Casual-observer
-
Posts
3,800 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Casual-observer
-
-
53 minutes ago, msi said:
Not a mugs game, just an illusion as stupid gammon boomers pull up the ladder behind them then justify scr*wing folk over with m*ronic arguments and self righteousness....
Yes and no really.
Wanting a home with a job, wife and kids is/was perfectly normal and I wouldn't really see it a boomer specific problem.
Problem is each component became hyper financialised and fraught with adverse risk over the years with little room for error or breathing room. It's too much.
- A half decent corporate career means eye watering student debt you'll never pay off.
- A bang average family home means eye watering valuations hence even normalised interest rates requires a lifetime of servitude and you're one recession or one divorce away from the rug being pulled from beneath with a lifetime of debt hanging over you still.
- On top of this you've got a 50% marriage failure rate now where again the man predominantly becomes a virtual financialised slave until the kids are out of university. By then you'll be facing poverty in the face at the lag end of you working career. Again no breathing room for a recession or disability or a change of career. Get behind on that alimony and off to debtor jail you go.
Far less risk averse to simply opt out and men are far more capable of coping with lesser way of life for 'survival'.
-
Really this is boiling down to men opting out of the archetypical middle class American lifestyle…which has become a mugs game.
They’ve somewhat alluded to it via the recession link. As more men got took out by recessions, it’s just exposed how ruthless the marriage game has become.
After decades of this you now have enough of a young cohort who have seen either their own fathers or their peers get absolutely shafted in divorce courts as they naively went down the archetype American dream of an expensive house, wife and kids.
I can’t recall the exact definition but lower tier prisons in america are effectively debtor jails and the spine of that population are single fathers unable to keep pace with child support/alimony.
It’s far more ruthless in America and they’ve no scruples chucking you in jail for even one missed payment.Marriage and kids in the US especially has now become hyper weaponised.
As men opt out of that gig it simply means an increasing amount of men don’t ’have’ to go down the traditional 9-5 full time career road anymore and the same applies to going to university and loading up student debt you’ll have for life.
They’re reading the stats and are realising what’s going on but as yet no msm mouthpiece will dare spell out the real drivers behind it
-
The UK turned itself into a mutation of Australia.
Whereas Australia sells gig beach/work lifestyles to experienced expats, the UK flogs gig degrees to ignorant foreign youths with the promise of middle class jobs at the end of it.
None of which is true for the majority.
It sounds likes in both camps the reality is becoming too widespread to now hide.
Either
- Be prepared to work in sweltering heat in the ar$e end of Australia
Or
- Be prepared to get a degree in the UK and end up in a minimum wage job in McDonalds.
-
1 minute ago, frederico said:
Yes, the UK government needs to be a lot smarter. It’ll take a lot more than cheap money to fix the UK.
They know it but it's simply musical chairs at this point on who's turn the music stops.
Facing up to it means electoral oblivion.
-
1 hour ago, Blobsy said:
Look at the big picture, especially this country, it just isn’t possible yet there are still those willing to make the BIG bet on property.
Recency bias is a powerful force.
The spine of what drove HPI was rampant BTL lending and the predominant reason behind that was rampant asset inflation. Without that key component HPI is simply out of puff.
There is f**k all profit worth to be had being a landlord in resi if the asset price isn't flying up. To make it worthwhile just on rental income alone it needs to be nigh on mortgage free.
Even *if* rates dropped incrementally that won't be enough in it's own right to just bring back the sort of BTL lending required to get rampant HPI going again.
-
18 minutes ago, mynamehere said:
I can’t think of any other reason to be pleased about stagnant prices/real prices unless you plan to leverage future wages via a mortgage?
as for paying rent with stock returns, been there done that, it’s not for me anymore, the day to day uncertainty stressed me out. I want to relax in my dotage, not deal with landlords and oil despots
Agreed on that score hence I am very happy to be mortgage free in two years with a good part of 20 years of income ahead of me still to bank and invest. You don't and won't want the headache of renting, especially in this country with the way immigration is going to past age 50/55.
-
20 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:
Yeah I know. I'm just trying to make the point that we need enough social housing to meet demand. Not everyone who is homeless is a degenerate bevy merchant.
Before Thatcher sold off the council housing stock in the 80's and didn't replace it, most people who rented from the council had jobs. Not everyone wants a lifetime of debt for a roof over their heads, so they used to be able to choose to live in a poorer estate that many wanted to leave.
Capitalism will provide a price point for all consumers if left to work as it should. Unfortunately what we have now is not capitalism.
Ikea should be throwing up millions of affordable flat-packed houses right now, so where are they? The demand is there but our corrupt financial system that isn't capitalism won't allow it.
It's embarrassing because anyone with half a brain can see right through the current narrative.
Problem is you're harking back to an era that was still very much job and family orientated where long term careers were still a thing and close knit communities (via religion) still existed.
I'm not quite sure what the future holds for this country as it looks to me we are witnessing the beginning cracks of a society with too many opposing forces pulling in different directions.
The welfare systems a joke, national and local Govt can't fulfil the needs of a significant proportion of the population on the grift and from my chair I'm seeing a LOT of mainly men tuning out of the current system.
I've said this before but religion in the west collapsed and nothing really replaced it.
-
16 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:
We could give the homeless jakes an old caravan ffs. A shipping container with holes cut out for windows is better than the street.
The real reason for homelessness is control and a sign that those who don't play the 'worthless fiat debt game' get denied shelter and everyone calls them scum.
It's a bit pathetic, but then that's human beings for you.
Located where?
Then what.....? They're hanging around the city (shops/heavy footfall areas) begging for 'worthless fiat' to buy what they can....sandwiches, drugs, fags, coffee...etc
They're not going sit in an empty field in a caravan surviving off thin air.
I can guarantee you they'd locate back to where they currently are near my office in a heartbeat.
All you'd be doing is separating them from their predominant income stream. The point I'm getting at is you need a better safety net to capture mostly homeless men from falling through the cracks in the first place....once they're there it's nigh on impossible to get them back.
-
Most of the homeless men I see floating around the city are blatantly tuned out from living a modern life though. Offering basic shelter is one thing but then what, a roof over their head isn't going to get them off drugs and they suddenly be capable of picking up even a minimum wage job where they're paying ground rents of £600 minimum a month.
Once you've entered this sort of territory you're very unlikely to get off the streets...it's a one way path on average. This is what happens when you pile immigration volume onto a system where there is no safety net and little slack for error or bad luck.
What little housing social is left is now hoovered up by single mothers gaming the system meaning there's very little slack left in the system to offer cheap housing for anyone else.
The indigenous population just aren't having enough kids anymore, the national debt is only being carried by farcical immigration volumes and the cracks in infrastructure are really starting to show.
-
11 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:
I agree there will be a lot of old people going forwards who regretted not having kids. There Are at least two people will turn up to my funeral who give a shit I existed. Some say “so what” I am not sure myself.
Personally I wouldn't care who turns up at my funeral, I'll be too dead to care.
The problem is simply going to be this.
Westminster will (and has to) kick open the doors to different cultures to get in the numbers to keep the plates spinning and these immigrants will simply bring with them more traditional third world beliefs...which is family, work and religion.
It won't be first world jet setting beliefs.
Gen Z will end up being politically useless, homeless and seemingly skint if they spend their twenties and thirties single, childless and jet setting. The real worry is if it creates a huge cohort of single, childless men..... that's a recipe for disaster.
-
4 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:
Surely the US shat on the uks (and France’s) influence post war at suez?
They did but what happened was UK industrialists were thrown overboard and the UK banker class switched to our current hyper finance model.
Clearly a strategy was we flogged London property (with US involvement) as a way of capturing a lot of BRIC money here. Russian money flooded London and it looks to me it was an attempt to conduct this mythical soft power Britain supposedly has in the world which the Chatham house crew frequently alludes to.
-
13 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:
Big issue- do they want kids? My daughter aspires to a jet setting lifestyle and living in a nice appartment, she keeps going on about my wife’s place when i met her. - she was a finance director, my daughter wants to be a primary school teacher. Children are not really a priority for her.
I think if she met a guy would keep her then she would. But how does this lie with feminism? I have always taken the view that feminism has not done much for women.They may not but it will have long term societal consequences. They likely will once they're 40, alone and unable to economically compete being alone. That's where todays immigration numbers are going to lead you on that lifestyle.
.....but try telling that to a 20 year old girl today.
Culturally no one's allowed to spell this out, apparently.
Seemingly Gen Z will be facing up to a brutal reminder of why religion and monogyny came about in the first place and it was little to do with this patriarchal nonsense.
You don't and won't get a modern society where you can jet set in safety if you do not have a spine of hardened married fathers invested in your society prepared to maintain it.
-
23 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:
Totally agree. America held the winning hand after WW2 and have completely blown it.
How you can get it so wrong in such a short space of time is astonishing.
Problem summed up right here.
Deindustrialised and swanned around the globe feeling invincible by bombing a few third world armies.
I also suspect British input had an influence.
Far too much reliance on thinking conventual weaponry wasn't needed anymore to win wars. You simply pushed a few buttons, spin up some sanctions (economic and financial) and your enemies would collapse.
Seemingly huge faith was put into Russian oligarchs with assets in the west would create internal strife in Russia, it didn't materialise and now we're critically short of heavy industry to pump out cheap ammo to have a hope of winning a large conventional war.
-
Immigration here is being used to mask serious societal problems/imbalances we'd otherwise have to face up to.
Millennial's haven't been able to afford their own kids/relationships and it looks like with Gen Z it's falling off a cliff.
-
5 minutes ago, Stewy said:
I keep seeing this hopium now - the acceptance that I was right about us hitting target BUT BUT BUT "just you wait, it's going higher again".
It's pure copium because this wasn't the message the same people were saying six months ago.
You said base rate cuts nailed on 6 months ago
-
It's just another example of the repercussions of trying to hold up prices.
This collapse in volume will kill the patient (economy). It will and probably is rippling out as we speak in terms of estate agents, solicitors, banks, mortgage provider's, surveyors, builders...etc.
The idea persists at the moment that the only answer is to lower rates but that's not been helped by the BOE spinning a yarn for over a year how it was going to be temporary and the media VI's thinking about their personal circumstances.
The plateau only exists thanks to the market freezing up but the tide will turn once the damage felt from this begins to outweigh the damage from prices going south. There's only so long you can live off scraps
Banks especially will begin to favour transaction volumes to return.
-
14 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
We visit every coupel of years but in early Nov or late Feb, wouldn't go near it in the high season.
I visited in December, nice place and pleasant to get around.
The cities inherent problem is it has a lot of bottle necks for the amount of people.
I'm sure what enhances this problem is the Instagram culture, namely women who want to take 60 pictures minimum per photo opportunity, especially at the popular locations.
They snap, review, delete, snap, review, delete.....ridiculous.
I p1ssed off an Italian woman with her daughters by granting them no more than 2 minutes of me watching this farce before I walked into frame and took in the veiw for myself at the top of the bridge.
"Scusi, Scusi"....simply ignored her.
-
2 hours ago, andrewwk said:
maybe I'm being naive here, but what is the big deal with no fault evictions? If I own a property, why do I need to give a tenant a reason for asking them to leave?
Suppose similar criticisms I've heard about no fault divorce.
It means no chance to delay the process legally to give yourself breathing room (i.e. a chance at least get your ducks in a row and overcome what's about to come..i.e to find alternative accommodation as one example.
There should be an improved (or higher threshold) of justification to lose something as basic as the roof over your head. A lot of people can end up on the streets and in many cases never get off them.
The only real safety net in this country in these situations is if you have kids in tow, otherwise go get f**ked.
-
44 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
I suspect the prisons are already full of the kids who got plenty of smacks.
I didn't hit my kids simply because I never came across a situation where the best option was to hit a toddler/child.
If you dig into it a disproportionate amount of the prison population hails from single parent households.
-
14 minutes ago, scottbeard said:
A one off situation with a life at stake? If the parent judges a smack is helpful then well then so be it. But with a life at stake I’d be prepared to break all sorts of laws including driving faster than the speed limit to get to hospital etc etc
That doesn’t mean those things aren’t correct to be against the law.
