Property price crash if Tories win

chucky

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I must have attended over 500 matches and yet to buy a burger or hot dog at a match. Both trips to Wembley last year meant taking a mini-picnic with us.

it was probably more fun and enjoyable this way too!!

people tend to forget that you don't need to spend,spend, spend to enjoy yourself.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

It's not so much the very driven few as the hard working, aspirational quite a few.

Warren Buffet claims to tap dance into work and good on him. I know plenty of people on a couple of hundred thousand a year that really don't enjoy jumping through the hoops they do to maintain a life that means little more than work and a mortgage and at a certain taxation point will just say, "Fck it" and go do something more fulfilling or a job paying less with nicer hours to see the kids in the week.

They generally find it very difficult to do this though - they get used to the money & its difficult to give up the private schools, skiing, etc etc.

The disincentives are real for people who can actually to the same job but reduce their workload. Self employed or a NHS surgeon doing private work on a friday afternoon. Or they are tempted to get paid cash.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Correct but that is not going to increase the jobless totals is it. These people will not be signing on as they have not been made redundant.
So in essence the article is wrong because there will not be 230,000 made redundant/cut it will be natural wastage.
So not sure how 230,000 retiring or finding a new job will make houses fall by 20%?

It's still 230,000 jobs gone. They will not be rehiring.

A million, two million jobs could go over the next 5 years in the UK as natural wastage. But that only means the job pool goes down, as the number of people looking go up.

If there are less bananas ont he shelf in Morrisons next week, not everyone who usually buys bananas will be able to buy them. Same with natural wastage jobs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's still 230,000 jobs gone. They will not be rehiring.

Worth pointing out that the Tories own estimates are for 20,000 to 40,000 jobs to be lost through natural attrition only.

The Guardian speculates 230,000 jobs, it is by no means certain they are correct.

Jonbvn

Generali wrote: »

I know plenty of people on a couple of hundred thousand a year that really don't enjoy jumping through the hoops they do to maintain a life that means little more than work and a mortgage and at a certain taxation point will just say, "Fck it" and go do something more fulfilling or a job paying less with nicer hours to see the kids in the week.

Do I know you in RL?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's still 230,000 jobs gone. They will not be rehiring.

A million, two million jobs could go over the next 5 years in the UK as natural wastage. But that only means the job pool goes down, as the number of people looking go up.

If there are less bananas ont he shelf in Morrisons next week, not everyone who usually buys bananas will be able to buy them. Same with natural wastage jobs.

But the point is these will not effect house prices like making 230,000 redundant.
How can 230,000 people retiring or moving jobs cause a 20% crash? (even if the figures are correct)
AFIK we have a glut of older workers anyway so we may need some natural wastage anyway.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

But the point is these will not effect house prices like making 230,000 redundant.
How can 230,000 people retiring or moving jobs cause a 20% crash? (even if the figures are correct)
AFIK we have a glut of older workers anyway so we may need some natural wastage anyway.

:sigh: It stops people getting jobs in the first place. Yes, I see what you are saying. But what you are saying ignores that the job pool is less.

For every older person you get rid of, a younger person is just enetering the job market. With less jobs available, they have less chance of getting a job.

It's not making someone redundant no, and I agree with what you are saying, but the other side of the coin also needs looking at.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:sigh: It stops people getting jobs in the first place. Yes, I see what you are saying. But what you are saying ignores that the job pool is less.

For every older person you get rid of, a younger person is just enetering the job market. With less jobs available, they have less chance of getting a job.

It's not making someone redundant no, and I agree with what you are saying, but the other side of the coin also needs looking at.

:sigh:Yes, but the article is not relating to that. Hopefully the private sector can take up the slack in the future.

All I am debating is the the thread not the future effect on youth unemployment. As bad as it may be it is a debating forum so the point I am addressing is the one raised by the article.

tara747

Kohoutek wrote: »

It obvious depends where the affected jobs are. The areas where house prices would suffer the most would probably be the areas with the highest proportions of public sector employment - i.e. the North East, Wales, Northern Ireland (and I think there have already been significant drops there).

Bring it on!!! :T:T:T I can't wait. Houses are still too expensive here.

Really2 wrote: »

How can 230,000 people retiring or moving jobs cause a 20% crash? (even if the figures are correct)

Knock on effects, my boy, knock on effects! Do you know how much of the private sector depends on govt spending? And that's not even counting the businesses which rely on the private spending of those individual public sector workers.

Thrugelmir

kennyboy66 wrote: »

They generally find it very difficult to do this though - they get used to the money & its difficult to give up the private schools, skiing, etc etc.

Many wealthy people do a surprising amount of charitable work. A Doctor friend of mine did 15 months in a childrens hospital in Kabul for the Red Cross. She said that a very emminent plastic surgeon came out for 3 stints of a six weeks during the time she was there. He gave all his time for nothing, paid his own travel costs and shipped his own equipment out. He lived in the same conditions as everyone else in the NATO compound. His attitude was that the "rich" in London could afford his exborbitant fees for their cosmetic tarting up, and he repaid society for being blessed with his skills, by helping those children injured in mine explosions and bomb blasts.