General Chat

John I knew we had got caught with high interest mortgage rates early in 1980 as we had just moved but 22%?

Checked with OH and he said 14%+ - googled and in 1982 was in the 15% - 15.50% range.

You may well have, we thought ours was bad enough.

Dear IFITG despite legends to the contrary the UK has never had an economy focused on manufactured goods except for a brief 50 years in the C19.

Since the invention of Lloyds, funny money and the Bank of England etc the principal source of income for the UK has been banking finance and arbitrage. Next one up is the media industry from computer games to movies and sport. So far as large scale manufacturing survives it is pretty high tech eg BA, modern car plant, Rolls Roycs, bio-tech etc.

There are lots and lots and lots of well paid jobs. The big problem is that there are not lots and lots of highly skilled people waiting to fill them nor lots and lots of young people with the essential qualifications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDDswGsJ60

The sad fact is that since the 1970s UK state eduction has for the most part been mediocre at best producing for the most part poor to mediocre finished product. This applies from primary schools to university. Sure the top 10% is very good and the next 20% just about ok ... that still leaves a lot of the iceberg below water level.

From the employer's perspective the fear and hatred of mathematics is the number one evil and the inability to speak, write and use English number two. How many people on this list have A-level maths ( which is not all that difficult) ?

Employing young people has the same challenges as for a football manager looking for entrants to his academy. Spot the ones with potential while hoping that previous tuition has not spoiled the product, resign yourself to 9 in 10 not meeting the grade and move on. That's why recruiting ready to foreigners is so attractive from the Premier League downwards.

Nearly all of our leading politicians are innumerate and unable to speak English preferring mumb-jumbo and snake oil. Just like young would be toilers they also dislike showing up for work on time especially if it means on time or working late. I doubt if anything much will change.

Hence the boggling scale of school fees or the high prices of houses within catchment area of a decent state school and of course the vast number of people on low wages.

A lot of people with no special skills have been caught out by the rapidly shrinking demand for low to middle level managers and junior bureaucrats and administrators whether in the public or private sector. The downward trend is largely due to modern IT technology.

Over the past year the IT business has picked up quite a bit. Pay is also up sharply. I was going to post current daily rates for software engineers with 3-5 yrs experience but on second thought maybe not. All I can say is buy yr young relative a RaspberryPi and encourage them to use it.

I had a joke badge years ago and on it was "my take home pay wouldn't even take me home". I think I should have kept it to wear now ;-)

I do believe that there is a cost of living problem, with many people struggling to make ends meet, as many are on the minimum wage, the old slogan of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is only a dream for many.

The current minimum wage for those individuals 21 and over is £6.31 per hour and for those 18 to 20 it is £5.03 per hour, if you are lucky enough to work a minimum of 35 hours per week, your take home pay before tax and deductions would be £220.65 and £176.05 respectively. I say if you are lucky enough because many do not get the opportunity to work 35 hours per week.

Many argue on the one hand that wages need to rise to allow people to have a reasonable standard of living- on the other hand many argue that if wages rise jobs will be lost or prices will go up - so how do we solve the problem.

The problem as I see it is, that since the deregulation of the financial markets which started in the early 1980's, to much emphasis and resources have been directed to creating growth in the financial & service sectors, something which has been pursued since the early 1980's by governments of all persuasions, not enough has been invested in other areas such as construction and manufacturing.

In my view, unless drastic measures are taken to re-balance the economy, the number of low paid jobs will continue to rise and this will result in more individuals seeking help from the benefit system, that will cause serious problems to any government plans for reducing the cost of benefits, albeit governments, at the risk of alienating large numbers of voters, could continue with their plans and carry on regardless.

As I have said before, an economy built on low wages, high house prices, and personal debt, will not solve the problems that many are facing today. One thing I believe should be done, is that instead of spending billions of pounds on the HS2 rail project, they should spend the money on a massive house building programme as that will not only create jobs it will create demand for many products from bricks and cement to household goods and furnishings.

OFITG. That list is right approximately.. But £185 a week for Rowntree poverty excludes housing costs - so you will have to spend another £120 a week. Enough for ciggies, pictures, lottery, charity donations, pizza and MacDonalds, and a host of other essentials.

And don't forget a large box of Rowntree chocolates every day. That will add £35 a week to your budget. :-D :-D

Money means a lot when you don’t have much.

