R K Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Britain has seem massive immigration of people in the working age range over recent years. The number of people in jobs according to the ONS labour market survey is on the rise with 32.1 million in work. Moreover this is not just a product of immigration since the employment rate of 16-65 year olds is now 73.3% of the workforce which is the highest since records began in 1971 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 Add in the fact that over 65s are the fastest rising group in the labour force with over a million in work Given these figures you might wonder whether this crisis is being hyped by those with vested interest in diddling people out of their pension rights. It is worth remembering that in the 1940s to 1960s employed workers used to carry a huge number of non employed people including many of the boomer generation as children (people conveniently tend to forget that they were just as much a 'financial burden' when growing up as when retired) and non employed spouses as well as pensioners. To my mind the main difference is that living costs for workers in the past, particularly housing were a good deal lower. good post. Agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) Britain has seem massive immigration of people in the working age range over recent years. The number of people in jobs according to the ONS labour market survey is on the rise with 32.1 million in work. Moreover this is not just a product of immigration since the employment rate of 16-65 year olds is now 73.3% of the workforce which is the highest since records began in 1971 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 Add in the fact that over 65s are the fastest rising group in the labour force with over a million in work Given these figures you might wonder whether this crisis is being hyped by those with vested interest in diddling people out of their pension rights. It is worth remembering that in the 1940s to 1960s employed workers used to carry a huge number of non employed people including many of the boomer generation as children (people conveniently tend to forget that they were just as much a 'financial burden' when growing up as when retired) and non employed spouses as well as pensioners. To my mind the main difference is that living costs for workers in the past, particularly housing were a good deal lower. Yes I think the mass post war council house building was also a great benefit to the economy. Enabled the State to capture the economic rent, rather than the over entitled shysters on property 118 and their financiers, that we have now Edited March 3, 2016 by RentierParadisio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 The jobs simply aren't going to be there. Automation will remove them. And it's coming far, far faster than the man in the street realises. It'll certainly remove some. I've recently seen trials of driverless cars. Tech that can be implemented in the next 5 years. I wonder what that'll do to the 300,000 strong taxi driver workforce in England alone over the next 20 years? If the unions and cartels allow it. And I've seen the incredible capabilities of the current generation of CAD/CAM/CAE software systems. We can't be far from being able to tell an AI system - "HAL design me a car/bridge/house/whatever" and he does the design and tells the automated assembly line how to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giggler000 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Right so now we need to know who will pay for it .... I think the young need to wake up and realise they have been landed with the debt and they will be in debt all their life and working until they drop. I have older relations, long since retired and their kids are doing exactly the same jobs as they did. The parents were at the same age twice as well off, housewise and spending money wise, the trend will continue with poverty looming for the current and future generations to pay for the excesses of one generation who had it all; triple locked. That has the smell of revolution. No wonder we need trident - keep working and pay for us or the oldies will nuke what's left... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 MS Excel alone can make 15% of jobs redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapori Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 It'll certainly remove some. I've recently seen trials of driverless cars. Tech that can be implemented in the next 5 years. I wonder what that'll do to the 300,000 strong taxi driver workforce in England alone over the next 20 years? If the unions and cartels allow it. And I've seen the incredible capabilities of the current generation of CAD/CAM/CAE software systems. We can't be far from being able to tell an AI system - "HAL design me a car/bridge/house/whatever" and he does the design and tells the automated assembly line how to do it. HAL: "I'm sorry newbonic, I'm afraid I can't do that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 At the end of the day the UK state pension is roughly equivalent to the structural deficit of 90 billion. It is an unfunded freebie that folk get at the end of their life and the Government are going to want to make those years as few as possible or the whole Ponzi will collapse. The shocker really was that folk were drawing it as early as 60 as recently as 2010, so the rest of us will have to delay receipt to pay for those that were so blessed. Check out the share of the wealth that goes into the pockets of the 1% today compared with 35 years ago and you will find £90bn + a bit more to pay for the NHS. The benefits of improved productivity and technology have disappeared into the hands of the few and will continue to do so unless people start to wake up to what is going on. How can anyone expect funding of pensions to come from earnings when the proportion of wealth created going into earnings falls as technology increases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Check out the share of the wealth that goes into the pockets of the 1% today compared with 35 years ago and you will find £90bn + a bit more to pay for the NHS. The benefits of improved productivity and technology have disappeared into the hands of the few and will continue to do so unless people start to wake up to what is going on. How can anyone expect funding of pensions to come from earnings when the proportion of wealth created going into earnings falls as technology increases? Have you ever thought about the fact that when you run the numbers for your global position you're in the top 1%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Presumably this would need to run with a total overall of National Insurance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Have you ever thought about the fact that when you run the numbers for your global position you're in the top 1%? Yes. The thread is about pensions in the UK. 35 years ago the share of