We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
A quarter of adults out of work
Comments
-
What era are you talking about? The 19th century?
Read the reports yourself - wages are more unequally distributed now than at any period since the Second World War.
How many part time jobs were there then? dont forget all those second incomes doing part time work all look like low incomes on their own.
PS where is your 1950's data???0 -
On major difference in the 50's is that people had no choice but to wait for what now could be considered luxury items. If setting up a home, things were got gradually or hand me downs from friends etc. Now people want things instantly and everything has to be the newest gadget. It's wants not needs that need two wages in alot of cases.
This is precisely the reason that everyone today complains they can't have a luxury 8 bed masion in central London for for a price of a packet of tea.
First TV has to to be 50" plasma, first car has to be the <5yr old hot hatch.
People don't want to get out of bed and work for things these days.0 -
did the report include all the women who stayed at home in the 1950s?What era are you talking about? The 19th century?
Read the reports yourself - wages are more unequally distributed now than at any period since the Second World War.
how was wealth distributed with these people?0 -
How many part time jobs were there then?
I don't know - it's not a study about part time jobs. Find a study about part time jobs if you want to know the answer to that
It's a study that conclusively proves that wealth inequality is higher today that any period since WWII, and no amount of huffing and puffing from the dogged defenders of New Labour is going to change that fact.0 -
did the report include all the women who stayed at home in the 1950s?
how was wealth distributed with these people?
Yes it does, because it's a study of households, not individuals.
It concludes that the average household is worse off now, despite the fact that for much of the post-WWII era, many women stayed at home whereas now much more work.0 -
Was it? They never knew they had it so easy did they LJ.:)
I would say life was a lot more of a stuggle than it is today mate TBH on the average wage.
I'd disagree that it was a struggle. More picturesque scenery, less cars on the road, nice homecooked food as opposed to the processed rubbish, less stress.and living conditions were so much better in the 1950s :eek:
i'll wait for the statistical evidence to confirm that
Unfair & inappropriate to compare living conditions in the 2 era's though isn't it? Realistically, though wages were lower, costs etc were lower too. 1 wage could easily provide all the needs of a household. Households didn't have the money pressures (& by some of this peer pressures & keeping up with the joneses) that exists nowadays.
Relatively speaking, 50's society was more equal than ours, as highlighted below:Wealth inequality in the UK is at the highest level since WWII. Yes, the average family had it easier in the 1950s, because wealth was more even spread back then between the poor, the middle classes and the rich.
Under New Labour, a trend has continued where the super rich are the group that have seen their wealth grow the most and families of average wealth have seen their wealth diminish the most.
If you don't believe me, then just read the statistical evidence:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/poverty-and-wealth-across-britain-1968-2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/unequal-britain-reportIt's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
-
lemonjelly wrote: »Loads.
Thing is a single wage was enough to easily keep a family back then, whereas now, it isn't.
Not if you were factory workers, or most manual workers. Perhaps if you were coal miner on danger money.
My materal grandparents both had to work - pretty sure my other gran did too - although she would have retired before I was born so I'm not 100% sure. I'll ask her next time I see her this Easter.Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
exactly the same reasons that it's not right to compare wealth distributionlemonjelly wrote: »Unfair & inappropriate to compare living conditions in the 2 era's though isn't it?
it's apples and oranges0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »
Relatively speaking, 50's society was more equal than ours, as highlighted below:
Correct, but like I said if we all worked on the average wage poverty would be eradicated.
It may be fair but it does not mean in absolute terms we are not poor.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards