Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
wonderpup

The Race To The Bottom- In Everything.

Recommended Posts

It does

High property prices push the cost of everything up in this country . Including the cost of premisis for bussiness , wages , taxes benefits ect the list is endless. Which makes our companies outsource their manufacturing and services. To compete in this global market we need to get our costs down the best and biggest way to do this is cut the cost of housing.

I don't think the average British family out compete each other they just have to pay the false market price for the best place that they can afford.

Right...but you just said high property prices etc caused outsourcing, not outsourcing caused high property prices...

Add: the problem started when Joe's wife saw that her neighbour is a DIF (Dual Income Family) and can afford an extra holiday and she went out to work too.

Most housing transactions are among Brits, and they are just bidding against each other. (A few Chelsea/Mayfair plots excepted - but that is irrelevant to most people).

Edited by easybetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not truth- just a failure of framing.

It's perfectly possible to argue that a given application of skill will create a consistent practical value in the real world while at the same time accepting that it's exchange value as a commodity will fluctuate.

For example would you refuse treatment from a skilled surgeon just because a sudden glut of skilled surgeons had pushed the going rate for his work down? Would he suddenly be a worse surgeon as a result of this decline in the market value of his skills? Obviously not.

So you can see that it's pefectly possible to say that a given worker can add a consistent value in practical terms even as his share of profits declines due to a lowering of his scarcity value

These are not the same thing.

I think that you are missing the point.

If the price of skilled surgeons were to be driven down by a surplus of skilled surgeons chasing a fixed amount of work, I would still have access to the same pool of skilled surgeons at a lower price for at least 30 years.

I would be happy and the surgeons wouldn't be happy.

In the long run, fewer people might choose to become surgeons which might drive prices higher in the long term.

This sort of behaviour is sometimes called a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There aren't different types of value - only the one. That ios, the value that people ascribe to things.

If I buy a house and it's market value falls by fifty percent- does it's value as shelter diminish by 50 percent?

If not then you need to explain how I appear to have incorporated two different types of value in single sentence. After all -this is what you claim cannot happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - any destruction of your competitors is beneficial to you.

However, outsourcing was not invented in year 2000 though. Britain has been outsourcing to the colonies as soon as it had the chance (probably since 1700) and yet we don't witness a 'race to the bottom' (else by 1900, British wage would have been the same as wages in say, The Crown Dominion of India). Further, an average man/women lived as time passes.

Yes outsouricing has always gone on . In the past we outsourced to make way for new better and more profitable industries. Today we outsource on cost and replace the jobs lost with benefits , which in turn has a knock on affect to those still in a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not truth- just a failure of framing.

It's perfectly possible to argue that a given application of skill will create a consistent practical value in the real world while at the same time accepting that it's exchange value as a commodity will fluctuate.

For example would you refuse treatment from a skilled surgeon just because a sudden glut of skilled surgeons had pushed the going rate for his work down? Would he suddenly be a worse surgeon as a result of this decline in the market value of his skills? Obviously not.

So you can see that it's pefectly possible to say that a given worker can add a consistent value in practical terms even as his share of profits declines due to a lowering of his scarcity value

These are not the same thing.

There are no consistent values, only relative ones.

Not only that, but all values are unknowable.

The only thing we can know is price, which is the point at which two people with differing valuations meet and trade. When they trade both of them win, according to their own value system.

If I have a wheel and I sell it for £1 we know that

1 ) I valued the wheel less than £1

2 ) Whoever I traded with valued the wheel more than £1

3 ) Both parties made a profit of some sort, the extent of which is unknowable.

4 ) Therefore all free trade results in profit for both sides with no losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I buy a house and it's market value falls by fifty percent- does it's value as shelter diminish by 50 percent?

Yes.

If not then you need to explain how I appear to have incorporated two different types of value in single sentence. After all -this is what you claim cannot happen.

There is only one sort of value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not truth- just a failure of framing.

It's perfectly possible to argue that a given application of skill will create a consistent practical value in the real world while at the same time accepting that it's exchange value as a commodity will fluctuate.

For example would you refuse treatment from a skilled surgeon just because a sudden glut of skilled surgeons had pushed the going rate for his work down? Would he suddenly be a worse surgeon as a result of this decline in the market value of his skills? Obviously not.

So you can see that it's pefectly possible to say that a given worker can add a consistent value in practical terms even as his share of profits declines due to a lowering of his scarcity value

These are not the same thing.

Unless you force someone to pay for something they don't want, how is this relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I buy a house and it's market value falls by fifty percent- does it's value as shelter diminish by 50 percent?

If not then you need to explain how I appear to have incorporated two different types of value in single sentence. After all -this is what you claim cannot happen.

Price <> value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you force someone to pay for something they don't want, how is this relevant?

It's a backwards rationalisation to make forcing people okay.

If there is a gap between "real" value and "market" value then it's ok for the state (or whoever, the union etc) to start chucking bricks to put the value back to where it "should" be.

Ego says "I am worth x" everyone elses says "Nope, you are worth y" and wounded ego then wants to attack everyone else rather than improve. Of course, improvement might not be possible and then there is the choice between humility/acceptance and grandiosity/violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right...but you just said high property prices etc caused outsourcing, not outsourcing caused high property prices...

Add: the problem started when Joe's wife saw that her neighbour is a DIF (Dual Income Family) and can afford an extra holiday and she went out to work too.

Most housing transactions are among Brits, and they are just bidding against each other. (A few Chelsea/Mayfair plots excepted - but that is irrelevant to most people).

Yes i know what i said .

The problem started when joe's wife saw that her neighbour is a DIF and can afford an extra holiday and she went out to work too. That was not the problem the problem started when the BANK MANAGER noticed these DIF'S and started taking both wages into account when granting mortgages. The DIF'S went out and bought bigger houses and pushed up the prices , then everyone had to become a DIF to afford a house and the DIF'S did not buy bigger houses any more they just paid more for the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The politics of envy, which are the only remaining weapon of the left, seem to be rising again.

I am extraordinarily happy to be slightly better off this year than last year.

Many of those on the left seem to disreagrd their absolute position and only care about their relative position even if a small number of people are relatively worse off while a large number of people are massively better off in absolute terms on a global basis.

As a person who was raised in the Third World amongst absolute and abject poverty, I find smug, self centred relativism to be sickening.

You miss my point- if western productivity is rising and capitalism is not a zero sum game why is the prosperity of the western worker in any way adversely impacted by the rising prosperity of the eastern one?

Why do you seem fixated on the idea that the western worker must lose so that the eastern worker must gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i know what i said .

The problem started when joe's wife saw that her neighbour is a DIF and can afford an extra holiday and she went out to work too. That was not the problem the problem started when the BANK MANAGER noticed these DIF'S and started taking both wages into account when granting mortgages. The DIF'S went out and bought bigger houses and pushed up the prices , then everyone had to become a DIF to afford a house and the DIF'S did not buy bigger houses any more they just paid more for the same.

The problem in this scenario is that the bank manager is not constrained in his ability to create credit to ensnare the future earnings of the wives.

If bank managers had a fixed pool of capital to work from then they couldn't get prices to insane levels as they'd run out of stuff to lend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss my point- if western productivity is rising and capitalism is not a zero sum game why is the prosperity of the western worker in any way adversely impacted by the rising prosperity of the eastern one?

It isn't.

Why do you seem fixated on the idea that the western worker must lose so that the eastern worker must gain?

The amount of workers has increased, therefore productivity goes up and wages fall.

If you were earning highly before then your wages go down as others start to get some of your income by out competing you. Your nominal wages fall and your standard of living sky rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly suprising, is it? The postwar generation has consumed more of the earths resources than any generation before it, and almost certainly, will consume more than any generation after it.

Anyone who honestly thinks living standards in the west will rise over the next few decades, or has thought that way since about 1990 is barking.

Pensions are merely a one off abberation allowed by a unique demographic quirk. Any attempts to replicate this without mass murder will inevitably end in failure.

Buy land guns and ammo and accept you decide your fate. The promises of utopia made by globalist politicians are hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Price <> value.

Nutritional value?

I buy a loaf today- tomorrow the price of bread drops.

What impact does this price drop have on the nutritional value of the bread? Is it more, less or equally nutritious as the day before?

I really don't this see why this simple distinction causes such problems. Price is one frame of reference for value- nutrition is another frame of reference for value.

If I said- 'oh the price of that bread has halved, that means it's only half a nutritious as it was before'- would this be a true statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in this scenario is that the bank manager is not constrained in his ability to create credit to ensnare the future earnings of the wives.

If bank managers had a fixed pool of capital to work from then they couldn't get prices to insane levels as they'd run out of stuff to lend.

