Tracker Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46958560 Just thought I would get this bad news posted before you know who does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Good news indeed - ( if it's true ). Let's hope they are all well paid jobs with good pensions - and some of them will be able to buy a house. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Good news. Its a bit like being a fatty though and then losing eight stone and going look at me!! Im great! Then going out and living on a diet of booze, chips and pies. Dave reckons the economy is doing great as well. So if everything is great why are we insisting on smashing it all up in two months time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Wages up ... Employment at record highs ... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/22/uk-pay-growth-employment-weekly-earnings ... Its what it says in the whingers and moaners Bible so it must be true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 So we now have more people, as a percentage of the working age population, in work than at any previous time. In one sense that is good - so long as working is the preference of all those presently in work. OTTOH, it further underlines how necessary it has become for both partners in a family to work to provide an income sufficient to maintain a comfortable standard of living. In many cases, it seems the cost of housing requires both partners to work in order to maintain mortgage payments, and that with house prices continually rising at least as fast as incomes, that those working women will have to continue in work for longer than they might prefer. The ages of women at the time their first child is born has been rising for a number of years, so whereas the news is undoubtedly good for government revenues, I do wonder if it is as good for the quality of people's lives. We have a generally successful economy, but it is debatable whether that economy is working in the best interests of the population at large. We should also remember that we also have a very unequal economy, with the "haves" getting a growing share of the benefits, but the proportion of economic "have nots" grows as a consequence. It's good, but not that good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-01-22 5:25 PM So we now have more people, as a percentage of the working age population, in work than at any previous time. In one sense that is good - so long as working is the preference of all those presently in work. OTTOH, it further underlines how necessary it has become for both partners in a family to work to provide an income sufficient to maintain a comfortable standard of living. In many cases, it seems the cost of housing requires both partners to work in order to maintain mortgage payments, and that with house prices continually rising at least as fast as incomes, that those working women will have to continue in work for longer than they might prefer. The ages of women at the time their first child is born has been rising for a number of years, so whereas the news is undoubtedly good for government revenues, I do wonder if it is as good for the quality of people's lives. We have a generally successful economy, but it is debatable whether that economy is working in the best interests of the population at large. We should also remember that we also have a very unequal economy, with the "haves" getting a growing share of the benefits, but the proportion of economic "have nots" grows as a consequence. It's good, but not that good! For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 How many of these jobs are proper jobs though or full time and not zero hour contracts I wonder? You only have to work 1 hour a week, be doing training or in some kind of employment program to be classed as employed now. "The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week (as an employee or self-employed), those who had a job that they were temporarily away from, those on government-supported training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work. Employment levels and rates are published each month in the labour market statistical bulletin." https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/methodologies/aguidetolabourmarketstatistics#employment Jesus!!! Even I probably do more than one hours work a week so I must be one of them!!! I bet it takes Dave Pelmet an hour to type an email with one finger to one of his Puff customers back in blighty does that mean he is one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Barryd999 - 2019-01-22 5:47 PM How many of these jobs are proper jobs though or full time and not zero hour contracts I wonder? You only have to work 1 hour a week, be doing training or in some kind of employment program to be classed as employed now. "The number of people in employment in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and consists of people aged 16 and over who did one hour or more of paid work per week (as an employee or self-employed), those who had a job that they were temporarily away from, those on government-supported training and employment programmes, and those doing unpaid family work. Employment levels and rates are published each month in the labour market statistical bulletin." And that is precisely the rub which will be lost on most who just see a figure and snappy header and think whoopy-doo we're doing brilliantly when the truthful facts are masked by misrepresentation and distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 What kept you Bullshout - it took a while for you to apply your usual negativity - but I bet it made a few of us chuckle so thanks for the laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Tracker - 2019-01-22 7:32 PM What kept you Bullshout - it took a while for you to apply your usual negativity - but I bet it made a few of us chuckle so thanks for the laugh! Hhmm.....it's hardly anything to "laugh" about when faced with the factual reality from a UK.gov link stating "1 hour per week = 'employed' " positive in it's definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-01-22 8:12 PM Tracker - 2019-01-22 7:32 PM What kept you Bullshout - it took a while for you to apply your usual negativity - but I bet it made a few of us chuckle so thanks for the laugh! Hhmm.....it's hardly anything to "laugh" about when faced with the factual reality from a UK.gov link stating "1 hour per week = 'employed' " positive in it's definition. Just to clarify - it's you I'm laughing at Mr Pessimistic not the report! Always look on the bright side of life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-01-22 5:25 PM So we now have more people, as a percentage of the working age population, in work than at any previous time. In one sense that is good - so long as working is the preference of all those presently in work. You mean they should have the choice to live off benefits? *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-01-22 10:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-22 5:25 PM So we now have more people, as a percentage of the working age population, in work than at any previous time. In one sense that is good - so long as working is the preference of all those presently in work. You mean they should have the choice to live off benefits? *-) .......... As a person whose boasted on here about living off benefits when "not really needing them", i don't think you're best placed to make judgement on others about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-01-22 11:00 PM pelmetman - 2019-01-22 10:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-22 5:25 PM So we now have more people, as a percentage of the working age population, in work than at any previous time. In one sense that is good - so long as working is the preference of all those presently in work. You mean they should have the choice to live off benefits? *-) .......... As a person whose boasted on here about living off benefits when "not really needing them", i don't think you're best placed to make judgement on others about that! As I proved benefits were too easy to access legitimately.......... I'm the perfect person to make that judgement ;-) ........ Maybe the new universal credit has tightened up the criteria, the fact that more people are in employment would indicate that is the case B-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-01-22 11:06 PM Bulletguy - 2019-01-22 11:00 PM pelmetman - 2019-01-22 10:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-22 5:25 PM So we now have more people, as a percentage of the working age population, in work than at any previous time. In one sense that is good - so long as working is the preference of all those presently in work. You mean they should have the choice to live off benefits? *-) .......... As a person whose boasted on here about living off benefits when "not really needing them", i don't think you're best placed to make judgement on others about that! As I proved benefits were too easy to access legitimately.......... I'm the perfect person to make that judgement ;-) ........ Your conniving duplicity is well known....you've established that much for sure. Worse still, you are actually proud of it. Maybe the new universal credit has tightened up the criteria, the fact that more people are in employment would indicate that is the case B-) .......... Government massage employment figures which has been shown to you on another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-01-22 11:33 PM Your conniving duplicity is well known....you've established that much for sure. Worse still, you are actually proud of it. How was I conniving? :-S ...........I applied......I qualified......where's the duplicity? ;-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-01-22 5:36 PM...………….For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves I agree Antony, it is a more complex picture. However, I cited the mortgage (if they have one - which is another story), and could have added rent, food etc, because they are the essential cost elements for most families. The other things you refer to are desirables, but not really essentials. There is also the question of child care for working women, so that the net gain to the family from their work is much reduced. However, I don't think the central point - that it now seems to take two working partners to sustain a household to a greater extent than it used to - is altered. That is not to say that couples didn't both need to work for a while after they set up home in the past, but that the need for both to work has gradually lengthened over recent decades, and much of that seems to have been driven by the even increasing relative cost of housing - however, acquired. I think people would be better off, overall, if the relative cost of housing were to reduce, leaving greater choice for working couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-01-23 1:01 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-22 5:36 PM...………….For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves I agree Antony, it is a more complex picture. However, I cited the mortgage (if they have one - which is another story), and could have added rent, food etc, because they are the essential cost elements for most families. The other things you refer to are desirables, but not really essentials. There is also the question of child care for working women, so that the net gain to the family from their work is much reduced. However, I don't think the central point - that it now seems to take two working partners to sustain a household to a greater extent than it used to - is altered. That is not to say that couples didn't both need to work for a while after they set up home in the past, but that the need for both to work has gradually lengthened over recent decades, and much of that seems to have been driven by the even increasing relative cost of housing - however, acquired. I think people would be better off, overall, if the relative cost of housing were to reduce, leaving greater choice for working couples. My point is though Brian those things you say are "desirables" have now become "essentials" to many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-01-24 6:31 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-23 1:01 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-22 5:36 PM...………….For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves I agree Antony, it is a more complex picture. However, I cited the mortgage (if they have one - which is another story), and could have added rent, food etc, because they are the essential cost elements for most families. The other things you refer to are desirables, but not really essentials. There is also the question of child care for working women, so that the net gain to the family from their work is much reduced. However, I don't think the central point - that it now seems to take two working partners to sustain a household to a greater extent than it used to - is altered. That is not to say that couples didn't both need to work for a while after they set up home in the past, but that the need for both to work has gradually lengthened over recent decades, and much of that seems to have been driven by the even increasing relative cost of housing - however, acquired. I think people would be better off, overall, if the relative cost of housing were to reduce, leaving greater choice for working couples. My point is though Brian those things you say are "desirables" have now become "essentials" to many If you see it that way. I'm using "essential" to define those things without it one suffers actual hardship, and "desirable" to define the things without which would be nice to have, but suffers no actual hardship. I understand that to be the usual meaning of those two words. That people have come to believe mobile 'phones essential, doesn't mean they'll die if they don't have one. Food, good housing, and the income to sustain them are, to me essential. That, for a lot of people is what makes the second income essential. It seems to me that growing numbers of people are in that position. That was my point. A car etc. is nice, but there are alternative (albeit less convenient) ways of getting around. If the essentials are covered by one income, and a second income provides the desirables, that is fine, but that wasn't my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-01-24 5:20 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-24 6:31 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-23 1:01 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-22 5:36 PM...………….For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves I agree Antony, it is a more complex picture. However, I cited the mortgage (if they have one - which is another story), and could have added rent, food etc, because they are the essential cost elements for most families. The other things you refer to are desirables, but not really essentials. There is also the question of child care for working women, so that the net gain to the family from their work is much reduced. However, I don't think the central point - that it now seems to take two working partners to sustain a household to a greater extent than it used to - is altered. That is not to say that couples didn't both need to work for a while after they set up home in the past, but that the need for both to work has gradually lengthened over recent decades, and much of that seems to have been driven by the even increasing relative cost of housing - however, acquired. I think people would be better off, overall, if the relative cost of housing were to reduce, leaving greater choice for working couples. My point is though Brian those things you say are "desirables" have now become "essentials" to many If you see it that way. I'm using "essential" to define those things without it one suffers actual hardship, and "desirable" to define the things without which would be nice to have, but suffers no actual hardship. I understand that to be the usual meaning of those two words. That people have come to believe mobile 'phones essential, doesn't mean they'll die if they don't have one. Food, good housing, and the income to sustain them are, to me essential. That, for a lot of people is what makes the second income essential. It seems to me that growing numbers of people are in that position. That was my point. A car etc. is nice, but there are alternative (albeit less convenient) ways of getting around. If the essentials are covered by one income, and a second income provides the desirables, that is fine, but that wasn't my point. We currently live full time in a 29 year old camper .......our other "monthly" luxury's apart from campsites are pay as you go mobiles and a dongle ;-) ....... Our current income is just below the tax threshold :D ......... If you think I'm suffering hardship?.......Then I'm happy for you to contribute to my porper existence B-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarveyHeaven Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-01-24 5:40 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-24 5:20 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-24 6:31 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-23 1:01 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-22 5:36 PM...………….For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves I agree Antony, it is a more complex picture. However, I cited the mortgage (if they have one - which is another story), and could have added rent, food etc, because they are the essential cost elements for most families. The other things you refer to are desirables, but not really essentials. There is also the question of child care for working women, so that the net gain to the family from their work is much reduced. However, I don't think the central point - that it now seems to take two working partners to sustain a household to a greater extent than it used to - is altered. That is not to say that couples didn't both need to work for a while after they set up home in the past, but that the need for both to work has gradually lengthened over recent decades, and much of that seems to have been driven by the even increasing relative cost of housing - however, acquired. I think people would be better off, overall, if the relative cost of housing were to reduce, leaving greater choice for working couples. My point is though Brian those things you say are "desirables" have now become "essentials" to many If you see it that way. I'm using "essential" to define those things without it one suffers actual hardship, and "desirable" to define the things without which would be nice to have, but suffers no actual hardship. I understand that to be the usual meaning of those two words. That people have come to believe mobile 'phones essential, doesn't mean they'll die if they don't have one. Food, good housing, and the income to sustain them are, to me essential. That, for a lot of people is what makes the second income essential. It seems to me that growing numbers of people are in that position. That was my point. A car etc. is nice, but there are alternative (albeit less convenient) ways of getting around. If the essentials are covered by one income, and a second income provides the desirables, that is fine, but that wasn't my point. We currently live full time in a 29 year old camper .......our other "monthly" luxury's apart from campsites are pay as you go mobiles and a dongle ;-) ....... Our current income is just below the tax threshold :D ......... If you think I'm suffering hardship?.......Then I'm happy for you to contribute to my porper existence B-) ....... A true Brexiter...voting to have less than he has already got....well done you as you will indeed reap the benefits of your decisions in the very near future if Brexit is a hard one or a no deal.....the problem is that there are other in your position who will also suffer greatly if the blind brexiters win and they will also have to pay the price of Blind Brexit whether they like it or not but then Blind Brexiters couldn't give a monkeys.........