The price of inequlaity -London

DominicJ_2

Should it really be your sucess is measured on what your parents did ratherr than what you did? I can see for many no amount of hard work is going to get them there and its worries this happens as mnay on here cheer as there HPI they have done nothing earn increases.

My mum was an orphan, my dad, !!!!!! if I know, yet we're buying our second home end of the month. Already I'm overtaking a TUC press officer with millionaire parents.

My kids will have a fantastic head start in life. Why shouldnt they?
I'll sacrifice a vast portion of my life for it.

I could of course go on holiday three times a year and whine that "society" owes me a living. I've been on holiday twice in the last 12 years, last film I saw at the cinema was Total Recall and last went out for a meal for my partners birthday.

mayonnaise

DominicJ wrote: »

....last film I saw at the cinema was Total Recall .

To form an opinion on this, we need to know if it's the original with Arnie or last year's remake.

the_flying_pig

DominicJ wrote: »

...last film I saw at the cinema was Total Recall...

the arnie or colin farrell version?

[edit - beaten to it]

chewmylegoff

mayonnaise wrote: »

Does Alex need to buy in Albion Drive? No.
Does Alex need to buy in Central London? No.
If Alex has - as he states - a decent salary, he can easily afford a place in the suburbs, within an easy commute to Central London. And I'm not talking about some undesireable dump, but a decent place less than a hour commute away.
Alex, you're a moaner with an overinflated sense of entitlement.

I'm not convinced that being a press officer is a "profession" either, at least not sure what professional qualifications you need to be able to answer the phone and say 'no comment' and then draft a press release for someone else to change every word of. I thought it was a fairly low paid job and wouldn't really expect a person on a single salary of that kind to have much buying power.

chewmylegoff

the_flying_pig wrote: »

they reckon that prices in that area of london might be 65% higher than in 2007.

it's plausible. around where i live in SW london i'd say that we're talking up to around 50% higher, maybe.

For detached houses and large townhouses I wouldn't be surprised. For flats? Not where I live. Not anything like that. Perhaps 25% though.

AndyGuil

chewmylegoff wrote: »

For detached houses and large townhouses I wouldn't be surprised. For flats? Not where I live. Not anything like that. Perhaps 25% though.

Useful info. http://www.home.co.uk/guides/house_prices_report.htm?location=london&startmonth=01&startyear=2007&endmonth=08&endyear=2013

antrobus

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Websites cost money to run, you either pay for them by adverts or subscription. Which do you prefer?

That would be the flippin point wouldn't it?

System

AndyGuil wrote: »

Simply, compared to 1977 the benefits of being in London have increased.

The benefits are available to more people, undoubtedly. But that is not the same thing as saying that the benefits of being in London have increased.
Having more people with my standard of living doesn't make me better off - worse in fact, because it gets crowded.

the_flying_pig

AndyGuil wrote: »

Useful info. http://www.home.co.uk/guides/house_prices_report.htm?location=london&startmonth=01&startyear=2007&endmonth=08&endyear=2013

A bit misleading since 2007 was hpi central for London. The figures from January 2008 would show smaller changes. But still, yeah.

princeofpounds

Its all very well saying this money goes down the generations but its doesn't flow down in an even way.

There's an even bigger problem than that, which is that it flows down at the wrong time.

It's no use inheriting your first family home at the age of 50. It's a big problem if people can't afford to live in stable, reasonably-sized housing at the age they should be starting families.

The stable being a key point. 6 months security of tenure is a nightmare when dealing with children's schooling etc.