Cost of living
Discussion
supercommuter said:
kiethton said:
Yeah forgot service charge, mine is at the same level as gavsdavs.....
It's a total mickey take, despite owning a share of the mamagement co they seem to get ripped off at every turn!
£120k to replace a ~£7k flat roof......£30k to paint a few bits white/garages red.....
Thing is it was meant to be dropping back to ~£80pm this year but looks like we've got another year or 2 of arse raping to come!
O/T I know but we nipped this in the bud with our management company.It's a total mickey take, despite owning a share of the mamagement co they seem to get ripped off at every turn!
£120k to replace a ~£7k flat roof......£30k to paint a few bits white/garages red.....
Thing is it was meant to be dropping back to ~£80pm this year but looks like we've got another year or 2 of arse raping to come!
Someone took the initiative to contact all residents (new build estate with lots of communal gardens etc) and collate support to approach the management company explaining that if charges and funds were not relative to the work being done over the coming years we would be moving management companies. It has been fine ever since and the gardener is now here more than ever. May be worth setting up a FB group for your area and getting everybody in to discuss approach!
We now have enough in the kitty at the end of the year to make improvements on the estate - new lights etc
The majority of the charge appears to be to recharge a number of 'reserve funds' - which get used on capital expenditure like new windows or carpets or some other sizeable sum. For ages, the previous managing company used to sit on several hundred grand in that account and never actually did any major works with the money.
It also depends on the age of the property, where i live is now knocking on 30 years old and genuinely has needed new windows, new carpets, etc, if you live in a new build this won't have hit you yet. (mainly because it's a barratt home, built with the cheapest materials they could get away with)
With regards to getting concensus - you don't mean residents, you mean lease-holders. I'd say only 50% of the people in my block are owner occupiers, and many of the (foreign innit) owners won't respond to contact. This has meant we've been unable to get concensus to effect these changes. Not whinging, just outlining the difficulties we have.
MaxSo said:
Wage inequality is enormous. Somehow, salary culture needs to be reformed so the true worth of lower paid jobs vs higher pay jobs is reflected in pay.
Hang on, what? It's a free market and a capitalist society. If the salary paid for certain jobs is in excess of the value they generate, then the company loses money. It's a self regulating system. Venturist said:
Hang on, what? It's a free market and a capitalist society. If the salary paid for certain jobs is in excess of the value they generate, then the company loses money. It's a self regulating system.
Not if its offset by paying less to the lower ranks. I'd argue that's exactly how any self regulation works.Should we scrap minimum wage then? Then the self regulation can really get to work.
Edited by MaxSo on Monday 8th May 12:29
Venturist said:
Hang on, what? It's a free market and a capitalist society. If the salary paid for certain jobs is in excess of the value they generate, then the company loses money. It's a self regulating system.
Speaks man who never worked in (eta: "someone else's") Family business.Edited by talksthetorque on Monday 8th May 15:58
johnwilliams77 said:
Yes, there is. Those on lower incomes are describing lives where they are living, in my opinion.
Oh I agree. I have friends, with 3 kids, and I'd be amazed if they brought in more than 40k between them. They have a great time - always off camping or doing other stuff.loads of community stuff and really involved in the school.I've also got a mate who has had a series of low paid jobs - he couldn't care less. I love to sit with him and talk theoretical physics or exo-planet stuff... he reads so much stuff and would make a great lecturer- always studying something new.
My comment was more at the 'well I never really go amywhere, watch TV every evening, stick to my local pub, don't take holidays, been doing the same job for 10 years ' type stuff.
Fine, if that's your bag...unless you have kids. Doing the same thing day in day out for your adult life is existing. You could be working in a field or at a desk but it's not living, its just existing. I live in a country where there's a lot of existing - not by oeople's choice. Personally to do it in the West and especially in the UK where there are so many opportunities is a waste of a life.
That's just my opinion, other people's may vary!
jdw100 said:
Oh I agree. I have friends, with 3 kids, and I'd be amazed if they brought in more than 40k between them. They have a great time - always off camping or doing other stuff.loads of community stuff and really involved in the school.
I've also got a mate who has had a series of low paid jobs - he couldn't care less. I love to sit with him and talk theoretical physics or exo-planet stuff... he reads so much stuff and would make a great lecturer- always studying something new.
My comment was more at the 'well I never really go amywhere, watch TV every evening, stick to my local pub, don't take holidays, been doing the same job for 10 years ' type stuff.
Fine, if that's your bag...unless you have kids. Doing the same thing day in day out for your adult life is existing. You could be working in a field or at a desk but it's not living, its just existing. I live in a country where there's a lot of existing - not by oeople's choice. Personally to do it in the West and especially in the UK where there are so many opportunities is a waste of a life.
That's just my opinion, other people's may vary!
Fair enough. You don't need a lot of money to go beyond existing though. Cycling, running, football etc are quite cheap to do (obviously can be as expensive as you like). There are also plenty of people (from our office) who could be doing more than 'existing' who just do what you describe: pints, sit watch tv, go to work, exist...I've also got a mate who has had a series of low paid jobs - he couldn't care less. I love to sit with him and talk theoretical physics or exo-planet stuff... he reads so much stuff and would make a great lecturer- always studying something new.
My comment was more at the 'well I never really go amywhere, watch TV every evening, stick to my local pub, don't take holidays, been doing the same job for 10 years ' type stuff.
Fine, if that's your bag...unless you have kids. Doing the same thing day in day out for your adult life is existing. You could be working in a field or at a desk but it's not living, its just existing. I live in a country where there's a lot of existing - not by oeople's choice. Personally to do it in the West and especially in the UK where there are so many opportunities is a waste of a life.
That's just my opinion, other people's may vary!
johnwilliams77 said:
Fair enough. You don't need a lot of money to go beyond existing though. Cycling, running, football etc are quite cheap to do (obviously can be as expensive as you like). There are also plenty of people (from our office) who could be doing more than 'existing' who just do what you describe: pints, sit watch tv, go to work, exist...
I think we are broadly in agreement then.
I agree - you can do tons of stuff for very little outlay: fitness, museums, free lessons, learn over internet etc etc etc.
The world is your lobster!
Somebody on here questioned someone in the services income etc. a while back?
Everyone i know who's in the forces has pretty much (when they first entered):
Blown it all on women/beers/holidays/living the lfie at a young age.
Then once they've got a bit more savvy, used the money to put decent deposits down on houses/cars/motorbikes etc.
A lot of people forget that forces personnel are away/stationed for sometimes weeks/months at a time so don't actually get time to spend, so they generally tend to have lump sums available too them.
Everyone i know who's in the forces has pretty much (when they first entered):
Blown it all on women/beers/holidays/living the lfie at a young age.
Then once they've got a bit more savvy, used the money to put decent deposits down on houses/cars/motorbikes etc.
A lot of people forget that forces personnel are away/stationed for sometimes weeks/months at a time so don't actually get time to spend, so they generally tend to have lump sums available too them.
MaxSo said:
Venturist said:
Hang on, what? It's a free market and a capitalist society. If the salary paid for certain jobs is in excess of the value they generate, then the company loses money. It's a self regulating system.
Not if its offset by paying less to the lower ranks. I'd argue that's exactly how any self regulation works.Should we scrap minimum wage then? Then the self regulation can really get to work.
Edited by MaxSo on Monday 8th May 12:29
I do not begrudge the people paid more than me because I am happy to admit they have skills I do not - and sometimes these are "soft skills" like salesmanship ie being better at convincing their superiors they're good at their job, regardless of whether they actually perform better or not. It's still a skill.
And minimum wage is a nice idea that ultimately drives inflation and stifles everyone. We would all be better off if it were scrapped.
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 13:19
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 13:20
theguvernor15 said:
Somebody on here questioned someone in the services income etc. a while back?
Everyone i know who's in the forces has pretty much (when they first entered):
Blown it all on women/beers/holidays/living the lfie at a young age.
Then once they've got a bit more savvy, used the money to put decent deposits down on houses/cars/motorbikes etc.
A lot of people forget that forces personnel are away/stationed for sometimes weeks/months at a time so don't actually get time to spend, so they generally tend to have lump sums available too them.
And government incentives on new-build house buys...Everyone i know who's in the forces has pretty much (when they first entered):
Blown it all on women/beers/holidays/living the lfie at a young age.
Then once they've got a bit more savvy, used the money to put decent deposits down on houses/cars/motorbikes etc.
A lot of people forget that forces personnel are away/stationed for sometimes weeks/months at a time so don't actually get time to spend, so they generally tend to have lump sums available too them.
Venturist said:
The "lower ranks" as you delicately put it are free to leave to work for a better wage elsewhere; if none exists but they think they can do the job better and keep more for themselves they're welcome to go for that too by starting their own business; if they are unwilling or unable to find better work AND unable or unwilling to start their own competing business then why exactly are we concluding their salary is wrong?
I do not begrudge the people paid more than me because I am happy to admit they have skills I do not - and sometimes these are "soft skills" like salesmanship ie being better at convincing their superiors they're good at their job, regardless of whether they actually perform better or not. It's still a skill.
And minimum wage is a nice idea that ultimately drives inflation and stifles everyone. We would all be better off if it were scrapped.
I'm not sure what is supposed to be wrong with "the lower ranks". Anyway, so what you are saying is that people who may not be as able, very possibly through no fault of their own, (eg broken family, poor education, learning disabilities) should be grateful for what the market decides they are worth, even if that amount isn't enough for them live to humanely.I do not begrudge the people paid more than me because I am happy to admit they have skills I do not - and sometimes these are "soft skills" like salesmanship ie being better at convincing their superiors they're good at their job, regardless of whether they actually perform better or not. It's still a skill.
And minimum wage is a nice idea that ultimately drives inflation and stifles everyone. We would all be better off if it were scrapped.
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 13:19
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 13:20
It's amazing that people actually think like you do. When will we ever learn to stop being so selfish.
MaxSo said:
I'm not sure what is supposed to be wrong with "the lower ranks". Anyway, so what you are saying is that people who may not be as able, very possibly through no fault of their own, (eg broken family, poor education, learning disabilities) should be grateful for what the market decides they are worth, even if that amount isn't enough for them live to humanely.
It's amazing that people actually think like you do. When will we ever learn to stop being so selfish.
It is an appalling attitude to have. Let's hope he or she never falls on hard times.It's amazing that people actually think like you do. When will we ever learn to stop being so selfish.
BigMon said:
MaxSo said:
I'm not sure what is supposed to be wrong with "the lower ranks". Anyway, so what you are saying is that people who may not be as able, very possibly through no fault of their own, (eg broken family, poor education, learning disabilities) should be grateful for what the market decides they are worth, even if that amount isn't enough for them live to humanely.
It's amazing that people actually think like you do. When will we ever learn to stop being so selfish.
It is an appalling attitude to have. Let's hope he or she never falls on hard times.It's amazing that people actually think like you do. When will we ever learn to stop being so selfish.
If the amount someone is able to earn in the free market isn't enough to support them, that's where government has a duty to step in with benefits etc
However the market itself doesn't; people get paid in parallel with how much their skills are worth to others. We have no right to expect someone to pay us whatever we want for doing whatever job we like (or are able to).
What you are saying is that someone who generates more measurable VALUE - be that directly to their customers, or for their employers - perhaps through no fault of their own (e.g. good family, happening to grow up in an area with a good school, genetic propensity for ambition or a natural aptitude for something) shouldn't receive any more reward than their peers who don't generate as much value.
What an unproductive, crab-bucket mentality.
People seem to forget: Any salary you receive is because someone else PAYS you for something - it's not a magic dollop of money from thin air. Normally it's because you provide greater value to them than what it costs to pay you, by allowing them to make more money than if they didn't have your help.
MaxSo, I look forward to receiving a £50 note in the post from you in exchange for me doing nothing at all. I mean, you're not selfish, are you?
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 16:17
Venturist said:
Nothing is wrong with "the lower ranks"
If the amount someone is able to earn in the free market isn't enough to support them, that's where government has a duty to step in with benefits etc
However the market itself doesn't; people get paid in parallel with how much their skills are worth to others. We have no right to expect someone to pay us whatever we want for doing whatever job we like (or are able to).
What you are saying is that someone who generates more measurable VALUE - be that directly to their customers, or for their employers - perhaps through no fault of their own (e.g. good family, happening to grow up in an area with a good school, genetic propensity for ambition or a natural aptitude for something) shouldn't receive any more reward than their peers who don't generate as much value.
What an unproductive, crab-bucket mentality.
People seem to forget: Any salary you receive is because someone else PAYS you for something - it's not a magic dollop of money from thin air. Normally it's because you provide greater value to them than what it costs to pay you, by allowing them to make more money than if they didn't have your help.
MaxSo, I look forward to receiving a £50 note in the post from you in exchange for me doing nothing at all. I mean, you're not selfish, are you?
Er, it was you that appeared to question the use of the term “the lower ranks”. Bizarrely seemingly trying to express some sort of concern for people on minimum wage while their bosses are awarding themselves pay rises, not by wanting to address the gross inequality in pay but instead by taking umbrage with the term lower ranks. They are in the lower ranks of the company.If the amount someone is able to earn in the free market isn't enough to support them, that's where government has a duty to step in with benefits etc
However the market itself doesn't; people get paid in parallel with how much their skills are worth to others. We have no right to expect someone to pay us whatever we want for doing whatever job we like (or are able to).
What you are saying is that someone who generates more measurable VALUE - be that directly to their customers, or for their employers - perhaps through no fault of their own (e.g. good family, happening to grow up in an area with a good school, genetic propensity for ambition or a natural aptitude for something) shouldn't receive any more reward than their peers who don't generate as much value.
What an unproductive, crab-bucket mentality.
People seem to forget: Any salary you receive is because someone else PAYS you for something - it's not a magic dollop of money from thin air. Normally it's because you provide greater value to them than what it costs to pay you, by allowing them to make more money than if they didn't have your help.
MaxSo, I look forward to receiving a £50 note in the post from you in exchange for me doing nothing at all. I mean, you're not selfish, are you?
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 16:17
So, you think the market should be completely unshackled, with the minimum wage abolished and bosses paying whatever they can get away with. You think that when people doing current minimum wage jobs are then paid, say, £5 per hour and can’t live humanely, they should either go and find a better paid job or start their own business. You think that the majority, who won’t be able to find a better paid job (not least because other companies will lower their pay offer in the new no-minimum wage economy), and don’t have the particular set of skills, capital and time needed to create a successful business, should then be supported with benefits. So you think people in work being on benefits is a good thing? That sounds to me like the recipe for a massive transfer of wealth from the majority tax payer to the top earners - oh kind of like what has been happening up to now.
Does it not occur to you that, just perhaps, some people may be being paid less than what they are actually worth, either because the value of the work they do is not properly evaluated by “the market” or those that actually decide what the pay should be, or perhaps because they are being exploited.
How much “value” does a care home worker or a street sweeper create? Is it more or less than an advertising executive working for a company with contracts with alcoholic and tobacco companies?
Oh and saying that wage inequality is too high is not the same as saying everyone should be paid the same. Your thinking is very confused.
talksthetorque said:
Speaks man who never worked in (eta: "someone else's") Family business.
Most family businesses I know where there are sons and daughters involved, they get paid below what they really should be getting, but they take it as an investment in inheritance/future job position which will be better.Edited by talksthetorque on Monday 8th May 15:58
However I know a few where the jobs awarded to sons/daughters are mind-blowingly corrupt and no one seems to question it at all. When you've got someone working for more than a decade towards a nice managerial job and then the owner just decides his 18 year old son can have the next vacancy, for instance. I know someone exactly that happened to and he didn't say a word. I don't know what I would've done, but it wouldn't be to continue as if nothing had happened.
Saleen836 said:
Would it not be more sensible to pay off £50k from the outstanding mortgage?
Great question!The short answer is that would give me an instant return of c.3% (by paying that much off my mortgage) but Vanguard tends to return quite a bit more than that, and with the benefit of compound returns too - hence time in the market versus timing the market.
Venturist said:
The "lower ranks" as you delicately put it are free to leave to work for a better wage elsewhere; if none exists but they think they can do the job better and keep more for themselves they're welcome to go for that too by starting their own business; if they are unwilling or unable to find better work AND unable or unwilling to start their own competing business then why exactly are we concluding their salary is wrong?
I do not begrudge the people paid more than me because I am happy to admit they have skills I do not - and sometimes these are "soft skills" like salesmanship ie being better at convincing their superiors they're good at their job, regardless of whether they actually perform better or not. It's still a skill.
And minimum wage is a nice idea that ultimately drives inflation and stifles everyone. We would all be better off if it were scrapped.
"You poor people. You're already paid too much. If you don't like it, leave. You can train yourself for a better job, or something.I do not begrudge the people paid more than me because I am happy to admit they have skills I do not - and sometimes these are "soft skills" like salesmanship ie being better at convincing their superiors they're good at their job, regardless of whether they actually perform better or not. It's still a skill.
And minimum wage is a nice idea that ultimately drives inflation and stifles everyone. We would all be better off if it were scrapped.
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 13:19
Edited by Venturist on Monday 8th May 13:20
Your post amounts to little else.
Incredible.
zarjaz1991 said:
"You poor people. You're already paid too much. If you don't like it, leave. You can train yourself for a better job, or something.
Your post amounts to little else.
Incredible.
Woe is me, for I have no skills to offer the world that anyone gives a sYour post amounts to little else.
Incredible.
t about. But I'm still entitled to live a comfy life! Someone should be forced to pay for it on my behalf. When did society move from "how can I make something of myself" to "other people have nice things, that's not fair"?
We live in the Information Age, anyone can teach themselves anything for free if they have any kind of internet access at all - over 90% of the UK by most recent data. Retailing is easier than ever now you can do it online, advertising is easy for services you can provide, and people are making bucketloads out of marketing literally nothing but their personality on YouTube and livestreams etc. The world is your oyster nowadays. People are obsessed with thinking about what they SHOULD have, and not about how to MAKE IT HAPPEN for themselves.
Personal responsibility is dead.
Venturist said:
Woe is me, for I have no skills to offer the world that anyone gives a st about. But I'm still entitled to live a comfy life! Someone should be forced to pay for it on my behalf.
When did society move from "how can I make something of myself" to "other people have nice things, that's not fair"?
We live in the Information Age, anyone can teach themselves anything for free if they have any kind of internet access at all - over 90% of the UK by most recent data. Retailing is easier than ever now you can do it online, advertising is easy for services you can provide, and people are making bucketloads out of marketing literally nothing but their personality on YouTube and livestreams etc. The world is your oyster nowadays. People are obsessed with thinking about what they SHOULD have, and not about how to MAKE IT HAPPEN for themselves.
Personal responsibility is dead.
Not everyone has the skills to run a business. You can be great at a specific trade but have zero business skills.t about. But I'm still entitled to live a comfy life! Someone should be forced to pay for it on my behalf. When did society move from "how can I make something of myself" to "other people have nice things, that's not fair"?
We live in the Information Age, anyone can teach themselves anything for free if they have any kind of internet access at all - over 90% of the UK by most recent data. Retailing is easier than ever now you can do it online, advertising is easy for services you can provide, and people are making bucketloads out of marketing literally nothing but their personality on YouTube and livestreams etc. The world is your oyster nowadays. People are obsessed with thinking about what they SHOULD have, and not about how to MAKE IT HAPPEN for themselves.
