healthy. It's no surprise immigration is on the up and birth rates are declining. There's nothing here for young people anymore to drive ambition. Fuck me Gawa, there is plenty in the UK to drive ambition. It’s one of the safest countries in the World and it has a hell of a lot less infrastructural problems than many others. I left because I was angry with Brexit. However, there was and still is plenty of opportunities for me to go back and do decent science (though opportunities for science in the US have always been better). People that can’t be arsed are shafting themselves later in life. That’s their decision. If they think that their opportunities are limited now, I wonder what falling further behind their peers will do to their chances of having a decent life? Bullshit mate. Put yourself in a postman's shoes living in London. You used to be able to raise a family and own a home doing that. Nowadays you can't. Now I know a hot shot lawyer can do much better. I know someone in IT like myself can do alot better too. But that's not everyone. The answer to a security guard or retail worker or postman to afford what past generations could isn't "retrain in a better job". Because we still need retail workers, security guards and postmen... so someone has to do those jobs. Should the retail worker in London just accept they're a glorified slave when 30 years ago they could raise a family and even afford a holiday on that salary? Do we just right off anyone earning below 30k as being lazy with no ambition? Or maybe people earning the minimum wage should also deserve the "luxury" of being able to afford kids, home, food and heating. Speak to young people who aren't in STEM fields and the lack of hope and ambition resonates quite widely with them. What's your reasoning for more people under 30 living at home, average first time age owner into the mid 30s and the average first time mother now also well into mid 30s. Just a collective laziness across a whole generation? Try to see things from other people's perspectives rather than through the lens of your own experiences.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 16, 2024 10:40:22 GMT
True story this one. Mar lady's niece graduated with a degree in Archaeology from York last year, got a job on the NHS and after being there all of 3 months decided to drop their hours to 20 hours a week because they don't like paying tax or their student loan repayments. All this whilst working for an organisation funded by tax payers, and when their dad has had cancer treatment for the past 10 years through the NHS. Been through about 3 departments already because nobody wants to work with they/them. To be fair that lack of ambition is driven by the current climate and will only get worse with time. I think the fact this is the first generation which is going to have worse prospects than their parents says alot. If she was graduating in the 90s she wouldn't have a student loan tax (it pretty much is a tax due to the interest rate and most won't pay it off) and she'd be able to afford to put a deposit down after a few months saving. Nowadays many young people don't see the point. Earn more for what? To rent a house and pay someone else's mortgage? And with the way the NHS is and retirement slowly becoming something which the average person doesn't get... I don't blame her. Work less now, go and travel and enjoy yourself while your young and fit and healthy. It's no surprise immigration is on the up and birth rates are declining. There's nothing here for young people anymore to drive ambition. That's fine, so long as they/them don't expect the workers to keep paying their share too. Their response when they were told their old man was terminal was 'when am I getting my money, and how much' 😳😬
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 16, 2024 11:01:46 GMT
Fuck me Gawa, there is plenty in the UK to drive ambition. It’s one of the safest countries in the World and it has a hell of a lot less infrastructural problems than many others. I left because I was angry with Brexit. However, there was and still is plenty of opportunities for me to go back and do decent science (though opportunities for science in the US have always been better). People that can’t be arsed are shafting themselves later in life. That’s their decision. If they think that their opportunities are limited now, I wonder what falling further behind their peers will do to their chances of having a decent life? Bullshit mate. Put yourself in a postman's shoes living in London. You used to be able to raise a family and own a home doing that. Nowadays you can't. Now I know a hot shot lawyer can do much better. I know someone in IT like myself can do alot better too. But that's not everyone. The answer to a security guard or retail worker or postman to afford what past generations could isn't "retrain in a better job". Because we still need retail workers, security guards and postmen... so someone has to do those jobs. Should the retail worker in London just accept they're a glorified slave when 30 years ago they could raise a family and even afford a holiday on that salary? Do we just right off anyone earning below 30k as being lazy with no ambition? Or maybe people earning the minimum wage should also deserve the "luxury" of being able to afford kids, home, food and heating. Speak to young people who aren't in STEM fields and the lack of hope and ambition resonates quite widely with them. What's your reasoning for more people under 30 living at home, average first time age owner into the mid 30s and the average first time mother now also well into mid 30s. Just a collective laziness across a whole generation? Try to see things from other people's perspectives rather than through the lens of your own experiences. I think you should wake up and smell the coffee, take your blind off and look at the real world. Firstly, how often do you post a letter these days? The old postal service is dying and going the way of grocers, coblers, rag and bone merchants etc. It's a thing of the past that will hold on, going through a slow death like so many other aspects of commerce. Answer: don't go into the postal profession, get a "future" job.. I spent a lifetime in and out of the coke making profession. When I was born every town of any reasonable size had a gas works producing towns gas and coke which was extensively used in public buildings like schools and hospitals as well as the steel industry. There were many hundreds of plants. Today there is not a single coke works in the UK, they have all gone. During my lifetime I have moved 6 times to get work; I'm sure there are many on this MB who have moved many more times than that. When I moved to Teesside, half the population were "incomers" to work in steel or chemicals or the businesses that serviced them. Millions moved during the industrial revolution, millions of Europeans have emigrated to the rest of the world (and still do), millions are now moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the world to Europe. Recently more people have moved from Australia to the UK than in the other way. The point is if you want a better life you have to be prepared to go and get it. You are very lucky if the work you want is going to come to you. Your concept of how society was is wrong. Home ownership is a relatively modern concept. In the 50s and 60s people lived in council housing or rented. Many lived with their parents. Central heating only started to come in in the 60s for the well off. When was this golden age you refer to? The strikes of the 1970s, the Thatcher years of the 80s? Things did improve during the Blair years, but the economy was running on a growing bubble of rapidly increasing debt which eventually burst in 2008, and we have been suffering from that since. Your prime concern is the poor which I respect, but ask yourself why are there more poor in the UK? Are we any different to Germany? Inequality has grown since the 1970s, why? Why has it got so much worse since Maasricht? Look at the UK balance of payments - the country has been getting relatively poorer for decades, particularly after Blair opened the floodgates to cheap labour, undercutting wages and displacing British and Irish citizens. So where are we today? UK unemployment and redundancies are at there lowest level since the 1970s and lower than most European countries. Wage growth is exceeding inflation again, which took a lot longer to recover after the post 2008 crash period because we now have a labour shortage, wage growth is higher than the European average, inflation is lower than the European average, job vacancies are at a very high level, investment is back to levels not seen since before 2000 - still far too low but improving. (All the above can be checked out on the Trading Economics site.) The main issue Starmer has to address is inequality and increasing the share of the poorest in society and investing in health, and other public services. That is not going to be done by taxation or borrowing, which destroy investment and drives people and business away. It has to be done by growing the economy, so there is more to go round for everyone. Then you can ensure the poor, sick, etc. get a better share. He has a flying start with the UK economy growing faster than any of the other G7 countries so far this year. www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2024/05/gdp-growth-first-quarter-2024-oecd.htmlThe ONS has corrected UK GDP growth for Q1 to 0.7% since this OECD report. It has since grown by a further 0.4% on provisional figures for April and May.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 16, 2024 12:43:01 GMT
Bullshit mate. Put yourself in a postman's shoes living in London. You used to be able to raise a family and own a home doing that. Nowadays you can't. Now I know a hot shot lawyer can do much better. I know someone in IT like myself can do alot better too. But that's not everyone. The answer to a security guard or retail worker or postman to afford what past generations could isn't "retrain in a better job". Because we still need retail workers, security guards and postmen... so someone has to do those jobs. Should the retail worker in London just accept they're a glorified slave when 30 years ago they could raise a family and even afford a holiday on that salary? Do we just right off anyone earning below 30k as being lazy with no ambition? Or maybe people earning the minimum wage should also deserve the "luxury" of being able to afford kids, home, food and heating. Speak to young people who aren't in STEM fields and the lack of hope and ambition resonates quite widely with them. What's your reasoning for more people under 30 living at home, average first time age owner into the mid 30s and the average first time mother now also well into mid 30s. Just a collective laziness across a whole generation? Try to see things from other people's perspectives rather than through the lens of your own experiences. I think you should wake up and smell the coffee, take your blind off and look at the real world. Firstly, how often do you post a letter these days? The old postal service is dying and going the way of grocers, coblers, rag and bone merchants etc. It's a thing of the past that will hold on, going through a slow death like so many other aspects of commerce. Answer: don't go into the postal profession, get a "future" job.. I spent a lifetime in and out of the coke making profession. When I was born every town of any reasonable size had a gas works producing towns gas and coke which was extensively used in public buildings like schools and hospitals as well as the steel industry. There were many hundreds of plants. Today there is not a single coke works in the UK, they have all gone. During my lifetime I have moved 6 times to get work; I'm sure there are many on this MB who have moved many more times than that. When I moved to Teesside, half the population were "incomers" to work in steel or chemicals or the businesses that serviced them. Millions moved during the industrial revolution, millions of Europeans have emigrated to the rest of the world (and still do), millions are now moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the world to Europe. Recently more people have moved from Australia to the UK than in the other way. The point is if you want a better life you have to be prepared to go and get it. You are very lucky if the work you want is going to come to you. Your concept of how society was is wrong. Home ownership is a relatively modern concept. In the 50s and 60s people lived in council housing or rented. Many lived with their parents. Central heating only started to come in in the 60s for the well off. When was this golden age you refer to? The strikes of the 1970s, the Thatcher years of the 80s? Things did improve during the Blair years, but the economy was running on a growing bubble of rapidly increasing debt which eventually burst in 2008, and we have been suffering from that since. Your prime concern is the poor which I respect, but ask yourself why are there more poor in the UK? Are we any different to Germany? Inequality has grown since the 1970s, why? Why has it got so much worse since Maasricht? Look at the UK balance of payments - the country has been getting relatively poorer for decades, particularly after Blair opened the floodgates to cheap labour, undercutting wages and displacing British and Irish citizens. So where are we today? UK unemployment and redundancies are at there lowest level since the 1970s and lower than most European countries. Wage growth is exceeding inflation again, which took a lot longer to recover after the post 2008 crash period because we now have a labour shortage, wage growth is higher than the European average, inflation is lower than the European average, job vacancies are at a very high level, investment is back to levels not seen since before 2000 - still far too low but improving. (All the above can be checked out on the Trading Economics site.) The main issue Starmer has to address is inequality and increasing the share of the poorest in society and investing in health, and other public services. That is not going to be done by taxation or borrowing, which destroy investment and drives people and business away. It has to be done by growing the economy, so there is more to go round for everyone. Then you can ensure the poor, sick, etc. get a better share. He has a flying start with the UK economy growing faster than any of the other G7 countries so far this year. www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2024/05/gdp-growth-first-quarter-2024-oecd.htmlThe ONS has corrected UK GDP growth for Q1 to 0.7% since this OECD report. It has since grown by a further 0.4% on provisional figures for April and May. Doesn't matter how often I post a letter does it? Postman was one random job. Replace that with receptionist, cleaner, production operative, labourer and many other roles which people do in London and cannot afford to live the same lifestyles they would have been able to 20 or 30 years ago. I honestly don't think it's anything to do with an unwillingness to move for work. I've personally had a job in 5 different cities before I was 30, and a number of my cousins have also worked in different cities too. For contrast only one of my uncles ever moved away for work. I Yes Mr Coke there it is. Council Housing. You can't draw parallels between the 50s/60s and now when you are bringing up council housing. What council housing? The council housing that Thatcher sold off through her policies? What new council housing is labour bringing in? None. They may bring in housing association houses but it's a stark difference from council housing off the past. The reason we are poorer is the same reason why we have more billionaires than ever before - inequality. Inequality can't just be ignored forever, a point will come where it needs to be addressed. It's something accelerating year on year so until we actually attempt to tackle it, it will only get worse. Anyone who ignores the sharp rise in inequality and somehow thinks we can just keep letting it grow and it will magically fix itself needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Your reasoning would maybe be a rationale explanation if you could explain how all this cheap labour undercutting wages has impacted the wealthiest in Britain but as you know - they've benefited hugely from it and many of them are reaping the awards from said inequality and exploitation. You think they want to fix it and tackle it when they're the very ones getting rich off the back of it? Come on now. Yes Mr Coke that is right. UK unemployment is at RECORD low levels and amongst the lowest in Europe. Thank You. So it's nothing to do with laziness at all. The older generations pulling out that card should know all about dossers as many of them lived through record levels of unemployment. But like you said it's now at record low levels, amongst the lowest in Europe. And what do we have to show? Record numbers of foodbanks , a property market owned by tycoons, a failing public healthcare system (albeit a thriving private healthcare system), a failing water/sewage system, one of the highest retirement ages and one of the worst state pensions. Because the whole country and most of it services, unlike our european neighbours, was put up for sale by successive governments to be run for.... yep you guessed it PROFIT. And who has benefited? The Thames water bosses - Yes certainly. And the rest of us? Starmer has never mentioned the word inequality in 4 years - he has no intentions of fixing it. When queried about the wealthiest in society he said they can't afford to pay more. Now if you truly believe inequality exists then there's an understanding that there are those at the top who have an unequal share and those at the bottom with an unequal share. You don't tackle inequality through growth, that's just neoliberalism trickle down economics which has led us to this point. You tackle it through redistribution of wealth. It's all carrot and horse at the end of the day. When the horse can no longer see a carrot, the horse will just stumble along. If we want growth then we need to incentivise and give people something to aim for and some ambition and hope. It's like playing a game with a child, they lose interest very quickly if they feel they can't compete. Respectfully you may believe that the fix is through growth and I respect that. But personally if we have 1 cake shared between 100 people and 10 of them own half the cake and wield most of the power. If we "grow" a second cake I doubt they're going to sit out because they already have half a cake between them. They'll be wanting their 50% of the new cake too. And when the plan is to use hedgefunds like blackrock to build Britain, well blackrock are an investment company not a charity. So just like the owners of Thames Water and the many other examples of failed privitisation - they'll be exploiting the people to guarantee their return on investment. It's like running a family household and giving your kids £20 pocket money for their chores but then telling them they owe £5 for water, £5 for housing, £5 for gas, £4 for electric and giving them a pound back. Essentials should never be privatised or run for profit but there's a shit ton of money which can be made from it. It's no surprise that Labour earned more in donations than all other political parties added together last election. Why? Some people are going to get very rich of Labour. That doesn't sound like tackling inequality to me.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 16, 2024 13:35:21 GMT
I think you should wake up and smell the coffee, take your blind off and look at the real world. Firstly, how often do you post a letter these days? The old postal service is dying and going the way of grocers, coblers, rag and bone merchants etc. It's a thing of the past that will hold on, going through a slow death like so many other aspects of commerce. Answer: don't go into the postal profession, get a "future" job.. I spent a lifetime in and out of the coke making profession. When I was born every town of any reasonable size had a gas works producing towns gas and coke which was extensively used in public buildings like schools and hospitals as well as the steel industry. There were many hundreds of plants. Today there is not a single coke works in the UK, they have all gone. During my lifetime I have moved 6 times to get work; I'm sure there are many on this MB who have moved many more times than that. When I moved to Teesside, half the population were "incomers" to work in steel or chemicals or the businesses that serviced them. Millions moved during the industrial revolution, millions of Europeans have emigrated to the rest of the world (and still do), millions are now moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the world to Europe. Recently more people have moved from Australia to the UK than in the other way. The point is if you want a better life you have to be prepared to go and get it. You are very lucky if the work you want is going to come to you. Your concept of how society was is wrong. Home ownership is a relatively modern concept. In the 50s and 60s people lived in council housing or rented. Many lived with their parents. Central heating only started to come in in the 60s for the well off. When was this golden age you refer to? The strikes of the 1970s, the Thatcher years of the 80s? Things did improve during the Blair years, but the economy was running on a growing bubble of rapidly increasing debt which eventually burst in 2008, and we have been suffering from that since. Your prime concern is the poor which I respect, but ask yourself why are there more poor in the UK? Are we any different to Germany? Inequality has grown since the 1970s, why? Why has it got so much worse since Maasricht? Look at the UK balance of payments - the country has been getting relatively poorer for decades, particularly after Blair opened the floodgates to cheap labour, undercutting wages and displacing British and Irish citizens. So where are we today? UK unemployment and redundancies are at there lowest level since the 1970s and lower than most European countries. Wage growth is exceeding inflation again, which took a lot longer to recover after the post 2008 crash period because we now have a labour shortage, wage growth is higher than the European average, inflation is lower than the European average, job vacancies are at a very high level, investment is back to levels not seen since before 2000 - still far too low but improving. (All the above can be checked out on the Trading Economics site.) The main issue Starmer has to address is inequality and increasing the share of the poorest in society and investing in health, and other public services. That is not going to be done by taxation or borrowing, which destroy investment and drives people and business away. It has to be done by growing the economy, so there is more to go round for everyone. Then you can ensure the poor, sick, etc. get a better share. He has a flying start with the UK economy growing faster than any of the other G7 countries so far this year. www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2024/05/gdp-growth-first-quarter-2024-oecd.htmlThe ONS has corrected UK GDP growth for Q1 to 0.7% since this OECD report. It has since grown by a further 0.4% on provisional figures for April and May. Doesn't matter how often I post a letter does it? Postman was one random job. Replace that with receptionist, cleaner, production operative, labourer and many other roles which people do in London and cannot afford to live the same lifestyles they would have been able to 20 or 30 years ago. I honestly don't think it's anything to do with an unwillingness to move for work. I've personally had a job in 5 different cities before I was 30, and a number of my cousins have also worked in different cities too. For contrast only one of my uncles ever moved away for work. I Yes Mr Coke there it is. Council Housing. You can't draw parallels between the 50s/60s and now when you are bringing up council housing. What council housing? The council housing that Thatcher sold off through her policies? What new council housing is labour bringing in? None. They may bring in housing association houses but it's a stark difference from council housing off the past. The reason we are poorer is the same reason why we have more billionaires than ever before - inequality. Inequality can't just be ignored forever, a point will come where it needs to be addressed. It's something accelerating year on year so until we actually attempt to tackle it, it will only get worse. Anyone who ignores the sharp rise in inequality and somehow thinks we can just keep letting it grow and it will magically fix itself needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Your reasoning would maybe be a rationale explanation if you could explain how all this cheap labour undercutting wages has impacted the wealthiest in Britain but as you know - they've benefited hugely from it and many of them are reaping the awards from said inequality and exploitation. You think they want to fix it and tackle it when they're the very ones getting rich off the back of it? Come on now. Yes Mr Coke that is right. UK unemployment is at RECORD low levels and amongst the lowest in Europe. Thank You. So it's nothing to do with laziness at all. The older generations pulling out that card should know all about dossers as many of them lived through record levels of unemployment. But like you said it's now at record low levels, amongst the lowest in Europe. And what do we have to show? Record numbers of foodbanks , a property market owned by tycoons, a failing public healthcare system (albeit a thriving private healthcare system), a failing water/sewage system, one of the highest retirement ages and one of the worst state pensions. Because the whole country and most of it services, unlike our european neighbours, was put up for sale by successive governments to be run for.... yep you guessed it PROFIT. And who has benefited? The Thames water bosses - Yes certainly. And the rest of us? Starmer has never mentioned the word inequality in 4 years - he has no intentions of fixing it. When queried about the wealthiest in society he said they can't afford to pay more. Now if you truly believe inequality exists then there's an understanding that there are those at the top who have an unequal share and those at the bottom with an unequal share. You don't tackle inequality through growth, that's just neoliberalism trickle down economics which has led us to this point. You tackle it through redistribution of wealth. It's all carrot and horse at the end of the day. When the horse can no longer see a carrot, the horse will just stumble along. If we want growth then we need to incentivise and give people something to aim for and some ambition and hope. It's like playing a game with a child, they lose interest very quickly if they feel they can't compete. Respectfully you may believe that the fix is through growth and I respect that. But personally if we have 1 cake shared between 100 people and 10 of them own half the cake and wield most of the power. If we "grow" a second cake I doubt they're going to sit out because they already have half a cake between them. They'll be wanting their 50% of the new cake too. And when the plan is to use hedgefunds like blackrock to build Britain, well blackrock are an investment company not a charity. So just like the owners of Thames Water and the many other examples of failed privitisation - they'll be exploiting the people to guarantee their return on investment. It's like running a family household and giving your kids £20 pocket money for their chores but then telling them they owe £5 for water, £5 for housing, £5 for gas, £4 for electric and giving them a pound back. Essentials should never be privatised or run for profit but there's a shit ton of money which can be made from it. It's no surprise that Labour earned more in donations than all other political parties added together last election. Why? Some people are going to get very rich of Labour. That doesn't sound like tackling inequality to me. I think you're making a lot of sense in pretty much all you say there. And I especially agree regards to Blackrock. A nefarious outfit most certainly. Particularly nefarious as they hide behind this veil of Environment sustainability Governance, ESG, when in reality they quite plainly have alterior motives. Last I heard they are buying up swathes of suburban American family housing and renting it out. Seems a strange rental market to be getting involved in of you ask me. The problem is this rise of the ultra wealthy and the billionaire class that seems to be becoming wealthy beyond any normal persons comprehension. There should be policies that are able to extract some of that wealth or at the very least impose requirements on them to invest that wealth into arenas that are for the collective good. My fear however is that any attempts to do this end up hitting some of those smaller business owners the hardest. Smaller business owners can be percieved to be rich but in reality have bust a gut for years and risked absolutely everything to try and make a bit more in life. Providing jobs and benefits to the economy along the way. But only to see someone come along and penalise them for it by taking a bigger chunk of it than they do already. I put myself in this bracket. I stepped away from a very decent salary 10 years ago. Sold assets, remortgaged the house and set up a business. I'm just now, after years of stress, tears and mumblings of what the fook have i done, starting to see some of the results of it all and the thought of getting dragged into some sort of assault on "the rich" i find concerning (I'm not rich but I'm doing orate and maybe if I'm lucky with another 5 or so years of stress i might do a bit better). This is i guess what people mean when they talk about destroying entrepreneurship. I mean why bother giving up a decent salary and cushy job taking on a whole load of stress if someone is going to take a massive chunk of the gain back from you because well you're rich aren't you. May as well stay a slave to the wage, stick to your 35 hour a week job and sleep soundly every night.
|
|