Do you want to discuss boring politics? (106 Viewers)

[MalcSB]

Haha,I’m just jealous of the iMac! I’m the same, my MBP is also 8 years old and sounds more and more like a helicopter as each day goes by.

The iMac actually remains a pretty good bit of kit - far more than I need really.

 

---

[MalcSB]

We love a ban.

Would be interesting to see the results for

A) A poll of regular pub goers
B) A poll of regular outdoor restaurant goers
C) A poll os makers and papers

 

[Grendel]

Not really a 4 day week in the way most people talk about it.

This proposal would be, for example, 4 10 hour days rather than 5 8 hours days. An actual 4 day week as implemented elsewhere would be 4 8 hour days.

Of course they’ve already given companies an easy out as it can only be implemented where the company feels it is feasible.

As we already have a right to flexible working, at least in theory, not sure this will be a big change.

What would happen to people in my position? I’m salaried for 40 hours a week but in reality do 50+ Do I now get every Friday off?

How would this possibly work say in an SME production site?

 

[chiefdave]

How would this possibly work say in an SME production site?

Yet again, as with working from home, why can things to improve people’s lives, not to mention improve productivity, only be implemented if it is possible for every single person in the country?

The number of times over the decades we’ve been told a change will bring industry crashing to its knees is ridiculous but it’s never really happened, well not as a result of improving things for workers. Maybe we should go back to working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week and child labour.

Also, do people think that when a business is open 24/7/365 it’s just one never ending shift or are most people able to grasp the concept of working shifts?

Oddly enough of the SME customers we support the vast majority of those that close for at least half day Fridays are the ones working in production so if anything the chance would have less of an impact on them than other sectors, anecdotally of course.

Feels like once again it seems a case of looking for reasons not to improve people’s lives, ‘if I can’t have it no one can’

 

[chiefdave]

If people get the same pay for a 20% reduction in hours (5*8 down to 4*8) does that count as a 20% increase in salary? I can remember many years ago in the NHS as hours were reduced from 40 to 37 in a couple of stages that each reduction was presented to us as a pay rise. If it isn't, a productivity increase of 20% to make up for it seems pretty phenomenal to me.

Your last sentence is kind of where my thoughts were. I can't see the NHS letting people work a 4 day week. i would have loved to have worked my contracted hours over 4 days. The not contacting employees out of work hours is also interesting - could that mean that NHS (and others) on call would be disallowed.

One of the problems with these sorts of "rights" is that they are another possible cause of division between those that have them and the have nots.

Think it would depend on productivity. Trials I’ve read about tend to show that, at worst, productivity is maintained. If the employer is getting the same amount out of an employee should it matter if they do it in less hours?

Some areas would obviously be exempt. In fact part of the issue now with on call is companies in my sector, IT, are applying rules around on call that were designed for professions like emergency surgeons. Keeping people on call for hours on end with little or no pay for those hours so they can sell a 24/7 service.

Went through that whole shit show at a former employer when someone decided to get a lawyer involved because the company was taking the piss.

 

[MalcSB]

Think it would depend on productivity. Trials I’ve read about tend to show that, at worst, productivity is maintained. If the employer is getting the same amount out of an employee should it matter if they do it in less hours?

Some areas would obviously be exempt. In fact part of the issue now with on call is companies in my sector, IT, are applying rules around on call that were designed for professions like emergency surgeons. Keeping people on call for hours on end with little or no pay for those hours so they can sell a 24/7 service.

Went through that whole shit show at a former employer when someone decided to get a lawyer involved because the company was taking the piss.

I think I see your point, but it is therefore a 20% increase in hourly rate.

On call is an interesting one. NHS managers on call has changed enormously over the years, and has gone from rarely being contacted to being pretty full on most nights and weekends and it is a cheap way of achieving 24 hour management of issues. There really ought to be “night managers”.

 

[shmmeee]

Don’t most four day workweek trials have longer work days?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You are just plain wrong. This shows the number who are now renting. Also, as I understand it, rents have been increasing. Part of that will be because of increased buy to let mortgage costs, part to the change in how rents are taxed but the major part will be insufficient properties available. That is because of increasing population. The indigenous population is pretty static.

How Many UK Households Rent vs. Own?​

According to NimbleFins analysis of data from the 2023 English Housing Survey, just over one third of households rent their home (35%); another third owns their home outright (35%); and just under a third owns their home with a mortgage (29%) in the UK.

How many people rent vs. own their home in the UK?	Number	Percentage
Number of Mortgage Holders	7,196,140	29%
Number of Renters	8,601,025	35%
Number Owning House Outright	8,610,768	35%
Total Households	24,407,932	100%

I admit I made a pig's ear out of my meaning.

What I meant was there are an increasing number of young people who are renting because they can't afford to buy (well, get together a deposit). And a large part of that is because where rented housing was predominately council owned they are now private rented and so cost more due to the profit motive that has been introduced on top of the supply/demand pressures. Housing costs are rising much faster than wages.

You posted a couple of graphs. What I think you aren't considering here is the timescale. The number of owner occupied is increasing, but many of those will have been on mortgages for many of those years when it was far easier for younger people to get them. As you can see there has been a marked decline in mortgages in recent times even if that decline does appear to have leveled off. Meanwhile the number of private renters has increased a lot in the same time period while social housing has declined.

I think we need to think of these trends in 10-20 years time, or even longer. You can already see it, as some have alluded to. Houses that have traditionally been owned are now rented. As older people who owned the housing die (or need to sell to go into care) then the family's tend to not care who it's sold to - they just leave it to an estate agent to get the best price. Far too often that best price will be offered by someone looking to use it as an income stream and investment. I can personally attest to three such instances in my sister's road - houses owned by old people that are now rented accommodation. One is an HMO. At the moment it is prevalent in areas of houses that were built in say the 30's - they have been owned by people for decades as a family home and have died owning the property. When it has gone on sale the chances of it being snapped up by a landlord are much higher than in the past. How long before similar things start happening in places built in the 50's etc. as their long standing owners die? It's also prevalent around areas such as the universities - loads of new housing in Canley is now going up for private rent as student accommodation. It's seeping in slowly but you can see it happening.

Now, who can tell how that will progress during those years. Will the amount of students go down? Will the amount of purpose built student accommodation make it harder for the BtL student landlords to make money? As prices continue to increase and rents go up to maintain profit, at what point will it just become impossible for stagnant real-term wages to pay the asking price? We are already at the point where it is nigh-on impossible to save for a deposit as an ever-increasing percentage of the wages go on rent. That has progressed further in recent years and we are seeing people having to choose to heat or eat as much of their money is going on housing costs. Much longer and that won't be a choice - it will be neither as everything is going on just having the roof over your head.

 

[MalcSB]

Don’t most four day workweek trials have longer work days?

I expected so, but chief Dave was suggesting otherwise.

I can’t get my head around a 20% increase in productivity in the reduced hours scenario unless some piss was being taken in the first place.

I also wonder how, in either scenario, the jobs that can‘t be worked on a 4 day basis could be made attractive to avoid recruitment issues.

 

[chiefdave]

I think I see your point, but it is therefore a 20% increase in hourly rate.

On call is an interesting one. NHS managers on call has changed enormously over the years, and has gone from rarely being contacted to being pretty full on most nights and weekends and it is a cheap way of achieving 24 hour management of issues. There really ought to be “night managers”.

Guess it depends on the role. I am employed for 40 hours a week, I do far more than that and don’t get a penny extra, is that a pro rata pay decrease? Not sure many employers would argue that but they’re happy to argue the other way!



On call in IT has become an absolute piss take, thank god I don’t have to do it any more. My first couple of decades in the industry passed with exactly two calls, one for a building being flooded, another for a building on fire. Now it’s any random shit the same as you get the rest of the day because companies will happily sell 24/7 IT support but won’t pay to properly staff it. I’ve had colleagues be woken up by calls in the middle of the night for shit like a printer being out of paper.

Don’t most four day workweek trials have longer work days?

I’ve not read huge amounts about it in fairness but all the studies I’ve looked at count it as 4 days working the same number of hours per day you would in a 5 day week, anything else is just flexible working.

This is why most studies focus on if the level of productivity can be maintained with less hours being worked, and it seems in the vast majority of cases it can.

 

[shmmeee]

I expected so, but chief Dave was suggesting otherwise.

I can’t get my head around a 20% increase in productivity in the reduced hours scenario unless some piss was being taken in the first place.

I also wonder how, in either scenario, the jobs that can‘t be worked on a 4 day basis could be made attractive to avoid recruitment issues.

I think there’s a serious amount of piss taken in almost every job

 

[chiefdave]

I expected so, but chief Dave was suggesting otherwise.

I can’t get my head around a 20% increase in productivity in the reduced hours scenario unless some piss was being taken in the first place.

I also wonder how, in either scenario, the jobs that can‘t be worked on a 4 day basis could be made attractive to avoid recruitment issues.

Firstly, the definition of a 4-day work week must be established. This has been contested and varied but is reaching a consensus on the definition provided (and trademarked) by the organisation 4 Day Week Global:

"Employees receive 100% pay for 80% time worked with 100% productivity targets achieved.”

This 100:80:100 principle focuses on time in percentages instead of days and allows organisations to structure their work setup to best fit their needs. In this way, the 4-day work week is not necessarily about the individual weekdays but instead about the total time worked.

appreciate it is very counter intuitive but what you’re saying is exactly the issue. People will ignore the evidence because in their own mind they can’t make it make sense.

In terms of taking the piss you may well be right. I can see on our system that I’m regularly doing around 50% of the jobs that come in, we are a team of 6.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Don’t most four day workweek trials have longer work days?

I'm not sure that would be more productive. Personally, though it would seem others I work or have worked with feel similar, is that first hour I'm not massively productive as I settle into my day. Next 3-4 hours I'm productive. then I start to flag, my mind starts to wander and I'm just not as good. I'd say to get the most productivity out of me I should work in 5-6 hour bursts.

In terms of days by the end of the week I'm not as productive as earlier in the week. The 'bet that was done at 5pm on a Friday' joke is there for a reason. Again a four day week would probably see me being more productive. Say work 2 days, day off, work 2 days two days off.

Although I know the likes of Grendel will say 'but no-one would be able to afford anything if everyone worked such hours' but if the standard was more employees each working shorter shifts/ fewer days I think that would be more productive and so equivalent hourly pay could increase somewhat. And if that's the standard working practice then prices would have to then reflect that most people were working fewer hours.

I also thing it would have a hugely beneficial effect on the nation's mental health as people might feel they're working to live rather than living to work.

 

[MalcSB]

I admit I made a pig's ear out of my meaning.

What I meant was there are an increasing number of young people who are renting because they can't afford to buy (well, get together a deposit). And a large part of that is because where rented housing was predominately council owned they are now private rented and so cost more due to the profit motive that has been introduced on top of the supply/demand pressures. Housing costs are rising much faster than wages.

You posted a couple of graphs. What I think you aren't considering here is the timescale. The number of owner occupied is increasing, but many of those will have been on mortgages for many of those years when it was far easier for younger people to get them. As you can see there has been a marked decline in mortgages in recent times even if that decline does appear to have leveled off. Meanwhile the number of private renters has increased a lot in the same time period while social housing has declined.

I think we need to think of these trends in 10-20 years time, or even longer. You can already see it, as some have alluded to. Houses that have traditionally been owned are now rented. As older people who owned the housing die (or need to sell to go into care) then the family's tend to not care who it's sold to - they just leave it to an estate agent to get the best price. Far too often that best price will be offered by someone looking to use it as an income stream and investment. I can personally attest to three such instances in my sister's road - houses owned by old people that are now rented accommodation. One is an HMO. At the moment it is prevalent in areas of houses that were built in say the 30's - they have been owned by people for decades as a family home and have died owning the property. When it has gone on sale the chances of it being snapped up by a landlord are much higher than in the past. How long before similar things start happening in places built in the 50's etc. as their long standing owners die? It's also prevalent around areas such as the universities - loads of new housing in Canley is now going up for private rent as student accommodation. It's seeping in slowly but you can see it happening.

Now, who can tell how that will progress during those years. Will the amount of students go down? Will the amount of purpose built student accommodation make it harder for the BtL student landlords to make money? As prices continue to increase and rents go up to maintain profit, at what point will it just become impossible for stagnant real-term wages to pay the asking price? We are already at the point where it is nigh-on impossible to save for a deposit as an ever-increasing percentage of the wages go on rent. That has progressed further in recent years and we are seeing people having to choose to heat or eat as much of their money is going on housing costs. Much longer and that won't be a choice - it will be neither as everything is going on just having the roof over your head.
View attachment 38154

The big increase in owner occupancy seems to coincide with the introduction of “right to buy“ which isn’t a huge surprise. A dastardly Tory plot giving council tenants the opportunity to own their own home at a significantly discounted price Cunningly disadvantaging those who were forced to seek somewhere to rent.

Your experience is interesting but is it really the norm? It’s certainly not my experience. When my Mum downsized, her house went to a private buyer, when she died her bungalow also went to a private buyer. I have sold several houses in my time, always to a private buyer. Having aid that, perhaps the houses in your sister’s road needed expensive renovations which young private buyers were unwilling to commit to.

I can see loads of buy to let portfolios coming on to the market and this will likely accelerate given the threat of increases in Capital Gains Tax. Perhaps this will give the market correction you ask for. I doubt it though as the population continues to increase. You van possibly blame Tony Blair for the expansion of the student population and hence accommodation

When / if BTL landlords sell up, the rental market will be in total disarray and people will then be complaining about that.

There are either too few houses for the population and so more need to be built, or there are too many people for the available houses and, as the indigenous population is pretty static, less people need to be allowed in to the country.

 

[MalcSB]

I'm not sure that would be more productive. Personally, though it would seem others I work or have worked with feel similar, is that first hour I'm not massively productive as I settle into my day. Next 3-4 hours I'm productive. then I start to flag, my mind starts to wander and I'm just not as good. I'd say to get the most productivity out of me I should work in 5-6 hour bursts.

In terms of days by the end of the week I'm not as productive as earlier in the week. The 'bet that was done at 5pm on a Friday' joke is there for a reason. Again a four day week would probably see me being more productive. Say work 2 days, day off, work 2 days two days off.

Although I know the likes of Grendel will say 'but no-one would be able to afford anything if everyone worked such hours' but if the standard was more employees each working shorter shifts/ fewer days I think that would be more productive and so equivalent hourly pay could increase somewhat. And if that's the standard working practice then prices would have to then reflect that most people were working fewer hours.

I also thing it would have a hugely beneficial effect on the nation's mental health as people might feel they're working to live rather than living to work.

Should I read that as you want to work a 20-24 hour week (4 days of 5-6 hour bursts) for the same salary?

 

[MalcSB]

appreciate it is very counter intuitive but what you’re saying is exactly the issue. People will ignore the evidence because in their own mind they can’t make it make sense.

In terms of taking the piss you may well be right. I can see on our system that I’m regularly doing around 50% of the jobs that come in, we are a team of 6.

Your last sentence - have you pointed that out to anyone?

 

[Nick]

Who's voted and seen that?

I don't smoke, I don't really like the smell of it. I don't have an issue with people doing it outside of pubs with a bit of common sense.

If people are eating, don't sit and blow the smoke all over them. Go over away from the tables and have a cig.

 

[MalcSB]

Guess it depends on the role. I am employed for 40 hours a week, I do far more than that and don’t get a penny extra, is that a pro rata pay decrease? Not sure many employers would argue that but they’re happy to argue the other way!



