On 18/11/2017 13:03, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

[ ... ]

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.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True. But it is an area in England. There are many comparable
places.

None of them are the whole of England either.

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.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

It means I am suprised.

What? Even with all that research you have been doing into house prices?

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Just done a search - average prices in Lancashire is £163K, average
for a semi £156K.

Now tell us all why and how you are comparing like with unlike.

Not so much in the more desirable places like Haydock, Ormskirk or
Upholland, but they're still cheaper then you might think.

Not as cheap as you might think?

£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.

And the moral of this story is...

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

Not everyone has the choice to move to Lancashire.

Do you have to?

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

food might be more expensive on a one year timeline

on a 20 year time line it most definitely isn't (relatively speaking)

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

ITYF It's mostly through choice

tim

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.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
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 ?.

for the average user it's likely to be worth less in London than it is
elsewhere

single point to point tickets to the shops being much cheaper than similar
distance rural fares

of course if you are a bus spotter spending his day out on the road (because
you have nothing better to do) it has greater value, but not too many people
do that.

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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.

Many have private pensions too.

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

I get council tax discount as a single person. What heating discount are
you talking about?

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

Depends how much you make use of it. Morally, it would make sense to give
free travel to the unemployed, to make it easier to go looking for work.

in London, they do (or did anyway)

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

?????

The contributory rates are neither here nor there. It isthe means-tested
rates whichis where the action is.

A couple with three children get about £319 a week, plus housing costs
plus council tax paid, plus free prescriptions (if any) plus free school
meals.

Assuming housing costs and council tax to be about £600 a month in total
(no great amount these days), it comes to about £458 a week (£23816 a
year, which would be limited to £23,000 a year in London).

£23,000 a year net is the equivalent of something in excess of £29,000 a
year gross.

What were you saying? A "pittance"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

You really do need to compare like for like.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

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.

Nope, both are somewhere between those.

On 18/11/2017 17:24, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* 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?

nope

we just have to pay then less dole money...

....remembering that Newport and Cardiff are each only about an hour's
drive away.

Let us try to imagine how London would operate without the one-hour (or
more) commute.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 11:00, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx
writes

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.

Interesting statistics, and fairly depressing, too, for youngsters today.
Back then, the usual maximum mortgage was 2.5 times main salary, plus
once second salary. Then again, very few people would have been able to
borrow more than eighty % of valuation.

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.

Its far from clear that it has depressed wages given
the significant increase in the legal minimum wage.

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

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I'm not up-to-date with what's on offer, but I thought benefits for
those who are in theory able to work are only available if they can
show they are actively looking for work.

They do. They just go into the job centre and go through the motions of
looking for a job or make electronic enquiries about jobs that they
are impossibly unqualified to do, just to avoid 'sanctions'.

ITYF that it isn't that easy

tim

wrote
Rod Speed wrote

There will always be work they can do, like
staffing public dunnys or washing cars.

Public dunnys? They've mostly been closed,

Bull****.

and where they're still open will be run by
councils, who usually pay above minimum wage.

Irrelevant to whether its the sort of 'work' everyone can do.

Even you would be able to do it after 6 months of formal training.

Even at minimum wage it costs the *employer* much more
than that after insurances and pensions are taken into account.

Irrelevant to whether there will always be work like
that that even the dregs of the labor market can do.

On 18/11/2017 17:08, Dave Plowman (News) 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.

Really ?.

My work at a telecoms firm was outsourced to India in 2008 and
I managed ok on the money I had kept back in my Ltd Co during
the good years, for the next 4 years.

Since 2012 I have been getting a small NHS pension of £3,500
a year and I have made a point of trying to live on that and only
use capital on rare occasions. I managed quite easily, so
it can be done.

In late 1978 I saw an advert for trainee computer programmers
at Control Data Institute in Wells St London. I hated the
people I was working with at the time (NHS path lab) so I
resigned and left and started this 18 week course on Jan 2nd
1979. I got the equivalent of dole rate as financial support
and I think I got a travel warrant to get from Sussex to
Oxford St every day, but an annual season was only £400
in those days, a fraction of what it is now.

Mortgage rates had just shot up to about 10% at that time,
but I still managed, just, having bought my first house
in May of that year.

The course was easy (for me), I completed all the modules
ahead of time and then did the ICL plan assembler course
in the four remaining days which should have taken 2 weeks.

One of the original tests (IBM cobol) was a bit of code
with many lines missing. Apparently I was the first person
to work out what the missing code should have been. Lots
of perform paragraphs and goto's everywhere.

I had about 6 job offers at the end from local companies
but ended up at Redifon Computers in Crawley, where they
actually made their own data general novas. The whole lot,
in house. Somehow they had a license to manfacture a
look-alike made by DCC or someone.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:23:56 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

?????

The contributory rates are neither here nor there. It isthe means-tested
rates whichis where the action is.

A couple with three children get about £319 a week, plus housing costs
plus council tax paid, plus free prescriptions (if any) plus free school
meals.

Assuming housing costs and council tax to be about £600 a month in total
(no great amount these days), it comes to about £458 a week (£23816 a
year, which would be limited to £23,000 a year in London).

£23,000 a year net is the equivalent of something in excess of £29,000 a
year gross.

What were you saying? A "pittance"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

You really do need to compare like for like.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

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.

And neither is parsimonious when clearly some choose to spend the
whole of their lives on the unemployment benefit instead of working.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, 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?

Does that mean living at a higher living standard than our parents were
able to expect (still on money just handed out to you)?

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?

Yep, those who did that in the past survived by wearing more clothes.

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

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.

But you're a limp wristed lefty.

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,

No you don't.

washing machine,

No you don't, there are still laundrettes and stuff can still be washed by
hand.

fridge,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Its much easier to do
without one now with 24/7/365.25 shopping everywhere.

and a motor vehicle.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Dave the
sot manages fine without one and its much cheaper
to do without one now than it has ever been.

And, if you don't know why, I can explain it to you.

Pigs arse you can.

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

That's a lie with the cheapest food.

"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.

there is no chance of that

that would "punish" everybody who paid stamp duty when they bought their
current house

and they would not forget it next election time

It is not a change that can be made in a single step

and it would cost too much in multiple steps

This will help the FTB,

so change the rules just for FTBs

and claw back some of the massive over-valuation
that the UK housing stock has reached.

in theory CGT and IHT do that

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

an entirely different issue (with which I agree BTW)

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 17/11/2017 20:07, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 13:17:11 UTC, Yellow 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?

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

tim

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 11:36, Robin wrote:
Employees can bring a claim for unfair dismissal on grounds of
discrimination ( age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil
partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and
sexual orientation). And other things such as exercising their rights
not to work Sundays.

But if the worker is totally useless, the employer cannot easily
get rid of him (or her). This is why they like to use agencies.

If you discover that they are useless in the first week

don't be daft

If it takes you a year to discover that they are useless, then there are two
useless people in the company

the worker and you

(FTAOD I have worked at companies where it took managers over a year to find
out that specific staff were useless)

tim

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/11/2017 14:34, Andrew wrote:
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.

Australian-style restrictions on ownership of residential
property by non-doms and ltd co's would help too.
The whole of Chelsea and Kensington will be on the market the next day
then.

unfortunately, whatever rules are brought in they are unlikely to be
retrospective

tim

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
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 ?.

I did. In fact it was the second new car I had bought.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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,

Which is why you are so pig ignorant.

but I do find it hard to believe that
anywhere is really "inexpensive".

Then watch a couple of those shows and see how pig ignorant you are.

£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.

Thats a lie on the most.

"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.

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

"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.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
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.

A few do.

Everyone goes through a learning phase.

Sure.

Some learn faster (including from their mistakes) and some don't.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

Because they can almost always continue with the arrangements
that saw them survive fine thru school and the unemployment
benefit can be spent on anything they like.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

The single younger person can move back
with their parents if they have actually left.

Few OAPs can do that.

Surely that is reasonably like for like?