income going to the UK 1% was substantially less than today and the point is that if the share of wealth in the UK reverted to pre 1980 levels there would probably be enough to fund pensions for you as they were for previous generations. That applies to both state pensions where funding via taxation of working age people has been replaced with non taxation of corporations and private sector pensions are now deemed unaffordable as schemes have been raided by those same corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Presumably this would need to run with a total overall of National Insurance? National insurance should be levied on company profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Yes I think the mass post war council house building was also a great benefit to the economy. Enabled the State to capture the economic rent, rather than the over entitled shysters on property 118 and their financiers, that we have now If they had spent all that quantative easing on building houses then the country would be in a very different shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 National insurance should be levied on company profits. No need. Just tax the land rents. Won't happen of course, as the "one percent" love their free ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 No need. Just tax the land rents. Won't happen of course, as the "one percent" love their free ride. Apply it to both. As the owner of a rental property I would have no issue with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Have you ever thought about the fact that when you run the numbers for your global position you're in the top 1%? Seriously?! That chestnut? Again?! Don't worry about your weekly raping, those over there get it everyday. Now stop complaining plebs, you still have it so much better than most everyone else. Maybe I rob half your savings, you'd still be better off then most so I presume you won't object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 We can't be far from being able to tell an AI system - "HAL design me a car/bridge/house/whatever" and he does the design and tells the automated assembly line how to do it. This is probably doable now. The computer can be programmed with knowledge of every architectural schematic ever created - every building, all the systems etc etc. It could design the building probably better than a human. The production line stuff is also basic and is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) Did your older relations use one income to buy their house? If everybody used one income, houses would be cheaper. Use one and you have any second income to spend on other things. People get houses as expensive as the debt they are prepared to take on. In a world where people use one income to buy a house, the couple with a second income have the advantage and can buy the better house. Now, where do you think that leads? Blame the rise of mod-cons. A house with things like an indoor bathroom (with hot water), modern kitchen, and washing machine is a house that no longer needs a full-time housekeeper. Edited March 4, 2016 by porca misèria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Add in the fact that over 65s are the fastest rising group in the labour force with over a million in work And they can use their free bus pass to get themselves to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 In a world where people use one income to buy a house, the couple with a second income have the advantage and can buy the better house. Now, where do you think that leads? Blame the rise of mod-cons. A house with things like an indoor bathroom (with hot water), modern kitchen, and washing machine is a house that no longer needs a full-time housekeeper. Where is it written that using one income for a mortgage means the other person has to be a housekeeper? They would have the choice to work and have a disposable second income, look after children instead of paying childcare costs or mix and match the two options etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Where is it written that using one income for a mortgage means the other person has to be a housekeeper? They would have the choice to work and have a disposable second income, look after children instead of paying childcare costs or mix and match the two options etc. Whoosh ... That's precisely what was happening in the post-war era. Starting with affluent Americans, and spreading to countries like Blighty as the level of mod-cons rose. Making looking after children a full-time job is a "first world problem" made possible by automating away household chores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Whoosh ... That's precisely what was happening in the post-war era. Starting with affluent Americans, and spreading to countries like Blighty as the level of mod-cons rose. Making looking after children a full-time job is a "first world problem" made possible by automating away household chores. I don't understand your obsession with household chores. If one income was used for a mortgage (like before) houses would be cheaper, even the best houses. Any second earner could spend all day shopping or on the beach if you like. Just not using the income to service mortgage debt for banker bonuses. This graph shows the difference between 3x main income and 4.5x household income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Seriously?! That chestnut? Again?! Don't worry about your weekly raping, those over there get it everyday. Now stop complaining plebs, you still have it so much better than most everyone else. Maybe I rob half your savings, you'd still be better off then most so I presume you won't object. Calm down dear, you're getting all ranty again Actually I wasn't making any general figurative point about living standards in the UK compared to the third world, but asking a question specific to campervanman. He was having a go at the 1%, and yet from his posts i'd gathered that he's a man of means, who I think is literally in the top 1% of wealth. I just wondered if he'd clocked that. Did you notice how he managed to respond without going on a hyperbolic rant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Roady Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Whatever the life expectancy is, then the retirement age will be just over this...roughly. I do not know why people are surprised by this. If the finances are bad it will be a few years over it, as they improve it may fall below it. The days of retiring early and spending 30 years claiming a pension are over....we just dont know it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 and do we think that private pensions will move the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 and do we think that private pensions will move the same way? So far they've locked them at 10 years below State Pension age. How difficult would it be to pass legislation to make it 5 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.