Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

[Dolph]

You not solely responsible for anything, you pay into the state, and the state opens up opportunities in return(including subsidies), as well as providing infrastructure and a social structure to facilitate your life, a bad idea to go down that road, I thought you was been reasonable earlier with your acceptance of my proposal for housing but you treading down the denial path again.

Do you want us to go back to medieval times, where we have the freedom that you crave but as a consequence, only the few have a reasonable life, the survival of the fittest.

I am solely responsible for meeting my costs of living, and as such I have had to balance those costs against my income (or income potential). That has meant discounting some options or areas, although I acknowledge I'm fortunate that I have been able to both earn well and reside in a lower cost area through remote working and paid travel.

We have already agreed that social housing needs both increased volume and significant reform.

But let's be clear, the idea that people are entitiled to a home in a specific location, regardless of demand or supply, is nonsense.

 

[Dolph]

Are you also against state-subsidised healthcare? People should pull themselves up by their boot straps and pay for their own healthcare, right?

Anything other than paying 100% of the cost of services yourself is communism, right Dolph?

I'm not against it at all, but nice attempt at a straw man.

I do have a problem with people who don't value the system they have though, or think there is some bottomless well of resource to fulfil their demands.

 

[dowie]

You wouldn't pay the same extortionate rents to a public body. It just wouldn't happen. Publicly owned housing would be affordable for people who needed it, not for (excessive) profits. It's like saying, "Would you be happy paying private medical rates to the NHS?" It just wouldn't happen, so there is no point even considering it.

I also think it's entirely justified for anyone to be bitter about paying >70% of their income on rent.

My point is that the issue is the supply whereas you're focused on who gets the money and some bitterness regarding that.

I note you don't even address the question re: your local councilors or MP, they're the people that have some control over local supply, instead, just pivot to stuff about rich people getting rich etc..

Lastly, I also think it's unfair to expect the lowest-paid to commute for multiple hours each day to get to their min-wage cleaning jobs. Wherever there is work to be done, and that work is low paid, there should be affordable housing nearby. I don't see why entire swathes of London should be wall-to-wall mansions and penthouses. And then all the cleaners have to spend hour commuting in at their own cost.

There are affordable areas of London where you can get into central London in just 10 or 20 mins on the train, cleaners commuting for "multiple hours" per day is just hyperbole in most cases... if anything it's well paid middle-aged professionals who have large family homes in say the home counties who have longer commutes.

If anything council housing in prime central London is silly - a large % of tenants are unemployed or economically inactive, why are they living for free in property that is valued at higher than the cost of an average family home in the UK? Imagine telling someone up North that Baz the drug addict lives in a flat in Islington worth 650k. Or worse, some people in Westminster or Kensington & Chelsea live in council properties worth more approx 1 million.

That's a complete waste of public resources IMO. London boroughs are small and well connected, housing should be managed London wide instead of borough by borough - sell it off and build more further out.

 

[chrcoluk]

I am solely responsible for meeting my costs of living, and as such I have had to balance those costs against my income (or income potential). That has meant discounting some options or areas, although I acknowledge I'm fortunate that I have been able to both earn well and reside in a lower cost area through remote working and paid travel.

We have already agreed that social housing needs both increased volume and significant reform.

But let's be clear, the idea that people are entitiled to a home in a specific location, regardless of demand or supply, is nonsense.

I am not sure who said there should be guarantee's, I wasnt one of those people, but I do think there should be an aim to make sure housing needs are met around the country on a best effort basis, of course if thats not possible then people yes would have to be prepared to move. Bear in mind unless policies get changed, current policies discourage people from moving around the country and actively forbid it on social housing applications, something I have long disagreed with as social housing stock would be managed better nationally instead of regionally.

I also dont disagree on the basic principle of people learning to budget and live within their means which may be the point you was making.

On the means testing that both you and dowie brought up. in principle I agree with it (also no issues with removing inheritance and reassessing on circumstance changes), the problem though is with social housing entitlement its either a yes or no, you cannot gradually remove it as income or savings increases, and the problem with yes or no decisions, the line has to be drawn somewhere, so the person who just about qualifies, compared to the person who just about fell out of qualification will cause issues. Perhaps there could be assistance in buying a property for the poorest who dont qualify for social housing and that assistance is gradually tapered off, which goes a long way to moving people away from having AST renting as their only option which is what this is all about for me.

The thread is getting highly political though, and as most of us know, people rarely change their political point of view, so I may bail out.

 

[moon man]

You previously told us the property was under-valued, even compared to other houses on the same road.

Are you suggesting that finding an under-valued property is possible for everybody? If not, then it depends on luck, as we have all told you in other threads.

A strategy that depends on luck or "being in the right place at the right time" is not scalable. You cannot say that the answer to people's housing problems is to be more lucky.

We are talking about a fundamental paradigm shift in the way this country views property. That it should not be possible for the wealthy to further enrich themselves by taking advantage of a lack of housing. By taking advantage of people who are unable to get a mortgage. By extracting >70% of a person's income in rental expenditure, especially when this value is more than the payments on a mortgage on the same property.

There is so much wrong with the current system, yet supporters of the status quo endlessly reply with "Just move" or "Work harder" or "Get luckier". Those people are in favour of the status quo because it benefits them, personally, to see house prices (and rents) continually rising.

Ultimately, this is all a question of ethics.

Not saying i disagree with all you have to say but funding my lucky purchase was done with the last lucky purchase a 44k semi in west Yorkshire, followed by a lucky additiomal borrowing to put new windows and CH in and landscaping.
The sale of this gave us cash for the next lucky purchase down here a place that tbe Cornish locals had absolutely no interest in, they were figjting over safe cream painted terraces in Camelford and Camborne.
Anyway just for luck we have landscaped and added ponds, repaired as necessary, if we are lucky we may have added value

 

[platinum87]

The idea that we don't need people to do low-paid jobs is equally hilarious. The idea that everybody can be highly paid is hilarious.

The idea that the low-paid should be exploited by the classes with wealth is an idea that we should consign to history.

But in your world the rich would milk the poor for all their worth, whilst simultaneously berating them for being poor. It speaks volumes about your morality.

Its the useless people, who are milking the useful.

 

[thenewoc]

Privately letting homes should be severely curtailed through greater taxation. It's too much of a finite resource for it to be unregulated in terms of being snaffled up by the few.

 

[cheesyboy]

Its the useless people, who are milking the useful.

It is, but possibly not how you mean.

It's a strange paradox that generally the jobs most essential to society are paid the least, whilst the least useful are paid the most.

It'd take a long time to miss a city trader's contribution, or a CEO, lawyer, accountant, but we'd quickly struggle without shop workers, refuse collectors, care workers etc.

 

[dowie]

It is, but possibly not how you mean.

It's a strange paradox that generally the jobs most essential to society are paid the least, whilst the least useful are paid the most.

It'd take a long time to miss a city trader's contribution, or a CEO, lawyer, accountant, but we'd quickly struggle without shop workers, refuse collectors, care workers etc.

I dunno, I think we'd struggle without say physical oil traders for example, not just to drive your car or fly on holiday but that stuff goes into making your plastics, road surfaces etc..

Most companies wouldn't last too long without lawyers and banking services either. In fact, most societies (at least the liberal, democratic kind) wouldn't last long without lawyers (and police and a criminal justice system).

Shopworkers are replaceable (and in the case of plenty of now closed high street stores they have indeed been replaced) - we can certainly reduce the need for checkout staff via automated tills/checkouts, we have home delivery services etc..

Refuse workers are basically unskilled labour though - lots of people could do that job, just as lots of people could go and do some basic labouring on a construction site - so long as you'e fit and healthy then meh... tends to be predominantly undertaken by males thus you get the same silliness as the supermarket warehouse staff whereby there are cries of sexual discrimination if they're paid more than other unskilled workers.

Care workers require some quals but let's face it, they don't need to be particularly bright - it's again a job with a low barrier to entry, predominantly done by females. This might be considered "essential" these days but barely existed a few generations ago - elderly people used to be looked after by their families.

 

[Dolph]

It is, but possibly not how you mean.

It's a strange paradox that generally the jobs most essential to society are paid the least, whilst the least useful are paid the most.

It'd take a long time to miss a city trader's contribution, or a CEO, lawyer, accountant, but we'd quickly struggle without shop workers, refuse collectors, care workers etc.

Only because you either misunderstand how value is assigned to labour, or disagree with it and therefore pretend it should be different.

Value for labour (outside of effectively single employer monopolies such as nursing or teaching, the problem there is different and poor wages are largely the result of national pay grading and a lack of competition) is defined by what you have to pay to recruit someone with the necessary skills into a role. The existence of the role is defined by the value to the employer. The point where the two cross over is where the job becomes at risk of redundancy or technical deskilling to balance out the inequity.

Shop workers and care workers are poorly paid because they are easily replaced with the level of skill/training we as a society has deemed appropriate for these roles, and the roles are filled. If there was a struggle to fill the roles, wages would rise.

 

[cheesyboy]

I dunno, I think we'd struggle without say physical oil traders for example, not just to drive your car or fly on holiday but that stuff goes into making your plastics, road surfaces etc..

Most companies wouldn't last too long without lawyers and banking services either. In fact, most societies wouldn't last long without lawyers (and police and a criminal justice system).

Shopworkers are replaceable (and in the case of plenty of now closed high street stores they have indeed been replaced) - we can certainly reduce the need for checkout staff via automated tills/checkouts, we have home delivery services etc..

Refuse workers are basically unskilled labour though - lots of people could do that job, just as lots of people could go and do some basic labouring on a construction site - so long as you'e fit and healthy then meh... tends to be predominantly undertaken by males thus you get the same silliness as the supermarket warehouse staff whereby there are cries of sexual discrimination if they're paid more than other unskilled workers.

Care workers require some quals but let's face it, they don't need to be particularly bright - it's again a job with a low barrier to entry, predominantly done by females. This might be considered "essential" these days but barely existed a few generations ago - elderly people used to be looked after by their families.

Yes. But we were talking usefulness, not rarity.

As an accountant, I know my job is useful and my employer would struggle to run without its finance department (though I would say that when I worked in practice that those accountants provide very little that would be missed). BUT I don't think my usefulness to society is worth 3 or 4 care workers, or whatever my salary could otherwise pay for, beyond the fact that I have rare enough skill to be able to negotiate a good price for my work.

 

[cheesyboy]

Only because you either misunderstand how value is assigned to labour, or disagree with it and therefore pretend it should be different.

I understand entirely why it is as it is.

But that doesn't mean that those most useful to society aren't paid the lowest whilst those least useful are paid the most, does it?

 

[platinum87]

It is, but possibly not how you mean.

It's a strange paradox that generally the jobs most essential to society are paid the least, whilst the least useful are paid the most.

It'd take a long time to miss a city trader's contribution, or a CEO, lawyer, accountant, but we'd quickly struggle without shop workers, refuse collectors, care workers etc.

The reason your job is paid the least is because it is easy to do, for someone with common sense, however as i oversee a lot of entry level jobs, the "average" amount of work done per person, over the last several years, is around a third of what i can do, or, the other good staff i have.

Now, ideally what i would do, is talk to my boss, and demand i am paid the entire budget for my department/ responsibility.

Then i would personally hire people, and pay them, as self employed, in which case the rate of hourly pay would double.

So while others above give the very simple explanation, personally i believe all work is complex and there is a huge amount of experience required even for simple jobs.

I mean cutting onions is easy right, everyone can do it, but can you cut them like professional chefs, super quickly? without cutting your fingers off?

 

[thenewoc]

It depends what roles you're referring to. Not all low skilled jobs are poorly paid. Refuse collectors, train drivers, baggage handlers and post office workers are a few that spring to mind that aren't paid badly. These aren't highly skilled but have been represented collectively by unions doing their bidding. Basically a lot of these have held the country to ransom at some stage or more than once. Cleaners and careworkers to name but a few haven't had the same clout to negotiate.

 

[ikra]

Privately letting homes should be severely curtailed through greater taxation. It's too much of a finite resource for it to be unregulated in terms of being snaffled up by the few.

This. To be fair, the UK has an unhealthy housing market that needs sorting out.

 

[cheesyboy]

It depends what roles you're referring to. Not all low skilled jobs are poorly paid. Refuse collectors, train drivers, baggage handlers and post office workers are a few that spring to mind that aren't paid badly

Bin men are paid about £20k or less. Post office clerks are on near minimum wage. Train drivers are well paid, but it's hardly unskilled.

 

[thenewoc]

Bin men are paid about £20k or less. Post office clerks are on near minimum wage. Train drivers are well paid, but it's hardly unskilled.

I was thinking more of postal delivery operatives. As for a train driver, yes need to be trained but it's not like they can take a detour, it's start / stop along a determined route. Bin men well 20k to wheel bins around and connect to back of a lorry isn't worth any more than 20k.

 

[cheesyboy]

Bin men well 20k to wheel bins around and connect to back of a lorry isn't worth any more than 20k.

Well, back to my original point: society ******* crumbles as soon as the bin men down tools. So it's interesting that they are paid barely above minimum wage.

 

[thenewoc]

This. To be fair, the UK has an unhealthy housing market that needs sorting out.

It needs some blue prints for a modern day high rise, high density dwellings of which the designs can be shared between all regions of the UK. Once more affordable housing is built by the public sector then higher taxation should be applied to the private sector landlords on a sliding scale as more public housing becomes available.

 

[thenewoc]

Well, back to my original point: society ******* crumbles as soon as the bin men down tools. So it's interesting that they are paid barely above minimum wage.

Because they're protected by a union and shouldn't be able to down tools without being sacked. If you could sack and replace them, there wouldn't be a problem.