We are talking about whether the law should be changed to make smacking illegal and whether that change would be positive for children or negative. I contend that it would lead to less smacking and that would be positive.
Your one off scenario above is very different to your earlier description of a parent who is totally incapable of disciplining a child without using smacking. Someone who is smacking their child on a daily basis does sound very much to me like someone who needs education, and if the education fails then yes for the child’s sake they need removing from that situation.
im tired of this debate now and my view is clearly set out above so I shall say no more.
You’ll just neuter the vast majority of parents in reality, as Timm says the nuclear deterrent needs to be believed because at some point in every teenagers life they will test boundary’s. Especially aggressive lads on a spectrum
I also believe we’re going too far in pandering to kids, psychological damage my ar$e. That’s extreme levels of violence that existing law should already cater for.
Kids also need to learn mental fortitude and if they don’t learn it young then they’ll find out the hard way in later life…as said sh1t happens in life and you need mental fortitude to deal with it
-
14 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:
So if "inadequate" parents are forbidden from disciplining their children in the only way that works for them under the terms of current legislation, how will the children be disciplined?
Yep, considering you'll have legions of teenagers spiting that in your face with far more serious spite.
You'll have parents counting down the day until they're 18, that's the realistic outcome to this daft idea.
-
Just now, scottbeard said:
We will never all agree on this, not least because different people have different views of what "common sense" actually means in particular scenarios.
That's arguably why we need laws in the first place - no individual person will agree with where every single line is drawn, but by drawing them in law at least we all know what society as a whole says is good or bad.
No because this method simply undermines the role of the parent. Unless you interview people who can or can't be parents then you can't trust them to be parents at all.
It's beyond ridiculous to grant parental responsibility and the rights that come with it but where it comes to discipline they cannot be trusted.
If my father hadn't been present in my life and had there not been a realistic authority in the house whereby I just knew if I took the p1ss there WOULD be a realistic chance of repercussions then I'm certain I would have gone down a different path.
It's game over in regards to keeping young, immature hormonal boys in check if parents cannot be entrusted to handle their own kids as they see fit, within reason. it's not black and white.
If kids operate under the idea you cannot hit them AT ALL under any circumstance which is what this is conveying, then forget it's over.
Start building up more prisons now because you're going to need them
-
23 minutes ago, scottbeard said:
Is hitting them really going to turn them into a better-adjusted human being?
Yes, I've seen it where a meeting of the force given out teaches the boy consequences which he learns form but this is based on the context it's the first time he physically realises consequence and it shocks him.
But yes I agree, casually doling out violence will make him immune so it depends on the context.
-
1 hour ago, scottbeard said:
Agreed: but authority and violence are not the same thing.
Unless the kid hits you I can't see how it helps to hit them, all you're doing is noting what they did and doing something worse.
I disagree and it depends entirely on the context which no law can cater for.
Hammer to crack a nut, I don't believe you need extra laws to make a distinction between discipline and outright violence to kids.
it's called common-sense.
Why so many men in the US have stopped working
in House prices and the economy
Posted · Edited by Casual-observer
We agree on the problems, not so much on the source of the problems.
It's more nuanced than merely blaming 'boomers'. It's just as easy to say boomers were hoodwinked into what path we were going down.
The legal industry for example (whom have a heavy influence of western politics) has turned marriage/divorce into an epic legal minefield 'business'.
The banking industry alongside Govt turned housing into a complete gig.
I've seen as many 'boomer's fall victim to this as anyone else. The problems more noticeable in the younger generations because we're simply further along now on a path of destruction.
A couple splitting up 30/40 years ago was far more palatable financially than it is today. A divorce today can easily see a man homeless and forever in debt for the rest of his natural life. The debt risk that goes along with marriage now is too big to ignore anymore. I'd say on average women are far more ignorant of this brutal reality given the subject title of the thread is 'why are men specifically dropping out of society'.
A part explanation is with a legal framework that by default overly protects women, men are then increasingly seen as disposable assets therefore the standard western lifestyle of marriage and kids isn't working anymore for men....because when it goes wrong the mans generally f**ked for at least 20 years doomed to a bed sit or his mothers couch.