GDP shrinks at fastest rate for 60 years

michaels

The economy is down 5.7% from peak which sounds pretty big - suppose each and every household has 5.7% less income and adjusted behaviour accordingly pro-rata as it were we are talking about 1 in 20 fewer car and train trips, 1 in 20 fewer people in the shops, 1 in 20 fewer customers for every business etc etc And so 1 in 20 employed people losing their jobs.

And yet it doesn't feel like that - why not? Retail sales up 2.4% on the year could be one reason - how can the maths work for that to happen?

The worst contracton for 3 generations - is anyone 'feeling it'?

Really2

carolt wrote: »

No, that had more to do with (a) infant mortality and (b) war - both of which rather skew the average figures.

I think that is average age of death for an adult in 1930.

carolt

From the excellent Telegraph article linked to above:

"British families spent more of their money on their homes last year than at any time in the past 50 years, with mortgage payments, rents and council taxes taking up £1 in every £5 spent.

The finding emerged from a study of the changing face of household spending since 1957, which also showed that the proportion of income spent on leisure had soared while for food it had dropped dramatically.

The report, from the Office for National Statistics, lays bare how a generation of smoking, beer-drinking people living in rented accommodation has been replaced by their grandchildren, who do not smoke, tend to drink wine instead of beer and spend a crippling amount of money to stay on the housing ladder.

Half a century ago the average family spent £1.20 - or 8.7 per cent of weekly spend - on housing costs. In 2006 this shot up to £85.40 - or 19 per cent of weekly spend, as the cost of property, stamp duty and council taxes soared.

Added to this is the distinctly modern fashion of spending a fortune on home improvements and soft furnishings. Last year, the country spent £750 million every week on carpets, sofas, garden furniture and other "decorative goods", according to the study.

In sharp contrast, food has plummeted in price over the past 50 years, despite recent scares about food inflation. Intensive farming and more efficient food factories have allowed supermarkets to offer a range of goods at prices unthinkable to the baby boomer generation.

In 1957, just a few years after the end of rationing, the average household spent £4.80, or a third of its weekly spend, on food. This has now fallen to only 15 per cent."

mbga9pgf

The worst contracton for 3 generations - is anyone 'feeling it'?

Some are, but one thing I think is sure, we are all going to feel it once election night is over next year.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

I think that is average age of death for an adult in 1930.

Please see my previous comment.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Haven't found one going back as far as the 1930's yet.

But see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576933/Britons-spend-one-fifth-of-income-on-homes.html

for an interesting comparison with the 1950's - we currently spend over double as much on housing as they did in the 1950's (18.9% v 8.9%). We also, however, spend less than half as much on food and clothing, as I stated before (15% to 33.4%, and 5.1% to 10.2% respectively).

I suspect the figures for the 1930's will be much the same as the 1950's - probably more so.

If anyone can produce figures to disprove this, I'd be interested to see them.

The figure includes council tax (was there a council tax in the 50s?)

I think as an average council tax makes up 8-10% of take home pay. (so if there was not the figure is roughly the same)

Not disputing the figures just not sure if there was a council tax in the 50's.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Please see my previous comment.

I did I accept war (even though the 2nd world war was not untill the end of the 30's) but I think child mortality does not effect the adult figures as you have to be over 18 to be an adult.

carolt

AFAIK, life expectancy figures include child mortality; or they'd be a bit meaningless, wouldn't they?

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

The figure includes council tax (was there a council tax in the 50s?)

I think as an average council tax makes up 8-10% of take home pay. (so if there was not the figure is roughly the same)

Not disputing the figures just not sure if there was a council tax in the 50's.

Remember rates?

Really2

carolt wrote: »

AFAIK, life expectancy figures include child mortality; or they'd be a bit meaningless, wouldn't they?

Not for adults so if you wrote "adult life expectancy" you would not put child mortality in would you?

Do you think people lived to the same age as now and the figures are just bodged based on child mortality and war?