Here's an illustrative chart for you. It's from the US, but the situation in the UK is the same.
Are earnings too low / living costs getting too high??
- Thread starter Buffman
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
LMAO of at the people in this thread who are posting messages from their nice computers, probably sipping a beer etc and scratching their balls while decrying how unfair and unjust the world is that they dont have a home cinema and bowling alley in their peasant shack.
I sometimes forget how fortunate I've had it in many ways - 30 years ago we had a phone and a car (infact 2 cars) and I pretty much took it for granted - was only when I started secondary school a few years later I found at that time it had only just started becoming the normal for a not insignificant percentage in my year.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
Here's an illustrative chart for you. It's from the US, but the situation in the UK is the same.
OK go back to 1979 when things were so much more equal and tell me how much better your standard of life is than today.
Personally I'm posting more out of sympathy seeing the reality of what some have to deal with - I've been fortunate enough to have a relatively privileged life.
EDIT: Oh and I do have a nice home cinema setup
Last edited:
You've lost the plot and are now just taking the mick.
Meanwhile, in the real world, things are nowhere near how you perceive them to be. Just because you aren't struggling, and can't empathise with those who are - perhaps you don't mingle with those so far beneath you - doesn't mean they don't exist.
Like I said earlier, many people here think everybody must be middle class because they are. Not so.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
OK last post for tonight... The wealth that the 'elite few' actually have is in effect not real money... If that money was redistrubuted equally amongst the 'poor folk' of the world its not like we'd all suddenly be able to afford to buy a yacht etc.... It ultimately all comes down to supply and demand but if wealth was redistributed it would devalue money... I'm almost certain Dowie could put it better than me as he is a pretty knowledgable chap.... You arent in competiotion with 'the rich! They may have a bigger house than you and a better car but probably most other things you do are not different... Stop playing the victim...Would you honestly rather have been born 50 years ago when everything was so much fairer?
As a self employed person in SW Surrey...
Standard TV license, nothing else. freeview + Freesat.
BT broadband (partially paid for out of business)
Nothing fancy, just a Phone where I can make/receive phone-calls. I will never have a "Smart-phone"
Several, but they are all very old and I can only run them because I do everything for myself (See also everything else in my life! Plumbing, Electrics, Gas, Building work, Rodding my own drains, Stitching my own cuts, whatever)
If the government does a serious downer on diesel it will put me out of business. I will never be able to afford a "New" vehicle.
Built my own (Who hasn't here?
)What is this "Holiday" of which you speak? Think I might have had one about 18 years ago!
Erm...
4-6 times/year... (If I am lucky and somebody else is paying)
Erm..
It is a mistake to assume that everybody In the SE is rich. Pretty much everybody I know is on little more than minimum wage. it is only the people who work in London who are rich. Their wealth actually totally screws everybody else who does not work in London.
Certainly not. I enjoy having the internet on my phone, my iPad to look at in bed/on the train/in a hotel etc, and a PC with the internet to play games on and entertain me
.It isn't so much about competition with the rich its about the standard of living commensurate with your wage. Someone on an ok wage should be able to afford an ok house while living an ok lifestyle - its one thing to have to make adjustments elsewhere if you want to live in a nicer house than ostensibly your circumstances would support, etc.
I've found it interesting around here lately - the multi million pound houses used to have BMWs and Mercs, etc. in the drive while the middle market houses would have like Mondeos and stuff these days the expensive houses more often have like a rubbish old Toyotas, etc. in the drive and the middle market houses have like brand new BMW, etc. lol.
The fact that you think this is about having a yacht or a home cinema or a heated pool shows just how unable you are to understand life at the bottom.
We are talking about people who spend 75% of their income on rent, often having just a single room in a shared house to show for having a full-time job.
We are funnelling the income from the poor straight into the hands of the BTL landlords. They are either middle-class trying to become filthy rich, or they are already filthy rich (but never hurts to have a bit more, does it...) These people are increasing the size of their portfolios all the time, taking an every bigger % of the housing market and steadily decreasing the % of home owners. Whilst driving up both rents and house prices.
You know the situation is bad when the government has had to step in to help the poor pay their rent. And what happens to this taxpayer money? It gets given to the BTL landlords.
So we are *all* now subsidising the BTL landlords through our taxes.
Inequality here and in the US is growing, not slowly, but at a quickening pace. The poor are becoming poorer. The question is, do we want this? Do we want inequality in the UK to grow? And if not, are we prepared to do something about it?
other than house price/rent then it ain't to bad. pretty much all of us waste so much money on rubbish we don't need.
there's just a lack of housing and housing options, theres just no imagination and no cheaper options. the lowest is like a 1 bed flat which are still expensive, or a park home which is not only just as expensive as a 1 bed flat, the park fees are huge. Really need more low cost options. I'm a fan of the tiny house movement, but its essentially impossible in uk due to planning regs.
there's just a lack of housing and housing options, theres just no imagination and no cheaper options. the lowest is like a 1 bed flat which are still expensive, or a park home which is not only just as expensive as a 1 bed flat, the park fees are huge. Really need more low cost options. I'm a fan of the tiny house movement, but its essentially impossible in uk due to planning regs.
If they're earning minimum wage and working full time why on earth is their rent 75% of their income for a house share?
Yeah >50% for a house share, but not 75%. A single-room "studio" flat can be 75% easily tho. At costs of £650-£750pm here. Those with a £500 room in a shared house are the lucky ones
After tax nat min wage works out to be about £920 pm.
So yeah, room in a shared house >50%, single bed studio flat easily 75%.
Still awful.
e: actually looking around I can see some shared house single-rooms on the market for £600pm, so 2/3 is not an exaggeration.
I mean....if they're working 35 hours on minimum wage and live in the south maybe. I don't feel there is much room to complain if you want to stay in an area with high rental prices yet only work 35 hours a week though. Unless of course you can't get more hours but I don't know how hard it is to work more than 35 hours week for some people.
At 40 hours per week, even living in London a decent house share can cost less than 50% of monthly minimum wage. (The average working hours per week in the UK is 43.6)
At 40 hours per week, even living in London a decent house share can cost less than 50% of monthly minimum wage. (The average working hours per week in the UK is 43.6)
Depends what industry you are in, a lot like retail are 35-37 hours as "fulltime" minimum wage around here but some others i.e. some delivery jobs can go upto 40 - a lot though that were traditionally 38-45 hours a week jobs around here like warehouse work has changed to either 10-20 hour contracts (with some but unpredictable overtime) or even zero hour contracts and often the nature of the job means there aren't a lot of chances for working multiple jobs due to requirements of a certain amount of "availability" :s
The problem is that ultimately people have to have a roof over their heads so they make bigger sacrifices and have less choice, etc. any other market/commodity would have seen a reset by now due to normal rules of things like supply and demand.
But the point is we have a growing underclass who exist only to pay off the mortgage for middle-class BTL tycoons.
Yes, it is possible to work your ass off for 40 hours a week to just manage to pay the rent, bills, feed and clothe yourself.
And then there are the BTL landlords, who are creaming off all this money from the worst off in society - along with our tax revenue to boot - and doing very nicely, thanks.
Doesn't that **** you off?
Not saying that these BTL landlords were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but many of them got started on the property market decades ago, and are using their good fortune to snap up all the property now. Effectively turning their good fortune into other people's misery.
40 hours a week is not even close to working your ass off IMO. That's 0800-1700 with a 1 hour lunch break Mon-Fri. Something I honestly thought was normal for most people but perhaps I'm wrong.
I'd much be much quicker to complain about the 20 day minimum annual leave entitlement.
And well BTL is the rich getting richer at the expense of less well off families, yes. I don't know what can be done about that.
I'd much be much quicker to complain about the 20 day minimum annual leave entitlement.
And well BTL is the rich getting richer at the expense of less well off families, yes. I don't know what can be done about that.
Depends on job IMO - as a student nearly 20 years ago - I was doing upto 40 hours a week in a warehouse that wasn't fun. Around then though my perception was also that 40 hours a week was a normal full time job.
Currently on 36 days annual leave so 20 would be a real ouch :s