Yes

A guy I used to work with ( he would be about 60 now ) told me when they went for a mortgage about 35 years ago that they took 1x his wifes salary into account and they had an interview with the Not bank Manager it was a BUILDING SOCIETY manager then . In this interview he and his wife agreed not to have children for at least 5 years . Could you imagine that kind of conversation happening today ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutritional value?

I buy a loaf today- tomorrow the price of bread drops.

What impact does this price drop have on the nutritional value of the bread? Is it more, less or equally nutritious as the day before?

It's less nutritous.

I really don't this see why this simple distinction causes such problems. Price is one frame of reference for value- nutrition is another frame of reference for value.

If I said- 'oh the price of that bread has halved, that means it's only half a nutritious as it was before'- would this be a true statement?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly suprising, is it? The postwar generation has consumed more of the earths resources than any generation before it, and almost certainly, will consume more than any generation after it.

Anyone who honestly thinks living standards in the west will rise over the next few decades, or has thought that way since about 1990 is barking.

Pensions are merely a one off abberation allowed by a unique demographic quirk. Any attempts to replicate this without mass murder will inevitably end in failure.

Buy land guns and ammo and accept you decide your fate. The promises of utopia made by globalist politicians are hollow.

The long term average for UK is about 2% real pa (US is about 3%). Since 1997 we have been having around 4%. So, say 30 years of 0.2% growth will put that back in

the trend - but that is still improvement in absolute term (and I think we will do better than 0.2%, but nowhere near 4% of course).

(The growth rates during pre industrial era ranges from -ve to around 0.1% pa)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

Ok- so in Injin world a house price crash would lead to houses that offered less protection from the rain? How would that work- would a roof tile vanish for each grand of lost value? :lol:

Lets face it- the market value of a house has no bearing whatsoever on it's ability to offer shelter from the elements- if your home lost half it's value overnight it's utility value as shelter would be exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The long term average for UK is about 2% real pa (US is about 3%). Since 1997 we have been having around 4%. So, say 30 years of 0.2% growth will put that back in

the trend - but that is still improvement in absolute term (and I think we will do better than 0.2%, but nowhere near 4% of course).

(The growth rates during pre industrial era ranges from -ve to around 0.1% pa)

GDP growth?

Or actual income growth based on purchasing power.

We keep getting told that the debt growth to deliver 2-4% GDP growth has been over the last 15 years, around 11% a year.

obviously something has to give, (and has, i guess)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss my point- if western productivity is rising and capitalism is not a zero sum game why is the prosperity of the western worker in any way adversely impacted by the rising prosperity of the eastern one?

Why do you seem fixated on the idea that the western worker must lose so that the eastern worker must gain?

I am fixated on the idea that German, Swiss, Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, Russian, Norwegian, Finnish, Austrian, Canadian and Australian workers will flourish while British and American workers will suffer.

This has nothing to do with East vs West or North vs South and everything to do with good fortune, good management, good relationships and good intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok- so in Injin world a house price crash would lead to houses that offered less protection from the rain? How would that work- would a roof tile vanish for each grand of lost value? :lol:

You could buy twice as much protection for the same money.

Lets face it- the market value of a house has no bearing whatsoever on it's ability to offer shelter from the elements- if your home lost half it's value overnight it's utility value as shelter would be exactly the same.

No, i'd be able to buy twice as much shelter.

Face it, market value is the only value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutritional value?

I buy a loaf today- tomorrow the price of bread drops.

What impact does this price drop have on the nutritional value of the bread? Is it more, less or equally nutritious as the day before?

I really don't this see why this simple distinction causes such problems. Price is one frame of reference for value- nutrition is another frame of reference for value.

If I said- 'oh the price of that bread has halved, that means it's only half a nutritious as it was before'- would this be a true statement?

Class is permanent, form is transitory.

Value is permanent, price is transitory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "practical value" just value and price.

Ok- so you have the choice of two wooden wheels- one is well made the other has a large crack in it.

The cracked on is the cheapest so you inevitably buy the cracked wheel, correct?

Unless- that is- the 'practical value' of the uncracked wheel is a factor in your choice.

Price in this instance seems to be a derivative of a practical value that you claim does not exist.

Suppose the seller, seeing you hesitation, offers to sell you the cracked wheel at half the marked price- you then look closely at the crack in it- has that crack grown smaller with the price reduction? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you force someone to pay for something they don't want, how is this relevant?

If you needed medical treatment and the cost of that treatment dropped by half, would you need it 50% less? Or would the value to you of that treatment remain the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.