Peking at bubbles - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15196080
Potemkin wrote:They were, in fact, closer to £5 a week.

We weren't that badly paid oop North.

The wife was earning £12.10/- a week at the mill.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 27 Oct 2021 17:06, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15196081
B0ycey wrote:I am not taking about wages in 1969, but in 2021. It don't think this is so complicated to understand. If £585 in 1969 is worth £4500 today, then we should expect to see that figure today given that is the average wage.

I'm going to ask you again: what the fuck are you babbling about? Your logic is distinctly wonky, @B0ycey. :eh:

I am aware that wages in 1969 weren't £585, that is my point.

It cannot be your point, because you are assuming that wages were £585 in 1969, and then adjusting that figure for inflation in 2021. It's nonsense.

And to help you out better, if wages in 1969 was on average £5 a week, under your calculator (in dollars) that is the equivalent to £40 today and guess what, wages are more than that.

As I pointed out, wages have increased in real terms. But you could still buy a house for under £10,000, adjusted for inflation.
By late
#15196083
B0ycey wrote:
What do I think? I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off, the government will act accordingly and the blame will go straight back to Evergrande. I don't see anyone revolting against the government and the government will do all it can to maintain the the housing prices and hold back the tide as long as possible.



A panic is not a revolt.

Governments and economies run on confidence and trust. Lose that, and all manner of ugly can happen.
By wat0n
#15196084
@Potemkin ...And much of that has to do with the fact home building hasn't kept up with dealing with the consequences of the switch towards single person households, where both males and females now live separately as opposed to waiting until marrying before moving out (particularly the woman). Quite obviously this switch means the demand for housing goes up, by a lot.

Yet home building doesn't keep up, although it's profitable for developers to do so, because public opinion is hostile to densification due to quality of life and financial concerns (plenty of current homeowners stand to lose if it happens) and urban planning reflects this.
By B0ycey
#15196085
Potemkin wrote:I'm going to ask you again: what the fuck are you babbling about? Your logic is distinctly wonky, @B0ycey. :eh:


I really cannot make it any clear pote. You either understand or you don't. But if you don't, then I think less of you. Not that you care I am sure. But I want you to know anyway.

It cannot be your point, because you are assuming that wages were £585 in 1969, and then adjusting that figure for inflation in 2021. It's nonsense.


I was trying to explain we should expect wages of £4500 today actually if £585 was worth that in 1969. Or to make it easier on your stupidity, if wages were £5 in 1969, then we should expect to see wages of £40 today. It isn't my fault this is going over your head. The calculator was on purchasing power anyway. Which means we can buy more for less.


As I pointed out, wages have increased in real terms. But you could still buy a house for under £10,000, adjusted for inflation.


Well I haven't mentioned this in any meaningful way so who exactly have you pointed this out to. Clearly homes have gone up more than commodities. But not enough to stop people from buying them clearly. Or do you think the UK is in the same position as China as well?
By B0ycey
#15196090
late wrote:A panic is not a revolt.

Governments and economies run on confidence and trust. Lose that, and all manner of ugly can happen.


Ugliness to whom? There is no doubt going to be anger directed somewhere, I don't see it being directed towards the government. Kind of like how in 2008, the anger was directed at the bankers not the Fed. And sure, people will be angy and lose money. But I don't think it will be enough to destroy take down China in any meaningful way of that is what you are alluding to.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15196091
B0ycey wrote:wages

A workingman's wages in 1968.

Average male manual wage - £22* per week (£1,144 pa)

Average female manual wage - £11 per week (£572 pa)

Source: New Earnings Survey (NES) time-series of gross weekly earnings from 1938 to 2017, published by the Office for National Statistics

* £22 -> £331.17


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 27 Oct 2021 17:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15196094
B0ycey wrote:I really cannot make it any clear pote. You either understand or you don't. But if you don't, then I think less of you. Not that you care I am sure. But I want you to know anyway.



I was trying to explain we should expect wages of £4500 today actually if £585 was worth that in 1969. Or to make it easier on your stupidity, if wages were £5 in 1969, then we should expect to see wages of £40 today. It isn't my fault this is going over your head. The calculator was on purchasing power anyway. Which means we can buy more for less.




Well I haven't mentioned this in any meaningful way so who exactly have you pointed this out to. Clearly homes have gone up more than commodities. But not enough to stop people from buying them clearly. Or do you think the UK is in the same position as China as well?

@B0ycey, this is what you said:

I am taking about wages are on average £585 a week. That is the equivalent to £9000 if £500 was worth £7000 under ingliz figures. Under your calculator (in dollars) that is £4500 a week.

@ingliz said that he bought a house for £500 in 1969. Adjusting for inflation, that comes to under £10,000 today.


Then everyone should be buying homes after two weeks. Looking at your calculator it is based in purchasing power. And in laymen that means the things we buy are getting cheaper. Everything that is it seems apart from homes.

You clearly believe that the average wage in 1969 was £585 in 1969 pounds. You then adjust that figure for inflation to reach some ludicrous figure that you claim people were earning back then. You must have been smoking too much waccy baccy, @B0ycey. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. :smokin:
By B0ycey
#15196095
ingliz wrote:Average male manual wage - £22 per week (£1,144 pa)


Right, so wages have increased 5400% and purchasing power has increase by 650% (in dollars according to Potes sources) and you are trying to make out what exactly? Clearly we are better off today even with our expensive houses.
By B0ycey
#15196097
Potemkin wrote:You clearly believe that the average wage in 1969 was £585 in 1969 pounds.


Do me a favour and actually quote where I said average wages in 1969 were £585 and then you might have a leg to stand on. Wages are on average £585 TODAY hence why the figure was brought up. I can't help it if you failed to understand this. That is your problem. But you haven't actually answered they question this all came about anyway. Do you believe the UK is in the same problem as China finds itself in today. Do you think our bubble is about to burst?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15196098
B0ycey wrote:Do me a favour and actually quote where I said average wages in 1969 were £585 and then you might have a leg to stand on. Wages are on average £585 TODAY hence why the figure was brought up.

But you then apply the inflation since 1969 to today's average weekly wage, which makes no sense at all. Why do this? What are you trying to prove? What's your point? :eh:

I can't help it if you failed to understand this. That is your problem.

@ingliz said: "Allowing for inflation, £500 in 1969 should be worth £7,104.52 today," to which you replied: "Fuck me. If I was working in 1969, I would be fucking RICH!"

You clearly thought that people earned £585 a week in 1969, and could therefore have afforded to buy a new house every couple of weeks. Just admit your mistake, and we can all move on. This is becoming embarrassing.

But you haven't actually answered they question this all came about anyway. Do you believe the UK is in the same problem as China finds itself in today. Do you think our bubble is about to burst?

Not any time soon, no, since people, are still willing to buy houses even at their currently vastly inflated prices. So long as that is the case, and so long as it makes people feel that they are wealthy so they keep spending money on consumer goods, then all will be well. As Keynes pointed out, a lot of economics is governed not by natural laws but by what he called "animal spirits", what people feel is the case. The same logic applies to China too, of course.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15196099
B0ycey wrote:Clearly we are better off

No, we are not.

It all depends on what 'we' you are using. - A lower-middle-class man poncing around an office or a working man earning his bread by the sweat of his brow.

We'll use the manual labourer.

So who's better off here?

A manual worker who's earning £22 then is, allowing for inflation, a manual worker earning £331.17 now.

The manual worker on National Minimum Wage (£8.91), working the average number of hours (36), is earning £320.76.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 27 Oct 2021 18:35, edited 1 time in total.
By B0ycey
#15196100
Potemkin wrote:But you then apply the inflation since 1969 to today's average weekly wage, which makes no sense at all. Why do this? What are you trying to prove? What's your point? :eh:


@ingliz said: "Allowing for inflation, £500 in 1969 should be worth £7,104.52 today," to which you replied: "Fuck me. If I was working in 1969, I would be fucking RICH!"


Well sure, because my wages today in equivalence would make me rich. As would be the case for those on the average wage.

But to answer your question before that on my point. If we are using house prices as an equivalence today, you need to explain why you feel we shouldn't be doing the same for wages as well. Because ultimately, this goes back to Ingliz point that the UK housing bubble is the same as Chinas and given you felt like jumping in on this subject without any idea what was going on. So I am going to ask these questions again so you can understand my point.

Do you think we are in the same position China finds itself in now?

Do you think our housing bubble is about to burst.

Answer these, and stop digging please.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15196101
B0ycey wrote:the UK housing bubble is the same as China's

Only in so far as both governments have manipulated their respective housing markets for years.

Do you think our housing bubble is about to burst.

Do you deny it's causing problems?


:lol:
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15196102
B0ycey wrote:Well sure, because my wages today in equivalence would make me rich. As would be the case for those on the average wage.

This is because the economy has grown in the intervening period, or in Marxist terms, the forces of production have expanded. But this has nothing much to do with inflation, and is mainly due to the hard work of the working-class' parents and grandparents. And as @ingliz has pointed out, not everyone has benefitted from this expansion of the forces of production, or this growth in GDP in neo-classical terms.

But to answer your question before that on my point. If we are using house prices as an equivalence today, you need to explain why you feel we shouldn't be doing the same for wages as well. Because ultimately, this goes back to Ingliz point that the UK housing bubble is the same as Chinas and given you felt like jumping in on this subject without any idea what was going on. So I am going to ask these questions again so you can understand my point.

Do you think we are in the same position China finds itself in now?

Not exactly the same, no, because we are not China.

Do you think our housing bubble is about to burst.

Not any time soon, as I have already said. But I suspect that China's housing bubble will not collapse any time soon either. So long as people are willing and able to pay those inflated prices for housing, the bubble will continue to inflate. Will it collapse eventually? Undoubtedly, like any other bubble in history. Just not yet.

Answer these, and stop digging please.

Lol.
By B0ycey
#15196104
Potemkin wrote:Not any time soon, as I have already said. But I suspect that China's housing bubble will not collapse any time soon either. So long as people are willing and able to pay those inflated prices for housing, the bubble will continue to inflate. Will it collapse eventually? Undoubtedly, like any other bubble in history. Just not yet.


Actually, you did already say so I shouldn't have asked again. But your reply is better this time and ironically identical to mine.
By B0ycey
#15196105
ingliz wrote:Do you deny it's causing problems?


Honestly, no. I thought it would cause a problem in 2008 when they dropped but then nothing came about from it and the prices soon rose up and I was wrong.

What I do think is a problem is lack of affordable homes for people who aren't on the property ladder to get on the ladder. In other words, mortgages were affordable, but homes now aren't so you have less people able to get a mortgage now than before and so you have a generation rent. But clearly there is still enough people able to buy homes to retain (and increase) the prices of homes as the supply doesn't match demand.

Incels need to realize that the male-female ratio[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

I don't get what you are trying to say... Clearl[…]

It's useless as a medium of exchange. Transaction[…]

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

No no I really wanna hear your nuanced take on th[…]