Bit shocked

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, you would have made a fine bar steward

I already did, I was an investment banker!:D

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

Is it even a genuine problem? I've read plenty of articles about how it is but am yet to see any hard numbers.

I do wonder if this is more of a media concoction than actual phenomenon.

It's most certainly not a media concoction – it is something I see all the time and it is a genuine and growing problem. Traditional areas in London are being destroyed because of ugly – really ugly – vanity project buildings that are being plonked all over the place with no concern for planning and London's history, all built as investment vehicles for foreign buyers and things like hedge funds, which buy them en masse. When you drive past such buildings you see how empty they are. Britain has become dependent on London property for economic growth, which as far as I'm concerned should not be such a key part of the economy and of vested interests. It is not sensible to depend so much on property – which should in any case be used for homes for people, not as investments.

I have no objection to things like Canary Wharf, which was built on derelict land, and contains architecture that is all of a piece and was well planned. But what is happening in historical parts of London – no, that is horrible…:cool:

Generali

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/14/london-property-foreign-investors

FWIW, the Grauniad doesn't seem to think that it's as much of a problem as stated. I lived in the Barbican and the place was deserted on the weekend. The reason? Most of the owners had a weekender in the country too.

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, you would have made a fine bar steward

Funny, but actually it's quite hard for a 50 year old investment banker to convince an interviewer that they want to work in a bar or cleaning job. Generally the assumption is that it's a stop gap and they'll get bored and leave, so it's very hard for over qualified people to get those kinds of jobs. Being over 50 in anything that involves physical effort (and bar work/waitressing is much harder than sitting in an office) is a disadvantage.

There seems to be an assumption that anyone can just walk into a job these days. if that's the case we should take away benefits from the long term unemployed as they obviously simply aren't trying.

lisyloo

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me; I wasn't being specific about you (we?) Just making a general point that those who moan about long commutes and London house prices do have choice to live an easier life, much more cheaply, elsewhere.

The choice you mention may mean leaving a dying parent or daughter without child care. I do not call that a "free" choice like deciding whether to wear red or blue today. We would not consider leaving dependents stranded.

But anyway We fundamentally disagree That anyone making a choice forgoes the right to complain.

By your logic migrants fleeing Syria have no right to complain if they freeze in a field or get locked in the hold of a boat because they made a choice.
Parents who take kids on holidays out of term time are not allowed to complain about extortionate prices as they made a choice,
People who get on an airliner have no right to complain if it breaks as they made a choice etc.

I do not agree with you that you forego all consumer/humanitarian/moral rights when you make a decision, neither does the law of the land.

Mistermeaner

lisyloo wrote: »

We fundamentally disagree That anyone making a choice forgoes the right to complain.

By your logic migrants fleeing Syria have no right to complain if they freeze in a field or get locked in the hold of a boat because they made a choice.
Parents who take kids on holidays out of term time are not allowed to complain about extortionate prices as they made a choice,
People who get on an airliner have no right to complain if it breaks as they made a choice etc.

I do not agree with you that you forego all consumer/humanitarian/moral rights when you make a decision, neither does the law of the land.

Personally I'm extremely lucky and privileged (gen X) so I have no complaints. My concerns are for future generations who can't afford what I already have.

No mention of migrants and exploding planes in my post. Those are hobsons choices compared to a London commute and I would not draw any comparison between the two (who did?)

Yes people have a right moan. I love to moan about all sorts of things.

When someone points out that there is a viable alternative to the London commute and expensive houses that involves some sacrifice it is disingenuous to say they don't and/or throw drowning refugees on the table.

Many people I know locally to me (northern hell hole) moved up here from London when the kids came along so that they could buy a 4 bed with garden and have a better work life balance.

Euston is 2 hrs on train, some do 1/2/3 days a week with occasional nights over, some do different jobs than they did before.

I'm commuting to Germany Tue-Thu at the moment. Could do something less well paid locally.

Choices.

MobileSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

Do you think someone with a choice between a £100k job in London vs unemployment has a free choice?

Do refugees who have the choice between being bombed or risking their lives in a dodgy boat have a free choice?

Do parents who want to take their kids on holiday have a free choice of when?

Choosing whether to wear a green or blue jumper is a choice free of significant pressures. The other choices have significant pressures involved. So what I mean by "free choice" is free of significant pressures.

We'll have to agree to disagree, your definition of free choice is different to mine and I suspect most others.

For me "free choice" is not being forced to do something. You have changed this in your head to "free of significant pressures."

All of the examples you give are free choice including the refugees. If the refugees literally had a gun to their head then yes I would agree they no longer have free choice. However in your example, as tragic as it is, they have a risk of bombing or a risk of a dodgy boat trip and yes they do have free choice on which risk to take.

As I said originally everything in life is a compromise by which I meant that everything we do affects everything and everyone else to one degree or another (the so-called butterfly effect.) Just because one action may make you financially worse off than another action does not automatically mean you do not have the free choice to choose which action to take.

gadgetmind

lisyloo wrote: »

The higher you get in your career the fewer jobs there are.

Agreed, but to claim that these jobs only exist in London goes very much against my own direct experience. And yes, this does include investment bankers outside of London, though I'm on the engineering side.

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree with you, we are privileged/lucky but we don't have choices that are completely free of outside pressures like current/future liabilities.
Mobilesaver DID say we had free choice and I disagree with that. Facing unemployment and losing your home means your choices aren't free, you get on your bike and make whatever compromises you have to.

You're making a distinction between free choices and difficult choices - no one else is. Life isn't all about the choice between chocolate cake and carrot cake or what colour jumper to wear.

lisyloo wrote: »

It's a bit like saying those people locked in the hull of dodgy migrant boats made a free choice when they had a gun held to their head. They had a free choice to say no right?

If you can equate having a gun to your head to being like finding a job outside of London then I think you've caught the London bug for which there is no known cure.

lisyloo

You're making a distinction between free choices and difficult choices - no one else is.

Ah great. Can we all agree then they are "difficult" choices? I'm totally happy with that.

I do think people are allowed to complain about aspects of difficult choices for example the price of holidays in school holiday periods.