What's wrong with people.
Comments
-
Saving £200'000, over 12 years on minimum wage "easy" ?
When I was on minimum wage, doing 39 hours a week, once my living costs had come out, I was happy to see a tenner a week.
Even on the salary I'm on now, I don't see £200'000 being easy. It's doable if I had absolutely no living costs, and little/no social life. But then I wouldn't be living.0 -
It's quite interesting looking at the car park at work. The cars driven by the youngsters in customer services on low wages are significantly newer than the cars driven by older staff on vastly better salaries. Those who can afford them tend to not buy them, not sure what that really says unless it's learning from experience.
I've noticed that myself and think there's various reasons as to why this happens. There's an element of competition and an element of not knowing any better. With a bit more maturity people take a number of years to get that impressing people you don't like won't make you happy. However young lads chasing girls will strive to show their wealth though as its a primary indicator of success. In biological terms "investing" money in a flash car is probably a good investment for a young lad. Once married and settled down they'll have less disposable income, have learnt from their financial mistakes and will no longer be competing for women.0 -
...and that is the nub of it.
It is in effect a mating call/display.
Just like the animal world we watch wildlife program showing all the various strategies in displays - "peacock-ing"
So it is in humans, females are looking for nest and offspring providers and that means in today's world looking at male earnings potential.
100,000 years ago it would have been ability to provide food, safety and kill cave bear!
That these evolutionary adaptions work is proved by the fact that those that do not have them are destined not to mate and pass on their genes so the peacocks with the small tail dies out.
Showing such displays of apparent wealth by the male even if false or pointless in life (like the male peacock's tail) is going to get you a "better quality" of female.
Of course females do the same via makeup and false t*ts to attract males.
Those who refuse to 'play the game' usually end up living permanently on their own.
The main advantage of car ownership is the ability to go as and when you want in an instant and to visit places where without a car it would be next to impossible to access. Want to visit Avebury stone circle or the White Horse hill in Wiltshire without a car - no chance. Same for example the Museum of Army Flying in Middle Wallop Wilts. Equally the mountains and scenery of mid/north Wales - essentially inaccessible without a car.0 -
...and that is the nub of it.
It is in effect a mating call/display.
Just like the animal world we watch wildlife program showing all the various strategies in displays - "peacock-ing"
So it is in humans, females are looking for nest and offspring providers and that means in today's world looking at male earnings potential.
100,000 years ago it would have been ability to provide food, safety and kill cave bear!
That these evolutionary adaptions work is proved by the fact that those that do not have them are destined not to mate and pass on their genes so the peacocks with the small tail dies out.
Showing such displays of apparent wealth by the male even if false or pointless in life (like the male peacock's tail) is going to get you a "better quality" of female.
Of course females do the same via makeup and false t*ts to attract males.
Those who refuse to 'play the game' usually end up living permanently on their own.
The main advantage of car ownership is the ability to go as and when you want in an instant and to visit places where without a car it would be next to impossible to access. Want to visit Avebury stone circle or the White Horse hill in Wiltshire without a car - no chance. Same for example the Museum of Army Flying in Middle Wallop Wilts. Equally the mountains and scenery of mid/north Wales - essentially inaccessible without a car.
Two different things there. Mating and the other benefits of owning an car. On the second point, that can be covered without owning one*, it's just a matter of balancing the various costs and a lot of people are saying new technology will seriously change the balance towards non-ownership.
* many people don't actually "own" their cars now.0 -
Its' been so interesting reading this thread, props to the OP.
For me, it boils down to Human nature as to why some people are more financially 'savvy' than others. Another big factor is fitting in with the 'norm'.
I also think people want things instantly (without doing the saving bit) and society is fortunately/unfortunately (depending on your view) geared up to provide this.
A big one is your own life goals too.
:money:"Be Fearful when's others are Greedy and Greedy only when others are Fearful"0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »Thats what they have been doing for 30 years. I think it was Sir Geoffrey Howe who really developed the wheeze of reducing income tax and replacing it with stealth taxes (20% VAT... Insurance Premium Tax... Tax on building sand we dredge from the sea bed etc etc) Succesive governments have carried it on.
Its a sneaky way of increasing inequality whilst presenting it as something else. Every time they increase the income tax threshold by £1,000 they say its to reduce tax for the low paid. But of course the lowest paid weren't paying income tax anyway, but will be hammered by the stealth taxes the Government slips in to replace income tax. Even the guy sleeping in a cardboard box pays stealth taxes. Those earning a bit more will save £1,000 x the basic rate. But those who save the most are the highest paid saving £1,000 x ther highest rate. Yet the Government aided by the right wing press presents it as help for the low paid. Brilliant.
Well that's interesting, because the last time I mentioned Frank on a forum I was told that it's communism.
I think you need to read the book before you start arguing with it, because what Frank advocates has absolutely nothing to do with the Howe policies you describe. In fact he devotes a large part of the book to explaining what's wrong with them just as you have. Frank's policies will reduce inequality rather than increasing it, which is precisely his objective.0 -
Deep lifestyle priorities philosophical issue. What we live for and what brings one happiness and whether different ways of living bring higher or lower quality type happiness. Does happiness given by spending have an inherently lower quality than happiness brought by a walk out fund ...longleggedhair wrote: »Despite earning big money, why are some people in big debt and have no savings.
I think it's definitely a psychological thing. I had parents who were professionals & earned very good money, but never had any money, because while they are both intelligent people they are financially illiterate. Money was just wasted on needless things and quite often financial problems would crop up.
The experience as a child changed my whole mindset and as an adult I've saved & invested with every pay rise. Just added up my latest total and im around £200,000 after 12 years....and it really was very easy! I don't earn big money (just above minimum wage) I did have a small inheritance and have done well with my investments.
The key is not to chase the posh cars/clothes/phones. I absolutely love my life, I live it to the full but that money gives me so much security and happiness you wouldn't believe. I know that if I want I can walk out of work tomorrow I can, it gives you choices. And that security is worth far more than material things.
As others have said it's important to live life and enjoy it, we only come this way once, but what I don't understand is why most people haven't "seen the light" (time is precious, we don't have much so why spend most of our life at work to buy things that make us feel better about going to work, which then results in us having to be at work almost forever) I work with people who hate work, are desperate to leave but have no prospect of ever being able to become they are driving the posh car, the designer clothes etc
It seems so simple to me...but why have so few seen the light?The word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.0 -
How have you managed to save £200,000 in 12 years earning circa minimum wage?
Let's presume you've earned (the current MW) £7.50 over that period consistently and work 40 hours per week, that's still a PRE tax income of £187,200.
Something in this doesn't add up...0 -
Armchaireconomistlongleggedhair wrote: »The experience as a child changed my whole mindset and as an adult I've saved & invested with every pay rise. Just added up my latest total and im around £200,000 after 12 years....and it really was very easy! I don't earn big money (just above minimum wage) I did have a small inheritance and have done well with my investments.
"Be Fearful when's others are Greedy and Greedy only when others are Fearful"0 -
Anonymous101 wrote: »I've noticed that myself and think there's various reasons as to why this happens. There's an element of competition and an element of not knowing any better. With a bit more maturity people take a number of years to get that impressing people you don't like won't make you happy. However young lads chasing girls will strive to show their wealth though as its a primary indicator of success. In biological terms "investing" money in a flash car is probably a good investment for a young lad. Once married and settled down they'll have less disposable income, have learnt from their financial mistakes and will no longer be competing for women.
Yes, there are also other ways of competing for status too. When you are established in life, and your peers all know that you are a bank manager or a professor there is less need to be driving round in the latest BMW.
Status competition is a zero sum game: it's not how much you have, but whether you have more than the neighbour. The problem is that if the Jones' are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Jones', then society is locked into a competition to consume more and more when no amount of wealth will make them both happy at the same time.
We have passed the point when we have enough, so the only way to keep the economy growing is to waste. Robert Frank's vision is not to prevent status competition, but to restrict it, reducing the waste, and inequality between rich and poor, and to invest the wealth that is freed up on inconspicuous rather than conspicuous consumables.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards