The generation poorer than their parents

kabayiri

This might sound like a 'left of centre' comment but I would much rather we spent more on communal things and less on individual bribes via the state (free laptops is a good case in point).

Once you have experienced how using the train for commuting can work, it starts to make a lot of sense. Then you start to look round the ramshackle carriages which can be overcrowded and you wonder why we don't value them more. I reckon you could level the same argument at bus transport too.

Sitting in a line of congested traffic is not much more pleasurable in a BMW M5 than it is in a Fiesta.

edinburgher

but not being so wealthy that I can justify buying top of the range everything

For me, half the fun is choosing which top of the range purchases to make and being sensible with the others.

Sitting in a line of congested traffic is not much more pleasurable in a BMW M5 than it is in a Fiesta.

Fair point - I suppose this ties in with the utility of money (i.e. it's nice to have a bit more, but at some point it stops being fun). I suppose the utility of money argument breaks down if we move towards silly levels of wealth (I suppose you can have more fun on £10 million a year than £100k!

ILW

kabayiri wrote: »

Sitting in a line of congested traffic is not much more pleasurable in a BMW M5 than it is in a Fiesta.

Most that buy and M5 or similar do not do it for the driving pleasure (that wears off within a week or so and it just becomes "the car"). They buy it to make their friends jealous.

kabayiri

ILW wrote: »

Most that buy and M5 or similar do not do it for the driving pleasure (that wears off within a week or so and it just becomes "the car"). They buy it to make their friends jealous.

A friend spent ages extolling his M5 to me a while back, but most of this demonstration was the extremely expensive stereo system!

When I pointed out that I too had spent quite a chunk on a stereo and then ended up listening to chat radio he conceded that he did likewise!!

abaxas

kabayiri wrote: »

Sitting in a line of congested traffic is not much more pleasurable in a BMW M5 than it is in a Fiesta.

I disagree.

The car with the easiest clutch or an automatic will be the more pleasurable.

ILW

I do wonder how many would bother with the expensive car etc, if they had no way of letting anybody they knew know about it.

There is an old joke about a guy getting shipwrecked on a desert island with a supermodel and going mad because he had no one to tell that he was sha**ing her.

zagubov

DervProf wrote: »

Me too. I get a lot of pleasure out of being able to afford "gadgets", but not being so wealthy that I can justify buying top of the range everything. When I buy something, I like to spend time choosing something that fits my requirements, but won't cost too much. And when I do get that item I enjoy it more, knowing that it didn't cost a fortune and it was good value for money.

The economy needs us to be perpetually dissatisfied with what we've got. When you pick up a knife and fork to eat, you don't worry that your neighbour's got more advanced cutlery that makes ours look like we're cavemen. That technology peaked (or became adequate enough for most people's needs) a long time ago.

kabayiri wrote: »

This might sound like a 'left of centre' comment but I would much rather we spent more on communal things and less on individual bribes via the state (free laptops is a good case in point).

Once you have experienced how using the train for commuting can work, it starts to make a lot of sense. Then you start to look round the ramshackle carriages which can be overcrowded and you wonder why we don't value them more. I reckon you could level the same argument at bus transport too.

Sitting in a line of congested traffic is not much more pleasurable in a BMW M5 than it is in a Fiesta.

Car technology hasn't peaked - if they'd improved the way planes have they'd be technological marvels- instead we had 100 years of market fashion-driven changes with slight bursts of progress when governments insisted that standards improve. When the mini Metro came out 30 years ago with its 50+ mpg fuel efficiency it took decades for other cars to even try to catch up and we know perfectly well that loads of modern cars don't come close. In some countries (e.g UK and America) governments got rid of efficient public transport systems like tram networks so that less efficient modes like cars have less competition.

Our houses didn't peak- they're not of European quality as they got hijacked as dual-role objects; a shelter for a buyer to live inside, and a resale investment/savings vehicle for worried citizens in a country where we don't trust the government to run a bath let alone a pension scheme that'll keep us secure in old age.

There's no quadruple glazing like in some Scandinavian countries and there's not enough room to swing a cat in a typical room. In some areas we just subdivide existing buildings instead of building accommodation suited as proper dwellings for modern household sizes. We all see houses everywhere with "garages" that wouldn't hold a post-war bubble-car let alone anything modern - they're just built-in sheds for storing old tins of paints now.

DervProf, if you haven't already done so you might want to have a glance at Danny Dorling's So You Think You know Britain - I think it covers a few of the points you've made from #2 onwards.

jamespir

the reason people are poorer things are alot more expensive these day

its like saying more people have an ipod than in egyptian times well yes cause they wernt invernted then

ILW

jamespir wrote: »

the reason people are poorer things are alot more expensive these day

its like saying more people have an ipod than in egyptian times well yes cause they wernt invernted then

Only compared t the last few years. Most things are much cheaper than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Road_Hog

ukcarper wrote: »

Maybe he did maybe he didn’t but the average house only increased 3x since then. In London as a whole they are about 3.7x.

Which is pretty much spot on what my house has risen by. But trust the BBC to find and USE an example that is double that of the region as a whole. Of course once you've taken inflation into account, the gain isn't that much. Also I notice they picked a time when house prices were pretty much at the bottom of the trough in 1995.

Perhaps if they'd picked an average example of a house bought in 1990, factored in inflation, the increase would have been negligible. Then factored in the cost of upkeep and redecorating, council tax, paying to insure it etc. and some people would be out of pocket.

To treat a house/home as an investment that should be taxed is ridiculous, obviously if it is a buy to let, then it is a business and that is different and quite rightly that is taxed.