People's definition of 'normal' when it comes to spending differs from person to person. My wife & I never went out for nearly 12 months when we were saving up for a deposit. OK it was only 5% back then, but if it was 10% & meant staying in for 2 years we'd have done it. We also worked overtime at every opportunity too. I never had a car until I was 24 for the simple fact I couldn't afford one. A lot of today's younger generation see a car as a birthright. My 20 year old niece bought a brand new car on finance despite the fact that her & her partner are currently living with my brother & sister-in-law while they save for a deposit. She doesn't need the car for work or anything, she just wanted it, & she got it. On top of that they still go out every weekend clubbing it with friends. I don't know if her parents are taking any money off them but this is just one example of young people maybe not having their priorities quite right. I could give you more examples relating to my son, but mostly my Daughter, of how frivolous & blase they've been when it comes to spending money. I've been in a good position to judge both the boomers & the millenials, & I can honestly say that today's younger generation are absolutely shit at being prudent.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
People's definition of 'normal' when it comes to spending differs from person to person. My wife & I never went out for nearly 12 months when we were saving up for a deposit. OK it was only 5% back then, but if it was 10% & meant staying in for 2 years we'd have done it. We also worked overtime at every opportunity too. I never had a car until I was 24 for the simple fact I couldn't afford one. A lot of today's younger generation see a car as a birthright. My 20 year old niece bought a brand new car on finance despite the fact that her & her partner are currently living with my brother & sister-in-law while they save for a deposit. She doesn't need the car for work or anything, she just wanted it, & she got it. On top of that they still go out every weekend clubbing it with friends. I don't know if her parents are taking any money off them but this is just one example of young people maybe not having their priorities quite right. I could give you more examples relating to my son, but mostly my Daughter, of how frivolous & blase they've been when it comes to spending money. I've been in a good position to judge both the boomers & the millenials, & I can honestly say that today's younger generation are absolutely shit at being prudent.
The climate has always been the same. You look for a house that's suitable for your needs, location, price-range etc. If there's nothing available, you wait, & look again in the near future. Depending on your circumstances, along with your patience, the opportunity is always there to compromise on your needs, location, price-range etc. It has nothing to do with 'taking what you're given'. You only come across as entitled/spoiled/whiny when you can't have everything your own way.
Most people are having to save for much, much longer than that, unless they're already well-off. It's all well and good to say you'd have just done it for longer but for a people of people it's probably not worth it, especially in a culture where jobs aren't really secure, meaning you could get asked/forced to move to a new area where property is even more expensive, fecking up your plans. And that's before taking into consideration the fact that someone who plans to save up with a partner may not still be with that partner by the time they're ready to put down a deposit, considering how long people are being expected to save for. In most cases it's just much easier to rent, hence why the average age for people owning a property is going up and up.
Ha, if I'd have that attitude & not been so generous with my money to other family members, & a few friends, I'd have saved enough money for a deposit for a BTL & could have made a fortune as a landlord renting out my property. That way you might have been justified in vilifying me rather than trying to pin a guilt trip based on the fact I was born in era of social deprivation, high unemployment, & a fair amount of poverty. Yeah we Baby-boomers really had it good.
Way to generalise generations.
Although I'd add to the mix that this generation of 20somethings is going to be the first lot that will be poorer than their parents since prior to the war.
Although I'd add to the mix that this generation of 20somethings is going to be the first lot that will be poorer than their parents since prior to the war.
The problem with saying people should just be more 'prudent' is that we live in a consumerist society that encourages the exact opposite of that, and where our economy, to a certain extent, largely depends on people spending instead of saving.
If people were just saving instead of going out en masse, for example, you'd see bars/nightclubs taking a massive hit, with plenty of them closing due to a lack of cash inflow, meaning workers would be paid off...in many cases those exact same workers who we're expecting to be prudent in saving up to buy a property. Similar can be said for fast food industries and other entertainment industries which all regular on a regular inflow of customers spending their disposable income in order to succeed. Get rid of those and you're costing a lot of jobs considering we live in an economy that's increasingly leisure-dominated compared to what it once was when manufacturing etc were all more important.
If people were just saving instead of going out en masse, for example, you'd see bars/nightclubs taking a massive hit, with plenty of them closing due to a lack of cash inflow, meaning workers would be paid off...in many cases those exact same workers who we're expecting to be prudent in saving up to buy a property. Similar can be said for fast food industries and other entertainment industries which all regular on a regular inflow of customers spending their disposable income in order to succeed. Get rid of those and you're costing a lot of jobs considering we live in an economy that's increasingly leisure-dominated compared to what it once was when manufacturing etc were all more important.
Like I've said though, every person has a different definition of what's normal when it comes to spending. We possibly overdone the thrifty bit, but my missus & I were single-minded in reaching our goal. We knew there'd be plenty of opportunities to socialize once we had our own place. So 12 months without having a drink or a takeaway might seem like purgatory to many, but every week we put money away was another week closer to our dream. That was our one & only priority. & I know of other friends who adopted a similar attitude too. Different era's, different attitudes.
And again most people are having to save for a lot longer to obtain properties that aren't as good for prices that are considerably more expensive. Meaning it's not really worth the hassle for many and that it's just better to rent instead. Which becomes problematic insofar as it empowers a select number of landlords who continue to make obscene profits. No one's denying you can't save up for property; it's just that it's become considerably more difficult for no real reason except economic greed that's been perpetrated by generations that have come before ours. We accept we've got it better off than the generations that have come before us, but we're also aware that we're going to have it worse off financially than our parents - again, for no real reason other than economic greed.
And again, while financial prudence may have helped you personally if people do that en masse then the hypothetical pubs and takeaways you're talking about start to shut down because they don't have enough customers, something that's inherently bad for the economy and costs jobs as a result.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/boris-johnson-white-privilege-black-woman
Fairly accurate piece. Boris tends to get with stuff time and time again, largely on the basis of his background and upbringing.
Fairly accurate piece. Boris tends to get with stuff time and time again, largely on the basis of his background and upbringing.
he's the perfect example of failing upwards
Hmmmm interesting, I was wondering what factors had helped fuel the housing shortage for poorer families.
Jesus this country is soooooo fecked up.
Hundreds of mental health patients dying after NHS care failures
https://www.theguardian.com/society...health-patients-dying-after-nhs-care-failures
Homeless charity helped target rough sleepers to deport
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...harity-helped-target-rough-sleepers-to-deport
Hundreds of mental health patients dying after NHS care failures
https://www.theguardian.com/society...health-patients-dying-after-nhs-care-failures
Homeless charity helped target rough sleepers to deport
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...harity-helped-target-rough-sleepers-to-deport
This is exactly how Nazi Britain...has always been, frankly.
Voter surpresion comes to the UK
Check out @BBCNews’s Tweet:
The Tories have been using US style tactics recently, they are trying very hard to bring the culture wars to this nation. Make elections about the bullshit and not the things that really matter, health, housing and money, trying to distract their way to power.
Check out @BBCNews’s Tweet:
The Tories have been using US style tactics recently, they are trying very hard to bring the culture wars to this nation. Make elections about the bullshit and not the things that really matter, health, housing and money, trying to distract their way to power.
It’s all about making sure that the person voting is actually that person. That’s why I’d is needed.
Its a vanishingly small problem, 40 cases from 45 million votes last year.
This is about stopping poor people and brown people from voting
You’re sounding a bit paranoid there if you don’t mind me saying.
Have to disagree with you though. Used to be much better than it is now. One of my friends fills in his wife’s postal vote (she lives literally 2 mins walk from the polling station but has no interest in voting) so he in effect gets 2 votes.
At the last election I went to the polling station and gave them my address (that was all I needed and it wasn’t my address). They told me my name and I smiled and said yes. Except that it wasn’t my name. As they went to give me my voting paper I told them not to bother because that wasn’t me at all and I was just testing the security of the system. It’s that easy. The person who’s address I gave them was away and couldn’t get back in time to vote. If I had gone ahead and voted in their place I could have had 2 votes. Something should have been done about it a long time ago. It’s ripe for fraud.
"Electoral fraud is a problem because I attempted electoral fraud at the last election" is an interesting one.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. The young and the poor have less time to be running around sorting valid id for voting, they're also less likely to vote Tory. Just look at the states and the shite the republicans do to stop black people voting, this policy is borrowed straight from there.
Isn't that a crime? I'm not asking anyone to call the police... but 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3.
No, electoral fraud is a problem because it’s so easy to do. Fraud goes on all the time, the easier it is to carry out the more it is likely to happen. It should be a lot more secure and needing Id to vote makes complete sense. Heck I need Id to draw money out of my account if I’m in my local bank across the road. My signature is not enough. Neither is my name, address, bank card and cheque book.
ID makes sense. Forget Republicans....nowt to do with them. Voting should be legit and above board.
Not everyone has ID, and disproportionally less poorer / browner people have it. Also it’s beaurocratic to obtain, and less poorer / brown people can navigate the process.
There is a parliamentary committee session on this tomorrow, grilling shareholders.
It's a tough one. Hard to know whether it's a case of hindsight's a wonderful thing re EY's suggestions.
It's not like the big four accountants have unblemished records.
People need ID for an increasing number of things nowadays and most people have some form of ID. Even some form of photo ID...student cards, passports etc.
I haven’t got any current photo ID atm and I really don’t want to have to bother getting any either but I’ve had one or two instances where I’ve needed it and so I’m going to have to go through these tedious beaurocratic processes myself. I’d rather not tbh but I still think ID is necessary for voting. We can’t have a fraudulent voting procedure just because it’s difficult for some to get it. The help is out there if they need it.
Surely it's not overly difficult to take a form of ID with you when you go to vote?
It’s not difficult, no, but statistically rich white folk will more likely have it than poor brown folk, so it disenfranchised them more proportionally.
Yeah the photo ID is definitely a US style tactic adopted by the Tories. Should be making voting easier e.g. on a weekend/bank holiday or even potentialy online voting, not harder.
It's just another way to suppress the vote, no real surprise since the Tories get more than their fair share of MPs compared to % of votes and their voters are literally dying off every year.
It's just another way to suppress the vote, no real surprise since the Tories get more than their fair share of MPs compared to % of votes and their voters are literally dying off every year.
Yeah online....no risk with fraud online is there.
NKorean hackers will be voting our next government in no doubt.
NKorean hackers will be voting our next government in no doubt.
What'd be the main fraud risks? It already happens in 14 countries and we already register online and fill out most government forms online as well. As opposed to somewhere like Estonia we do lack the infrustructure behind it though so it's a way off yet. And clearly not something the Tories would want.
Well we already know that very little online is secure.
So you have cyber-security concerns rather than fraudulent ones?
Both.
So what are the fraudulent ones? Not being cheeky, just curious to know.
There are lots but I’ve not got the energy to go through them all.
Ok sure. Cyber security is the main concern predominantly but we do also give a lot of personal data online anyway.
It would only make sense if it was a large problem, it isn't