Jump to content
G0ldfinger

UK House prices: News & Views

Recommended Posts

ONS data out for May

 

 

UK house prices rose by more than expected in May

 

 

Sharecast – 4 minutes 57 seconds ago.. .

LONDON (ShareCast) - UK house prices grew by 2.3 per cent year-on-year in May, according to the latest data out today from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Economists had expected a gain of 1.3% , following on from the 1.4% rise reported for the previous month. The year-on-year increase reflected growth of 2.6% in England and 3.5% in Wales, which was offset by declines in Scotland and Northern Ireland of 1.0% and 10.3% each. House prices in London rose by 7.2%. According to the ONS house prices continued the pattern seen since early 2010, house prices remained relatively stable across most of the UK, although they continue to fall in Northern Ireland. Prices of new dwellings rose by 6.2% during the 12 months to May 2012, while the price of pre-owned dwellings increased by 2.0% in the same period. In May 2012 prices paid by first time buyers were 2.8% higher on average than in May 2011. For owner occupiers (existing owners) prices increased by 2.1% for the same period AB

 

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-house-prices-rose-more-104707313.html

 

New homes rising most. That’ll be nothing to do with the Newbuy Scheme then :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, this could limit the winter falls somewhat.

 

The new bank lending scheme has just been laid out, and already the cheap mortgages are starting to appear.

 

[2.99% HSBC 5 year fixed deal with 1500 fee]

 

There is also a 7 year fix at 5.29% if you only have a 10% deposit! (assuming you have a good safe steady job and a high credit rating ;) )

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100018632/hsbc-launches-lowest-ever-five-year-fixed-rate-mortgage/

 

Let’s see if the others follow suit?

I remember saying 5 years ago that if I could ever get a 5 year fixed rate at 3.5% or less then I wouldn't care what the price of the house was. Looks like my metal is about to be tested, my view is a bit different now low interest rates are the norm and I have less of a need to borrow, but still. That is historically stonking value for a 5 year fix if you're borrowing enough for the 1500 product fee to make no real difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember saying 5 years ago that if I could ever get a 5 year fixed rate at 3.5% or less then I wouldn't care what the price of the house was. Looks like my metal is about to be tested, my view is a bit different now low interest rates are the norm and I have less of a need to borrow, but still. That is historically stonking value for a 5 year fix if you're borrowing enough for the 1500 product fee to make no real difference.

Those rates some attractive.

But ultra-low long term rates in the US did not save market there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like DB but this song is apalling. Spose he should have gone long ago...

Also I imagine the uk will be worse than America. Uk property is to the uk what the Dow is to the USA. There's nothing else... Which is why well STOPat nothing to save the property mkt.

Ch ch ch changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like DB but this song is apalling. Spose he should have gone long ago...

Also I imagine the uk will be worse than America. Uk property is to the uk what the Dow is to the USA. There's nothing else...

 

Oh it has problems, (indeed, quite severe problems), but I wouldn't go that far.

 

UK is still one of the top 10 exporters in the world.

Still the 7th biggest manufacturer in the world.

Still produces about 10% of the worlds scientific output.

 

And all this with less than 1% of the world’s population.

 

Puts it in perspective when people try and compare the UK with Greece etc.

 

Which is why well STOPat nothing to save the property mkt.

Ch ch ch changes

 

They'll certainly keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uk property is to the uk what the Dow is to the USA. There's nothing else...

 

Oh it has problems, (indeed, quite severe problems), but I wouldn't go that far.

 

UK is still one of the top 10 exporters in the world.

...

 

I'm not sure that was the point of Jake's post. I think it was reflecting where the 'hopes and dreams' were invested (or, at least, pensions). In the US there is still an understanding of the value of the stock market - possibly as a result of the more visible investment strategy for 401(k)s, etc.

 

In the UK there is some explicit private investment in stocks/shares (and encouraged in ISA, SIPP, etc), but too many people have been burnt in various stock market crashes, and that has resulted in the mindset of 'my property investment is my pension'.

 

The sad part is that the US is probably right - the stock market represents the end-point of a system of investment in new business ideas, and while it is far from perfect, there is a definite logic in supporting this mechanism. As a result of this support, investment in companies can be maintained, IPO values can be supported, and early-staqe/venture capitalist investors can believe that they will make money from a good business idea.

