older generation is not wise at all. they should be saving for when the current pension and old age benefit system collapses. i guess they are the same people that gave us climate change so i am not surprised at their shortsightedness
Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
41–50 of 75 posts
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I understand... you're gonna call bollocks on the idea that someone can have different likes and dislikes from you?
London is not the only city in the UK. That's what I'm calling bollocks on.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get a far better quality of life in most other cities on the standard developer salary than you can in London. I know multiple colleagues who have moved out of London, taken a large salary cut but ended up with a far higher quality of life and more disposable income despite it. Also the idea that other cities are second-tier is incredibly biased. Sure London has some things that the RUK doesn't but there are…
Talking about quality of life is usually a coded way of talking about not really living in a city. Yes, London is relatively noisy, dirty, cramped, etc. The only way you can get less of that in the UK is to also have less of the benefits of living in a city. I mean, there's no other city in the UK that even has a proper public transit system. Not liking cities is, as I said, a personal preference, and perfectly fine.
You really need to use a term other than city to describe what you're describing. I live in a city, Edinburgh, as do the various folk who have mentioned living in Manchester etc. Their not mega sprawling metropolises like London but their still cities. You're confusing the discussion by using the term improperly.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#44My advice to "millenials" (well I think technically I'm one, so let's say younger ones) is to stay the hell away from London. I read these articles on the housing crisis and staggering rent amounts and wonder am I even living in the same country as these people.
I'd disagree if you have a job where you will earn most by far in London. You can live really cheap if you share a flat and you dont need a car, so you'll save much more in London than other places. When you have a family things are very different.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talking about quality of life is usually a coded way of talking about not really living in a city. Yes, London is relatively noisy, dirty, cramped, etc. The only way you can get less of that in the UK is to also have less of the benefits of living in a city. I mean, there's no other city in the UK that even has a proper public transit system. Not liking cities is, as I said, a personal preference, and perfectly fine.
You really need to use a term other than city to describe what you're describing. I live in a city, Edinburgh, as do the various folk who have mentioned living in Manchester etc. Their not mega sprawling metropolises like London but their still cities. You're confusing the discussion by using the term improperly.
Edinburgh has a population of 489,000. You can call it a city if you like, but it's not comparable to London in any way.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really need to use a term other than city to describe what you're describing. I live in a city, Edinburgh, as do the various folk who have mentioned living in Manchester etc. Their not mega sprawling metropolises like London but their still cities. You're confusing the discussion by using the term improperly.
Edinburgh has a population of 489,000. You can call it a city if you like, but it's not comparable to London in any way.
It is a city. You're inaccurately redefining the term city to meet a very narrow definition, which is confusing the discussion.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can never have a right for someone else's labour. The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You do live off of "…
This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use…
Charity has been proven, time and again, to be completely inadequate to the task of providing for the poor and needy.
We live in a society. The rich benefit hugely from that society. It is their duty and responsibility to give back enough to help maintain and improve that society.
To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#48older generation is not wise at all. they should be saving for when the current pension and old age benefit system collapses. i guess they are the same people that gave us climate change so i am not surprised at their shortsightedness
A sizeable portion of the older generation having fun right now also owns property, and will massively oppose any political move that could depreciate their property values.
Sadly I don't think they are out of their mind spending so much, a lot of them have passed the FU point (enough assets to live decently whatever time is left for them)
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use…
Charity has been proven, time and again, to be completely inadequate to the task of providing for the poor and needy. We live in a society. The rich benefit hugely from that society. It is their duty and responsibility to give back enough to help maintain and improve that society. To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve.
> It is their duty and responsibility to give back
You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you. And moral duty should never be imposed by violence - it's always up to individual moral choice.
> To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve.
No. To say otherwise is to value individual choice and responsibility over the dictate of the masses.
Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the UK economy is very London centric. And the deck is very much stacked in London's favour due to the sheer numbers who live in London compared to the rest of the UK - (greater than 1/8th of all people in the UK live in London). I moved to London from a UK regional capital, and personally I've had the opportunity to improve my earnings much further than would be achievable at home for my particular bra…
You've increased your earnings, but if you run the numbers it's very unlikely you're actually better off unless you have a property appreciating at London speed. Over my career (I did contract in London around y2k) I have more in my pocket each month - after expenses - by staying outside the SE. Rent or mortgage, commuting costs, the price of everything else - food, beer, tickets. Sure, I could earn £x extra and have…
Not sure I really follow the "cost of beer" thing. One of the merits of high income high expenses is that "luxury" spending is relatively affordable in the long run, because your discretionary income is a larger absolute number.
On the other hand your time becomes more expensive. But since most medium income medium expenses locations means less opportunities to do other things with other people that isn't always a good trade-off. Unless those other people are your family, in which case it tends to make sense.