Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Once I transition to upper working class I'll be able to use my parents right to buy so for me home ownership is not a worry (I'm aware there's a few legalities to get around).

    But my point from my previous post still stands. Buy a house from Nottingham northward and you'll have no problem paying less than 200k. Its those in London who are shafted.

    Hell we are all assuming that house prices will carry on increasing at the current rate anyway but we might have a government that builds a million social houses and then allows the right to buy, we might see another house crash or we might see credit inflation curtailed (in 2010-2012 most of the country was actually seeing affordability increase because banks curtailed mortgage lending - result being that housing outside London was falling faster than wages).

    I do worry a tad for the country because home ownership fell last decade and will this decade but we are coming from near 70% ownership levels to 2001, there's still a lot of people owning a home and will still in our generation.

    Peraonally I think the lower working classes (part time and low paid) are being screwed as are the lower middle classes but for the upper working class who have the right to buy and the the upper middle class with multiple assets I think people worry too much.
    Survival of the fittest eh...thanks to the right to buy scheme you have only care about yourself. Well done Mrs Thatcher
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I feel better off. Cheapest mortgage rates in history.
    Do you feel better off with the debt you have as opposed to the current monthly payment?

    Would you feel better off if base interests rates returned to their free market floating level of 3% to 7% as opposed to the artificially low rate of 0.5% which is the result of high volume high impact market intervention by the Bank of England?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    One could argue that, yes
    That's exactly the attitude i'm talking about. They went to Oxford so therefore they're better. More self richous? yes. But by no means 'cleverer'. There are plenty of brilliant and clever people who don't go to Oxbridge yet they rarely get a look in.





    Or perhaps that's just reflective of the electorate? Those who had that sort of upbringing are more likely to have the sort of ideas that they do, and the electorate, at least in 2010 wanted those ideas. Surely, it's just as correct to say that something seems wrong that the people are voting in this way, but that puts the blame on the nation as a whole, and not a small group who are easily identified.
    Well for all the main parties, going to Oxbridge is a free pass to becoming a leading light in the party. We're obsessed with this idea and the idea that some people are better than others because of their upbringing.
    It still remains true that someone who goes to a private school has far more chance of getting into Oxbridge than someone from a state school.


    Well, that all depends how far you go down the ladder, right at the very top this may be so, but when you look at the cabinet as a whole it's not true, and then when you look at their advisers and junior ministers it really isn't. Fair enough, it's the lowest of the ministerial positions, but my MP is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Ugandan immigrant, his parents themselves Hindu Indian immigrants, only went to Brunel, has been Vice Chair of the party and, in the past was seen as a rising star and a potential party leader (and he actually seems quite a nice guy).
    The very top is where it matters though. There may be a few who break the trend but they remain few and far between.
    Our political parties and thus country are dominated largely with a certain background of people.


    It also to me explains why the main parties are so out of touch with the electorate.
    I like Ed Milliband, but to me he's left than his party in general. I'll vote for labour though and my main reason being that they're the lesser of 2/3 evils. I would consider green but it would be a wasted vote.
    We have a system which favours massively one particular class of people and coincidentally they're the ones who tell us it can't change.
    The media divert our attention to tiny amounts of abuse at the bottom and allow the real abuse at the top to go unnoticed and unpunished.
    Big buisnesses get away with making huge profits and then paying their workers tiny wages.And then when people have the 'audacity' to be asked to pay a reasonable amount they get fed lies and scaremongering about how it's not possible.


    To me that's the biggest shame, we're left with a totally uninspiring bunch of parties we have. The Conservatives come in and do 500% damage and Labour come in and undo about 30% of it.
    The Liberal Democrats are proven liars. Ukip are just right wing tories, somehow managing to convince people they're left wing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's exactly the attitude i'm talking about. They went to Oxford so therefore they're better. More self richous? yes. But by no means 'cleverer'. There are plenty of brilliant and clever people who don't go to Oxbridge yet they rarely get a look in.
    Not arguing with this, it's part of the reason that I'm considering trying to go to Oxbridge for my MA instead of staying here, but it is also totally true to say that, within their area of study and almost certianly more broadly too, those at Oxbridge are better, cleverer, than those who aren't.


    Well for all the main parties, going to Oxbridge is a free pass to becoming a leading light in the party. We're obsessed with this idea and the idea that some people are better than others because of their upbringing.
    It still remains true that someone who goes to a private school has far more chance of getting into Oxbridge than someone from a state school.
    The last statement is right, but the thing is, the private schools that have the high rates of getting into Oxbridge are highly selective, trivially if you have a school that only takes the brightest and a school that takes everybody, the school that takes the brightest will have a higher rate of people going to Oxbridge (and RG as a whole). My Sixth form is one of the best in the country, state sixth form, and has one of the highest Oxbridge attendances in the world, I believe second only to Westminster School which is even more selective (by virtue of it being smaller). What improves your chances from going to one of the public schools isn't so much that you went there, but that you were good enough to go there in the first place.

    The very top is where it matters though. There may be a few who break the trend but they remain few and far between.
    Our political parties and thus country are dominated largely with a certain background of people.
    Conservatives and Lib Dems a lot more so than Labour, go and have a look at the listing for the Shadow Cabinet, most of them went to RG, 8 Oxford, 2 Cambridge. Still a lot, but it's still rather diverse. As for background as a whole, thinking beyond just education, even the cabinet is probably more diverse than you expect, but then you also have to consider that quite a few grew up when grammar schools were still around, so you didn't need to be rich, or live in the right place, to get a comparatively good education

    To me that's the biggest shame, we're left with a totally uninspiring bunch of parties we have. The Conservatives come in and do 500% damage and Labour come in and undo about 30% of it.
    I would put it the other way around, Labour make a mess of things time and again, and then time and again the Conservatives come along and tidy it up before eventually doing something unpopular to give it back to Labour who promise a utopia.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)


    The last statement is right, but the thing is, the private schools that have the high rates of getting into Oxbridge are highly selective, trivially if you have a school that only takes the brightest and a school that takes everybody, the school that takes the brightest will have a higher rate of people going to Oxbridge (and RG as a whole). My Sixth form is one of the best in the country, state sixth form, and has one of the highest Oxbridge attendances in the world, I believe second only to Westminster School which is even more selective (by virtue of it being smaller). What improves your chances from going to one of the public schools isn't so much that you went there, but that you were good enough to go there in the first place.
    But it all comes back to the issue of wealth. Those who are born into wealth go to private schools, go to Oxbridge and then go onto lead the country or other high profile jobs.
    That's not a meritocracy. It's a meritocracy exclusive only to those with a privileged background. There are plenty of good universities. Oxbridge more than anything carries a reputation, that's all.
    How many people born into a poor family in a council house in a crappy estate in Salford for example, can be expected to climb the ladder, go to Oxbridge and then go onto lead the country?
    Not many is the answer. And how can they possibly be expected to do so without a leg up?

    How as a country can we make it a real meritocracy, where irrelevant of ones class or background success really does depend on how hard you work?

    I would put it the other way around, Labour make a mess of things time and again, and then time and again the Conservatives come along and tidy it up before eventually doing something unpopular to give it back to Labour who promise a utopia.
    I'm no Labour fan. I guess we'll have to disagree on this point. The conservatives come in and do all they can to help their buddies, whether that be allow them to pay no tax, allow them to pay their workers barely enough to live on and allow private firms to take our industries.
    (New) Labour aren't (weren't) much better.
    I do like Milliband, I love how he took on Murdoch, Zero hour contract, bank bonuses, the bedroom tax, social health care bill, private schools abusing their charitable status etc.
    His party however is more to the centre (or right) than he is. There are still far too many Blairite, red tories in the party for my liking. If they go, I might start to feel more passionate about Labour.

    But Cameron on the other hand, the multi millionaire claiming 'we're all in this together'. Does anyone fall for that? I'd rather he be honest rather than this whole man of the people act.

    Then Farage has a few bevvies, a cigar or two and then claims he's 'one of us'. His party is full of very right wing tories but for some reason attracts left wing voters. They think he's doing it for them? They think he wants to privatise the NHS and cut corporation tax for them?!

    Lib Dems came in and broke their bloody biggest pledge which was the whole reason so many voted for them and they ask for a second chance?

    Then you have Salmond and Sturgeon... The less said the better.


    What an utterly, uninspiring and out of touch bunch. I like Milliband, his party less so and dislike both the leaders and the parties of all the others.

    If Milliband gets in and sticks true to his word and closes tax loopholes, ends zero hour contracts, raises the minimum wage and repeals the bedroom and social healthcare acts, it might just restore my faith in politics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkruger1)
    Do you feel better off with the debt you have as opposed to the current monthly payment?

    Would you feel better off if base interests rates returned to their free market floating level of 3% to 7% as opposed to the artificially low rate of 0.5% which is the result of high volume high impact market intervention by the Bank of England?
    Well a moe to 7% bank rate (not seen this side of the millenium) would hurt. It'd take my mortgage repayments to about 30% pay. I wouldn't feel better off, just normal.

