Worth watching?

TruckerT

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't see many people struggling to pay the rent in the affordable housing near me.

That may be because both you and they are out all day earning a living.

TruckerT

wotsthat

TruckerT wrote: »

That may be because both you and they are out all day earning a living.

Half right.

TruckerT

wotsthat wrote: »

People do seem less considerate of their neighbours these days. Maybe it's just a function of higher density housing - people's annoying traits are more easily spotted.

I do have a theory though that there is an uneven spread of inconsiderate neighbours. On my estate they seem to be concentrated in the affordable section.

Go to any new estate and the affordable housing is easy to spot so it's not (just) my snobbery.

The fact is that most people struggle to pay for their home.

The fact that you have no choice but to share your estate with !!!!!! is an indication of your own 'poverty'[.

TruckerT

wotsthat

TruckerT wrote: »

The fact is that most people struggle to pay for their home.

The fact that you have no choice but to share your estate with !!!!!! is an indication of your own 'poverty'

None of my neighbours appears to be struggling to keep a roof over their head and neither do the people in the affordable housing. We're all rich maybe?

zagubov

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Seems odd that we should be making them more environmentally friendly and then simply scrapping them. Seems somewhat wasteful when so many parts will run for probably 3 times that long.

We might as well go back to BL and Vauxhall of the 70s.

I certainly don't intend to be scrapping at 6/7 years.

Wasn't there some thought given to reducing MOT testing to every 2 years under a certain age? I believe that got knocked back due to the the motor industry losing lucrative revenue making opportunities.

I once had to teach about Total Energy Costing and was horrified by the fact that half of the energy consumption in running a car for over 10 years is the energy to rip the metal ores from the ground and shape it into the car.:(

Much prefer the system in places like Cuba where you have a cottage industry involving keeping cars going until we've got every last drop of usefulness out of it.

Cornucopia

wotsthat wrote: »

None of my neighbours appears to be struggling to keep a roof over their head and neither do the people in the affordable housing. We're all rich maybe?

Many of the people affected by non-affordability will be invisible to most of us - they will be homeless in some way - literally on the streets, sofa-surfing, staying in unsuitable B&Bs, people in their 30s still at home, etc.

bugslet

zagubov wrote: »

I once had to teach about Total Energy Costing and was horrified by the fact that half of the energy consumption in running a car for over 10 years is the energy to rip the metal ores from the ground and shape it into the car.:(

Much prefer the system in places like Cuba where you have a cottage industry involving keeping cars going until we've got every last drop of usefulness out of it.

Not helped when haulage company customers create contracts that specify that no vehicles should be over five years old to protect image and maintain reliability. One of our trucks is 10 years old now with 600k on it, should be good for another 200k, but we can't put it on our main contract.

N1AK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Supply and demand determines the price of second hand cars, whether they be collectible or ordinary, just as supply and demand determines the price of second hand houses.

True and yet not really that relevant. If ford wants to build another 100,000 cars and sell them in the UK then they can get on and do it. Building houses means getting the land, getting the government to agree to it, having to follow a myriad of social housing requirements etc which is limiting supply.

If Ford had to build 1,000 affordable cars and give them away to the unemployed for every 20,000 cars made, cars could only be operated with two passengers (for environmental reasons) and had to get hold of restricted government licenses to produce then maybe we'd have a viable analogy here

N1AK

zagubov wrote: »

I once had to teach about Total Energy Costing and was horrified by the fact that half of the energy consumption in running a car for over 10 years is the energy to rip the metal ores from the ground and shape it into the car.:(

Much prefer the system in places like Cuba where you have a cottage industry involving keeping cars going until we've got every last drop of usefulness out of it.

Which is why we should rationally be increasing the cost of producing 'disposable' or short-life products (and potentially discounting long life ones). The problem is that people will whine about things not lasting but constantly want new things as styles change etc, and people hate being charged to scrap things.

In the case of cars you could easily have a system where people get a discount on their tax for driving older / higher milage cars (alongside increases for low efficiency). Then there would be an incentive to keep old but efficient cars on the road; and it would increase the value of reliable cars because they would be more attractive to second hand buyers and/or last longer.