Nope, and nothing like it either.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

Doesn't have to be well paid, just paid enough so
it's a much better percentage of the repayments of the
pay. Or with more left over after paying the mortgage.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

Nope, that if they don't get off their lard arses and do that work,
they wont be handed benefits to sit around and not work.

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.

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).

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

But they are mostly free to keep living with
their parents, vastly cheaper. And there is
also the small matter of student loans which
mean that they dont have to pay for the
education or training until they are
employed and being paid reasonably well.

And travelling to interviews etc costs quite a bit too.

But most get **** all interviews, so the real
cost isnt high. And plenty get free travel
because they are unemployed anyway.

On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
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?

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

Didn't you have children?

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.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.

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. Only a limuited number of new-build properties
mostly high-rise apartments are available for purchase by
people not resident for tax in Oz. The Ozzy tax authorities
issue certificates for this. Once bought they are immediately
2nd hand and only a local person can presumably buy.

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

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.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

Pigs arse its many.

How do they get to the shops, job interviews
etc if there is no suitable public transport?

There always is suitable public transport.

It may not be as convenient as your own car,
but its always available for interviews etc.

The shops in spades.

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.

Nope.

You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have gone now.

Nope.

There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use them.

You dont have to have a washing machine to wash clothes
and there are plenty of discarded free ones anyway.

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.

So it isnt an important cost, specially as so many
have spare phones they no longer use and will
give you the phone if you ask them.

I did that with my Nokia N95 8GB, when an unemployed mate
of mine asked me for a loan of one. Perfectly viable phone.

I now have a spare iphone 5 I would do the same with if asked.

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.

Nope.

Check the stats.

They say nothing like that with the cheapest food, rice and noodles.

but accommodation clearly is.

Correct.

On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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 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.

Now that is what I call a capitalist approach to labour. Trouble is some
want to enshrine the supply of labour in protectionists schemes.

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.

Most employees I know if unhappy with the pay and conditions simply
move. If pay and conditions are the market norm, then it's best to stay
put and shut up.

Some companies went out of business through union action. Red Robbo
comes to mind.

On 18/11/2017 17:40, tim... wrote:
No it doesn't

It is a pretence by HMG that it does.

If you retire now and have never been contracted out
and have at least 35 years of full rate NI contribs
then you will get £155 a week. In fact you will get a
lot more than £155 because you will also have serps
entitlements and your benefits will be calculated
under the old and the new schemes and the higher
amount paid.

Only people who have been substantially contracted-out
will get somewhere between £119 and £155.

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 ?.

On 18/11/2017 15:11, 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 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.

All agreed.

The other point - often missed, deliberately or otherwise, is that "the
average person" does not buy "the average home".

The scales used to determine those averages are not calculated against
the same group of people.

On 18/11/2017 15:28, 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.


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...

....ah!

Mobile goal-post effect.

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.

True.

Just as it is in any sphere you can think of.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:59:08 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

a very shortsighted Union ! still lots of them about
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...row-continues/

The law needs changing. Go on strike, get fired, end of story.

You need a brain change, Birdbrain!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) pathological "mind"
revealed:
"I am actually considering crashing deliberately into one of my neighbours.
Three times he's stopped on the wrong side of the road, directly in front of
me, then reversed into his drive. I had to brake hard to avoid a head on
collision. Next time I'll glance at the camera to make sure it's rolling
and carry on."
Message-ID:

On 18/11/2017 14:27, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low.Â* The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else.Â* A quid a week, something like that.Â* 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.

The ETU (later EETPU - I was a member when that change happened) was
headed by Frank Chapple, who had moved from being a supporter of
communism to one of its leading opponents.

Does that explain the loathing of Chapple by people like Scanlon and
Jones, and the strong support for him from within his craft union?

On 18/11/2017 14:55, Mark wrote:

Yellow wrote:
Mark wrote:
Yellow wrote:

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.

Please explain how unemployment benefit and the NMW are "linked".

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.

Work is often neither easy nor pleasant. That's the point.

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

Actually, there are, though they won't be necessarily available to the
specific individual. You must have read somewhere that the economy is
not a zero sum game/gain (both versions exist and apparently mean the
same thing).