Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
Council tenants don't tend to vote Conservative. Home ownership and Conservatism are correlated - building more council houses in effect increases the Labour client vote.
That in itself is not a good reason for not building more council houses, though a good reason why it is probably the case.
Hammond says there's often a "gap" between planning permission and new homes being built. He should know. The property company he founded Castlemead has left a plot empty for seven years
So what exactly did the OBR say about the stamp duty change? That it would lead to a price increase that would entirely cancel out the reduced duty, or partially? If partially, then by how much?
Unskilled workers are cheaper than machines? Thought machines were cheaper across the board. I’ve learned something new today.
Unskilled workers aren't necessarily cheaper than machines but may be deemed to give a better service than machines. See hand washing and coffee making which can be done by a machine but people are happy to pay extra for a hand wash or a barista-brewed coffee.
Is that the same OBR which produced these forecasts in 2010:
' C.2 We have produced a Budget forecast which incorporates the effects of all measures, plus a number of updated assumptions and judgements. Our Budget economic forecast is for GDP to grow by 1.2 per cent in 2010 and 2.3 per cent in 2011, rising to 2.7 to 2.9 per cent in the later years of the forecast.
C.3 Table C1 sets out an overview of our Budget fiscal forecast. The fiscal forecast is for: • public sector net borrowing (PSNB) to fall from 11.0 per cent of GDP in 2009-10 to 1.1 per cent in 2015-16; • public sector net debt (PSND) to increase from 53.5 per cent of GDP in 2009-10 to a peak of 70.3 per cent in 2013-14, falling to 69.4 per cent in 2014-15 and 67.4 per cent in 2015-16; and • the cyclically-adjusted current budget deficit of 5.3 per cent of GDP in 2009-10 to be eliminated by 2014-15 and reach a surplus of 0.8 per cent of GDP in 2015-16. '
Philip Hammond’s plan to scrap stamp duty for some first-time buyers began unravelling after the Government’s own spending watchdog said it was open to abuse, would drive up house prices and only benefit a small number of people.
Philip Hammond Philip Hammond unveiled a stamp duty freeze for first-time buyers in the Budget.Credit: PA Images In a major blow for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave his flagship announcement - set to cost taxpayers around £600m a year - a "high uncertainty rating"
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
Council tenants don't tend to vote Conservative. Home ownership and Conservatism are correlated - building more council houses in effect increases the Labour client vote.
That in itself is not a good reason for not building more council houses, though a good reason why it is probably the case.
While I completely agree that there should be adequate provision of affordable, rentable homes for those who need them - and that the government can and should act as a provider in these matters, encouraging people wherever possible to buy is of itself a morally good thing. It encourages saving, self-sufficiency and independence.
Ideologically, if you believe it's a good thing that people should wherever possible be encouraged to stand on their own two feet, save, invest and own, it's the right thing to do. I think most people would prefer to own rather than rent, too. As I say, the alternative is to remain a client of the state, permanently accepting a form of handout in the form of a government subsidised rented home, but never actually owning anything of your own or building up equity for later in life or to pass on to your kids.
Council housing should be the guarantor of housing for the poorest in society, the lender of last resort so to speak, rather than the 'go to' solution to the country's housing crisis.
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
It will marginally affect house prices while massively reducing the amount of savings required to get a depost. Anything that improves affordability will affect prices. Better to have people able to afford marginally more expensive houses than unable to afford marginally cheaper houses surely?
It's still only ambiguous - if he had said "doubled" he would be vulnerable to the same attack, that he was saying it should be reduced to 1 every 2 hours. If the opposition can do no better than pursuing the wrong person for saying something with zero pursuit value in it anyway, and stating boldly that giving someone £5000 is equivalent to kicking them in the balls, Hammond can feel that he has done an ok job.
Philip Hammond’s plan to scrap stamp duty for some first-time buyers began unravelling after the Government’s own spending watchdog said it was open to abuse, would drive up house prices and only benefit a small number of people.
Philip Hammond Philip Hammond unveiled a stamp duty freeze for first-time buyers in the Budget.Credit: PA Images In a major blow for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave his flagship announcement - set to cost taxpayers around £600m a year - a "high uncertainty rating"
OMNISHAMBLES not!!
The OBR figures indicate that first time buyers trying to buy a £250,000 home would save £2,500 in up-front costs, while increasing the up-front deposit amount required by £75. That is an up-front saving of £2,425 - yet you think that's a bad thing?
2017/18: Net Debt: 86.5% Net Debt exc Bank of England: 76.9%
2022/23: Net Debt: 79.1% Net Debt exc Bank of England: 76.4%
So Net Debt exc Bank of England only falls 0.5% - not that impressive!
But implies Bank of England debt falls 6.9% - which is huge!
How does this happen?
Surely it implies a massive sale of Bank of England debt?
Is this negative QE? ie Reversing QE?
(NB all numbers above are % of GDP)
If so, probably means bond yields rise as instead of having the biggest buyer in the history of gilts with literally unlimited money buying left right and centre driving bond prices up ( supply and all that demand) and so yields down (they move in inverse lockstep), we’d have a seller so a reverse of the process we’ve had for a decade.
If that’s the case, it’s probably more significant than anything else today by a country mile. And it would be a good thing as pension deficits would melt away largely, freeing up capital for productive investment instead of chucking it down an imaginary financial hole created by bonkers monetary policy and well meaning but actually destructive regulation.
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
If it increases a £300,000 house by the full £5000 it will still reduce a10% deposit on that house by £4500. It is the deposit more than anything that keeps first time buyers off the housing ladder.
It's still only ambiguous - if he had said "doubled" he would be vulnerable to the same attack, that he was saying it should be reduced to 1 every 2 hours. If the opposition can do no better than pursuing the wrong person for saying something with zero pursuit value in it anyway, and stating boldly that giving someone £5000 is equivalent to kicking them in the balls, Hammond can feel that he has done an ok job.
Could have explicitly said "halved to 30 mins". Isn't this what PR bods are for?
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
If it increases a £300,000 house by the full £5000 it will still reduce a10% deposit on that house by £4500. It is the deposit more than anything that keeps first time buyers off the housing ladder.
And that's six times greater than the rise predicted by the OBR.
Unskilled workers are cheaper than machines? Thought machines were cheaper across the board. I’ve learned something new today.
Why do you think we have hand carwashers these days ?
Of course its cheaper for those who own the carwash businesses as the costs of providing housing, public services etc necessary for the unskilled workers are passed onto someone else.
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
If it increases a £300,000 house by the full £5000 it will still reduce a10% deposit on that house by £4500. It is the deposit more than anything that keeps first time buyers off the housing ladder.
Exactly!
Though it won't increase by the full £5000 as first time buyers aren't competing only against other first time buyers but also other types of buyers such as movers (who'll still need to pay £5000) and second-home/buy-to-let buyers (who'll need to pay £14,000 in stamp duty).
Oh dear Budget falling apart faster than Spread Shit Phil can count the Zero Unemployed.
OMNISHAMBLES
I suppose any Tory budget would be an omnishambles to you.
RailCards that cant be used before 10am
Housing measures that will increase the price of affordable houses
A bloke who announces new Maths money but doesn't know the difference between halving and doubling
Productivity down
Growth forecasts down.
There are no unemployed.
Sprad Shit Phil is clueless IMO
I suppose you view todays budget as a triumph?
The housing measures will reduce the amount of deposit needed. That makes them more not less available to First Time Buyers.
Will be inflationary and increase house prices though.
Try building more Council Houses that is the obvious solution.
Council tenants don't tend to vote Conservative. Home ownership and Conservatism are correlated - building more council houses in effect increases the Labour client vote.
That in itself is not a good reason for not building more council houses, though a good reason why it is probably the case.
While I completely agree that there should be adequate provision of affordable, rentable homes for those who need them - and that the government can and should act as a provider in these matters, encouraging people wherever possible to buy is of itself a morally good thing. It encourages saving, self-sufficiency and independence.
Ideologically, if you believe it's a good thing that people should wherever possible be encouraged to stand on their own two feet, save, invest and own, it's the right thing to do. I think most people would prefer to own rather than rent, too. As I say, the alternative is to remain a client of the state, permanently accepting a form of handout in the form of a government subsidised rented home, but never actually owning anything of your own or building up equity for later in life or to pass on to your kids.
Council housing should be the guarantor of housing for the poorest in society, the lender of last resort so to speak, rather than the 'go to' solution to the country's housing crisis.
But many of these schemes like help to buy and shared ownership are also based on handouts from the state, albeit less directly.
I don't think the UK government is responsible for every voice in UK politics. It is accurate that the Irish have been terribly unconstructive over the border. They can get on their Brexit high horse but a breakdown in talks would hurt them more than anyone, so they should think more than two steps ahead.
There is one country that will be hurt more by a breakdown in talks than the RoI.
I remember when Ed Miliband got attacked for eating a bacon sandwich and a silly stone gaffe - the unreasonableness of parts of the mainstream media didn’t seem to be a problem then....
Also, I wonder what the WWC will think about the ‘Hard Brexit’ Tories giving 3bn to the EU even after the transition (per Laura K’s tweet). We know that their views on matters such as the EU/immigration are very dear to Conservative hearts *innocent face*
I have said several times on here the demonisation of moderate social democrat Miliband was a disgrace.
The £3bn payment to the EU post transition is presumably a lot less than the annual membership fee we would pay if we stayed part of it.
It is one thing to pay when you are a member enjoying all the facilities. It is another , "post-transition" when you are not a member. Presumably, accruing for "payment" to get access to the single market.
It's still only ambiguous - if he had said "doubled" he would be vulnerable to the same attack, that he was saying it should be reduced to 1 every 2 hours. If the opposition can do no better than pursuing the wrong person for saying something with zero pursuit value in it anyway, and stating boldly that giving someone £5000 is equivalent to kicking them in the balls, Hammond can feel that he has done an ok job.
Could have explicitly said "halved to 30 mins". Isn't this what PR bods are for?
He said "every half hour". There can be no confusion over that except that spread by those trying to misrepresent what he said by changing the words.
It's still only ambiguous - if he had said "doubled" he would be vulnerable to the same attack, that he was saying it should be reduced to 1 every 2 hours. If the opposition can do no better than pursuing the wrong person for saying something with zero pursuit value in it anyway, and stating boldly that giving someone £5000 is equivalent to kicking them in the balls, Hammond can feel that he has done an ok job.
Could have explicitly said "halved to 30 mins". Isn't this what PR bods are for?
He said "every half hour". There can be no confusion over that except that spread by those trying to mistepresent what he said by changing the words.
Oh, I think Hammond said it correctly, I was just referring to Hancock's tweet.
Philip Hammond’s plan to scrap stamp duty for some first-time buyers began unravelling after the Government’s own spending watchdog said it was open to abuse, would drive up house prices and only benefit a small number of people.
Philip Hammond Philip Hammond unveiled a stamp duty freeze for first-time buyers in the Budget.Credit: PA Images In a major blow for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave his flagship announcement - set to cost taxpayers around £600m a year - a "high uncertainty rating"
OMNISHAMBLES not!!
The only Omnishambles was Corbyn's pathetic shouty response - he is hopeless
It's still only ambiguous - if he had said "doubled" he would be vulnerable to the same attack, that he was saying it should be reduced to 1 every 2 hours. If the opposition can do no better than pursuing the wrong person for saying something with zero pursuit value in it anyway, and stating boldly that giving someone £5000 is equivalent to kicking them in the balls, Hammond can feel that he has done an ok job.
Could have explicitly said "halved to 30 mins". Isn't this what PR bods are for?
He said "every half hour". There can be no confusion over that except that spread by those trying to mistepresent what he said by changing the words.
Oh, I think Hammond said it correctly, I was just referring to Hancock's tweet.
Apologies. I thought you were referring to Hammond.
o/t.I'm getting stuck into some serious Ashes watching so am adjusting body clock.The 4-1 for the draw at Brisbane proved too tempting.A draw will be fine for England but the bet is more heart than head,not to be advised.
That in itself is not a good reason for not building more council houses, though a good reason why it is probably the case.
While I completely agree that there should be adequate provision of affordable, rentable homes for those who need them - and that the government can and should act as a provider in these matters, encouraging people wherever possible to buy is of itself a morally good thing. It encourages saving, self-sufficiency and independence.
Ideologically, if you believe it's a good thing that people should wherever possible be encouraged to stand on their own two feet, save, invest and own, it's the right thing to do. I think most people would prefer to own rather than rent, too. As I say, the alternative is to remain a client of the state, permanently accepting a form of handout in the form of a government subsidised rented home, but never actually owning anything of your own or building up equity for later in life or to pass on to your kids.
Council housing should be the guarantor of housing for the poorest in society, the lender of last resort so to speak, rather than the 'go to' solution to the country's housing crisis.
But many of these schemes like help to buy and shared ownership are also based on handouts from the state, albeit less directly.
I agree, it's not an ideal situation to be in. Help to buy distorted the market enormously - I was lucky enough to buy my place just before it came in, and as soon as it did it put prices up by about 20% overnight.
But as I say, if, ideologically speaking, you think it's a good thing for people to be able to own a place of their own, build up equity, and essentially having a 'stake' they can use to move on up the ladder, as opposed to remain clients of the state for the rest of their lives, with nothing to hand on to their kids, then it's better to subsidise house buying than to subsidise people through council renting.
I'm not against council housing, far from it - I think it's an absolutely vital service that helps ensure those who can't buy or afford to rent in the private sector have a safety net. But it is ultimately a soviet-esque system of incredibly long waiting lists, often coupled with poor maintenence / management and riddled with inefficiencies and even alleged corruption in terms of the maintenence contracts.
Far better to help people buy, if they can, to give them a leg up, rather than default to an assumption that unless you have enough money you should always remain a client of the state.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
What are the employment and unemployment rates in other countries ?
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
What are there unemployment rates and especially youth unemployment
I imagine that's driven by devaluation. Naturally, if we'd voted Remain, our strategy of financing imports for consumption by running down assets and accumulating liabilities domestically and overseas would have worked in perpetuity.
Increased earnings is linked to increased productivity.
And productivity has been stagnant for a decade in the UK.
There are multiple factors involved in that IMO - some of which might not well apply in other countries.
"I know a painter/decorator who has not been able to raise his wages for 15 years. There’s always someone else, he says, willing to work for less. A driver who arrived from Turkey 18 years ago, who says the bus companies used to pay more than £12 an hour, but can now pay £10 or less because they have so many takers (and yes, the irony is noted). A care-home cleaner in a rundown seaside town who reckons her hopes of ever getting more than the minimum wage are zero. Each blames an influx of workers from the EU. Each of them are voting out. Tell them the EU protects workers’ rights and they just laugh.
Meanwhile, as wages for people in low-income groups are pegged back, rents rise. Many times I interviewed Britain’s biggest buy-to-let landlord, Fergus Wilson, and many times he told me how well he was doing from eastern European migrants, who filled nearly all his properties and kept his rental income booming.
Rents in parts of the country are at catastrophic levels, snatching as much as 60% of pay. Migration is only part of the reason why that is happening. But when George Osborne declares house prices will fall by 18% if Britain quits, he’s giving the game away. He is saying membership of the EU keeps prices and rents much higher than they would otherwise be. Young people struggling with ludicrous rents, take note."
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Good move on stamp duty - anything which helps reduce transaction costs for a FTB to allow them to maximise what deposit they can muster is a definite plus.
Other than that a bit of money throwing at pressure points and then a big yawn otherwise, no bad thing in my opinion.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Don't they have horrendous unemployment rates?
According to Eurostat via the ONS:
UK 74% employed 4% unemployed
France 65% employed 10% unemployed
Germany 75% employed 4% unemployed
Ireland 66% employed 6% unemployed
Italy 58% employed 11% unemployed
Spain 61% employed 16% unemployed
There are other factors affecting productivity and pay - the balance of the economy for example. As manufacturing jobs have higher pay than those in the service sector those countries with a bigger manufacturing sector are likely to have higher pay and productivity growth than those which have proportionally smaller manufacturing.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Don't they have horrendous unemployment rates?
Some do, but not others.
Perhaps we havent got the balance right. Maybe keeping people underemployed rather than unemployed hampers productivity.
Unskilled workers are cheaper than machines? Thought machines were cheaper across the board. I’ve learned something new today.
Machines are a capital expenditure. Unskilled workers are pure operating expenditure.
British businesses are crap at making cost effective CapX expenditure.
Zero hours contracts are either heavily regulated or banned in most other EU countries, the UK is one of the few countries where they're commonplace.
I would suggest the ease of hiring and firing people in the UK is both an incentive to hire people over investing in capital, but also a reason why wages are depressed. There is always somebody else ready to take your job at a moment's notice.
Philip Hammond’s plan to scrap stamp duty for some first-time buyers began unravelling after the Government’s own spending watchdog said it was open to abuse, would drive up house prices and only benefit a small number of people.
Philip Hammond Philip Hammond unveiled a stamp duty freeze for first-time buyers in the Budget.Credit: PA Images In a major blow for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave his flagship announcement - set to cost taxpayers around £600m a year - a "high uncertainty rating"
OMNISHAMBLES not!!
I expect a bit more than that to be labelled Omnishambles. That quote basically seems to say 'it's not all it was cracked up to be', which is lukewarm critique compared to an actual shambles, I think you should save the word until more develops.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Don't they have horrendous unemployment rates?
Some do, but not others.
Perhaps we havent got the balance right. Maybe keeping people underemployed rather than unemployed hampers productivity.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Don't they have horrendous unemployment rates?
Some do, but not others.
Perhaps we havent got the balance right. Maybe keeping people underemployed rather than unemployed hampers productivity.
Opposition leaflet 'LD foxinsox says "I want more unemployed"'
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Germany, Spain and Italy all imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike the UK
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
I thought the definition of such things was standardised?
Unskilled workers are cheaper than machines? Thought machines were cheaper across the board. I’ve learned something new today.
Machines are a capital expenditure. Unskilled workers are pure operating expenditure.
British businesses are crap at making cost effective CapX expenditure.
Zero hours contracts are either heavily regulated or banned in most other EU countries, the UK is one of the few countries where they're commonplace.
I would suggest the ease of hiring and firing people in the UK is both an incentive to hire people over investing in capital, but also a reason why wages are depressed. There is always somebody else ready to take your job at a moment's notice.
It's v easy to hire and fire in Denmark. Do they have the same problems?
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
I thought the definition of such things was standardised?
Indeed across Europe we use a standardised definition set by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
Yup, zero hours contracts may ensure a flexible workforce and probably keep a lot of people in some form of employment, but most other countries seem to manage well without them. I think if the Tories were really looking to take the wind out of Corbyn's sails next time around it is something they could look into.
I wouldn't want us to become like, say, France, where it's practically impossible to fire someone and so a much greater risk to hire someone, but giving people a little bit more job security at the expense of taking some of the flexibility out of the labour market is probably a net vote winner overall.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
I thought the definition of such things was standardised?
Indeed across Europe we use a standardised definition set by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
It's why the government were loathe to remove students from immigration figures as it is an international norm.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
Yup, zero hours contracts may ensure a flexible workforce and probably keep a lot of people in some form of employment, but most other countries seem to manage well without them. I think if the Tories were really looking to take the wind out of Corbyn's sails next time around it is something they could look into.
I wouldn't want us to become like, say, France, where it's practically impossible to fire someone and so a much greater risk to hire someone, but giving people a little bit more job security at the expense of taking some of the flexibility out of the labour market is probably a net vote winner overall.
Which nations perform well without them without having mass youth unemployment?
Unskilled workers are cheaper than machines? Thought machines were cheaper across the board. I’ve learned something new today.
Machines are a capital expenditure. Unskilled workers are pure operating expenditure.
British businesses are crap at making cost effective CapX expenditure.
Zero hours contracts are either heavily regulated or banned in most other EU countries, the UK is one of the few countries where they're commonplace.
I would suggest the ease of hiring and firing people in the UK is both an incentive to hire people over investing in capital, but also a reason why wages are depressed. There is always somebody else ready to take your job at a moment's notice.
It's v easy to hire and fire in Denmark. Do they have the same problems?
Are zero hour contracts permitted in Denmark?
A quick google gives two answers, one says they are banned outright, the other says they are legal but extremely rare.
I would suggest zero hours contracts are extremely effective at keeping the cost of wages down as ultimately even when you've "got" a job, you're competing with other workers on zero hour contracts for the same work. This would have the effect of discouraging people from asking for a raise or bargaining collectively.
I agree, it's not an ideal situation to be in. Help to buy distorted the market enormously - I was lucky enough to buy my place just before it came in, and as soon as it did it put prices up by about 20% overnight.
But as I say, if, ideologically speaking, you think it's a good thing for people to be able to own a place of their own, build up equity, and essentially having a 'stake' they can use to move on up the ladder, as opposed to remain clients of the state for the rest of their lives, with nothing to hand on to their kids, then it's better to subsidise house buying than to subsidise people through council renting.
I'm not against council housing, far from it - I think it's an absolutely vital service that helps ensure those who can't buy or afford to rent in the private sector have a safety net. But it is ultimately a soviet-esque system of incredibly long waiting lists, often coupled with poor maintenence / management and riddled with inefficiencies and even alleged corruption in terms of the maintenence contracts.
Far better to help people buy, if they can, to give them a leg up, rather than default to an assumption that unless you have enough money you should always remain a client of the state.
I really do understand where you're coming from. On an emotive level there is something emblematic of self-sufficiency and self-reliance in owning a home, and the opposite on living in government-provided housing. But I would be very, very wary about moving from that to saying that there's a moral argument for saying people should aspire to home ownership.
You used the word ladder. The problem is, there is no housing ladder. For some generations it seemed like there was: the bottom rung was widely accessible, and over their lifetime, they swiftly and painlessly ascended, alongside the other people they knew. But really, it's a housing pyramid. If the value of my property goes up, I'm being elevated on the backs of people beneath me who want to buy, or to move up, and can't.
Faced with that, it seems hard to say that there should be a moral responsibility to want to get onto that pyramid, or move up it. It's like saying there should be a moral responsibility to want to win at musical chairs- ultimately when you claim that chair, you can't separate the fact that you got it from the fact that someone else didn't. That's not to say that having that kind of ambition is wrong, but surely we can't say that not having it is a moral failing.
Having said all that, none of that means that pragmatically council housing is the best option.
I really do understand where you're coming from. On an emotive level there is something emblematic of self-sufficiency and self-reliance in owning a home, and the opposite on living in government-provided housing. But I would be very, very wary about moving from that to saying that there's a moral argument for saying people should aspire to home ownership.
You used the word ladder. The problem is, there is no housing ladder. For some generations it seemed like there was: the bottom rung was widely accessible, and over their lifetime, they swiftly and painlessly ascended, alongside the other people they knew. But really, it's a housing pyramid. If the value of my property goes up, I'm being elevated on the backs of people beneath me who want to buy, or to move up, and can't.
Faced with that, it seems hard to say that there should be a moral responsibility to want to get onto that pyramid, or move up it. It's like saying there should be a moral responsibility to want to win at musical chairs- ultimately when you claim that chair, you can't separate the fact that you got it from the fact that someone else didn't. That's not to say that having that kind of ambition is wrong, but surely we can't say that not having it is a moral failing.
Having said all that, none of that means that pragmatically council housing is the best option.
Fair point, I certainly didn't mean that it was a moral failure if you don't own property, but rather that it is a morally good thing where possible to help people out of dependency on handouts and give them a leg up towards building up equity which they can use.
In many respects buying a home is a form of saving, money you can release later in life for your own retirement or to pass on to your kids. If we can subsidise people on the first step towards that path then I see that objectively as a good thing to do.
It is also a good thing to do to provide housing for those who can't otherwise afford it, however I think it's always better to help people stand on their own two feet rather than encourage a lifetime of dependency on subsidised rental that leaves them with nothing of their own at the end of it.
Unskilled workers are cheaper than machines? Thought machines were cheaper across the board. I’ve learned something new today.
Machines are a capital expenditure. Unskilled workers are pure operating expenditure.
British businesses are crap at making cost effective CapX expenditure.
Zero hours contracts are either heavily regulated or banned in most other EU countries, the UK is one of the few countries where they're commonplace.
I would suggest the ease of hiring and firing people in the UK is both an incentive to hire people over investing in capital, but also a reason why wages are depressed. There is always somebody else ready to take your job at a moment's notice.
It's v easy to hire and fire in Denmark. Do they have the same problems?
Are zero hour contracts permitted in Denmark?
A quick google gives two answers, one says they are banned outright, the other says they are legal but extremely rare.
I would suggest zero hours contracts are extremely effective at keeping the cost of wages down as ultimately even when you've "got" a job, you're competing with other workers on zero hour contracts for the same work. This would have the effect of discouraging people from asking for a raise or bargaining collectively.
I would suggest asking Stephen Kinnock's wife, I am sure as an Danish ex-pm resident in the family home in Switzerland, she would be only be too pleased to explain the Tax Codes of Denmark.
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Seriously? You want us to 17.1% unemployment as in Spain?
We do not count unemployment in the same way as other EU countries. That is why we have this bizarre situation where unemployment keeps falling and yet wage rates hardly move. May have something to do with zero hour contracts, for example.
The Claimant count is different, and means little.
I think the repayment threshold went up, and it's now linked to average earnings.
That would be an improvement.
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
Sub prime re-invented. Best deal with it sooner rather than later.
The system is deliberately and knowingly designed so that most students will never repay the full loan. It is nothing like sub-prime. It is a graduate tax with a lifetime limit on the amount payable in all but name. As far as I can see the only reason it isn't a straight graduate tax is that we would then have to allow students from anywhere in the EU to attend UK universities without paying anything.
Philip Hammond’s plan to scrap stamp duty for some first-time buyers began unravelling after the Government’s own spending watchdog said it was open to abuse, would drive up house prices and only benefit a small number of people.
Philip Hammond Philip Hammond unveiled a stamp duty freeze for first-time buyers in the Budget.Credit: PA Images In a major blow for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave his flagship announcement - set to cost taxpayers around £600m a year - a "high uncertainty rating"
OMNISHAMBLES not!!
I expect a bit more than that to be labelled Omnishambles. That quote basically seems to say 'it's not all it was cracked up to be', which is lukewarm critique compared to an actual shambles, I think you should save the word until more develops.
Are you saying BJO'S ejaculations about an omnishambles are a little premature ... ?
Maybe something to do with the influx of cheap labour?
There are a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain, yet both have managed real wage growth. Large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Germany too.
Maybe they are doing something right.
Don't they have horrendous unemployment rates?
Some do, but not others.
Perhaps we havent got the balance right. Maybe keeping people underemployed rather than unemployed hampers productivity.
Opposition leaflet 'LD foxinsox says "I want more unemployed"'
I think the repayment threshold went up, and it's now linked to average earnings.
That would be an improvement.
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
Sub prime re-invented. Best deal with it sooner rather than later.
The system is deliberately and knowingly designed so that most students will never repay the full loan. It is nothing like sub-prime. It is a graduate tax with a lifetime limit on the amount payable in all but name. As far as I can see the only reason it isn't a straight graduate tax is that we would then have to allow students from anywhere in the EU to attend UK universities without paying anything.
We know that even on govt projections 50% will not be repaid, yet those loans are still showing on the books.
Loans that will never be repaid, but showing as an asset, is the very defination of sub prime loans.
Budget: The cuts in GDP growth rates over the next 5 years are ominous. How much in lost output cumulatively does it come to ? Approx. £2tn x 2.5%
£25 Bn
Even as a remainiac, I can't help but compare that to our annual budget contribution to the EU.
Not sure what the comparison means though...
That's £25 Bn in year five. Cumulatively over five years it is 5+10+15+20+25 i.e £75 Bn lost.
Plus our £40+ Bn exit payment. That's £115 Bn down the drain.
Makes you think.
Just crunched the numbers. Using their figures in the executive summary the GDP in 2021/22 will be £45bn lower than predicted in the March forecast. It's not a flat 0.5% downgrade each year.
And it's hardly money down the drain when you never had it in the first place!
I think the repayment threshold went up, and it's now linked to average earnings.
That would be an improvement.
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
Sub prime re-invented. Best deal with it sooner rather than later.
The system is deliberately and knowingly designed so that most students will never repay the full loan. It is nothing like sub-prime. It is a graduate tax with a lifetime limit on the amount payable in all but name. As far as I can see the only reason it isn't a straight graduate tax is that we would then have to allow students from anywhere in the EU to attend UK universities without paying anything.
We know that even on govt projections 50% will not be repaid, yet those loans are still showing on the books.
Loans that will never be repaid, but showing as an asset, is the very defination of sub prime loans.
You're predicting that student loans will make the government insolvent?
I think the repayment threshold went up, and it's now linked to average earnings.
That would be an improvement.
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
Sub prime re-invented. Best deal with it sooner rather than later.
The system is deliberately and knowingly designed so that most students will never repay the full loan. It is nothing like sub-prime. It is a graduate tax with a lifetime limit on the amount payable in all but name. As far as I can see the only reason it isn't a straight graduate tax is that we would then have to allow students from anywhere in the EU to attend UK universities without paying anything.
We know that even on govt projections 50% will not be repaid, yet those loans are still showing on the books.
Loans that will never be repaid, but showing as an asset, is the very defination of sub prime loans.
They're being charged with REAL interest though unlike a mortgage where it is generally negative after inflation (As the base rate is sub inflation). So some grads will overpay the loan in real terms - those starting on about 70kI think. But yes the aggregate debt figure should be valued at perhaps 35% of book for prudence's sake ?
Re youth unemployment. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, someone who left a Scottish school at 16 or 17 and didn't go onto university had only a 25% chance of being in a job a year later.
To deal with (or hide) youth unemployment, the government created layer upon layer of training schemes and forced people to stay at school until 18.
I think the repayment threshold went up, and it's now linked to average earnings.
That would be an improvement.
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
Sub prime re-invented. Best deal with it sooner rather than later.
The system is deliberately and knowingly designed so that most students will never repay the full loan. It is nothing like sub-prime. It is a graduate tax with a lifetime limit on the amount payable in all but name. As far as I can see the only reason it isn't a straight graduate tax is that we would then have to allow students from anywhere in the EU to attend UK universities without paying anything.
We know that even on govt projections 50% will not be repaid, yet those loans are still showing on the books.
Loans that will never be repaid, but showing as an asset, is the very defination of sub prime loans.
They're being charged with REAL interest though unlike a mortgage where it is generally negative after inflation (As the base rate is sub inflation). So some grads will overpay the loan in real terms - those starting on about 70kI think. But yes the aggregate debt figure should be valued at perhaps 35% of book for prudence's sake ?
Having a base rate below inflation is pretty unusual on any 200 year sweep of history.
Budget: The cuts in GDP growth rates over the next 5 years are ominous. How much in lost output cumulatively does it come to ? Approx. £2tn x 2.5%
£25 Bn
Even as a remainiac, I can't help but compare that to our annual budget contribution to the EU.
Not sure what the comparison means though...