    What high volume interventions is the BoE upto?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Dumb capitalist slave
    *yawn*

    And you're not?

    You manage to avoid capitalism?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    *yawn*

    And you're not?

    You manage to avoid capitalism?
    Maybe I shouldn't have used the word slave, if you want to get technical. We are all slaves to the system. Some people like it = You. Some people don't = me.

    I can't avoid capitalism. It's the global economic system.

    I commented on what you said about the cheapest mortgage rates. Mortgages are bull**** overall.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    *yawn*

    And you're not?

    You manage to avoid capitalism?
    People can recognize that whilst capitalism has done a lot of good, it has also done a heck of a lot of damage. You can appreciate and welcome some aspects of it whilst still making criticisms of the bad parts of it.
    You don't have to become a monk and give up all your earthly possessions to criticism capitalism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    LOL read what I wrote again. The first sentence acknowledges that everyone's lives have improved, BUT TO WHAT EXTENT!

    Your argument is ****. This is the reason you have ignored to address my analogy. You sir are truly stuck in the matrix.

    Your argument bloody relies on DECONTEXTUALIZATION!

    Try to engage the right hemisphere of your mind. I know it has been neglected for a majority of your life but please refer to it when constructing your arguments.

    Add context to your statement. It will help a lot. Refer to the football team analogy I said previously. Trust me. It will empower you.

    I feel like Morpheus. LMAO
    Throwing a big word into the debate doesn't help your argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Maybe I shouldn't have used the word slave, if you want to get technical. We are all slaves to the system. Some people like it = You. Some people don't = me.

    I can't avoid capitalism. It's the global economic system.

    I commented on what you said about the cheapest mortgage rates. Mortgages are bull**** overall.
    Cause we are slaves to it, until someone comes up with a way out I might as well make the best of it.

    Why do I think I like it any differnt to you? How is a mortgage any more BS than renting?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    People can recognize that whilst capitalism has done a lot of good, it has also done a heck of a lot of damage. You can appreciate and welcome some aspects of it whilst still making criticisms of the bad parts of it.
    You don't have to become a monk and give up all your earthly possessions to criticism capitalism.
    What damage has been done?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    People can recognize that whilst capitalism has done a lot of good, it has also done a heck of a lot of damage. You can appreciate and welcome some aspects of it whilst still making criticisms of the bad parts of it.
    You don't have to become a monk and give up all your earthly possessions to criticism capitalism.
    That wasn't really the point. The poster suggested I was a dumb capitalist slave in a way that suggested they weren't.

    So I wanted to know how they weren't.

    Seems they are too, which makes pointing out that I am a mute point.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Throwing a big word into the debate doesn't help your argument.
    Still ignoring my points. Finding anything and everything to avoid admitting that I'm correct.

    All I am doing is adding context to your argument. That's all. If you can't face the fact that your statement is taken out of context, you should stop debating on here.

    Perhaps this video will help you understand what I am saying:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9...40ECFF&index=5
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I was sitting in my kitchen this afternoon, reading the papers and munching on a succulent clementine satsuma and it occurred to me how privileged I am, and indeed wealthy, compared to someone sitting in their kitchen in 1949.

    In 1949, for the average working family, eating a satsuma was a wondrous treat, perhaps only done once a year; working class families often gave their children as their Christmas present a piece of fruit. For your average working man, a satsuma was an expensive indulgence, it would cost as much perhaps as much as a few packets of cigarettes (for comparison, imagine it cost 15 pounds in today's money)

    On the other hand, today I can pick up a whole bag of clementines for a couple of pounds. Indeed, I can easily purchase more clementines than I care to eat, and it a very low price. That my fellow TSRians is true wealth; or rather, it's a true increase in wealth.

    Another example is when my Mum first moved from Australia to the UK as an adult in her early 20s (she was born here, then the family moved to Australia), she could usually afford to make one international long-distance call home a month. It was astoundingly expensive, the lines were often fuzzy (they were passed over communications satellites) and they had to be short and sweet. Now, I can call home to my Mum, or anyone, on Skype, with full view of one another, for nothing. I call that a true increase in wealth / living standard.

    If an average working man of the 1940s were to peer into my life today, he would think in some ways I live the life of a millionaire of his day. In fact, I can do and enjoy many things a millionaire of his day could not (my access to general open-source information, for example, exceeds that of any man in 1949 in terms of speed of provision and volume). The average person today is healthier, freer, longer lived, better clothed, better housed, better educated and safer.

    When you look at many aspects of our lives today, our society and political structure (social democratic capitalism; a free market consensually saddled by a safety net and regulatory oversight) has delivered astounding increases in the wealth. The material comforts of the average person today would suggest that the aims of the politicians of decades ago were, on the whole, successful; they created a remarkable society, much more comfortable, tolerant, peaceful and free than 'ere it was. I do believe that inequality and wealth gaps are important, but it does bear thinking about the absolute increases in the material wealth and comfort of the ordinary person.

    I say this to attempt to give some perspective to the people who moan that all politicians are completely corrupt and incompetent, that everything is awful and everyone is part of a conspiracy. In actual fact, the society the politicians of the 50s, 60s and 70s promised us (as far as the conditions of the average man, or average family) has been fulfilled. The important thing now is to recognise what a remarkable and precious society we have created, and ensure we can both conserve what we have now and continue to evolve in the way that has brought us such prosperity, safety, comfort and freedom.
    That was then. This is now. If we take your view to its logical conclusion and apply it to action, someone eating a satsuma but who is homeless, for example, is richer than someone in the past not eating a satsuma but homeless all the same, and therefore, to action, everyone who is homeless and eating satsumas should be content with what they have. You can see how foolish your view now is for that homeless person. We might be richer today than before, but the rich are even richer and they've obtained their riches and have gotten the poor to work for it, and sometimes the workers have not been paid relative to what the rich have profited.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    Still ignoring my points. Finding anything and everything to avoid admitting that I'm correct.

    All I am doing is adding context to your argument. That's all. If you can't face the fact that your statement is taken out of context, you should stop debating on here.

    Perhaps this video will help you understand what I am saying:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9...40ECFF&index=5
    You haven't said anything. Somebody made the claim that society has improved. You came back with a lot of nothing and threw in the word decontextualise
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    That wasn't really the point. The poster suggested I was a dumb capitalist slave in a way that suggested they weren't.

    So I wanted to know how they weren't.

    Seems they are too, which makes pointing out that I am a mute point.
    Fair enough.
    Moot* not mute.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Cause we are slaves to it, until someone comes up with a way out I might as well make the best of it.

    Why do I think I like it any differnt to you? How is a mortgage any more BS than renting?
    Ok well as long as you are willing to change and won't turn into a so called middle class person that puts the upper class onto a pedestal. There's hope for you yet Neo. lol

    Mortgages are inefficient resource allocation. You get a mortgage on a house that someone else had a mortgage on. Noone benefits apart from the person giving you the mortgage.

    Rent in the current situation is linked to mortgage payments since landlords have bought the house they are renting with a mortgage. That's why there is no different between rent costs and mortgage costs. This is partly due to the lack of social housing, the right to buy bs and the house flippers and self made real estate moguls profiting from homes.

    If the cost of renting was a quarter of the cost of a mortgage payment, would you get a mortgage? No. Provided your rights as a tenant are strengthened and adhered to.

    Since the market is omnipotent in this system, people are susceptible to high costs of housing.

    Also, the price of the house you are buying is determined by speculation. If you get a 50 year 3% mortgage on a £250k home you only benefit if the price of the home after the 50 years is more than the total you have paid for it (around 450k). Since it is a ponzi scheme those who bought houses when the right to buy scheme was initially introduced will benefit the most. Those who bought houses later on i.e now are susceptible to speculative figures which do not correlate to their wages, especially when compared to the Thatcher era private property bs.

    Maybe I was wrong to label you as a capitalist...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    What damage has been done?
    Children in Africa and other poor areas being forced to work in horrendous condition for about 5p an hour. Companies like Apple, Gap, Nike etc massively exploiting child labour.
    Destruction of forests in the Amazon,
    Massive pollution, destroying our atmosphere.
    Etc the list goes on.

    Big companies being so powerful they control governments.
    Etc etc.

    Yes capitalism has done some good things. It has found new medicines (although susbsequently priced out the poorest who actually need it). and increased general standards of living but ONLY in the developed world.

    You can support the good parts of capitalism whilst also calling out on the huge damage it's caused.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You haven't said anything. Somebody made the claim that society has improved. You came back with a lot of nothing and threw in the word decontextualise
    I criticized this claim since it is a decontextualized argument. It disregards that fact that the extent of the improvements, in the majority of cases, are insignificant.

    Can you refute this counter claim? No.

    I don't think you can be freed I'm afraid. You can't even understand what I am saying.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.