 

In the UK the supporting of house prices has the opposite effect - for a start it increases the cost of living for the group of the population who should be out starting new businesses. It also sucks money from potential investment into unproductive assets (housing). This isn't as simple as just building new houses - it also is reflected in 'investment' in such aspects as redecorating, garden landscaping, new kitchens, extensions, etc. Our housing stock in the UK is probably the slickest in Europe. Of course, this investment keeps the economy going (ie, the kitchen installer will make enough money to employ the landscape designer, etc), and all the money spent on servicing ever larger quantities of debt will fund the finance industry (and their increasingly extravagant lifestyle), but in the end it isn't a productive investment, an investment for the future, and the UK will on balance have a less wealthy future because of it.

 

 

It is incidental to the above, but on this point:

UK is still one of the top 10 exporters in the world.

Still the 7th biggest manufacturer in the world.

Still produces about 10% of the worlds scientific output.

 

And all this with less than 1% of the world’s population.

 

Puts it in perspective when people try and compare the UK with Greece etc.

The problem in the UK is quite how few people work in this productive sector. Furthermore, working in this productive sector is a poor way to make a living in the UK. Pay levels are relatively low (both in academia and in professional industry), and job security is diabolical. This situation doesn't fill me with confidence for our future productivity.

 

(The exception to this is the exports in the financial services industries - and these only remain solvent because I'm (well, and the other inhabitants of the UK) guaranteeing truly vast quantities of their debt, giving them handouts wherever possible (eg, access to short term loans, asset purchases based on inflated values, the gains to be made on our crazy 'not actually printing money' bond purchase programme) and treating them very favourably under the law.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that was the point of Jake's post.

 

To be fair, from what I've read of his posts, Jake is no fan of the UK (TBH I don't think I've ever seen him say a good thing about it :D ).

 

However, I take your point and, as I said, agree it has a lot of problems. Then again, I don't know too many places that haven't.

 

I think it was reflecting where the 'hopes and dreams' were invested (or, at least, pensions). In the US there is still an understanding of the value of the stock market - possibly as a result of the more visible investment strategy for 401(k)s, etc.

 

In the UK there is some explicit private investment in stocks/shares (and encouraged in ISA, SIPP, etc), but too many people have been burnt in various stock market crashes, and that has resulted in the mindset of 'my property investment is my pension'.

 

The sad part is that the US is probably right - the stock market represents the end-point of a system of investment in new business ideas, and while it is far from perfect, there is a definite logic in supporting this mechanism. As a result of this support, investment in companies can be maintained, IPO values can be supported, and early-staqe/venture capitalist investors can believe that they will make money from a good business idea.

 

In the UK the supporting of house prices has the opposite effect - for a start it increases the cost of living for the group of the population who should be out starting new businesses. It also sucks money from potential investment into unproductive assets (housing). This isn't as simple as just building new houses - it also is reflected in 'investment' in such aspects as redecorating, garden landscaping, new kitchens, extensions, etc. Our housing stock in the UK is probably the slickest in Europe. Of course, this investment keeps the economy going (ie, the kitchen installer will make enough money to employ the landscape designer, etc), and all the money spent on servicing ever larger quantities of debt will fund the finance industry (and their increasingly extravagant lifestyle), but in the end it isn't a productive investment, an investment for the future, and the UK will on balance have a less wealthy future because of it.

 

I have always maintained that the crazy rise in house prices has sucked money out of the economy and into the hands of the bankers, getting more and more interest as mortgages rose.

 

However, it could also be argued that the value of the Stock Exchange has been as (if not more) overinflated as the property market (see dot com boom for example), where also having been flooded for so long with cheap money, they reached a point where realistic valuations went out the window.

 

I'm not sure just how many Americans actually have private pensions, but some would say their private pension timebomb is just as depressing as our "my house is my pension" brigade (of whom, although I hear about them, I've actually only ever met one).

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1703100448001/underfunded-private-pension-debt-bomb/

 

It is incidental to the above, but on this point:

 

The problem in the UK is quite how few people work in this productive sector. Furthermore, working in this productive sector is a poor way to make a living in the UK. Pay levels are relatively low (both in academia and in professional industry), and job security is diabolical. This situation doesn't fill me with confidence for our future productivity.

 

(The exception to this is the exports in the financial services industries - and these only remain solvent because I'm (well, and the other inhabitants of the UK) guaranteeing truly vast quantities of their debt, giving them handouts wherever possible (eg, access to short term loans, asset purchases based on inflated values, the gains to be made on our crazy 'not actually printing money' bond purchase programme) and treating them very favourably under the law.)

 

I generally agree and believe that the departure from the old correlation between increasing wages being gained from productivity gains seen over the same period has been just as (if not more) detrimental to the country as the over inflated assets that arose from the cheap debt offered to placate the masses and distract them from the fact that wages had stopped growing along with productivity.

 

However, whilst things are obviously not good, I don't think we should all just put up our hands and give up (not that you are saying this).

 

I got slated here once for suggesting things were nowhere near as bad today as they were in the 70's, but I'll say it again, they're not, not by a long way.

 

It was horrific back then, the country was ripping itself apart - IMF bailouts, open battles on the streets (with hard working family men, not just ar**hole kids like now), electrical blackouts all the time, 3 day weeks, unions Vs state etc, hell there was nearly a coup! - and practically everyone went into that crisis period relatively poor.

 

Yes of course there were different problems and causes of those problems, but the effects were worse than we are seeing now and the country pulled out of it then, and it will come through this now.

 

It will take time, but it's been a hell of a boom and the vast majority are still way way better off now than equivalent families were 40 (even 20) years back.

 

There are also positives coming out at the moment, the public is paying down debt, slowly, but surely, inflation is falling and the number of people working is increasing even as the public sector is laying of 100's of thousands (although to be fair it's anyone’s guess as to how long that continues) and house prices are becoming more affordable in most of the country.

 

Record numbers of people moving into self employment (necessity rather than choice, perhaps) the state is (and will be) shrinking (e.g. we have had a 1% pay increase during three years of ~5% inflation, pensions renegotiated etc) and this can also help rebalance some of the problems you highlight. Although, judging from conversations with colleagues from all around the world, I have to say UK academics are still actually not that badly off (there were some pretty big increases under Labour).

 

The economy is, slowly, moving more towards manufacturing again and export markets are opening up around the world (as the reliance on Europe is being tested).

 

However, there are still big problems and in addition to all the problems internally, the debacle in Europe is dragging down the whole world at present.

 

If that gets sorted (big if) there is a chance that things will start bottoming out and start improving. Until then though, even I have to admit, it is difficult to be positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I got slated here once for suggesting things were nowhere near as bad today as they were in the 70's, but I'll say it again, they're not, not by a long way.

 

It was horrific back then, the country was ripping itself apart - IMF bailouts, open battles on the streets (with hard working family men, not just ar**hole kids like now), electrical blackouts all the time, 3 day weeks, unions Vs state etc, hell there was nearly a coup! - and practically everyone went into that crisis period relatively poor.

 

Yes of course there were different problems and causes of those problems, but the effects were worse than we are seeing now and the country pulled out of it then, and it will come through this now.

 

You're forgeting an important point. The solution to the problems of the 70ies was provided by the state (in the 80ies) by taking on the unions and other entrenched vested interests. Thats not happenning now: the banks are playing the role the unions played in the 70ies - trying to create a system where society was held to ranson, in order to meet their demands/requiements. They are being aided in this by the state to the detriment of society and the economy at large.

 

 

It will take time, but it's been a hell of a boom and the vast majority are still way way better off now than equivalent families were 40 (even 20) years back.

 

People with property interests and certain other groups who've been protected are better off. This is mainly due to the artificially low rates and wholesale rigging of markets. I don't think others outside this group necessarily are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgeting an important point. The solution to the problems of the 70ies was provided by the state (in the 80ies) by taking on the unions and other entrenched vested interests. Thats not happenning now: the banks are playing the role the unions played in the 70ies - trying to create a system where society was held to ranson, in order to meet their demands/requiements. They are being aided in this by the state to the detriment of society and the economy at large.

 

Nice comparison.

 

The old industry was inefficient (no investment for years will do that) and the unions did take the p**s.

 

The government broke the unions, but nearly broke the country too. They also put the necessary conditions in place for improvement (not in all areas mind, some have still not recovered from the 80's), but that mainly came from people themselves and, like it or not, a large amount of the increase in living standards over the last 25 years or so has to be attributed to the financial sector, (noteably since Big Bang). Banks are, for all their faults, pretty efficient (at making money that is).

 

However, I agree, they did get way too big and powerful, and I hate what has happened, but I don't remember people being forced to take out loans and MEW at the point of a gun.

 

The greedy banks (and too a lesser extent the reckless borrowers) of course have to take a good bit of blame, but it was the government that allowed this to happen, indeed encouraged it with all those lovely tax revenues pouring in, and it is they that are the real culprits (and indeed still are).

 

People with property interests and certain other groups who've been protected are better off. This is mainly due to the artificially low rates and wholesale rigging of markets. I don't think others outside this group necessarily are.

 

Not sure about that. I clearly remember many average (not poor mind) people having, for example, 2nd hand clothes at school, (good working class areas, most people were working class then :D ) and meat more than once a week was a real treat. Holidays consisted of a week at Butlins for the majority. This really wasn't that long ago (mid 70's).

 

I would wager any study of living standards through the decades would confirm that people in the UK are far better off today with a much higher living standard (indeed, the majority are middle class today).

 

The poor, and even some unemployed, including a good few friends of mine back home, (and my best man for that matter who hasn't worked for 15 years, and the council actually are buying his flat for him FFS! No really :blink: ) have designer clothes, trainers, big TVs, regular take-aways and holidays and many even have cars too!

 

(Hmm, does sound a bit "let them eat cake" ish :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgeting an important point. The solution to the problems of the 70ies was provided by the state (in the 80ies) by taking on the unions and other entrenched vested interests. Thats not happenning now: the banks are playing the role the unions played in the 70ies - trying to create a system where society was held to ranson, in order to meet their demands/requiements. They are being aided in this by the state to the detriment of society and the economy at large.

 

People with property interests and certain other groups who've been protected are better off. This is mainly due to the artificially low rates and wholesale rigging of markets. I don't think others outside this group necessarily are.

APT Comparison !

Yes.

These privileged parties pull in too much wealth, that's like "sucking blood" from the rest of the economy.

In the end, they must be toppled. That's what people are realising now about the banksters.

And it is probably also true about the (protected) BTL-investors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

but that mainly came from people themselves and, like it or not, a large amount of the increase in living standards over the last 25 years or so has to be attributed to the financial sector, (noteably since Big Bang). Banks are, for all their faults, pretty efficient (at making money that is).

 

However, I agree, they did get way too big and powerful, and I hate what has happened, but I don't remember people being forced to take out loans and MEW at the point of a gun.

 

The greedy banks (and too a lesser extent the reckless borrowers) of course have to take a good bit of blame, but it was the government that allowed this to happen, indeed encouraged it with all those lovely tax revenues pouring in, and it is they that are the real culprits (and indeed still are).

 

Surely the point of a bank is to act as a utility that connects customers that have capital deficits to customers with capital surpluses. This allows the virtuous (not malivestment) of those capital deficits. Or maybe the real point of a bank is to do something else entirely. See a problem here?

 

Not sure about that. I clearly remember many average (not poor mind) people having, for example, 2nd hand clothes at school, (good working class areas, most people were working class then :D ) and meat more than once a week was a real treat. Holidays consisted of a week at Butlins for the majority. This really wasn't that long ago (mid 70's).

 

I would wager any study of living standards through the decades would confirm that people in the UK are far better off today with a much higher living standard (indeed, the majority are middle class today).

 

The poor, and even some unemployed, including a good few friends of mine back home, (and my best man for that matter who hasn't worked for 15 years, and the council actually are buying his flat for him FFS! No really :blink: ) have designer clothes, trainers, big TVs, regular take-aways and holidays and many even have cars too!

 

My kids wear 2nd hand cloths. I find this normal. I earn a good wage and receive no welfare. In no way do I see this a sign of poverty, just sensible budgeting.

 

Interesting that you don't see any problem with your friend who hasn't worked for 15 years. His life style is only possible because of the large taxes that people like me pay to the state. To what extent do you think that the trajectory of his, or even your life, would be possible for someone in their 20ies today? Guess they're just in the wrong group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the point of a bank is to act as a utility that connects customers that have capital deficits to customers with capital surpluses. This allows the virtuous (not malivestment) of those capital deficits. Or maybe the real point of a bank is to do something else entirely. See a problem here?

 

From my point of view, yes, a bank is a place to put money and borrow money from. From the banks point of view it is a company that wants to be profitable, just like any of the privatised utilities if you like. Thing is, the regulation of the banks (whole financial sector even) broke down, much like if OFCOM allowed the telecoms companies to take the p**s.

 

Glass Steagall should be re-introduced ASAP.

 

My kids wear 2nd hand cloths. I find this normal. I earn a good wage and receive no welfare. In no way do I see this a sign of poverty, just sensible budgeting.

 

Interesting that you don't see any problem with your friend who hasn't worked for 15 years. His life style is only possible because of the large taxes that people like me pay to the state. To what extent do you think that the trajectory of his, or even your life, would be possible for someone in their 20ies today? Guess they're just in the wrong group.

 

Er that's sort of the point isn't it. Your kids wear 2nd hand clothes because you choose to do that. You have a choice, see the difference?

 

You speak like someone who can't remember just how different it was back then. Almost as if you have only experienced the good times. Do you mind if I ask did you entered the world of work before 1994?

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that I don’t have a problem with my friend that hasn't worked for 15 years? :blink:

 

I think it's shocking and have told him this many times.

 

When we left school it was into recession, mass strikes, mass layoffs and mass unemployment. Our city had the 2nd highest unemployment in the UK, just after Liverpool, (of course, being kids, for us, it just seemed that was the way things were).

 

It took me ~15 years to get out (several years of unemployment and odd jobs, couple of years of self employment, then, as the next recession hit, I went back to school and then university (and yes I worked evenings and weekends to do that, grants had finished a couple of years before and the loans I got didn’t even cover my rent).

 

So, actually, I would think a 20 year old today could do far better than I did, and far quicker also.

 

It seems you're trying to turn this discussion into an argument where none exists. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the point of a bank is to act as a utility that connects customers that have capital deficits to customers with capital surpluses. This allows the virtuous (not malivestment) of those capital deficits. Or maybe the real point of a bank is to do something else entirely. See a problem here?

 

+1!

 

But somewhere down the line that was perverted to become an inter-generational theft of wealth from the future to the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view, yes, a bank is a place to put money and borrow money from. From the banks point of view it is a company that wants to be profitable, just like any of the privatised utilities if you like. Thing is, the regulation of the banks (whole financial sector even) broke down, much like if OFCOM allowed the telecoms companies to take the p**s.

 

Glass Steagall should be re-introduced ASAP.

 

 

 

Er that's sort of the point isn't it. Your kids wear 2nd hand clothes because you choose to do that. You have a choice, see the difference?

 

You speak like someone who can't remember just how different it was back then. Almost as if you have only experienced the good times. Do you mind if I ask did you entered the world of work before 1994?

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that I don’t have a problem with my friend that hasn't worked for 15 years? :blink:

 

When we left school it was into recession, mass strikes, mass layoffs and mass unemployment. Our city had the 2nd highest unemployment in the UK, just after Liverpool, (of course, being kids, for us, it just seemed that was the way things were).

 

It took me ~15 years to get out (several years of unemployment and odd jobs, couple of years of self employment, then, as the next recession hit, I went back to school and then university (and yes I worked evenings and weekends to do that, grants had finished a couple of years before and the loans I got didn’t even cover my rent).

 

So, actually, I would think a 20 year old today could do far better than I did, and far quicker also.

 

It seems you're trying to turn this discussion into an argument where none exists. Why?

 

Calm down. I'm not really interested in an argument. I do think that your view is rose-tinted; and that there is a generational reason for that. For many people things are getting worse and not better. It's true that this is a frog-boilingly slow process but never the less you should acknowledge it. The reasons are clear, the finance industry has to be sorted out before the corner can be turned and real social/economic improvements made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1!

 

But somewhere down the line that was perverted to become an inter-generational theft of wealth from the future to the present.

 

Do you think it was all part of a master plan, or just a consequence of a system that evolved over time, without proper controls, which enabled certain people to take advantage of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really interested in an argument. I do think that your view is rose-tinted; and that there is a generational reason for that. For many people things are getting worse and not better. It's true that this is a frog-boilingly slow process but never the less you should acknowledge it. The reasons are clear, the finance industry has to be sorted out before the corner can be turned and real social/economic improvements made.

 

Ignoring the uncalled for "calm down" <_< , yes there are many problems today, and I have acknowledged that many times. I have also stated many times that the finance industry needs to be sorted "ASAP".

 

The generational point is interesting.

 

Someone leaving school (university) say in 1992 would never have experienced a recession, indeed, things improved year on year all the way to 2007-8, so for them the situation today seems really bad (they had a bloody good run mind).

 

However, for people leaving school in the mid 70's to early 80's, this is nowhere near as bad as it has been before.

 

Moreover, for people leaving school in 1940, then this is a breeze etc etc.

 

I guess it’s all relative.

 

(PS Rose tinted view! :lol: If my friends & family heard me described like that they'd p**s themselves laughing. They call me Dr Doom! Only on GEI (or HPC) could I ever be considered an optimist :lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think it was all part of a master plan, or just a consequence of a system that evolved over time, without proper controls, which enabled certain people to take advantage of it?

 

I think just a failure of human nature - the present is ours; the future is someone else's problem. All great civilizations have collapsed due the debt they placed on their future generations, why should ours be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the uncalled for "calm down" <_< , yes there are many problems today, and I have acknowledged that many times. I have also stated many times that the finance industry needs to be sorted "ASAP".

 

The generational point is interesting.

 

Someone leaving school (university) say in 1992 would never have experienced a recession, indeed, things improved year on year all the way to 2007-8, so for them the situation today seems really bad (they had a bloody good run mind).

 

However, for people leaving school in the mid 70's to early 80's, this is nowhere near as bad as it has been before.

 

Moreover, for people leaving school in 1940, then this is a breeze etc etc.

 

I guess it’s all relative.

 

(PS Rose tinted view! :lol: If my friends & family heard me described like that they'd p**s themselves laughing. They call me Dr Doom! Only on GEI (or HPC) could I ever be considered an optimist :lol: )

 

I disagree. It's VERY bad out there - it's just the socio-economic composition of those suffering from the recession has changed.

 

 

In past downturns it was old industries that were phased out - this affected mostly older, blue collar workers. Now the brunt is falling on the young generation. Many loaded up with debt from worthless college degrees and have no real skills that our workforce needs, cannot barely afford a room to rent, yet alone dream of buying a house.

 

 

This is actually a trend that started well before the HPC and financial crisis, and it everything to do with the Britain slowly becoming less and less competitive in the world.

 

Worth a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jqhly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe the real point of a bank is to do something else entirely. See a problem here?

 

Here's the original report and a good indication of which groups are benefiting from the growing inequity resulting from current policies.

 

Tax justice network report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's VERY bad out there - it's just the socio-economic composition of those suffering from the recession has changed.

 

 

In past downturns it was old industries that were phased out - this affected mostly older, blue collar workers. Now the brunt is falling on the young generation. Many loaded up with debt from worthless college degrees and have no real skills that our workforce needs, cannot barely afford a room to rent, yet alone dream of buying a house.

 

 

This is actually a trend that started well before the HPC and financial crisis, and it everything to do with the Britain slowly becoming less and less competitive in the world.

 

Worth a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jqhly

 

+1

 

That's correct. Previous downturns hit older workers. Much of the current younger generation in the UK are pretty much being screwed over. It may have been bad in the early 80's but the young then didn't have debt and by the end of that decade there were real employment prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the uncalled for "calm down" <_< , yes there are many problems today, and I have acknowledged that many times. I have also stated many times that the finance industry needs to be sorted "ASAP".

 

The generational point is interesting.

 

Someone leaving school (university) say in 1992 would never have experienced a recession, indeed, things improved year on year all the way to 2007-8, so for them the situation today seems really bad (they had a bloody good run mind).

