I Am Not Going To Rent Forever.

[TW11]

So your pay is determined by how well you suck your boss's ****. Something to be proud of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is so wrong. There's no way I will ever follow the brown road to get a pay rise.

You have to look yourself in the eye in the morning.

I have negotiated a good salary relative to my colleagues (indeed, I am payed about 15 percent more) but this wasn't done by kissing anyone's **** or ranting and banging the table. It was done by rational debate. I am part of a small team of engineers (ten of us) that live around the country. I sucessfully made the argument that I should get more as I live in London and therefore have a higher cost of living.

It wasn't easy, and it took a complete change of company policy, but I actually enjoyed the confrontation. It took several meetings but they eventually gave in. I'll never forget the boss getting all red faced and sweating at one point!

So never, ever kiss anyone's ****. My experience is that most bosses aren't used to their employees challenging them, but so long as you are reasonable and present a solid argument you might get somewhere. Sitting down with the boss and banging the table screaming wont get you anywhere.

Of course they could just tell you to wind your neck in and get on with it - but at least you'll know where you are!

It must be a nightmare managing me. Next up is pensions - I'm working on getting their piss-poor contributions increased.....

[munimula]

Fair enough, then he is just lucky.  However if the company hits on harder times and you both do the same job I know which one will be laid off first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've got colleagues of mine that started the same time as me and they are leaving and getting jobs with around 50% pay increases. Ultimately this is what I will have to do next year. The company I work for has more work than people in the London area but they won't do pay rises because head office in America says they can't. It's ridiculous, they are hiring new people and paying market rates and hiring contractors earning 4X as much but can't give their own employees decent pay rises because their hands are tied!

[doogie]

No it's not. If it was a man and a woman doing the same work and one was getting paid vastly more than the other it would be sexual discrimination. So how does the fact it is two guys make it any different? It is discrimnatory pay, plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct. The main law around pay is the Equal Pay Act, which states that a woman must get paid the same as a man for:

- doing the same job

- doing work that is rated as the same (e.g. by an analytical job evaluation)

- doing work that can be proved to be of equal value

There is nothing to prevent two men getting paid different amounts for doing the same job.

However, in a couple of years there will be new rules outlawing age discrimination. This is giving people like me plenty of work at the moment (I am an HR Analyst).

[Gtr London FTB]

I've got colleagues of mine that started the same time as me and they are leaving and getting jobs with around 50% pay increases. Ultimately this is what I will have to do next year. The company I work for has more work than people in the London area but they won't do pay rises because head office in America says they can't. It's ridiculous, they are hiring new people and paying market rates and hiring contractors earning 4X as much but can't give their own employees decent pay rises because their hands are tied!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, this is very common. Hire new people without specific experience of your job at the expense of others. This all stems from the fact that most companies can't justify just giving £10k pay rises as the HR dept. would kick up a fuss even though hiring a replacement will cost more than this when you add in the higher pay and recruitment costs!

[GCS15]

yes, because it's crap!  Capitalism isn't perfect but is certainly the strongly preferred option imo.

So Mao's son went to war purely because the country is communist (sort of anyway)??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah didn't say that Mao's son went to war because China was communist. I don't know why he did (he died there). The point is that many of the warmongers don't allow their little angels to face any "real" harm. It's like "I believe strongly that X is a danger to our country and I am asking that we send YOUR child to fight to defend us". At least Mao put believed in his cause enough to allow his child to go to the front. For what it is worth Korea was a nasty conflict with war crimes to be proven to be committed by ALL the major players.

Have to agree that capitalism is preferred to communism.

Have to add though that in today's society, with today's technology allowing us to share information and idea's and allow us to examine the past with greater ease..... with all that is this the best we can do? Can we not develop a system that does not put good people on the street?

Not really the place for HPC but then again......

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

I've got colleagues of mine that started the same time as me and they are leaving and getting jobs with around 50% pay increases. Ultimately this is what I will have to do next year. The company I work for has more work than people in the London area but they won't do pay rises because head office in America says they can't. It's ridiculous, they are hiring new people and paying market rates and hiring contractors earning 4X as much but can't give their own employees decent pay rises because their hands are tied!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pennywise and pound stupid - pay below the going rate, but then live with the chaos of high staff turnover and lost revenues.

I find many companies are exploiting a glut of talent in many sectors as people, particularly first and second jobbers, will work for the below the going rate to do a job related to their main skills and interests. It may be good for the bean counters intially, but these people will soon job hop when they find a market-rate position.

[munimula]

Correct.  The main law around pay is the Equal Pay Act, which states that a woman must get paid the same as a man for:

- doing the same job

- doing work that is rated as the same (e.g. by an analytical job evaluation)

- doing work that can be proved to be of equal value

There is nothing to prevent two men getting paid different amounts for doing the same job.

However, in a couple of years there will be new rules outlawing age discrimination.  This is giving people like me plenty of work at the moment (I am an HR Analyst).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't seem right to me. So my female colleagues could claim they should be paid as much as my colleague that earns 40% more than me but I can't?

[munimula]

Pennywise and pound stupid - pay below the going rate, but then live with the chaos of high staff turnover and lost revenues.

I find many companies are exploiting a glut of talent in many sectors as people, particularly first and second jobbers, will work for the below the going rate to do a job related to their main skills and interests. It may be good for the bean counters intially, but these people will soon job hop when they find a market-rate position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's never made any sense to me. This is a large services company, it doesn't make anything so it's people are it's main resource and yet they happily employ contractors and new staff at much higher rates to replace the staff they lose because they won't give them decent pay rises and pay market rates.

[TW11]

I think it's not uncommon that part of a managers bonus is paid by actively keeping salaries low. Obviously this makes sense in most circumstances, but if it means you just get a high turn-over of staff then it's a false economy.

Of course the bean counters can quantify the benefit of keeping salaries low. Quantifiying the cost of a high staff turn-over is more difficult...

[TW11]

COAB Beat me to it.

[GCS15]

I read a paper on the cost of replacing a Registered Nurse. The paper was written in New Zealand and took into account

Farewell party (food, drink, lost staff time, present)

cost of advertising for a new nurse

interviewing nurse (cost of HR time)

Training and orientation to ward

there were otherthings but can't recall. The cost was put at around $10k.

[doogie]

That doesn't seem right to me. So my female colleagues could claim they should be paid as much as my colleague that earns 40% more than me but I can't?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basically, yes.

Although the fact that there is at least one male colleague that gets paid ~40% less (i.e. you) might be a defence against your female colleague's equal pay claim.

[judas]

We have made the conscious decision to rent even if prices drop.  We are currently renting a house and find this an excellent way to live.

We have the flexibility to move should careers or our personal situation require us to.

We do not have to pay for repairs or redecoration.

We do not have to pay for a gardener to mow our lawn.

We do not have to pay for buildings insurance

We are saving a large amount of money and already have a large nest egg.  Our savings are earning us interest which means that we can survive on one income easily.

Things are great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[john mish]

With that kind of money you could buy a house outright in several parts of the UK, all of Canada, France, etc etc. Why buy in the crappy UK when you've got that kind of money?

[neon tetra]

With that kind of money you could buy a house outright in several parts of the UK, all of Canada, France, etc etc. Why buy in the crappy UK when you've got that kind of money?

wow! Just experienced a 4-and-a-half year time warp.... The thread makes interesting R

reading though...

It turns out that had the OP bought, he'd not really be in much Nequity now. (and he could have made a fortune had he bought and STRd judiciously!)

[worried1]

wow! Just experienced a 4-and-a-half year time warp.... The thread makes interesting R

reading though...

It turns out that had the OP bought, he'd not really be in much Nequity now. (and he could have made a fortune had he bought and STRd judiciously!)

Good find. It is interesting to remember HPC is 'pre-crash' mode with the bears confidently predicting 15% falls during 2005 and the bulls predicting that no crash will happen at all.

As you say, if this OP has bought then he'd still have no negative equity. I will be interesting to re-visit this thread again in 2 years time and see what would have happened.

[ronpember]

Excellent thread. It serves as a real lesson to people to follow their own instincts and make their own minds up. Never, never take anything seriously from people who profess to know the answers. The certainty with which posters were predicting a crash in 2005 with worse to follow and that the OP should not buy would be hilarious if I could be sure that others weren't taking it seriously. Financial Planner :

So, late 2005 to mid 2006 when HPs are falling by 10-15% pa you're going to buy a place? Do please tell us when you have done so - I'll enjoy the read.

Or, of course, you could just carry on renting until prices stabilise at rock bottom levels and then buy. I guess that would be too messy for you?

What a prig and how wrong was it possible to be? Sound financial advice there - only it wasn't advice it was more sneering at someone who deviated from the orthodox.

Be sure, the same words are being uttered now, by different people (I don't seem to recognise many of the names on the first couple of pages) and anyone who has a different point of view is mocked and traduced (normally ad homine - but that's where we are at on this site). I used to visit this site alot but it's tired now, self-conragulatory and narrow.

[MrB]

What a prig and how wrong was it possible to be? Sound financial advice there - only it wasn't advice it was more sneering at someone who deviated from the orthodox.

Hardly super-wrong. 18 months early.

I guess those who rented from round 2005 are no better or worse off than someone buying in 2005, financially at least.

[Fairies Wear Boots]

Hardly super-wrong. 18 months early.

I guess those who rented from round 2005 are no better or worse off than someone buying in 2005, financially at least.

Christ. You obviously are in the midlands. If I had been put off buying by this site in 2005, I'd be rather fcked off.