The years of discontent, 2022/23

[hk blues]

4 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Are the full figures available for that graph? Would be interested in how my public sector job compares. 

There are plenty of websites you can look at which will do that for you 

[HoBNob]

39 minutes ago, hk blues said:

There are plenty of websites you can look at which will do that for you 

As a public sector employee I am very lazy, thank you. 

[hk blues]

6 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

As a public sector employee I am very lazy, thank you. 

There you go you lazy c**t!

https://www.officialdata.org/1860-GBP-in-2017?amount=1

Edited March 17 by hk blues

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, coprolite said:

You can admit when you don't understand something you know

Dunning-Kruger Effect suggests he cannot.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

Dunning-Kruger Effect suggests he cannot.

Don't involve me in your lovers' tiff. I don't give a shit about Kruschev

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, hk blues said:

Mainly because the graphic omitted to include a very relevant factor - that the percentages were in real terms rather than absolute.  

I'd imagine that was considered a given, reasonably enough.

Most people understand the concept and recognise its worth.

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Don't involve me in your lovers' tiff. I don't give a shit about Kruschev Khrushchev

Obviously.

[Loonytoons]

On 16/03/2023 at 08:08, virginton said:

 

If a public sector worker secures a fixed-rate mortgage in 2010 and pays the same monthly payment between then and 2023 (or remortgaged during the ultra-low interest rates on offer throughout the 2010s), then they have more net income to make that payment before other expenses. That's because their salary has not in fact decreased but has in fact significantly larger than when they started paying that mortgage 13 years ago. The bank doesn't get to adjust the loan in 'real terms'. 

 

Taking this to the absolute extreme to prove this is just not a valid argument unless you can give specific inflationary and cost of living rises...

Said public sector worker gets a 0.1% salary increase in 2010 and nothing for the subsequent 13 years, they will indeed be paying less of their salary to the mortgage than 2010. 

They will have more net income compared to 2010 too but will they be better off do you think?

Edited March 17 by Loonytoons

[hk blues]

11 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'd imagine that was considered a given, reasonably enough.

Most people understand the concept and recognise its worth.

Alternatively, a conscious choice to omit for dramatic effect.  

[vikingTON]

11 hours ago, Loonytoons said:

Taking this to the absolute extreme to prove this is just not a valid argument unless you can give specific inflationary and cost of living rises...

Said public sector worker gets a 0.1% salary increase in 2010 and nothing for the subsequent 13 years, they will indeed be paying less of their salary to the mortgage than 2010. 

They will have more net income compared to 2010 too but will they be better off do you think?

I'm not here to entertain your ludicrous and utterly fictional scenarios. 

The absolute increase in pay is not in fact a negligible sum. The gap between housing costs (static if not reduced for the same property over 12 years - not to mention being steadily converted into asset wealth) and steadily rising actual income is therefore crucial in determining the lived experience of any individual. 

[Monkey Tennis]

On 17/03/2023 at 09:53, coprolite said:

You can admit when you don't understand something you know

I genuinely don't think he can.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

16 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'm not here to entertain your ludicrous and utterly fictional scenarios. 

The absolute increase in pay is not in fact a negligible sum. The gap between housing costs (static if not reduced for the same property over 12 years - not to mention being steadily converted into asset wealth) and steadily rising actual income is therefore crucial in determining the lived experience of any individual. 

Housing costs are not static - that is just economic illiteracy.

Interest rates have been static not house prices.  The average mortgage has increased since 2010 as has the aggregate interest that has had to be paid.

Your assumption would only apply to individuals who had stayed in the same property they owned in 2010 - that clearly won't be the case for those who either didn't have a mortgage in 2010 or have moved house.

 

Edited March 18 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Cosmic Joe]

26 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'm not here to entertain your ludicrous and utterly fictional scenarios. 

 

Which begs the question. What are you here for? 

To be unpleasant to as many people as possible? 

Edited March 18 by Cosmic Joe

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Which begs the question. What are you here for? 

