How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
The figure the Electoral Reform Society quote is that only 86% of the eligible population were correctly registered in 2022.
59.9% of 86% is 51.5%. So the IPPR calculation looks about right.
I am still very, very skeptical of Harris polling.
She is not a popular Vice President. But the whole tone of her candidacy, and therefore perception, potentially changes overnight if she is elevated to the Presidency in the coming weeks.
Indeed, she will overnight become the least popular president in US history!
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
They lost the first test by 10 wickets too. No Kemar Roach this time doesn't help, mind.
However over the long term they are still crap. In the current ICC rankings the only teams worse at test cricket are Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan, and the last 3 are because they basically never play test matches. Again Afghanistan have great T20 players who do the world circuit, so they just aren't going to get a test team together.
They have no batters in the top 20 in the world. 1 in the top 40. 2 in the top 50.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
LOL. X will just close all of their EU-based offices - perhaps relocate to London - and dare the EU to actually try and block their website.
The dog that didn't bark in the Brexit debate was that, whether or not we repeal or modify existing legislation, Brexit means we are not automatically roped into their future insanities.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
They lost the first test by 10 wickets too. No Kemar Roach this time doesn't help, mind.
We often lose the first test overseas as unlike former times there is no concept of warm up matches to acclimatise. I do think this WI team is rather fragile though.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
Musk should just block Twix in the EU like many smaller US sites do.
Yeah, but then the EU can ban any European companies from advertising on TwiX, and then extend it to any company that wants to do business in Europe (and the Americans do this sort of thing a lot) and suddenly governments are dragged in and we've got a full-scale trade war.
ETA we once had a trade war over bananas, a fruit grown in neither Europe nor the United States.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
Musk should just block Twix in the EU like many smaller US sites do.
Yeah, but then the EU can ban any European companies from advertising on TwiX, and then extend it to any company that wants to do business in Europe, and suddenly governments are dragged in and we've got a full-scale trade war.
I wouldn't put Musk past it, especially if Trump wins in November.
They lost the first test by 10 wickets too. No Kemar Roach this time doesn't help, mind.
However over the long term they are still crap. In the current ICC rankings the only teams worse at test cricket are Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan, and the last 3 are because they basically never play test matches. Again Afghanistan have great T20 players who do the world circuit, so they just aren't going to get a test team together.
They have no batters in the top 20 in the world. 1 in the top 40. 2 in the top 50.
Taking cricket off West Indies free telly started the decline.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
As I may have mentioned before, all economic statistics are rubbish. Inflation has several flawed indices with a sprinkling of political interference, measuring a concept that is fairly nebulous to begin with.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
Musk should just block Twix in the EU like many smaller US sites do.
ETA we once had a trade war over bananas, a fruit grown in neither Europe nor the United States.
Not Europe or US physically but most certainly grown within the EU which includes a chunk of mainland South America (French Guyana) and Guadeluoupe. Guardeloupe is a major Banana exporter and French Guyana used to be.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
Archer has had historic injury troubles, and I can see why he would want to make the most of any fit time he has.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
Are Reform particularly libertarian ? Their first move in parliament is likely to be to walk through the Aye lobby with McDonnell if the 2 child benefit cap amendment to the King's speech has a house division.
Are Reform particularly libertarian ? Their first move in parliament is likely to be to walk through the Aye lobby with McDonnell if the 2 child benefit cap amendment to the King's speech has a house division.
If they do then it is more economic Trussism than economic libertarianism.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
Musk should just block Twix in the EU like many smaller US sites do.
ETA we once had a trade war over bananas, a fruit grown in neither Europe nor the United States.
Not Europe or US physically but most certainly grown within the EU which includes a chunk of mainland South America (French Guyana) and Guadeluoupe. Guardeloupe is a major Banana exporter and French Guyana used to be.
Yes, and the rest is run by American companies aided by the odd CIA-backed coup (hence, banana republics).
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
Archer has had historic injury troubles, and I can see why he would want to make the most of any fit time he has.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
I am not saying it will die, but I think if you look you will see that many well known players in T20 now play very little red ball cricket. And the Indians have made it clear their vision is a world tour of T20. Have a look at the line-ups for MLS, its wall to wall talent. Even the likes of Pat Cummins, Steve Smith, who are elite test cricketers are playing that rather than traditionally they might play county cricket and they certainly aren't playing the Hundred.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
Archer has had historic injury troubles, and I can see why he would want to make the most of any fit time he has.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
I am not saying it will die, but I think if you look you will see that many well known players in T20 now play very little red ball cricket. And the Indians have made it clear their vision is a world tour of T20. Have a look at the line-ups for MLS, its wall to wall talent. Even the likes of Pat Cummins, Steve Smith, who are elite test cricketers are playing that rather than traditionally they might play county cricket and they certainly aren't playing the Hundred.
Arguably both Cummins and Smith are towards the end of their careers? Is this like the big move to Saudi for the footballers, or the move to France for the Union players?
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
Archer has had historic injury troubles, and I can see why he would want to make the most of any fit time he has.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
I am not saying it will die, but I think if you look you will see that many well known players in T20 now play very little red ball cricket. And the Indians have made it clear their vision is a world tour of T20. Have a look at the line-ups for MLS, its wall to wall talent. Even the likes of Pat Cummins, Steve Smith, who are elite test cricketers are playing that rather than traditionally they might play county cricket and they certainly aren't playing the Hundred.
Arguably both Cummins and Smith are towards the end of their careers? Is this like the big move to Saudi for the footballers, or the move to France for the Union players?
Yes and no. They are also signing up people at the start of their career, as I say the South African Stubbs is signed on a multi-club contract to play for different franchises owned by the same Indians. They have made it clear this is something they will do more and more.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
Musk should just block Twix in the EU like many smaller US sites do.
Yeah, but then the EU can ban any European companies from advertising on TwiX, and then extend it to any company that wants to do business in Europe (and the Americans do this sort of thing a lot) and suddenly governments are dragged in and we've got a full-scale trade war.
ETA we once had a trade war over bananas, a fruit grown in neither Europe nor the United States.
Except that those using the site think of the adverts as a negative aspect of it.
So, if X can afford to keep the site up in the EU, with no ads on it, eventually the advertisers will be lobbying the EU to un-ban it.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Has anyone told the S African coach as he has picked Stubbs to bat at three in Tests.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Are Reform particularly libertarian ? Their first move in parliament is likely to be to walk through the Aye lobby with McDonnell if the 2 child benefit cap amendment to the King's speech has a house division.
I didn't know that was one of their policies. Surprising.
Are Reform particularly libertarian ? Their first move in parliament is likely to be to walk through the Aye lobby with McDonnell if the 2 child benefit cap amendment to the King's speech has a house division.
I didn't know that was one of their policies. Surprising.
Nigel Farage has backed increasing benefits and cutting taxes to 'encourage' Brits to have more children.
The Reform UK leader today said backed scrapping the two-child cap on handouts - which is backed by both the Tories and Labour - would be in his party's manifesto.
I can't see it in the "contract", but potentially flanking Labour to the left on such an issue will be useful for them in their second place to Labour seats.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Has anyone told the S African coach as he has picked Stubbs to bat at three in Tests.
Interesting as he signed his big T20 contract and played virtually no red ball cricket (I think FC 15 games in total, and basically no ODI cricket either) his whole career.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
The irony is that Plumb was convicted and imprisoned for what was basically a thought crime, and escaped scot-free for actual kidnap attempts. Quite what that says about our justice system...
That they take much more interest if "one of us" is the intended victim?
Having not followed this trial beyond the headlines - did this guy look like he had a credible plan to actually abduct her, or had he just been getting off on some bizarre dirty fantasies he was writing about how he might abduct her?
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Has anyone told the S African coach as he has picked Stubbs to bat at three in Tests.
Interesting as he signed his big T20 contract and played virtually no red ball cricket (I think FC 15 games in total, and basically no ODI cricket either) his whole career.
It reminds me a bit of Billings, he played basically none, then they called him up as emergency in Australia. But Rashid, Buttler, Roy, Smeed, Curran brothers, Archer, from down under the likes of Trent Boult, Spencer Johnson, they are all exclusive white ball or heavily biased towards it.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
Archer has had historic injury troubles, and I can see why he would want to make the most of any fit time he has.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
I am not saying it will die, but I think if you look you will see that many well known players in T20 now play very little red ball cricket. And the Indians have made it clear their vision is a world tour of T20. Have a look at the line-ups for MLS, its wall to wall talent. Even the likes of Pat Cummins, Steve Smith, who are elite test cricketers are playing that rather than traditionally they might play county cricket and they certainly aren't playing the Hundred.
And we are starting to see the signs with the likes of Stubbs that the Indians are saying here is a boat load of money not mess about with red ball.
The other thing is that switching between T20 and test is really hard. Bairstow has found that out. Buttler gave up red ball for similar reasons.
Test cricket won't quite die but it will become a bizarre elite sport, like real tennis or dressage, and the only version anyone will watch will be the Ashes
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Are Reform particularly libertarian ? Their first move in parliament is likely to be to walk through the Aye lobby with McDonnell if the 2 child benefit cap amendment to the King's speech has a house division.
I didn't know that was one of their policies. Surprising.
Nigel Farage has backed increasing benefits and cutting taxes to 'encourage' Brits to have more children.
The Reform UK leader today said backed scrapping the two-child cap on handouts - which is backed by both the Tories and Labour - would be in his party's manifesto.
I can't see it in the "contract", but potentially flanking Labour to the left on such an issue will be useful for them in their second place to Labour seats.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
Yes and no to this. For England, Aussie and a few of the other nations, most players still regard test cricket as the ultimate gold standard. Yes you can get very rich player hit and giggle all the time, but the true greats of cricket will remain test cricketers.
We will see. The money is eyewatering to play T20. Is for instance Sam Curran playing any red ball this summer? Archer isn't.
Archer has had historic injury troubles, and I can see why he would want to make the most of any fit time he has.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
I am not saying it will die, but I think if you look you will see that many well known players in T20 now play very little red ball cricket. And the Indians have made it clear their vision is a world tour of T20. Have a look at the line-ups for MLS, its wall to wall talent. Even the likes of Pat Cummins, Steve Smith, who are elite test cricketers are playing that rather than traditionally they might play county cricket and they certainly aren't playing the Hundred.
And we are starting to see the signs with the likes of Stubbs that the Indians are saying here is a boat load of money not mess about with red ball.
The other thing is that switching between T20 and test is really hard. Bairstow has found that out. Buttler gave up red ball for similar reasons.
Test cricket won't quite die but it will become a bizarre elite sport, like real tennis or dressage, and the only version anyone will watch will be the Ashes
It's really sad. I hope I am wrong
The question is how do you get to be an elite red ball player. What we are increasingly finding is basically you get chucked in and suck it and see. Bashir isn't even first choice for his county, hardly played any red ball and is getting picked for England. Gus Atkinson has played only about 20 FC games and is 26 year old and will now opening the attack for England.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Probably one of the worst aspects long term for the UK economy is the way everyone treats property in the same way Americans treat stocks and shares. It's part of the reason for US stock market dominance - the inescapable psychology of buying stocks over there that gives US companies free cash flow compared to the relatively dead money of property here.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Probably one of the worst aspects long term for the UK economy is the way everyone treats property in the same way Americans treat stocks and shares. It's part of the reason for US stock market dominance - the inescapable psychology of buying stocks over there that gives US companies free cash flow compared to the relatively dead money of property here.
In the United States, there are many more $50M+ folks whose housing needs are met and who are looking for other investments. That probably explains more than preferences for owner occupied housing, which look pretty darn similar to the UK.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
If people treat houses more like investments than like pints of milk, perhaps it's because the lifetime of housing is tens of thousands of times higher, and resale values are really good. People would have to stupidly forget that they can sell their houses when they move out. So that line of argument is going nowhere.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
Yes. London looks svelte and young. And then you go to South Wales or Staffordshire
I don;t udnerstand why the NHS isn't buying up trillions of doses of Ozempic and simply handing them out. Obesity is a national killer on a profound scale. and we have a cure! Just dish it out for free, it will be expensive but in the end the gains - financial, mental, social - will FAR outweight the costs
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Probably one of the worst aspects long term for the UK economy is the way everyone treats property in the same way Americans treat stocks and shares. It's part of the reason for US stock market dominance - the inescapable psychology of buying stocks over there that gives US companies free cash flow compared to the relatively dead money of property here.
In the United States, there are many more $50M+ folks whose housing needs are met and who are looking for other investments. That probably explains more than preferences for owner occupied housing, which look pretty darn similar to the UK.
House prices are generally much less for much more.
Some friends moved to Florida, from a 4 bed terrace in West London. Their new house is much cheaper, bigger (7 bedrooms) and has an *indoor* swimming pool - well in a conservatory at the back. The reason was that they were paranoid about 'gators.
All in easy commute of the business areas.
They have literally topped out on what they want from a house - more would be more effort etc.
Guess what they are doing with the extra money that would have gone on the mortgage - yes, investing.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
LOL. X will just close all of their EU-based offices - perhaps relocate to London - and dare the EU to actually try and block their website.
The dog that didn't bark in the Brexit debate was that, whether or not we repeal or modify existing legislation, Brexit means we are not automatically roped into their future insanities.
Absolutely. Just look at the fights the EU is currently picking with American tech companies, and their proposed AI regulations, for two examples of where what’s not being discussed is an advantage to UK firms.
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
No, I was saying was both it? Those who were unregistered and those that were ineligible. You can't really include the latter, especially given the large amount of immigration in the past 5 years.
I don't believe they are including those ineligible to vote. They certainly haven't in the past. It is simply that 60% of those registered to vote did so but only 52% of those eligible to vote did so. Lots of peope who don't even both to register.
Worth considering those numbers when they are talking about auto-enrolement (which I still think is impractical in reality).
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
As a regular traveller to France the contrast between the "ch'tis" of the far North and the rest of the country is really something. Up in Picardy and the Pas de Calais many could almost pass as being from the scruffier parts of Britain.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Cheap calories.
In the time of Tolkien, there was a reason that stories about huge feasts were liked. Eating until you were full at every meal, food you really, really liked, was a dream for many.
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
You cannot blame them. Especially in nations like the Windies where there is little money to be gained in a central contract.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Cheap calories.
In the time of Tolkien, there was a reason that stories about huge feasts were liked. Eating until you were full at every meal, food you really, really liked, was a dream for many.
Sure. It is very striking, it reminds me of first time going to the US and seeing that contrast. It seems poorer parts of the UK are becoming similar e.g. where people need mobility scooters because they are so large.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
The West Indies Test team have been absolutely terrible for 10 years now.
The test team, absolutely. Shocking. Sides like Zimbabwe and Ireland would be competitive against them.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.
The problem now of course is that if you are really talented you are wasting your time playing team cricket. You can be doing the T20 world tour and everybody knows the Indians are slowly getting to a point where there will be world T20 franchises and they take the same teams from country to country every other month.
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
You cannot blame them. Especially in nations like the Windies where there is little money to be gained in a central contract.
Absolutely not. Narine will be making life changing amount of money playing T20. Also red ball cricket is incredibly hard on your body, where as playing T20 means you are much more likely to extend your career way into your late 30s (particularly if you are fast bowler). Not everybody is as lucky / genetically gifted as Jimmy Anderson that at 41 years old still can bowl as fast he could 20 years ago.
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
No, I was saying was both it? Those who were unregistered and those that were ineligible. You can't really include the latter, especially given the large amount of immigration in the past 5 years.
I don't believe they are including those ineligible to vote. They certainly haven't in the past. It is simply that 60% of those registered to vote did so but only 52% of those eligible to vote did so. Lots of peope who don't even both to register.
Worth considering those numbers whe they are talking about auto-enrolement (which I still think is impractical in reality).
I suspect if auto enrolment did take place, a significant number of the missing voters would vote for Fargle Ltd. A case of being careful what you wish for.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
It is now a pretty good indicator of if somebody is rich or poor.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Cheap calories.
In the time of Tolkien, there was a reason that stories about huge feasts were liked. Eating until you were full at every meal, food you really, really liked, was a dream for many.
Sure. It is very striking, it reminds me of first time going to the US and seeing that contrast. It seems poorer parts of the UK are becoming similar e.g. where people need mobility scooters because they are so large.
This is the latest in the interesting PB genre of sub-threads triggered by someone in the public eye doing something insulting or stupid, and it then triggering a considered discussion of the wider issue.
Other recent examples:
- Calvin and the Mohammedans - Farage and Putin was provoked - Ed Miliband just stopping oil (caveat - currently denied by the govt) - Sunak making up fictional stories about 15 minute neighbourhoods and road pricing
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Cheap calories.
In the time of Tolkien, there was a reason that stories about huge feasts were liked. Eating until you were full at every meal, food you really, really liked, was a dream for many.
Sure. It is very striking, it reminds me of first time going to the US and seeing that contrast. It seems poorer parts of the UK are becoming similar e.g. where people need mobility scooters because they are so large.
This is the latest in the interesting PB genre of sub-threads triggered by someone in the public eye doing something insulting or stupid, and it then triggering a considered discussion of the wider issue.
Other recent examples:
- Calvin and the Mohammedans - Farage and Putin was provoked - Ed Miliband just stopping oil (caveat - currently denied by the govt) - Sunak making up fictional stories about 15 minute neighbourhoods and road pricing
Don't forget pizza bases....that went on for a whole day.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
The price of purchase is the appropriate cost to use.
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
As a regular traveller to France the contrast between the "ch'tis" of the far North and the rest of the country is really something. Up in Picardy and the Pas de Calais many could almost pass as being from the scruffier parts of Britain.
I found the same applied to Savoie. Once you went over that border from Geneva you immediately saw loads of scruffy, fat, prematurely aged types. No idea why.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Cheap calories.
In the time of Tolkien, there was a reason that stories about huge feasts were liked. Eating until you were full at every meal, food you really, really liked, was a dream for many.
Sure. It is very striking, it reminds me of first time going to the US and seeing that contrast. It seems poorer parts of the UK are becoming similar e.g. where people need mobility scooters because they are so large.
This is the latest in the interesting PB genre of sub-threads triggered by someone in the public eye doing something insulting or stupid, and it then triggering a considered discussion of the wider issue.
Other recent examples:
- Calvin and the Mohammedans - Farage and Putin was provoked - Ed Miliband just stopping oil (caveat - currently denied by the govt) - Sunak making up fictional stories about 15 minute neighbourhoods and road pricing
Don't forget pizza bases....that went on for a whole day.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
It is now a pretty good indicator of if somebody is rich or poor.
It's also a fairly good indicator of national cuisine. The worse the food the fatter the people (but not always)
The best food in Europe is probably Italy and Spain, then France (still quite slim, relatively). The best food in the world is probably Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan - all very slim
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
Smoking cigarettes reduced people's appetites. That's part of the explanation.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
The price of purchase is the appropriate cost to use.
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
Yes both of purchase and rental price for a "bog standard" 3 bed house.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
Oh, that snobbery hasn’t gone away, it’s just the reasons for doing so have shifted. It became culturally unacceptable to mock people’s class on the basis of wealth, so now it is done on the basis of culture, appearance, outlook, politics. I find it says more about the people who come out with it than it does about their targets.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
It is now a pretty good indicator of if somebody is rich or poor.
It's also a fairly good indicator of national cuisine. The worse the food the fatter the people (but not always)
The best food in Europe is probably Italy and Spain, then France (still quite slim, relatively). The best food in the world is probably Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan - all very slim
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Probably one of the worst aspects long term for the UK economy is the way everyone treats property in the same way Americans treat stocks and shares. It's part of the reason for US stock market dominance - the inescapable psychology of buying stocks over there that gives US companies free cash flow compared to the relatively dead money of property here.
In the United States, there are many more $50M+ folks whose housing needs are met and who are looking for other investments. That probably explains more than preferences for owner occupied housing, which look pretty darn similar to the UK.
House prices are generally much less for much more.
Some friends moved to Florida, from a 4 bed terrace in West London. Their new house is much cheaper, bigger (7 bedrooms) and has an *indoor* swimming pool - well in a conservatory at the back. The reason was that they were paranoid about 'gators.
All in easy commute of the business areas.
They have literally topped out on what they want from a house - more would be more effort etc.
Guess what they are doing with the extra money that would have gone on the mortgage - yes, investing.
Oh, sure. I simply mean that at a macroeconomic level, the multi-millionaires and billionaires matter a lot more for capital markets and corporate finance. And there are more of them. (Albeit, in their segment of the housing market, America absolutely does have houses that are "get less for more"! 8-figure mansions in Marin County, plus 1.5% property tax annually... !)
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
Where Western Europe hasn't yet fully followed the Brits' lead is in our dress sense or skin pallor. Faded, ill fitting and occasionally frayed outfits, with men's shorts designed to show off their radioactive legs. Only Ireland can compete.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
As a regular traveller to France the contrast between the "ch'tis" of the far North and the rest of the country is really something. Up in Picardy and the Pas de Calais many could almost pass as being from the scruffier parts of Britain.
I found the same applied to Savoie. Once you went over that border from Geneva you immediately saw loads of scruffy, fat, prematurely aged types. No idea why.
The Swiss are ridiculously fit, slender, and healthy. And rich
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
No, I was saying was both it? Those who were unregistered and those that were ineligible. You can't really include the latter, especially given the large amount of immigration in the past 5 years.
I don't believe they are including those ineligible to vote. They certainly haven't in the past. It is simply that 60% of those registered to vote did so but only 52% of those eligible to vote did so. Lots of peope who don't even both to register.
Worth considering those numbers whe they are talking about auto-enrolement (which I still think is impractical in reality).
I suspect if auto enrolment did take place, a significant number of the missing voters would vote for Fargle Ltd. A case of being careful what you wish for.
I suspect if auto enrolment did take place, turnout would collapse.
Those who can't be bothered to register to vote won't be bothered to vote either.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
It is now a pretty good indicator of if somebody is rich or poor.
It's also a fairly good indicator of national cuisine. The worse the food the fatter the people (but not always)
The best food in Europe is probably Italy and Spain, then France (still quite slim, relatively). The best food in the world is probably Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan - all very slim
Plenty of exceptions tho
Italians are enbigenning quickly and especially the bambinos.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
As a regular traveller to France the contrast between the "ch'tis" of the far North and the rest of the country is really something. Up in Picardy and the Pas de Calais many could almost pass as being from the scruffier parts of Britain.
I found the same applied to Savoie. Once you went over that border from Geneva you immediately saw loads of scruffy, fat, prematurely aged types. No idea why.
Perhaps that's just the contrast with the overly neat, silk scarf sweeping, not a hair out of place Genevan man who too often resembles the "dad" in the Patek Philippe ad spending quality time on his teak motorboat with the floppy haired son representing the next generation.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
The price of purchase is the appropriate cost to use.
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
Yes both of purchase and rental price for a "bog standard" 3 bed house.
I almost agree with you.
What standard is included for cars, bikes and TVs? I believe its a weighted sample, not a "bog standard" - houses should be the same.
I'd include the purchase and rental price of a weighted sample of houses, weighted in the inflation basket to whatever proportion of national expenditure goes on those costs.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Probably one of the worst aspects long term for the UK economy is the way everyone treats property in the same way Americans treat stocks and shares. It's part of the reason for US stock market dominance - the inescapable psychology of buying stocks over there that gives US companies free cash flow compared to the relatively dead money of property here.
In the United States, there are many more $50M+ folks whose housing needs are met and who are looking for other investments. That probably explains more than preferences for owner occupied housing, which look pretty darn similar to the UK.
House prices are generally much less for much more.
Some friends moved to Florida, from a 4 bed terrace in West London. Their new house is much cheaper, bigger (7 bedrooms) and has an *indoor* swimming pool - well in a conservatory at the back. The reason was that they were paranoid about 'gators.
All in easy commute of the business areas.
They have literally topped out on what they want from a house - more would be more effort etc.
Guess what they are doing with the extra money that would have gone on the mortgage - yes, investing.
Oh, sure. I simply mean that at a macroeconomic level, the multi-millionaires and billionaires matter a lot more for capital markets and corporate finance. And there are more of them. (Albeit, in their segment of the housing market, America absolutely does have houses that are "get less for more"! 8-figure mansions in Marin County, plus 1.5% property tax annually... !)
Yes - but my point was that more people in American can get all the house they want (really). Which does help feed the 401(k) obsession etc...
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
The price of purchase is the appropriate cost to use.
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
Yes both of purchase and rental price for a "bog standard" 3 bed house.
I almost agree with you.
What standard is included for cars, bikes and TVs? I believe its a weighted sample, not a "bog standard" - houses should be the same.
I'd include the purchase and rental price of a weighted sample of houses, weighted in the inflation basket to whatever proportion of national expenditure goes on those costs.
A weighted sample of housing and a bog standard, or average if you like, 3 bed semi are..... not going to be very different.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
You should have heard Schweinsteiger live from the stadium on the "schöne englische Oberkörper" surrounding his commentary box
What has struck me during this tournament is how the German and Dutch fans now look as fat and pasty as the English
I've noticed a gradual levelling down in that respect, but notably nobody is arguing that the English fans are svelte and handsome. So the journalist does have a bit of a point.
The whole world is getting fat. I see it everywhere (even in France - in the young, less so in the middle aged and old)
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
Where Western Europe hasn't yet fully followed the Brits' lead is in our dress sense or skin pallor. Faded, ill fitting and occasionally frayed outfits, with men's shorts designed to show off their radioactive legs. Only Ireland can compete.
Yes, tho on the other hand we are much funnier and often cheerier
This Wiki page on obesity by nation really shows the blobbing out of the world. I expected Britain to be in the top 20 or 30
Nowhere near. We are down at 86. There are literally 85 nations (out of 193) which are even FATTER than the UK
Note the Swiss way way down. I;'m not imagining it, nor am I imagining the entire world turning into lardbuckets. I see it everywhere on my travels
The least obese ten are also intriguing. Either poor African countries with not enough food, or Vietnam, Cambodia, and Japan, probably the best food in the world
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
The price of purchase is the appropriate cost to use.
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
You are completely right to highlight the tricky problems in using a cost of finance in a measure of inflation. I am merely saying that the problems in using purchase prices are also tricky, and are of a different nature to the usual problems faced in compiling any consumer price index because the goods are so expensive, diversified and infrequently transacted.
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
As a regular traveller to France the contrast between the "ch'tis" of the far North and the rest of the country is really something. Up in Picardy and the Pas de Calais many could almost pass as being from the scruffier parts of Britain.
I found the same applied to Savoie. Once you went over that border from Geneva you immediately saw loads of scruffy, fat, prematurely aged types. No idea why.
Perhaps that's just the contrast with the overly neat, silk scarf sweeping, not a hair out of place Genevan man who too often resembles the "dad" in the Patek Philippe ad spending quality time on his teak motorboat with the floppy haired son representing the next generation.
Another fascinating data point in that Wiki page. It implies British obesity is DECLINING
Now, it is easy to find data that flatly contradicts this, but anecdotally, I suspect this might be true. Brits seem a bit less fat to me. The young look a bit healthier. They don't drink as much, obvs. Less smoking
Reeks of the sort of snobbery about the lower orders that was associated with Tory aristocrats in times gone by.
If you check her bio and TwiX stream she's quite interesting. She's a rare white working class northern voice on the Groaniad (also quite pretty). She's a musician as well. Intriguing
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
As a lad done good from Stoke who now lives in a rich part of the country. I am always struck by the difference between people I see everyday and when I return back to home. Extreme obesity, people aged well beyond their years from smoking and drinking, etc. It is quite an eye opener.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
As a regular traveller to France the contrast between the "ch'tis" of the far North and the rest of the country is really something. Up in Picardy and the Pas de Calais many could almost pass as being from the scruffier parts of Britain.
I found the same applied to Savoie. Once you went over that border from Geneva you immediately saw loads of scruffy, fat, prematurely aged types. No idea why.
Perhaps that's just the contrast with the overly neat, silk scarf sweeping, not a hair out of place Genevan man who too often resembles the "dad" in the Patek Philippe ad spending quality time on his teak motorboat with the floppy haired son representing the next generation.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Nobody needs to buy shares, people do need a roof above their head.
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's not as simple as inflation being the cost of buying something, because few people buy a house in a given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys another like-for-like house next month to permit a comparison. However, we can measure the cost of paying for the same housing services in monthly rents or mortgage payments. And so that approach is what statistical agencies tend to do.
Inflation is the cost of buying something, finance is the cost of financing it, but we incorrectly treat houses as an asset rather than a cost that needs paying for.
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
Housing is both an asset and a service bearing a cost. This makes modelling its cost tricky. Housing expenditure, in mortgage costs, went up hugely since 2022. House prices did not go up that much. Which, if either, is appropriate to use? Before we even think about the share of the price that remains as a durable asset on the household's balance sheet.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
The price of purchase is the appropriate cost to use.
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
You are completely right to highlight the tricky problems in using a cost of finance in a measure of inflation. I am merely saying that the problems in using purchase prices are also tricky, and are of a different nature to the usual problems faced in compiling any consumer price index because the goods are so expensive, diversified and infrequently transacted.
That its complicated is not a reason for the statistics not to be included, its a reason for the statisticians to do their job. Plenty of things are complicated but need to be included.
If house prices had been incorporated in inflation statistics for the past quarter of a century, then inflation would have been reported (correctly!) as being higher than it was and the Bank of England would have had to act sooner to cool inflation, as it should have done.
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
I have not seen any major complaints about methodology in the UK, however the big one was the government changing from RPI to CPI for pensions and benefits since 2011 (with most employers following suit for pay rises)
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
The problem is what to do when house prices go up and interest rates go down - and this happens a lot, arguably it's a natural financial situation for this to be the case (or vice versa). CPI ignores both, RPI said it costs less, nobody says it costs more. The even trickier part is how to do the quality adjustment that says, you pay more, but your house is better because it's insulated or simply more desirable than it used to be.
If the cost of houses has gone up then that is inflation. That neither do is why neither is appropriate or measures inflation accurately.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
If share prices go up, that's not inflation. Same with house prices. But if you're paying more for your house month on month, that should ideally be in an inflation measure. However, it may be tricky to measure, because some of housing investment is that pure asset portfolio, savings, investment choice. Different countries take different approaches, few go so far as to exclude housing costs.
Shares are an investment. Houses are durable consumer goods that are (wrongly) treated like investments.
Probably one of the worst aspects long term for the UK economy is the way everyone treats property in the same way Americans treat stocks and shares. It's part of the reason for US stock market dominance - the inescapable psychology of buying stocks over there that gives US companies free cash flow compared to the relatively dead money of property here.
In the United States, there are many more $50M+ folks whose housing needs are met and who are looking for other investments. That probably explains more than preferences for owner occupied housing, which look pretty darn similar to the UK.
House prices are generally much less for much more.
Some friends moved to Florida, from a 4 bed terrace in West London. Their new house is much cheaper, bigger (7 bedrooms) and has an *indoor* swimming pool - well in a conservatory at the back. The reason was that they were paranoid about 'gators.
All in easy commute of the business areas.
They have literally topped out on what they want from a house - more would be more effort etc.
Guess what they are doing with the extra money that would have gone on the mortgage - yes, investing.
Oh, sure. I simply mean that at a macroeconomic level, the multi-millionaires and billionaires matter a lot more for capital markets and corporate finance. And there are more of them. (Albeit, in their segment of the housing market, America absolutely does have houses that are "get less for more"! 8-figure mansions in Marin County, plus 1.5% property tax annually... !)
Yes - but my point was that more people in American can get all the house they want (really). Which does help feed the 401(k) obsession etc...
Average house in the USA is 213 sq metres, average UK is 85 sq metres. No wonder people here stretch themselves far more to avoid living in shoeboxes !
Comments
So the IPPR calculation looks about right.
CPI strips out the t tends to track higher than the CPI because it includes interest rates on mortgages and rental inflation.
As rent prices have been rather increasing in recent years, along with, more recently interest rates, this is very significant.
The Bank of England Inflation Calculator uses CPI post 1988. This states that £10 in is equivalent of £14.34 as of May 24.
Hargreaves Lansdowne's inflation calculator uses RPI. This states that £10 in April 2010 is equivalent of £17 now.
That is not a minor difference.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator.
https://www.hl.co.uk/tools/calculators/inflation-calculator
So we are seeing the likes of Will Smeed, Tristian Stubbs, etc, they have no interest in red ball cricket.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/west-indies-in-australia-2023-24-1375837/australia-vs-west-indies-2nd-test-1375846/full-scorecard
They lost the first test by 10 wickets too. No Kemar Roach this time doesn't help, mind.
They have no batters in the top 20 in the world. 1 in the top 40. 2 in the top 50.
Include housing and inflation this century has been well above what people pretend it is.
But if you've paid off your mortgage and have no housing costs then CPI is pretty accurate.
@jburnmurdoch
https://ft.com/content/03d480a8-ce31-4a4e-9727-18fb029f1c4a
But it's not an easy process by any means. The process can be as tortuous as the pavements.
ETA we once had a trade war over bananas, a fruit grown in neither Europe nor the United States.
I cannot see test cricket dying, as some fear. Some of the smaller nations want in, such as Ireland etc.
I may be clouded in my judgement because I have very little time for T20.
Their first move in parliament is likely to be to walk through the Aye lobby with McDonnell if the 2 child benefit cap amendment to the King's speech has a house division.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Major_League_Cricket_season
And we are starting to see the signs with the likes of Stubbs that the Indians are saying here is a boat load of money not mess about with red ball.
The other thing is that switching between T20 and test is really hard. Bairstow has found that out. Buttler gave up red ball for similar reasons.
Finance should not be part of inflation.
If the interest rate on credit cards goes down then we don't say that your weekly shop has become cheaper, despite the fact many people can and do put their regular shopping on credit.
So, if X can afford to keep the site up in the EU, with no ads on it, eventually the advertisers will be lobbying the EU to un-ban it.
https://www.sabcsport.com/cricket/news/proteas-coach-backing-top-class-tristan-stubbs-to-make-test-number-three-spot-his-own
Nigel Farage has backed increasing benefits and cutting taxes to 'encourage' Brits to have more children.
The Reform UK leader today said backed scrapping the two-child cap on handouts - which is backed by both the Tories and Labour - would be in his party's manifesto.
I can't see it in the "contract", but potentially flanking Labour to the left on such an issue will be useful for them in their second place to Labour seats.
https://x.com/robynvinter/status/1811145849973489932
Inflation measures what it costs to buy something. If it costs you more to buy a home, of course that is inflation!
Too many people can't afford to buy a home because the prices have risen so much. And despite what some people pretend, it is not all put on finance. Saving a 10% deposit when houses cost 2x income is close to 2 months salary, doing so when they cost 10x income is nearly a years salary.
It's really sad. I hope I am wrong
[Although only if the UK followed suit]
So I think this is pure self loathing from a woman who ie escaping the favelas of Stoke or Sunderland, and shudders when it is shown to her again
It is, notwithstanding, a monumentally stupid tweet to put out, given her position and publication
Few people buy a TV or car or bike in any given month, and almost nobody then goes and buys like-for-like another TV or car or bike next month. Which is why we use a weighted average for what proportion of spending goes on different goods but despite housing being the number one expenditure in this country, exceeding even food, we incorrectly exclude it from the inflation data and then pretend inflation is low then wonder why people can't afford somewhere to live after a period of so-called low inflation.
My parents both come from poor working class backgrounds, seeing the old photos, obesity wasn't a thing in their day.
I don;t udnerstand why the NHS isn't buying up trillions of doses of Ozempic and simply handing them out. Obesity is a national killer on a profound scale. and we have a cure! Just dish it out for free, it will be expensive but in the end the gains - financial, mental, social - will FAR outweight the costs
Some friends moved to Florida, from a 4 bed terrace in West London. Their new house is much cheaper, bigger (7 bedrooms) and has an *indoor* swimming pool - well in a conservatory at the back. The reason was that they were paranoid about 'gators.
All in easy commute of the business areas.
They have literally topped out on what they want from a house - more would be more effort etc.
Guess what they are doing with the extra money that would have gone on the mortgage - yes, investing.
Worth considering those numbers when they are talking about auto-enrolement (which I still think is impractical in reality).
In the time of Tolkien, there was a reason that stories about huge feasts were liked. Eating until you were full at every meal, food you really, really liked, was a dream for many.
The difference with cars or bikes is that the CPI people do genuinely go out and look at the same pint of milk in the same type of shop from month to month. With housing, this wouldn't work - the only possible use case would be new builds, and they probably go for the same price month-on-month for marketing reasons even when price levels are rising. So you would be relying on house price models which have their own assumptions baked in.
America went first but now it is near-universal. Places like Egypt or Mexico make Britain look slim
Other recent examples:
- Calvin and the Mohammedans
- Farage and Putin was provoked
- Ed Miliband just stopping oil (caveat - currently denied by the govt)
- Sunak making up fictional stories about 15 minute neighbourhoods and road pricing
That is what inflation measures, the cost of purchasing.
If you buy a bike then the cost of the bike is the input data to inflation stats, not how much you pay monthly to Klarna or Barclaycard or however else you've financed your bike.
Its the same with houses, your mortgage costs is the cost of finance, not the cost of purchase. It is the people who buy in a particular month who are the purchasers, same as with any other good.
CPI doesn't just include milk, it includes costs for cars (both new and used), TVs, bikes and more. Housing should be in the mix too.
The best food in Europe is probably Italy and Spain, then France (still quite slim, relatively). The best food in the world is probably Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan - all very slim
Plenty of exceptions tho
Those who can't be bothered to register to vote won't be bothered to vote either.
What standard is included for cars, bikes and TVs? I believe its a weighted sample, not a "bog standard" - houses should be the same.
I'd include the purchase and rental price of a weighted sample of houses, weighted in the inflation basket to whatever proportion of national expenditure goes on those costs.
This Wiki page on obesity by nation really shows the blobbing out of the world. I expected Britain to be in the top 20 or 30
Nowhere near. We are down at 86. There are literally 85 nations (out of 193) which are even FATTER than the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate
Note the Swiss way way down. I;'m not imagining it, nor am I imagining the entire world turning into lardbuckets. I see it everywhere on my travels
The least obese ten are also intriguing. Either poor African countries with not enough food, or Vietnam, Cambodia, and Japan, probably the best food in the world
Now, it is easy to find data that flatly contradicts this, but anecdotally, I suspect this might be true. Brits seem a bit less fat to me. The young look a bit healthier. They don't drink as much, obvs. Less smoking
Rivas are mahogany.
If house prices had been incorporated in inflation statistics for the past quarter of a century, then inflation would have been reported (correctly!) as being higher than it was and the Bank of England would have had to act sooner to cool inflation, as it should have done.