A Living Wage For London

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by citydreams, Jun 6, 2006.

  1. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    yup, its his right dontcha understand, as a socialist (giggles)
  2. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Ever considered that "buy to let" has driven prices up? That it is one of the prime reasons why prices no longer have any relation to earnings? That growth in the availability of landlord finance coincided with the exponential growth in prices in 1999-2002?

    Have you ever done the sums for how much a person needs to save? Luxury my f***ing arse. What sort of premium do you think one can afford out of £900 a month net pay? I'll tell you - not a big enough one.
  3. scifisam

    scifisam feck! arse! girls! drink!

    Yes, I have. But in the real world people do sometimes buy houses in order to let them out. They also often - like gaijingirl - sublet a room or two to help make up the mortgage payments. This is the reality, can we agree on that? Well, when considering the possible solutions to a problem I like to consider the reality of the problem, rather than the way I think it should be. Having things 'the way I think it should be' is the goal, not the starting point.

    I'm sorry, I can't parse that paragaph at all. Your angry swearing may have got in the way of you writing coherent sentences.
  4. TeeJay

    TeeJay New Member

    You are a spolit twat.

    Any spare tax money should go directly to helping people in real poverty and dealing with important issues effecting the world, not bailing out halfwits like you because you can't afford a new plasma screen, a spare room or a foreign holiday.

    If you really care that much pull your fucking finger out of your arse and get a second job, set up a company and work your fucking arse off for the money, stop pissing money away on booze and fags and get a fucking grip on your pathetic and child-like idea that the world owes you a 'living' - in fact recognise that you have more than enough money to 'live' on - more than the vast majority of the world's population - and ask yourself exactly why you feel that you in particular deserve extra money or why exactly a foreign holiday is your 'right'.

    This isn't socialism - this is 'spoilt brattism' and 'I want more ice-cream otherwise I will scream and scream'-ism. What the fuck do you contribute to the world, to other tax-payers or to your customers or employer that they should start to subsidise ever single whim you have or turn over all their money to you or people like you? Why are you in so much more need of money than people far poorer than you?

    In short, you are utterly full of shit.
  5. scifisam

    scifisam feck! arse! girls! drink!

    To be fair, all the extra things he thinks are his entitlements (the flat, etc.,) he also counts as entitlements for everyone - not just him.
  6. TeeJay

    TeeJay New Member

    I wonder how much tax everyone would have to pay for even just the UK population to all be given several foreign holidays a year, large falts and all the beer they could drink? Let me guess - a 100% tax - no private property - the state doling out limitless money to everyone? Yeah right!

    This isn't even beginning to address the issue of global poverty. As I have pointed oput the average person in the world lives on £70/week total (including all rent, services, health, education and so forth). This means that a "fair share" for everyone wold be at this amount - which means that even if we accept the principle that all the world's resources should be shared equally amongst all the worlds people, this comes to noweher near 22k per year or whatever it is Blagsta is demanding as his "fair share".

    This is also ignoring that the total amount of 'wealth' is not a static thing - that once people's motivation to do any work is removed a lot of things don't get done, that the track record for government'sd taking everyone's money then doling it back out via provision of what they think everyone wants (or more typically what they think people *should* want) is utterly abysmal, and so forth.

    I am in favour of redistribution of wealth to prevent people living in poverty and I am in favour of providing everyone (in the UK but more importantly all around the world) with the *basics* for life - food, shelter, clothing, clean water, health care, primary and secondary education, protection from violence, access to justice, equality under the law and respect for the political and human rights...

    ...but beyond these basics there is no reason why people have a claim on the results of other people's hard work, initiative or good fortune, and there is no way that Blagsta or anyone else is somehow automatically entitled to foreign holidays, beer and as many extra rooms as they dream up 'needing' for all their excess consumer books or can argue that the lack of these is "poverty" - utterly laughable when you consider what *real* poverty is.
  7. Giles

    Giles Well-Known Member

    I think that you will find that owner-occupiers are prepared to pay more for their flat/house than investment buyers.

    Investment buyers logically will only pay up to a price that makes sense in terms of the likely rent paying the mortgage.

    Prices in London went past that point years ago, and have kept increasing. This is driven by people buying to live in, not buying to let.

    And also, the greater availability of places to rent has actually reduced rents, and increased what people expect to get for their rent money in terms of quality, over the last 10 years or so.

    And I know what I am talking about.

  8. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    But you don't though as your attitude on this thread shows.

    I don't know what the vision is that you've got in your head of our flat. :confused: Its hardly palatial. Its not much bigger than some one bed flats - it has a tiny kitchen, bathroom and toilet. It just has an extra bedroom. :confused: Space is important to people, it stops them going mad. If you had your way, we'd be piled up in little cocoons like those sleeper things in Japan. Fuck that.

    Yes, I'm well aware of that. So what? Why does the fact that that's what is happening make it right? :confused: Why do you think that poor people should get a rawer deal?

    Fucks sake, you're not thinking about this are you? I live in a basement flat in Brixton ffs, not a mansion in Hampstead.

    Sorry, tax to fund what? :confused:

    You're not actually reading my posts are you? You're just assuming you know what I'm saying. TRY READING THEM PROPERLY. :mad:

    That's your choice.

    I'm not asking for you to prioritise me. Whatever that means.

    So why take resources from people nearer the bottom? That's what I don;t get about you - you've said nothing at all about people who live in big houses in Hampstead, you're aiming your ire at someone who lives in a basement flat in Brixton.

    And you call yourself an anarcho-socialist? What a fucking joke you are.

    25K close to the top? You're fucking crazy.
  9. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I don't get your attitude. If two people are sharing a flat not as partners, then they have a 2 bedroom flat. Then what if they get together? They don't suddenly have less stuff, have less need for space. You just seem happy to put up with getting a rawer deal just because...well just because that's the way it is. Happy to accept the status quo. I find that bizarre to say the least. :confused: :confused:
  10. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I don't understand why you equate socialism with everyone living in tiny little boxes. My socialism is about everyone getting a fair share. Yours seems to be about letting people who "earnt their money for the privelege" have a house in Surrey, a home in the country and a flat in central London.

    And you call yourself an anarcho-socialist? You're not, you're a wanker.
  11. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Another arsehole who thinks that a fair world = everyone living in mud huts. Grow up teejay and get a life.
  12. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I'm glad someone's bothered to actually pay attention to what I've actually written.

    smokedout, teejay - please learn to READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE not what you assume that I've written.

    Thank you. :)
  13. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    First up, I haven't said that's what I want. Another example of you not bothering to read properly.

    Yes teejay. :rolleyes: Prick.

    Why do you wish to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator? Do you think being poor is "cool" or something? :confused:

    You do think being poor is cool. I think Pulp wrote a song about people like you.
  14. robotsimon

    robotsimon New Member

    I don't think we should drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Instead, I would rather efforts were concentrated on raising the standards of living of the many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live on far, far less than Blagsta.

    Then, perhaps, we can make it a basic human right to have more than two sleazy jet city breaks a year and free spare rooms for all.


    Actually, I don't consider myself to be getting any sort of raw deal. I feel very fortunate to have a nice, one-bedroomed flat in a pleasant area.
  15. robotsimon

    robotsimon New Member

    double post
  16. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    well you seem to want more money, i presume that youre wages are paid for by the state (whether ESF or supporting people funding)

    some would say your getting your fair share and more besides. Did you check out the figures that placed you economically in the top 22% of the population. Where im from mate youd be called rich.

    People in mansions arent coming on here whinging about how their lifestyle is a 'right' and id be equally scathing of them if they did, but just because youre not as rich as them doesnt mean you aint doing well.

    im not saying its right, but i would argue that homeless families be given priority to larger properties, beacuse as ive said over and over theres a housing shortage, and London is a finite space

    if we lived in a socialist utopia and razed hampstead to the ground then perhaps everyone could live like you, we dont however which means that very few people get to live like you and should not insult the people who are geuinely suffering under this system by complaining about their petit bourgois lifestyles and having to have borrow money to have that oh so important private therapy and second holiday a year

    and if everyone took two flights a year you just see how quickly wed run out of oil and the world would fall apart, not to mention the environment

    by the way few socialists would see home ownership as a right as you seem to, after all that was one of your whinges wasnt it

    or is home ownership only a right for you and not the rest of society
  17. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    I'm with you on this one.