That's £25 Bn in year five. Cumulatively over five years it is 5+10+15+20+25 i.e £75 Bn lost.
Plus our £40+ Bn exit payment. That's £115 Bn down the drain.
Makes you think.
Just crunched the numbers. Using their figures in the executive summary the GDP in 2021/22 will be £45bn lower than predicted in the March forecast. It's not a flat 0.5% downgrade each year.
And it's hardly money down the drain when you never had it in the first place!
Bear in mind that these are forecasts that John Redwood has welcomed as 'optimistic'.
I think the repayment threshold went up, and it's now linked to average earnings.
That would be an improvement.
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
Sub prime re-invented. Best deal with it sooner rather than later.
The system is deliberately and knowingly designed so that most students will never repay the full loan. It is nothing like sub-prime. It is a graduate tax with a lifetime limit on the amount payable in all but name. As far as I can see the only reason it isn't a straight graduate tax is that we would then have to allow students from anywhere in the EU to attend UK universities without paying anything.
We know that even on govt projections 50% will not be repaid, yet those loans are still showing on the books.
Loans that will never be repaid, but showing as an asset, is the very defination of sub prime loans.
You're predicting that student loans will make the government insolvent?
No, but I am predicting that the government will have to wriite down the loans in the end, perhaps by 50%, paid for by higher taxes at some point.
Why not cut out a lot of misery and do it sooner, rather than wait until a crisis?
Budget: The cuts in GDP growth rates over the next 5 years are ominous. How much in lost output cumulatively does it come to ? Approx. £2tn x 2.5%
£25 Bn
Even as a remainiac, I can't help but compare that to our annual budget contribution to the EU.
Not sure what the comparison means though...
That's £25 Bn in year five. Cumulatively over five years it is 5+10+15+20+25 i.e £75 Bn lost.
Plus our £40+ Bn exit payment. That's £115 Bn down the drain.
Makes you think.
Just crunched the numbers. Using their figures in the executive summary the GDP in 2021/22 will be £45bn lower than predicted in the March forecast. It's not a flat 0.5% downgrade each year.
And it's hardly money down the drain when you never had it in the first place!
Bear in mind that these are forecasts that John Redwood has welcomed as 'optimistic'.
Compared to the Treasury's forecast in 2016, yeah!
Comments
' C.2 We have produced a Budget forecast which incorporates the effects of
all measures, plus a number of updated assumptions and judgements. Our
Budget economic forecast is for GDP to grow by 1.2 per cent in 2010 and 2.3
per cent in 2011, rising to 2.7 to 2.9 per cent in the later years of the forecast.
C.3 Table C1 sets out an overview of our Budget fiscal forecast. The fiscal
forecast is for:
• public sector net borrowing (PSNB) to fall from 11.0 per cent of GDP in
2009-10 to 1.1 per cent in 2015-16;
• public sector net debt (PSND) to increase from 53.5 per cent of GDP in
2009-10 to a peak of 70.3 per cent in 2013-14, falling to 69.4 per cent in
2014-15 and 67.4 per cent in 2015-16; and
• the cyclically-adjusted current budget deficit of 5.3 per cent of GDP in
2009-10 to be eliminated by 2014-15 and reach a surplus of 0.8 per cent
of GDP in 2015-16. '
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/efo/budget-2010/
Philip Hammond Philip Hammond unveiled a stamp duty freeze for first-time buyers in the Budget.Credit: PA Images
In a major blow for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave his flagship announcement - set to cost taxpayers around £600m a year - a "high uncertainty rating"
OMNISHAMBLES not!!
Ideologically, if you believe it's a good thing that people should wherever possible be encouraged to stand on their own two feet, save, invest and own, it's the right thing to do. I think most people would prefer to own rather than rent, too. As I say, the alternative is to remain a client of the state, permanently accepting a form of handout in the form of a government subsidised rented home, but never actually owning anything of your own or building up equity for later in life or to pass on to your kids.
Council housing should be the guarantor of housing for the poorest in society, the lender of last resort so to speak, rather than the 'go to' solution to the country's housing crisis.
If that’s the case, it’s probably more significant than anything else today by a country mile. And it would be a good thing as pension deficits would melt away largely, freeing up capital for productive investment instead of chucking it down an imaginary financial hole created by bonkers monetary policy and well meaning but actually destructive regulation.
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat
This man is pretty insanely brave.
I will leave it to others to make jokes about whether this is a metaphor for Brexit/Corbyn etc...
Of course its cheaper for those who own the carwash businesses as the costs of providing housing, public services etc necessary for the unskilled workers are passed onto someone else.
Though it won't increase by the full £5000 as first time buyers aren't competing only against other first time buyers but also other types of buyers such as movers (who'll still need to pay £5000) and second-home/buy-to-let buyers (who'll need to pay £14,000 in stamp duty).
If so perhaps this provides an explanation.
Though I recall that Olly Letwin was involved as well.
And I think I saw a worrying reference to Letwin today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-workers-have-had-the-worst-wage-growth-in-the-oecd-except-greece-a7773246.html
Sounds good - will it be enough?
But it also means that most students are going to have huge nominal debts which they'll never repay.
Which is ridiculous and with possible negative consequences.
But as I say, if, ideologically speaking, you think it's a good thing for people to be able to own a place of their own, build up equity, and essentially having a 'stake' they can use to move on up the ladder, as opposed to remain clients of the state for the rest of their lives, with nothing to hand on to their kids, then it's better to subsidise house buying than to subsidise people through council renting.
I'm not against council housing, far from it - I think it's an absolutely vital service that helps ensure those who can't buy or afford to rent in the private sector have a safety net. But it is ultimately a soviet-esque system of incredibly long waiting lists, often coupled with poor maintenence / management and riddled with inefficiencies and even alleged corruption in terms of the maintenence contracts.
Far better to help people buy, if they can, to give them a leg up, rather than default to an assumption that unless you have enough money you should always remain a client of the state.
And productivity has been stagnant for a decade in the UK.
There are multiple factors involved in that IMO - some of which might not well apply in other countries.
In any case, sale of RBS is peanuts compared to above numbers.
(Sale of RBS IS material to individual year's deficits, but not material to total debt).
Maybe they are doing something right.
Meanwhile, as wages for people in low-income groups are pegged back, rents rise. Many times I interviewed Britain’s biggest buy-to-let landlord, Fergus Wilson, and many times he told me how well he was doing from eastern European migrants, who filled nearly all his properties and kept his rental income booming.
Rents in parts of the country are at catastrophic levels, snatching as much as 60% of pay. Migration is only part of the reason why that is happening. But when George Osborne declares house prices will fall by 18% if Britain quits, he’s giving the game away. He is saying membership of the EU keeps prices and rents much higher than they would otherwise be. Young people struggling with ludicrous rents, take note."
Via https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/jun/18/eu-vote-brexit-working-people-rents-wages
Other than that a bit of money throwing at pressure points and then a big yawn otherwise, no bad thing in my opinion.
British businesses are crap at making cost effective CapX expenditure.
UK
74% employed
4% unemployed
France
65% employed
10% unemployed
Germany
75% employed
4% unemployed
Ireland
66% employed
6% unemployed
Italy
58% employed
11% unemployed
Spain
61% employed
16% unemployed
There are other factors affecting productivity and pay - the balance of the economy for example. As manufacturing jobs have higher pay than those in the service sector those countries with a bigger manufacturing sector are likely to have higher pay and productivity growth than those which have proportionally smaller manufacturing.
Perhaps we havent got the balance right. Maybe keeping people underemployed rather than unemployed hampers productivity.
I would suggest the ease of hiring and firing people in the UK is both an incentive to hire people over investing in capital, but also a reason why wages are depressed. There is always somebody else ready to take your job at a moment's notice.
I wouldn't want us to become like, say, France, where it's practically impossible to fire someone and so a much greater risk to hire someone, but giving people a little bit more job security at the expense of taking some of the flexibility out of the labour market is probably a net vote winner overall.
A quick google gives two answers, one says they are banned outright, the other says they are legal but extremely rare.
I would suggest zero hours contracts are extremely effective at keeping the cost of wages down as ultimately even when you've "got" a job, you're competing with other workers on zero hour contracts for the same work. This would have the effect of discouraging people from asking for a raise or bargaining collectively.
You used the word ladder. The problem is, there is no housing ladder. For some generations it seemed like there was: the bottom rung was widely accessible, and over their lifetime, they swiftly and painlessly ascended, alongside the other people they knew. But really, it's a housing pyramid. If the value of my property goes up, I'm being elevated on the backs of people beneath me who want to buy, or to move up, and can't.
Faced with that, it seems hard to say that there should be a moral responsibility to want to get onto that pyramid, or move up it. It's like saying there should be a moral responsibility to want to win at musical chairs- ultimately when you claim that chair, you can't separate the fact that you got it from the fact that someone else didn't. That's not to say that having that kind of ambition is wrong, but surely we can't say that not having it is a moral failing.
Having said all that, none of that means that pragmatically council housing is the best option.
In many respects buying a home is a form of saving, money you can release later in life for your own retirement or to pass on to your kids. If we can subsidise people on the first step towards that path then I see that objectively as a good thing to do.
It is also a good thing to do to provide housing for those who can't otherwise afford it, however I think it's always better to help people stand on their own two feet rather than encourage a lifetime of dependency on subsidised rental that leaves them with nothing of their own at the end of it.
Not sure what the comparison means though...
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/933423667584872448
The ILO figure is standardised.
French youth unemployment is currently 22.5 %.
It is falling, but only since 'contentious' UK-lite labour laws were implemented: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/26/why-france-labour-reforms-proved-so-contentious
Plus our £40+ Bn exit payment. That's £115 Bn down the drain.
Makes you think.
Loans that will never be repaid, but showing as an asset, is the very defination of sub prime loans.
And it's hardly money down the drain when you never had it in the first place!
https://goo.gl/images/YIqfr5
PB Tories seenig suppressed wages as a feature not a bug should not be surprised by the enthusiasm for Corbynite redistribution.
So some grads will overpay the loan in real terms - those starting on about 70kI think. But yes the aggregate debt figure should be valued at perhaps 35% of book for prudence's sake ?
To deal with (or hide) youth unemployment, the government created layer upon layer of training schemes and forced people to stay at school until 18.
Why not cut out a lot of misery and do it sooner, rather than wait until a crisis?
I'd love someone smarter and with better access to a spreadsheet to figure out if there will ever be a break even point.
I suspect, though, we'll be paying a "Brexit tax" at least until I've retired (I'm 39).