The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
It's difficult for some people, but I don't think that reflects well on them. Some people can appreciate where they have been lucky and some can't.morstar said:
I think it must be difficult to ground yourself if you are successful at a young age.
Everything you have done has delivered success quickly so why would you have any doubts about your ability to have a very lucrative career? Some people must have very hard landings.
For example, some of my colleagues are essentially the most skilled people that ever lived. If they make money, it was down to their incredible abilities. However, whenever they lose money it's because they were unlucky and it is quickly forgotten about or worse blamed on someone else. It's immensely tedious.0 -
I made much the same mistake. Started working private sector in 1998 and got payrise after payrise for 10 years. My thinking was I was living within my means so even if there was a bad year with no rise I'd be OK. Then 2008 happened - I had to take a 10% paycut and lost my fuel card benefit all at the same time as my fixed mortgage came to an end and the payments increased massively.pblakeney said:
Ancedote. I was working up in Aberdeen in 2014. Young guy next to me only knowing the boom times was buying a new Range Rover, second in two years. I told him to put a bit of money aside. He laughed as things were booming. Three months later...morstar said:
I similarly am always working on the assumption the status quo won’t last.pblakeney said:
I've gone the other way. I don't expect the job to last and am fairly sanguine about the whole affair. Good explanation as to why I went contracting. Take the bucks up front.rick_chasey said:
I had it for my first ever job and it has scarred me ever since. I am overly paranoid the second business is slow and I am overly sensitive to things not going so well.pblakeney said:
I found it easy to overcome when made redundant twice in the mid 80s.rick_chasey said:
I do think people underestimate the power of job insecuritypblakeney said:
Funny how making a case for this used to fall on deaf ears.rick_chasey said:
Is it not more that WFH opened their eyes to a different work/life balance, and if the existing company won’t tolerate it they’ll get a new job?elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
Our work is back 3 days a week in the office, I have a temporary excemption, but not looking forward to going back in.
Do people have to be forced into change? This is a rhetorical question.
You soon realise that you are just a number and nothing is "permanent". Making of me.
I was made redundant twice in less than two years. 2nd one I knew was inevitable but the first blindsided me completely. Even had it not done, the business didn’t exist within 5 years anyway.
I have since taken the approach of continual evolution. Be ahead of the game is my approach. Currently my skills are in high demand but many in my role think they/we are in long term roles. If they look carefully at how the technology we use is evolving, they should be making long term plans or staying ahead of their peers at the very least.
I've been lucky though so far and have never been out of work since leaving school at 16 surviving 2 recessions plus Covid.0 -
I think it’s a perfectly valid discussion. The landscape has definitely shifted.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
I have been approached for multiple south east based positions in the last 12 months. In many cases, this simply wouldn’t have happened pre-Covid.
What salary should the employer now offer? I’m not incurring the costs of a south east existence.
I think the problem with Google is applying pay cuts to existing positions in a unilateral move that hasn’t really been discussed by the looks of it.0 -
A friend delivered a training course up in Aberdeen to a company where they had just finished building their shiny new office before the crash. It was over half empty...pblakeney said:
Ancedote. I was working up in Aberdeen in 2014. Young guy next to me only knowing the boom times was buying a new Range Rover, second in two years. I told him to put a bit of money aside. He laughed as things were booming. Three months later...morstar said:
I similarly am always working on the assumption the status quo won’t last.pblakeney said:
I've gone the other way. I don't expect the job to last and am fairly sanguine about the whole affair. Good explanation as to why I went contracting. Take the bucks up front.rick_chasey said:
I had it for my first ever job and it has scarred me ever since. I am overly paranoid the second business is slow and I am overly sensitive to things not going so well.pblakeney said:
I found it easy to overcome when made redundant twice in the mid 80s.rick_chasey said:
I do think people underestimate the power of job insecuritypblakeney said:
Funny how making a case for this used to fall on deaf ears.rick_chasey said:
Is it not more that WFH opened their eyes to a different work/life balance, and if the existing company won’t tolerate it they’ll get a new job?elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
Our work is back 3 days a week in the office, I have a temporary excemption, but not looking forward to going back in.
Do people have to be forced into change? This is a rhetorical question.
You soon realise that you are just a number and nothing is "permanent". Making of me.
I was made redundant twice in less than two years. 2nd one I knew was inevitable but the first blindsided me completely. Even had it not done, the business didn’t exist within 5 years anyway.
I have since taken the approach of continual evolution. Be ahead of the game is my approach. Currently my skills are in high demand but many in my role think they/we are in long term roles. If they look carefully at how the technology we use is evolving, they should be making long term plans or staying ahead of their peers at the very least.
If the apparently experienced managers can't effectively plan for these events what hope do the young guys have?!
Alternatively the successful guys are the ones who ignore the possibility of such events.
0 -
At least they aren't being lazy unproductive and dragging the rest of the office down with them?TheBigBean said:
The problem comes when another, less valuable and more lazy, employee wants to do the same.veronese68 said:
Young lad at our place, been married for a couple of years and recently had a kid has moved to Lincolnshire. He has a trial agreement that he has to come into the office once a week. That one day takes longer to commute than five days of his previous commute. But he has been able to go from a one bed flat to a house with a garden. Quality of life overall is very much improved for him. If they ask him to do more days in the office I reckon we'll lose a good employee.elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
I find it surprising how many people made big life decisions based on the temporary conditions seen during the pandemic.0 -
The upside and downside are asymmetric for the managers. They are acting in their own interests rather than that of the shareholders.Jezyboy said:
At least they aren't being lazy unproductive and dragging the rest of the office down with them?TheBigBean said:
The problem comes when another, less valuable and more lazy, employee wants to do the same.veronese68 said:
Young lad at our place, been married for a couple of years and recently had a kid has moved to Lincolnshire. He has a trial agreement that he has to come into the office once a week. That one day takes longer to commute than five days of his previous commute. But he has been able to go from a one bed flat to a house with a garden. Quality of life overall is very much improved for him. If they ask him to do more days in the office I reckon we'll lose a good employee.elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
I find it surprising how many people made big life decisions based on the temporary conditions seen during the pandemic.
It is pretty much the same reason why mergers and acquisitions happen. Most of them are value destroying, but they give management bigger companies to manage.
0 -
That's the thing with Aberdeen though isn't it? Chances are if you are looking for a 6-18 month old prestige car on the second hand market, you will find it in Aberdeen....Jezyboy said:
A friend delivered a training course up in Aberdeen to a company where they had just finished building their shiny new office before the crash. It was over half empty...pblakeney said:
Ancedote. I was working up in Aberdeen in 2014. Young guy next to me only knowing the boom times was buying a new Range Rover, second in two years. I told him to put a bit of money aside. He laughed as things were booming. Three months later...morstar said:
I similarly am always working on the assumption the status quo won’t last.pblakeney said:
I've gone the other way. I don't expect the job to last and am fairly sanguine about the whole affair. Good explanation as to why I went contracting. Take the bucks up front.rick_chasey said:
I had it for my first ever job and it has scarred me ever since. I am overly paranoid the second business is slow and I am overly sensitive to things not going so well.pblakeney said:
I found it easy to overcome when made redundant twice in the mid 80s.rick_chasey said:
I do think people underestimate the power of job insecuritypblakeney said:
Funny how making a case for this used to fall on deaf ears.rick_chasey said:
Is it not more that WFH opened their eyes to a different work/life balance, and if the existing company won’t tolerate it they’ll get a new job?elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
Our work is back 3 days a week in the office, I have a temporary excemption, but not looking forward to going back in.
Do people have to be forced into change? This is a rhetorical question.
You soon realise that you are just a number and nothing is "permanent". Making of me.
I was made redundant twice in less than two years. 2nd one I knew was inevitable but the first blindsided me completely. Even had it not done, the business didn’t exist within 5 years anyway.
I have since taken the approach of continual evolution. Be ahead of the game is my approach. Currently my skills are in high demand but many in my role think they/we are in long term roles. If they look carefully at how the technology we use is evolving, they should be making long term plans or staying ahead of their peers at the very least.
