And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..

[dowie]

rubbish. Are you telling me if you were a gifted traded and a uk company offered you £30k per annum and a french company offered you two million per annum that you would stay with the UK company?

No you said: "there is always another country prepared to pay that wage so they will just move there" - that isn't correct putting aside that the countires any trading group is located in have nothing to do with any wages, the fact that these groups can earn money is simply the result of their success in that field.

Cause that’s what some people in here are talking about, bring the big wages down to close to bin men level so we are all equal. Maybe that’s unfair a bit, it might only be £50k per annum but the same thing applied. Uk companies just wouldn’t attract anybody to do the UK trader jobs or if they did, they would be so useless the company wouldn’t make any money. No idea what you are talking about or how that has any relevance

Not sure you really understand what you're talking about - it is variable comp that is important here not wages per se... Countries are only really relevant really as far as taxation, proximity to the relevant time zone etc.. are concerned, not how much someone is able to be rewarded - that's more a function of infrastructure costs, how much added value they bring etc..

It doesn't necessarily make much difference in terms of comp if some group wishes to base themselves in London or say Zug...

 

[Greebo]

No you said: "there is always another country prepared to pay that wage so they will just move there" - that isn't correct putting aside that the countires any trading group is located in have nothing to do with any wages, the fact that these groups can earn money is simply the result of their success in that field.



Not sure you really understand what you're talking about - it is variable comp that is important here not wages per se... Countries are only really relevant really as far as taxation, proximity to the relevant time zone etc.. are concerned, not how much someone is able to be rewarded - that's more a function of infrastructure costs, how much added value they bring etc..

I am not sure you understand me. Are you really saying that if London companies only paid £50k to their traders, no matter how much money they made for them, they would still stay in the UK working for them? Why?

 

[dowie]

I am not sure you understand me. Are you really saying that if London companies only paid £50k to their traders, no matter how much money they made for them, they would still stay in the UK working for them? Why?

Nope I've not said that or anything like that.

Can you explain what you meant by this please:

"there is always another country prepared to pay that wage so they will just move there"

You are aware that nation states aren't responsible for paying trader's wages right? So I'm assuming you're talking instead about location?

 

[Greebo]

Your taking an extreme view to win an argument - very few people are advocating everyone gets paid the same regardless of role - that would be stupid.

the person who started this argument did exactly that. He said everybody was equally as important in their job roles and why shouldn’t a bin man not be paid the same?

once you dismiss the fact that clearly you can’t pay everybody hundreds of thousands or more each year you are left with substantially cutting all those high paid jobs.

I just said that it’s a global market and if you don’t play the global rate then people will just move. I would anyway and I can’t be alone.

 

[Greebo]

Nope I've not said that or anything like that.

Can you explain what you meant by this please:

"there is always another country prepared to pay that wage so they will just move there"

You are aware that nation states aren't responsible for paying trader's wages right? So I'm assuming you're talking instead about location?

That’s there will always be companies in other countries prepared to pay the market rate for that job. So if it’s £100k per annum then that’s what they will pay or even slightly more to recruit the best.

I am not up to date with how traders get paid and that if in the UK they are all paid for by foreign companies. Perhaps that was a bad choice. Pick some other highly skilled job which pays massive wages.

if the UK passed a law that said that wages were capped at say £50k, do you not think people would leave to go work in other countries where they could get paid a lot more?

At least two posters on here don’t think there should be much differential between between binned wages and top wages like traders.

 

[dowie]

That’s there will always be companies in other countries prepared to pay the market rate for that job. So if it’s £100k per annum then that’s what they will pay or even slightly more to recruit the best.

I am not up to date with how traders get paid and that if in the UK they are all paid for by foreign companies. Perhaps that was a bad choice. Pick some other highly skilled job which pays massive wages.

if the UK passed a law that said that wages were capped at say £50k, do you not think people would leave to go work in other countries where they could get paid a lot more?

At least two posters on here don’t think there should be much differential between between binned wages and top wages like traders.

If they were capping any income at 50k then plenty of people would move yes.

The other poster was trying to make a comparisons with say an academic earning 50k, when you pick say an example of say a trader (or indeed various others like say a stand up comedian, actor, pop star etc..) then the professionals can be earning quite a large amount of money and it doesn't necessarily come from "wages" but rather it is directly tied to the revenue they personally generate ergo the question of fairness vs some other career is a bit flawed - in the case of the trader it could be a "discretionary" bonus (which in reality is known to be approximately a certain % of revenue) or a contractually agreed split of the profits.

For example a pop star earns money from royalties and from ticket sales on tours etc.. if some singer/song writer can't sell many tickets or doesn't have many people who like his/her music then they can't make much of a living that way... their record company might drop them on the other end of the scale a very popular one can make a ridiculous amount - that's not generally contingent on location or country they live in but just their actual performance, how well their songs are liked etc..... country they live in just tends to affect how much they'd be taxed etc.. and the record company they're signed with perhaps can vary the deal they're working under a bit but ultimately no one buying the music really cares what label [random pop star] is signed to... the money they earn is mostly down to them and what revenue they brought in.

 

[stockhausen]

I've kinda lost the thread here, is it City Traders or Pop Stars who are Boomers . . . or are they Millennials

 

[Greebo]

If they were capping any income at 50k then plenty of people would move yes.

The other poster was trying to make a comparisons with say an academic earning 50k, when you pick say an example of say a trader (or indeed various others like say a stand up comedian, actor, pop star etc..) then the professionals can be earning quite a large amount of money and it doesn't necessarily come from "wages" but rather it is directly tied to the revenue they personally generate ergo the question of fairness vs some other career is a bit flawed - in the case of the trader it could be a "discretionary" bonus (which in reality is known to be approximately a certain % of revenue) or a contractually agreed split of the profits.

For example a pop star earns money from royalties and from ticket sales on tours etc.. if some singer/song writer can't sell many tickets or doesn't have many people who like his/her music then they can't make much of a living that way... their record company might drop them on the other end of the scale a very popular one can make a ridiculous amount - that's not generally contingent on location or country they live in but just their actual performance, how well their songs are liked etc..... country they live in just tends to affect how much they'd be taxed etc.. and the record company they're signed with perhaps can vary the deal they're working under a bit but ultimately no one buying the music really cares what label [random pop star] is signed to... the money they earn is mostly down to them and what revenue they brought in.

oh I see but no matter how they get that money from their job they are still “earning” some posters on here seem to think that gap between them and a bin man should be minimal or none as they both do essential jobs of equal worth.

but then paying people based on how much they earn doesn’t work though.

 

[dowie]

oh I see but no matter how they get that money from their job they are still “earning” some posters on here seem to think that gap between them and a bin man should be minimal or none as they both do essential jobs of equal worth.

but then paying people based on how much they earn doesn’t work though.

Those posters are silly, it works just fine for people in careers where they can bring in quite variable (and at times very large) amounts of revenue and would be unfair to do otherwise. I mean why should a pop star who sells out entire stadiums not earn more than say a singer songwriter who can, at most, attract a crowd of two dozen at a pub etc..

The thing with a bin man is that a fixed cost has generally been paid for that service and the route is planned... It's not like a bin man can compete to clear more bins than allocated - I mean I guess there isn't much stopping some firm from incentivising teams of bin men to be more efficient and allowing them to compete a bit but there is limited upside there.

I mean I guess uber drivers have the scope to earn variable pay, part of this is of course just hours they put in but part of it is how efficient they are, were they friendly enough to get a tip, are they efficient at dropping off customers and actively seeking new ones in the areas where ubers are needed. It isn't scalable though... a trader can trade larger size (up to a point) a pop star can entertain an entire pub full of punters all at once or an entire stadium full... and uber driver can only deal with one car load of passenger(s) at a time.

 

[Rofflay]

By the way i never said a binman and a doctor get
Paid the same, I said it should be closer and that obscene earners like footballers and bankers and even tradesmen like a plasterer should be brought into line. You do not need anything plastered but a roof it is non essential. A lot of folks here believe in human exploitation.

Farmers get a subsidy because people will not pay proper prices for food, Tell me how will you cope someday when farmers, Binmen and shop shelf stackers and tesco delivery men form a union called essential services union and they ask the questions like i did? They should strike and lets see all you guys and girls eat.

How will you eat? What will you do when A the food stops coming in, B the shelves are empty and C your rubbish piles up on the street. They could break your entire world it is not about skill always, It is about being essential.

 

[Haggisman]

You heard it here first folks; someone earning ~£100/day after costs doing a skilled job is obscene!

In tomorrow's news, we look at modern slavery and the evils of paper rounds - is £50k p/a really enough for riding your bike round an estate for 45 minutes before school every day?

 

[Rofflay]

You heard it here first folks; someone earning ~£100/day after costs doing a skilled job is obscene!

In tomorrow's news, we look at modern slavery and the evils of paper rounds - is £50k p/a really enough for riding your bike round an estate for 45 minutes before school every day?

Who said that? I said 200 a day in NI stop posting false things. And what expenses? They get picked up in the transit van and taken to the work site as a group. Again they only pay for food so why post drivel? Also no one mentioned paper rounds i said essential services.

Another post like that will simply earn you an ignore.

 

[Haggisman]

So it's not the plasterer you're paying £200 to, it's the person employing them?

 

[elmarko]

The issue is actually more complex than many first imagine.

We need to consider proportion of income spent on rent/purchases for the median household in the UK to get a good picture, based on that measure all of the figures I could find do seem to indicate this has increased.

This has some pretty severe negative side effects on the UK economy. The only people who benefit from an inflated house price market are the banks (who benefit indirectly) and people who were lucky enough to be the right age to purchase a property before the boom. Everybody else loses out, all other businesses lose out. If person A is spending 40% of his income on rent, that's a significant reduction in disposable income to spend in the local economy on goods and services.

The only people I can see who defend this situation are people who are directly benefiting from it, or expect to later on it in life due to riding the same gravy train (or at least attempting to get on board it). Home/space in the UK are a finite resource & should be rationed to ensure the population has a suitable large house to fit a family. They should not be part of an investment portfolio in which income is bled from the UK population to benefit of economic parasites.

The only light at the end of the tunnel is Covid (ironically) which has drastically changed a huge number of work routines from office based to remote working. This in theory over the next 5 years should result in a flattening of the regional house price differences across the UK, resulting in a huge reduction in London/South of England prices & an increase in the North.

The downside of this I can see would be job losses & many large cities somewhat abandoned (how much of the London economy is sustainable if nobody has to live or commute there?. But this change is coming, I myself was looking at houses within the south coast region but now I'm looking at central Scotland (as my work is looking to go full remote & for my profession in Data Science it's becoming the new norm quickly).

I can't be alone in this step change, but I admit my role may be one of the earlier ones to adopt the change on a perm basis.

 

[elmarko]

double post

 

[Scam]

We need to consider proportion of income spent on rent/purchases for the median household in the UK to get a good picture, based on that measure all of the figures I could find do seem to indicate this has increased.

This has some pretty severe negative side effects on the UK economy. The only people who benefit from an inflated house price market are the banks (who benefit indirectly) and people who were lucky enough to be the right age to purchase a property before the boom. Everybody else loses out, all other businesses lose out. If person A is spending 40% of his income on rent, that's a significant reduction in disposable income to spend in the local economy on goods and services.

The only people I can see who defend this situation are people who are directly benefiting from it, or expect to later on it in life due to riding the same gravy train (or at least attempting to get on board it). Home/space in the UK are a finite resource & should be rationed to ensure the population has a suitable large house to fit a family. They should not be part of an investment portfolio in which income is bled from the UK population to benefit of economic parasites.

Very well said, sir. I'm failing to keep up with this thread due to you know.. work, but again it still boggles my mind that people are actively defending the status quo.

Even furlough is essentially a way of ensuring landlords get paid, whether it be from their tenants in a two-bedroom flat or a small independent restaurant in the town centre… Churchill had it right (gotta love bringing Churchill into an argument!):

"The landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city … watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient. .. and all the while sits and does nothing. Roads are made … services are improved … water is brought from reservoirs one hundred miles off in the mountains and -all the while the landlord sits still … To not one of these improvements does the landlord monopolist contribute and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced …

 

[413x]

House prices are the big one.
Spending so much on something you might never see. Basically money locked away.

Now I'm in the trap I don't want prices to go down or I'll have even less money for other spending.

If house prices just stayed static or rose just above inflation that would be best.

 

[Rofflay]

So it's not the plasterer you're paying £200 to, it's the person employing them?

The way it works is like this. In NI you get cheap houses like council houses in a rough area were 50k and where i grew up the four bed is i guess around 80k now. But new builds are actually really expensive bungalows at £160k.


The way it works is the contractor who i know, Has a contract i guess by the building firm and he will drive through the town and pickup his fellow plasterers in the transit van and they go to the job. He pays £200 a day my point was this is driving up house prices because is it essential you plaster all four walls? No...


Give me a house cheaper with the roof plastered and what else needs to be done? You do not need to plaster a brick wall i seen it on hipster videos of thier flats and even bare brick seems to be trendy. Thats just one trade that was the context of my post house prices being gouged for luxury and to keep people employed. Housing is a right not a luxury or job creator so they can take home way way above average wages.

 

[Greebo]

No the way it works is like this. In NI you get cheap houses like council houses in a rough area were 50k and where i grew up the four bed is i guess around 80k now. But new builds are actually really expensive bungalows at £160k.


The way it works is the contractor who i know, Has a contract i guess by the building firm and he will drive through the town and pickup his fellow plasterers in the transit van and they go to the job. He pays £200 a day my point was this is driving up house prices because is it essential you plaster all four walls? No...


Give me a house cheaper with the roof plastered and what else needs to be done? You do not need to plaster a brick wall i seen it on hipster videos of thier flats and even bare brick seems to be trendy. Thats just one trade that was the context of my post house prices being gouged for luxury and to keep people employed. Housing is a right not a luxury or job creator so they can take home way way above average wages.

Building regs disagree as houses need to be built to certain thermal standards so they cost less to heat.

Even trendy hipster mills being converted today you will struggle to be able to get it passed by building control to leave the brickwork exposed. Unless you offset it with great big underground geothermal heating and triple glazing filled with argon and double the thermal insulation in the floor and roof and if you are lucky the calcs work out in your favour. But by then the cost of all of that will be tens of thousands pounds more than just plastering the walls.

So you have to be rick to keep the exposed walls nowadays. I had the same dilemma recently with my stone barn I was converting.

It was going to cost me £2500 to plaster it but if I wanted to keep the exposed stone, in order to satisfy building control it was going to cost me £20,000 to offset. All depends how badly you want to keep the exposed walls.

The problem isnt whether you plaster the walls on not the problem is the housing market price and then what the building plots cost. There is a plot near for planning permission for 6 luxury 4/5 bedroom rooms. Its a million pounds. Yes you could probably get 12 or more low cost housing on it but once you have paid a million pounds and built the low cost housing, when you look at what you will get for them, I doubt you will make a profit at all. To be fair even building the 6 luxury houses would make you only £200k if it all went to plan.

 

[Haggisman]

Give me a house cheaper with the roof plastered and what else needs to be done? You do not need to plaster a brick wall i seen it on hipster videos of thier flats and even bare brick seems to be trendy. Thats just one trade that was the context of my post house prices being gouged for luxury and to keep people employed. Housing is a right not a luxury or job creator so they can take home way way above average wages.

Then buy a house that isn't plastered and go without or DIY... no one is forcing you to buy a house that's finished!

Of course in reality, you're barely going to save anything, the few hundred £ extra it costs to plaster the walls pales into insignificance compared to everything else when it comes to the cost of the house. As already mentioned by Greebo above, the cost of the plot is going to be one of the biggest factors.

Anyway, I give up. Good luck finding anyone that's bothered to actually go to college/university in your communist utopia where everyone gets paid the same regardless of skills or experience. How much a plasterer costs is going to be the least of your worries when you get sick or injured and there are no doctors.