RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:We never have had it so good. Point to a period in history where you think those at the bottom of society were doing worse than they are right now? Is that good enough, I'd suggest no and you'd likely agree, but it's been a damn sight worse in the past

The post war era of Keynesianism was better even with the absurd Bretton Woods agreement.

I'm not agreeing with you at all.

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
The post war era of Keynesianism was better even with the absurd Bretton Woods agreement.

I'm not agreeing with you at all.

The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:
The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

jared_7 wrote:Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:
The education system was miles off what it is now in general terms, and was far more elitist, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. The NHS was delivering much worse return, which isn't to say I wouldn't like a fair amount of change to what we have now. Disposable income was far lower and typically any decisions around how it was spent resided with a patriarchy. You couldn't be prosecuted for raping your wife, you'd likely face no investigation even for raping anyone. It was illegal to be gay. Lives have been transformed by the widespread availability of central heating, washing machines and the like,typically female lives as males don't tend to play close to an equal role in domestic chores. I get you not agreeing with me, that's fine plenty don't, I'm not sure why you're so ready to disagree with reality though.

Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Tidy £4.6m made in a couple of days for the Labour party.

So, who was more determined to spend £25 and vote; Corbyn supporters or Corbyn haters?

I wouldn't presume that the two are mutually exclusive. There are a fair few Tory supporters who would be delighted to fight Corbyn rather than the wing that won elections.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

UGagain wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

I'm not conflating anything.

And you appear to be making my argument for me.

I was quoting Digby.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Because it isn't the reality.

You're trying to muddy the waters by tying purely social issues with economic issues.

I've been around for too long to fall for that shit, Diggers old chap.

I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

Donny osmond wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't think one can untangle the social from the economic, for instance looking at the pence in the pound earned by women than and now, it's not equal yet looking at comparable work but there's been a lot of progression. One might be willing to argue for the male head of the household, and specifically where such individual was unqualified, that it was easier to find in relative terms higher paid low skilled work - but that's not the same as it was better for everyone.

40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
40 years ago a worker could buy a house and support a nuclear family, all on unskilled wages.

Nowadays two paren't working full time, i.e.; twice the work hours, with University degrees, would struggle to buy a one bedroom apartment.

You are conflating technological advancements with prosperity.

There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Donny osmond wrote:
The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Though let's not pretend that in 1976 every family could afford to buy a house, and one might even question the virtue of home ownership over having a sensible social/rented sector.

Donny osmond wrote:The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.k

Big D wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

In Scotland it is around £140k IIRC, I imagine the average wage would be way down on the UK average too.

Big D wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

In Scotland it is around £140k IIRC, I imagine the average wage would be way down on the UK average too.

Donny osmond wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

People go where there are jobs that allow them to live the life they want to lead, or they compromise.

The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Though let's not pretend that in 1976 every family could afford to buy a house, and one might even question the virtue of home ownership over having a sensible social/rented sector.

The only way that the neoleerbals can argue that their results are better than the Keynesian era is to lie.

jared_7 wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

People go where there are jobs that allow them to live the life they want to lead, or they compromise.

The uk average house price is massively skewed by including London prices. What's the average house price if you discount London prices? That would be an interesting figure to look at.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

If you take London house prices out then you take London wages, which are well over £40k, out as well. So the national average wage is probably a few thousand less than £26k, and the average house price, not including London, is £180k, was WT just posted.

So you are still looking at 8/9 to 1.

In 1980, the average wage wage was £6k and the average house price was £22k. So 3.5 to 1.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: There are plenty of places around the country where a single income family can live a perfectly happy life, several members of my family do it.

I agree with you that inequality in the bigger cities has grown too large, but to extrapolate specific examples to the country as a whole renders an argument meaningless, and just makes it seem like hysteria rather than any attempt at reason.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You can buy a house around here for £30000. Actually, with some schemes you can buy for £1.

I think the problem with the UK market is that its very London focused. The rest of the UK is a different situation.

Awesome. How many branding agencies are nearby for me, and how many technology firms are there for my girlfriend to work at?

The UK average UK house price is £211,000. The average wage is £26,500. That is a ratio of 8:1. Its not just London.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I was pretty sure that you were wrong and a quick google shows my suspicion to be correct. I think in fact there were no such rules in Thatchers time.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-busines ... c-servants

Surely you of all people must understand the difference between advice and a requirement? No?

ACOBA is an advisory body, it has no statutory powers to enforce compliance.

"The Rules are prepared by the Cabinet Office and approved by the Prime Minister:they have no statutory basis and include no sanctions for non-compliance"
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 04/404.pdf

If you had any self-respect, you'd admit that it is in fact you who are wrong, not I.

I'll be delighted to admit that I'm wrong when:

1. You show what the rules were that thatcher abolished.
2. You show that the EU has an actual ban on people taking up employment with sanctions, rather than a simple requirement that they do not.
3. You explain why you went for the 2012 version of the guidance rather than the 2016 version.