 

However, for people leaving school in the mid 70's to early 80's, this is nowhere near as bad as it has been before.

 

Moreover, for people leaving school in 1940, then this is a breeze etc etc.

 

I guess it’s all relative.

 

(PS Rose tinted view! :lol: If my friends & family heard me described like that they'd p**s themselves laughing. They call me Dr Doom! Only on GEI (or HPC) could I ever be considered an optimist :lol: )

 

Perhaps the reason you seem so sanguine about this is that you're one of the generation that has benefited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's VERY bad out there - it's just the socio-economic composition of those suffering from the recession has changed.

 

 

In past downturns it was old industries that were phased out - this affected mostly older, blue collar workers. Now the brunt is falling on the young generation. Many loaded up with debt from worthless college degrees and have no real skills that our workforce needs, cannot barely afford a room to rent, yet alone dream of buying a house.

 

 

This is actually a trend that started well before the HPC and financial crisis, and it everything to do with the Britain slowly becoming less and less competitive in the world.

 

Worth a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jqhly

 

Of course it's bad out there, (especially for the young) but seriously, it's not as bad (yet) as in the mid 70's early 80's. (No-one said it wouldn't get worse before it gets better BTW). Anyone who thinks it’s as bad now as then, has either lost their memory, or wasn’t actually there.

 

And yes, the job losses then were mainly older blue collar workers (and those with families to support, which could be considered worse?), but when those factories and mines shut en mass, what do you think happened to all the school leavers that would normally have gone straight into those jobs?

 

That's right, straight onto the dole, there were no other jobs, there was no university to go to (unless you were very well off, or perhaps a natural genius from the estate lucky enough to have a teacher capable of spotting talent).

 

Make no mistake, youth unemployment was massive then, and remember, in many areas it hardly improved even during the boom.

 

As for buying houses, no-one I knew back then even considered buying a house. It just wasn't an option we considered (nor was university either).

 

Apparently, those that did (that weren’t from rich families) actually used to move in with their wife's parents so that they could save for a deposit back then! Can you imagine that! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the reason you seem so sanguine about this is that you're one of the generation that has benefited.

 

Benefited from leaving school into a mass recession and taking any pozy bit of work I could for several years? Benefited from getting off my arse and starting a business as soon as conditions allowed, that then got hammered when the next recession arrived?

 

Benefited from working my nuts off to retrain, with the wages I earn being lower in real terms by 50% compared to what they would have been 25 years ago, spending weekends and holidays renovating houses to enable us to live in a nicer area than I grew up........?

 

Yeah that's probably what makes me so sanguine :lol:

 

However, unlike some, I stupidly did not over borrow, nor did I overspend. I learnt the value of money very young and have always lived within my means.

 

So in that respect I guess I did benefit from being born when I was. Whoopee do! :lol:

 

Seems that you've done OK for yourself over the years, mind if I ask how did you do it?

 

PS Yes, I could earn more if I worked elsewhere, but I enjoy my job and with the choices we have made, it just about pays enough to enable my wife to stay at home while the kids are young. There's more to life.

 

Edit.. too much info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice bit on HPC about this

 

View Postsilver surfer, on 22 July 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

It's true that the young are bearing the brunt of the recession, exactly as they did in the early 80's recession. But it misses the bigger reality that average British living standards are set to decline...for all age groups.

 

Blaming boomers, public sector workers, or Polish immigrants provides a temporarily satisfying outburst of righteous indignation. But it doesn't tackle the real issue that the western economic model no longer delivers on it's promise of rising living standards for all.

 

and from KA

 

It could have done, but the forces of capital decided that everyone in the world was going to have the broadly similar standard of living via the magic of free trade and unfettered flows of capital. The spoils passing to the least well off poor in the world and to capital themselves. The big losers are the ordinary folk of the West who had previously successfully fought for a broad balance between labour and capital that has now been thoroughly ruptured. The full consequences are unknown yet.

 

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=181031&view=findpost&p=909094050

 

Yes I think living standards will fall further before things improve, but not as far back as even 20 years ago, let alone the 70's. (Also agree with KA's points).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×