    UK male median gross annual earnings FY2004/2005: £25,100

    Source: Office of National Statistics

    Points to note before chuntering back:

    1. I know that enormous City salaries distort the averages. This is why I have quoted the median and not the mean.
    2. This is the UK median, and the London median is several thousands pounds higher. See also point 1 again with reference to the relatively small number of people on stratospheric salaries amongst the UK workforce as a whole.
  18. robotsimon

    robotsimon New Member

    What is the mean figure as a matter of interest?

    I think a mean would be the more relevant figure in this case - the small number of people earning a great deal of money would not distort the overall mean by much at all when you are dealing with such a huge sample as the uk male working population.
  19. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    the figures i quoted were for total household income, dont forget theirs two of them

    and for many that 25k figure is supporting a family of four

    i came across the stat, i was also unsure whether people on benefits were factored into that figure
  20. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    it does when you think some folk earn millions, thats a lot of minimum wage jobs
  21. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I can't believe that a so called "anarcho-socialist" is actively defending high rents, low wages and people with 3 homes. Amazing, I've seen it all now.
  22. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Mean is: sum of everybody's wages divided by number of people

    Median is: if you have (for example) 7 people, the wage of the person in the middle on the salary scale.

    As you say, the few rich may not distort the (mean) average too much but the median is generally considered to give a better picture of what the "average" person gets.

    For example:

    Person 1 is a cleaner and earns £14 000
    Person 2 is a Tube worker and earns £22 000
    Person 3 is a council officer and earns £24 000
    Person 4 is a store manager and earns £26 000
    Person 5 is a merchant banker and earns £80 000

    These are all fairly typical sorts of wages and most people do actually earn between £15 000 and £30 000. However the mean of the above is £33 200. This doesn't really feel like a useful average salary as only one person actually earns more than this!

    The median is £24 000 and from the above this feels like a more "average" figure.
  23. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Hey another person who can't read! Maybe we should be investing in literacy classes for the U75 massive!

    Look to recap - what I would like is lower rents, a lower cost of living and better wages. For all. Its amazing that some people on this thread are actively arguing against that.

    Proof that U75 is becoming more conservative? I think so.
  24. Ant79

    Ant79 E1

    Out of interest, do you know what the London median (and mean) salaries are? I think I found it once on the interweb, but can't find it now.
  25. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Not off hand bro - I did happen to have one quoted.

    I got it from http://www.statistics.gov.uk a couple of weeks ago.

    I might go and have a look for the other figures
  26. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    I can tell that thinking things through isn't really your strong point. I'm not neccesarily demanding higher wages. I would like rents to be fairer, I would like the property market to stop being inflated by people buying property to let and dividing it up into tiny box room flats. I would like the cost of basic utilities to be fairer and for the utility companies to make less obscene profits (or preferably re-nationalise).

    However, there is room for the current top rate of tax to be set at a higher threshold and for a higher rate above that for the super rich. Or are you, an "anarcho-socialist" ,saying that rich people should pay less tax?
  27. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    London median gross weekly earnings April 2004: £545 (crudely, £28 340 a year)

    (2004 so you can add about 7-8% to this; London also has highest gender pay gap so male earnings will be well up in the 30s)

    Source: Patterns of pay: Results of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 1998 - 2004, ONS
    "This article uses the median as its key estimator. It is preferred to the mean for earnings as it is less affected by extreme values and the skewed distribution of earnings data. The median is the value below which 50 per cent of employees fall. However means are still available in the published tables"

    Nationally, 2005:

    Upper decile (10% earn more): £851
    Lower decile (10% earn less): £235

    Remember this is full time employees though.

    Averages Winter 2005/2006 (means not medians so note my earlier points):

    Gross weekly earnings, London: £595
    " " " ", London (male): £650
    " " " ", London (female): £519
  28. robotsimon

    robotsimon New Member

    Yes, but I know what a mean is. However, nationally, the real situation is not what you describe as you will have, say, a thousand people earning £20,000 for every one person earing £100,000. In that hypothetical situation, the mean earnings of these 1001 people would be £20,079.
  29. robotsimon

    robotsimon New Member

    No, what you would like is a large two bedroomed flat so you and your partner can fit all your lovely books in it.
  30. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Yes, sorry I realised that after posting, but left it up as some may find it informative.

    I do refer you, though, to the ONS quote about medians vs means.

    The ratio may not quite as you venture as should be apparent from the decile values quoted. More information on the skew and distribution is on the ONS site but there is a limit to the magic of statistics so I will leave it at that.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice