Here we go again, teachers striking again...

Some of the posts in here (and I know nothing about the economy and how it works in depth etc) make me think, why the hell am I not building huge barricades around my house, buying loads of long life bulk stuff, setting up weapon systems/areas, getting alarms installed.... hoarding fuel in an underground tanker etc

Sounds crazy but some of the posts in here sound like impending doom is on and soon it will be survival of the fittest as in kill to survive.
 
mehuk said:
Some of the posts in here (and I know nothing about the economy and how it works in depth etc) make me think, why the hell am I not building huge barricades around my house, buying loads of long life bulk stuff, setting up weapon systems/areas, getting alarms installed.... hoarding fuel in an underground tanker etc

Sounds crazy but some of the posts in here sound like impending doom is on and soon it will be survival of the fittest as in kill to survive.
Click to expand...

Yeah and there have been posts predicting impending doom here ever since I've been a member :p
 
robskinner said:
What I don't understand is how you think the 1800s are relevant to modern UK society, we had workhouses ffs. There is such a massive difference in the safety net now compared to then. I can't find any stats on it, but I suspect the owner occupied housing was tiny and was pretty much limited to modern equivalents to millionaires, your average joe was struggling to survive not buy property.

The key is land and will always be land unless we start going dramatically upwards (high rise) or downwards into the ground, otherwise the limited amount of land per head will get smaller and smaller.

Yes workers cottages were commonly part of the package for a what in those times was often considered a good job. They couldn't afford much more than their food.

Towards the late 1800s we had proper slums still in London :

"In a recent report made to the Commissioners of Sewers for London, Dr. Letheby says: “I have been at much pains during the last three months to ascertain the precise conditions of the dwell*ings, the habits, and the diseases of the poor. In this way 2,208 rooms have been most circumstantially inspected, and the general result is that nearly all of them are filthy or overcrowded or im*perfectly drained, or badly ventilated, or out of repair. In 1,989 of these rooms, all in fact that are at present inhabited, there are 5,791 inmates, belonging to 1,576 families; and to say nothing of the too frequent occurrence of what may be regarded as a neces*sitous overcrowding, where the husband, the wife, and young family of four or five children are cramped into a miserably small and ill-conditioned room, there are numerous instances where adults of both sexes, belonging to different families, are lodged in the same room, regardless of all the common decencies of life, and where from three to five adults, men and women, besides a train or two of children, are accustomed to herd together like brute beasts or savages; and where every human instinct of propriety and decency is smothered. Like my predecessor, I have seen grown persons of both sexes sleeping in common with their parents, brothers and sisters, and cousins, and even the casual acquaintance of a day’s tramp, occupying the same bed of filthy rags or straw; a woman suffering in travail, in the midst of males and females of different families that tenant the same room, where birth and death go hand in hand; where the child but newly born, the patient cast down with fever, and the corpse waiting for interment, have no separation from each other, or from the rest of the inmates. Of the many cases to which I have alluded, there are some which have commanded my attention by reason of their unusual depravity— cases in which from three to four adults of both sexes, with many children, were lodging in the same room, and often sleeping in the same bed. I have note of three or four localities, where forty-eight men, seventy-three women, and fifty-nine children are living in thirty-four rooms. In one room there are two men, three women, and five children, and in another one man, four women, and two children; and when, about a fortnight since, I visited the back room on the ground floor of No. 5, I found it occupied by one man, two women, and two children; and in it was the dead body of a poor girl who had died in childbirth a few days before. The body was stretched out on the bare floor, without shroud or coffin. There it lay in the midst of the living, and we may well ask how it can be otherwise than that the human heart should be dead to all the gentler feelings of our nature, when such sights as these are of common occurrence."
Written in 1869. Its just a completely different world to now.

Do you want to go back to Roman times? Middle ages, I bet the multiplier was low when you built a mud hut in a field and had most of your spare income taken from you to pay for a war? The 1800s aren't a good representation for modern trends, there may not be a good representation, but post WW2 at least has reasonable correlation to what we have now, ok it was worse, but a lot of the current welfare state was born at that time.

Dont get me wrong I am not saying I think house prices are "right", but I cannot see anything to break the cycle of ever increasing prices unless something changes :
1) Lower population
2) More housing built at an affordable level to keep house inflation down

Supply and demand, whilst there is demand and lacking supply the prices will not drop. Demand is low, but there is still some, and people unless forced to are just staying put. Two things will cause most people to run into serious issues, either no income (ie job losses), but of course thats assuming they dont qualify for lots of handouts which they probably will, or a large rise in interest rates. The second could happen, its certainly creeping up as the cost of capital is creeping up for the banks.
Click to expand...

Because, basically, the 50 years you're using is just not long enough to really come to any conclusions, as has already been discussed between you and Castiel.

Obviously house prices will rise, it's called inflation for one. The question is is it harder for people to get the money to buy a house now than it was in the past. The 50-60 years you are using is just not enough. Who knows, without looking at data further back, whether the post WW2 years were a big anomaly rather than the current price differential being it. You could argue that house prices should only be 2-3 times salary because they were that for 30 years after WW2 however for the pre WW2 figures it may be the equivalent of 6-10x salary is the actual long term price.

50 years, with a significant part of that quite possibly affected by a large war is just not long enough to come up with a suggestion for house price/income ratio.
 
Amp34 said:
Because, basically, the 50 years you're using is just not long enough to really come to any conclusions, as has already been discussed between you and Castiel.

Obviously house prices will rise, it's called inflation for one. The question is is it harder for people to get the money to buy a house now than it was in the past. The 50-60 years you are using is just not enough. Who knows, without looking at data further back, whether the post WW2 years were a big anomaly rather than the current price differential being it. You could argue that house prices should only be 2-3 times salary because they were that for 30 years after WW2 however for the pre WW2 figures it may be the equivalent of 6-10x salary is the actual long term price.

50 years, with a significant part of that quite possibly affected by a large war is just not long enough to come up with a suggestion for house price/income ratio.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I think the 1800s have pretty much no relationship to the world we live in now. Plus of course the data is terrible back then, people just built houses or rows of houses, most of which were landlords because they were lord such n such. The general population did not own property hence why its no useful measure to compare to now.
 
scorza said:
I doubt that's what he thinks he's saying, he thinks he's pointing out to everyone what a martyr to the cause he is and how we're in so much **** everyone has to suffer along with him. Well that argument might hold a bit of weight if we didn't see FTSE100 directors' pay increase by 50% last year.



No they're behaving in exactly the way a company would behave if their customers weren't honouring the terms of a contract - withdraw service. Why are the only legitimate choices unemployment, pay cut, or move jobs? What's wrong with standing your ground and expecting your contract to be honoured?
Click to expand...

Just something for you to consider. You don't know my job, you don't know me so don't come out with your snotty, snide remarks in future.

The 'company' where I work issued a 118 notice to teachers, (something not even the union can do anything about), not to me I had that last year. I basically had no choice if I wanted to stay in my own post.

For your information I enjoy my job and the new contract I signed was more than acceptable. Heck, if I even went for the other posts above me, I would have been on a major increase but I stuck to my post and took the extra duties. Taking no pay increase but a more friendly, stress-less atmosphere.

What more do I want? My mortgage gets paid no problem and I have a lot of disposable cash.
 
Kenai said:
Well they were, is this not still related to their pensions/retirement being crippled?

You'd be perfectly right if they were striking to say 'give us more' but it's more about 'stop taking away' as far as i'm aware.

I'm sure you'd be just as upset if your company told you that you would be getting paid less, or having your pension cut, regardless of the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...

indeed
 
sorry. but tbh very low sympathy from me.
schools are horrible places (locally) to do IT support for. most pay minimum wage and expect stupid amounts of unpaid overtime etc.
one school here was advertising for a 40hr/week job at below the minimum wage!
 
mrbell1984 said:
Just something for you to consider. You don't know my job, you don't know me so don't come out with your snotty, snide remarks in future.

The 'company' where I work issued a 118 notice to teachers, (something not even the union can do anything about), not to me I had that last year. I basically had no choice if I wanted to stay in my own post.

For your information I enjoy my job and the new contract I signed was more than acceptable. Heck, if I even went for the other posts above me, I would have been on a major increase but I stuck to my post and took the extra duties. Taking no pay increase but a more friendly, stress-less atmosphere.

What more do I want? My mortgage gets paid no problem and I have a lot of disposable cash.
Click to expand...

Just a bit of advice, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of snotty, snide comments then don't make them yourself. I wonder how friendly your workplace atmosphere would be if your colleagues knew you were ****ging them off on an internet forum behind their back.
 
kwerk said:
The only way to actually fix things long-term is about a 50% CUT across the board for the public sector AND a raise on taxes. That's what people should be preparing for. Half of those teachers will be lucky to be employed at all in 5 years.
Click to expand...

50% pay cut would mean a newly qualified Teacher would be working for LESS than min wage.
 
robskinner said:
Sorry but I think the 1800s have pretty much no relationship to the world we live in now. Plus of course the data is terrible back then, people just built houses or rows of houses, most of which were landlords because they were lord such n such. The general population did not own property hence why its no useful measure to compare to now.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree then as personally the post war years are way to short to be able to pick trends.
 
Castiel said:
I think he is referring to a 50% reduction in the size of the public sector, rather than a reduction in individual public sector wages.
Click to expand...

Ah, so he's proposing a doubling of class sizes?

That'll work :-)
 
scorza said:
Just a bit of advice, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of snotty, snide comments then don't make them yourself. I wonder how friendly your workplace atmosphere would be if your colleagues knew you were ****ging them off on an internet forum behind their back.
Click to expand...

All because I said most of them can't teach. It's true and they even know it. So are you admitting to giving me snotty snide comments are you?
 
Hearing family members (teachers) talk about their unions has been funny recently.

Ofcourse the other two they are not with are loud/noisey but dont do anything, But the ones they picked are quiet but get things done in the background
 
amigafan2003 said:
Ah, so he's proposing a doubling of class sizes?

That'll work :-)
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, as the public sector is not exclusively made up of teaching staff. To begin with reducing bureaucracy and redundant management positions along with the institution of programs to enable the more efficient use of resources and manpower, thus reducing both.

There are a myriad of things that can be done, not at all pleasant for those who work in the sector no doubt, but it doesn't necessarily mean the reduction of resources in our education system or more importantly the further reduction in teaching standards.

Reform can, if done properly and effectively, both increase standards and reduce costs. The private sector do it all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom