Preparing hard workers for a future of tax paying...

[turbobloke]

Same question. Again. And again.

[turbobloke]

Data says what data says. Lines fit data, not whims or wishes or oughts or anything else.

I have never been arguing bottoms, or undershoots, or whatever the heck else.

Kindly read posts carefully, and if possible, resist repeat questions.

[monthefish]

Willie Dee said:

monthefish said:

Willie Dee said:

Your delusional if you think wealth comes from merit or hard work in this, or many other countries.

Willie Dee said:

I worked hard and was successful

I too selectively quote someone making it appear like they have said something completely different to what they actually did say.

Well if it's that simple, why not explain?

[Willie Dee]

monthefish said:

Willie Dee said:

monthefish said:

Willie Dee said:

Your delusional if you think wealth comes from merit or hard work in this, or many other countries.

Willie Dee said:

I worked hard and was successful

I too selectively quote someone making it appear like they have said something completely different to what they actually did say.

Well if it's that simple, why not explain?

You see where you quoted only a fraction of my post, to the point where you have cut a sentence in half. Try reading the whole post, it tends to help. I am aware I missed out a y at the end of "every", if that typo confused you to the point where you were dumbfounded I apologise, but pro posting is not something that can be kept up 24/7.

[Mr Whippy]

Willie Dee said:

pro posting is not something that can be kept up 24/7

never heard that before

[monthefish]

Willie Dee said:

Your delusional if you think wealth comes from merit or hard work in this, or many other countries.

Willie Dee said:

I worked hard and was successful, but for ever me there is there are 10 people out there who worked just as hard as me, some even harder, who were not. There are far more factors to life than simply working hard.

Happy now? no selective cropping (not that there ever was)

So you are saying that we are delusional to think that 'wealth comes from merit or hard work' but you achieved your success from hard work?

[Willie Dee]

monthefish said:

Willie Dee said:

Your delusional if you think wealth comes from merit or hard work in this, or many other countries.

Willie Dee said:

I worked hard and was successful, but for ever me there is there are 10 people out there who worked just as hard as me, some even harder, who were not. There are far more factors to life than simply working hard.

Happy now? no selective cropping (not that there ever was)

So you are saying that we are delusional to think that 'wealth comes from merit or hard work' but you achieved your success from hard work?

And, as stated, the very many other factors involved...

[cymtriks]

NoelWatson said:

cymtriks said:

the issues I mentioned have been steadily rising for half a century.

So I've pulled back earnings and house prices from 1952 to 2000. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one

The effect isn't linear. I've already explained that. Twice. One more time: if 99 people want to buy a house and there are 100 houses then one seller will be left with an unsold house. The last buyer has a choice of two houses. If 100 people want to buy a house and there are 99 houses then the last buyer will end up with nothing and the last seller will have the choice of two customers. This is why the effect is not linear.

The trend line slopes upwards on that graph and plotting the same data for the last fifty years, 1960 to 2009, gives a steeper slope still.

Immigration and divorce have gradually increased over the last fifty years as has longevity. Planning restrictions and land availability has also gradually got worse. Environmental concerns are relatively new as is the rise in the perpetually single.

It all adds up.

By the way a trend line for the last 50 years shows that the recent price rise is much less over the trend and that any subsequent fall, if you assume that there has to be a fall to match the rise, is much less.

Ultimately where you start your graph, and therefore how you calculate the trend, is a bit arbitrary.

Do you think that house prices are uniquely immune to supply and demand or that the factors I have mentioned are somehow inconsequential?

[NoelWatson]

cymtriks said:

NoelWatson said:

cymtriks said:

the issues I mentioned have been steadily rising for half a century.

So I've pulled back earnings and house prices from 1952 to 2000. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one

The effect isn't linear. I've already explained that. Twice. One more time: if 99 people want to buy a house and there are 100 houses then one seller will be left with an unsold house. The last buyer has a choice of two houses. If 100 people want to buy a house and there are 99 houses then the last buyer will end up with nothing and the last seller will have the choice of two customers. This is why the effect is not linear.

The trend line slopes upwards on that graph and plotting the same data for the last fifty years, 1960 to 2009, gives a steeper slope still.

Immigration and divorce have gradually increased over the last fifty years as has longevity. Planning restrictions and land availability has also gradually got worse. Environmental concerns are relatively new as is the rise in the perpetually single.

It all adds up.

By the way a trend line for the last 50 years shows that the recent price rise is much less over the trend and that any subsequent fall, if you assume that there has to be a fall to match the rise, is much less.

Ultimately where you start your graph, and therefore how you calculate the trend, is a bit arbitrary.

Do you think that house prices are uniquely immune to supply and demand or that the factors I have mentioned are somehow inconsequential?

cymtriks said:

The effect isn't linear.

I'm not suggesting that it is, but unlike certain areas in central London where people with almost bottomless pockets are bidding up values, the rest of the population doesn't (or didn't) have that luxury. It was only since 2000 that something changed.

cymtriks said:

Ultimately where you start your graph, and therefore how you calculate the trend, is a bit arbitrary.

Agreed, but I went back as far as I could and all the way to 2000 to point out that I couldn't see the factors you mentioned having a dramatic effect before 2000

cymtriks said:

The trend line slopes upwards on that graph and plotting the same data for the last fifty years, 1960 to 2009, gives a steeper slope still.

The trend line does indees slope upwards, over 50 years it goes up by a around 0.1. I think the factors you pointed out could well cause this. But as I have been saying all along, these factors along do not bring us where we are today

cymtriks said:

Do you think that house prices are uniquely immune to supply and demand

Not sure where I have ever said that, what I have said is that before 2000, people didn't seem to be able to get the funding that rhey could now

cymtriks said:

or that the factors I have mentioned are somehow inconsequential?

TBH I don't think they have made much of a difference in the 50 years leading up to 2000.


If you get a chance have a watch of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT1UnGS91BY

Maybe slightly overdramatic, but when you consider that

"Figures from the regulator show that nearly half of all mortgages were lent with no income checks between 2007 and Q1 2010,"

this is more of a driver than the factors you mention. As the FSA begin to crack down on this in years to come, we should be able to see how much of a problem this was.

[jimbobsimmonds]

Willie Dee said:

As long as the school works both ways, as in half the time a handful of really incompetent arrogant kids get A* simply because of who their daddy is where as the rest of the class are restricted to the grade of C+ or below no matter how hard they work because they were not fortunate enough to be born into the right family.

do i sense an arguement here for grammar school...

im from a normal family in a normal area but got a 1st class education, did well at school, now have a decent job and prospects...

instead we scrap grammars and lower everyone to the same crap standards...

[turbobloke]

jimbobsimmonds said:

Willie Dee said:

As long as the school works both ways, as in half the time a handful of really incompetent arrogant kids get A* simply because of who their daddy is where as the rest of the class are restricted to the grade of C+ or below no matter how hard they work because they were not fortunate enough to be born into the right family.

do i sense an arguement here for grammar school.....

One of the most efficient social mobility engines there is yet despised by Labour as a result of egalitarian delusion disease. As a result education productivity fell under Labour and poverty gaps widened.

As to students of wealthy parents getting good grades, how ironic that these students are turned away with good grades while poorer students don't need them as the same disease has infected most universities which are now falling over themselves (almost) to offer places to mediocre poor kids with so-so grades, who will be doomed to failure and graduate debt if Beckhamology and Media Colouring In With Crayons degrees are scrapped.

If socialists want social mobility they should have created grammar schools in every town, but the PR job is complete and bien pensant fellow travellers have whipped up a froth of indignation in the prolier than thou types driving desks at the Grauniad which even Camoron seems scared of.