Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
No, what we really need is a model like Singapores (except without all them nashty government taxes on everything) where you can earn heaps and heaps and heaps BUT still pay next to nothing for anything important (like beer and food).
Mailman
What Singapore that enlightened one party state (PAP sums it up really)where you cant do anything enjoyable. Fine for this a fine for that etc etc.
If everybody earns more, the price will just go up accordingly.
No, what we really need is a model like Singapores (except without all them nashty government taxes on everything) where you can earn heaps and heaps and heaps BUT still pay next to nothing for anything important (like beer and food).
So, obviously, apart from a flat tax regime, WE really do need a massive body of poorly paid poor people to keep costs down...while us ex contractors can live in the nicer parts of town, drive our nice cars and get hammered for next to nothing
I always think this increasing standard of living stuff we are peddled is misleading. Higher household incomes are a lot to do with the fact that far more women have to work than used to be the case.
Originally posted by Noddy
It now requires more labour hours to finance a family home than the post-War generation ever had to do. The days of 1x average income financing an average house are long gone.
Originally posted by Fleetwood
I has this conversation with my Dad.
The first house he bought was a four-bed semi-detached in nice area of Manchester*. It was 1963 and the house cost £500, which was less than his yearly salary.
All spot-on. When the function of a market is to distribute limited resources among too many people who want them, then no amount of universal extra work and higher earnings can move everybody up, not when there are no more resources to go round.
If everybody earns more, the price will just go up accordingly.
(Incidentally something similar applies to pensions savings: you will be short, not because you haven't saved, but because there will be too many other wrinklies also wanting retirement homes, cleaners, medical and other care, and the only way to get those in a tight market is to be better off than the other guys. Everybody saving will not fix it).
I has this conversation with my Dad.
The first house he bought was a four-bed semi-detached in nice area of Manchester*. It was 1963 and the house cost £500, which was less than his yearly salary.
I always think this increasing standard of living stuff we are peddled is misleading. Higher household incomes are a lot to do with the fact that far more women have to work than used to be the case.
Spot-on.
It now requires more labour hours to finance a family home than the post-War generation ever had to do. The days of 1x average income financing an average house are long gone.
I always think this increasing standard of living stuff we are peddled is misleading. Higher household incomes are a lot to do with the fact that far more women have to work than used to be the case.
Leave a comment: