• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Iamcynical

Millions of families 'worse off' than 15 years ago

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Iamcynical said:

BBC article. Look at the low-middle income line on the graph.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44926447

I suspect it's even worse than the graph suggests for this section of society. Pensioners doing well, and even non working doing better. What a clusterfuck.

 

But their houses are worth a fortune

 

Until you need to sell it to someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 201p said:

This is a battle between Capital and Labour, with automation and outsourcing thrown in.

If you work with your bare hands, it is harder to find work today. You have to have a qualification, you have to have experience. You have to accept a possibility of zero hours, etc. 

If you own Capital invested in assets, they have been going up faster that you earn with your bare hands.

However the two are linked. Capital needs Labour to work on the assets such as the land at the most basic level to give them value and return on Capital.

The battle manifests itself in the real world by the voting public (Labour) by voting in populist leaders, such as Trump and Corbin and maybe  even Sturgeon. Even though, they are different areas of the political spectrum, people are voting to break the system rather than continue with the system, so people can get a better of standard of living, much to the horror of the Capital owners.

Very well put. I would go further and say the link between assets/capital and Labour has essentially been broken.

It started breaking in about 1986/7, but was irreversible from 2000/2001 onwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an odd and not entirely unpredictable turn of fate, people who work who want to maintain a half-decent lifestyle probably have to work twice as hard as they did fifteen years ago.

Those who have never had any intention of working have to do even less to maintain that sort of lifestyle.

Genius. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 201p said:

This is a battle between Capital and Labour, with automation and outsourcing thrown in.

If you work with your bare hands, it is harder to find work today. You have to have a qualification, you have to have experience. You have to accept a possibility of zero hours, etc. 

If you own Capital invested in assets, they have been going up faster that you earn with your bare hands.

However the two are linked. Capital needs Labour to work on the assets such as the land at the most basic level to give them value and return on Capital.

The battle manifests itself in the real world by the voting public (Labour) by voting in populist leaders, such as Trump and Corbin and maybe  even Sturgeon. Even though, they are different areas of the political spectrum, people are voting to break the system rather than continue with the system, so people can get a better of standard of living, much to the horror of the Capital owners.

I entirely agree with the rest of your post but this is incorrect.

There is plenty of work for manual workers but mass immigration means that it pays near-minimum wage and the hours are those that suit your employer rather than you; and you will be very lucky to be paid extra for your ability and experience.

The combination of these fcators means that if you can instead be on benefits, or restrict your hours and go onto working ebnefits, you will be better off.

Here's the graph:

 

_102661490_income2_v3_640-nc.png

In 2004 low to middle income earners' real income cease to rise and start to fall.

And here's another one:

net-migratinon-91-14-600x389.png

 

In 2004 net migration leaps by 100k.

 

Hmmm......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chosen timescale to make the current government look bad (they are but anyway).

Take a timescale from when Labour lost power, and you get a different headline. Perhaps a headline about the "Brown Years" would be telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, snaga said:

Chosen timescale to make the current government look bad (they are but anyway).

Take a timescale from when Labour lost power, and you get a different headline. Perhaps a headline about the "Brown Years" would be telling.

Brown and Blair set it all in motion, as you're suggesting but the Tories didn't fix it. They didn't want to, obviously - why would they help the indigenous working class that Labour had abandoned?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Iamcynical said:

BBC article. Look at the low-middle income line on the graph.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44926447

I suspect it's even worse than the graph suggests for this section of society. Pensioners doing well, and even non working doing better. What a clusterfuck.

Just posted that o nth breakfast club.

These are the people who gave up FT work to go on tax credits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, One percent said:

We’ve been commenting on here for a while now about how working is no longer the sensible option. Far better to have a couple of kids and sit back on the bennies.

Very sad but unfortunately true. I guess it's what the state wants. Everyone welded to it's teet.

The place I work is looking wobbly at the moment as we recently failed to pull in a big contract. Ticking over for now but it cannot go on forever. When it does go under I'm probably going to try to get signed off on permanent sick as I was diagnosed with mental illness 10 years ago but carried on working full time regardless. It is against everything I stand for but, as One Percent explained, it really isn't worth the hassle anymore - working your bollocks off for minimum wage, or close to it, and zero hours.

And that's if you can even get the job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Brown and Blair set it all in motion, as you're suggesting but the Tories didn't fix it. They didn't want to, obviously - why would they help the indigenous working class that Labour had abandoned?

 

at least the graph has been going up since mid 2010, not fast enough but in the right direction at least. The last time it has continuous growth like that was 1990s ending in 2003 soon after Brown deviated for the Tory spending plan he chose to maintain when he first became CoE

when did Brown introduce tax credits? 2003?

Edited by snaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fischer said:

I'd love to see a line in there for working single men or women with no kids.

Bet they're earning less, by a large amount.

Absolutely.

This graph looks to have been the designed outcome: impoverish workers and enrich those who don't work - benefits recipients and pensioners.

So it now makes tremendous sense to try to join one of those non-working groups by either retiring early or playing up anything that may be wrong with you and leave the overworked underpaid drones to continue supporting the shambles; and if they don't want to then another few million migrants will be let in to take their places.

It's hard to see where this is going to go; maybe all the lines start going down as everybody just gets poorer as production levels continue to drop so we end up with Soviet levels of poverty in a notionally-capitalist system where it doesn't make sense to work or, if in work, to work any harder than the bare minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Brown and Blair set it all in motion, as you're suggesting but the Tories didn't fix it. They didn't want to, obviously - why would they help the indigenous working class that Labour had abandoned?

 

same thing happened in the US, so think B/B imported the ideas to destroy the middle class

with pensioners absorbing billions in healthcare as well it's a last flourish of profligate spending on the elderly, or do we just cancel trident ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fischer said:

I'd love to see a line in there for working single men or women with no kids.

Bet they're earning less, by a large amount.

I've mentioned my son on here before. He was 25, living at home and working for a major high street bank for just over £15k!.

He's in America now, I hope he stays there!

Edited by Happyhaddock
Ocd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Happyhaddock said:

I've mentioned my son on here before. He was 25, living at home and working for a major high street bank for just over £15k!.

He's in America now, I hope he stays there!

I will counter that with my Brother in Law.

Joined a major high street bank as a back office boy at 16. Stayed there, studiously avoided promotion to the best of his ability but now does some training stuff - not exactly rocket science.

About to retire at 55 years old in 3 years, 50% final salary pension and house paid for in full.

Your son never had that chance.

Take away aspiration and people wonder why productivity is shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, 201p said:

The battle manifests itself in the real world by the voting public (Labour) by voting in populist leaders, such as Trump and Corbin and maybe  even Sturgeon. Even though, they are different areas of the political spectrum, people are voting to break the system rather than continue with the system, so people can get a better of standard of living, much to the horror of the Capital owners.

The Corbyn/Steptoe auto-correct was removed earlier, just FYI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting article somewhere (sorry can't remember the source) that said people in the west are poorer than they were in 1970, but, in the same way that Wagon Wheels have become smaller, the system has been changed to make people think they are still wealthy. This poverty has been disguised by:

a. Cheap credit, enabling people to buy things on the never-never and therefore to appear wealthy

b. Longer working hours

c. Dual income households 

d. Longer commutes

e. Importation of cheap foreign goods and labour

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

tax credits remove the instinct to work for your family.
immigration removes the wages that would help you support your family.
Combined it's a lethal concoction that has poisoned our society.

When a society promotes affordable housing in a way that actually makes a mockery of using the word affordable, then you know the country is fucked.

 

"Affordable" housing was a direct creation of government to allow it slash grant rates; despite people moaning that it's councils and housing associations in some way profiteering.  This is not a promotion by society; it was a deliberate choice made by government which meant not only were no more social rent homes built but many of those that already existed have had their rent raised to "affordable" levels.

 

Quote

Grant rates per unit were often around 75% per unit in the 1990s, before falling to 41% before 2010 and then further to just 23% in the 2011/15 Affordable Homes Programme.

 

Quote

 

1. No mention that affordable rent was introduced by the government, not housing associations

The programme says that instead of social rented homes, housing associations are building “affordable [rented] homes”. Although there was a brief mention of subsidies being removed for social rented homes, the programme did not make clear that the government from 2010 “expected” housing associations to build new homes for affordable rent as a condition of grants.

Yes, associations could decide not to bid for grants, but choosing not to do everything possible to build homes during a housing supply crisis would arguably be seen as a dereliction of social purpose.

On top of this, the Homes and Communities Agency’s (HCA) grant programmes prospectuses have made it very clear that conversions of existing vacant stock to affordable rent should be “integral to the offer” – meaning the government, through the HCA, was putting pressure on housing associations to convert stock to affordable rent with the understanding that bids would have to include this in order to be successful.

Brian Robson, acting head of policy and research at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, tweeted the relevant bits last night:

Not specific rent levels, but prospectus very clear they expected conversion of relets to affordable rents, and additional revenue from that pic.twitter.com/GJMz9J0vWH

— Brian Robson (@jrfbrian)

 

 

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/seven-problems-with-last-nights-dispatches-programme-57239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheNoSnowMan said:

Very sad but unfortunately true. I guess it's what the state Brown wanted. Everyone welded to it's teet.

The place I work is looking wobbly at the moment as we recently failed to pull in a big contract. Ticking over for now but it cannot go on forever. When it does go under I'm probably going to try to get signed off on permanent sick as I was diagnosed with mental illness 10 years ago but carried on working full time regardless. It is against everything I stand for but, as One Percent explained, it really isn't worth the hassle anymore - working your bollocks off for minimum wage, or close to it, and zero hours.

And that's if you can even get the job!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.