Jonesey - I can remember those sort of prices - but how times have changed :-(

I actually don't think, that in this day and age, the figure of £185 per week is that far away from what is needed for a single person to maintain a reasonably basic standard of life. Below is what I would need to exist without any benefits, the figures are average weekly amounts. My rent is for a local housing association studio flat in Outer London and it consists of only one room with a separate kitchen and bathroom. I would add that the average rent in the private sector for a basic one bedroom flat where I live is from £150 to £175 per week.

I do not consider any of my expenditure on the outgoings I have listed as being extravagant or a luxury. If it were not for some help with my rent, council tax, and a very small private pension of just under £25 per week - I would not be able to afford a telephone, broad band, or any other so called luxury.

Rent £100.00
Council Tax £ 20.00
Gas £ 7.50
Electricity £ 5.00
Water £ 2.50
Food £ 28.00
Toiletries £ 2.70
Clothes etc £ 2.50
Insurance £ 3.00
TV Licence £ 2.80
Travel £ 3.00

Total £177.00

Of course the single luvies need a minimum disposable income after housing costs of at least £185 per week to stay above the poverty line. Have you seen the price of designer clothes, 3D televisions, the latest games consoles and BMW's not to mention "Designer" recreational drugs.

Thinking back to put things into perspective my first full time (Mon~Fri 8:00am to 5:00pm) job was as a laboratory assistant in 1962. My weekly wage was £2/17/6d (£2.87.5p) plus an additional 7/6d (37.5p) if I was needed in on a Saturday morning. I had to give my mother £1.00 per week for my "Keep" (Housing costs + food + laundry) which left me with up to £2/5/-d (£2.25p) disposable income in a good week. With that I ran a motorbike (Road tax £8pa, Insurance £12pa, Petrol 4/-d (20p) per gallon). I had a girlfriend, best cinema ticket 4/6d (22.5p), Knickerbocker Glory ice cream sundae 2/6d (12.5p), 10pin bowling 7/6d (37.5p) per game. I clothed myself, Shirt, trousers, jumper all cost about £2 per item, shoes between £3~5 per pair. I drank the odd pint of beer at 1/9d (8.75p) per pint, I didn't smoke but had I done so 10 cigarettes would have cost me about 3/-d (15p).

Harold Macmillan, the then Prime Minister, told me that I had never had it so good and in truth I think that he was about right. I have certainly never again had such a high percentage (69%) of my weekly income as disposable income to be spent as I saw fit on leisure and pleasure. Money is merely a way of keeping score. When wages rise so does the cost of the items we need to buy with our wages. Do high wages make us better off? In most cases probably not.

It seems that £185 and all the other ridiculous figures for "poverty" are based on less tnan 2/3rds of the norm. Average wage for a full time person is currently £26,500 (just over £500 per week).

I can see that, in the Home Counties, that sort of salary does sound average. And I think the majority of the population of UK lives in Beds,Hunts, Herts, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey etc.

But round here (Valleys of South Wales), £200 per week gives you an adequate income for basic needs. Rates are under £1100 a year for most houses and loads of free buses and pensioner lunch clubs.

And I am sure a lot of Genes members are thinking - £185 per week, poverty :-S :-S

I think it is what is called "relative poverty". "Absolute poverty" (which I think welfare should be dealing with) is something like £60 a week of disposable income. Those are the ones who should be targeted with food banks and welfare cash; they tend to be the ones who sit and shiver and starve and never moan about it - whilst greedy people on over £150 a week of disposable income want even more welfare to pay for their fags and their take aways.

If I had £185 disposable income a fortnight, I'd be happy!!

Disposable income of £185.00!!!!
When my husband was paid off last year and i was in my present part time school job, they gave us £71.00 in unemployment benefit to live off. We have 2 children who were both at school then, one still is and one is in college. Prior to that 9 years ago, they said the law states that we only need £111.00 to live on per week. Thats less than five hundred pounds per month.

Where do they get these unrealisitic figures from? My oh when he signed on once told them we didnt have any money left for food after paying, our electric and oil which were essential as was our home insurance. Their answer was sorry nothing else you can get!

We were lucky that other fam memebers helped us out otherwise, we probably would have had to sell up and move. You see if you work hard, pay your taxes and manage to buy somewhere, when you lose you job, there is no help available. if you are getting tax credits when you are working, when you stop working they take it all away which is when you need help. Does not make any sense at all.

We are both working just now but all our income is swallowed up. We dont have any credit cards just mort,secure loan etc and all the usual monthly outgoings.I have to work til i am 67 to get my pension and oh doesnt have one as he was self employed for 20 years fishing and now it would cost far too much to start one at his age.

So we will carry on slogging day in day out.

It would be so nice to say, lets have a weekend break or book our holiday now and pay for it. Dream on i guess!

Florence
in the hebrides

£185 after housing costs!! Therein lies the problem. A single person with £180 after housing costs is encouraged to think of themselves as poor.

When I last had a well paid job (in 1990's), my housing costs were well over £2,000 a month for 10 long years. I was earning in excess of £70k for first 3 years, could afford it and paid high rate tax on some of income.

Then income dropped back to about £3000 per month (just under £50k per year gross). And then to £30k, then to £15k when we moved to South Wales. So even when I was earning nearly £50k, the Rowntree Foundation would have said I had less than £185 per week after mortgage, rates, heating and did not have a decent standard of living. :-0 :-0

I don't think I have ever got near £185 a week disposable income in last 20 years. Yet we run cars and used to shop weekly in Waitrose, though I do enjoy frequenting Lidl, FarmShop and Tesco more these days. I have less than half that £185 to spend these days, and honestly do not feel poor in any way whatsover.

Rowntree was so wealthy that he was able to eat chocolate every day. The Scottish ate haggis, we Welsh had lobscaws, no wonder his idea of poverty is miles away from reality. And no wonder people are getting loads of benefits that they really do not need.

The difference between the world Dave & George live in, and the world the low paid live in, is highlighted by research from the The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Money Advice Service.

According to the research, there has been a steep rise in the number of British households unable to afford a decent standard of living over the last three years.

A combination of recession-hit incomes, benefits cuts and the soaring cost of living have meant that numbers living below an "acceptable standard" has increased by 900,000 since 2008/09.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said a decent standard of living for a single person was afforded when they had a disposable income of £185 a week after housing costs.

Co-author Donald Hirsch said - Young people, single people and people in private rented housing have done particularly badly relative to the minimum income standard during the downturn. A whole generation of young adults are noticeably worse off as a result of the deterioration in their job prospects, a worsening of housing options and falls in real wages and benefits, making it harder for young people to be independent.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2545175/Households-acceptable-standard-living-fifth-three-years-Rowntree.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

DET - please don't call them my 'personal' problems - that's what work is trying to do. My personal life is fantastic albeit on a pittance - it's work that causes the problem :-D

Thanks RolloTheRed - your post adds a lot of relevant points to the discussion

I read all of Rollo's post. Is there some sort of medal for that?

I think it makes a lot of sense. I am sure most of us are worse off than 5 years ago, but that was promised - "we are all in it together". And the envy of looking at Chief Executives of Local Authorities and business leaders really does not help. All of those working can try for those jobs and they have a chance of getting them (though I rather think conscience would kick in when you find yourself earning £150k with a fully expensed Merc for achieving dicky mint).

As for next election, I think Labour and Lib Dem would be a most attractive package. Tories would have to side with UKIP, and UKIP are very quickly imploding as a political party and will drag Tories down. But with Tories on 30% and UKIP on 19%, that would make an interesting partnership for next election.

What Labour need to do strategically is take a back seat for a couple of years. Clegg needs to be Prime Minister with Ed his Deputy for 2-3 years and then swap jobs. Same with Exchequer. Vince is far too old now, but Danny Alexander would make sense as Chancellor for 2-3 years. And they do need to keep Balls away from any economics portfolio. Minister of Sport might be a suitable way to shunt his staring eyes, running commentary and gestures from the front bench at Prime Minister's Question Time.

Maggie – I’d edited/partially deleted my post while you must have been typing.

How ever. Despite the personal problems you have, I do still feel that the Unions ought to be more forceful when it comes to wage negotiations.

As much as we females feel aggrieved, ever one of us born after a certain date now have to work until we are 66 or more.

Even those who have been fortunate enough to be able to put something aside or paid in to a pension have had their plans upset. I’d thought that I’d be able to draw my OAP at 63, only to have it postponed until 65. So that’s another 2 years when we are going to have to draw on savings as opposed to the 5 that we had counted on.

Lets hope that the economy picks up and that employers are more willing to offer a job to someone with your experience at a sensible rate of pay.

The D&G show are just showing off there undoubted skill at spinning a yarn from a collection of disparate and unrelated statistics. It is disappointing to see hitherto respected figures such as Mark Carney come out with such drivel as "low interest rates for an extended period". That the financial markets don't believe him is obvious hence the rising £.

So now we know for sure. Tory re-election strategy is based on an artificial housing bubble and repeating six times after breakfast "You've never had it so good". If the bubble lasts until Jun 2015 the pain as it bursts will be massive.

Unlike under Mrs Thatcher or even Tony Blair the coalition have not implemented one serious supply side reform and neither have they made any real dent in the structural deficit. Indeed the deficit has recently whizzed up by £ 38bn as UKGov has been forced to admit that Network Rail is in reality a govt dept. HS2 will pile on the deficit agony.

Taking account of the full cost of living - energy, food, rents/mortgages, real take home pay - only those grossing over £ 150 K pa are better off and then only marginally before you hit the big time. Even £ 150 K does not take you far in SW London if you are youngish with a couple of young kids and a mortgage. Non-resident landlords are of course making a killing out of slicing up south London into flats rented out at stratospheric prices with evil social consequences.

Quite how D&G's song and dance routine will play in the 100 key marginals is anybody's guess. On the one hand about half the LibDem vote has deserted mostly to Labour but also to don't know and the Tories. The Tories themselves look like losing 10% of their vote to UKIP which could swing the election overall and is now what D&G fear most.

On the other side of the street Labour remains a mish mash with no coherent policy. Friday's pronouncement of a Labour commitment to a balanced budget paying down the deficit is either (a) a demonstration of economic ignorance of a startlingly high degree or (b) 2c worth of nonsense designed to counter D&G. Most likely the latter.

The smart money is on a LibDem/Lab coalition with Vince as chancellor. No wonder.

For any individual to be able to be able to pay for basic essentials, such as a roof over their head, food on the table, gas, electricity, water, and the costs of travelling to work, they need to have a job that will pay sufficient to cover these.

Much is made about the number of new jobs that have been created, any increase in the number of new jobs is welcome, the problem is, that a very large number of the new jobs that are being created are low paid jobs or jobs on zero hour contracts, and these jobs make it difficult for many to earn sufficient to cover the basic essentials above.

Despite the current optimism in certain circles, the economy is still quite fragile, albeit there is some growth, but it is growth that benefits the few - not the many. As I said in my OP an economy built on low wages, high house prices, increased personal debt, will not solve the problems caused by the lack of proper jobs, low wages and the shortage of affordable homes. When interest rates rise, and they will rise - sooner than most anticipate, the current optimism will be short lived.

DET,
My older sister and a brother both own their own houses, have paid off the mortgage and retired. Unfortunately, my marriage broke down so I was left bringing up 2 children on my own. Their father managed to buy a house later, though, but he, at 64, is still working to pay the mortgage.

I have been looking around for work. It was only just over 2 years ago that people were informed officially that those born after a certain date will retire later. I was 55, with 5 years left, now I'm 57 with 9 years left - it's not easy getting a new job that pays the bills at my age.
I'm just glad I didn't take the final salary related pension - apart from not being able to pay it at the time, it would be heartbreaking to have paid out money I could ill afford, only to end up with probably just enough to take me out of any financial help.

As to the pay rise - nothing. Same as their 'action' over workload stress.. All very well making people redundant - usually higher grades with a nice little bonus thrown in - but the work doesn't disappear, the 'lower' grades are suddenly, apparently capable of doing 3 times the work!!

It's not just me, the whole team (5 of us) are suffering. One colleague, who is on Prozac has had her doctor increase her dosage.
My health has deteriorated and my sick leave is rising. This isn't me 'declaring' myself ill - it's my doctor stating I am ill.
I can't take a pill to make me better, though Occupational Health last year suggested I took extra strong painkillers to hide the pain so I could work. Just as well me and extra strong painkillers don't get on, (I started to slur - not good when answering the phone - and my head was 'somewhere else') as they're very bad for my condition.
This year, with workload ever rising, they're now suggesting I'm ill because I can't do my work - a nice way to avoid my claim of workload stress.
I've suggested higher management have no idea of the amount of work we do - this has been confirmed by our line manager asking for a list of exactly how many courses, and how many dates, pack-ups etc are involved.
However, they're now trying to claim my diet is affecting my health and condition - talk about desperate measures - so, at their suggestion, I went to a dietician last week, but kept a record of everything I ate & drank for the 2 weeks before I saw her.
She said my diet couldn't be causing my illness, she couldn't define a 'healing' diet, because, with my condition, everyone is different.
Apparently it is a very healthy diet, and the fact that I had identified certain foods that could cause problems and avoided them was the best I could do.
I've still to inform my line manager of the outcome, and inform that I have, in the past, studied nutrition, so am actually well aware of how to eat healthily.

Sorry, I rambled but my sick record isn't a good omen for a new job either. But this is happening in councils all over the country.