Will there really be a crash?

Herzlos

triathlon wrote: »

Jealousy, get it all the time, I have taught myself to take it as a type of compliment these days

I'll be honest, assuming that you're not trolling I actually feel somewhat disappointed in you. You've clearly received some pretty good breaks in life and are doing pretty well for yourself, but you seem to live in a little rich kid bubble where everything is based on cost but not value and you have nothing but contempt for others who are less fortunate. You may have money and go on expensive dinners with ex-models who're clearly not interested in the money, but it all comes across as shallow bragging to people who're honestly indifferent.


It's just a shame that you could have done so much more with your opportunities, led a more rewarding life and been a good person. But I'm sure you're happy with you're lot and wondering if you'll still be popular if it wasn't for the money and why all those poor people still manage to be happy.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly wouldn't want to swap places with you. You've certainly shown nothing I'd be jealous of.

dont_use_vistaprint

ukcarper wrote: »

Yearly season tick from Grantham is £7620 so you would need to earn £9.5k to take that home at 20% tax that's quite a big chunk out of London median full time earnings of £36k.

To be perfectly honest, the type of people commute from Grantham swap 40-50K jobs in the north for six figures in London

dont_use_vistaprint

Herzlos wrote: »

Teaching is a pretty good suggestion, but it requires a degree (which requires money) and there seems to be a huge shortage of teaching jobs, and education is getting it's funding cut to painful levels.

Are you serious ?

A degree is free in the UK you just pay more tax when you graduate, . You have been listening to the fake news / momentum society. Martin agrees too, watch this clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3On2PG1CZA

Also theres no shortage, teachers can choose to work anywhere in the UK , guaranteed jobs , open progression routes to headships and within 15 years can manage academies or colleges for 200-300k salaries

ukcarper

dont_use_vistaprint wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, the type of people commute from Grantham swap 40-50K jobs in the north for six figures in London

If your earning a six figure salary you don't need to commute from Grantham you can get a very nice property a lot closer.

lisyloo

ukcarper wrote: »

If your earning a six figure salary you don't need to commute from Grantham you can get a very nice property a lot closer.

So if you’re on £100k and want a family property, how close to London do you think you can get a very nice property?

Tiny flats in central London are out of reach on that salary.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

So if you’re on £100k and want a family property, how close to London do you think you can get a very nice property?

Tiny flats in central London are out of reach on that salary.

You could buy my house 4 bed detached 50 mins from Waterloo you could get a 3 bed semi closer.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

So if you’re on £100k and want a family property, how close to London do you think you can get a very nice property?

Tiny flats in central London are out of reach on that salary.

With £100k income you could buy 3 bedroom flats in zone 2 London for £400-500k and walk to work

And one of the big reasons why inner London is so expensive is the socialists cant bear not to house the immigrants refugees and pensioners in zone 2 council stock. You have the big 3 employment hubs of Westminster docklands and the city and right outside you have zone 2 boroughs like Hackney/Islington etc which are 40%+ council stock.

This makes no sense you put the worlds poor right next to the jobs and then force the zone 1 workers to train in 500 miles a week.

What should happen is zone 2 councils should be FORCED to sell down their social stock to the national average of ~17% not to keep (and try to boost) the social stock at 40% or more. If that happened train congestion would drop and inner London prices would be more affordable.

Herzlos

You of course realize that the a lot of the council housing tenants are in work, often in the job hotspots yet potentially can't afford to commute in?
Where do you think all the cleaning, catering, security, reception, staff come from? No-one is paying £6k+ a year in train fares for minimum wage.



I do agree that we should be offering the permanently unemployed - pensioners, disabled etc some incentives to move to nicer areas but we shouldn't be forcing them - they are as entitled to live in the city as anyone else. The housing should still remain social.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

You of course realize that the a lot of the council housing tenants are in work, often in the job hotspots yet potentially can't afford to commute in?
Where do you think all the cleaning, catering, security, reception, staff come from? No-one is paying £6k+ a year in train fares for minimum wage.

I do agree that we should be offering the permanently unemployed - pensioners, disabled etc some incentives to move to nicer areas but we shouldn't be forcing them - they are as entitled to live in the city as anyone else. The housing should still remain social.

Why do we need to subsidise millionaires and large corporations with min wage staff to clean their offices and make their sandwiches?

What do you think would happen? that the most profitable and productive companies would decide to close because the bins were overflowing as no one wanted to empty them for £8.50 an hour or would they pay what they had to pay to make sure the bins were emptied

And I was not suggesting that the social stock should go to zero I was asking why it is zone 2 has to be more than twice as much social stock as the rest of the country?

Malthusian

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do we need to subsidise millionaires and large corporations with min wage staff to clean their offices and make their sandwiches?

Because they make the rules.

Oh right, sorry, rhetorical question. As you were.

But as long as Herzlos and co swallow the doublethink that it is in the poor's interest to artificially suppress their wages, this state of affairs will continue.