On call in IT has become an absolute piss take, thank god I don’t have to do it any more. My first couple of decades in the industry passed with exactly two calls, one for a building being flooded, another for a building on fire. Now it’s any random shit the same as you get the rest of the day because companies will happily sell 24/7 IT support but won’t pay to properly staff it. I’ve had colleagues be woken up by calls in the middle of the night for shit like a printer being out of paper.

I’ve not read huge amounts about it in fairness but all the studies I’ve looked at count it as 4 days working the same number of hours per day you would in a 5 day week, anything else is just flexible working.

This is why most studies focus on if the level of productivity can be maintained with less hours being worked, and it seems in the vast majority of cases it can.

I think if anyone is working lots of unpaid hours than it is a pro rata pay decrease. Some employers really take the piss.
In the NHS anyone at band 8 or above doesn’t get paid for any additional hours they work, it is a disincentive for Band 7s who do get paid for extra hours to look for promotion. NHS employers typically take advantage of that.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The big increase in owner occupancy seems to coincide with the introduction of “right to buy“ which isn’t a huge surprise. A dastardly Tory plot giving council tenants the opportunity to own their own home at a significantly discounted price Cunningly disadvantaging those who were forced to seek somewhere to rent.

Your experience is interesting but is it really the norm? It’s certainly not my experience. When my Mum downsized, her house went to a private buyer, when she died her bungalow also went to a private buyer. I have sold several houses in my time, always to a private buyer. Having aid that, perhaps the houses in your sister’s road needed expensive renovations which young private buyers were unwilling to commit to.

I can see loads of buy to let portfolios coming on to the market and this will likely accelerate given the threat of increases in Capital Gains Tax. Perhaps this will give the market correction you ask for. I doubt it though as the population continues to increase. You van possibly blame Tony Blair for the expansion of the student population and hence accommodation

When / if BTL landlords sell up, the rental market will be in total disarray and people will then be complaining about that.

There are either too few houses for the population and so more need to be built, or there are too many people for the available houses and, as the indigenous population is pretty static, less people need to be allowed in to the country.

I agree that increase in owner occupier will be due to RtB. However at that time most of the rental stock would have been owned by councils and so would keep costs down to a degree compared to private.

I think the thing is possibly where the houses are at the moment. The ones around Canley are convenient for Warwick. My sister lives in an area that could be considered convenient for Cov Uni students. . And as you say with it being owned by old people chances are the houses need a bit of updating, though not major work I don't think. One certainly needed a lot of work. But didn't a lot of people on here say that they bought their first house with work needed because it was affordable for them? Maybe it's changed and now people are used to having everything as they want it, or just don't have the time (or certainly money) to update? Round by me they still seem to be going to owner occupiers, but it's not really convenient for students etc. But there are a lot of ageing residents and I wonder if over the coming decades that rental thing may start to creep in, and once it does it will snowball as it's less attractive to potential owner occupiers and leaves a more exploitable market for landlords.

Having said that I have heard of a few people who have property portfolios who are now no longer looking to add to those due to the cost of housing now. Not heard of them divesting but maybe they will in years to come to have the cash to invest elsewhere instead (or pay for retirement?). Does say how totally unaffordable housing is when even those with portfolios aren't willing to invest. Maybe a sliver of hope of the trend being bucked but still see it being more lucrative for landlords than affordable for owners.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Should I read that as you want to work a 20-24 hour week (4 days of 5-6 hour bursts) for the same salary?

No. I would expect a lower salary, but at a higher rate than I currently get as I believe I would be more productive.

Say 2/3 of full time hours for 3/4 of full time wages.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Not sure if it’s been said but I can’t blame Sir Kier wanting to take that picture down of that old witch if it was me it would be in a skip

 

[fernandopartridge]

I think there’s a serious amount of piss taken in almost every job

Or there is probably a maximum level of output that really means some hours in work are just for the sake of it. Look at this forum, lots of us posting on here during working hours because we can spread the workload across 5 days.

 

[MalcSB]

Or there is probably a maximum level of output that really means some hours in work are just for the sake of it. Look at this forum, lots of us posting on here during working hours because we can spread the workload across 5 days.

I have an excuse - I’m retired.

 

[chiefdave]

Your last sentence - have you pointed that out to anyone?

Yes, and then we all get dragged into a meeting and moaned at because ‘we don’t want to single people out’

 

[MalcSB]

Not sure if it’s been said but I can’t blame Sir Kier wanting to take that picture down of that old witch if it was me it would be in a skip

The picture commissioned by Gordon Brown. Just goes to show how insecure Starmer is if he finds an inanimate object unsettling.

 

[MalcSB]

Yes, and then we all get dragged into a meeting and moaned at because ‘we don’t want to single people out’

Sounds like you are being singled out in terms of workload.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

The picture commissioned by Gordon Brown. Just goes to show how insecure Starmer is if he finds an inanimate object unsettling.

A face of evil.

 

[MalcSB]

I agree that increase in owner occupier will be due to RtB. However at that time most of the rental stock would have been owned by councils and so would keep costs down to a degree compared to private.

I think the thing is possibly where the houses are at the moment. The ones around Canley are convenient for Warwick. My sister lives in an area that could be considered convenient for Cov Uni students. . And as you say with it being owned by old people chances are the houses need a bit of updating, though not major work I don't think. One certainly needed a lot of work. But didn't a lot of people on here say that they bought their first house with work needed because it was affordable for them? Maybe it's changed and now people are used to having everything as they want it, or just don't have the time (or certainly money) to update? Round by me they still seem to be going to owner occupiers, but it's not really convenient for students etc. But there are a lot of ageing residents and I wonder if over the coming decades that rental thing may start to creep in, and once it does it will snowball as it's less attractive to potential owner occupiers and leaves a more exploitable market for landlords.

Having said that I have heard of a few people who have property portfolios who are now no longer looking to add to those due to the cost of housing now. Not heard of them divesting but maybe they will in years to come to have the cash to invest elsewhere instead (or pay for retirement?). Does say how totally unaffordable housing is when even those with portfolios aren't willing to invest. Maybe a sliver of hope of the trend being bucked but still see it being more lucrative for landlords than affordable for owners.

I think people are seriously not seeing buy to let as making much financial sense. TBH there was a time when I would have loved to do it, but never had the money. The trick was to leverage with high percentage mortgages at low interest rates, and only paying income tax on rent minus mortgage (and other costs). Interest rates have gone up, income tax arrangements have changed such that landlords can easily have been making a loss on a monthly basis. Tenant protection and rights increasing also seen as another negative for landlords. Energy performance requirements mean with the older house - as near your sister - require yet more investment. So there has been a whole lot of things negatively impacting the buy to let business model. The threat of increases to capital gains tax will be yet another straw on that camel’s back.
it’s not property prices inhibiting investment, it’s the change in regulatory and tax environment.

 

[MalcSB]

A face of evil.

Really not.
Adolf Hitler and all his team. Pol Pot. They were faces of evil.
Putin. Kim Jong Un. They are faces of evil.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Really not.
Adolf Hitler and all his team. Pol Pot. They were faces of evil.
Putin. Kim Jong Un. They are faces of evil.

None of them took my milk

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think there’s a serious amount of piss taken in almost every job

Look at Kasey

 

[MalcSB]

@Sky_Blue_Dreamer you will love this!
Absolutely ridiculous
Just the sort of area where people complain about second home owners

Our council won't let us turn our holiday let cottage into family home

A couple have criticised a 'ridiculous' decision to block them from converting a holiday let into a family home because of its 'rural' location, despite being 10 minutes from Dorchester.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So is it a good thing the riots have stopped or not?
Do those who disagreed with starmer see things a little in a different light?

 

[Grendel]

So is it a good thing the riots have stopped or not?
Do those who disagreed with starmer see things a little in a different light?

As I’ve said to you before Starmers record as head of CPS was highly dubious and very much focused on court of public opinion or toadying up to US officials

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

As I’ve said to you before Starmers record as head of CPS was highly dubious and very much focused on court of public opinion or toadying up to US officials

Come on answer the question