To be unpleasant to as many people as possible? 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Loonytoons]

14 hours ago, virginton said:

I'm not here to entertain your ludicrous and utterly fictional scenarios. 

The absolute increase in pay is not in fact a negligible sum. The gap between housing costs (static if not reduced for the same property over 12 years - not to mention being steadily converted into asset wealth) and steadily rising actual income is therefore crucial in determining the lived experience of any individual. 

Column 2 is public sector cost of living wage rises.  Column 3 is inflation.

2010 - 0%  (4.6%)

2011 - 0%  (5.2%)

2012 - 0%  (3.3%)

2013 - 1%  (3%)

2014 - 1%  (2.4%)

2015 - 1.5%  (1%)

2016 - 1%  (1.8%)

2017 - 1% (3.6%)

2018 - 3%  (3.3%)

2019 - 3%  (2.6%)

2020 - 3%  (1.5%)

2021 - 2%  (4.1%)

The above may not be wholly accurate but still not far off the mark.

Rough calculation, wages have risen by 22%, inflation by 43%.  Really struggling to find your beef with the public sector pay rises.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

21 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Which begs the question. What are you here for? 

To be unpleasant to as many people as possible? 

You've just noticed???

[vikingTON]

On 18/03/2023 at 11:11, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Housing costs are not static - that is just economic illiteracy.

Interest rates have been static not house prices.  The average mortgage has increased since 2010 as has the aggregate interest that has had to be paid.

If you bought a house in 2010 with your bombproof public sector job to guarantee payment, then the increase in house prices since then is absolutely irrelevant to your outgoings. You pay the mortgage off based on the 2010 value - and in fact only benefit by having the asset that you're financing increase in value between that point and 2022. 

It is economic illiteracy to ignore that reality. With ultra-low interest rates the principal cost of living was fixed if not decreasing in significance, while take-home income rose rather than fell as the completely wrong graphic indicated. 

Edited March 19 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

On 18/03/2023 at 11:24, Cosmic Joe said:

Which begs the question. What are you here for? 

To be unpleasant to as many people as possible? 

A better purpose than your utterly tragic tone trolling act, that's for sure. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

If you bought a house in 2010 with your bombproof public sector job to guarantee payment, then the increase in house prices since then is absolutely irrelevant to your outgoings. You pay the mortgage off based on the 2010 value - and in fact only benefit by having the asset that you're financing increase in value between that point and 2022. 

It is economic illiteracy to ignore that reality. With ultra-low interest rates the principal cost of living was fixed if not decreasing in significance, while take-home income rose rather than fell as the completely wrong graphic indicated. 

Only if you didn't move home or weren't a first time buyer - if you moved home or were a first time buyer you almost certainly had to pay more for an equivalent sized house and have an increase in the amount of any remortgage.  

I suggest you stick to history because your knowledge of economics is fucking laughable.

And for some reason, you brought teachers into it - I was challenging your nonsense that housing costs have been static - they haven't - and that's true if you work in the public sector or the private sector. It's almost as if you think only public sector workers have mortgages. Average housing costs over the period have risen over the period irrespective of the sector you work in.

Maybe put your prejudices about homeowners and teachers to one side before spouting shite?

 

Edited March 19 by DeeTillEhDeh

[coprolite]

46 minutes ago, virginton said:

If you bought a house in 2010 with your bombproof public sector job to guarantee payment, then the increase in house prices since then is absolutely irrelevant to your outgoings. You pay the mortgage off based on the 2010 value - and in fact only benefit by having the asset that you're financing increase in value between that point and 2022. 

It is economic illiteracy to ignore that reality. With ultra-low interest rates the principal cost of living was fixed if not decreasing in significance, while take-home income rose rather than fell as the completely wrong graphic indicated. 

You're confusing cash flows with prices, income with disposable income and assuming that all public sector workers own their home (while presumably the private sector equivalent are all at the mercy of landlords). 

Trying to rubbish a relatively well understood metric because it doesn't account for a load of other factors is quite a novel tactic though, as is inventing a whole new concept of the "absolute" value of money.