If the apparently experienced managers can't effectively plan for these events what hope do the young guys have?!
Alternatively the successful guys are the ones who ignore the possibility of such events.
Never going to be stupid boom times again though I don't think. The renewables sector will be smaller and distributed more widely. Kind of like the UK coast.0 -
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Hull is doing ok out it, but probably doesn't compare to an Aberdeen boom.First.Aspect said:
That's the thing with Aberdeen though isn't it? Chances are if you are looking for a 6-18 month old prestige car on the second hand market, you will find it in Aberdeen....Jezyboy said:
A friend delivered a training course up in Aberdeen to a company where they had just finished building their shiny new office before the crash. It was over half empty...pblakeney said:
Ancedote. I was working up in Aberdeen in 2014. Young guy next to me only knowing the boom times was buying a new Range Rover, second in two years. I told him to put a bit of money aside. He laughed as things were booming. Three months later...morstar said:
I similarly am always working on the assumption the status quo won’t last.pblakeney said:
I've gone the other way. I don't expect the job to last and am fairly sanguine about the whole affair. Good explanation as to why I went contracting. Take the bucks up front.rick_chasey said:
I had it for my first ever job and it has scarred me ever since. I am overly paranoid the second business is slow and I am overly sensitive to things not going so well.pblakeney said:
I found it easy to overcome when made redundant twice in the mid 80s.rick_chasey said:
I do think people underestimate the power of job insecuritypblakeney said:
Funny how making a case for this used to fall on deaf ears.rick_chasey said:
Is it not more that WFH opened their eyes to a different work/life balance, and if the existing company won’t tolerate it they’ll get a new job?elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
Our work is back 3 days a week in the office, I have a temporary excemption, but not looking forward to going back in.
Do people have to be forced into change? This is a rhetorical question.
You soon realise that you are just a number and nothing is "permanent". Making of me.
I was made redundant twice in less than two years. 2nd one I knew was inevitable but the first blindsided me completely. Even had it not done, the business didn’t exist within 5 years anyway.
I have since taken the approach of continual evolution. Be ahead of the game is my approach. Currently my skills are in high demand but many in my role think they/we are in long term roles. If they look carefully at how the technology we use is evolving, they should be making long term plans or staying ahead of their peers at the very least.
If the apparently experienced managers can't effectively plan for these events what hope do the young guys have?!
Alternatively the successful guys are the ones who ignore the possibility of such events.
Never going to be stupid boom times again though I don't think. The renewables sector will be smaller and distributed more widely. Kind of like the UK coast.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-581430270 -
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.0 -
You just might want to spend a day or three in Gotham city before you relocate.TheBigBean said:
Hull is doing ok out it, but probably doesn't compare to an Aberdeen boom.First.Aspect said:
That's the thing with Aberdeen though isn't it? Chances are if you are looking for a 6-18 month old prestige car on the second hand market, you will find it in Aberdeen....Jezyboy said:
A friend delivered a training course up in Aberdeen to a company where they had just finished building their shiny new office before the crash. It was over half empty...pblakeney said:
Ancedote. I was working up in Aberdeen in 2014. Young guy next to me only knowing the boom times was buying a new Range Rover, second in two years. I told him to put a bit of money aside. He laughed as things were booming. Three months later...morstar said:
I similarly am always working on the assumption the status quo won’t last.pblakeney said:
I've gone the other way. I don't expect the job to last and am fairly sanguine about the whole affair. Good explanation as to why I went contracting. Take the bucks up front.rick_chasey said:
I had it for my first ever job and it has scarred me ever since. I am overly paranoid the second business is slow and I am overly sensitive to things not going so well.pblakeney said:
I found it easy to overcome when made redundant twice in the mid 80s.rick_chasey said:
I do think people underestimate the power of job insecuritypblakeney said:
Funny how making a case for this used to fall on deaf ears.rick_chasey said:
Is it not more that WFH opened their eyes to a different work/life balance, and if the existing company won’t tolerate it they’ll get a new job?elbowloh said:I do kind of find it weird that loads of people sold up and moved out in the sticks / to the coast based on the COVID home-working rules, without really knowing for sure it would be permanent. Even going into the office 2 or 3 days a week would mean long commutes or stayovers in town for those couple or three days.
Our work is back 3 days a week in the office, I have a temporary excemption, but not looking forward to going back in.
Do people have to be forced into change? This is a rhetorical question.
You soon realise that you are just a number and nothing is "permanent". Making of me.
I was made redundant twice in less than two years. 2nd one I knew was inevitable but the first blindsided me completely. Even had it not done, the business didn’t exist within 5 years anyway.
I have since taken the approach of continual evolution. Be ahead of the game is my approach. Currently my skills are in high demand but many in my role think they/we are in long term roles. If they look carefully at how the technology we use is evolving, they should be making long term plans or staying ahead of their peers at the very least.
If the apparently experienced managers can't effectively plan for these events what hope do the young guys have?!
Alternatively the successful guys are the ones who ignore the possibility of such events.
Never going to be stupid boom times again though I don't think. The renewables sector will be smaller and distributed more widely. Kind of like the UK coast.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-581430270 -
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Given presenteism and people knowing your face has been a big part of promotions for decades I question how secure those working from home will feel. Promotion or job security should be based on output but not every job is easily measured and humans are bad judges of character in a lot of cases.0
-
One day the “must be in the office” types will understand what “flexible working” actually means.john80 said:Given presenteism and people knowing your face has been a big part of promotions for decades I question how secure those working from home will feel. Promotion or job security should be based on output but not every job is easily measured and humans are bad judges of character in a lot of cases.
Not sure today is that day.0 -
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
0 -
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.0 -
morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.0 -
From what I have seen the London weighting is less than the differential in living costs. If the 'minister' who suggested it really thought it was a good idea they would have put their name to it.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I thought IDS had come out and said it? If not explicitly about the London weighting I'm sure it was about docking pay for those staying wfh.rjsterry said:
From what I have seen the London weighting is less than the differential in living costs. If the 'minister' who suggested it really thought it was a good idea they would have put their name to it.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
0 -
So if a successful candidate lives in MK why wouldn’t you employ them to not go in the Birmingham office rather than not going into the London one?rjsterry said:
From what I have seen the London weighting is less than the differential in living costs. If the 'minister' who suggested it really thought it was a good idea they would have put their name to it.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?0 -
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.0 -
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.0 -
You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.surrey_commuter said:
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.
What's your argument? No welfare state?0 -
That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.First.Aspect said:
You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.surrey_commuter said:
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.
What's your argument? No welfare state?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?rjsterry said:
That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.First.Aspect said:
You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.surrey_commuter said:
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.
What's your argument? No welfare state?
There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.
Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.
Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.
Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.
If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.
0 -
The best housing model I have seen was 20 years ago in the Gorbals in Glasgow. They moved everyone out and bulldozed. They then built new modern flats with some privately owned and a lot owned by a housing association. If you wanted to move back you had to take a lease with a 10% or more ownership stake. You paid the rent and the mortgage repayment and over time you could own more. This was essential in giving everyone skin in the game so that when your kids is vandalising the communal areas it is you that is seeing some of the bill so you don't do it.
Going forwards to today I sold out of this development some 12 years ago as I could see that there were too many private rental flats as the ownership had go diluted and the link between ownership and living had been broken. I am fully in favour of mixed housing developments but the lower end of the social spectrum have to have some money invested in it too.0 -
I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.First.Aspect said:
Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?rjsterry said:
That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.First.Aspect said:
You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.surrey_commuter said:
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.
What's your argument? No welfare state?
There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.
Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.
Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.
Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.
If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.
That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.
Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.
FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That's not strictly true. Homes England are now building housing and I believe several Council are starting to build for themselves again (social and open market). How well they'll get on securing sites and labour in an open market I'm not sure though.First.Aspect said:
Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?rjsterry said:
That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.First.Aspect said:
You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.surrey_commuter said:
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.
What's your argument? No welfare state?
There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.
Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.
Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.
Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.
If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.0 -
So are mine. Mixed housing is the least worst option overall I think.rjsterry said:
I don't think I or SC have suggested a simple solution. Nevertheless if you gradually sell off the stock of public housing and don't replace it with sufficient new stock while retaining the obligation for authorities to house those in need, this will inevitably cost authorities more.First.Aspect said:
Big debate that, just pointing out where it might lead in extremis. Like it or not he'd already made a distinction between spending on housing and other private expenditure, discretionary or otherwise, coming from someone of benefits. Why?rjsterry said:
That's clearly not what SC is suggesting. Proper public housing provision would be a start.First.Aspect said:
You can say that about any spending on the private sector derived from state benefits.surrey_commuter said:
HB Bill is now £22bn, that is a huge transfer of wealth to private landlordsFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure I agree with you there, not least because there's a bigger market of which the recipients are just a part.briantrumpet said:morstar said:
Or similarly, that a stamp duty saving isn’t a real saving when the property value increased more than the stamp duty due to the rush to save stamp duty.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is a circular argument. Are wages high due to the cost of accommodation, or is the cost of accommodation high due to the high wages?First.Aspect said:
I think the idea with London weighting is you are either paying higher property prices or for a longer commute. Possibly without that sort of thinking the UK wouldn't be so centralised in the first place.pblakeney said:
Yes, it is quite an anomaly, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
Don’t know any companies that pay commuting costs or a hardship allowance for chosing to live in banjo landpblakeney said:
Not necessarily straightforward. Higher heating and transport bills.surrey_commuter said:
Many will have offices in multiple locations so they will know the premium they are paying for SF.morstar said:
It’s a funny one.First.Aspect said:As a cycle commuter, if my employer tried that on, I'd point out that it costs me more to work from home because I'm paying for electricity, and costs them more for me to work in the office, because I bill less and take up office space.
Fortunately, my employer has a bit more foresight and is moving to agile working. Which means wft and hot desking and basically what we did in the lab during my PhD, but with a really censored annoying management buzz word applied.
I guess from their perspective, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are VERY expensive places to live. They probably have to pay high salaries partly to get people to work there.
So if you don’t need to live there, paying a premium on that basis is arguably unnecessary.
As you say though, wfh isn’t free. The biggest issue seems to be the way it has been introduced as pay cuts.
What do we feel about the Civil Service who have a London weighting - surely they should lose that if now living in the outer Hebrides?
Try looking at the price of a flight from Stornoway to London. £263 each way.
Bigger inconvenience to do basic things. There is a reason they are paying people to move there. Preston might be a better example.
It's the same with housing benefit - designed to help those struggling with high rental costs, but ended up increasing the rental costs and going into the pockets of the landlords.
What's your argument? No welfare state?
There are a number of issues with social housing.y wife grew up on a council estate and is in social work. So I have a marginally better understanding now than when I was a sheltered middle class kid.
Homeowners don't like public housing near them or interspersed within a development (no riffraf). Public housing in larger blocks ghettoises an area and promotes ongoing socioeconomic division. Also, believe it or not, some people on benefits still want to chose where they live, not be told by the state.
Any social housing is built by the private sector. Six and two threes? It all flows back to the private sector in the end, but you can argue until the cows come home what the least worst option is.
Personally I think a mix of policies is probably appropriate.
If there is a simple proposed solution to any complex issue, chances are it's not actually a solution.
That's not to say the right to buy is a bad thing per se. I've lived in ex-council properties for most of the last twenty years, so I can hardly complain. Just that authorities need to be able to replace sold stock.
Combine that with a steady slide in attitudes from 'Homes for Heroes' in the 1920s to the 'Bedroom Tax' ninety years later - in part brought about by the failure to replace stock which has forced a rationing to only the more desperate cases - and it is no wonder there is now a stigma to public housing.
FWIW, my neighbours are a mixture of council tenants and owners and we seem to rub along fine.
I have a big issue with right to buy. Right to stay, sure, but right to buy was only ever a means to generate cash for the government. The end result, as you say, is that there aren't any council houses.0
