On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.

Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely fall.

When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater than my
income for a few months.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:22:17 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

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.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

I think you have probably put your finger on it - averages based on the
entire country distort the actual picture.

I for example would love to live in the nearby city but could only have
afforded a 2 bed flat for the money my 2 bed bungalow with off street
parking and garden cost me - so I moved out here.

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.

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.

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 17/11/2017 17:40, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes
On 17/11/2017 16:50, Graeme wrote:

Â*A quick Google suggests a loaf of bread was 9p (decimal) in 1970,
andÂ* 53p now.Â* I was earning roughly 650pa, including London
weighting, callÂ* that £13pw or 32.5p per hour.Â* One hour bought
almost four loaves.Â* Today, minimum wage of £7.50ph would buy
fourteen loaves.

You're being very disingenuous.

Sorry!Â* It was certainly not intentional.Â* I just Googled the price of a
loaf in 1970 and this popped up, from the Guardian :

'With the benefit of 34 years' hindsight, life in 1970 appears to have
been ludicrously cheap. A loaf of bread cost 9p and the average weekly
wage was around £32. Today, a loaf costs 53p'

I realise 1970 plus 34 is not 2017, but given that others mentioned 50p,
53p seemed close enough.


People lived on Beer, Cigarettes and Fish'n'chips wrapped in
Newspaper in those days. Posh people went to a Berni Inn or
an 'italian' restaurant.

But petrol, coal and the new-fangled north sea gas were dirt
cheap which made it easier. Butter and Meat from New Zealand was
far cheaper than now, so even 'poor' people never starved.

I well remember my grandmother drying clothes in winter on one of those
contraptions suspended from two pulleys from the ceiling near the
coal-fired boiler. And to provide more heat she placed a paraffin
stove (one of those round ones) directly under the washing.

The top floor of this 3-story house also had rubber-insulated wiring,
which caused some consternation when it was discovered in about 1972

On 17/11/2017 17:06, JNugent wrote:
And two loaves today at standard supermarket prices would cost about
£2.00 - £2.50..

I bought 6 loaves of Sainsburys basics wholemeal bread for
29p per loaf a couple of days ago.

Fine for toasting, and the local birdlife don't seem to
disapprove.

How much did a smartphone cost in 1972 ?.

How many people went to Uni in 1972 ?.

How many people under 21 bought new cars in 1972 ?.

On 17/11/2017 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* tim... wrote:
1) Benefits on offer to the "wont work" are far too generous if an
unemployed person can say "I wouldn't get out of bed for 7.50 an hour"
and/or "I rather spend the time at home with my girlfriend".Â* We
need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will
be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

waves

2s/1d...

£980 a year (1971, Wales NBTS, Junior Med Lab technician), and
house prices had just doubled locally, so a 3 bed detached house
now cost £12,000 when it would have been about £6,000 18 months
earlier.

On 17/11/2017 17:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/11/17 17:04, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* tim... wrote:
1) Benefits on offer to the "wont work" are far too generous if an
unemployed person can say "I wouldn't get out of bed for 7.50 an
hour"
and/or "I rather spend the time at home with my girlfriend".Â* We
need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer
they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will
be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

waves

2s/1d...

2s 6d here.

Living in a hostel

Hitch hiking to save train fares.



I did something like that for four years between 1980 and
1984 when I was working at the London Hospital Whitechapel.

The slow stopping train from Sussex took 85 minutes to get to London
Bridge at 08:25, and I speed-walked to Whitechapel to save money. Nice
walk across Tower Bridge though (*). Plus a 17 min walk to get from
home to my local station too.

(*) every tuesday there was a bloke employed by the local council
as a street sweeper, and I would see him pushing the cardboard and
detritus from a street market from one side of the pavement to the
other, with the bristles of the brush horizontal. Then on Thursday
he did exactly the same but moved the same detritus back to the other
side of the pavement where it was in the first place.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:33:46 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:22:17 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

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.

