 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-nationwide-national-inflation.php
>>
>
> Looks like it's approximately following the curve to me
The curve is just the trend-line of the underlying data (the blue bit) -
the Y axis is inflation-adjusted house prices, so if house prices only
went up with inflation the graph would be flat. Who knows what will
happen over the next 2 or 3 decades though - the main thing is if you
own a house it doesn't matter too much because it's something most
people need.
> Yeah, but you can say that about most things just because of inflation.
> There was a time where you could buy an entire house - even a giant
> mansion - for less than £1,000, because that was a huge sum of money
> back then. ;-)
Not as huge as it is today though, that's the point. 40 years ago a
young couple with decent jobs had an annual salary about what a small
house costs. Today a young couple with decent jobs are earning about a
factor of 5 lower than what a small house costs.
> From what I've seen, renting is drastically more expensive. If I want
> to borrow £100k, that's £600/month. If I want to rent somewhere, prices
> start at £800/month or so.
£800/month to rent a place that costs only £100k seems very steep to me.
The house I rented for £700/month would have sold for about £180k
(costing me about £1000/month in mortgage).
If I decided to buy that house rather than continue renting, 20 years
later I would have saved £350/month (assuming £50/month for repairs and
maintenance, which is probably an underestimate) then I'd have about
£120K cash. So it comes down to whether the house is worth more or less
than £120k, if it's going to be worth more than £120k you're better off
getting a mortgage - which I think you can almost guarantee it will be.
Even if you do nothing to the house in 20 years it will surely be worth
more than that.
> You forget that for the last 10 years, my salary has remained almost
> totally static.
That's not normal though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not as huge as it is today though, that's the point. 40 years ago a
> young couple with decent jobs had an annual salary about what a small
> house costs. Today a young couple with decent jobs are earning about a
> factor of 5 lower than what a small house costs.
This is what amuses me about the number of new houses being built right
now. You can build as many houses as you like, but if nobody can afford
them, what's the point?
>> From what I've seen, renting is drastically more expensive. If I want
>> to borrow £100k, that's £600/month. If I want to rent somewhere, prices
>> start at £800/month or so.
>
> £800/month to rent a place that costs only £100k seems very steep to me.
> The house I rented for £700/month would have sold for about £180k
> (costing me about £1000/month in mortgage).
Why do you think I'm not renting? ;-)
>> You forget that for the last 10 years, my salary has remained almost
>> totally static.
>
> That's not normal though...
It is if you work for a failing company.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is what amuses me about the number of new houses being built right
> now. You can build as many houses as you like, but if nobody can afford
> them, what's the point?
All new-builds I've seen get sold out before they even finish the road,
it certainly doesn't appear that "nobody can afford them".
>>> You forget that for the last 10 years, my salary has remained almost
>>> totally static.
>>
>> That's not normal though...
>
> It is if you work for a failing company.
People tend to move jobs then and get a pay rise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-04-12 17:56, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)
That's her job. By definition.
All first line managers, in all companies: Madly trying to get more
staff to do what is asked of them.
All second line managers and above, in all companies: Madly trying to
reduce costs and get people to do more with less.
Case in point, my employer just published their results for 2012. They
made "only" $10G in profits, so for 2013, they need to cut costs even
more. My boss is fighting to prevent our 3-days-a-week contractor's
contract from being cancelled as a cost cutting measure. Apparently the
two new customer contracts that were just signed totally close to .8 FTE
more work for our team of 4 is not enough justification to keep the
contractor. If she fails, we'll be down to 3 with 1.4 FTE more work to
do, and that makes perfect sense to the higher ups.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
>> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
>> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)
>
> That's her job. By definition.
If you're working somewhere where the financial director can't agree to
spend money on things that are absolutely necessary then it's time to
move jobs.
> All first line managers, in all companies: Madly trying to get more
> staff to do what is asked of them.
>
> All second line managers and above, in all companies: Madly trying to
> reduce costs and get people to do more with less.
I've never heard "reduce costs" mentioned in 2 out of the 3 companies
I've worked for. The other one is exactly as you say though, and I left.
IME it comes down to how much profit the company is making, the more
money they make the less managers of all levels are worried about budget
and "reducing costs".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/04/2013 02:52 PM, scott wrote:
>>> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
>>> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
>>> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)
>>
>> That's her job. By definition.
>
> If you're working somewhere where the financial director can't agree to
> spend money on things that are absolutely necessary then it's time to
> move jobs.
The idea is to reduce *unnecessary* costs.
There are times when *spending* money can actually result in drastic
savings. Real managers understand that. People who just run companies as
a hobby so that they can feel all important and stuff...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The idea is to reduce *unnecessary* costs.
Things aren't black and white though, it's quite rare a company is
paying anything significant for absolutely no benefit. How about things
like pay rises, pension schemes, a receptionist, IT staff, a christmas
party - necessary?
> There are times when *spending* money can actually result in drastic
> savings. Real managers understand that.
My earlier point was that if a real manager is working for a healthy
profitable company they are likely to get the money easily to do such
projects/schemes that benefit the company in the longer term. However in
a failing company the cash is likely not there to do such schemes, no
matter how good the manager is. Or rather the manager would need to
spend a disproportionate amount of time convincing senior management
that they should get rid of the receptionist and use the money for X
instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-04-15 13:29, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 15/04/2013 02:52 PM, scott wrote:
>>>> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
>>>> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
>>>> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)
>>>
>>> That's her job. By definition.
>>
>> If you're working somewhere where the financial director can't agree to
>> spend money on things that are absolutely necessary then it's time to
>> move jobs.
>
> The idea is to reduce *unnecessary* costs.
Yes, but who defines unnecessary? That requires actually thinking,
making educated decisions... and obviously resolving conflicts. It's
much easier to just say "every dept must cut 10%"
>
> There are times when *spending* money can actually result in drastic
> savings. Real managers understand that. People who just run companies as
> a hobby so that they can feel all important and stuff...
The problem is not that they run companies as a hobby, even if some
obviously do. The problem is that the shareholders expect double-digit
growth, and quarterly results that exceed the forecasts, or else they'll
get the C-level guys' (and gals)' ass out ot there at the next
shareholder's annual assembly.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-04-16 03:34, scott a écrit :
>> The idea is to reduce *unnecessary* costs.
>
> Things aren't black and white though, it's quite rare a company is
> paying anything significant for absolutely no benefit. How about things
> like pay rises, pension schemes, a receptionist, IT staff, a christmas
> party - necessary?
>
>> There are times when *spending* money can actually result in drastic
>> savings. Real managers understand that.
>
> My earlier point was that if a real manager is working for a healthy
> profitable company they are likely to get the money easily to do such
> projects/schemes that benefit the company in the longer term. However in
> a failing company the cash is likely not there to do such schemes, no
> matter how good the manager is. Or rather the manager would need to
> spend a disproportionate amount of time convincing senior management
> that they should get rid of the receptionist and use the money for X
> instead.
Even in healthy companies - as I said, my employer made $10G in profits
last year, up from $9.1G the year before - it can be difficult to get
funding for any thing. Not impossible, but still difficult.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Even in healthy companies - as I said, my employer made $10G in profits
> last year, up from $9.1G the year before - it can be difficult to get
> funding for any thing. Not impossible, but still difficult.
Maybe profit per employee would be a better measure? I've worked at
places with net income per employee varying from -£66k to +£47k (figures
taken from the reuters financials page for each company). IME those
figures very much correlate to how easy it was to get money to do stuff
and the overall "culture" within the company regarding money, which
isn't surprising.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
