advertisement


Housing market

What? Nonsense, there's currently about 1.38 million claiming Jobseekers/Universal Credit but that's a totally false indication of how many people are unemployed, the real no is about 3.5 million.

What are those 2.1M doing, are they financially independent? People I talk to can’t get staff.
 
Not sure that the vagaries of human demand consumption are natural and even less that borrowing is the driver of problematic inflation. Likewise to say that absence of recessions are the driver of inflation seems to be putting the cart before the horse somewhat. Recessions are the product of inflation, not the other way around.

Besides, we happily live with inflation based on borrowing when it suits us, notably when it comes to housing. House price inflation causes periodic economic turbulence for those unable to service their borrowing, but the easy remedies to resolve that turbulence by stabilising house prices are unacceptable to the self interest of those who profit from ever increasing house prices and betting on periodic turbulence

While self interest is a part of the human condition, it isn’t a necessary part, self interest is not what defines the human condition, other things like altruism to name but one play their part too. So I would argue that self interest and greed are not the necessary defining condition of being human, and are not therefore natural in the proper sense of the word.

What's self interest/altruism got to do with it? I'm just saying that recessions are when people (and businesses) have to reduce expenditure because their income isn't enough to pay back what they've borrowed.

If governments attempt to prevent recessions by enabling more borrowing, you just get higher asset prices, which help the haves with surplus assets and harm the have-nots with no assets.

Say the have-nots eventually can't afford to eat due to high cost of rents vs wages etc. and the government gives them free food money. All that happens is that the price of the food increases. So then you have to take other measures, such as introducing controls on the price of food — you end up in a planned economy. Or you allow wages to rise and we enter a wage-price spiral. All because recessions have become politically unacceptable.
 
To an eye watering 0.5%. Not really going to tackle inflation is it.

No, but two back to back does send a signal...won't dent inflation though as you say.

Might make few think about throwing BIG money at mortgages though as more rises to come.
 
What are those 2.1M doing, are they financially independent? People I talk to can’t get staff.

I don't have any figures but there will be a percentage on other benefits which are not considered 'Jobseekers' , things like DLA, Incapacity benefit, etc, the government have been doing this for decades to cover up their incompetence in running the country and swindle the general public into thinking jobs are plenty , then they are those who if are out of work are not entitled too ANY benefit due to their personal savings or the earnings of their wife/ husband or partner. I would fall into this latter category if not working.
IME those who cannot 'get staff' or have a high turnover of staff is indicative of poor wages/salary , poor conditions or they're just a c××t to work for.

https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/news/real-level-unemployment-almost-35million-new-report
 
No, but two back to back does send a signal...

A 0.5% base rate certainly sends a signal at current inflation rates, that they won’t go up very much. Recessions are banned remember, particularly when the govt has a colossal debt to service.

I can see housing in desirable areas of the south up another 10% this year. Rest of the country not so sure. Fixed rate money is so cheap.
 
What's self interest/altruism got to do with it? I'm just saying that recessions are when people (and businesses) have to reduce expenditure because their income isn't enough to pay back what they've borrowed.

If governments attempt to prevent recessions by enabling more borrowing, you just get higher asset prices, which help the haves with surplus assets and harm the have-nots with no assets.

Say the have-nots eventually can't afford to eat due to high cost of rents vs wages etc. and the government gives them free food money. All that happens is that the price of the food increases. So then you have to take other measures, such as introducing controls on the price of food — you end up in a planned economy. Or you allow wages to rise and we enter a wage-price spiral. All because recessions have become politically unacceptable.
Not arguing against too much of that except that using borrowing to impoverish poor people and enrich the rich, is not "natural'', it's political.

Encouraging private borrowing is a bloody stupid way to try to control inflation. And it isn't natural and it isn't necessary, other solutions are available and one or two of them might not be a straight line to Authoritarian Communism!
 
A 0.5% base rate certainly sends a signal at current inflation rates, that they won’t go up very much. Recessions are banned remember, particularly when the govt has a colossal debt to service.

I can see housing in desirable areas of the south up another 10% this year. Rest of the country not so sure. Fixed rate money is so cheap.

Just saw this - I see what you mean!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/persona...bank-launches-cheapest-ever-10-year-mortgage/

Yep, the markets skewed for a long time at this rate.
 
What? Nonsense, there's currently about 1.38 million claiming Jobseekers/Universal Credit but that's a totally false indication of how many people are unemployed, the real no is about 3.5 million.
Why are these people not presenting themselves at the food factories where I work? That's not one factory, region, or even one employer. It's nationwide.
 
That is what I thought.

The fantasy of making more via the stock market only rings true if the correct investments were made.
Hmmm. Methinks you are not up to speed with investing? Calculations were based on the portfolios that I have held over the same period.

You may not be aware but over time its possible to average around 7% return p.a. (I'm discussing investing and not dealing/gambling!) Of course there were times when the portfolios dived and other times when they excelled but over time 7% is close. Now what does that mean in practice? It means that my portfolio doubled in value every 10 years i.e. exponential growth. For example invest £100K and after 10 years its £200K and after 20 years its £400K and 30 years £800k - exponential growth. Even if you only average 5% p.a. the same rules apply and you double the value every 14 years but you'd still reach £800K after 42 years. Thats why I encourage my children to invest now whilst they are young.

Here is an exercise to try. At the birth of a child you stick £1K into a tax free wrapper for them. What might be the value when that person is 70 years old and ready to retire? Of course its true value in todays money will depend also on the inflation rate over said period.

DV
 
I don't have any figures but there will be a percentage on other benefits which are not considered 'Jobseekers' , things like DLA, Incapacity benefit, etc, the government have been doing this for decades to cover up their incompetence in running the country and swindle the general public into thinking jobs are plenty , then they are those who if are out of work are not entitled too ANY benefit due to their personal savings or the earnings of their wife/ husband or partner. I would fall into this latter category if not working.
IME those who cannot 'get staff' or have a high turnover of staff is indicative of poor wages/salary , poor conditions or they're just a c××t to work for.

https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/news/real-level-unemployment-almost-35million-new-report

There is always going to be a natural rate of unemployment for various reasons, we all understand that. There will always be exceptions but generally, benefits shouldn’t be given to households who have savings, they are supposed to be a safety net to help those without resources back on their feet, no problem with that. As for staff shortages, it’s across the board from the people I speak to, from cafe owners and retailers to lawyers to contractors on £1K a day. Shortages everywhere yet apparently we have high unemployment. Doesn’t stack up.
 
Hmmm. Methinks you are not up to speed with investing? Calculations were based on the portfolios that I have held over the same period.

You may not be aware but over time its possible to average around 7% return p.a. (I'm discussing investing and not dealing/gambling!) Of course there were times when the portfolios dived and other times when they excelled but over time 7% is close. Now what does that mean in practice? It means that my portfolio doubled in value every 10 years i.e. exponential growth. For example invest £100K and after 10 years its £200K and after 20 years its £400K and 30 years £800k - exponential growth. Even if you only average 5% p.a. the same rules apply and you double the value every 14 years but you'd still reach £800K after 42 years. Thats why I encourage my children to invest now whilst they are young.

Here is an exercise to try. At the birth of a child you stick £1K into a tax free wrapper for them. What might be the value when that person is 70 years old and ready to retire? Of course its true value in todays money will depend also on the inflation rate over said period.

DV


I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Part of the issue being jargon.

‘tax free wrapper’

I have no idea what that is.
 
Why are these people not presenting themselves at the food factories where I work? That's not one factory, region, or even one employer. It's nationwide.

I don't know and I don't know what makes you think I would? Probably because they don't want to. I do know I personally would never work in a food factory unless maintenance of the Buildings or grounds and even then I think the smell would put me off.
 
generally, benefits shouldn’t be given to households who have savings, they are supposed to be a safety net to help those without resources back on their feet, no problem with that.
I don't agree. That way just breeds resentment from people who save then have to use their savings up, against 'feckless' people who don't/can't accumulate the savings and rely on the state for support. And people save for all sorts of reasons, buying a house, weddings, holidays, cars, kids' education, helping the kids with a deposit. Why should that be taken away from them? State support should be universal, or it is by nature discriminatory.
 
There is always going to be a natural rate of unemployment for various reasons, we all understand that.
No. The natural rate of employment' is Monetarist construct. It is a construct propagated by a particular narrow political viewpoint. It is not a universal truth. It's not even a truth acknowledged outside the Tory mindset

'The major criticism of a "natural rate" is that there is no credible evidence for it..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_unemployment


As for staff shortages, it’s across the board from the people I speak to, from cafe owners and retailers to lawyers to contractors on £1K a day. Shortages everywhere yet apparently we have high unemployment. Doesn’t stack up.

High unemployment is used to create low wages, low wages is not an incentive to recruitment.
 
To the extent that it could be said there is a 'natural rate' of unemployment, that might recognise that the jobs market is in (should be in) a sort of dynamic equilibrium. People retire at one end, people leave school at the other end, and people swap jobs in the middle. Companies fail and create redundancies, companies start up and grow and take on more staff. And at any given time, there will be a proportion of people who are not in jobs, because they are between jobs, haven't yet started their new job, or whatever. So you can have 'full' employment but still have a proportion of the workforce 'unemployed' at any given time. The number would be smaller than what we see, and would all be short term, no long-term unemployment except perhaps for those who can't work due to disability or other impairment.

If you're then advocating for 'full employment' you'd recognise that the state intervenes the moment a person is unemployed for whatever reason, and provides employment in exchange for an equitable income. That would deal with the long-term unemployables, and provide security for those in more precarious employment, and those who are short-term unemployed due to timings between jobs, wouldn't need or use it.
 
There is always going to be a natural rate of unemployment for various reasons, we all understand that. There will always be exceptions but generally, benefits shouldn’t be given to households who have savings, they are supposed to be a safety net to help those without resources back on their feet, no problem with that. As for staff shortages, it’s across the board from the people I speak to, from cafe owners and retailers to lawyers to contractors on £1K a day. Shortages everywhere yet apparently we have high unemployment. Doesn’t stack up.

I don't agree. That way just breeds resentment from people who save then have to use their savings up, against 'feckless' people who don't/can't accumulate the savings and rely on the state for support. And people save for all sorts of reasons, buying a house, weddings, holidays, cars, kids' education, helping the kids with a deposit. Why should that be taken away from them? State support should be universal, or it is by nature discriminatory.

I'm in agreement with Steve on this. I'm working class, I've worked in construction for over 35 years, mainly paving and groundwork, I earn a wage rather than a salary. There's no guarantee of work, indeed I have seen various periods when work was not plentiful and generally when the jobs done it's done. I have been prepared to travel all over the UK and work 12 hrs a day + and 7 days a week, I've paid my stamp and my taxes, yet because I've worked hard and saved hard and lived a modest lifestyle I'm not entitled to any benefits whatsoever, even if I had spent all my earnings I'm not entitled to any benefits because of my wife's salary, I don't think that is fair, I haven't saved to compensate the chance that I may be out of work, I have saved for later in life if I retire and for my kids future.

As for the cafe owners and retailers, they generally don't pay enough, those are minimum wage jobs, not worth getting out of bed for will be the attitude a lot of people take, I haven't a clue about the lawyers but as far as construction work goes the shortage of workers is a direct result of Brexit with nearly all the Eastern European lads returning home.
There is definitely a problem in todays society with a lack of work ethic and general laziness, that combined with social deprivation and the attractiveness of 'easy money' .
 


advertisement


Back
Top