Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Young Turk

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Young Turk

  • Rank
    HPC Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

305 profile views
  1. Yes, if the proportion of women working increases, the GDP per capita increases because capita includes women (per capita means per person, not per working person). They could go to single income instead of male only (in fact, was it strictly male only in the old days?). In fact they would probably have to, otherwise it would prevent single women and lesbian couples from buying at all and allow gay couples to still borrow on the basis of double incomes. A sensible solution might be to allow either income earner to be nominated, or to take the average. If the public could be p
  2. If those figures are correct, doesn't that imply a decrease in the proportion employed? (70% of adults working, mostly full-time in the 50s; 70% of adults working, many of them part-time now). That seems implausible. Maybe married couples don't work a lot more. But combine that with people getting married on average about 10 years later and getting divorced more.
  3. There is probably an everything bubble at the moment. The reasons why people think crypto and houses might increase in the short term and long term are different, but speculation and the fear of missing out are a significant factor in both.
  4. Is another significant factor the increase in the proportion of adults who work (i.e. more women remaining single longer and continuing/returning to work after having children)? If you earn an average salary, there probably isn't much left after childcare. A lot of the net financial benefits of the move to two income households goes to high earners, capital and the owners of the assets (i.e. houses) which are bid up as two income households can borrow more to buy them.
  5. I just thought it was noteworthy that he actually blames Starmer rather than Corbyn: "When you’ve sorted yourselves out, we’ll look at you again’."
  6. This is what Mandelson is quoted as saying by The Herald: He explained: "Believe it or not, not on one door that I knocked did a single voter mention Brexit to me. “The one thing they did raise with me however is Jeremy Corbyn – he is still casting a very dark cloud over Labour. "Labour voters are not letting this off lightly, he still gets them going on the doorstep." He told of feedback from one voter, saying: "One person said to me ‘Sort yourselves out, sort yourselves out. You picked the wrong brother and you ended up with Corbyn so that’s goodbye to you. When you’ve so
  7. What sort of bad news? How will it be different to what has come out about Johnson over the last few decades? People who already disapprove will have extra confirmation of their low opinion of them and people who approve will ignore or explain away any negative claims. Johnson will remain far ahead of Starmer in the polls. Is there any mechanism to remove a very popular leader with a big majority?
  8. I don't see the argument for getting rid of Johnson. He's popular with Tory MPs, members and voters. He has a big majority.
  9. It's difficult to make comparisons between years because in some elections third parties take more, but 2019 was far from the worst election for Labour. In 2019 they received 32% of the vote. They have had a lower vote share in ten previous general elections: 2015 (30%), 2010 (29%), 1983 (28%), 1923 (31%), 1922 (30%), 1918 (21%), December 1910 (6%), January 1910 (7%), 1906 (5%), 1900 (1%)
  10. A popular theory shortly after the general election was that lots of traditional Labour voters who voted either Conservative or Brexit Party would return to the Labour party after Brexit.
  11. Residential property has high transaction costs, it's illiquid, has high maintenance/management costs and has higher political risk than most other investments. Big investors might buy a block of flats (these are easier to buy, manage and sell than hundreds of individual houses), but even these have a lot of downsides.
  12. I would have thought these would be a bad investment. Suburban houses, especially with big gardens, have boomed, but have rents increased?
  13. Which public services do you consider to be badly managed? How do they compare to alternatives? Did railways and utilities improve overall (i.e. a combined measure of customer service and profitability) after privatisation? Are things like healthcare and prisons provided better privately in the USA? Even if public services are incredibly badly managed, it doesn't follow that more money wouldn't help. This might be true of a specific project, but surely not of government spending in general. Wouldn't more money allow more police, teachers, nurses, doctors, schoolsI, hospitals, beds, d
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.