Personal responsibility is dead.
Additionally, setting up a viable business generally needs working capital. People on minimum wage won't generally have any.
And as for "train yourself on the internet for free". Of course, it's so easy. That's why everyone does it and nobody earns the minimum wage any more.
At one time there evening classes you could use to upskill yourself at minimal cost, funding for these was not just slashed it was almost entirely removed, so they mostly don't exist any more, and where they do they cost thousands. Out of the reach of minimum wage earners.
I'm not suggesting you cannot better yourself, but berating people on minimum wage because they can't get out of the trap they find themselves in is blinkered to say the least. You need to get out into the real world more.
I'm no lefty, but the current government is making it clear that it is not interested in "the lower ranks" and they are being left to stew in their own juice. You are implying that they are all lazy feckless wastrels, and that's simply not true. Society does not want them to progress and seeks to keep a boot on their throat.
zarjaz1991 said:
Not everyone has the skills to run a business. You can be great at a specific trade but have zero business skills.
Additionally, setting up a viable business generally needs working capital. People on minimum wage won't generally have any.
And as for "train yourself on the internet for free". Of course, it's so easy. That's why everyone does it and nobody earns the minimum wage any more.
At one time there evening classes you could use to upskill yourself at minimal cost, funding for these was not just slashed it was almost entirely removed, so they mostly don't exist any more, and where they do they cost thousands. Out of the reach of minimum wage earners.
I'm not suggesting you cannot better yourself, but berating people on minimum wage because they can't get out of the trap they find themselves in is blinkered to say the least. You need to get out into the real world more.
I'm no lefty, but the current government is making it clear that it is not interested in "the lower ranks" and they are being left to stew in their own juice. You are implying that they are all lazy feckless wastrels, and that's simply not true. Society does not want them to progress and seeks to keep a boot on their throat.
But then that person is not "worth" what they want if they don't have the skills required - you can;t run a business, your not worth CEO money etc.Additionally, setting up a viable business generally needs working capital. People on minimum wage won't generally have any.
And as for "train yourself on the internet for free". Of course, it's so easy. That's why everyone does it and nobody earns the minimum wage any more.
At one time there evening classes you could use to upskill yourself at minimal cost, funding for these was not just slashed it was almost entirely removed, so they mostly don't exist any more, and where they do they cost thousands. Out of the reach of minimum wage earners.
I'm not suggesting you cannot better yourself, but berating people on minimum wage because they can't get out of the trap they find themselves in is blinkered to say the least. You need to get out into the real world more.
I'm no lefty, but the current government is making it clear that it is not interested in "the lower ranks" and they are being left to stew in their own juice. You are implying that they are all lazy feckless wastrels, and that's simply not true. Society does not want them to progress and seeks to keep a boot on their throat.
I can think of a number of jobs which require £0 in the way of capital investment, but often a lot in mental/physical effort to learn a new trade/skills. (language interpreter, CAD design etc., typing, digital records creator etc.)
Thing is in a perfect society minimum wage should be abolished, although this is only possible when labour growth is restricted, (I don't necessarily advocate this currently). Problem is that although wages naturally grow, due to immigration there has been a sizeable increase in low-skill labour with somebody always willing to work for the lower wage as it's double what they'd get "at home" (e.g. elderly care/nurses) - Specifically skilled labour shortage = higher cost of labour for that skill, this link has been broken, partially the cause for inequality too!
This government has done more for the lower ranks than Labour did though, beyond hand out free laptop's, council houses and benefits.
The tax free allowance has been raised menaing most lower earners pay far less tax
The economy has been fixed so that people now have a chance of getting a job
Corporation tax has been lowered to encourage company formation here to grow point 2 further
Simplified benefits where it now actually benefits you to work
Thing is now, if you work, no matter how much or little you earn you are better off (remember the cost of basic goods and services hasn't risen much!), if you sit at home all day you're likely worse off - no big issue as far as I'm concerned.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff