Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

The young mother who's landlord refused to repair her oven even after it short circuited and almost killed her, so she had to buy hot food for her kids that she hadn't budgeted for. The centre manager also drove round to her house and lent her her own portable one.

She didn't have to buy expensive take away she did not budget for that was a CHOICE dont try to hide it by saying 'hot food for her kids'. She could have chosen to make non hot food which is what I often have for breakfast and lunch or non oven food like potatoes in a microwave or stove. Going to mcdonalds to buy some half warm burgers for her kids was a choice as far as we humans have choice

She could have purchased her own small counter top oven they only cost £25 which is the cost of two trips to mcdonalds for the kids

The numerous women who have arrived at the centre with black eyes and kids in tow who have fled violent partners with nothing apart from the clothes they are standing up in.

yes dysfunctional families

The single father who woke up one morning to find his partner had taken all their money, left him with a 2 year old and a baby to look after and that was the last day he was going to be going to work for a while.

Dysfunctional

They would have been at the food bank lining up with the people who have their benefits terminated because they went to a job interview rather than signing on. The disabled people who failed their pip assessment as they can walk 100 metres before keeling over. The people who suddenly have to pay a bedroom tax but can't afford to move.

administration failures
how does putting up income tax to 50% solve those problems?

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

They made business plans to expand but were saving on costs by NOT hedging the currency. Of course seasonal price variation effects all suppliers but they got caught by sterlings drop in value which is DIRECTLY linked to the Brexit vote.

This is a Brexit related post in the Brexit thread.

There was plenty of evidence that the pound was overvalued long before the Brexit vote which was merely the catalyst for its devaluation. We will never know but it's more than likely that the £ would have devalued anyway.

It's almost beyond belief that the company management didn't buy forward as any prudent company would have done. Sad that jobs have been lost because of their stupidity and not because of Brexit.

Rusty_Shackleton

always_sunny wrote: »

That's baloney. From a 'forecasting' perspective the council may say that x homes = x people occupying therefore x amount of waste but that is an assumption in the model and not the reality.
You could have homes that are empty and homes occupied by a single person (which the council would know) not producing as much waste.

no, that is baloney.

If you're talking about the bin men, i.e. those going around collecting bins, there are a fixed number of bins that are collected every week (/alternating)... it doesnt matter if lots of people move into those areas, because unless more bins are issued, the demand for the service is identical regardless of how full that bin is.

Once you get to refuse centres/landfills then you can think about the weight and volume of the refuse, but at the collector level it is irrelevant, the number of bins is what matters to the planners!

GreatApe

cogito wrote: »

There was plenty of evidence that the pound was overvalued long before the Brexit vote which was merely the catalyst for its devaluation. We will never know but it's more than likely that the £ would have devalued anyway.

It's almost beyond belief that the company management didn't buy forward as any prudent company would have done. Sad that jobs have been lost because of their stupidity and not because of Brexit.

you cant hedge currency indefinitely, if anything I would say companies shouldn't be doing that apart from very short term to fix costs which is more or less what they do. if you are a car company you are not a currency hedging company. If you or the car company has so much skill and insight into currency they should become a currency house

Also imagine a company did have a lot of skill and hedged the currency, well they can take that profit on day one of the currency movements and their actual costs of producing goods and services for export or buying for import are the costs that day at that days currency value

Arklight

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

This is simply delusional. No other way to put it.

Average UK salary is £27k. There is a serious shortage of decent paying jobs., and ignoring the discussion of unemployment figures, low wage and zero hours contracts are far more prolific than they have been in the past.

They were advertising for delivery driver jobs, wanting a minimum of 2 years van / lorry driving experience, for Sainsbury's in store recently offering the princely sum of £15500 to 16500 per year. I think they actually had a sign up saying "Great salary!" It then waxed on about how tremendous this offer was as it was actually a permanent job with holiday pay, not a day rate.


I am not offering any opinion on what a van driver should be paid, but this is a pretty typical example of a working class job that 20 years ago would have been considered fairly solid employment for a man with a family that now is just a down payment on in work benefits.

Rusty_Shackleton

Greatape, it's not about necessarily fixing everyones problems, that's clearly not possible. What is possible is providing support systems - fine, a problem gambler might lose any money you give them to feed their kids, but providing breakfast clubs in schools can address the actual problem to society which is that the kid goes hungry. It's not society's problem that an idiot gambles away everything they have.

Similarly, many peoples dysfunctional behaviour is learned through the environment they grew up in, things like Sure Start centres have been a great way to break that nasty cycle - oh, look at one of the areas that's had enormous spending cuts. Short term gain for the government, long term pain for the people who's life chances would have been drastically improved by their continued (or better, expanded) funding. Not to mention the costs society will face in cleaning up messes that could have been prevented.

I think that's the real crux of the problem, which actually goes to yours and others point about efficiency... society spends a fortune cleaning up dysfunction, through social services, criminal justice, lost productivity. While we shouldn't stop patching up the worst of it, we really don't prioritise preventing it happening in the future. Until people decide that's worth investing in, we'll continue to spend a fortune while also helping to enable misery. Prevention is better (and in this case, vastly cheaper) than cure.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

They were advertising for delivery driver jobs, wanting a minimum of 2 years van / lorry driving experience, for Sainsbury's in store recently offering the princely sum of £15500 to 16500 per year. I think they actually had a sign up saying "Great salary!" It then waxed on about how tremendous this offer was as it was actually a permanent job with holiday pay, not a day rate.


I am not offering any opinion on what a van driver should be paid, but this is a pretty typical example of a working class job that 20 years ago would have been considered fairly solid employment for a man with a family that now is just a down payment on in work benefits.

People were a lot poorer in the past its just selective memory that makes some people say otherwise

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Greatape, it's not about necessarily fixing everyones problems, that's clearly not possible. What is possible is providing support systems - fine, a problem gambler might lose any money you give them to feed their kids, but providing breakfast clubs in schools can address the actual problem to society which is that the kid goes hungry. It's not society's problem that an idiot gambles away everything they have.

Similarly, many peoples dysfunctional behaviour is learned through the environment they grew up in, things like Sure Start centres have been a great way to break that nasty cycle - oh, look at one of the areas that's had enormous spending cuts. Short term gain for the government, long term pain for the people who's life chances would have been drastically improved by their continued (or better, expanded) funding. Not to mention the costs society will face in cleaning up messes that could have been prevented.

I think that's the real crux of the problem, which actually goes to yours and others point about efficiency... society spends a fortune cleaning up dysfunction, through social services, criminal justice, lost productivity. While we shouldn't stop patching up the worst of it, we really don't prioritise preventing it happening in the future. Until people decide that's worth investing in, we'll continue to spend a fortune while also helping to enable misery. Prevention is better (and in this case, vastly cheaper) than cure.

Do we agree that the vast majority of functional persons or household in the UK can have a good productive life? I would argue even people who do not work and live off benefits can have such a good productive life as I know functional families who are on benefits and they are good decent people who have decent lives

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

I was talking about full time jobs, your £27k average figure includes part time jobs

It also includes the salaries of premiership footballers, what's your point?

Your 30-35k salary being easy to achieve with hard work is complete bull. Half of taxpayers earn less than £21k (2012-13 figure). Not an exact comparison, but lets say that's half of jobs: that means you've got to be above average to earn above 21k... that's quite a way off from your £35k idea. That's across all age groups as well, so under represents younger people who have less opportunity, what with the declining number of decent jobs. To say you can 'easily' earn £35k is absurd.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this? It feels like I'm debating the existence of gravity or that the Earth isn't flat.

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

It was a living wage he managed to live on it for a decade



Yes I know I did tell him that. He has managed to find two companies that are willing to give him a training contract. He is a very likable guy and is extremely conscientious so I do not think he will have a problem.



It was a mistake to increase mandatory education until age 18, I only recently learned that was the case I thought it was still age 16



There must be a reason for it. There is definitely a shortage of plumbers in London



I dont know the individual but if he is a hard worker and or has a quick mind (IQ >110) he will do just fine and should be encouraged to look for higher paying sectors and jobs. Of course if he is lazy or hard to get on with or dim then the best advise is either to get the easiest full time job he can find (probably min wage)



hard work does not guarantee big money at all but hard work can guarantee average (about £30-£35k) money to get more than that you need to be quite smart and or make use of contacts (nepotism). Big money is only possible with hard work smarts and luck of course there is always the one in a million that makes it with not much work or smarts

Really? Reaaaalllly Great Ape?


I am not saying I am calling BS on this but are you really telling me that a mature man, who hasn't even started his training course yet, and in fact only has your book, enticing him with the riches of plumbing has managed to secure not one but two offers of employment?


Competing as he is, in a field where plumbing companies are almost awash with eager wannabe apprentices, who actually have completed plumbing exams under their belts and a willingness to work for nothing and do exactly as they are told?


Well, if he has that kind of ingenuity maybe he should be setting his sights even higher.