Jump to content

The years of discontent, 2022/23


101

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, coprolite said:

You're confusing cash flows with prices, income with disposable income and assuming that all public sector workers own their home (while presumably the private sector equivalent are all at the mercy of landlords). 

Trying to rubbish a relatively well understood metric because it doesn't account for a load of other factors is quite a novel tactic though, as is inventing a whole new concept of the "absolute" value of money. 

He's making assumptions that are at best ignorance or at worst knowingly disingenuous to back up his own prejudices.

Edited by DeeTillEhDeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can only assume that vT doesn't have a mortgage, doesn't rent, doesn't pay for goods and services, doesn't pay for energy, or hasn't worked long enough to feel the ups and downs of economic fluctuations.

Claims to want a more socialist Scotland yet seems to have a hatred of public sector workers and their wages. Utterly bizarre. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Only if you didn't move home or weren't a first time buyer - if you moved home or were a first tine buyer you almost certainly had to pay more for an equivalent sized house and have an increase in the amount of any remortgage.  

I suggest you stick to history because your knowledge of economics is fucking laughable.

And for some reason, you brought teachers into it - I was challenging your nonsense that housing costs have been static - they haven't - and that's true if you work in the public sector or the private sector. It's almost as if you think only public sector workers have mortgages. Average housing costs over the period have risen over the period irrespective of the sector you work in.

Maybe put your prejudices about homeowners and teachers to one side before spouting shite?

 

Don’t forget several other factors, such as home purchase rates in 2010 not being the lowest, therefore a refinance to lock in a lower rate costs money…possibly having purchased a non-fixed rate mortgage…possibly having a intermediate term mortgage…increases in tax liabilities…depreciation of the materials and systems within the abode…fixed repair and maintenance costs (increasing over time, like everything else)…insurance costs…etc…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Only if you didn't move home or weren't a first time buyer - if you moved home or were a first time buyer you almost certainly had to pay more for an equivalent sized house and have an increase in the amount of any remortgage.  

A first time buyer in 2010 did not pay more for their mortgage on the same property in 2020. The inflation in house prices is irrelevant - the inflation in actual take-home income is however central to meeting that cost.

Someone who chooses to buy a new property in that decade has the payments that they have made on their old property to use as asset wealth towards that new home. Nobody forced people in a free society to buy a more expensive house when they are already on the market, so this mewling is redundant. 

The idea that wages have objectively fallen for public sector workers since 2010 has been demonstrated to be false over many pages. It's unclear why you've chosen this utterly ridiculous hill to die on, but here we are. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeff Venom said:

Can only assume that vT doesn't have a mortgage, doesn't rent, doesn't pay for goods and services, doesn't pay for energy, or hasn't worked long enough to feel the ups and downs of economic fluctuations.

Claims to want a more socialist Scotland yet seems to have a hatred of public sector workers and their wages. Utterly bizarre. 

Ah yes, the classic 'you don't believe in socialism' defence on behalf of such well-known Bolshevik firebrands like the EIS. 🤡

If public sector unions were interested in solidarity then they would merge to campaign for better pay and conditions for all staff in their workplaces. The unions that make by the most noise in 'socialist' Scotland are instead glorified guild organizations that serve to protect middle-class professions at the expense of others - often in the same workplace. It's a conceit to label that either support for workers or socialist principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, virginton said:

A first time buyer in 2010 did not pay more for their mortgage on the same property in 2020. The inflation in house prices is irrelevant - the inflation in actual take-home income is however central to meeting that cost.

Someone who chooses to buy a new property has the payments that they have made on their old property to use as asset wealth towards that new home. Nobody forced people in a free society to buy a more expensive house when they are already on the market, so this mewling is redundant. 

The idea that wages have objectively fallen for public sector workers since 2010 has been demonstrated to be false over many pages. It's unclear why you've chosen this utterly ridiculous hill to die on, but here we are. 

Lolwut?

In which alternate reality is this?

It's you who has been absolutely schooled by several posters on this topic In the past few pages.

The obsession with the public sector is a big fucking red herring - irrespective of the sector you are in, there has been a fall in real terms for a majority of employees.  

That's why I questioned the supposed rise in real terms for private sector workers in the original graph - and that it was misleading not because it was real wages but that it compared specific jobs in the public sector with the whole of the (very diverse) private sector.

As ever in these sorts of debates your prejudices against those who are homeowners or are in the public sector trades unions (and teaching specifically) and completely clouding your judgement.

It's bizarre that you are lecturing on the Next FM thread about getting broad electoral support for independence yet here seem to think it's fine to denigrate people who may be part of that very support.

 

 

Edited by DeeTillEhDeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

Ah yes, the classic 'you don't believe in socialism' defence on behalf of such well-known Bolshevik firebrands like the EIS. 🤡

If public sector unions were interested in solidarity then they would merge to campaign for better pay and conditions for all staff in their workplaces. The unions that make by the most noise in 'socialist' Scotland are instead glorified guild organizations that serve to protect middle-class professions at the expense of others - often in the same workplace. It's a conceit to label that either support for workers or socialist principles.

Like I said, utterly bizarre. You do you though, champ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, virginton said:

A first time buyer in 2010 did not pay more for their mortgage on the same property in 2020. The inflation in house prices is irrelevant - the inflation in actual take-home income is however central to meeting that cost.

Someone who chooses to buy a new property in that decade has the payments that they have made on their old property to use as asset wealth towards that new home. Nobody forced people in a free society to buy a more expensive house when they are already on the market, so this mewling is redundant. 

The idea that wages have objectively fallen for public sector workers since 2010 has been demonstrated to be false over many pages. It's unclear why you've chosen this utterly ridiculous hill to die on, but here we are. 

Public sector wages have objectively fallen in real terms as comprehensively demonstrated by the ONS, OBR and the OECD. 

One poster on a Scottish football forum denies this very objective fact. 

It is hypothetically possible for people's real disposable income to rise while they have real pay cuts if they have outgoings that are fixed in nominal terms, which is i think the point that you've been trying to make. You don't need to conflate wages with disposable income to make that point.

That doesn't mean that there's not a "real" value to money that has been falling faster than public sector wages has been increasing. 

The strength of the effect that you have identified is also not quantified. 

If someone was paying out 1/3 of their 2008 income as mortgage in 2008, and their pay rose 2.5% over five years during which their other outgoings rose on average 16%, the chances of that person being better off in 2013 are slim to say the least. That's a real situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VT's difficulty is that he just can't discuss things in a normal way.

Had he allowed himself to merely point out the limitations of considering 'real terms' due to the feature he's identified regarding long standing mortgage payers, he'd have had something worth saying.

However, he seems unable to simply do that.  Instead he has to say that the entire notion of 'real terms' needs to get "in the bin".  In fact, his need to put others down leads him into the frankly bizarre territory of suggesting the focus should instead be on absolute terms.

He lets the demands of maintaining his persona on here, cloud his capacity for thought at times.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2023 at 12:50, virginton said:

If you bought a house in 2010 with your bombproof public sector job to guarantee payment, then the increase in house prices since then is absolutely irrelevant to your outgoings. You pay the mortgage off based on the 2010 value - and in fact only benefit by having the asset that you're financing increase in value between that point and 2022. 

It is economic illiteracy to ignore that reality. With ultra-low interest rates the principal cost of living was fixed if not decreasing in significance, while take-home income rose rather than fell as the completely wrong graphic indicated. 

But if my mortgage has gone up by £250 a month, my energy bill has gone up by £180 a month (ish), council tax has increased significantly too, inflation caused by brexit etc has pushed the economy into the shit, what was a relatively safe investment in 2015 is now more expensive. My outgoings are over £500 a month more before we even talk about food prices going up too. Im able to manage but the idea that its not got worse is laughable.
If MP’s are somehow worth the £80k a year they get then I certainly believe nurses are worth the rise they have agreed. Its ok to talk about how the public sector seemingly have amazing wages, but we forget that we’re all in the shit because of poor financial decisions taken by bankers and the politicians they own. Divide an conquer of the working classes is absolutely rife on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

But if my mortgage has gone up by £250 a month, my energy bill has gone up by £180 a month (ish), council tax has increased significantly too, inflation caused by brexit etc has pushed the economy into the shit, what was a relatively safe investment in 2015 is now more expensive. 

Why would your mortgage payment on the same property have increased by £250 per month since 2010?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

Why would your mortgage payment on the same property have increased by £250 per month since 2010?

It could be his fixed term deal finished fairly recently and his remortgage fixed term deal isn't as good because of interest rate rises. 

Or he is on a tracker mortgage. As an example, a tracker mortgage could be set 1% above the base rate. In December 2021, this would mean the mortgage rate would be 1.1%. However, in February 2023, it would have risen to 5%. In this example, the mortgage rate will have almost increased fivefold, significantly raising the monthly repayments. I'm sure there will a lot of people who took tracker mortgages who have been burnt this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It could be his fixed term deal finished fairly recently and his remortgage fixed term deal isn't as good because of interest rate rises. 

Or he is on a tracker mortgage. As an example, a tracker mortgage could be set 1% above the base rate. In December 2021, this would mean the mortgage rate would be 1.1%. However, in February 2023, it would have risen to 5%. In this example, the mortgage rate will have almost increased fivefold, significantly raising the monthly repayments. I'm sure there will a lot of people who took tracker mortgages who have been burnt this way.

If you’d been on a 10 year fixed deal from 2010, you’d presumably have paid off a significant chunk of the mortgage, and very likely be able to remortgage to at least be paying the same. Quite unlikely you’d be remortgaging at £250 a month more than before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

If you’d been on a 10 year fixed deal from 2010, you’d presumably have paid off a significant chunk of the mortgage, and very likely be able to remortgage to at least be paying the same. Quite unlikely you’d be remortgaging at £250 a month more than before.

That would only work if you extended the term of the mortgage. If you had fixed for ten years over a 30 year term and interest rates were markedly higher at the end your payments could go up a huge amount. My fixed deal ended last summer just as things took off and - despite having paid a significant chunk off - my payments went up over £150 a month for the same borrowing amount over the same term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

If you’d been on a 10 year fixed deal from 2010, you’d presumably have paid off a significant chunk of the mortgage, and very likely be able to remortgage to at least be paying the same. Quite unlikely you’d be remortgaging at £250 a month more than before.

5 year fixed term more the norm these days.  If you were looking for a new mortgage deal with the same monthly payment then it might require increasing the term to do that.

Some people just caught out getting to the end of deals when the rises kicked in - couldn't finish them early due to early repayment fees.

My daughter got one of the last good fixed term deals - she completed the new deal the day before they were removed from the market.

It hasn't affected me personally as I've paid off my mortgage.  When we remortgaged the second time we greatly increased the monthly payment to take account of my promotion - it took 9 years off our mortgage.  Others may have done the same but overstretched themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Some people just caught out getting to the end of deals when the rises kicked in - couldn't finish them early due to early repayment fees.

They could, of course, have used some foresight and explored the range of options available to them including remortgaging early and borrowing additional money to cover the early repayment charge to see what was best for them in the short and long run.

Of course Martin Lewis didn't tell them to do this so they won't have.

Edited by Todd_is_God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

They could, of course, have used some foresight and explored the range of options available to them including remortgaging early and borrowing additional money to cover the early repayment charge to see what was best for them in the short and long run.

Of course Martin Lewis didn't tell them to do this so they won't have.

Early repayment fees could easily be £2k (as mine were when I had 18 months to go).  A gain from a new fixed term deal would be negated by those fees.

That being said there are some who stretched themselves too far - assumed everything would stay the same - and didn't build any wiggle room into their budgets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Early repayment fees could easily be £2k (as mine were when I had 18 months to go).  A gain from a new fixed term deal would be negated by those fees.

That being said there are some who stretched themselves too far - assumed everything would stay the same - and didn't build any wiggle room into their budgets.

It depends on a number of factors, though. Those with a relatively new mortgage would have been much better off borrowing more and paying back at 3.5% than letting it run down and fixing at 5.5%

The point was more that a concerningly high number of people have very little clue about their finances and rely on being told what to do at every step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

It depends on a number of factors, though. Those with a relatively new mortgage would have been much better off borrowing more and paying back at 3.5% than letting it run down and fixing at 5.5%

The point was more that a concerningly high number of people have very little clue about their finances and rely on being told what to do at every step.

Some people do need advice - the problem is they are often not proactive in seeking that advice. 

Even after teaching personal finance for the past 10+ years. and having a pretty good knowledge of different financial services, I would always go to a properly accredited financial advisor to confirm what I wanted to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...