On 18/11/2017 21:51, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:36, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:21, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average
earnings are around the same.

And the moral of this story is...
...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close
to where well paid work is available? So much for the
North/South divide.

sigh
The discussion was about *average* property prices and an
assertion that everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by
increases in them.
The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much
more difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices
in the area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out
of proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years
later, to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit,
fees and initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand.
But that is not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

When and where?

I have already mentioned the approximate location (that's all I shall
do): a town in the South Lancs Plain.

Thanks, but when?

I said that as well!

Third quarter of 1977.

Price? £7,200 asked; building society valuation: £7,000.

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger
generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are
the same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior
to 2005 or earlier.

Maybe.

Given prices have doubled in real terms since 2000 hardly demonstrates
your empathy to the younger generation of today who can't afford a house.

House prices have not "doubled in real terms since 2000" in the area I
spoke of.

Properties which were then priced at about £6,000 to £7,000 can still be
found with asking prices of £45,000 to £50,000. That's over forty years
and does not represent any real terms increase. Flats (including recent
new builds) can be found even cheaper.

[Just to be super-clear: "Properties which were then priced at about
£6,000 to £7,000" means property so priced in 1977, not in 2000.]

In any case, who do you think *buys* these houses? People who cannot
raise a deposit and mortgage repayments?

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 18:54, Rod Speed wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 08:10, Graeme wrote:
In message ,
harry writes

My first house cost £400 in 1970.

Crikey. Where was that? My first house, 1975, was £10,250, Bristol.
I sold it for a modest profit two years later, and moved to Stoke
Poges, where I bought a maisonette for £12,500. Another two years
later (1979), I sold that for £25,000 which was a handsome profit.
Moving to Colchester, that bought me a three bed detached house.

I sold my last one for £400,000. (Downsized)

Downsizing is on our minds. Would certainly release some useful
capital.

I'm afraid that I'm hoping Spreadsheet Phil will carry out a one-off
change to stamp duty to make the seller pay and not the buyer.

This will help the FTB, and claw back some of the massive over-valuation
that the UK housing stock has reached.

Nope, it would make no difference.

Australian-style restrictions on ownership of residential
property by non-doms and ltd co's would help too.

There is no such restriction by ltd cos and there is
no restriction on non-doms buying new builds.

Yes there is.

No there isnt.

Only a limuited number of new-build properties mostly high-rise apartments

The majority of new build propertys
are not high rise apartments.

are available for purchase by
people not resident for tax in Oz.

It has nothing to do with tax.

The Ozzy tax authorities issue certificates for this.

No they dont.

Once bought they are immediately 2nd hand and only a local person can
presumably buy.

In fact hordes of non doms buy 2nd hand houses
anyway and there is no way to catch them doing that.

Our departed BCO who wrote superbeam, Greentram? bought one such property.
Your government was suing a Chinese buyer recently for breaking this rule.

They dont sue, they force them to sell the property and
they are free to buy a new build once they have sold it.

And there is no restriction what so ever
on ltd cos owning residential property.

And Sydney prices are just as insane as London prices anyway.

That's because the Chinese were paying insane prices for coal, iron ore
and other metals.

Nope, its because we have much a higher immigration
rate than you lot do and arent building enough new
houses for them to buy and occupy and we are also
seeing the same problem with all of us living at a
lower density per house than we used to do.

And they arent paying insane prices for coal,
iron or and other metals any longer either.

And property prices in WA, the main state the iron
ore an other metals come from, have slumped for
that reason, the layoffs in those industrys.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 18:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
There are some here who are in denial of the consequence of the double
whammy where immigration has increased demand and the price of housing
and at the same time an influx of workers has depressed wages.

Many here seem to think UK born should be forced to work for any wages
at
all. Since so much has been written about how good benefits are.

It's probably the best indicator of why we're leaving the EU.

If I thought it really would help the poorest in the land I'd be in
favour
of it too. But genuinely believe it will make things worse for them.

More fool you when they wont have to compete for jobs with
anyone in the EU who decides their prospects are better in Britain.

And they will again be able to buy the much cheaper food from NZ etc too
instead of propping up very inefficient french agriculture in the prices
they pay.

Does Dave actually work any more?

I don’t recall him saying whether he does explicitly, but I don’t read all
his ****.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 19:59, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum was so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

It's Remoaners like you who give remain a bad name, and even encourage the
likes of me who were sitting on the fence to vote Brexit.

You seem to think that the working class shouldn't have a vote? Perhaps
you're the sort to say that women shouldn't have had the vote too.

It's a good idea to consider the whole electorate, especially sectors most
likely to vote. Why do you think the bedroom tax wasn't extended to
precisely the group occupying larger than required properties. Or is this
kind of thought beyond your pay grade.

What the **** has any of that to do with your claim that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write ?

Its a lie.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:53:17 +0000
Andrew wrote:


Meanwhile down in Mythyr Tydfil there is an army of unemployed

Merthyr Tydfil, or Merthyr Tudful, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merthyr_Tydfil

Ta.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:41:25 +0000
"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Dan S. MacAbre
writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news




I don't have a TV licence, so I will have to forego the
pleasure, I'm afraid.


It's on C4

you're allowed to watch catch up without a license

tim


Interesting - I didn't know that.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme
(even if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever
(regardless whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.

Thanks. I'll try to remember that. The bits of TV I see at various
people's houses just tend to annoy me, though. I've completely lost
touch with it.

People who watch TV often, don't seem to realise quite how much they're
buying in to an unspoken reality. I agree with you, it's very easy to
lose touch with it and have difficulty relating to the underlying
"reality" of TV after an extended time away from it.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:40:46 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:38:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25
is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,


That £119 figure is incorrect.

The current pension starts at £155

No it doesn't

It does if you are paid up.


It is a pretence by HMG that it does.

Did they fool you?


(plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

not if they have savings

tim

On 18/11/2017 17:06, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

Err, all summer we have had endless strikes on Southern and
Thameslink because ASLEF had joined the RMT in a dispute that
was about 'safety'.

Lo and behold, by accepting the chance to earn up to £72,000
a year, the safety issue seems to have been quietly dumped.

In other words it was a dispute about money all along.

They're going to have a shock. Driverless trains and tubes are
going to be a much easier implemented reality than driverless
cars and HGV's.

Watch this space.

fingers crossed...

On 18/11/2017 19:09, pamela wrote:
On 17:29 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:11, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:47:13 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:56, pamela wrote:
On 13:26 17 Nov 2017, alan_m wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing
industry. Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it
took about 2 years before they started paying back - until
that point they are consuming more management/training
resources than they contribute back in work. So unless they
stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on the
company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the
graduates first by giving them completely menial tasks and
then at the end of the second year re-train then in the
inefficient corporate ways.

Sounds like joining a religious cult! Your old values are
wiped out and then new ones installed.

These days you may find that with certain ways of
recruitment to weed out the dross before employment,
sponsored formal training and giving work experience in
holiday periods before full time employment gets you well
motivated graduates that give productive output in a very
short time. Long gone are the days when an engineering
graduate will have (or want) the same job for life or even
possibly stay with their first company for more than a
couple of years.

Companies have partly brought that upon themselves by mass
firings of loyal workers who, rightly or worngly can no
longer rely onthe company rtaining them through thick and
thin.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will
give you an inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers
became managers who were then promoted to a level of
incompetence.

I've seen that too many times: promote someone out of the
way so they don't mess things up any more.

+1

Nothing has changed. Now they can also become elected
councillors or (Euro) MPs as well.

Or government ministers.


Or trades union leaders and live in rent-free apartments in the
barbican, or in council houses in London and pay £30 a week
rent from their £120,000 salaries.

I remember Arthur Scargill fought to keep his flat even after the
union decided it wanted it back.


You may want to have a close look at the financial affairs of the
current Labour Party Chairman. I'll give you a head start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Lavery#Controversies

On 18/11/2017 17:36, tim... wrote:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...


You will find that you can go to college for free if you are unemployed.

but as you are not "available for work" you won't get benefits

You do, at least in part, whilst in training.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

Err, all summer we have had endless strikes on Southern and
Thameslink because ASLEF had joined the RMT in a dispute that
was about 'safety'.

Lo and behold, by accepting the chance to earn up to £72,000
a year, the safety issue seems to have been quietly dumped.

In other words it was a dispute about money all along.

They're going to have a shock. Driverless trains and tubes are
going to be a much easier implemented reality than driverless
cars and HGV's.

Watch this space.

You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for the
unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at the idea
of people losing their jobs.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/11/2017 21:51, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:36, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:21, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average
earnings are around the same.

And the moral of this story is...
...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close
to where well paid work is available? So much for the
North/South divide.

sigh
The discussion was about *average* property prices and an
assertion that everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by
increases in them.
The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much
more difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices
in the area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out
of proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years
later, to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit,
fees and initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand.
But that is not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

When and where?

I have already mentioned the approximate location (that's all I shall
do): a town in the South Lancs Plain.

Thanks, but when?

I said that as well!

Third quarter of 1977.

Price? £7,200 asked; building society valuation: £7,000.

Thank you.

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger
generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are
the same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior
to 2005 or earlier.

Maybe.

Given prices have doubled in real terms since 2000 hardly demonstrates
your empathy to the younger generation of today who can't afford a house.

House prices have not "doubled in real terms since 2000" in the area I
spoke of.

I wasn't discussing your area. It is a national problem.

Properties which were then priced at about £6,000 to £7,000 can still be
found with asking prices of £45,000 to £50,000. That's over forty years
and does not represent any real terms increase. Flats (including recent
new builds) can be found even cheaper.

The average house price in Lancashire in 2016 was £156,000, so I'm left
wondering what is wrong with the area you live.
http://www.acadata.co.uk/LSL%20Acad%...ril%20 16.pdf

In any case, who do you think *buys* these houses? People who cannot
raise a deposit and mortgage repayments?

Without knowing more about the area I might suggest there has been an
historic employment issue or some hidden issue you're unwilling to
discuss, such as a nuclear installation.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?


No retired person lives on £119 a week. Pension credits make it up
to £8000 per year and then opens the doors to other juicy benefits.

Does that mean you're confirming the 57 quid a week the unemployed get is
too low?

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/11/2017 21:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 18:59, pamela wrote:
On 13:53Â* 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:


How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.


£7.50 is a lot more than the folks from Latvia, Poland and
other places can earn. This is the problem, their sheer weight
of numbers means that employers and parastitic agencies can
operate the sort of 'flexible' employment that employers could
only dream about 20 years ago. And they are happy to live 12 to
a house to save money.

Those migrant workers have to pay UK costs while living here.
Looking at what they would earn in their home countries is largely
irrelevant.

Meanwhile down in Mythyr Tydfil there is an army of unemployed
folk who have spent a whole generation on the dole, or more
likely 'disability' benefits and they cannot even be arsed to
get the bus or train down to Cardiff where there is plenty of
work. They don't even have to learn another language on the job
either.

Those same migrant workers provide a shining example of a good work
ethic for UK workshy to see.

Two employers I have spoken to some time ago, who have a significant
proportions of migrant workers, say that after 18 months to 2 years
they seem to acquire British work ethics.

Unfortunately the response of a UK
workshy person is to get resentful rather than to seek a way to
improve themselves to the point of getting a job.

Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****. And plenty of jobs dont need you to be able to do either
anyway.

No, but they tend to pay minimum wage.

One thing I was hoping to hear was how much the organisers of
Goodwood revival were paying the agency to supply those 18
£7.50 per hour staff ?. We didn't get to know that, but did get
a glimpse of the Mercedes emblem on the steering wheel of the
younger divorcee running the show. (The one who voted remain).

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.

You've not looked very hard. My parents house built in the '30s had no
form of heating in the bedrooms. Not even a power socket as built.

--
*IF YOU TRY TO FAIL, AND SUCCEED, WHICH HAVE YOU DONE?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Thing is lots of out of touch MPs etc say they could easily live on the
basic state unemployment benefit until they find a job, which would be
easy too. Until actually put to the test.

So what level of financial difference is "correct" during unemployment?

If the unemployed voted Tory in the same percentage as the elderly, it
would nearer the OAP.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/11/2017 00:14, pamela wrote:
On 22:17 18 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 19:59, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget
that 20-25% of the indigenous adult population are unable to
read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum was
so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

It's Remoaners like you who give remain a bad name, and even
encourage the likes of me who were sitting on the fence to vote
Brexit.

You seem to think that the working class shouldn't have a vote?
Perhaps you're the sort to say that women shouldn't have had
the vote too.

It's a good idea to consider the whole electorate, especially
sectors most likely to vote. Why do you think the bedroom tax
wasn't extended to precisely the group occupying larger than
required properties. Or is this kind of thought beyond your pay
grade.

What the **** has any of that to do with your claim that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write
?

It's a lie.

Google is your friend.......
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=literacy+in+uk

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...amed-worst-in-
developed-world-for-literacy-so-yes-school-reform-is-needed/

Thank you Pamela.

I was also thinking of this article:
https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

It's quite shocking and even sad, the perception by some of those around
them.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close to where
well paid work is available? So much for the North/South divide.

sigh

The discussion was about *average* property prices and an assertion that
everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by increases in them.

The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

The fact that houses are cheap in areas where there is little well paid
work to be had?

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/11/2017 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

Err, all summer we have had endless strikes on Southern and
Thameslink because ASLEF had joined the RMT in a dispute that
was about 'safety'.

Lo and behold, by accepting the chance to earn up to £72,000
a year, the safety issue seems to have been quietly dumped.

In other words it was a dispute about money all along.

They're going to have a shock. Driverless trains and tubes are
going to be a much easier implemented reality than driverless
cars and HGV's.

Watch this space.

You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for the
unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at the idea
of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.

It was one reason why Maggie Thatcher rose to power. A large section of
the electorate wanted Arthur Scargill to sport a blooded nose. She
kindly served that on a plate, the rest is history.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
It's rather odd really. Capitalist want a free market. But not when it
comes to those who are employed.

I might call myself a capitalist, and am happy for workers to strike, as
long as the company can fire the striking workers and hire alternative
labour.

Would that include immigrant labour - or would you exclude them?

We're told employment is at an all time high. You think it easy to sack an
entire workforce and replace them?

The best laugh I've had was when management decided to do 'our' jobs when
we were on strike. They gave up after breaking a few things.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Or trades union leaders and live in rent-free apartments in the
barbican, or in council houses in London and pay £30 a week
rent from their £120,000 salaries.

I'd suggest you actually find out the average council house rent in London.

It will almost certainly surprise you. But then true figures don't seem to
be your strong point. Presumably gleaned from the Mail.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:18:13 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough unfortunately,
and was wistfully thinking about them only the other day.

I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if not
more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased at any
price.

You can buy a pass that gives unlimited travel in London - similar to the
Freedom pass.

I am sure you can but as I do not live in London it would be a bit of a
waste of my cash. :-)

I have however just looked at the price of Stagecoach tickets and a 52
week ticket for "the south" that only covers the coast from Portsmouth
to Worthing, so not as far east as Brighton because at Shoreham it
changes to a different bus company, is £844.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 22:17 18 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 19:59, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget
that 20-25% of the indigenous adult population are unable to
read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum was
so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

It's Remoaners like you who give remain a bad name, and even
encourage the likes of me who were sitting on the fence to vote
Brexit.

You seem to think that the working class shouldn't have a vote?
Perhaps you're the sort to say that women shouldn't have had
the vote too.

It's a good idea to consider the whole electorate, especially
sectors most likely to vote. Why do you think the bedroom tax
wasn't extended to precisely the group occupying larger than
required properties. Or is this kind of thought beyond your pay
grade.

What the **** has any of that to do with your claim that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write
?

It's a lie.

Google is your friend.......
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=literacy+in+uk

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...orm-is-needed/

Usual mindless silly journalism.

They can ALL read and write well enough to use their
smartphones and facebook and twitter quite adequately
unless they are blind or are legally morons.

And that stupid article doesn’t even say what percentage of
the indigenous adult population arent able to read and write.

Its nothing even remotely like 20-25%

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under
25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live
on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?


No retired person lives on £119 a week. Pension credits make it up
to £8000 per year and then opens the doors to other juicy benefits.

Does that mean you're confirming the 57 quid
a week the unemployed get is too low?

Nope, because you arent expected to live on that for the rest of your life.

And plenty choose to do that anyway.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 21:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 18:59, pamela wrote:
On 13:53 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:


How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.


£7.50 is a lot more than the folks from Latvia, Poland and
other places can earn. This is the problem, their sheer weight
of numbers means that employers and parastitic agencies can
operate the sort of 'flexible' employment that employers could
only dream about 20 years ago. And they are happy to live 12 to
a house to save money.

Those migrant workers have to pay UK costs while living here.
Looking at what they would earn in their home countries is largely
irrelevant.

Meanwhile down in Mythyr Tydfil there is an army of unemployed
folk who have spent a whole generation on the dole, or more
likely 'disability' benefits and they cannot even be arsed to
get the bus or train down to Cardiff where there is plenty of
work. They don't even have to learn another language on the job
either.

Those same migrant workers provide a shining example of a good work
ethic for UK workshy to see.

Two employers I have spoken to some time ago, who have a significant
proportions of migrant workers, say that after 18 months to 2 years they
seem to acquire British work ethics.

Unfortunately the response of a UK
workshy person is to get resentful rather than to seek a way to
improve themselves to the point of getting a job.

Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****. And plenty of jobs dont need you to be able to do either
anyway.

No, but they tend to pay minimum wage.

Sure, but the reason its the legal minimum is because
it is possible to 'live' on that. And quite decently too.

One thing I was hoping to hear was how much the organisers of
Goodwood revival were paying the agency to supply those 18
£7.50 per hour staff ?. We didn't get to know that, but did get
a glimpse of the Mercedes emblem on the steering wheel of the
younger divorcee running the show. (The one who voted remain).

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:42:10 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:13, Yellow wrote:

Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119

Not since April 2016. Much more now, and many people have Serps
entitlements too.

Plus free bus travel, heating and council tax discount for those
with less than ~£16,000 in savings.

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough unfortunately,
and was wistfully thinking about them only the other day.

I have one! :-)

Make the most of it!


I left off applying for a few years after qualifying, reasoning that it
was of limited use (since it can't be used before 09:30), but when I
realised that it can be used before that time in London, it became an
obvious thing to do, because I sometimes have to work for the day in
Central London, some way from the relevant railway terminal.

I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if not
more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased at any
price.

Steady on.

Unless you live in London, it only covers you for the buses.

I do not live in London and was not aware it covered more than buses
there.

I would simply love to be able to use buses to travel around my entire
area without the hassle of tickets that only take you so far. Just to be
able to get on a bus, get off and get on to another one without having
to pre-plan. Bliss.

I have loads of friends who are old enough to qualify and they buzz
about all over the place and think nothing of going to towns miles away
just to have lunch and a walk round.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.

You've not looked very hard. My parents house built in the '30s had no
form of heating in the bedrooms. Not even a power socket as built.

Sure, but even you should have noticed that they weren't the only
rooms in the house and in those days most had enough of a clue
to be in bed in the cold weather most of the time they were in the
bedroom and in other rooms that had heating if they were cold.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:46:46 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
We are discussing both. The minimum wage and unemployment benefits
are linked and cannot be considered in isolation. Obviously there
should be incentives to work, but that means work should pay well, not
that benefits should be squeezed so that people cannot manage.

But the notion that cutting benefits will force everyone into taking a job
is standard Tory mantra. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who it
hurts.

And a standard socialist mantra is that giving people benefits will win
them votes. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who it hurts.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 00:14, pamela wrote:
On 22:17 18 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 18/11/2017 19:59, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget
that 20-25% of the indigenous adult population are unable to
read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum was
so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

It's Remoaners like you who give remain a bad name, and even
encourage the likes of me who were sitting on the fence to vote
Brexit.

You seem to think that the working class shouldn't have a vote?
Perhaps you're the sort to say that women shouldn't have had
the vote too.

It's a good idea to consider the whole electorate, especially
sectors most likely to vote. Why do you think the bedroom tax
wasn't extended to precisely the group occupying larger than
required properties. Or is this kind of thought beyond your pay
grade.

What the **** has any of that to do with your claim that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write
?

It's a lie.

Google is your friend.......
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=literacy+in+uk

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...amed-worst-in-
developed-world-for-literacy-so-yes-school-reform-is-needed/

Thank you Pamela.

Nothing to thank her for, it doesnt even comment on the group
you were talking about.

I was also thinking of this article:
https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

That says absolutely NOTHING about what percentage
of native adults in Britain are unable to read and write.

You have no idea how many of those it claims would be
unable to read a bus timetable can't do that because they
dont have adequate english to do that.

And there are hordes of jobs for those who struggle to
read a bus timetable anyway, like cleaning and wiping
little kids arses etc etc etc.

It's quite shocking and even sad, the perception by some of those around
them.

Whets even sadder is fools like you that can't even manage
to grasp that that particular article says NOTHING about
what percentage of native adults in Britain can't read or write.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close to
where
well paid work is available? So much for the North/South divide.

sigh

The discussion was about *average* property prices and an assertion that
everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by increases in them.

The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

The fact that houses are cheap in areas where there is little well paid
work to be had?

Doesn't have to be well paid, just pays well enough to be able to buy those
houses.

And who said everyone who works must be able to buy the house they live in
anyway ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more
than the basic unemployment benefit unless other
family members are working,

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:58:25 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish. Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect. As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them?

You're lucky

I have my own washing machine (which I got for free as it happens) but
clearly there is a market for launderette on the south coast. Make of
that what you will. :-)


I don't think there's a single launderette in my town and certainly not one
within walking distance

OK I checked on Google, and I am right, there isn't one

the nearest one is 7 miles away in the next town which I refer to as
Chavsville

FTAOD I am not suggesting that every town with a launderette is excessively
chavvy, it just happens that this place is.

The next nearest is 9 miles in the other direction which is the local
university town (and everything but chavvy)

Students and flats in general might both create a market for a local
launderette. Dunno.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:44:39 +1100, Rod Speed
wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25% of
the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****.

You are right - but the real numbers are still shocking, and 1 in 20
adults reportedly only have the reading age of a 5 year old.

How, unless they have learning difficulties of course, is that possible?


And plenty of jobs don?t need you to be able to do either
anyway.

One thing I was hoping to hear was how much the organisers of
Goodwood revival were paying the agency to supply those 18
£7.50 per hour staff ?. We didn't get to know that, but did get
a glimpse of the Mercedes emblem on the steering wheel of the
younger divorcee running the show. (The one who voted remain).

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:01:31 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
That £119 figure is incorrect.

The current pension starts at £155 (plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

It depends on lots of things. Some existing OAPs will be contracted out of
SERPS. Self employed can get a lower pension unless entitled to more for
various reason

I'm talking about the basic pension that all will be getting.

Which is now £155 (plus the inflation increases since it was
introduced).

The way SERPS is now handled is that you will either get the £155 or the
basic under the old system plus your SERPS entitlement, whichever is
more. My entitlement for example, although I am not old enough to
receive it yet, will be under the old system as that is greater than
£155.

And self employment is irrelevant, and I was self employed for many
years so know this for a fact, and it is simply based on the number of
years you paid your NI. If you are paid up, you will get the £155.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:28:00 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:11:15 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:34:28 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:21:58 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Where the logic here fails is the idea that someone on a median wage is
going to buy an an averagely priced house.

Or any (decent) house.

Yet I have one.

I suspect that you earn more than the average salary or had some kind
of additional finance then.

Then you suspect wrong. And how else do you imagine everyone manages to
afford homes around here? Oh yes, you think they are all "rich people"
buying up bungalows to leave empty for investment purposes.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:11:31 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:30, Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:55:23 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:32:29 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:47:10 +0000, Mark
wrote:

Not easy for most. I'm sure (almost) everyone wants a higher standard
of living but there aren't an unlimited amount of better paid jobs
available.

Always an "ah but" when this is discussed.

Benefits are too low - so get a job - but jobs do not pay enough - so
work more hours or train for a better job - but there aren't enough
better jobs....

Except there are. There is a skills shortage in lots of areas but people
have to start somewhere by getting off benefits and taking a job! And
from there you can progress. But if you stay unemployed and on benefits
you will never progress, never get a better paid job, ever.

My mate left the police last year after 30 years. Sat at home and lived
off his pension for 6 months and got more and more depressed.

Picked himself up, went to college for 6 months to train as a heating
engineer (as in Gas Safe), had plenty of job offers when he finished,
and now earns a very decent wage.

Good for him. :-) But I bet one or two will be along later to comment on
how "lucky" your friend is.


The proof that benefits are too high is that there are young and healthy
people who are perfectly comfortable living off them.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:45:11 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:11:31 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:30, Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:55:23 +0000, Mark
wrote:
But if you are in work and decide you want a higher standard of
living,
whatever your income, the answer is obviously to earn more.

Not easy for most. I'm sure (almost) everyone wants a higher standard
of living but there aren't an unlimited amount of better paid jobs
available.

Always an "ah but" when this is discussed.

Benefits are too low - so get a job - but jobs do not pay enough - so
work more hours or train for a better job - but there aren't enough
better jobs....

Except there are. There is a skills shortage in lots of areas but people
have to start somewhere by getting off benefits and taking a job! And
from there you can progress. But if you stay unemployed and on benefits
you will never progress, never get a better paid job, ever.

My mate left the police last year after 30 years. Sat at home and lived
off his pension for 6 months and got more and more depressed.

Picked himself up, went to college for 6 months to train as a heating
engineer (as in Gas Safe), had plenty of job offers when he finished,
and now earns a very decent wage.

Great, but I must assume he had a decent pension which enabled him to
go to college.

Here we go again with that "ah, but" line.

How, out of interest, do you think anyone below pension age and without
a "decent pension which enabled him to go to college" gets trained for
anything?

And if you are unemployed, training is generally a free option on the
table offered as an alternative to seeking work.


The proof that benefits are too high is that there are young and healthy
people who are perfectly comfortable living off them.

That's not proof. It's an assertion.

And that assertion is that there are jobs available, especially if you
have skills.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 00:33:45 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?


No retired person lives on £119 a week. Pension credits make it up
to £8000 per year and then opens the doors to other juicy benefits.

Does that mean you're confirming the 57 quid a week the unemployed get is
too low?

I am curious - why do you think the employed who are capable of work
should get benefits that are high enough to live on comfortably, in the
long term?

On 19/11/2017 00:33, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:51, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:36, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:21, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average
earnings are around the same.

And the moral of this story is...
...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close
to where well paid work is available? So much for the
North/South divide.

sigh
The discussion was about *average* property prices and an
assertion that everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by
increases in them.
The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much
more difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices
in the area where I bought my first property have *not* changed
out of proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty
years later, to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as
deposit, fees and initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe
ten grand. But that is not out of kilter with the real value of
£1500 back then.

When and where?

I have already mentioned the approximate location (that's all I
shall do): a town in the South Lancs Plain.

Thanks, but when?

I said that as well!

Third quarter of 1977.

Price? £7,200 asked; building society valuation: £7,000.

Thank you.

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger
generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are
the same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior
to 2005 or earlier.

Maybe.

Given prices have doubled in real terms since 2000 hardly
demonstrates your empathy to the younger generation of today who
can't afford a house.

House prices have not "doubled in real terms since 2000" in the area I
spoke of.

I wasn't discussing your area. It is a national problem.

Properties which were then priced at about £6,000 to £7,000 can still
be found with asking prices of £45,000 to £50,000. That's over forty
years and does not represent any real terms increase. Flats (including
recent new builds) can be found even cheaper.

The average house price in Lancashire in 2016 was £156,000, so I'm left
wondering what is wrong with the area you live.
http://www.acadata.co.uk/LSL%20Acad%...ril%20 16.pdf

Lived rather than live now (it was a long time ago, though prices are
still low).

Oh, if you want a detached 4-bed house, you can pay £450,000 like you
can anywhere else. But if you are satisfied with a terraced house,
£50,000 will do it (and there are others at £100,000+). There isn't a
line of professionals queuing up to outbid locals for Voictorian
terraces like in Surrey.

In any case, who do you think *buys* these houses? People who cannot
raise a deposit and mortgage repayments?

Without knowing more about the area I might suggest there has been an
historic employment issue or some hidden issue you're unwilling to
discuss, such as a nuclear installation.

There are no nuclear installations in south Lancashire. The nearest is
at Windscale, I shoud think. There is a large admin centre for the
former Atomic Energy Authority in Warrington, but that's just an office.

You can buy at that sort of price all over the north of England.