The reality of life for many MANY people.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Struggling to maintain a middle class lifestyle.Drive out of central London on most routes and you will pass the homes for the middle classes built in Victorian or Edwardian times (many of which have since been sub divided into flats). Do you think that £100K a year is going to get you a mortgage to buy one?, or even in many areas a converted flat in one.
Talk about the basic components of a middle class lifestyle and you do indeed have to run faster to stay still. Saying someone in top 10% of earners should feel grateful completely ignores the fact that someone who owns their own home outright, or purchased before the mid nineties, in most places in the south-east is likely to be far richer.
DonkeyApple said:
SystemParanoia said:
I very much can...
this is the only thing missing from my life that would being me even more contentment outside of work
An anti Semitic, talking duck? That's quite a big ask. You might be better lowering your expectations. this is the only thing missing from my life that would being me even more contentment outside of work
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 21st October 09:11
p1stonhead said:
But by any measure other than house prices in the south east, £100k a year is still very very well off.
Keeping up with the Jones's is only difficult there. Anywhere else, the Jones's will be trying to keep up with you.
£50K a year would be very well off round where I live, but then you can buy a four bed detached house for £300K.Keeping up with the Jones's is only difficult there. Anywhere else, the Jones's will be trying to keep up with you.
I got out of London a while back now but I struggle to see how you can define someone as "rich" who, most likely, lives in a house originally built for a manual worker and has much less impressive take home pay after deducting housing costs.
ash73 said:
DonkeyApple said:
But in 20 years time when most of the Boomers are gone what will the landscape look like then with a more even population spread?
Suggest you take a closer look at the UK population demographics, the baby boom in the late 60's, i.e. people aged 40-50, is much more significant and they will all be retiring in 20 years...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_...
If you could view that diagram excluding immigration it would look even worse and actually be an inverted pyramid so from that regard you can begin to see why immigration has been absolutely essential at the macro level. To keep the current system going you either need to tax the bejesus out of the Boomers, step up the immigration program or remove large numbers of Boomers. But when you look at the controlling electorate none of those solutions are viable options or remotely likely to happen.
The situation we all find ourselves in today is really a direct result of a refusal to invest in the future and ignore these known population demographic changes that were looming.
For the last decade or so the solution has been to borrow more and more to bridge the gap but can this really continue with the ever mounting social issues that this creates? And if we are going to wind down the borrowing where does the money come from to sustain the welfare costs going forward when the bulk of the wealth lies in the hands of the elderly and the younger are getting poorer and poorer and see that they are doing the same jobs as their parents but will have to keep doing that job for far longer, pay far more away in taxation and never attain an asset base remotely comparable to their parents. It really is the question of are the young paid too little or were the old paid too much?
SystemParanoia said:
DonkeyApple said:
SystemParanoia said:
I very much can...
this is the only thing missing from my life that would being me even more contentment outside of work
An anti Semitic, talking duck? That's quite a big ask. You might be better lowering your expectations. this is the only thing missing from my life that would being me even more contentment outside of work
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 21st October 09:11
d looks loaded. 
JagLover said:
p1stonhead said:
But by any measure other than house prices in the south east, £100k a year is still very very well off.
Keeping up with the Jones's is only difficult there. Anywhere else, the Jones's will be trying to keep up with you.
£50K a year would be very well off round where I live, but then you can buy a four bed detached house for £300K.Keeping up with the Jones's is only difficult there. Anywhere else, the Jones's will be trying to keep up with you.
I got out of London a while back now but I struggle to see how you can define someone as "rich" who, most likely, lives in a house originally built for a manual worker and has much less impressive take home pay after deducting housing costs.
£100k a year will get a comfortable life no matter where you are in the country. If you want a penthouse in the middle of town or a 5 bed house in the Surrey hills, you may struggle. But you will still be richer than most other people.
NinjaPower said:
I'll fully admit to being a 'brown-noser' or whatever you want to call it.
I'm now self employed, but previously I worked in housing for about 12 years after leaving Uni, and by the time I left, I was working for the 4th biggest housing provider in the UK and had worked my way up to a point were I pretty much spent many of my days in fairly top-level meetings with the directors and CEO. I was above 'middle management' if you want to call it that, and doing pretty well.
I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers. If I got invited out on a work night or invited for food and drinks with the management, I would always go, and I would always make a point of chatting to them, agreeing with them and becoming their 'mate'. I would try to be humorous, polite, and eager. If I was put upon to produce some work at short notice I would just smile and say 'no problem at all', instead of huffing and moaning about it. I would volunteer for things that others would try to avoid. I made sure that management liked me, and liked having me around.
During parts of my career I was tasked with managing small teams of staff, and it became apparent that one or two of them had an issue with being managed by a 30 year old, when they had spent the last 25 years 'slogging away' for the company and seemingly getting nowhere. What became clear to me was that these people were irritating, boring, unsociable, awkward, a stickler for rules, quiet or rude. Not all at the same time of course, but you get my point. They were passed by for promotion or any form of advancement because frankly, no one liked them. Or rather no one in senior management liked them.
You can shout and complain about the unfairness of this all you want, but it's just the reality in business and the workplace. Not everywhere or for every job, but quite widespread.
If you want to get on in your career, just suck it up and try to get on with those around you and above you, even if you dislike them.
When I started my first job, my boss told me one day "if you want to climb the ladder, learn to play golf". At the time I didn't think too much of it, but as the years of employment went past, it quickly became apparent what he meant.
Great honest post! You behave like a supplier not some headstrong "individual" that will dig in and sit and moan for years about the company that puts food on his table. Seen so many of those types and it is THE most negative hypocritical thing I've endured. Sit and whinge and take the money and pull everyone down with you.I'm now self employed, but previously I worked in housing for about 12 years after leaving Uni, and by the time I left, I was working for the 4th biggest housing provider in the UK and had worked my way up to a point were I pretty much spent many of my days in fairly top-level meetings with the directors and CEO. I was above 'middle management' if you want to call it that, and doing pretty well.
I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers. If I got invited out on a work night or invited for food and drinks with the management, I would always go, and I would always make a point of chatting to them, agreeing with them and becoming their 'mate'. I would try to be humorous, polite, and eager. If I was put upon to produce some work at short notice I would just smile and say 'no problem at all', instead of huffing and moaning about it. I would volunteer for things that others would try to avoid. I made sure that management liked me, and liked having me around.
During parts of my career I was tasked with managing small teams of staff, and it became apparent that one or two of them had an issue with being managed by a 30 year old, when they had spent the last 25 years 'slogging away' for the company and seemingly getting nowhere. What became clear to me was that these people were irritating, boring, unsociable, awkward, a stickler for rules, quiet or rude. Not all at the same time of course, but you get my point. They were passed by for promotion or any form of advancement because frankly, no one liked them. Or rather no one in senior management liked them.
You can shout and complain about the unfairness of this all you want, but it's just the reality in business and the workplace. Not everywhere or for every job, but quite widespread.
If you want to get on in your career, just suck it up and try to get on with those around you and above you, even if you dislike them.
When I started my first job, my boss told me one day "if you want to climb the ladder, learn to play golf". At the time I didn't think too much of it, but as the years of employment went past, it quickly became apparent what he meant.
Your attitude is to supply what those employing you want, like and need. I hope your non managerial colleagues always asked you out to the pub too? It can all be done!
ash73 said:
The problem with a pyramid approach is it's not sustainable, and people are living longer. Pensions is the biggest line item on public spend, twice what we spend on education, and when the 40-50 bubble retire it could increase by 50%. It needs to be sustainable without growing the population, which in reality means higher tax and/or more means testing for pensions.
Agree. But we've got to go through the phase of blaming immigrants and the poor first before the reality can bite as to what the real problem is and the solutions that face us. DonkeyApple said:
ash73 said:
The problem with a pyramid approach is it's not sustainable, and people are living longer. Pensions is the biggest line item on public spend, twice what we spend on education, and when the 40-50 bubble retire it could increase by 50%. It needs to be sustainable without growing the population, which in reality means higher tax and/or more means testing for pensions.
Agree. But we've got to go through the phase of blaming immigrants and the poor first before the reality can bite as to what the real problem is and the solutions that face us. Digga said:
I can see big changes in the propertaay market, as the full force of the demographics kick in. Sure, there will be those who bequeath their homes to family members, but in the instances where the house needs to be sold, there may be decreasing numbers of private buyers (or renters) at the desired rates.
Indeed. As with all these debt inflated assets, who will have the wealth to purchase them at the current values as the owners begin to die off?Values will have to adjust downward as the supply increases in order to find the demand so all that wealth will actually vapourise. But so will the wealth stored in the same assets held by the young but their debt that they used to secure the asset will remain!
Handling correctly the ownership transition of housing over the coming years is potentially tricky but what I suspect will happen is that fewer people will be dying in their original family home as the number of pensioners needing to sell up and downsize in order to raise money to finance their living costs increases. In the US they are seeing a steady rise in flat sharing among pensioners which I think they are referring to as the 'Golden Girls' phenomenon.
I think we'll also see an increase in the subdivision of the suburban family home into apartments, emulating the exact solution cities use, as a means of breaking the plot size down to more affordable properties and helping to meet increased demands. Converting half a million houses into 1-2 million apartments is arguably the most efficient solution to the UK housing issue anyway. And if people cannot afford to buy £1m houses then that is exactly what will be done to those houses. They'll be subdivided into units that people can afford. This allowing house price inflation to continue and the banks stay afloat.
Ken Figenus said:
Great honest post! You behave like a supplier not some headstrong "individual" that will dig in and sit and moan for years about the company that puts food on his table. Seen so many of those types and it is THE most negative hypocritical thing I've endured. Sit and whinge and take the money and pull everyone down with you.
Your attitude is to supply what those employing you want, like and need. I hope your non managerial colleagues always asked you out to the pub too? It can all be done!
Can't agree with this. He says:Your attitude is to supply what those employing you want, like and need. I hope your non managerial colleagues always asked you out to the pub too? It can all be done!
"I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers."
I wouldn't work with a supplier who wasn't exceptional at their job just because they massaged my ego.
freshkid said:
Can't agree with this. He says:
"I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers."
I wouldn't work with a supplier who wasn't exceptional at their job just because they massaged my ego.
That's not what he's saying. He's talking about establishing good working relationships with his superiors and/or clients, which means they prefer doing business with him even if he's not necessarily earth shattering in actual performance. "I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers."
I wouldn't work with a supplier who wasn't exceptional at their job just because they massaged my ego.
As long as they're relatively competitive, 99% of people will prefer going to the place with better customer service, as opposed to somewhere that does an absolutely stellar job but have the customer service skills of a particularly rude llama.
You've probably done it yourself without even realising. It's not ego stroking, its salesmanship.
Edited by OwenK on Friday 21st October 11:16
freshkid said:
Ken Figenus said:
Great honest post! You behave like a supplier not some headstrong "individual" that will dig in and sit and moan for years about the company that puts food on his table. Seen so many of those types and it is THE most negative hypocritical thing I've endured. Sit and whinge and take the money and pull everyone down with you.
Your attitude is to supply what those employing you want, like and need. I hope your non managerial colleagues always asked you out to the pub too? It can all be done!
Can't agree with this. He says:Your attitude is to supply what those employing you want, like and need. I hope your non managerial colleagues always asked you out to the pub too? It can all be done!
"I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers."
I wouldn't work with a supplier who wasn't exceptional at their job just because they massaged my ego.
I didn't read anything of the sort in his post but I have noticed that several people have taken the post to be just this.
As an employer you will never promote the chap who is good at his job but has issues with management or views that don't align with the company. They must be left where they benefit the company most which is at their desk being brilliant at what they do but not moved to positions where they have to liaise with a range of people, coordinate them and oversee deliveries.
It's a type of worker that I've seen everywhere that I've ever worked, the smart guy who is far too good for the job that he is currently doing but will never be moved from that job because every day his attitude tells you that they just wouldn't be able to do what is required so they are left where they benefit the business the most.
I do sometimes think that there is a huge misunderstanding by many as to how progression through a career works and that is highlighted by 'brown nosing' accusations but explains why you can have two smart people but one moves forward every few years while the other changes jobs every few years. There just seems to be a willfully self destruction of potential and prospects in some blokes and weirdly it seems to be amongst the brighter people who see certain essential criteria which they would have no issues at all with meeting being treated as something to be held in contempt and raged against. It seems a uniquely British trait in many regards.
OwenK said:
That's not what he's saying. He's talking about establishing good working relationships with his superiors and/or clients, which means they prefer doing business with him even if he's not necessarily earth shattering in actual performance.
As long as they're relatively competitive, 99% of people will prefer going to the place with better customer service, as opposed to somewhere that does an absolutely stellar job but have the customer service skills of a particularly rude llama.
You've probably done it yourself without even realising. It's not ego stroking, its salesmanship.
No,he's saying I got where I am today by sticking my tongue right up managements ass.As long as they're relatively competitive, 99% of people will prefer going to the place with better customer service, as opposed to somewhere that does an absolutely stellar job but have the customer service skills of a particularly rude llama.
You've probably done it yourself without even realising. It's not ego stroking, its salesmanship.
Edited by OwenK on Friday 21st October 11:16
Seen it many times and my,its sickly.Not for me thanks.
ash73 said:
Sadly I recognise that reality; people never really leave the school playground.
One of my uncles is a high-level business consultant. Aside from assessing management teams, much of the rest of his time is literally acting as psychiatrist to senior management - many of their long-running, unresolved weaknesses and blind spots require regression to tackle properly.freshkid said:
Can't agree with this. He says:
"I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers."
I wouldn't work with a supplier who wasn't exceptional at their job just because they massaged my ego.
I read it more as a positive (and forgive me) 'can-do' attitude rather than taking them cups of tea and remembering their birthdays "I managed this not because I'm the most intelligent guy around or exceptional at my job, but by adapting my attitude and behaviour to impress my managers."
I wouldn't work with a supplier who wasn't exceptional at their job just because they massaged my ego.
DonkeyApple said:
Out of interest where does the 'massaging of egos' come from?
I didn't read anything of the sort in his post but I have noticed that several people have taken the post to be just this.
As an employer you will never promote the chap who is good at his job but has issues with management or views that don't align with the company. They must be left where they benefit the company most which is at their desk being brilliant at what they do but not moved to positions where they have to liaise with a range of people, coordinate them and oversee deliveries.
It's a type of worker that I've seen everywhere that I've ever worked, the smart guy who is far too good for the job that he is currently doing but will never be moved from that job because every day his attitude tells you that they just wouldn't be able to do what is required so they are left where they benefit the business the most.
I do sometimes think that there is a huge misunderstanding by many as to how progression through a career works and that is highlighted by 'brown nosing' accusations but explains why you can have two smart people but one moves forward every few years while the other changes jobs every few years. There just seems to be a willfully self destruction of potential and prospects in some blokes and weirdly it seems to be amongst the brighter people who see certain essential criteria which they would have no issues at all with meeting being treated as something to be held in contempt and raged against. It seems a uniquely British trait in many regards.
His primary examples of how he achieved influence are going out for drinks and deliberately trying to become the senior management's 'mate'. How can you read that differently?I didn't read anything of the sort in his post but I have noticed that several people have taken the post to be just this.
As an employer you will never promote the chap who is good at his job but has issues with management or views that don't align with the company. They must be left where they benefit the company most which is at their desk being brilliant at what they do but not moved to positions where they have to liaise with a range of people, coordinate them and oversee deliveries.
It's a type of worker that I've seen everywhere that I've ever worked, the smart guy who is far too good for the job that he is currently doing but will never be moved from that job because every day his attitude tells you that they just wouldn't be able to do what is required so they are left where they benefit the business the most.
I do sometimes think that there is a huge misunderstanding by many as to how progression through a career works and that is highlighted by 'brown nosing' accusations but explains why you can have two smart people but one moves forward every few years while the other changes jobs every few years. There just seems to be a willfully self destruction of potential and prospects in some blokes and weirdly it seems to be amongst the brighter people who see certain essential criteria which they would have no issues at all with meeting being treated as something to be held in contempt and raged against. It seems a uniquely British trait in many regards.
freshkid said:
His primary examples of how he achieved influence are going out for drinks and deliberately trying to become the senior management's 'mate'. How can you read that differently?
How does that differ from having to be pleasant to someone who reports to you when what they really need is a battering and/or defenestration? Isn't that exactly the same? Do you expect those senior in your company to be civil towards you?Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff