Not everyone is 24/7 - though cooks and cleaners are required 7 days a week even if not 24/7 - but I'm estimating overall the 24/7 staff and simply 7 days a week staff etc will sum up to about a 1:1 average.
If the residents pay a grand per week then instantly nearly 9k of that is VAT and going straight to HMRC not the care home
So now you're down to just 18k a year per resident to cover the cost of the building, food, drinks, electricity, gas and everything else.
Well we are guessing the ratio which really renders the discussion futile. I would be astonished if it’s 1 member of staff per 2 residents. This place had 5 staff a day for 33 residents
Have a google yourself, I’d say 1:1 would be like staying at the Ritz
Its an educated guess.
5 staff at any one time? Or 5 staff per day Monday to Friday 9 to 5pm then the staff simply went home and the residents were abandoned overnight and over the weekend?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Why do you think that care homes have been such terrible businesses then?
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.
One cause is the squeeze on fees from Councils for funded residents, which are down by approx 10% in real terms since 2011, plus much more stringent demands from regulators, which has helped a "sod this for a game of soldiers" from some small operators.
And as pointed out, residents do *not* pay a grand a week. The UK average for care homes is £645, so you can knock a third of that income number.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
No.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people pay.
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Fair point. But still, are they exempt from NNDR, food, drinks, building costs, gas, electricity etc?
Building one is VAT exempt I believe, but there are recent issues in the Upper Tribunal I understand, so it will be a hell of a job to dig the real detail out.
No idea on the rest - I was just pointing out a huge error in a basic income assumption :-) that the whole calculation was built on.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Why do you think that care homes have been such terrible businesses then?
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.
I don’t know. It wasn’t through overpaying their staff though
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Why do you think that care homes have been such terrible businesses then?
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.
I don’t know. It wasn’t through overpaying their staff though
Yes, it probably was. Labour intensive businesses can very easily overpay their labour budget even if individual staff are on low wages. Especially when the minimum wage is going up fast.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
No.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people pay.
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Fair point. But still, are they exempt from NNDR, food, drinks, building costs, gas, electricity etc?
Building one is VAT exempt I believe, but there are recent issues in the Upper Tribunal I understand, so it will be a hell of a job to dig the real detail out.
No idea on the rest - I was just pointing out a huge error in a basic income assumption :-) that the whole calculation was built on.
My whisky bottle is calling ... so goodnight all.
You keep saying ‘huge error’ yet I have linked to a care home in Essex that is more expensive than the calculation you say is so terribly wrong
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
No.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people pay.
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Fair point. But still, are they exempt from NNDR, food, drinks, building costs, gas, electricity etc?
Building one is VAT exempt I believe, but there are recent issues in the Upper Tribunal I understand, so it will be a hell of a job to dig the real detail out.
No idea on the rest - I was just pointing out a huge error in a basic income assumption :-) that the whole calculation was built on.
My whisky bottle is calling ... so goodnight all.
You keep saying ‘huge error’ and I have linked to a care home in Essex that is more expensive than the calculation you say is so terribly wrong
Care is not provisioned on a 1:1 basis let alone a 4:1 basis. At any time, especially in a nursing home, care is around 1:5, overnight it can be as much as 1:10 with another staff member on call. Disability care is more labour intensive and that's around 1:2 in the day and around 1:4 overnight with staff on call.
The economics of care are very poor, it is also a field which could use serious automation and investment in robotics.
Care is not provisioned on a 1:1 basis let alone a 4:1 basis. At any time, especially in a nursing home, care is around 1:5, overnight it can be as much as 1:10 with another staff member on call. Disability care is more labour intensive and that's around 1:2 in the day and around 1:4 overnight with staff on call.
The economics of care are very poor, it is also a field which could use serious automation and investment in robotics.
I'm not saying its 1:1 at any one time, I'm saying that when you count all 24/7 staff combined, auxilliary staff, statutory holidays etc then overall it is probably around 1:1
A full time staff member may be there 40 hours a week - a resident will be there 168 hours per week. You can't compare 1:1
Care is not provisioned on a 1:1 basis let alone a 4:1 basis. At any time, especially in a nursing home, care is around 1:5, overnight it can be as much as 1:10 with another staff member on call. Disability care is more labour intensive and that's around 1:2 in the day and around 1:4 overnight with staff on call.
The economics of care are very poor, it is also a field which could use serious automation and investment in robotics.
Unfortunately, butts are not currently easily wiped by robots.
(Although I recently got a Japanese toilet, and it's AWESOME.)
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Why do you think that care homes have been such terrible businesses then?
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.
I don’t know. It wasn’t through overpaying their staff though
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
(Although I recently got a Japanese toilet, and it's AWESOME.)
In the interests of hygiene and human progress here's a link for UK residents to find their nearest publicly-accessible washlet: https://gb.toto.com/service/washlet-finder/
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Care homes are not money spinners for the owners.
Why do they do it then?
That's like saying "why do people run shops when the returns are terrible?"
The answer is because capital is already committed, and people's skin is in the game.
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Care homes are not money spinners for the owners.
Why do they do it then?
That's like saying "why do people run shops when the returns are terrible?"
The answer is because capital is already committed, and people's skin is in the game.
I don't know much about the care home industry, but I do think it's a fair question. There are some industries where companies actively enter it despite poor returns for a long time. Airlines and railways spring to mind. I kinda get that the first of those is basically a prestige thing, but trains aren't even very prestigious.
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Care homes are not money spinners for the owners.
Why do they do it then?
That's like saying "why do people run shops when the returns are terrible?"
The answer is because capital is already committed, and people's skin is in the game.
I don't know much about the care home industry, but I do think it's a fair question. There are some industries where companies actively enter it despite poor returns for a long time. Airlines and railways spring to mind. I kinda get that the first of those is basically a prestige thing, but trains aren't even very prestigious.
Motor insurance is another.
Well, in the UK at least. Apparently there are those who've identified some better opportunities further west...
I though Obama was a DINO, basically indistinguishable from a Republican.
Obama was left of Bloomberg but right of Sanders and Warren, probably ideologically closest to Buttigieg while obviously personally closest to Biden as his former VP
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Care homes are not money spinners for the owners.
Why do they do it then?
That's like saying "why do people run shops when the returns are terrible?"
The answer is because capital is already committed, and people's skin is in the game.
I don't know much about the care home industry, but I do think it's a fair question. There are some industries where companies actively enter it despite poor returns for a long time. Airlines and railways spring to mind. I kinda get that the first of those is basically a prestige thing, but trains aren't even very prestigious.
Motor insurance is another.
Well, in the UK at least. Apparently there are those who've identified some better opportunities further west...
Someone who might know (though might not, they didn't work in the industry itself) once told me the point of insurance companies is to profit off the cashflow generated, not the insurance itself. That is, you pay out 100% of premiums over time, so overall customers are basically lending you the money for free. You invest it in the interim, and that's the actual point.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
I'm quoting from professional research surveys across the country.
You quote one outlier - a Bentley of Care Homes.
I don't think a setup where everyone has their individual flat where the smallest is a 280sqft studio and the largest is an 800 sqft 2 bed flat is a normal care home.
The fees there for the smallest flat start at £1305 per week and run up to £2080 per week, plus another £550 if you want to live there as a couple.
Massive interest charges, directors renumerated through opaque subsidiary companies...
If it were one company going bust, that would be fine.
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Care homes are not money spinners for the owners.
Why do they do it then?
That's like saying "why do people run shops when the returns are terrible?"
The answer is because capital is already committed, and people's skin is in the game.
I don't know much about the care home industry, but I do think it's a fair question. There are some industries where companies actively enter it despite poor returns for a long time. Airlines and railways spring to mind. I kinda get that the first of those is basically a prestige thing, but trains aren't even very prestigious.
Motor insurance is another.
Well, in the UK at least. Apparently there are those who've identified some better opportunities further west...
Someone who might know (though might not, they didn't work in the industry itself) once told me the point of insurance companies is to profit off the cashflow generated, not the insurance itself. That is, you pay out 100% of premiums over time, so overall customers are basically lending you the money for free. You invest it in the interim, and that's the actual point.
No idea if it's true.
It used to be more true. Profits used to be a combination of actual underwriting profit (premium minus claims minus expenses) and the investment income. It has been less true since the financial crisis pushed yields on government debt to the floor. Although simultaneously, overcompetition triggered by comparison websites has taken a big chunk out of profitability as well.
In life insurance, since the delay between premium collection and claim payment is much greater, the investment income is a much bigger deal than say motor, where premiums are generally held for a year at most.
There are other factors. It's a complicated industry.
Mayor Pete's line 'We don't have to choose between a socialist who thinks money is the root of all evil and one who thinks that money should be the root of all power' is a great line, shame he garbled it.
I know it works for him, but I find Sanders dull to watch. It's not his message, it's the fact he only speaks in one tone. There's a place for the passionate shouted line, but everything he says is that.
Bloomberg isn't a strong speaker but neither are most of the other candidates to be fair.
I'm generally skeptical about the impact of these debates, but if Bloomberg is this muted all night I do wonder if he will be harmed.
Klobuchar saying that the Dems could combat sexism on the internet by nominating a woman is an obvious line for her, but surely proven false by the fact they did that 4 years ago and last I checked there was plenty of sexism on the internet.
Bloomberg is getting surprisingly little speaking time so far. Will it matter? Meh.
I think Bernie's doing it on purpose, he's name-checking other rival candidates per answer, then then fill up all the time on that and nobody has a chance to go after Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is getting surprisingly little speaking time so far. Will it matter? Meh.
I think Bernie's doing it on purpose, he's name-checking other rival candidates per answer, then then fill up all the time on that and nobody has a chance to go after Bloomberg.
Could be, and that is certainly how it's playing out.
We're just back to Bloomberg, and let's just say he's lucky the debates aren't as important as TV ads. He sounds dull, his answers are meandering, there's no key soundbite, no real attack on others or big statements about himself. He just rambles for a bit.
WTF is this stuff from Bloomberg on Stop and Frisk. It's fair enough to say you were wrong and have changed, but he sounds like he's begging for mercy and also feels a bit unfair to be criticised for it.
Take Japan: Its trade volume with the EU stood at some €117.1 billion in 2018, compared with the U.K.'s €516.6 billion. That means the bubble representing the U.K. should be about 4.4 times larger than the bubble representing Japan. On the EU's chart, the U.K. bubble is more than 16 times larger than Japan's.
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the public understanding of risk at Cambridge University, said the Commission's approach was "indefensible" and went against "standard graphical practice."
"It's also the biggest mistake to make. It's incorrect to use diameter to represent volume," he said, adding that it was "the sort of thing a junior person would do."
Bloomberg asked about sexist statements he has made and just discusses his corporate HR policy for a minute. Does this work better with focus groups than it does to me?
Warren is crisp going straight after it too. Asks him if he waive non-disclosure agreements if he's done nothing wrong.
Bloomberg's response: None of them accuse me of doing anything wrong, "Maybe they didn't like a joke I made or something." I actually cringed.
Bloomberg drifting significantly on Betfair - big move in just last 5 minutes.
His answers on the sexual harrassment issue are awful. The first time of the night I really do feel he can't avoid at least a bit of harm from the night. Plenty of very news/TV friendly moments, too.
I think Warren is the only candidate who has gotten better as the debate goes on. After her initial hit on Bloomberg she had some quite woolly answers which were forgetable but now she's very crisp again.
Commentators in the States writing off Bloomberg already on the basis of tonight.
How many primary voters will have watched the debate, compared to the number exposed to Bloomberg's incessant TV advertising?
I have a lot of sympathy for that view. I personally think the ad campaign has been very effective.
But there is also evidence that more people hear the pundits' spin than view the debates, and are strongly influenced by the spin. So if the spin in all the mainstream media is that Bloomberg's performance disqualifies him, I think that will damage him considerably. Alas.
Commentators in the States writing off Bloomberg already on the basis of tonight.
How many primary voters will have watched the debate, compared to the number exposed to Bloomberg's incessant TV advertising?
I have a lot of sympathy for that view. I personally think the ad campaign has been very effective.
But there is also evidence that more people hear the pundits' spin than view the debates, and are strongly influenced by the spin. So if the spin in all the mainstream media is that Bloomberg's performance disqualifies him, I think that will damage him considerably. Alas.
That is probably also true, among the politically engaged. But the debate moderation and pundit 'spin' has been universally terrible. (or maybe I just don't watch enough US TV).
The conclusion from the Variety piece linked above: Throughout this long, long Democratic primary process, the debate moderation has, with very few exceptions, proved to be especially uninspired. Usually the culprit for that is the slate of questions, which have tended to be unnecessarily combative in a bid to get the candidates to rise to tempting bait. The ever-escalating tenor of cable news constantly demands juicy moments for digesting, and tonight’s unruly debate delivered them rather than the kind of information voters actually need. Tonight’s moderating — or more accurately, lack thereof — sacrificed clarity for fireworks. That might be “good television,” which is maybe all MSNBC wanted in the end, but it also made for a uniquely frustrating debate at a particularly crucial moment during the campaign.
Comments
5 staff at any one time? Or 5 staff per day Monday to Friday 9 to 5pm then the staff simply went home and the residents were abandoned overnight and over the weekend?
And as pointed out, residents do *not* pay a grand a week. The UK average for care homes is £645, so you can knock a third of that income number.
No idea on the rest - I was just pointing out a huge error in a basic income assumption :-) that the whole calculation was built on.
My whisky bottle is calling ... so goodnight all.
https://www.signature-care-homes.co.uk/price/signature-the-beeches-brentwood-care-home-prices
The economics of care are very poor, it is also a field which could use serious automation and investment in robotics.
A full time staff member may be there 40 hours a week - a resident will be there 168 hours per week. You can't compare 1:1
(Although I recently got a Japanese toilet, and it's AWESOME.)
But the reality is that - other than High Street retail - there is probably no other sector which has been such an enormous destroyer of shareholder value in the last five years.
Care homes are not money spinners for the owners.
https://gb.toto.com/service/washlet-finder/
Declaration of interest: I have shares in Toto
The answer is because capital is already committed, and people's skin is in the game.
Well, in the UK at least. Apparently there are those who've identified some better opportunities further west...
No idea if it's true.
You quote one outlier - a Bentley of Care Homes.
I don't think a setup where everyone has their individual flat where the smallest is a 280sqft studio and the largest is an 800 sqft 2 bed flat is a normal care home.
The fees there for the smallest flat start at £1305 per week and run up to £2080 per week, plus another £550 if you want to live there as a couple.
The Which calculator suggests that the average fee for care homes in the same postcode in Brentwood is £861 per week. A little different.
https://www.which.co.uk/later-life-care/financing-care/cost-of-care-and-eligibility-checker
"Take away the insurance plan that they love".
The basic point is fine but who *loves* their insurance plan?
I didn't meant to be awake but can't sleep. Feisty so far, this is actually worth watching. Even Biden is pretty good.
I think Bloomberg has some decent arguments but not great 'stage charisma'.
In life insurance, since the delay between premium collection and claim payment is much greater, the investment income is a much bigger deal than say motor, where premiums are generally held for a year at most.
There are other factors. It's a complicated industry.
I know it works for him, but I find Sanders dull to watch. It's not his message, it's the fact he only speaks in one tone. There's a place for the passionate shouted line, but everything he says is that.
Klobuchar saying that the Dems could combat sexism on the internet by nominating a woman is an obvious line for her, but surely proven false by the fact they did that 4 years ago and last I checked there was plenty of sexism on the internet.
Klobuchar is a quality debater. Actually charming and funny along with her key lines.
We're just back to Bloomberg, and let's just say he's lucky the debates aren't as important as TV ads. He sounds dull, his answers are meandering, there's no key soundbite, no real attack on others or big statements about himself. He just rambles for a bit.
https://www.politico.eu/article/sliding-flaws-eu-publishes-misleading-brexit-chart/
Take Japan: Its trade volume with the EU stood at some €117.1 billion in 2018, compared with the U.K.'s €516.6 billion. That means the bubble representing the U.K. should be about 4.4 times larger than the bubble representing Japan. On the EU's chart, the U.K. bubble is more than 16 times larger than Japan's.
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the public understanding of risk at Cambridge University, said the Commission's approach was "indefensible" and went against "standard graphical practice."
"It's also the biggest mistake to make. It's incorrect to use diameter to represent volume," he said, adding that it was "the sort of thing a junior person would do."
Bloomberg: I am very strict with minions and underlings who commit sexual harassment
Warren is crisp going straight after it too. Asks him if he waive non-disclosure agreements if he's done nothing wrong.
Bloomberg's response: None of them accuse me of doing anything wrong, "Maybe they didn't like a joke I made or something." I actually cringed.
Klobuchar has become much more rambling the last 20 minutes. What happened to the snappy lines which blended humour and hitting her rivals?
Mayor Pete is good. I find him a tad too smooth and it comes across as slick in a bad way, but he's consistent on policy and attacks and his case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k
I'm seeing a lot of remarks online about how Biden had a good debate. I did not see that at all. But whatever.
Hillary Clinton can be laid at 34, for anyone who wants a better return than the bank. She's 5th favourite for some reason!
Anyone vote for any of them as their MP?
But there is also evidence that more people hear the pundits' spin than view the debates, and are strongly influenced by the spin. So if the spin in all the mainstream media is that Bloomberg's performance disqualifies him, I think that will damage him considerably. Alas.
https://variety.com/2020/tv/columns/msnbc-democratic-debate-moderators-lost-control-1203508788/
The conclusion from the Variety piece linked above:
Throughout this long, long Democratic primary process, the debate moderation has, with very few exceptions, proved to be especially uninspired. Usually the culprit for that is the slate of questions, which have tended to be unnecessarily combative in a bid to get the candidates to rise to tempting bait. The ever-escalating tenor of cable news constantly demands juicy moments for digesting, and tonight’s unruly debate delivered them rather than the kind of information voters actually need. Tonight’s moderating — or more accurately, lack thereof — sacrificed clarity for fireworks. That might be “good television,” which is maybe all MSNBC wanted in the end, but it also made for a uniquely frustrating debate at a particularly crucial moment during the campaign.