Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BoomBoomCrash

Who Would Have Thought? Low Incomes=no Savings

Recommended Posts

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/516a40f2-5a0e-11...144feabdc0.html

The only solution I can see is that people on low incomes are going to have to work until they drop, they really can't afford to retire.

Isn't it really only the Boomer generation that expected to have an expensive retirement of cruises, golf, second homes in Spain etc...? Previous generations viewed retirement as a short few years of frugal but peaceful domestic life; a welcome release from drudgery. Perhaps we will have to get back to this idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it really only the Boomer generation that expected to have an expensive retirement of cruises, golf, second homes in Spain etc...? Previous generations viewed retirement as a short few years of frugal but peaceful domestic life; a welcome release from drudgery. Perhaps we will have to get back to this idea?

Correct, the natural state of all creatures is the continue to forage for their livelihood, and die at the end. This ridiculous idea of 30 year retirements paid for by, er, dunno is a fiction of the post-war generation.

I will continue to lead a purposeful life which will include earning what I need until I die. It need not make life purposeless, quite the reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Correct, the natural state of all creatures is the continue to forage for their livelihood, and die at the end. This ridiculous idea of 30 year retirements paid for by, er, dunno is a fiction of the post-war generation.

I will continue to lead a purposeful life which will include earning what I need until I die. It need not make life purposeless, quite the reverse.

Back in the real world. If there are insufficient jobs to meet the needs of the young how are those over 60 supposed to keep themselves in employment? What relevance does the 'natural state' have to the discussion? The 'natural state' would involve most people dying before 40 due to disease, but man intervenes to prevent this.

Edited by BoomBoomCrash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we're all going to die from disease/obesity/terrorism/war/drinking disorders/domestic toxicity/hypothermia/starvation before we reach 60 anyway!!?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in the real world. If there are insufficient jobs to meet the needs of the young how are those over 60 supposed to keep themselves in employment?

Then the idea of "jobs" will have to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the idea of "jobs" will have to go.

Great, trading my pans for someone else's spuds....oh then I have nothing to boil them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Then the idea of "jobs" will have to go.

British Airways seem to have some ideas in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have moved all but £20 out of my Capital One savings acct since the rate dropped to the square root of F@ck all. However yesterday I recieved a letter from them stating they are pulling out of the UK savings market.

Their Interest rates since the back end of last year suggested they had already done that!

Edited by Nick Dastardly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, the natural state of all creatures is the continue to forage for their livelihood, and die at the end. This ridiculous idea of 30 year retirements paid for by, er, dunno is a fiction of the post-war generation.

I will continue to lead a purposeful life which will include earning what I need until I die. It need not make life purposeless, quite the reverse.

Not true of hominids. Even Neanderthals looked after their aged and sick, when they could no longer fend for themselves. The truth is, productivity has risen so massively since the industrial revolution, that no man has to work for more than a few years to provide all the necessities for his life. The big issue, is how the generated wealth (goods, services, food and shelter) are distributed equitably in society. We have two well-known methods, the Capitalist one, and the Socialist one, neither of which work well, or possibly, at all.

Our current scheme of rapacious Capitalism has hit the endstops: we are being encouraged more and more to consume endless non-necessities purely to keep somebody else busy. Add into the mix, the mechanism of HPI, which ensures that the labour required to provide one of the necessities, is artificially inflated to quite ridiculous proportions.

Why should it be necessary to work until we drop? Surely, society has enough excess production capacity for us to enjoy leisure throughout our lives, and not just the last few years? Who stole it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great, trading my pans for someone else's spuds....oh then I have nothing to boil them in.

:lol:

What i mean is the idea that work or trade is going to a set place for 40 hours a week, with lots of rules and regulations and taxes built in will have to go.

Things like the minimum wage, health and safety regs, having a boss etc will all have to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, the natural state of all creatures is the continue to forage for their livelihood, and die at the end. This ridiculous idea of 30 year retirements paid for by, er, dunno is a fiction of the post-war generation.

I will continue to lead a purposeful life which will include earning what I need until I die. It need not make life purposeless, quite the reverse.

I know you speak the truth, but it doesn't sound very enticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought we're all going to die from disease/obesity/terrorism/war/drinking disorders/domestic toxicity/hypothermia/starvation before we reach 60 anyway!!?

:rolleyes:

You forgot one, the Oracle said we are going to get wiped out by an asteroid at the end of 2012, so you may as well party on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, the natural state of all creatures is the continue to forage for their livelihood, and die at the end. This ridiculous idea of 30 year retirements paid for by, er, dunno is a fiction of the post-war generation.

I will continue to lead a purposeful life which will include earning what I need until I die. It need not make life purposeless, quite the reverse.

+1 always suscribed to that, I think many self employed people and owner managers feel that way, probably ease off but still work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Not true of hominids. Even Neanderthals looked after their aged and sick, when they could no longer fend for themselves. The truth is, productivity has risen so massively since the industrial revolution, that no man has to work for more than a few years to provide all the necessities for his life. The big issue, is how the generated wealth (goods, services, food and shelter) are distributed equitably in society. We have two well-known methods, the Capitalist one, and the Socialist one, neither of which work well, or possibly, at all.

Our current scheme of rapacious Capitalism has hit the endstops: we are being encouraged more and more to consume endless non-necessities purely to keep somebody else busy. Add into the mix, the mechanism of HPI, which ensures that the labour required to provide one of the necessities, is artificially inflated to quite ridiculous proportions.

Why should it be necessary to work until we drop? Surely, society has enough excess production capacity for us to enjoy leisure throughout our lives, and not just the last few years? Who stole it?

The huge success of Capitalism has been in telling the average worker their toil is worth very little whilst making vast fortunes on the back of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true of hominids. Even Neanderthals looked after their aged and sick, when they could no longer fend for themselves. The truth is, productivity has risen so massively since the industrial revolution, that no man has to work for more than a few years to provide all the necessities for his life. The big issue, is how the generated wealth (goods, services, food and shelter) are distributed equitably in society. We have two well-known methods, the Capitalist one, and the Socialist one, neither of which work well, or possibly, at all.

Our current scheme of rapacious Capitalism has hit the endstops: we are being encouraged more and more to consume endless non-necessities purely to keep somebody else busy. Add into the mix, the mechanism of HPI, which ensures that the labour required to provide one of the necessities, is artificially inflated to quite ridiculous proportions.

Why should it be necessary to work until we drop? Surely, society has enough excess production capacity for us to enjoy leisure throughout our lives, and not just the last few years? Who stole it?

Are you a descendant of a neanderthal? How do you know what a species that died out many years ago did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the idea of "jobs" will have to go.

"While economic textbooks claim that people and corporations are competing for markets and resources, I claim that in reality they are competing for money - using markets and resources to do so. Greed and fear of scarcity are being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely not enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. Money is created when banks lend it into existence When a bank provides you with a $100,000 mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which then circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000 over the next 20 years, but it doesn't create the second $100,000 - the interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to battle against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000."- Bernard Lietaer, Former Central Banker

Perhaps we just need more money to pay for all the jobs.

Printy printy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you speak the truth, but it doesn't sound very enticing.

Oh it does if you are in charge of your own destiny and enjoy what you do, the alternative is to work doing things you don't enjoy until you escape into retirement - having used the best years of your life up now that's not enticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
The huge success of Capitalism has been in telling the average worker their toil is worth very little whilst making vast fortunes on the back of it.

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

What i mean is the idea that work or trade is going to a set place for 40 hours a week, with lots of rules and regulations and taxes built in will have to go.

Things like the minimum wage, health and safety regs, having a boss etc will all have to go.

Exactly Injin. Of course the stumbling block is the rich who own everything. They are however outnumbered by everyone else who will simply redistribute the planets assets when the time comes. It's not a recipe for a peaceful transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The huge success of dipshit socialism has been in telling the average worker their toil is worth very little whilst making vast fortunes on the back of it.

It's actually been in convincing people that rules and regulations which limit freedom are the way to increased living standards.

While you are busy begging mummy for more mash, you aren't growing your own spuds and feeding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly Injin. Of course the stumbling block is the rich who own everything. They are however outnumbered by everyone else who will simply redistribute the planets assets when the time comes. It's not a recipe for a peaceful transition.

Every failing empire finds this out anew , it seems.

When the romans tried to tax the cities more, peopel buggered off into the countryside. When the russians tried to round everyone up and wall them in, they tunneled, flew, swam, impersonated their way to somewhere better. Those that stayed behind for whatever reason simply downed tools as far as they could - "they pretened to pay me and I pretend to work."

Humans are 100% self interested at all times - any time you take from people repeatedly or use force to stop them doing what they want to do, they become demotivated and eventually pack their bags either physically or if that's not possible, mentally.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infantilisation of the populace. We can't have well educated capable adults running around the country, that would be too dangerous for our so called lords and masters...................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.