No, YOU have to work 13.5 hours just for rent. Have you considered finding a new job / career instead of just whining all the time?
Do lots of young people not work these days ?
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
No, YOU have to work 13.5 hours just for rent. Have you considered finding a new job / career instead of just whining all the time?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
I don't have to pay rent at all
What's this rent thing you talk of?I paid my house off, you know, with working hard.
You know dame well me or nobody else here are talking about training which has nothing to do with your job role or job you are going into.
I don't have to pay rent at all
I paid my house off, you know, with working hard.
Fair play. I wasn't aware you earned that much
Oooooh now I get it. I believe that's called "charity".
Banker: "yeah can I have a course on underwater welding pls"
hahaha
Last edited:
If its so simple then why have the education level it requires then as I'm getting flashbacks to about 10+ years ago where every job listing was like this with requiring years of experience, certs a degree etc and its absolutley soul destroying applying for these jobs and getting either no where, getting to the interview stage and its the vicious circle of no experience so no job but cant get job to get experience. Passing many levels of an multi stage interview process for a min wage job and then they add oh we looking for someone who has many years of coding for a comerical environment and the first thing that went through my head was if they had this exp they would not be applying for this job. Maybe one of the other applicants had this exp but again prob could get paid way more elsewhere.But that example is like the lowest end of IT... what knowledge and experience are you hoping to be renumerated for? It's basically electronic Lego at this point
TBH - it's reads like an advert for PC World...
The thing that topped it off was appling for IT work at the local council and going through the whole process like the above and did not get the job and a very young person comes into my place of work wearing the council dept uniform and purchases something I I.D him for and he had turned 18 a few months ago and he has the exact surname of the person doing the interviews so I ask him and he said he got the job stright after school and it was his first job. So I went through all that just for the interviewer to give his job to his son and the requirments where BS.
I 100% agree with this though I made the choice that it wasnt worth it after spending 1 year at college and then doing a HNC in Computing for another 2 I was at the crossroads that I can go back and do another year at a Uni and get a degree but I would have to pay the 12-15k in fees and for what very good chance I'll be in the same situation I'm in now stuck applying for min wage IT jobs. The people that I did the HNC with that stayed on and did the degree where in the same situation as me where most went into other fields unrealated to I.T or stayed in their current employment and the one person managed to get in a call center doing I.T support quickly told me all the horrors that come with working at a call center and left for other work less than a year of the company hiring for a few months letting people go rinse and repeat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
Fair play. I wasn't aware you earned that much
I'm doing ok, no money worries at least now I'm not physically and mentally threatened. And achieved things store managers haven't
You should have reported him and got him fired. That's easily gross misconduct and abuse of position.
To be fair, my mortgage is more than 1/3rd of my net pay, so I work more hours than 13.5 every week to cover it. And I earn decently.
Putting it mathematically, my house is worth approx 150% of average, and my pay is about 200% of average, and yet I have to work more than 1/3rd of my week to pay housing costs.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
It's only fair to go by lowest possible wage (in your area)
Kinda pointless saying (I) would have to work x hours.
say cheapest rent is £300. Add £85 council tax ontop of that, water electricty and gas £130 so roughly 10 hours a week..now for retail staff on 16 hour contracts....probably need to do side hustle onlyfans or drug dealing.
Check out this 1 bedroom apartment for rent on Rightmove
1 bedroom apartment for rent in Cromwell Court, Ephraim Street, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, ST1 for £300 pcm. Marketed by Reeds Rains, Hanley
www.rightmove.co.uk
You really have issues.... I never got the flak you receive in the motorcycle section, until seeing your dross posted here.
Also where have I posted I have an unskilled job or earn NMW?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
That's why I'm not going to work again.. You can thank the corrupt companies for that.
Hey you do you. I personally couldn't be a benefits scrounger, and lose all self respect, but we're all different
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
Maybe the corrupt companies should have thought about that huh, like the one I shut down.
hey I bought a brand new motorbike. What's not to love about that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
hahahaha
Also lovely set of leathers too
Was doing some MPG calculation, about 91mpg
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
Why would I do that? Really not interested in a bigger bike . Bit more power than 125 would be good, so I don't have to push the engine going around buxton.
The thing is this gravy train is already under strain and it's only going to get worse - not only do we have the triple lock (which simply won't be affordable) but with younger generations becoming work shy and the flood of low quality immigrants then various parts of the state will become increasingly unaffordable - benefits and entitlements will inevitably need to be cut, including the disability benefits currently being grifted by so many.
Nic 30ans is having to pay for all of this - the boomers living in paid off homes collecting their triple locked pensions, the workshy young and the asylum seekers in their hotels are all reliant on a shrinking portion of the population to fund them - many of whom can't necessarily afford to buy a home for themselves.
Also re: property affordability:
That's simply not true - the biggest issue for housing is the lack of supply and no you can't get anywhere close to the sort of housing that you could have done as a young boomer - anything invested in repairs or improvements is trivial in comparison to the price rises we've seen.
The mean income to house price ratio was around 4 back in the 70s and early 80s so yes getting a 3.5 times mortgage + deposit was fine for purchasing a home - that is absolutely not the case today, let alone any claims of getting a better home!
That ratio has more than doubled to like 8 now (it's even as high as 12 in London) it's usually requires a much larger amount saved (inc adjustments for inflation) and a far bigger mortgage relative to income that boomers would have typically faced.
www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk
There's a period of a 4-5 years in the late 80s to early 90s where interest rates went mad and sales dipped significantly then but in general the sorts of houses an ordinary doctor, lawyer, accountant or other professional could by back when the boomers were starting young families is completely out of reach of comparable professionals today - someone moving into the same neighbouhoods in the South or in the Midlands these days might need to pay £1M+ for a home and the average millenial doctor, solicitor or accountant can't afford that - maybe investment bankers, barristers and some big tech employees can.
It's absolutely harder for current younger generations to afford equivalent housing let alone better and that's simply because the building of new housing hasn't kept up with population growth, inefficient allocation perhaps has a part to play (we allow boomers to occupy prime central London flats or large family homes with multiple spare rooms in return for minimal property taxes - our capped council tax system) but the main thing is supply and we'd not need to worry so much about efficient allocation if we had the supply issue sorted.
The silly thing is that of course many millennials will be fine, at least in their 50s or 60s etc.. as they'll end up inheriting these expensive family homes from their parents. We've basically completely stifled social mobility via our planning system artificially constraining the building of new homes.
Nic 30ans is having to pay for all of this - the boomers living in paid off homes collecting their triple locked pensions, the workshy young and the asylum seekers in their hotels are all reliant on a shrinking portion of the population to fund them - many of whom can't necessarily afford to buy a home for themselves.
Also re: property affordability:
That's simply not true - the biggest issue for housing is the lack of supply and no you can't get anywhere close to the sort of housing that you could have done as a young boomer - anything invested in repairs or improvements is trivial in comparison to the price rises we've seen.
The mean income to house price ratio was around 4 back in the 70s and early 80s so yes getting a 3.5 times mortgage + deposit was fine for purchasing a home - that is absolutely not the case today, let alone any claims of getting a better home!
That ratio has more than doubled to like 8 now (it's even as high as 12 in London) it's usually requires a much larger amount saved (inc adjustments for inflation) and a far bigger mortgage relative to income that boomers would have typically faced.
Housing affordability ratio more than doubles since 1970s ‒ House Buyer Bureau
Typical house prices are now around 8.8 times the average earnings, new data from House Buyer Bureau has revealed.
www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk
There's a period of a 4-5 years in the late 80s to early 90s where interest rates went mad and sales dipped significantly then but in general the sorts of houses an ordinary doctor, lawyer, accountant or other professional could by back when the boomers were starting young families is completely out of reach of comparable professionals today - someone moving into the same neighbouhoods in the South or in the Midlands these days might need to pay £1M+ for a home and the average millenial doctor, solicitor or accountant can't afford that - maybe investment bankers, barristers and some big tech employees can.
It's absolutely harder for current younger generations to afford equivalent housing let alone better and that's simply because the building of new housing hasn't kept up with population growth, inefficient allocation perhaps has a part to play (we allow boomers to occupy prime central London flats or large family homes with multiple spare rooms in return for minimal property taxes - our capped council tax system) but the main thing is supply and we'd not need to worry so much about efficient allocation if we had the supply issue sorted.
The silly thing is that of course many millennials will be fine, at least in their 50s or 60s etc.. as they'll end up inheriting these expensive family homes from their parents. We've basically completely stifled social mobility via our planning system artificially constraining the building of new homes.
Last edited:
One of the things which has really hit around where I am is the difference at the lower end of the scale - someone in a run of the mill team leader job for example the kind of houses they'd have been buying in the 70s and 80s were like 3.2x their income, these days you'd be looking at 6-9x and it isn't like they can just adjust their expectations and buy something cheaper. While those on say upper management roles then houses commensurate with their position are under 6x ratio.
There are a fair few people who want to put a stop to this - possibly motivated by jealousy - it would absolutely wreck society with the current brewing problem.
There are a fair few people who want to put a stop to this - possibly motivated by jealousy - it would absolutely wreck society with the current brewing problem.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,807
Having disciplinary & grievances externally investigated (government mandated) would be a good start, would prevent corruption and stop the "boys club" in management