equitystasher
-
Posts
347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by equitystasher
-
-
I think most of you are missing the point of this strike.
Moving the shifts to 12 hours will enable the Fire Authority to reduce fire cover in certain parts of London at night. This is the primary motivation.
Wholetime Firefighters work a 42 hour week which is made up of weekends and nights and this change will not change that.
The dispute is about Fire Cover and about sacking the work force enmass and forcing new contracts on the work force.
In these troubled times we have to ask ourselves what we value. Protecting the capital and those who live and work there from a major incident,terrorist attack,chemical,biological, road traffic accident etc etc should be a one of them.
Firefighters would rather not lose pay and not be on strike I am sure.
-
I think most of you are missing the point of this strike.
Moving the shifts to 12 hours will enable the Fire Authority to reduce fire cover in certain parts of London at night. This is the primary motivation.
Wholetime Firefighters work a 42 hour week which is made up of weekends and nights and this change will not change that.
The dispute is about Fire Cover and about sacking the work force enmass and forcing new contracts on the work force.
In these troubled we have to ask ourselves what we value. Protecting the capital and those who live and work there from a major incident,terrorist attack,chemical,biological, road traffic accident etc etc should be a one of them.
Firefighters would rather not lose pay and not be on strike I am sure.
-
Thanks Freetrader.
Great Thread. It does help us keep it all in perspective.
This isn't like the crash in the 90's as there has been a massive credit bubble,banking crises and public sector cuts are looming which are massive headwinds to the housing market.
It all depends now on what the BofE/Government. If they start printing money and decide to continue propping the banks which they are likely to do as the Banks have become addicted to suckling from the teat and have a gun to their head, we will see smaller,slower falls.
If they let the market adjust then there are bigger falls to come not comparable to the last crash.
I think we could see a policy statement from the BofE soon
-
Can they do combinations? Like rescuing animals out of moving machinery off a crashed plane? Maybe even in the mud?
Don't know.
Why dont you try it?
-
OK, you've sold me. Let's put a 1p on income tax and get dealing with a meteor impact tacked on to that list.
Some people on this cease to amaze me.
-
Surely the fire service must be ripe for cuts. What with smoking on the wane since the ban, very few open fires for domestic heating and widespread adoption of smoke alarms. There's the chopping the roof of a car wreck role but I would think the police could have the jaws of life in the back of a traffic car or get a local recovery operator to take it on.
My guess would be we're paying an awful lot of money out for people to sit around in fire stations playing cards in between painting and decorating jobs.
Also the advent of increased home-working must mean a retained fire-fighters operation could be far more efficiently manned.
You are showing your ignorance and a view of what Firefighters did in the 50's not in this century.
The Fire and Rescue and the Service has seen continues cut backs most of which has been implemeted by the previous government. The amount of frontline Firefighters and Appliances have been cut already unlike other government departments.
They are trained and equipped to respond in addition to fire-
Road Traffic Accidents
Chemical Incidents
Radiation Incidents
Terrorist Attack
Train Crashes
Plane Crashes
Building Collapse
People trapped In Machinery
Flooding
Animal Rescue
Inland Water Rescue
Mud and Ice Rescue.
Plus alot more I can't even think of.
They spend their days doing inspections,training,servicing and cleaning equipment and giving fire safety advice.
They are a insurance policy and you want third party cover only?
You better hope you never need to claim
-
Updated charts for Halifax series:
1) Fall from peak:
The Halifax average price is currently down 22.0% from peak when adjusted for RPI. At the same stage of the last crash, prices were down 24.3%.
(As usual I have estimated the current month RPI.)
----------
2) Price Earnings Ratio:
Explanation of the spreadsheet numbers below the chart:
The average earnings figure that the Halifax uses is mean full-time male earnings. The latest month is always estimated (by Halifax, not me).
The price/earnings ratio is currently 4.73, and the average house price is nominally down 15.9% from peak.
If the ratio were to return to its long-term average (mean), prices would fall by a further 14.8%. This would be a total nominal fall of 28.3% from peak.
Arguably a better guide to the long-term average is the median P/E ratio. This currently stands at 3.75. If the ratio were to return to this, prices would fall by 20.7% from current. This would be a total nominal fall of 33.3% from peak.
If the P/E ratio were to return to the October 1995 low of 3.09, prices would fall by 34.7% from current. This would be a total nominal fall of 45.0% from peak.
Of course, all the above assumes a static earnings number. Ratios can come down if earnings rise, and therefore prices dont need to fall so far. However, at present earnings arent moving much. According to Halifax, in August 2008 the earnings figure was £36,012 against the present £35,514, so theres actually been a drop over the past two years.
[Note: I've posted these data merely as a comparative guide, not as any sort of prediction as to where prices are headed.]
Very Informative Free Trader. Could you start a thread with that graph on and update the information as it becomes available please. I for one would appreciate it. I think its more useful than pouring over one months release from the Nationwide or Halifax and getting our knickers in a twist!.
Why are you guys getting yourselves uptight about one months figures? They are just about positive and we know there has been a large amount of supply come to market. . You will get some increases in a bear market. Expect them to spin the positives. It happened in the 90's crash and it will happen in this one. You know it is time to buy when the VI's capitulate.
I would like to see fast declines like in 2008/9 like the rest of you but that is just not going to happen as everything possible has been done to put the brakes on. This won't stop the declines but slow the decline. Us bear also have to be realistic.
People in general are very short term when it comes to buying a house and only worry about their current situation. People are stupid.
After the spending review in October which will affect both public and private sector jobs and with the introduction of VAT rises in 2011 you will find people less willing or able to spend more on a house.
Trend is down for now
-
QE was a tool to try and recapatalise our insolvent banking system and bail out the indebted through holding down rates. We have the most highly leveraged banking system and the highest personal debt in the world due to a debt bubble which fed into everything with housing being the main bubble.
The QE smoke screen message was it was to be used as a tool to get lending moving but this was a cover story as we know from the results of where we are now. The banks are still insolvent and very few solvent customers want their loans.
As we have become more in debt, interest levels have become more critical and any small moves up would cause mass defaults because of the high levels of debt in the system. They are doing their best to keep rates artifically low to bail out the banks and indviduals whether we like it or not as the alternative is systemic collapse.
The one shot suger rush of the government stimulas is now running out with the effect of "growth" slowing and assets prices starting to fall again as we come back to reality. Now they will be looking for a excuse to push the QE2 button again.Falling house prices, slow or falling growth will be the excuse as before along with a excuse to counter Goverment austerity measures.
What the BofE would like to engineer is 5-6% inflation with assets like housing stagnant. Ie stagflation to get us out of this mess. Basically they are scared of deflation more than inflation. Their policy statements and actions should leave none of you in doubt of this and a change in government does not change this. They are prepared to throw the savers to the wolves to protect the system.
What I think we will see is futher nominal falls in house prices but not the big fall some of you expect. There just isnt enough forced sellers and they are fighting to keep it that way with low rates and QE used as a tool to keep real rates down.
As austerity measures come into effect next year it will cause higher unemployment and stagnant wages across public and private sectors. QE2 will be put into action and we will see even higher inflation in everyday items and the continued rubbish being spouted by the BofE of the deflation threat to justify their actions to the markets.
House price will be getting cheaper in both in small nominal terms and by inflation but there will not be general deflation and there will be general high inflation.
We are all going poorer.
I have 85% of my house fund in NS@I Index Linked Bonds. I have 10% which is currently in a cash ISA which is going tobe converted to self invest ISA and Il buy funds in the far east and il keep 5% cash for emergencies.
Buying a house will not protect against the coming inflation.
-
It has now dawned on the media that all the indicators are pointing to house prices falling again and that big falls could take place. The headlines must be pushing on sentiment and making policy makers review their options.
The big question now is how will the Bank of England respond to falling asset prices.
QE2 about to be fired up I fear.
-
where will they go?...oh,and beware the Loose/lose pedants.....
yeah your right
-
Im sorry, but why would halving pay above 25K lose essential services...Im not clear...please enlighten.
You think people who earn under £25000 are the only ones that provide essential services and are value for money?
Saying loose essential services is a bit much...... ok you will loose the quality in some of your essential services. There are people that are qualified and experienced who earn above this in essential services if you cut their pay like you advocate they will leave. Simple. You would be prepared to keep a unreformed public sector for this.
I don't want a underskilled,inexperienced workforce performing essential tasks potentially life changing tasks.
-
you are clearly picking and choosing my quotes.
I have a few friends in public service..NONE earn 25K.
Now I have a but of a bone to pick with the Public service....their average wage puts the general average wage UP...and its about 25K. Now I think someone earning more than average should be doing a more than average job.
Personally, I think earning TWICE the average wage would be an exceptional job. Doctors and GPs maybe. TWICE what more than half the people get is fair to me.
