Apparently…..it isn’t a job

[Grimalkin]

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

 

Actually it is - the origin is from a R4 comedy program.

 

Getting out much?

[Dad3353]

7 minutes ago, Grimalkin said:

 

Getting out much?

 

And yourself..? Keeping busy..? 

[neepheid]

9 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I’m always concerned about how difficult it is for people. Having secure shelter is a fundamental requirement. It shouldn’t be a luxury or a casino.

 

I think I should have been clearer with my rather truncated statement which now that I read it does make me look like a bit of a douche.  It has been sometimes true though - in times of trouble I've had to focus on my own situation and be less concerned with the difficulties of others.  I don't think I need to apologise for that - I'm not a saint.

But I do need to apologise for being a grump, so, sorry for being a grump.  Gen Xers can be grumpy too, boomers - in fact, we'll out grump you, you old timers!

 

FWIW I try to help people with their physiological needs by helping run and contributing to a community food larder, and it bothers me that it needs to exist at all.

[Grimalkin]

9 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

And yourself..? Keeping busy..? 

 

I'm as busy as I want to be.

 

"Work, the gospel of work, the sanctity of work, laborare est orare - all that tripe and nonsense. 'Work!' he once broke out contemptuously against the reasonable expostulations of Philip Quarles, 'work is no more respectable than alcohol, and it serves exactly the same purpose: it just distracts the mind, makes a man forget himself."

 

Aldous Huxley - Point Counter Point.

I live in the here and now, the future looks incredibly bleak.

[Dad3353]

[Nicko]

2 hours ago, EBS_freak said:

I'm slightly confused by this notion of average salary and average house prices.

 

I bought my first house in 1992, my second in 2002 and the one I live in now in 2012 (I don't plan to move every ten years - that just how it worked out).

 

If I look at my first house - a sh1tty 2 bed one reception new build on a large housing development which was priced at £85k, there is no way that it is now worth 800% of £85k, in fact I saw it was on sale a year or so ago for around £350k - so around half the increase predicted by this chart.  My second home increased by about 80% whereas the chart suggests it should have trebled.  Similarly my current house (a pleasant 3 bed in a "posh" outer London 'burb) has increased in value by less than 100% in the last 10 years - in fact it's under offer at the moment at 160% of what I paid and that's after me spending quite a lot on replacing windows, new kitchen, bathroom, solid wood floors and so on.

 

I can only assume that the prices have increased for slightly different reasons than simple inflation.  Here are some ideas of what may have skewed the prices.

 

People my age tended to buy properties that were virtual slums in crappy areas, and worked hard to make them into homes. In some cases those areas have also been developed to make them more attractive.  The number of doer uppers seems to have dropped - probably because the BTL landlords have already bought them.  Some of the crappy areas have been deliberately gentrified  - think East London, Salford Quays, and virtually anywhere along a canal.

 

People commute further than they ever have - people living in south Hertfordshire are mostly commuting to London, earning London wages and pushing up the cost of homes beyond local salary multipliers while complaining about the price of season tickets.  Towns have expanded outwards, and town properties close to facilities tend to be more expensive than villages with no transport links.

 

We went through a period of selling off social housing at a discount (both councils and housing associations).  Those prices are included in the average, but were not market values, and when resold were sold at a gain far exceeding the average increase. My second home was one of those - the previous owner had bought it cheap and sold it to me at market price.

 

A typical family home when I was growing up was a three bed - irrespective of how many kids there were.  I'm one of four and we shared rooms (I did until I was 16 when my eldest brother moved out).  Kids these days don't seem to do that unless the parents simply can't afford to buy a larger house.  Those that can afford to buy bigger houses than we used to - more bedrooms, and an extra room for the kids to play in.

 

On the flip side, average salaries have also been skewed by an ageing workforce - people either have to or choose to work past the old retirement age, and they earn less.  Young people are more likely to go and do degrees and start work later,  My starting salary when I left school was a grand total of £2500.    However a school leaver now leaving and working a 40 hour week on minimum wage would earn nearly 7 times that amount - not an increase of less than 50% as predicted by the chart.  However, I had a career and my wages increased rapidly - especially when I changed jobs.

[mikel]

1 hour ago, Nicko said:

I'm slightly confused by this notion of average salary and average house prices.

 

I bought my first house in 1992, my second in 2002 and the one I live in now in 2012 (I don't plan to move every ten years - that just how it worked out).

 

If I look at my first house - a sh1tty 2 bed one reception new build on a large housing development which was priced at £85k, there is no way that it is now worth 800% of £85k, in fact I saw it was on sale a year or so ago for around £350k - so around half the increase predicted by this chart.  My second home increased by about 80% whereas the chart suggests it should have trebled.  Similarly my current house (a pleasant 3 bed in a "posh" outer London 'burb) has increased in value by less than 100% in the last 10 years - in fact it's under offer at the moment at 160% of what I paid and that's after me spending quite a lot on replacing windows, new kitchen, bathroom, solid wood floors and so on.

 

I can only assume that the prices have increased for slightly different reasons than simple inflation.  Here are some ideas of what may have skewed the prices.

 

People my age tended to buy properties that were virtual slums in crappy areas, and worked hard to make them into homes. In some cases those areas have also been developed to make them more attractive.  The number of doer uppers seems to have dropped - probably because the BTL landlords have already bought them.  Some of the crappy areas have been deliberately gentrified  - think East London, Salford Quays, and virtually anywhere along a canal.

 

People commute further than they ever have - people living in south Hertfordshire are mostly commuting to London, earning London wages and pushing up the cost of homes beyond local salary multipliers while complaining about the price of season tickets.  Towns have expanded outwards, and town properties close to facilities tend to be more expensive than villages with no transport links.

 

We went through a period of selling off social housing at a discount (both councils and housing associations).  Those prices are included in the average, but were not market values, and when resold were sold at a gain far exceeding the average increase. My second home was one of those - the previous owner had bought it cheap and sold it to me at market price.

 

A typical family home when I was growing up was a three bed - irrespective of how many kids there were.  I'm one of four and we shared rooms (I did until I was 16 when my eldest brother moved out).  Kids these days don't seem to do that unless the parents simply can't afford to buy a larger house.  Those that can afford to buy bigger houses than we used to - more bedrooms, and an extra room for the kids to play in.

 

On the flip side, average salaries have also been skewed by an ageing workforce - people either have to or choose to work past the old retirement age, and they earn less.  Young people are more likely to go and do degrees and start work later,  My starting salary when I left school was a grand total of £2500.    However a school leaver now leaving and working a 40 hour week on minimum wage would earn nearly 7 times that amount - not an increase of less than 50% as predicted by the chart.  However, I had a career and my wages increased rapidly - especially when I changed jobs.

Yep. Lack of new build over decades. Selling off council houses at knockdown prices and not replacing them, so the private rental market booms and rents go sky high. Also, in Cities with Universities, lots of older property bought up and renovated solely for the student market. You can make a killing renting a 3 or 4 bed out to 3 or 4 students rather than one family. 

[Tim2291]

2 hours ago, Nicko said:

I'm slightly confused by this notion of average salary and average house prices.

 

I bought my first house in 1992, my second in 2002 and the one I live in now in 2012 (I don't plan to move every ten years - that just how it worked out).

 

If I look at my first house - a sh1tty 2 bed one reception new build on a large housing development which was priced at £85k, there is no way that it is now worth 800% of £85k, in fact I saw it was on sale a year or so ago for around £350k - so around half the increase predicted by this chart.  My second home increased by about 80% whereas the chart suggests it should have trebled.  Similarly my current house (a pleasant 3 bed in a "posh" outer London 'burb) has increased in value by less than 100% in the last 10 years - in fact it's under offer at the moment at 160% of what I paid and that's after me spending quite a lot on replacing windows, new kitchen, bathroom, solid wood floors and so on.

 

I can only assume that the prices have increased for slightly different reasons than simple inflation.  Here are some ideas of what may have skewed the prices.