(turkeys voting for Christmas) but you have certainly confirmed the cognitive dissonance theory :-D :-D :-D ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 HarveyHeaven - 2019-01-25 10:21 AM pelmetman - 2019-01-24 5:40 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-24 5:20 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-24 6:31 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-01-23 1:01 PM antony1969 - 2019-01-22 5:36 PM...………….For the modern family its much , much more than just a mortgage Brian ... Phones/TV,/internet/sky holidays/motor/eating out/takeaways/fashionable clothes etc etc ... Modern life aint just about women working to pay the mortgage Brian ... Thats really rather over simplifying it for us dummies ... Its not about working for the basics such as food and shelter these days its the must haves I agree Antony, it is a more complex picture. However, I cited the mortgage (if they have one - which is another story), and could have added rent, food etc, because they are the essential cost elements for most families. The other things you refer to are desirables, but not really essentials. There is also the question of child care for working women, so that the net gain to the family from their work is much reduced. However, I don't think the central point - that it now seems to take two working partners to sustain a household to a greater extent than it used to - is altered. That is not to say that couples didn't both need to work for a while after they set up home in the past, but that the need for both to work has gradually lengthened over recent decades, and much of that seems to have been driven by the even increasing relative cost of housing - however, acquired. I think people would be better off, overall, if the relative cost of housing were to reduce, leaving greater choice for working couples. My point is though Brian those things you say are "desirables" have now become "essentials" to many If you see it that way. I'm using "essential" to define those things without it one suffers actual hardship, and "desirable" to define the things without which would be nice to have, but suffers no actual hardship. I understand that to be the usual meaning of those two words. That people have come to believe mobile 'phones essential, doesn't mean they'll die if they don't have one. Food, good housing, and the income to sustain them are, to me essential. That, for a lot of people is what makes the second income essential. It seems to me that growing numbers of people are in that position. That was my point. A car etc. is nice, but there are alternative (albeit less convenient) ways of getting around. If the essentials are covered by one income, and a second income provides the desirables, that is fine, but that wasn't my point. We currently live full time in a 29 year old camper .......our other "monthly" luxury's apart from campsites are pay as you go mobiles and a dongle ;-) ....... Our current income is just below the tax threshold :D ......... If you think I'm suffering hardship?.......Then I'm happy for you to contribute to my porper existence B-) ....... A true Brexiter...voting to have less than he has already got....well done you as you will indeed reap the benefits of your decisions in the very near future if Brexit is a hard one or a no deal.....the problem is that there are other in your position who will also suffer greatly if the blind brexiters win and they will also have to pay the price of Blind Brexit whether they like it or not but then Blind Brexiters couldn't give a monkeys.........(turkeys voting for Christmas) but you have certainly confirmed the cognitive dissonance theory :-D :-D :-D ;-) Pray tell how I will have less than I've already got? ;-) ........... BTW....... 1........Weren't we supposed to have lost 820,000 jobs by now? :D ........ 2........Weren't we mean't to have entered a immediate recession? (lol) ........ Given the accuracy of Remoaner predictions I'm confident I'll have more than I do now B-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted January 25, 2019 Author Share Posted January 25, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-01-24 5:40 PM Our current income is just below the tax threshold :D ......... So was ours when I first took early retirement and they were happy years. HOWEVER their very solid foundation was no mortgage, no debt, no kids to feed and clothe and a paid for roof over our heads which is very different from the financial situation that we had been in just a few years earlier with all of the above to fund. So whilst a no deal Brexit will probably not make much difference to us it will to many thousands of families whilst the nation readjusts it's economy and in my view, whilst I generally support leaving the EU, I do not support a no deal exit. What I do not understand is why the UK and the EU can't just sit down and talk about where we each might well have been with trade and other agreements had we never joined the EEC and simply make it so? How hard can it be with commitment on both sides to make it work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Tracker - 2019-01-25 11:08 AM What I do not understand is why the UK and the EU can't just sit down and talk about where we each might well have been with trade and other agreements had we never joined the EEC and simply make it so? How hard can it be with commitment on both sides to make it work? It's because the UK cant be seen to prosper outside of the EU ;-) ......... Which is rather awkward for the EU as they want us to buy their goods.......but at the same time they don't want us to be able to afford to buy their goods :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Well currently one of the amendments I believe is to allow the house to vote on a variety of Brexit outcomes to establish which one would have a chance of passing. If we cannot have a second vote then this would seem the logical choice to avoid a no deal Brexit. What is the point of May just coming back with the same old plan which there is no majority for and risking the can just getting kicked down the road until we fall off the no deal cliff which remember all the pollys told us nobody voted for or wants and also that it would never happen? Have we forgotten that? The house has a duty to ensure we do not suffer a no deal Brexit. Remaining is what I would prefer but if thats not possible then we have to have a solution that a majority of MPs can accept that prevents no deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.