I for example earned around that average wage but my 2 bed home is worth
less than your £329,075. And I live in the south east.

Move to the nearby city and you would be lucky to get a flat for
£329,000 and even basic three bed houses go for half a million quid now,
but along the coast a bit where I am, your £329,000 could buy you three
or four beds and a garden.

And in London, £329,000 probably would not buy you anything at all.

Meanwhile, go to some of the northern cities and houses can go for
£50,000.



I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

It is interesting to watch Home Under The Hammer and some areas are
astonishingly inexpensive to live in - relatively speaking.


£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

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

Yet somehow, people can afford to pay.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:47:26 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.

Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely fall.

Unfortunately for the average is there are enough rich people to pay
the excessive costs, otherwise the prices would fall and ordinary
people would be able to afford to buy.

When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater than my
income for a few months.

A lot of us had exactly the same issues. I had to let out the spare
room in my first house in order to afford the rising mortgage
payments.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 17/11/2017 13:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one. If management
offer a pay rise to one group of workers that would normally be accepted
gratefully. Then the subject of differentials brought up at the next round
of pay talks.


Err, no. The 'them and us' union attitudes of the 70's not only existed
between groups of workers in the same company but between the unions
as well.

I recollect, the electricians union was run by a bloke that the others
(Scanlon, Jack Jones etc) utterly hated. I only had to contend with
Clive Jenkins running ASTMS in the 70's.

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

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

We are discussing unemployment benefits not the minimum wage, and the
solution there is to get a job - obviously.

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 sure what else it is you expect me to say.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:01:00 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:56 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

then (assuming an able bodied person) your expected life-style is
unrealistic

Ah - you mean the unrealistic lifestyle of eating food and having
somewhere to live.

That is just rhetoric and takes the discussion nowhere.

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

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:33:46 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:22:17 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

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.

I for example earned around that average wage but my 2 bed home is worth
less than your £329,075. And I live in the south east.

Move to the nearby city and you would be lucky to get a flat for
£329,000 and even basic three bed houses go for half a million quid now,
but along the coast a bit where I am, your £329,000 could buy you three
or four beds and a garden.

Not in many areas. Around here the cities, towns and countryside
alike are horrendously expensive.

And in London, £329,000 probably would not buy you anything at all.

Probably, and not just in London.

Meanwhile, go to some of the northern cities and houses can go for
£50,000.

Could you really get a reasonable house for this? But it's irrelevant
for those who need to live elsewhere.


I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

It is interesting to watch Home Under The Hammer and some areas are
astonishingly inexpensive to live in - relatively speaking.

I don't watch such shows, but I do find it hard to believe that
anywhere is really "inexpensive".


£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

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

Yet somehow, people can afford to pay.

*Some* people. Most cannot.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 18/11/2017 08:10, Graeme wrote:
In message ,
harry writes

My first house cost £400 in 1970.

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

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

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.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

On 18/11/2017 05:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message


Computer programming sounds like a breeze.

Not like real work and short hours.* Great!

It is if you are any good at it.

Not great if you don’t have a clue about what you are doing tho.

No-one has a clue when they leave school. Everyone goes through
a learning phase. Some learn faster (including from their mistakes)
and some don't.

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?

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

On 17/11/2017 17:15, 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'.

According to Kaspersky, today I am in Mexico, so you can do all of
the above and no-one will catch you.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:34:39 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 08:10, Graeme wrote:
In message ,
harry writes

My first house cost £400 in 1970.

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

That would be a step in the right direction.

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

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

Agreed.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 17/11/2017 20:07, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 13:17:11 UTC, YellowÂ* wrote:
Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.
First, how are these people living now?

They don't get out of bed in the mornings, and in the afternoons they
drink value lager and watch Jeremy Kyle.

they still have rent to pay or do they sleep under a bridge?

tim




Housing benefit pays the rent.

In article ,
JNugent 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.

Indeed. I have said many times that single people get a raw deal from
means tested benefits compared to those with children.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

What was that about like for like?

Please explain how a single younger person needs half the money to live
than an OAP does? Surely that is reasonably like for like?

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

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

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? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Phones are darn handy and would hate to be without mine so will bend on
that one, but that does not mean you have to have the latest IPhone
costing hundreds of pounds and an expensive contract. My phone is
unbranded and came from Amazon for under £60 and is a lovely bit of kit
and I have a sim that costs me £7.50 a month.


Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I am not so sure that food is more expensive on average, but
accommodation clearly is.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
The difference between a pensioner and an unemployed worker is that the
pensioner's position can confidently be expected to last for the rest of
their life (winning the Lottery excepted). It is as good as it is ever
going to get (save for that Lottery).

Plenty OAPs work too. Perhaps part time. And not always through choice.

Unemployed workers are in a different position: they can improve their
economic position by getting a job, or working harder, or getting a
better job. Their current position is not "as good as it gets".

Not quite sure how that matters when it's a question of providing someone
with enough money to live on. Unless you really do believe there are vast
numbers who choose to be truly unemployed. As opposed to those who claim
benefit while working for cash, etc.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

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

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.

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

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

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

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

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

We are discussing unemployment benefits not the minimum wage, and the
solution there is to get a job - obviously.

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 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.


--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:23:33 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:47:26 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary
in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely fall.

Unfortunately for the average is there are enough rich people to pay
the excessive costs, otherwise the prices would fall and ordinary
people would be able to afford to buy.

What is a "rich person" in your opinion?

I ask because if all these rich people are snapping up all the averagely
priced homes, then there must be a heck of a lot of them, so why does
that not make the average income a higher value?






When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater than my
income for a few months.

A lot of us had exactly the same issues. I had to let out the spare
room in my first house in order to afford the rising mortgage
payments.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

You are referring to buy-to-let?

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
£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.

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.

Are you implying that the minimum wage has to be increased by a large
amount to coax all those Mythyr Tydfil folks back to work? And change it
to a guaranteed minimum per week or month?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

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

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 ?.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:58:54 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:23:33 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:47:26 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary
in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely fall.

Unfortunately for the average is there are enough rich people to pay
the excessive costs, otherwise the prices would fall and ordinary
people would be able to afford to buy.

What is a "rich person" in your opinion?

That's a good question. Someone with considerably more money than the
average person. There is such a divide between people with lots of
money and people without.

I ask because if all these rich people are snapping up all the averagely
priced homes, then there must be a heck of a lot of them, so why does
that not make the average income a higher value?

Because companies can get away without giving generous pay rises. And
the average price for homes is rising. As I said before there are
"sufficent" numbers of wealthy people to push up the price of housing,
otherwise it wouldn't be happening.


When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater than my
income for a few months.

A lot of us had exactly the same issues. I had to let out the spare
room in my first house in order to afford the rising mortgage
payments.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

You are referring to buy-to-let?

That's part of it but people do buy houses purely as an investment and
do not let them out, but keep them empty.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one. If
management offer a pay rise to one group of workers that would
normally be accepted gratefully. Then the subject of differentials
brought up at the next round of pay talks.


Err, no. The 'them and us' union attitudes of the 70's not only existed
between groups of workers in the same company but between the unions as
well.

Of course unions are going to try and get the best deal for their members.
That's their job. What do you think it is?

It's rather odd really. Capitalist want a free market. But not when it
comes to those who are employed.

I recollect, the electricians union was run by a bloke that the others
(Scanlon, Jack Jones etc) utterly hated. I only had to contend with
Clive Jenkins running ASTMS in the 70's.

My union seemed to exist quite nicely alongside the ETU. The previous one
I belonged to had quite a few members who wished it was as radical as the
ETU.

The bid problem is that most get their views about a union via the meja.
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

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

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 for example earned around that average wage but my 2 bed home is worth
less than your £329,075. And I live in the south east.

Move to the nearby city and you would be lucky to get a flat for
£329,000 and even basic three bed houses go for half a million quid now,
but along the coast a bit where I am, your £329,000 could buy you three
or four beds and a garden.

Not in many areas. Around here the cities, towns and countryside
alike are horrendously expensive.

I live in a very expense - on average - area and yet I have a home. I
wish it was cheaper as it would mean I could afford nicer other things,
but I can afford to live here, never-the-less.

The proof being that I do. :-)

As does everyone else with average jobs. We cannot afford to live in the
city, but the prices along the coast do not seem to rise above what
people can borrow and afford to pay for.



And in London, £329,000 probably would not buy you anything at all.

Probably, and not just in London.

Meanwhile, go to some of the northern cities and houses can go for
£50,000.

Could you really get a reasonable house for this?

I expect a place that cheap would need work but so what? My home needs
work, you just do it over time as and when you can afford it.


But it's irrelevant for those who need to live elsewhere.

But it is relevant when examining what the phrase "an averagely prices
house" means. There are really cheap houses out there and there are
homes even in my town that go for a couple of million quid - and these
prices all go into the pot when we work out the "average".




I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

It is interesting to watch Home Under The Hammer and some areas are
astonishingly inexpensive to live in - relatively speaking.

I don't watch such shows, but I do find it hard to believe that
anywhere is really "inexpensive".

If you do "watch such shows" then it would explain that you are unaware
what can be purchased for what price and where.



£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

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

Yet somehow, people can afford to pay.

*Some* people. Most cannot.

Again - on my average wage, I have a home in the south east of England.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:44:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
JNugent 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.

Indeed. I have said many times that single people get a raw deal from
means tested benefits compared to those with children.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

What was that about like for like?

Please explain how a single younger person needs half the money to live
than an OAP does? Surely that is reasonably like for like?

Especially if they're trying to get better educated or trained in
order to get a job, not cheap. And travelling to interviews etc costs
quite a bit too.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

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

just how is half that generous for a younger person?

The young person's benefit is supposed to be a stop-gap, not a life
style choice, and if they cannot afford to live on their benefits then
they have the option of getting off their arse and working.

And I find it as depressing as hell that there are people out there that
think we should encourage young people not to work by paying them enough
in benefits so that they never need to.

That is not being kind or benevolent but as evil as **** and is taking
away any and all possibilities for improvement and a better life.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:46:10 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

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.

No it isn't.

Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect.

For many they are. How do they get to the shops, job interviews etc
if there is no suitable public transport? Or are you a Norman Tebbit
fan?

As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Wrong. You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have gone
now. There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use
them.

Phones are darn handy and would hate to be without mine so will bend on
that one, but that does not mean you have to have the latest IPhone
costing hundreds of pounds and an expensive contract.

I never claimed this.

My phone is
unbranded and came from Amazon for under £60 and is a lovely bit of kit
and I have a sim that costs me £7.50 a month.

I am on PAYG so have no automatic monthly costs, even cheaper.


Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I am not so sure that food is more expensive on average,

It is. Check the stats.

but
accommodation clearly is.

Correct.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 18/11/2017 00:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Yes - when starting out in your career.

people on long term benefits are starting out on their career whatever
their age

Very likely on benefits after their career ended - like in so many mining
towns, etc.


What about all those Blacksmiths, Carpenters, Wheelwrights and
Sellers of Lamp Oil that you will find on the 1911 census, who
lost their jobs when farmers bought tractors and installed
electricity ?.

Did stampers of Vinyl records feel aggrieved too when everyone
moved to CDs ?. Now the people who made CDs are out of work
because eveyone is streaming, or going back to Vinyl ?.

When Nissan started their factory in Sunderland they employed
precisely ZERO people with existing 'experience' of the
British Car making industry because they knew they would just
be tainting their virgin workforce with the appalling attitudes
and union-activities that were the norm at Longbridge, Browns lane
and Halewood.

There are thousands of longterm unemployed in Mythyr Tydfil who
found it a struggle to travel 30 miles down to Cardiff for work,
when a million east europeans, speaking no English came a 1000
miles and found lots of work. Some of them found work in Mythyr
Tydfil in the meat processing factory !.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:50:40 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
The difference between a pensioner and an unemployed worker is that the
pensioner's position can confidently be expected to last for the rest of
their life (winning the Lottery excepted). It is as good as it is ever
going to get (save for that Lottery).

Plenty OAPs work too. Perhaps part time. And not always through choice.

I doubt there are many in their 70s and older with a job.


Unemployed workers are in a different position: they can improve their
economic position by getting a job, or working harder, or getting a
better job. Their current position is not "as good as it gets".

Not quite sure how that matters when it's a question of providing someone
with enough money to live on. Unless you really do believe there are vast
numbers who choose to be truly unemployed. As opposed to those who claim
benefit while working for cash, etc.

You do understand that unemployment benefit is supposed to be a stop-
gap, to hold you over just until you get another job?

On 18/11/2017 10:29, tim... wrote:
ITYF that group have mostly aged out of the system

tim

So, after a lifetime on 'disability' benefits they now
have a full contribution record, just ready for the new
£155 /week flat pension (plus juicy extras) and a 'free'
NHS to treat their smoking-related and weight-related
diseases.

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.


I for example earned around that average wage but my 2 bed home is worth
less than your £329,075. And I live in the south east.

Move to the nearby city and you would be lucky to get a flat for
£329,000 and even basic three bed houses go for half a million quid now,
but along the coast a bit where I am, your £329,000 could buy you three
or four beds and a garden.

Not in many areas. Around here the cities, towns and countryside
alike are horrendously expensive.

I live in a very expense - on average - area and yet I have a home. I
wish it was cheaper as it would mean I could afford nicer other things,
but I can afford to live here, never-the-less.

Same here.

The proof being that I do. :-)

As does everyone else with average jobs. We cannot afford to live in the
city, but the prices along the coast do not seem to rise above what
people can borrow and afford to pay for.

That's great - but most people don't have this option. I assume you
have a long commute?

And in London, £329,000 probably would not buy you anything at all.

Probably, and not just in London.

Meanwhile, go to some of the northern cities and houses can go for
£50,000.

Could you really get a reasonable house for this?

I expect a place that cheap would need work but so what? My home needs
work, you just do it over time as and when you can afford it.

My house needs work too and we've been waiting a long time for it.


But it's irrelevant for those who need to live elsewhere.

But it is relevant when examining what the phrase "an averagely prices
house" means. There are really cheap houses out there and there are
homes even in my town that go for a couple of million quid - and these
prices all go into the pot when we work out the "average".

But have very little effect on the median house price.


I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

It is interesting to watch Home Under The Hammer and some areas are
astonishingly inexpensive to live in - relatively speaking.

I don't watch such shows, but I do find it hard to believe that
anywhere is really "inexpensive".

If you do "watch such shows" then it would explain that you are unaware
what can be purchased for what price and where.

I know what house prices are like in my area. Very few would know
house prices throughout the whole country, even an estate agent.

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

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

Yet somehow, people can afford to pay.

*Some* people. Most cannot.

Again - on my average wage, I have a home in the south east of England.

That's great. Many people are not so fortunate.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

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:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

We are discussing unemployment benefits not the minimum wage, and the
solution there is to get a job - obviously.

We are discussing both.

You might have been, but I was discussing unemployment benefits in the
posts you replied to. But whatever. :-)


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.

The problem we have, which I am sure you recognise, is that some
unemployed people would rather just take the benefits if the were enough
to live on comfortably in the longer term.

So it is a balance.

And I believe that is the goal of Universal Credit (if they can ever get
it right!) to improve the transition into work by letting people lose
their benefits at a slower rate.


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.

On 17/11/2017 13:04, Graeme wrote:
Fed the cat left over mashed potato and gravy.

We had two cats and one day there was some left-over broad beans
in a saucepan, and ginger scoffed the lot.