"Housing Market Slumps"

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Next time your in hospital following major surgery I take it you will be happy for a care worker to look after you.

never said they were excatly the same job. obviously a nurse requires a specific skillset. however compared to doctors and other professions it is low skilled.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

yes.

Taking the midpoint of the bands

21,742 estates of (£500,000 to £1m so use £750,000 as the midpoint)
So if we are amusing 2.4 beneficiaries that means
52,180 beneficiaries that receive £312,500 each

repeat for each of the higher bands

And this is for 2013/14. As discussed before you can probably up each band by 25% to take into account higher asset prices (homes, shares) plus the positive savings rate since then.

you can't take £750k as the mid point as the number of estates is decreasing as value increases.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

nursing is also a low skilled job, hence nurse pay should be reflective of that. pay probably should be in line with care workers in old peoples home and similar but ultimately supply demand should determine it as with anything. also being part of the NHS, their pay is funded by us in the private sector. essentially they work for us. a friend of mine has parents as doctors and he tells me that there is so much waste in the NHS thats its crazy. lots of admin jobs being paid a quite a bit thats essentially a waste of time and resources.

can not wait for robotics and AI to become mainstream. will eradicate so many of these low skilled jobs that we wont ever have to worry about shortages (if there actually are any).

we face an interesting an unnerving future with the near AI software

90% of me is saying dont go there 10% of me is saying dont worry it will be fine and 100% of me is saying it is inevitable. Maybe this is the explanation for the Fermi paradox. Biological intelligence begets information intelligence which has no need or want to expand in space

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

you can't take £750 as the mid point as the number of estates is decreasing as value increases.

yes that sounds fair, so what would the midpoint of the £500k to £1m point be on a weighted average? maybe towards £650k?

In which case my statement goes from at least x number of people get more than £300k to at least x number of people get more than £271k

Do you feel the overall discussion points change much with £271k instead of £300k?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

never said they were excatly the same job. obviously a nurse requires a specific skillset. however compared to doctors and other professions it is low skilled.

It might be lower that a doctors but it's higher than a care worker,

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

It might be lower that a doctors but it's higher than a care worker,

ok its higher but not much higher. you dont need a degree to be a nurse. just GCSEs and A levels. not saying anyone can do it (because it is very demanding - i fully respect that). however its not a technical skill as such and it is more akin to a care worker then a doctor by far,

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

we face an interesting an unnerving future with the near AI software

90% of me is saying dont go there 10% of me is saying dont worry it will be fine and 100% of me is saying it is inevitable. Maybe this is the explanation for the Fermi paradox. Biological intelligence begets information intelligence which has no need or want to expand in space

i think it has the potential to solve a lot of todays problems, particularly in the medicine. AI and robotics coupled with stem cell advancements and other medical advancements have the capability to imrprove healthcare at a low cost. i can see huge potential. and not in 100 years but more like 20-30 years.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

it is not a moral question it is an economic one

There are places I can not afford places you can not afford places a nurse can not afford.
Who decides who should be able to afford what and where?

If a nurse can complain that she can not afford a 1 bedroom flat in walthamstow can I complain that I can not afford a 1 bedroom flat in Kensinton? Why is her plight worse than mine?

What about a refuse collector, what if he can not afford a 1 bedroom in Enfield, even cheaper than walthamstow, is his job not vital is his job not hard is he not worth your compassion?

when you try to re-frame economic questions as moral one everything breaks down and we fall into nonsense debates. Why should a nurse not be able to buy a nice car she does a fantastic job. Why should a refuse collector not be able to live in earls court he is a good man. Why should a teacher not be able to buy expensive brands of cloths she is lovely!


Purchasing goods or services is an economic question not a mortal one.
If you believe a nurse should be able to buy a one bedroom flat in inner London then you should argue that nurses in London should be paid a minimium of £100k. There is no useful debate to be had when you or others say that people who can not afford good or service A should be able to afford A because the person is nice and I like and value them so something is wrong with the world if a person I value can not get service/good A.

The fact that nurses can't afford a house is down to economics, you could argue that a nurse in London should earn more or that we should abolish housing benefits so the only people who are prepared to live in shared housing can live in London and if we want experienced staff in lower paid jobs we wool have to pay them more.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

ok its higher but not much higher. you dont need a degree to be a nurse. just GCSEs and A levels. not saying anyone can do it (because it is very demanding - i fully respect that). however its not a technical skill as such and it is more akin to a care worker then a doctor by far,

You do need a degree to be a nurse now.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

im not at all surprised by these numbers. clearly there are significant sums being gifted and inherited and by many people to.

i remember in previous posts you mention that this means rates will stay low for much longer? why is this as i didnt fully understand?

no you misread or maybe I miss typed as I dont know which post in particular you are referring to

its one of the multiple reasons why rates (real rates not nominal) tend down as an economy develops. So not 'rates low for longer' but 'rates low from now on, forever'

take two economies, say the UK and Turkey and lets look back 20 years to today. Looking back is easier as we know what has happened rather than try to project forward as we will then be guessing

Anyway, if we look at the UK the birthrate was about 2 or less than 2 with turkey it was a hell of a lot more than 2. This means in the UK each generation was saving and adding wealth to the next generations pot. While in turkey where they were having, i dont know lets say 5 kids per woman, then even if the previous generation has a somewhat positive rate of savings it was being diluted by the simple fact that inheritances and gifts were shared between 5 rather than 2 kids.


so in the uk and countries with 2 or fewer kids per woman then the next generation gets a huge amount of capital, as per the discussion here where its £77 billion in just 2013/14 and perhaps the same again in gifts also this is a figure that is increasing each year and being passed onto fewer than 2 kids. The natives for some time have been having fewer than 2 kids.

This means the next generation has less need for capital, they just inherit it. Given a long enough timeline and low migration this will also mean the population itself is falling. Take this and extend it forward, imagine japan shrinking over time its population towards just 50 million people. Well these 50 million will inherit a country and infrastructure built for 150 million. capital will be worthless or rather worth-a-lot-less.

its no surprise that japan entered this zero rate stage first, less than 2 kids and no migration.
theory fits in so many ways

The west, Europe in particular and even the USA are at 2 kids or below but much higher migration than japan who has virtually nil migration in comparison means we are entering the zero rate world later but its the same things at play.


Why would rates be high, why would rates even be positive, on the most risk free assets (bank deposits and gov-bills) when people have so much capital gifted to them. These people then try to rent out their capital and the price of capital crashes


In turkey now or the west back in the days when the west was having 5 kids per women none of the above was true. Each generation needed to build out so much more capital so there was need for more building more capital more infrastructure so capital could demand a return. but not with 2 kids per women and definitely not with less than 2 kids per women


sorry for the long posts just typing as I think