Youth 'fight For Jobs' March Today

[ken_ichikawa]

The jobs havn't been given , just the labour market has been opened up to people from around the world, 50p a day is good money in places in the far East, the open door policy opens this country to migrants who are glad to work for £4 an hour, its supply and demand, the idiots have increased supply so prices fall, our living standards will fall, in my opinion will fall to 2nd or 3rd world levels, I think it will be quick as well, we are borrowing and printing our way to continue our living standards this will give out by next year, my opinion is based on 2 facts, we cant feed ourselves as a nation, our manufacturing base has been destroyed, name a major British manufacturer of anything?

BAE systems, we are still #2 weapons export of the world aren't we? we should have kept H&K guns (used to be owned by the royal armoury).

We also used to be #1 exporter in the world for mercenaries, in the 1990s as disgrunted ex SAS types would go out and be guns for hire.

[miko]

Have you ever played the game Monopoly? I'm sure you have, so you'll know that the objective of the game is to go around buying up all the properties and then charge people lots rent when they land on them. The original title for monoply was 'The Landlords Game' and was supposed to teach people about the dangers of this type of behaviour.

We've been playing a massive game on monopoly the the past 2 or 3 hundred years now and every couple of decades or so it leads to a debt induced bust. Because the underlying mechanism of this process in the monopolisation of a finite resource (land) I would say that it isn't a problem with capitalism, but instead a problem with the rent seekers; those that want something for nothing.

Its a shame that genuine capitalists get tarred with the same brush, but because there's an unwillingness to make a distinction between true capital (tools that can be receated) and land the bust tends to get laid at the doorsetep of capitalism.

Disagree ,capitalistim is about the most profit for the least effot , and that includes buying land and renting it.

In the game of monopoly the game finishes when one player bankrupt's the others by having the most land . The game cannot continue untill the money is shared out again, when the banks went down that is what happened, however in the banks case a bigger bank came in to prop them up i.e. Bank of England , something they do not have in the game you quote.

[miko]

Collaspe = capitalism, in that the strong survive the weak die,

But the weak did not die the BOE proped them up

[Authoritarian]

Disagree ,capitalistim is about the most profit for the least effot , and that includes buying land and renting it.

In the game of monopoly the game finishes when one player bankrupt's the others by having the most land . The game cannot continue untill the money is shared out again, when the banks went down that is what happened, however in the banks case a bigger bank came in to prop them up i.e. Bank of England , something they do not have in the game you quote.

Spot on. "The game finishes when one player bankrupt's the others", this is precisely what has happened in the real world. The price of housing has risen to a point whereby the debt taken on to purchase a house can no longer be serviced from production, the land speulators demanded too much.

"The game cannot continue untill the money is shared out again", in other words the game cannot start up again until all the debt from the previous game has been wiped clean, then production can start on a fresh slate. The BofE malarky is just a futile attempt at delaying the day of reckoning. We could all stop partaking in this ridiculous game anytime we wanted, but doing that entails asking some difficult questions which at present nobody is prepared to do.

[lets get it right]

'letsgetitrite'

agree with that 100%, excellent summary.

Then you spoilt it with your following post! (ref. Boomers)

Property boom was not created by my age group, it was encouraged by EA's, lenders, politicians, and TV property porn.

We only purchased one house at a time (3 in total over 35 years) to LIVE IN, not as BTL, or as speculation.

The proberdee 'developers' that I have met, and who speculated/gambled with their futures are all a generation younger than me.

If you wish to point your finger at an age group who is responsible for this whole mess, then be more honest and single out the 30 - 40 year olds.

They are the ones who bought into the whole money for nothing, got to have, can't afford it, but I'll have it anyway, culture!

My age group (boring to the younger generation I know) tended to make purchases (other than house or car) with CASH, yes, real money, not monopoly credit card money.

It was very obvious to me (thanks also to HPC) that property was overheated by 2007, so decided to bail out of the market, I do not think that I have any special knowledge, only good old fashioned common sense, sadly a commodity that is getting rarer today.

No matter how you try, you will never convince me that I am in any way responsible for rising property values, as values went up so I had to pay more for the next house that we bought (from £5,500 in1972 to £64,500 in1987, but my weekly wage in 1972 was only £25).

Happy days, if only we still earned £25 a week, a home cost £5-6000, and paid little tax, happy days indeed.

You may be bitter about the situation, but if you bought into that culture do not make me responsible for your action, the problem with some of the younger folks today is that they will not take any responsibility for there own greed, and bad decisions made to gain a financial advantage!

RiG

The fact is that no baby boomer is responsible for rising house prices - individually. The planning system is every bit as much to blame.

The difference is - do you bragg about being in a great position, courtesy of the massive debts taken on by younger generations, or do you realise it's completely unfair.

I'm in the latter camp.

The only people who can do anything about this is your generation. You need to mobilize, educate your peers, raise your profile, start shouting the odds ... how many people in this country have even the remotest idea that their property wealth is based on the debt taken on by a younger generation?

I'd say maybe one person in a thousand realizes this.

Your generation's job is to make everyone realize this - so people become ashamed of high property prices - because they know it is at the expense of their children. I'm still puzzled - with Facebook and MySpace and YouTube and all the other communication tools, you would have thought someone would have been able to bypass the media stranglehold on the way the facts of life are presented.

In the final analysis am I going to sell my house at half the price I could get - to make life easier for the people below me in the chain? If I did that, the person who bought it would immediately sell it at a profit - so all that would happen is that they would get 'my' profit instead of me.

No, the answer is for your generation to stop playing the game - and stop getting suckered in to a lifetime of debt. Is there even one web site where young people can go and be educated - a couple of 2 minute videos is all you'd need - where it can be explained that taking on a massive mortgage just makes the people older than them enjoy unearned wealth.

I can't think of one. I always thought this web site would be a campaigning web site - but any attempt at encouraging some sort of positive action is always met with utter apathy and a (what looks to be a mistaken) belief that the market would to the job itself.

[Where is my pen?]

Lets reopen the coal pits. That'll learn em.

Why are socialists so stupid? Higher costs = higher prices = back to square one and then demanding £10 ph for a 'living' wage.

Wish I was a policeman sometimes, I'd love to beat the hell out of commies. Might even knock some sense into them.

That is awesome!

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

No it isn't.

[Where is my pen?]

No it isn't.

Awesome is the word buddy. You better believe it!

Too many commies on here. Too many commies everywhere, that is how come we have had a commie party in power for the last 12 years.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Oh really? Most lefties think they're a bunch of neo-Thatcherites. And they're not wrong. Old Labour are a tiny rump of New Labour, which is a centrist / centre right party. How exactly are they commies? All that income redistribution? Full employment?

Edited November 29, 2009 by gruffydd

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Got it! It's the way they, the ghastly commies, made the bankers pay for their misdeeds. Look at the bankers squirm now they've had all their assets seized

[porca misèria]

They are no more stupid than the capitalist's, let's not forget that capitalism would have collapsed this time last year if the Bank's had not been bailed out by future generations of tax payers.

Like it collapsed when Barings wasn't bailed out, or when BCCI wasn't bailed out?

It's Labour who has bailed out banks, just as they bailed out chronic lame ducks in the 1970s. Capitalists believe in people spending their own money, which is the complete antithesis of bailouts (where governments spend other peoples money).

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

Like it collapsed when Barings wasn't bailed out, or when BCCI wasn't bailed out?

It's Labour who has bailed out banks, just as they bailed out chronic lame ducks in the 1970s. Capitalists believe in people spending their own money, which is the complete antithesis of bailouts (where governments spend other peoples money).

Too right, people like Osbourne, Cameron and Zac Goldsmith wouldn't have used Joe Public's money to bail out the system that's kept them neck deep in wonga for generations.

[porca misèria]

No your wage just gets cut from 48 paid hours a week to 40, and you have to take the work home with you, I noticed ths massively in accountancy, first year we had say 6 hours to do a job next year we had 5 hours to do that job, the year after that 4.5 hours to do that job which meant that people stayed late (unpaid) or took it home. One of the most depressing things about accountancy was that I regularly had to take work home, meaning I was effectively doing 55-60 hours a week, and only being salaried for 36.

That's the difference between a professional job and a unionised one. In the former your hours extend to whatever the job demands (your figures look fairly typical), for a fixed salary; in the latter you watch the clock and get paid by the hour.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Wrong, capitalists believe in bailouts when they're having a hard time, and some level of free market when they're not (erm, let's not mention the taxbreaks and subsidies), or when they're pushing their agenda of the moment, whether that be privatising healthcare or squeezing the peasants some more (that's when they become free market fundamentalists). May god curse the lot of 'em!

Edited November 29, 2009 by gruffydd

[Authoritarian]

No it isn't.

Come off it, those commies just love being victimized by the police. It strengthens their resolve and confirms their opinion that 'the man' really is out to get them.

Give em what they want, supply and demand, innit.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Don't really know, but there were some leftists I saw marching near Hyde park back in the 90s - black jackets - very tough looking. The Police tried to make an arrest and then got thrown off by the seething mass. Most of the commies you see on anti-war marches are pretty peaceful intellectual types as far as I can see - it's the anti-..... crowd that always agitate - more nihlists and class war types than communists.

Edited November 29, 2009 by gruffydd

[miko]

Like it collapsed when Barings wasn't bailed out, or when BCCI wasn't bailed out?

It's Labour who has bailed out banks, just as they bailed out chronic lame ducks in the 1970s. Capitalists believe in people spending their own money, which is the complete antithesis of bailouts (where governments spend other peoples money).

Barings and BCCI, were nowhere near on the scale that the banking crisis of last year was. Capitalism could cope with those two individual banks sinking. Last year the whole world banking system was at the edge of total colapse. Capitalism would have followed.

It was not just Labour who bailed out bank's . Many countries across the globe did the same thing, to save capitalism from it's own mistakes.

[HPCatlast.]

The fact is that no baby boomer is responsible for rising house prices - individually.

Thank you 'lets get it right', I appreciate your change of tone.

OK, I must accept that SOME of my age group have been very lucky (not half as lucky as Fred the Shred though).

But, on a personal note I am early retired (nackered knees from work) at 58, sold a house, living on the proceeds of that sale until a pension (hopefully!) kicks in at 65. So do not confuse us with Uncle shred, please.

I am fully aware of all the problems for the younger generation (we have a son and daughter with mortgages) but nothing I can do about all them problems.

All I have ever done in my life (no exam success at school) is leave school at 14, join HM forces, after leaving that I got a job van driving, went to night school and trained to be an electrician, then worked as an electrician and finally an alarm engineer.

We sold a house to downsize, but when I felt that property was about to go pop we decided to rent, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I feel no guilt, I been given sod all, and I'll probably end up the same in afew years time.

What does my head in is the 'lazy' sods (not those who have been made unemployed, they have my sympathy) who claim AND work.

I have a close relative, about 55, not had a job for about 13 years (on incapacity benefit, because he was very upset when his mother died !!!!!!!!!!!) but he manages to work for a decorating business, + private decorating jobs, + shopfitting, + removals business's etc.

His rent, rates, and medical bills are paid for. So tempted to report him, but he is a close relative through marriage!!

So, I am only plodding along, spending as little as possible, and using HPC as my education of our crooked financial system.

Regards,

RiG

[scepticus]

Congratulations boomers, this is what you've provided for your children.

Let's hope you're not going to need our help in your retirement, especially as you're not going to be forced into selling your mansions to pay someone to wipe your ****.

there is a ray of light for the young.

As the number of working age people to non workers grows, the return on labour will rise while the return on capital falls. There are quite a number of papers which have modelled this phenomenon.

Long term the value attached to the labour of the young (and the rest of the workers) will rise.

Right now though they have everything to be pissed off about and they need to be as vocal as possible about it, and not listen to any guff about how very hard the rich old boomers worked for their wealth and how if they only did the same would be alright.

[miko]

Spot on. "The game finishes when one player bankrupt's the others", this is precisely what has happened in the real world. The price of housing has risen to a point whereby the debt taken on to purchase a house can no longer be serviced from production, the land speulators demanded too much.

"The game cannot continue untill the money is shared out again", in other words the game cannot start up again until all the debt from the previous game has been wiped clean, then production can start on a fresh slate. The BofE malarky is just a futile attempt at delaying the day of reckoning. We could all stop partaking in this ridiculous game anytime we wanted, but doing that entails asking some difficult questions which at present nobody is prepared to do.

Therefore you have discribed in detail via this and other post's how stupid and corrupt and unfair the system is , and how it has now defeated it's own self.

Why then in your post on page one do you call socialist's so stupid !! As they would not have agreed to play this game and things would not have got so out of hand

Edited November 29, 2009 by miko

[MarkG]

Why then in your post on page one do you call socialist's so stupid !! As they would not have agreed with this system and would not have let it get so out of hand

LOL. The whole systemic collapse we're facing is due to the imposition of central banking and other forms of central planning, which are socialist ideals.

And, yes, anyone who believes that socialism can work in a group of much more than a dozen people is stupid. The psychopaths who run the world today are utterly reliant on such stupid people to maintain their power, and unfortunately thanks to decades of centralised schooling there are now enormous numbers of them.

[MarkG]

It was not just Labour who bailed out bank's . Many countries across the globe did the same thing, to save capitalism from it's own mistakes.

You don't 'save capitalism' by bailing out failed companies. You 'save capitalism' by letting the failed companies go down, to encourage the others.

But then you are a socialist, so I guess you can't be expected to understand something so obvious.

[miko]

LOL. The whole systemic collapse we're facing is due to the imposition of central banking and other forms of central planning, which are socialist ideals.

And, yes, anyone who believes that socialism can work in a group of much more than a dozen people is stupid. The psychopaths who run the world today are utterly reliant on such stupid people to maintain their power, and unfortunately thanks to decades of centralised schooling there are now enormous numbers of them.

Wrong

The banks are certainly not run on Socialist ideals, could you explain why you come to that conclusion.

[scepticus]

I don't agree with that.

With global wage arbitrage and open borders and free markets the opposite is true.

There are distinctions worth making.

In developed aging economies the return on capital declines relative to the return on labour. If this results in capital flight to younger economies then it depresses the return on capital in those economies just like the yen carry depressed rates in the west. So the depressive effect of a tight labour market on capital in one zone gets exported to less tight labour markets.

In an open global economy my problem is your problem.

In a more closed economy with say capital controls then the effect is of course more pronounded domestically. However with various major economic blocs movnig to this grey dominated structure at different times over the next 20 or 30 years the resulting capital flows would be chaotic. I think its reasonable to assume that some kind of damping of capital mobility will come into force.

There is a limit to the amount of capital flight that will be tolerated in a democracy before the doors get closed to protect the development of the afflicted nation.

[miko]

You don't 'save capitalism' by bailing out failed companies. You 'save capitalism' by letting the failed companies go down, to encourage the others.

But then you are a socialist, so I guess you can't be expected to understand something so obvious.

No the whole capitalist system would have failed this time last year if the tax payers had not bailed out the banks , not just here but across the golbe .

Not a socialist actually , neither capitlism or socialism works on their own , there has to be both, and there has to be saftey nets when dealing with capitlism or only a very few benefit.