GDP shrinks at fastest rate for 60 years

carolt

I found this one interesting - not directly relevant, but I came across it in my search:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article5810.html

on the problems America's middle class has faced in recent years, compared to the 1970's. Rang very true for here too.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

It's not there - I have read the whole doc.

I gave the link to point out the rent control part - it's on page 2, if you'd like to check. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm confused. Did anyone ask about rent control?

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

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?

No, not bodged - just life expectancy figures based only on people who lived long lives would be a bit pointless, wouldn't they?

That's why they're not calculated that way.

michaels

Supply and demand in'it

Incomes are up relative to the prices of most goods - what do we chose to spend the extra on - housing and with supply fairly fixed (planning controls) prices are bound to increase.

Also look at the quality of housing we have now - a lot better than what was available in the 50s on average.

carolt wrote: »

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National Statistics, lays bare how a generation of smoking, beer-drinking people living in rented accommodation has been replaced by their grandchildren, who do not smoke, tend to drink wine instead of beer and spend a crippling amount of money to stay on the housing ladder.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

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Sorry, I'm confused. Did anyone ask about rent control?

Gosh, you are confused, aren't you?

It relates to this comment of Really's, on page 1:

"I think in the 1930's rent was quiet high proportion of take home wage."

I was trying to explain why that was not in fact the case - rents were controlled ergo not as high.

Do keep up!

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Remember rates?

No I am in my 30s:)

What was the average rates bill in the 50s?

If council tax is included it would be interesting to find out how much is taken up by inflation and how much by tax increases.

I have no doubt it is less in the past but also we now usually have two wages coming in to a house hold.

i am not picking holes but it looks of what you gain on one hand (cheaper living) you lose on the other (more expensive housing)

carolt

michaels wrote: »

Supply and demand in'it

Incomes are up relative to the prices of most goods - what do we chose to spend the extra on - housing and with supply fairly fixed (planning controls) prices are bound to increase.

Also look at the quality of housing we have now - a lot better than what was available in the 50s on average.

Interestingly, although we spend only 1/6 as much on cigarettes as we did then, we spend an almost identical amount on alcohol.

Given that the costs have presumably shrunk, along with the rest of food-related costs, I suspect we are now drinking much more..... :eek:

Really2

carolt wrote: »

No, not bodged - just life expectancy figures based only on people who lived long lives would be a bit pointless, wouldn't they?

That's why they're not calculated that way.

not if you wanted to find out what the average "adult" lived to.

I still find it hard to dispute we are living longer.

carolt

I agree - but not 52/59 - I'd be very surprised if those figures didn't include child mortality.

If that's the case, my lot must have been exceptional.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Gosh, you are confused, aren't you?

It relates to this comment of Really's, on page 1:

"I think in the 1930's rent was quiet high proportion of take home wage."

I was trying to explain why that was not in fact the case - rents were controlled ergo not as high.

Do keep up!

I don't know why you have to be so rude, I was perfectly polite in my exchanges to you.

I don't see how you can state categorically that just because rent control was brought in in the 1930's it follows that rents were cheaper than now. The very fact that the government had to bring in legislation to control rents shows that they must have been getting out of control in proportion to people's incomes. We don't have rent controls today, so it follows that the government doesn't feel that rents are getting out of control in proportion to people's incomes. Ergo (using your logic) rents are cheaper in proportion to income now than in 1930's Britian.

However, given the rather abusive tone to your post above, I'd rather not get dragged into another carolt slanging match so please accept my acquiescence in this matter.