The Economics of Pessimistic Time Travelling Kippers

ukcarper

The reason income tax is lower is because basic rate income tax was 33% in 1977 and things are cheaper because earnings have increased by more than inflation since then.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The big difference between then and now is households are now far more likely to have two incomes.

Not exactly... You're actually quite close with that, but not in the way you think.

In the late 70's around 55% of women worked, today it's around 65%.

So households are more likely, but not by very much, to be dual income.

Where the real difference lies is that the income of many women has increased quite markedly thanks to greater participation in higher paid professional careers at increasingly senior levels.

But in general terms, both men and women make a lot more money in real terms than they did back then, and the costs of most things are lower in terms of the percentage of income needed to buy them.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not exactly... You're actually quite close with that, but not in the way you think.

Strange how you missed it out in your explanation then...isn't it

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Strange how you missed it out in your explanation then...isn't it

Eh?

There isn't a marked difference in the numbers of dual income households.

Both men and women make a lot more now than they did then, and most things are cheaper in real terms.

Reality is, we're all wealthier than we were in the 70's.

Men are wealthier, women are wealthier, households are wealthier, but the main reason is not the increase in numbers of dual income households which you thought it was.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Eh?

There isn't a marked difference in the numbers of dual income households.

Both men and women make a lot more now than they did then, and most things are cheaper in real terms.

Reality is, we're all wealthier than we were in the 70's.

Men are wealthier, women are wealthier, households are wealthier, but the main reason is not the increase in numbers of dual income households which you thought it was.

Why? Because you say so?

Theres been studies into this Hamish. They disagree with you.

And why oh why do we keep looking at the 70's all the time!?

Many now need two cars to commute to work, hence higher costs etc. None of this is looked at in your pretty picture.

I'm not sure why, often, you'll just pick a picture or a graph and take no notice of anything else.

You're an intelligent bloke, so surely you'd recognise if you are going to compare the 1977 with 2014, you'd also have to compare the changes in how we live. But apparently not.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

if there was free unfettered immigration into either UK or say Australia
what would your estimate of the number of people that would come over say the next 10 years
as an exercise you may divide them into muslims or non muslims if you wish?

We were discussing why people had this bizarre nostalia when you brought this figure up for no obvious reason. You said that the reason people were nostalgic was due to a fear of a future with 100-200 million people with no tradition of democracy, rule of law, trial by jury, religious freedom ..

I'm interested to know who these 1-200 million are, where they've come from and where they're going to.

If 20 million people arrived in Aus tomorrow, most of them would die of thirst, insanitary conditions and hunger, probably in that order. It would be the same if 20,000,000 people turned up anywhere on the planet.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why? Because you say so?

Theres been studies into this Hamish. They disagree with you.

And why oh why do we keep looking at the 70's all the time!?

Many now need two cars to commute to work, hence higher costs etc. None of this is looked at in your pretty picture.

I'm not sure why, often, you'll just pick a picture or a graph and take no notice of anything else.

You're an intelligent bloke, so surely you'd recognise if you are going to compare the 1977 with 2014, you'd also have to compare the changes in how we live. But apparently not.

If wages had increased with inflation some one earning average wage in 1977 would now be earning £18k. If you need two cars to commute you would have to sets of wages.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

If wages had increased with inflation some one earning average wage in 1977 would now be earning £18k. If you need two cars to commute you would have to sets of wages.

Wasn't it right after 1977 that people were getting large pay rises?

Whats so special about 1977. Would the picture show the same if it showed, say 1981? I doubt it.

That's why picking one, very irrelevant year seems a bit suss to me.

But I guess my failing here is I should look at a pretty picture, shout "woohoo" and not think any further than what it's showing.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wasn't it right after 1977 that people were getting large pay rises?

Whats so special about 1977. Would the picture show the same if it showed, say 1981? I doubt it.

That's why picking one, very irrelevant year seems a bit suss to me.

But I guess my failing here is I should look at a pretty picture, shout "woohoo" and not think any further than what it's showing.

Looked at 1977 because that's what's on chart. Earnings have increase 28% more than inflation since 1987 and 13% since 1997.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Looked at 1977 because that's what's on chart. Earnings have increase 28% more than inflation since 1987 and 13% since 1997.

Yes. And since 2007 it's gone into reverse.

My point is that the 28% increase is going to be heavily weighted by the massive pay rises happening just after 1977.

The percentage number gets smaller as you move up the years and goes into reverse as you get to the end.

In any case, many of those working in 1977 won't now be working, and similarly, many working today have only seen minimal increases and then a decline in income.

Therefore I just don't see the relevance of a year plucked out of thin air. I know why it was plucked out of thin air....it makes the case that they wanted to present.... I just don't see how it's relevant today. Life has changed immeasurably since then.