 

People my age tended to buy properties that were virtual slums in crappy areas, and worked hard to make them into homes. In some cases those areas have also been developed to make them more attractive.  The number of doer uppers seems to have dropped - probably because the BTL landlords have already bought them.  Some of the crappy areas have been deliberately gentrified  - think East London, Salford Quays, and virtually anywhere along a canal.

 

People commute further than they ever have - people living in south Hertfordshire are mostly commuting to London, earning London wages and pushing up the cost of homes beyond local salary multipliers while complaining about the price of season tickets.  Towns have expanded outwards, and town properties close to facilities tend to be more expensive than villages with no transport links.

 

We went through a period of selling off social housing at a discount (both councils and housing associations).  Those prices are included in the average, but were not market values, and when resold were sold at a gain far exceeding the average increase. My second home was one of those - the previous owner had bought it cheap and sold it to me at market price.

 

A typical family home when I was growing up was a three bed - irrespective of how many kids there were.  I'm one of four and we shared rooms (I did until I was 16 when my eldest brother moved out).  Kids these days don't seem to do that unless the parents simply can't afford to buy a larger house.  Those that can afford to buy bigger houses than we used to - more bedrooms, and an extra room for the kids to play in.

 

On the flip side, average salaries have also been skewed by an ageing workforce - people either have to or choose to work past the old retirement age, and they earn less.  Young people are more likely to go and do degrees and start work later,  My starting salary when I left school was a grand total of £2500.    However a school leaver now leaving and working a 40 hour week on minimum wage would earn nearly 7 times that amount - not an increase of less than 50% as predicted by the chart.  However, I had a career and my wages increased rapidly - especially when I changed jobs.

Don't forget to allow for inflation, £100 in 1980 would be the equivalent of £476 today (according to a quick google search). Now I obviously have no idea when you started working, but based on that calculation, £2500 in 1980 would be equivalent to £11900 today, current minimum wage for a 16 year old (school leaver) is £4.81 an hour which based on 52 x 40 hour weeks, works out to around £10,000.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Tim2291

[Nicko]

49 minutes ago, Tim2291 said:

Don't forget to allow for inflation, £100 in 1980 would be the equivalent of £476 today (according to a quick google search). Now I obviously have no idea when you started working, but based on that calculation, £2500 in 1980 would be equivalent to £11900 today, current minimum wage for a 16 year old (school leaver) is £4.81 an hour which based on 52 x 40 hour weeks, works out to around £10,000.

The graph is clearly all in 1980s prices.  If it isn't the house I bought in 1992 would be worth £85k x 7 for house price index  x 2.3 for inflation - around £1.4 million.  

 

I started work in 1984. The graph shows that inflation over that period is 255% so my £2500 would be worth £6375 today. Using 45 working weeks the school leaver would be getting £8658 today, but that is only if they leave school and start an apprenticeship because otherwise they have to stay at school until 18.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Nicko

[dmccombe7]

I've finally found my perfect path in life...............retirement.

Nothing beats it. I'm my own boss, i arrange my day around me, no stress, no worries, no complaints from those above or below me.

I do have to plan when i have my coffee and that's another benefit .............. i can have coffeee whenever i like.

Dave

Edited October 12, 2022 by dmccombe7

[mikel]

46 minutes ago, dmccombe7 said:

I've finally found my perfect path in life...............retirement.

Nothing beats it. I'm my own boss, i arrange my day around me, no stress, no worries, no complaints from those above or below me.

I do have to plan when i have my coffee and that's another benefit .............. i can have coffeee whenever i like.

Dave

Agreed. I also realised the secret of contentment. Its not being wealthy or having lots of shiny new stuff, or being "Successful". It's small pleasures, like a good coffee and a pastry, learning a tricky song, Mortimer and Whitehouse, walking the dog on a frosty morning, the latest photo of my grand daughter. Its about realising that however little I have, it's enough for for me. 

[dmccombe7]

29 minutes ago, mikel said:

Agreed. I also realised the secret of contentment. Its not being wealthy or having lots of shiny new stuff, or being "Successful". It's small pleasures, like a good coffee and a pastry, learning a tricky song, Mortimer and Whitehouse, walking the dog on a frosty morning, the latest photo of my grand daughter. Its about realising that however little I have, it's enough for for me. 

One thing

 

[Tim2291]

41 minutes ago, mikel said:

Agreed. I also realised the secret of contentment. Its not being wealthy or having lots of shiny new stuff, or being "Successful". It's small pleasures, like a good coffee and a pastry, learning a tricky song, Mortimer and Whitehouse, walking the dog on a frosty morning, the latest photo of my grand daughter. Its about realising that however little I have, it's enough for for me. 

From what you have said above, you are a successful person, you have found the things that make you happy.

 

I'm nowhere near retirement (35 plus years away) but have thankfully already realised this! The world is full of shiny new things that are well advertised to make people think they "need" them. The more money people earn, the more they spend on pointless things that don't fill the emptiness in their lives and holidays to mini England resorts so they can post photos on a beach! Success is measured financially rather than on happiness and contentment. Nobody says "she's doing well, look how happy she is!"

 

I know plenty of "successful" business people who are being sustained by cocktails of antidepressants and all sorts of other drugs. For some people, a bit more money would be incredible and would increase their quality of life unimaginably. The difference between supporting a family on £15 K and £30 K for example would be extreme. But the same person then moving from £30K to £45K isn't going to have the same impact, yes it would help them retire earlier in theory, but in reality it's likely that they would take on greater overheads and end up retiring at the same point anyway!

[mikel]

12 minutes ago, Tim2291 said:

From what you have said above, you are a successful person, you have found the things that make you happy.

 

I'm nowhere near retirement (35 plus years away) but have thankfully already realised this! The world is full of shiny new things that are well advertised to make people think they "need" them. The more money people earn, the more they spend on pointless things that don't fill the emptiness in their lives and holidays to mini England resorts so they can post photos on a beach! Success is measured financially rather than on happiness and contentment. Nobody says "she's doing well, look how happy she is!"

 

I know plenty of "successful" business people who are being sustained by cocktails of antidepressants and all sorts of other drugs. For some people, a bit more money would be incredible and would increase their quality of life unimaginably. The difference between supporting a family on £15 K and £30 K for example would be extreme. But the same person then moving from £30K to £45K isn't going to have the same impact, yes it would help them retire earlier in theory, but in reality it's likely that they would take on greater overheads and end up retiring at the same point anyway!

That's why I put successful in italics. 

[lozkerr]

28 minutes ago, Tim2291 said:

From what you have said above, you are a successful person, you have found the things that make you happy.

 

I'm nowhere near retirement (35 plus years away) but have thankfully already realised this! The world is full of shiny new things that are well advertised to make people think they "need" them. The more money people earn, the more they spend on pointless things that don't fill the emptiness in their lives and holidays to mini England resorts so they can post photos on a beach! Success is measured financially rather than on happiness and contentment. Nobody says "she's doing well, look how happy she is!"

 

I know plenty of "successful" business people who are being sustained by cocktails of antidepressants and all sorts of other drugs. For some people, a bit more money would be incredible and would increase their quality of life unimaginably. The difference between supporting a family on £15 K and £30 K for example would be extreme. But the same person then moving from £30K to £45K isn't going to have the same impact, yes it would help them retire earlier in theory, but in reality it's likely that they would take on greater overheads and end up retiring at the same point anyway!

Well done! It took me a bit longer to realise that I don't need to buy the latest shiny toys - it's a mug's game. My kids are aye on at me to get the latest iPhone, but my elderly Samsung's trundling along just fine. I'll be keeping it for a while yet. Car is thirteen years old, and as I live in a tiny flat, I just don't have the space for unnecessary tat. Writing, a bit of model-making and music are what makes me happy. When I retire in a few years, I'll be glad to leave the rat race behind - let's face it, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat 😉 

 

I came across this wee animated film a while back and it really struck a chord with me. So much truth in such a short time:

 

[Nicko]

33 minutes ago, Tim2291 said:

From what you have said above, you are a successful person, you have found the things that make you happy.

 

I'm nowhere near retirement (35 plus years away) but have thankfully already realised this! The world is full of shiny new things that are well advertised to make people think they "need" them. The more money people earn, the more they spend on pointless things that don't fill the emptiness in their lives and holidays to mini England resorts so they can post photos on a beach! Success is measured financially rather than on happiness and contentment. Nobody says "she's doing well, look how happy she is!"

 

I know plenty of "successful" business people who are being sustained by cocktails of antidepressants and all sorts of other drugs. For some people, a bit more money would be incredible and would increase their quality of life unimaginably. The difference between supporting a family on £15 K and £30 K for example would be extreme. But the same person then moving from £30K to £45K isn't going to have the same impact, yes it would help them retire earlier in theory, but in reality it's likely that they would take on greater overheads and end up retiring at the same point anyway!

I think I've been relatively successful and retired at 52.  I don't buy lots of shiny new things and the money gives me the freedom to appreciate the simple things in life.  Those that say I don't need the money may be right but they don't have the choices I have, and I suspect if they were offered a big some of money wouldn't turn it down.

 

 

[Grimalkin]

“The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted.”

Aldous Huxley - Brave New World Revisited.

 

 

[Tim2291]

6 minutes ago, Nicko said:

I think I've been relatively successful and retired at 52.  I don't buy lots of shiny new things and the money gives me the freedom to appreciate the simple things in life.  Those that say I don't need the money may be right but they don't have the choices I have, and I suspect if they were offered a big some of money wouldn't turn it down.

 

 

Of course nobody would turn down the offer of a large sum of money! From what you have said, you are on the same wavelength as the conversation. Your financial success and planning has freed you to retire earlier than many others which is amazing and it sounds like it makes you happy and content! As you have said, you don't buy shiny new stuff which was probably a large factor in your early retirement and hats off to you for doing so, my grandparents did similar and now in her late 80's, my grandma can still afford to do anything she wants to do! I would 100% make the same choice as you if I have managed to get myself to a similar position. My theory is it is much better to live in a smaller house, with an older car but have more time to be with family and friends doing things I enjoy than to be at work 14 hours a day!

[Dad3353]

Aldous Huxley plays bass..? Or are you confusing him with Ashley Hutchings..? 

[Nicko]

20 minutes ago, Tim2291 said:

My theory is it is much better to live in a smaller house, with an older car but have more time to be with family and friends doing things I enjoy than to be at work 14 hours a day!

Yes it is, but being successful doesn't mean working longer it means working smarter and knowing how to switch off from work when you leave your desk (or whatever they have you chained to).

[Grimalkin]

"The governor of the Bank of England has come under fire from unions and earned a rebuke from 10 Downing Street for suggesting workers should not ask for big pay rises to help control inflation.

 

Andrew Bailey said he wanted to see “quite clear restraint” in the annual wage-bargaining process between staff and their employers to help prevent an upward spiral taking hold.

 

However, his comments drew a furious response from union leaders, as households face the worst hit to their living standards in three decades as soaring energy prices cause inflation to outstrip wage growth."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/feb/04/cost-of-living-crisis-bank-of-england-pay-restraint-ofgem-energy-bills-us-jobs-business-live

 

The bank of England are part of it. They're not going to mention neoliberalism are they.

[Grimalkin]

Wages have been stagnating for the last 40 years...

[neepheid]

4 minutes ago, Grimalkin said:

Wages have been stagnating for the last 40 years...

 

Quote source needed

[Dad3353]

2 minutes ago, neepheid said:

 

Quote source needed

 

[msb]

I’m retired , and sometimes it’s lovely to buy shiny new (or old) stuff.

Finding kijiji deals seems to have become a hobby. More often than not I’ll message someone about a good deal , but sometimes I drag ‘em home.