Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Moby wrote: »

Most reasonable people now accept that the balance between my own generation, (boomers) and those generations following is wrong.

Young adults today enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to the young adults of the 1970s. So yes, the balance may well be wrong.

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

Here's some more excuses for you:-

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2014/6/24/nine-reasons-rich-people-dont-give-away-more-money.html

Why do they have to give money away?
How much have you given over the last 10 years and plan to give over the next 10 years?

For the the very rich they tend to give a lot away. Your article gives an example of Jeff Bezos not giving much away this is not true. For a start he gives away $1 billion a year trying to develop rocket technology. Maybe you see that less worthy than giving away labor voters more benefits but that sort of frontier technology investments that are 95% unlikely to work but would be a leap in human achievement is a good way to go imo.

The same applies to Musk who bet his whole fortune on trying to get humanity to mars has not done it yet but probably will. That seems a lot more important than donating his $300 million or so he had back when he started his SpaceX company to the poor

Also these people wont be spending all their money. They will either give it away to others or give it to their families. Even if they give it to their kids the way life works is people have two children 4 grand kids 8 great grand kids etc so by the time you are 20 generations down a $10 billion fortune is just enough to buy a lower end new car like a Ford Focus

GreatApe

antrobus wrote: »

Wiki repeats the OECD numbers.

List of countries by average wage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

The UK is no 15.

At least 5 of the countries above the UK on that list have over-sized natural resources per capita and should not be in that list without taking that into account.

On a nominal basis the UK is 13th on that list or 8th if you exclude the very resource rich nations like iceland/norway/canada. And that was for 2016 when the GBP was weak compared to the previous decade

buglawton

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Young adults today enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to the young adults of the 1970s. So yes, the balance may well be wrong.

Does that mean their prospects now are unimaginably good or unimaginably bad?

Moby

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Young adults today enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to the young adults of the 1970s. So yes, the balance may well be wrong.

Yep young adults today have no debt and have no problems finding somewhere to live. You are so out of touch. This will be the first generation poorer than the previous:-

Britain’s current young generation earned £8,000 less during their 20s than their predecessors and are at risk of being the first cadre of workers in modern times to see their lifetime earnings fall, according to new research.

A report by the Resolution Foundation highlighting the UK’s growing intergenerational divide showed that millennials, who are aged between 15 and 35, fared significantly worse than their parents in Generation X during their first years of employment.

The study found that the deep recession of 2008-9 and the subsequent slow recovery was only partly responsible for the pay penalty suffered by millennials, with earnings for young people being squeezed even before the start of the financial crisis.

Millennials will spend £53,000 on rent before age of 30, thinktank says
The Resolution Foundation released the report on Monday to mark the launch of an Intergenerational Commission, which includes as members Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, and Carolyn Fairbairn, the director general of the CBI.


David Willetts, executive chair of the Resolution Foundation and chair of the Intergenerational Commission, said: “Fairness between the generations is something public policy has ignored for too long. But it is rising up the agenda with the prime minister, politicians of all parties, business leaders and others rightly identifying it as a growing challenge.”

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do they have to give money away?
How much have you given over the last 10 years and plan to give over the next 10 years?

For the the very rich they tend to give a lot away. Your article gives an example of Jeff Bezos not giving much away this is not true. For a start he gives away $1 billion a year trying to develop rocket technology. Maybe you see that less worthy than giving away labor voters more benefits but that sort of frontier technology investments that are 95% unlikely to work but would be a leap in human achievement is a good way to go imo.

The same applies to Musk who bet his whole fortune on trying to get humanity to mars has not done it yet but probably will. That seems a lot more important than donating his $300 million or so he had back when he started his SpaceX company to the poor

Also these people wont be spending all their money. They will either give it away to others or give it to their families. Even if they give it to their kids the way life works is people have two children 4 grand kids 8 great grand kids etc so by the time you are 20 generations down a $10 billion fortune is just enough to buy a lower end new car like a Ford Focus

Yep lets spend all our dosh on rocket technology and ignore the poor and starving. Perhaps we can send the poor to Mars and then we won't have to look at them or think about them.

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

At least 5 of the countries above the UK on that list have over-sized natural resources per capita and should not be in that list without taking that into account.

On a nominal basis the UK is 13th on that list or 8th if you exclude the very resource rich nations like iceland/norway/canada. And that was for 2016 when the GBP was weak compared to the previous decade

Yes lets change the rules so that your contention that the UK is number one country is true. It's one way of seeing the world. Makes life more tolerable I suppose;)

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

Yep young adults today have no debt and have no problems finding somewhere to live. You are so out of touch. This will be the first generation poorer than the previous:-

Student loans are not debt in the true sense, you only pay them back if you earn over a certain amount and is written of after a certain time.

Property prices are only high in certain areas.

No one know how well off young people will be when they are the age of thier parents.

fatbeetle

Moby wrote: »

Yep young adults today have no debt and have no problems finding somewhere to live. You are so out of touch. This will be the first generation poorer than the previous:-

How many young people today leave school at 15 and go to work in the mines or steel industry, (as I did.) How many face interest rates at 17%, how many have a life expectancy between 65-75 years.

Remember the "Boys from the Blackstuff"? By christ they had it easy eh, not a care in the world.

Moby

fatbeetle wrote: »

How many young people today leave school at 15 and go to work in the mines or steel industry, (as I did.) How many face interest rates at 17%, how many have a life expectancy between 65-75 years.

Remember the "Boys from the Blackstuff"? By christ they had it easy eh, not a care in the world.

True I suppose you could extend it even further and say how many 10 year olds are sent down the mines now or up the chimneys of the rich. I agree in absolute terms things have been worse..... thanks to people fighting for their rights through unions etc conditions improve. Like my family you worked as a miner so you'd appreciate the unions. Lets not get complacent though the forces of darkness are always trying to find new ways to screw you and your kin.

We are feeding off a huge mountain of cheap debt. The gap between the base rate and the standard variable rate for mortgages has never been bigger. Things are not going to get easier for house buying are they. Who will that hit hardest?