6 ms·
Half of UK adults are financially vulnerable, City watchdog finds
- pnutjam 9y agoThat's a feature of capitalism, not a bug. Can't leave money on the table.
- s_kilk 9y agoIt really is remarkable how efficient capitalism is at ensuring that proles are born with nothing and die with nothing. Every tiny bit of surplus beyond maintenance of the body is siphoned away into the pockets of the capital class.
- adekok 9y agoBecause in nature, organisms don't grow to the limits of their environment, right? They willingly limit their growth so that all enlightened organisms can share equally in a workers paradise, amidst songs of empowerment and fraternity, while marching collectively towards a bold new future! Yeah... no. Evolution shows us that organisms do grow to the limits of their environment. A "capitalist" system is no different. Making thinly-veiled religious statements about the evils of capitalism means rhetoric is more important to you than understanding. Edit: for the nay-sayers, who seem to have missed my point: These behaviors aren't a result of capitalism. Blaming capitalism, or using ideological rehetoric, is wrong. These behaviors are a result of reality. Of evolution. Of the Dariwnian struggle for existence. Blaming capitalism for these behaviors makes no more sense than blaming capitalism for a disease like malaria. Malaria was around long before capitalism, or even people, existed.
- betaby 9y agoBut we pretend we are smart and capitalism is the best system. We believe we are better than amoebas.
- adekok 9y agoFor all my dislike of capitalism, there aren't many better systems. Perhaps capitalism leavened with some socialism (public roads, police, health care, etc.) i.e. what most rich western societies have.
- reitanqild 9y agoTo add some detail here: The last hundred years a number of political systems has been tested. Compared to how almost every single communist experiment has ended, - and also nazism (far fewer examples but for some reason I really don’t want that either :-/) I far prefer what select lucky European countries and USA as well has done. Specifically I really think the European democracies has almost nailed it with reasonably good public health care, reasonable taxes all while still allowing and encouraging competition between for-profit companies. "The advantage of communism is that everyone is equally poor. The disadvantage of capitalism is that some people are richer than others." - something I heard as a kid "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Winston S Churchill
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- musage 9y agoYou could replace capitalism with Nazism in a world ruled by it and you'd have the same "point". What you call understanding is obedience and sophistry, merely trying to get your subjective self out of the picture and trying to call the remaining mess objective. > The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself. -- Noam Chomsky > Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
- pygy_ 9y agoProvided resources are finite and the sun's output is constant, gradually limiting growth would indeed be wise unless we want to fall off a cliff at some point. ———— Edit: in response to your edit: Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. If a species consumes more energy than its environment can supply or produces more entropy than its environment can dissipate, things go bad for the environment and for the species unless it can move to greener pastures. What is true for species is also true for non-biological dissipative processes. Capitalism and the growth-fueled financial system are not perennial. In this context, humanity is part of the environment, and greener pastures is the automation epidemics, where capital is becoming self-sufficient. This is dangerous for humans.
- adekok 9y ago> Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. Nonsense. The only reason systems are in equilibrium is because of negative feedback. Predators eat prey. Diseases kill plants / animals, etc. Remove the negative feedback, and you get un-checked growth. This is basic biology...
- pygy_ 9y agoNegative feedback is part of healthy ecosystems, because resources _are_ limited. These loops are necessary for long term survival. What you describe is cancer.
- adekok 9y agoSystems do NOT "strive for equilibrium". The only reason we see multiple systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the ones not at equilibrium destroy themselves and their environment. I'm not denying that negative feedback exists. I'm saying that without such feedback, systems always run out of control, because that's the biological imperative. And no, growing systems are not cancer. That's just a ridiculous statement to make. Don't straw-man me FFS.
- pygy_ 9y ago
- adwhit 9y agoIndeed, 1 in 6 are most likely 'struggling' already. The UK ruling class have really done an excellent job of squeezing the life (physical, financial and social) out of the average citizen. I don't think they quite realise what they've done, and how angry people are. It doesn't feel like a happy country at the moment.
- ionised 9y agoMy observation (as a UK citizen) is that vast swathes of the population have a severe and centuries-long case of Stockholm syndrome towards the ruling classes and landed elite. They will profess patriotic support for private and for-profit schools having charity status and the incompetent and malicious political class that is churned out by these institutions, along with sycophantic support of the royal family and aristocracy in general. The UK has systemic classism built into the very fabric of its society, and the ones claiming that classism is unhelpful and divisive tend to be the ones that wage class warfare against the poor and desperate.
- KekDemaga 9y ago>It really is remarkable how efficient capitalism is at ensuring that proles are born with nothing and die with nothing. Compared to what?
- edmccard 9y agoWho says he's comparing it to anything? Maybe the remark is not about contrasting capitialism to some other system, but more about comparing its purported benefits to its actual outcome.
- ams6110 9y agoIt's also remarkable how efficient it is at creating wealth for people willing to forego some immediate gratification. My parents had over $1 million saved when they retired, and had never earned 6 figures in a year, combined. How? Investing a little every month in index funds in an IRA. Aside from that they also put two kids through college. But yes, if you decide to spend every dollar you earn, capitalism will happily accomodate you.
- ionised 9y agoThe point is, most of the struggling working class do not have the spare cash to invest in anything.
- _joel 9y agoCompletely this, if you have nothing.. then how do you begin to save?
- LaurensBER 9y agoDo note, dollar. In Europe the tax system works very different, e.g in The Netherlands they would tax you ~1.2% on the return of your stock investment tax plus the other taxes that you would pay means that for middle class incomes saving 1 million is basically impossible. I assume that GB works exactly the same.
- petercooper 9y agoNot really. In the UK we have "ISA" accounts which let you invest something like £20K per year at the moment and all gains are tax free. So after ten years you could have a £200K+ portfolio earning whatever. Except most people don't have £20K a year to invest, of course..
- czechdeveloper 9y agoIt's more like people are used to extend their expenses to same amount as their earnings. Saving is not sexy, new car is.
- lucozade 9y agoThis is the UK. Capitalism has done a haphazard job of keeping the poor down. In fact, it's been highly selective at keeping the poor down. Specifically, it's done an effective job on poor white, poor black men of Caribbean descent and poor Muslims (esp women) of Asian descent. It's conspicuously failed to keep down poor Asians of Indian or Chinese descent and poor blacks of African descent. Of course, there are some nay sayers who think that our brand of capitalism might not be the only reason for the persistence of poverty. There have, for example, been rumours that the cultural value of education correlates suspiciously well. Educational attainment definitely does (see ONS stats on same). Fortunately, we all know that correlation is not causation. It follows, therefore, that no correlation is causation so it's probably capitalism. Unless it's racism. Yeah, it's probably racism.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dest 9y agowould it mean that rents are not going to increase because people are not going to pay for it?
- lotsofpulp 9y agoIt could also mean that they cut back on vacations and other ancillary spending.
- wildpeaks 9y agoThose at the edge of not being able to afford rent already don't take vacations and don't spend frivolously.
- _joel 9y agoI really don't think you understand how bad the problem is. They don't take holidays as they have no money. The amount of rough sleepers I've seen on the streets recently has risen beyond all comprehension. It's directly correlated to austerity (and universal credit implementation)
- stuaxo 9y agoIndeed it has increased by 134% 2010 - 2016 according to this org http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/rough-sleeping/rough-sleeping-our-analysis http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/rou... Now universal credit is being rolled out, this is likely to massively increase.
- ionised 9y agoThe people struggling aren't doing those things in the first place.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoDemand exceeds supply for housing in the UK. As having somewhere to live is a universal requirement, prices are only limited by affordability.
- Frye 9y agoOver here in the States your rent increases just about every time you renew your lease.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoIn my experience, as long as you rent from small time owners who have day jobs, you can leverage being a good tenant into at least not raising rents for a few years. Sometimes even getting a discount, because that’s how much of a headache bad tenants are. If you rent from a big rental company, then they can absorb that risk so you lose out on those savings.
- zimpenfish 9y agoCan confirm - my rent has only gone up £150 in 19 years largely because I never bother my landlords.
- Frye 9y agoYes if you can make this work stick with it. 19 years is a long time you've probably paid off their mortgage by now!
- cup-of-tea 9y agoWhat does struggle mean? Not be able to eat? Not be able to heat their house? Not be able to go out as often?
- whatok 9y agoI looked at the FCA report and it's not defined anywhere.
- sshagent 9y agohaving just left a long term rental(5 years), my new home is +50% rent :(
- sophiaellis 9y agoWow! What city are you living in? If you don't mind me asking
- shubb 9y agoThe report itself is fairly easy reading. https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/research/understanding-financial-lives-uk-adults https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/research/understanding-f... There are summary sheets for each age group, and detailed tables. I found the ones around self employment particularly interesting.
- aetherson 9y agoI mean, that's $780 per year. I don't know what the, er, lowest hexile in the UK makes, but surely it's no better than $30k per year, right? And in fact probably much worse. So they'd struggle if they suddenly had expenses that were 2.5% of their income or more? That doesn't seem revelatory.
- aninhumer 9y agoReally? I think the framing that 1 in 6 people don't have at least 2.5% of slack in their finances is equally damning.
- aetherson 9y agoAs others have noted, it's not "will collapse into a disaster," it's "struggle." It is not news to me that in general, relatively poor people do not have a ton of slack in their finances. If it's news to you, well... okay. But I think you just weren't paying attention.
- petercooper 9y agoFor a single adult, second decile was £11,300 in 2014 (roughly $15K now, a bit more at the time).
- aetherson 9y agoSo, right, something in the general vicinity of 5% of their yearly income. Again, it doesn't seem really surprising that lots of relatively poor people would "struggle" with additional expenses equal to around 5% of their income.
- al452 9y agoNote how the Guardian headline has seamlessly converted the report's wording “display one or more characteristics that signal their potential vulnerability” to "are financially vulnerable". I think that's self-evident distortion, just dropping the "potential" bit (let alone "signal"). Then again "vulnerable" is an extremely popular word in the UK media this year, and nobody's ever precise about what it means, so maybe it's all meaningless, I don't know.
- athenot 9y agoI'm no economics expert so there's probably flaws in this idea but I've been wondering if we should levy a tax on usury (in its older interpretation). Looking at all the ways that money flows from the poor to the rich, it seems usury (in the form of profits derived from rent and interest) are large contributors. This has traditionally been the position in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and I think many tribal societies would greatly frown upon it).
- tonylemesmer 9y agoMy guess is that increased levies or taxes on loans would end up being paid by the borrower and make the loan even more expensive.