Spin off from the work thread, how/why have we allowed this?

[fatpies]

I was cleaning out some of my old papers and came across a wage slip from the 1990. Doing a few calculations, I was actually better paid relative to living costs and outgoings than I am in 2013. Even though I have a ton of experience, considerably more qualifications etc.

Then I read this.

[P.addy]

Greed.

[ficedula]

Are you sure your grandfather (or whoever's grandfather it was in the quote) was on an average wage?

My mother's parents never owned their house, nor did they ever have a car.

My parents could afford to buy a house in the 70s after they got married, but getting a mortgage involved travelling down to Bristol (from Liverpool) to speak to a manager because Bristol building society was the only one that would give them an affordable mortgage. They didn't have bad jobs, either - dad worked for the council, mum was a teacher, but that still wasn't enough for most places to consider lending them money.

When I left university in 2003, I was on a below average wage, but it was still enough for me to rent a house to myself (really a luxury - does one person need a whole house?), buy/run a car, and start putting money aside for a mortgage deposit. When I wanted a mortgage, I could arrange that without having go around bank branches begging for somebody to consider lending me the money.

Things weren't all amazing in the 40s/50s/60s/70s. Which isn't to say that everything is amazing nowadays, it certainly isn't, but I'm not sure it's obviously true that living standards haven't gone up.
____________________
Bike history: YBR125 -> XJ600

[daemonoid]

We're not actually more productive it's an accountancy myth. Profit derived from 'service' has been added into the productivity when actually nothing of value is added.
____________________
current: ducati monster 750
past: hyosung gt250r, bajaj pulsar 180, hyosung gt 125 comet
@thomasgarrard | www.straitjkt.com | www.racingseven.com

[Shaft]

[Hetzer]

[Hetzer]

[Lord Percy]

It could be to do with the overarching fact that the UK is not really a world powerhouse any more. In the 60s and earlier, I guess to an extent the UK was still thriving off the general trade directed to our shores as a lasting knock-on effect from our very recent global empire.

So in those days everyone had a lot because the world was pretty much pointed towards us.

Now the empire is gone, trade happens elsewhere, we haven't really got much coming in or out.

We hardly shift any proper hard goods any more, manufacturing happens in other parts of the world... We don't really have any major income or production anywhere. Hence lower wages and things costing more. Things cost more because they are (from a sort of purist closed-box perspective) less available.

Simply:

We don't get all the spices and nice things from India for free any more.
We don't make any money selling slaves from Africa.
We have no quarters in Hong Kong or the West Indies.

So we're back to being a country on our own again. Oh and Thatcher sold off all the national industries so all the all our public service fees go to foreign interests.

The UK just doesn't have anything any more!

Hence less money, lower wages, harder to afford stuff, etc.

That's my sort of explanation, based on the economic system we function under.

edit: I do think the main factor is that most public services are run by foreign companies. Basically all payments go straight out of the country. We can't function like that. Come to think of it, how can we even be proud of our country when we don't even have the means to run things ourselves?! British companies should provide British needs.

And then Socialism blah blah

[G]

Wasn't that comment also followed by mention of women lib and the like.

Now twice as many people want to to do work, but we have a lot lower number of people to do work for.

In the past we could be competitive selling British made products abroad.

Now people in other countries which are willing to work for massively less money make the same products.

British people don't support British industry if it can be bought cheaper abroad.

As for 'productivity' how is that measured?
I suspect that's accounting for the fact that now one person can do more for less.

If 'the people' supported small firms that employed more humans and less mechanisation, this would be less of an issue.
But the public generally buy the cheapest/best value possible, meaning those that use more automation (higher productivity per person for the output) get the best market share, so can further increase their market share.

Finally, there was the 'credit crunch'.
I found it really noticeable how the price of food and other goods really shot up. At a similar time prices of fuel went up, which boosts up pretty much every other area, which uses transportation for something.

Why did the credit crunch happen?
People were happy to use institutions that promised quick and big returns without thinking about the consequences.

[Rogerborg]

[D O G]

The reality is that lives are easier then they ever were, living standards ARE higher.

People look back on near history with rose tinted glasses.

If anyone of us was sent back to the 50's/60's/70's we'd be appalled at the quality of housing, vehicles, medicine, foodstuffs, clothes, technology.

Random example. My parents have only just had double glazing put in their house. They were the last people I knew that had single glazing, roll the clock back 40yrs and only the rich in there super posh new builds would have double glazing.

People will always complain that life is shit now and it used to better. All bollocks.

[daemonoid]

[_Will_]

The thing is, as things are right now living standards seem fairly reasonable, ever more schemes for credit have propped the whole facade up, when the curtain drops and the shtf then we will have to ask wtf happened.

My grandmothers house was a new build, first on the estate she's still in it, cost around £4.5k, wage around the £1.2k mark

It's not easy to directly correlate to today including inflation due to the unit changes, but looking at it proportionally you can get an idea.

This is a scary graph:
https://www.wwwk.co.uk/culture/housing/

Young adults now generally have no savings (not that they would get a return), no pension (not that they are of any worth) no assists (most expensive purchases on finance) and live month to month.

Interesting read too :
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/Resolution-Foundation-Squeezed-Britain-2013_1.pdf
____________________
Past -Honda qr50 | 2004 Peugeot Tkr s 50| | 1996 Yamaha XJ600s Diversion|

[_Will_]

[D O G]

[G]

[krarkol]

I wouldn't say that everyone could afford a house back then. Considering that it was the era where council estates where being built everywhere.

However I do think for the time they where better paid. Obviously there'll be a few exceptions due to the fact there was no minimum wage but I think overall people got paid what they where worth, rather than now where you accept what you have and get on with it.

Back then it was more an employee's market, being able to walk from one job straight into another. This in turn meant companies had to offer you more reason to stay with them.

I think there was a lot more to do aswell and due to the fact you didn't feel like a slave to the system, people where a lot happier doing stuff like factory work. Whereas now, it's depressing as you feel like you are worth nothing, just a number and that you'll never get out of it.

Obviously I could be wrong and I am going off things such as the price of beer and the general attitude of grandparents and the stories I've been told by my parents.
____________________
Bandit 600 - deaded

[Hetzer]

[Rogerborg]

[Ariel Badger]

My parents worked all their lives. My dad for Joe Lucas and mom in the NHS and they bought their house in the late 60s. This however was not common, most of the kids in my primary school were in rented accommodation. My parents had to take out a 25 year mortgage for this and as for the land, all they had was a back garden.
They never had a car.
____________________
Bikers make great organ donors, get 115 on your licence today.

[D O G]

[smegballs]

[Kickstart]

[Pigeon]

Mums dad was a plumber, chippy and they kept pigs, chickens and grew veg. They scrimpt for years and bought land and built a 3 story house (themselves) in 1930. He continued as a plumber / chippy / small holder, but then also let out many rooms to travellers and local workers.
The cost of the land and build was £1,300

As a very rough guide, value of money halves every 10 years. So that's £250,000 in todays money.

The house (not owned by them anymore) sold last year for £900,000

Inflation, the cost of money over time. But that's 360% more than fair value.

We have more people chasing fewer assets, whether that be houses, land or food/energy. And more of those people choose to use leverage in the form of debt, which does nothing but drive prices beyond fair value. In the short term, like any Ponzi, those at the front perceive they have won, but there is a longer term cost.
People are allowed debt, so both parents have to work because they can both borrow and choose to because its the only way to afford it.
Princes inflate and people borrow more.

It's a great way of controlling the population while those at the top can extract as much inflation free cash. It's the person having to service a debt over 30 years who sees the inflation, not the people who benefit from it today (ie politicians, bankers, shareholders and CEO's).

My little hut in the Canadian wilderness is calling.

Also, energy costs were low for many decades as it was cheap and plentiful. For every unit of GDP, there has to be a consumption of energy. Some argue that the easy to reach energy has already run out and we're having to spend a lot more to access it. This cost has partially been hidden by the increase in technology and knowledge.
I'd like to think that humans will always innovate and find a way (if we can), but there is a lot of power invested in maintaining the status quo. I vaguely remember something about a bloke inventing batteries that were 50x as powerful as Lithium and cheaper to produce. He was going to use them in cars nearly 15 years ago, but a large oil company bought the Intellectual Property and shelved the project. These competing forces have probably been at work since the dawn of time though. But perhaps the difference now is scope.

[fatpies]