Rich babyboomers behaving like the nobility in the peasants revolt...

Alpha58

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I think my daughter bought it off you and sold it 5 years later for £125k ?

That made me go on Zoopla to check...was sold in 2004 for £137K Currently estimating £165,500. Possibly demonstrates how overheated the market was 25 years ago...

Alpha58

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Petrol I remember being around 95p a gallon in 79/80 and beer around 30p a pint.

I remember the first time I paid a pound for a pint. It was in The Southampton (a pub next to Surbiton station, long since gone) in May 1983. I was shocked but I think you'd be lucky to get a packet of peanuts in a pub for a pound nowadays.

ukcarper

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If pay rises have outstripped inflation on the things we need?

Consumer electrical stuff and white goods are cheaper - whether they last as long is questionable in some cases. I also accept we consume more carp.

I honestly can't really remember what food stuffs cost in the late 70/80s. I don't dispute that imported luxuries and fruit may well have cost a lot more rather than locally grown and produced items.

Petrol I remember being around 95p a gallon in 79/80 and beer around 30p a pint, which would make it around £4.75/£1.43 now. In '78 I earned £1/hr in apart time job my daughter earns £5.00 now in a comparable part time job.

I am not saying that prices were cheaper back then or that everything was much easier and we lead the life of Riley

I am just questioning whether, in reality, we are better off, overall to the degree ukc's wage statistics suggest.

I think we are people might not think they are because of higher expectations. Just look at the contents of an average home now compared to 70s.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't quite think it's all down to non essential journeys. It's well documented that people are traveling further to work. It's well documented that people are traveling further to shop. It's well documented that this has increased the decline of the high street. It's well documented more and more families are having to run two cars in order to work, in order to bring in two wages...which will require a higher amount to be spent on fuel, even if it is the same cost per litre roughly as it was in 1970.

I don't want an argument about everything I state that's clearly obvious to most.

As I say, the research has been done, and it suggests the average household (its in America, granted, but think the same pattern would follow here) is 15% worse off compared to 1970. I can't, and don't want to discuss you personal situation in the 70's seemingly all to suggest the research is wrong.

I would imagine a large part can be apportioned to non-essential journeys. More families have two cars now, if not more, and a good degree of them will be through choice rather than necessity (we have two cars, we could get by with one, but life is a lot more convenient with two).

I'm not entirely sure people are being "forced" to travel further to shop - most reasonably sized towns will now have at least one supermarket, and larger towns more, (Within a 15 minute drive of where I live are 5 major supermarkets), many of which carry a far greater range of goods than they did in the 70's. Most towns will also have branches of other chain stores. People travelling further to go to large shopping centres are, I would suggest, doing so because they choose to, not because they are forced to.

Cars are more economical nowadays, and the road network means in a lot of cases it is easier, and quicker to drive than use public transport, and probably easier and quicker than it was to drive in the 70's. I think that this also means that people are more willing to entertain the notion of travelling further to get to work than they would have done back in the 70's. By and large I would think that the reason families now have more than one car per household, and use them more is because they choose to, not because they are forced to.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

RPI is based on a basket of goods that is reviewed every year to ensure it remains typical. It means we don't need to argue about whether we were buying more or less fuel etc - it's considered in the calculation.

No one would argue that wage growth being consistently behind RPI makes people worse off - not sure why making the opposite case is controversial.

I appreciate how RPI is made up. Probably why they are so keen to use CPI. or RPIJ K or L depending on what they want to measure.

It will interesting to see how the move in front is reined back since 2007 and over the next few years.

As with all statistics if your purchase range within the index is limited to those with a disproportionate weighting the you will individually affected to a greater or lesser extent. The same goes for income which will change in relation at differing times so averages may not be be what an individual sees or perceives.


It is also interesting how the mix of weightings alters over time.

1987/2012 %

Food 17/11
Housing16/24
Energy 6/4
Motoring 127/131
Leisure Services 30/71

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

As with all statistics if your purchase range within the index is limited to those with a disproportionate weighting the you will individually affected to a greater or lesser extent. The same goes for income which will change in relation at differing times so averages may not be be what an individual sees or perceives.

Obviously it's not static though. If I buy 10 apples per week but they increase in price to £10 each then I'll find an alternative. If I choose to keep on buying at the new price I've got a c£400/ month apple habit. Some things are easier to adjust than others.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It is also interesting how the mix of weightings alters over time.

1987/2012 %

Food 17/11
Housing16/24
Energy 6/4
Motoring 127/131
Leisure Services 30/71

Not quite sure of the numbers i.e. 131% for motoring.

I think it shows that as we get richer our proportion of spending on essentials decreases and non-essentials increase as we look for stuff to spend our money on. There's plenty of scope to adjust.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Not quite sure of the numbers i.e. 131% for motoring.

My error- out of 1000.

I am surprised the weighting hasn't increased more.

ash28

wotsthat wrote: »

Obviously it's not static though. If I buy 10 apples per week but they increase in price to £10 each then I'll find an alternative. If I choose to keep on buying at the new price I've got a c£400/ month apple habit. Some things are easier to adjust than others.



Not quite sure of the numbers i.e. 131% for motoring.

I think it shows that as we get richer our proportion of spending on essentials decreases and non-essentials increase as we look for stuff to spend our money on. T here's plenty of scope to adjust.

It's a bit like Engels Law......the percentage of income allocated for food falls as income rises. If you earn £25k a year and spend £5k (20%) on food and you get a pay rise that takes you to £50k you won't suddenly spend £10k (20%) on food, so your percentage spend on food falls...you will spend your extra money on other things.

If I remember rightly Engels Law is from the 1850s.

ash28

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If pay rises have outstripped inflation on the things we need?

Consumer electrical stuff and white goods are cheaper - whether they last as long is questionable in some cases. I also accept we consume more carp.

I honestly can't really remember what food stuffs cost in the late 70/80s. I don't dispute that imported luxuries and fruit may well have cost a lot more rather than locally grown and produced items.

Petrol I remember being around 95p a gallon in 79/80 and beer around 30p a pint, which would make it around £4.75/£1.43 now. In '78 I earned £1/hr in apart time job my daughter earns £5.00 now in a comparable part time job.

I am not saying that prices were cheaper back then or that everything was much easier and we lead the life of Riley

I am just questioning whether, in reality, we are better off, overall to the degree ukc's wage statistics suggest.

I think people are better off now than in the 1970s....the standard of living has risen considerably since then.

I got married in 1975 and we spent a fairly large proportion of our income on food - the choice was fairly basic compared to now and supermarkets would be regarded with horror by most people today....lack of choice etc.

I remember reading something produced by Defra about food security and it said that in 1975 people spent about 24% (on average) of their income on food and in 2007 it was 9% or so......it's more now as wages have largely stagnated and prices have risen...I think it's round 11 or 12%....so we've still a long way to go before our spend on food reaches that of the mid 1970s - in percentage terms.

And that while food costs had increased 5 fold the national disposable income had increased 12 fold.....but you know what they say, there's lies, damned lies and statistics......

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

RPI is based on a basket of goods that is reviewed every year to ensure it remains typical. It means we don't need to argue about whether we were buying more or less fuel etc - it's considered in the calculation.

No one would argue that wage growth being consistently behind RPI makes people worse off - not sure why making the opposite case is controversial.

Just musing - if benefits are pegged to RPI (now CPI/1%) and they are regularly shaken to ensure they are at the minima why is there such angst from the employed that they have been overtaken by claimants?