6 times that is UNFAIR.
And for penpushers its even more unfair.
SO , for starters, and this isnt my debut for this call, its cut all emoluments for public sector staff, and subbies, and consultants, above 25K, in half.
Then id go for the waste....indeed, its an outrage cutting waste is NOT an ongoing commitment.
As I say, if youd rather wholesale cull them, and that will inevitably be culls in essential services as then they can scream and holler about the service sufferance, then so be it. Thats a valid view.
I have not been selective as you can see if you look back through the thread. I have just replied to every one of your points.
The whole point of being selective is to get rid of non essential departments. The over paid and the pen pushers and keep the good bits.
A blanket approach is not the way to go as nothing gets reformed and you will lose essential services.
-
I was rather hoping you'd disagree so I could force you to buy some really expensive caviar and tell you that you'd be forcing someone out of a job if you didn't. Oh well.
-
Why is taxing people to pay for things they don't want or use fair?
If you were forced to buy things you don't want when you went to the supermarket or risked being locked up if you didn't, I suspect you'd be upset about it.
I agree.
-
no, have you read mine...Salaries cut for all Public sector above 25K.
Wont affect the frontliners in the main, not the low paid ones.
It will affect middle managers, it will affect top managers, its will affect doctors and Airmen and Professors.
Its what Austerity is all about.
And yes, Public Sector workers OWE me, and every one else something...a service that we can call upon in emergency.
I have no issue withyou on the subject of the bribes in a Democracy, but that is another subject.
You obviously don't know what most experienced and qualified front liners earn and how important they are.
You need to address management structure in the whole public sector and look at what services the public sector provides and how bureacratic it is and make cuts. Yes than means sacking people. Maybe alot and closing some departments completely. But these are jobs we cannot sustain. Why do you advocate subsidising these people from others within the public sector that are productive and useful and do services you really rely on?
Thats how the public sector should be run Austerity or not. It just been to easy to expand it and exploit for political purposes.
The public service should give you the good service when you call on them in a emergency but they are people like you ( or not like you
) and deserve to be paid and treated fairly. -
double post
-
no, taxes apply to all.
the public sector can no longer be regarded as a gravy train for the entitled any more.
Yes a Government can go Bankrupt, but it chooses to do so by not printing and defaulting on debt in actuality, rather than in inflation.
Course, if youd rather that they lay off 1M extra to keep the salaries and pensions of the remainder, then thats a valid opinion too.
No did you read my statement? Your reply is irrelevant. I am applying your idea from another point of view and showing how narrow minded it is. A portion of people would be affected in similiar vane to yours but not all tax payers but it would be a unfair idea.
Gravy train for some public sector workers, not for ALL. You think ALL people in the public sector are on a cushy number which is a incorrect assumption and on what you are basing you entire approach.
I advocate laying of people that are not required in keeping basic services.Not to fill a mismanaged black hole which came about thought previous government simply spending pension contributions in their budgets.
Over the years people have to come to expect too much from the state in handouts and services and politicians have used it to bribe the electorate. We cannot afford it at its current size. But you also cannot expect to have it all for nothing. You believe ALL public sector workers owe you something.
-
What is not fair about cutting salaries over 25K by half?
Its across the board, its an instant cut. The government CANT go Bankrupt in a normal way, but it can TAX and borrow A La Grece, and pay public servants in IOUs and food vouchers....if you prefer.
Its not fair in the same way as putting taxes up by half on anything earn't over £25000 is not fair.
A Goverment can go bankrupt and it has happened many times.
-
There is a difference between the government being obliged to keep its promises and the government being able to keep its promises. The inflation-linked, defined benefit pension entitlements of public sector workers are enormous: double the size of private pension entitlements despite the fact that only one in five workers is in the public sector. Those pension entitlements are going to be paid out of current taxation; there is no pension pot. If tax revenue continues to fall the way it has done for the last few years and the pension entitlements are to be fully honoured, that means huge cuts to current public services in order to pay up fully for promises made decades ago. Do you really think any government (or electorate) is going to tolerate massive cuts to school and hospital and state pension spending in order to entirely protect one portion of public spending which helps only a small proportion of the population? Politically, that's totally unrealistic. Get ready for the public sector equivalent of Thatcher taking on the miners.
The wrong arguments have been levied.
Why arn't people questioning why Private pension schemes are so bad. The reason the whole system is rigged to cream the populus for the few. Look how private schemes work and how they used to work and how thy are used as cash cows for companies the city and those who run them.
It very easy to attack the public sector and you are correct about the overhang and liabilities. This is down to the massive expansion of the public sector. This need to be addressed buy getting back to what the public sector should be about which is essential services and a saftey net insted of a way of life and middle class benefits to buy votes.
-
The average wage in the South East is 25K. More than half the population live on it or below it.
The government has no money. it gets it from the tax payers. employees who work for a bankrupt employer get nothing. they should have insisted their pension payments were properly separated and ringfenced. they didnt and they are not.
Public sector is too large and the sense of Entitlement amongst its employees, especially the better paid, is also too large. If I want the service then I pay for it. I dont need to employ many pen pushers being paid £20K and above...Indeed, I dont need to employ ANY.
The average wage is £25,000 for the country not the South East. If we really want to split hairs we should be talking about median salary. It is a irrelevant argument anyway as we all know wages in the Private and Public sector are not and should not be set on the basis of everyone earning the same. You would not inflated someones salary using that figure so why should you rob people using the same argument.
The Government is in alot of debt but is not Bankrupt there is a big difference. The Government can still raise credit, receive taxes and change its budget to suit its requirements. The Goverment is still trading as it were.
When a employee or subcontrator signs a contract of employment it is not the employee's obligation to account for the employers future mismanagement. If a employer is holding massive debt because of mismanagement but is still trading it is not the responsibility of it employers or subcontractors to compensate the employer. The employer has to change the way it works and reduce workforce and change what it does.
The Public sector is to big,There is a sense of entitlement in some quarters with some ridiculous salaries and jobs. The autumn review should hopefully start to address this and get rid of the gravy train. But there also should be approached with fairness and not the blinkered approach you advocate.
-
para 1...thats correct.
para 2...people get what they pay for.
para 3...what do you propose...keep them all on inflated wages and keep them all on their pay scales PLUS inflation wage rises?
para1 well in that case you would end up no public service. What do you think is a living wage especially in the South East?
para2 Yes your right they should. At the beginning of employment the employee signed the pensions contract and made the obliged contributions and gave the years service demanded so under the agreed terms of the scheme the employer should honor it. Tuff New employees should be on a different scheme which most are now but they should be honoured.
Basically cut back the massive Public Sector which has got to a point of nannying. The public sector should be a safety net and provide essential services. You want something for nothing.
-
A more interesting move would be the cutting of ALL public sector salaries over £25k by 50% of the amount above £25K.
And for Government to NOT stand behind public sector pension commitments.....let the "funds" pay....that is all the recipients are entitled to.
By your definition do you think that ALL public sector employees who earn over £25,000 are not worth what they earn?
There are also many different pension schemes within the public sector. Many have been set up as pay as you go schemes which were obviously beneficial to the government of the day that set them up as they were running a huge surplus at the beginning of these schemes. Now that these schemes are maturing some are slipping deeper into deficit. So you advocate that current members should simply not get a pension?
There has been massive wastage and creation of non jobs in the public sector but you lot are barking up the wrong tree.
-
The tidal wave of money that has been printed,borrowed and spent by world governments is feeding into what we know for sure is a broken,unsustainable economic model.
The whole world economy is structured to feed the the MEWing habits of the West's over indebted borrowers based on overinflated asset prices and has been for a considerable amount of time. All the World governments have done is to steal from the future to put some props under everything and try to start the same party again.
After the mass stimulas from many different countires runs out next year what then? The consumer cannot take on more debt and the bank are unwilling to lend to the overindebted .Governments can only borrow so much and QE just hands money to banks who use it to fill holes in balance sheets and place bets . They will only get away with printing for so long and then they will have to go cold turkey.
-
Someone I know has just had a house purchase fall through in the New Forest. This mortgage was with a 50% deposit. The banks surveyor valued the house below the agreed price and the bank would not release the mortgage.
The response of the buyers. To view the surveyor as getting the value wrong as it is a niche area
With the surveyor not budging nor the vendors willing to drop the price the deal fell through.
Its Begun: 5,557 Fireman To Be Let Go
in House prices and the economy
Posted · Edited by equitystasher
Yes this is the hours a Wholetime Firefighter works Do you think a 42 hour week is over generous? I would think that it is higher than the average office worker who does 35 hours. It seems you are just ignorant and assume that if alot of them have second jobs then they do not work long hours.
If a Firefighter finds his/her shift pattern falls so they have most of their time off during the week when family and friends are at school/work then I can see why they choose to work and improve their income.