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

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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?

..because the media know exactly what strings to pull to get us shouting at the telly.

ruggedtoast

ash28 wrote: »

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......

This is all true but it doesn't change the fact that when people rate the things that provide quality of life, having a lot of choice at the supermarket and cheap consumer goods rates rather insignificantly; whereas having a secure place to live and family and friends around them is weighted overwhelmingly highly.

We are basically bald monkeys that are weaker than pretty much any other animal our size, who will die if we don't have secure shelter from the elements. We also have an overwhelming evolutionary need to have children and are programmed to want a dependable clan around us to assist in protecting them.

Britain's miserable housing situation removes pretty much every one of these pillars of security from young people and robs them of the feeling of security that would lead to having a family.

There is simply no evolutionary precedent linking happiness to smart phones, Easyjet flights, special offers in H&M, or any of the other tendentious tropes that people here try and use to argue that it doesnt matter that the young cant afford secure stable homes.

Making human beings endure the constant insecurity of not knowing where they will be living in 6 months, or who with, with no likelihood of the situation ever changing, is as stress inducing and cruel as putting a bird in an aviary with nowhere to perch.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This is all true but it doesn't change the fact that when people rate the things that provide quality of life, having a lot of choice at the supermarket and cheap consumer goods rates rather insignificantly; whereas having a secure place to live and family and friends around them is weighted overwhelmingly highly.

We are basically bald monkeys that are weaker than pretty much any other animal our size, who will die if we don't have secure shelter from the elements. We also have an overwhelming evolutionary need to have children and are programmed to want a dependable clan around us to assist in protecting them.

Britain's miserable housing situation removes pretty much every one of these pillars of security from young people and robs them of the feeling of security that would lead to having a family.

There is simply no evolutionary precedent linking happiness to smart phones, Easyjet flights, special offers in H&M, or any of the other tendentious tropes that people here try and use to argue that it doesnt matter that the young cant afford secure stable homes.

Making human beings endure the constant insecurity of not knowing where they will be living in 6 months, or who with, with no likelihood of the situation ever changing, is as stress inducing and cruel as putting a bird in an aviary with nowhere to perch.

given the importance of housing for both warm and quality of life, presumably spending upwards of say 60% of income would be reasonable?

27col

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you think people did in the 70s I worked at least 40hrs a week went to evening classes worked part time in a garage at weekends my girlfriend/wife worked full time. In fact I was still going to night school in my late 20s in order to make up for the university education I didn't have.

Since the 70s wages have out stripped earnings by about 70%

I think young people today face many problems but the main ones are not the ones people on here moan about.

I thought that wages were earnings, but correct me if I am wrong.

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

given the importance of housing for both warm and quality of life, presumably spending upwards of say 60% of income would be reasonable?

We've paid upwards of 50% before and there plenty of times during that period we wished we'd stayed in rented......

John_Pierpoint

An interesting little factoid emerged this week in response to speculation about the possibility of increasing interest rates:

There are 600,000 households paying more than 50% of their income in interest.
A 2% interest rate increase will up that to 800,000 and
a 4% interest rate increase would up that to 1,200,000.

Is 50% the rate at which a debt slave starts losing the will to struggle on ?

CLAPTON

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

An interesting little factoid emerged this week in response to speculation about the possibility of increasing interest rates:

There are 600,000 households paying more than 50% of their income in interest.
A 2% interest rate increase will up that to 800,000 and
a 4% interest rate increase would up that to 1,200,000.

Is 50% the rate at which a debt slave starts losing the will to struggle on ?

I've no idea about debt slaves

but people living in beautiful homes may well wish to spend more of their income preserving and enhancing them.

John_Pierpoint

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no idea about debt slaves

but people living in beautiful homes may well wish to spend more of their income preserving and enhancing them.

I have a nasty feeling tht a significant number, of those with debts costing more than 50% of net income, will have some short term debts on high interest rates.

What ever short term advantage those high interest debts bought will have been consumed months ago but the debt burden remains.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no idea about debt slaves

but people living in beautiful homes may well wish to spend more of their income preserving and enhancing them.

Depends if they are beautiful homes or basic roofs over heads.

CLAPTON

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I have a nasty feeling tht a significant number, of those with debts costing more than 50% of net income, will have some short term debts on high interest rates.

What ever short term advantage those high interest debts bought will have been consumed months ago but the debt burden remains.

I've no info either way but it is certainly true that there have always been unwise people.