Britons forced in to 'modern day slavery' by soaring house prices!!

space_rider

Dannyboycey, if that is your partners attitude towards the children she shouldnt be teaching. I have a friend who is a teacher in an inner city area. She loves teaching the children even though so many of them are disadvantaged. She talks so passionately about them and what she has helped them achieved. At least while they are in their class they feel valued and are listened to.

Also I have a 6 year old who is a wonderful child and she loves her teacher. I remember idolising my teachter too at that age.

sal-ad_daze

dannyboycey wrote: »

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! My partner is a teacher - she starts work at 7am, gets home at 6, has dinner, then works till midnight (6 days a week - and through her 'holidays'). Overpaid!! £23k a year for those hours, and putting up with a barrage of abuse from unnapreciative, horrible kids everyday. Teachers do not have the power to discipline children anymore. It is not their fault - they have to walk on eggshells for fear of being called a paedophile, an abuser or a rascist. The balance of power is weighed on the side of the students and that is wrong.

Thank you dannyboycey!
The reason Primary Children aren't corrected for their spelling and grammar is because it's the government line - it hasn't been considered top priority!
My children were taught the same way - however that is now changing and children taught in this way will now be penalised because examiners will deduct marks for bad grammar and spelling - oh, and my daughter who wasn't taught to correct her spelling and grammar now must teach pupils to do so, a move she thoroughly agrees with.
My daughter became a teacher in full knowledge of the reasons stated above, loves her job and gains immense satisfaction from seeing the results of her efforts, why else would she stay in conditions mentioned above?

Back on thread;
I mention teachers as keyworkers because that's the only experience I have. It's not up to me to decide who is a key worker and who isn't I didn't start the scheme! All I'm trying to say is that house prices are beyond the range of MOST first time buyers and if you can't get a foot on the ladder there's no hope and it's about time the government (most of whom have at least two homes!) got real and did something about it.
Oh, and by the way the reasons stated above are enough to deterr anyone from living in the same area as their place of work!

PosterBoy77

epz wrote: »

you are starting from a flawed premise, water is owned by other countries, fuel and power is supplied by places like russia and middle east. there are very few things in the world we are self suficient in and it doesnt matter.

the self sufficency came after the 2nd world war when we had uboats blowing up freight, not likely these days or in the way distant future.

the reason some things (not all) are better grown abroad is simple, look at argentinean and new zeland, they basicly toss the sheep and cows out on the fields at the start of the year, end of the year round them up when ready and slaughter, freeze and ship them off in i a sodding great boat.

not only cargo ships are very energy efficent(by definition of the scale) but you are compairing the energy used against intensivly reared herds which need injections, regular feed suplements, housing in winter and a whole host of other things that consume energy.

dont get me wrong, i am all for some stuff being local but i would rather eat a steak from a cow that spent its life roaming the hills vs stuck in a small field in summer and shed in winter injected with growth hormones etc.

its a bit like the 80s when the minors said we needed coal and to subsidise it, also the 3rd world would easily have a surplus if they had an economic incentive to make money and 1st world political will to keep them stable rather than in turmoil to exploit them.

Why does self-sufficiency not matter? What are we going to give someone else in exchange for what we import? We have a big enough trade deficit already which shows we are living beyond our means.

Have you ever been to New Zealand? Do you know anything about the climate there or how they farm there?

I have and New Zealand has a climate just about like ours. They are good at producing farm produce as they have made it their business to do so. It is not a 3rd world country and they use all the same technologies in farming as we do. They do however have have larger farms and a lower cost of living, so their products can compete in the world market.

You can bet your life we now pay more for our coal than if we had improved the efficiency of our own mining operations. The Germans still produce most of their own coal, and they are not a 3rd world country.

The only way 3rd would countries can supply us cheaply is by us exploiting them. That cannot last forever.

Generali

My understanding is that NZ is good at agriculture because they have a decent climate for it and because they are the only 1st world country that has a free market in agriculture.

The fittest survived and thrived.

We really are swimming in the shark infested waters of OT posting here though.

Guy_Montag

Generali wrote: »

My understanding is that NZ is good at agriculture because they have a decent climate for it and because they are the only 1st world country that has a free market in agriculture.

The fittest survived and thrived.

We really are swimming in the shark infested waters of OT posting here though.

They also have a landmass the size of the UK, but a population the size of Scotland. Which should help.

Generali

Guy_Montag wrote: »

They also have a landmass the size of the UK, but a population the size of Scotland. Which should help.

As a Kiwi colleague told me today, that's because the Kiwis are the ones that were sleeping when the ship from England pulled out of Sydney.

Madjock

before_hollywood wrote: »

i really don't understand where you came from, heres an example, the other day i went out and spent £18 on a new pair of shoes, i'll use that as a metaphor the same way as you did.
so, i've spent the £18 on the shoes, i now own them cos i had the cash in my pocket to pay for them, alternatively if i didn't have the money i could have borrowed the money from the bank and paid in installments, end of the day i own those shoes.
renting is like going to sports world and picking out the shoes i want (hiking trainers) and then paying them a few quid a month to ''borrow'' the shoes, those shoes are never my shoes, they are sports world's shoes, but what happens if instead of being £18 they are suddenly £200, i can't afford that for shoes and the bank says ''you can't borrow £200 mr before hollywood you can't afford it'' so i have 2 options, struggle to rent some shoes (a house) or borrow my friends old shoes that he only wears for gardening (house share) cos he charges less until sports world bring their prices down.

i hate it when people sit smugly on here and say ''no-one has the right to own a house'', what a load of bull, if you go out to work full time and earn money why shouldn't you own a house after 25 years?

My point was that people make a big thing about renting being a waste of money. Well, duh, it's not! In the same way that spending your money on food and clothing isn't a waste of money. A loaf of bread cost a lot less 20 yrs ago than it does today, but £6k a year was probably a good salary 20 yrs ago. It seems a tad silly to turn my example on its head the way you have. I am saying that a roof over your head is one of life's necessities, the same as shoes are one of life's necessities. Some people may make lifestyle choices that don't include wearing shoes, or living in a house.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm smug. All I'm doing is trying to counter this endless contentious issue where grown people stamp their feet and demand to be able to buy a house because "it's my right".

It took me till the grand old age of 38 to be able to buy a house, but I don't look back at all the years I've paid rent and think what a waste of money. I look back at the times I've had, the homes I've lived in, and the places I've been.

The world doesn't owe anyone a living, nor does it owe anyone a mortgage. If you get married, have kids, do whatever you want to with your life, you won't die of it because you haven't got a mortgage.

epz_2

mikael wrote: »

Why does self-sufficiency not matter? What are we going to give someone else in exchange for what we import? We have a big enough trade deficit already which shows we are living beyond our means.

Have you ever been to New Zealand? Do you know anything about the climate there or how they farm there?

I have and New Zealand has a climate just about like ours. They are good at producing farm produce as they have made it their business to do so. It is not a 3rd world country and they use all the same technologies in farming as we do. They do however have have larger farms and a lower cost of living, so their products can compete in the world market.

You can bet your life we now pay more for our coal than if we had improved the efficiency of our own mining operations. The Germans still produce most of their own coal, and they are not a 3rd world country.

The only way 3rd would countries can supply us cheaply is by us exploiting them. That cannot last forever.

i never called newzeland a 3rd world country, i was just useing them as an example of somewhere that through demographics, geography or economics are vastly more efficent at food production than we are.

if you think this country is self sufficent then you are livving in a dream world, all our electronics come from sweat shops in china( that includes the chips on the pc your typing) all other raw materials etc come from poorer places. we have almost no manufacturing base any more cause the free market says so but we should protect farmers, sod that.

subsidising industries is inefficent and just distorts the market place while forcing up taxes, they tired it in the 70s and soviet russia.

if you think giving poor countries the oppertunity earn money for working hard and growing thier economy to the point where they actually might be able to buy something is exploitation while dumping tonnes of subsidies food from europe on the african market and killing their local agriculture industry is ok then fair play but protectionisim is just an im alright jack attitude using national interest as a defence.

Melissa177

Madjock wrote: »

It took me till the grand old age of 38 to be able to buy a house, but I don't look back at all the years I've paid rent and think what a waste of money. I look back at the times I've had, the homes I've lived in, and the places I've been.

Hmm, yes, but at 38, you have no assets in the form of a property. I know a guy who is 53 who has been "happy to rent all his life", but he's now wondering what he's going to do in retirement. He has no property - just a rental place. This isn't your situation - I'm just using the example.

before_hollywood

Madjock wrote: »

My point was that people make a big thing about renting being a waste of money. Well, duh, it's not! In the same way that spending your money on food and clothing isn't a waste of money. A loaf of bread cost a lot less 20 yrs ago than it does today, but £6k a year was probably a good salary 20 yrs ago. It seems a tad silly to turn my example on its head the way you have. I am saying that a roof over your head is one of life's necessities, the same as shoes are one of life's necessities. Some people may make lifestyle choices that don't include wearing shoes, or living in a house.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm smug. All I'm doing is trying to counter this endless contentious issue where grown people stamp their feet and demand to be able to buy a house because "it's my right".

It took me till the grand old age of 38 to be able to buy a house, but I don't look back at all the years I've paid rent and think what a waste of money. I look back at the times I've had, the homes I've lived in, and the places I've been.

The world doesn't owe anyone a living, nor does it owe anyone a mortgage. If you get married, have kids, do whatever you want to with your life, you won't die of it because you haven't got a mortgage.

my point is you need somewhere to live and when you reach retirement age you can't afford to pay rent or whatever cos you are too old to go to work and earn money. example, in my town a typical house is £450pcm, it could be bought with a mortgage for that, you have to pay mortgage for 25 years and then its yours, after 25 years of renting, you've not come out with anything, thats why people want to borrow to buy a house, they are being priced out of it though. my point has been from the outset that if you work all your adult life (which i have done and intend to continue to do) why shouldn't i have my own house to live in when i retire- i've bloomin well earned it.