The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

Belfast

leninbenjamin wrote: »

all i can say is lol.

it's funny how you give about restraints on the price of houses, then give out about the removal of restraints in the taxi market. talk about contradictions.

:pac:

You are mistaken. The point I was making about taxi was the price was high because the market was restricted. Now the price is more affordable and it is easier to get a taxi.
This is good not bad.

Belfast

silverharp wrote: »

one point is that there is not a free market in services, there is an incentive in building everywhere as people don't pay realistic connection charges, if someone wants to build a house halfway up a mountain, that's fine but they should pay the 5K connection charge to the grid, they should build the road to the house not the council, the post office should charge a delivery fee etc...

Good point

leninbenjamin

Belfast wrote: »

You are mistaken. The point I was making about taxi was the price was high because the market was restricted. Now the price is more affordable and it is easier to get a taxi.
This is good not bad.

fair enough, apologies. the reasoning behind you're argument though is still flawed imo regardless.

Belfast

djpbarry wrote: »

And that's a bad thing because? You think you should be allowed build a house in the Phoenix Park?

As far as I know there is no land for sale in the Phoenix Park to build on.

Belfast

seamus wrote: »

What about the developer who gets his hands on a small park in the middle of Dublin and builds a 20-storey, 500 unit block? Whatever your feelings about high-rise, the sheer volume of people will be a problem.

Allowing people to build anywhere is an infrastructural nightmare. Not for the country, but for cities. If you allow people to build anything, anywhere, then it's next to impossible to develop an infrastructure plan that can handle it. You could plan to put an capacity for an extra 5,000 people on one route, but you have no idea if 5,000 or 50,000 extra people will be on that route in 5 years.

In fact, the house builds of the late 90's/early 00's show us exactly what happens when you allow people to just build with no restriction - the developments had to get planning permission, but it was met with little resistance and in many cases they could buy themselves out of their infrastructural requirements to leave the existing infrastructure to grind to a halt under the pressure. Lucan/Quarryvale is the perfect example of this.

The problem is by stopping high density housing in Dublin city, this forced house to be built out side Dublin. The only way people had to get to work in Dublin was to drive in to the city putting a massive strain on the infrastructure.

Lucan/Quarryvale are good example of thje kind of development that planning permission in Ireland prompts.

leninbenjamin

Belfast wrote: »

Lucan/Quarryvale are good example of thje kind of development that planning permission in Ireland prompts.

but the absence of planning permission would INCREASE the problem because people's preferences are for semi-ds with the 4 foot long backyard. and then look at the problems one off housing creates... I'll refer back, it's the prisoner's dilemma. we need stricter planning permission (preferably with a bit of foresight), not deregulation.

Belfast

leninbenjamin wrote: »

but the absence of planning permission would INCREASE the problem because people's preferences are for semi-ds with the 4 foot long backyard. and then look at the problems one off housing creates... I'll refer back, it's the prisoner's dilemma. we need stricter planning permission (preferably with a bit of foresight), not deregulation.

There was no planning permission before 1962 and this did not seem to create problems.
Planning permission has lead to worse development, forced women to go out to work, corrupted politics and made house more expensive to buy.

rockbeer

Belfast wrote: »

There was no planning permission before 1962 and this did not seem to create problems.

Arguably it created the conditions for many of the problems we face now.

Belfast wrote: »

Planning permission has... forced women to go out to work

Now you have a problem with women going to work? What sort of libertarian are you?

djpbarry

Belfast wrote: »

As far as I know there is no land for sale in the Phoenix Park to build on.

That's not the point. Someone has already made a similar point (which you did not respond to) that without planning permission, someone could get their hands on a green patch in an urban area and build a great big tower block on it - would you be ok with that? Would you be ok with somebody building a nice big block of flats on each side of your house?

Red Hand

partholon wrote: »

look at it this way, if the upper class are the best paid and the lower classes are the worst paid then by that definetion to qualify for middleclass you'd have to be raking in at least over half a million a year as thats the figure that lies between the two extremes. if your not on that then your really just working class with pretensions

Well, leaving aside class (cause there is a cultural dimension to class, not only financial), if you look at income levels, you'd do well to remember the Pareto 20:80 ratio. Plus, a median would be a much more accurate way of determining the average income...and I don't think it's half a million a year.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote: »

Would you be ok with somebody building a nice big block of flats on each side of your house?

More to the point, would you be ok with someone building a large factory on either side of your house? Or an abattoir?

Belfast

rockbeer wrote: »

Arguably it created the conditions for many of the problems we face now.



Now you have a problem with women going to work? What sort of libertarian are you?

I do not have a problem with women working. Women used to be forced to quit work when they married, Now they are forced to work.

In neither case are women give choice as this what best suit their needs. Not much liberty for women either way.

Belfast

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not the point. Someone has already made a similar point (which you did not respond to) that without planning permission, someone could get their hands on a green patch in an urban area and build a great big tower block on it - would you be ok with that? Would you be ok with somebody building a nice big block of flats on each side of your house?

I have no problem with people building high density housing near me.
if low density house is all that is allowed Athlone will soon become a suburb of Dublin.

Belfast

Can anyone say that development has improved since planning permission was introduced in 1962.

rockbeer

Belfast, your whole attitude says you have a problem with women working, otherwise you would be making your point in terms of nuclear families needing two incomes rather than in terms of women being forced to work. Your posts betray you: why do you presume that it's the natural rôle of men to work, and that when women do so it's through force rather than choice?

Your attitude is fundamentally inegalitarian. You might think of yourelf as a libertarian but your attitudes betray a deeply selfish conservatism. Have you read your Kropotkin?

Belfast wrote:

I have no problem with people building high density housing near me.

Once again you have evaded the question. What if people build non high-density housing near you? What control will you have over that with no planning policy?

Your repeated 1962 argument is patently absurd given the prevailing conditions at that time, both economic and social e.g. falling population, predominantly agricultural society, minimal inward investment, patterns of land ownership... I'd be interested to know just how many houses were built in Ireland in 1962.

The 1960s in fact saw major changes in Ireland in these areas as a result of policy shifts designed to encourage inward investment and a deliberate restructuring of rural land ownership. The introduction of the planning process formed part of this change. It could certainly be argued that this was both ill-conceived and poorly implemented, as well as being rife with corruption, but these are issues of implemtnation rather than principle. Surely you aren't advocating a return to the bleak poverty of 1960s Ireland as a solution to the current difficulties? If so you've obviously never been poor.

Can you point to a modern developed economy that has no planning procedures? It would be interesting to see how it would work in practice.

Belfast

Belfast, your whole attitude says you have a problem with women working, otherwise you would be making your point in terms of nuclear families needing two incomes rather than in terms of women being forced to work. Your posts betray you: why do you presume that it's the natural rôle of men to work, and that when women do so it's through force rather than choice?

rockbeer wrote: »

Your attitude is fundamentally inegalitarian. You might think of yourelf as a libertarian but your attitudes betray a deeply selfish conservatism.

I have no problem with women working. I have a problem with women being forced to work by the Planning permission turning house into a pyramid scheme. In general more women look after children than men, but this is not always the case. In some case men may chose to stay home and look after children.To put in in more political correct language families should not have to both parents working just to provide for a basic need like housing.

rockbeer wrote: »

Have you read your Kropotkin?

Not real a fan of Anarchist communism.
I am more into Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson.
I am mixture Classical liberalism and free-market anarchism.

Belfast

rockbeer wrote: »

Once again you have evaded the question. What if people build non high-density housing near you? What control will you have over that with no planning policy?

I do not want to control what houses people build. The law of supply and demand controls. If a area of low density housing has a shortage of housing because all the land is built on, there is an economic incentive to demolish is of the housing and build high density.

rockbeer wrote: »

Your repeated 1962 argument is patently absurd given the prevailing conditions at that time, both economic and social e.g. falling population, predominantly agricultural society, minimal inward investment, patterns of land ownership... I'd be interested to know just how many houses were built in Ireland in 1962.

Grant development was slow to now existent at the time.
This was not because of the lack of planning permission.it had more to do the self sufficiency polices since in the 1920 and state restriction on the economy, tariffs etc.
The real problem caused by planning permission were more notable as Ireland became wealthier.

rockbeer wrote: »

The 1960s in fact saw major changes in Ireland in these areas as a result of policy shifts designed to encourage inward investment and a deliberate restructuring of rural land ownership.

restructuring of rural land ownership was done before 1962 this by the land commission.

rockbeer wrote: »

The introduction of the planning process formed part of this change. It could certainly be argued that this was both ill-conceived and poorly implemented, as well as being rife with corruption, but these are issues of implemtnation rather than principle.

If planning permission in theory is a great idea. I practice there are too many vested interests that corrupt it. Even if not corrupted beauracy are not very planning for the needs of economy.

rockbeer wrote: »

Surely you aren't advocating a return to the bleak poverty of 1960s Ireland as a solution to the current difficulties? If so you've obviously never been poor.

I remember the 1960s and have do desire to return to state intervention in the economy of those days. Was I poor in the 1960s, depends on what you mean by poor.

rockbeer wrote: »

Can you point to a modern developed economy that has no planning procedures? It would be interesting to see how it would work in practice.

As far I know most developed economies have this problem.

partholon

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Well, leaving aside class (cause there is a cultural dimension to class, not only financial), if you look at income levels, you'd do well to remember the Pareto 20:80 ratio. Plus, a median would be a much more accurate way of determining the average income...and I don't think it's half a million a year.

i was mearly pointing out that with dennis obrein, tony oreilly and sean quinn raking in hundreds of millions a year and your bog standard eastern european being paid the minimum wage to pick mushrooms that thats the wage range.

by that standard being on 35 to 100k ISNT whats could be called a middle class wage. your right about the cultural dimension to class and personlly i dont prescribe to the notion of class at all as it insults my notion of equality. but it has to be said that the cultural aspect in ALL things has diminished in favor to status by way of wage packet. hence all these idiots driving about in SUVs despite the fact they'll never go off road.

its all part of the process in which the countys been turned from a society to an econony. which is why all most politicians will bang on about is the latter. with that in mind the whole "middle class" thing is a bit of a myth as in an economy its your wage that defines it. theyve shinnier toys and a better looking standard of living but there not even at the table when your talking about the best earners in the country are up to in terms of their lifestyle

Belfast

if uncontrolled housing places an unacceptable burden on infrastructure so does uncontrolled purchasing of cars.

The only country I know that make you apply for permission to buy a car is Japan.

is_that_so

I have puzzled my way through this thread and damned if I know where the OP stands at all aside from his last final pitch. More importantly I am not entirely sure what he is promoting and tbh I am always wary of a "YouTube factoid" , hardly the way IMO, to establish the verity or otherwise of the peculiarly dramatic thread title.

I also wonder why 1962 is a key year, any more than say 1973- a date of far greater significance in the development of this country IMO.
In all honesty all I see are a lot of loose questions, most posited by other people, and even looser principles tossed out as discussion.

And as for my 2c on the decline and death of the middle class is that it will not and cannot happen. It's not the fall of a nation or empire. Society morphs and changes. In my own view that classical class distinction has all but disappeared to be replaced by the deeply condescending, but regrettably appropriate sobriquets that the likes of David McWilliams has branded us with.

But if we have to use it, then like all class distinctions it offers an aspiration ,something that we all need , in our egalitarian, libertarian or even capitalist society to push us forward. So for all those who are now "greatly impoverished" by more working hours, lower purchasing power, that aspiration will remain.

Even so I find the idea novel and worth bouncing around but all I get is the nagging feeling that the case in favour has more to do with personal projection than reasoned argument that this may indeed come to pass.

silverharp

Belfast wrote: »

I have no problem with women working. I have a problem with women being forced to work by the Planning permission turning house into a pyramid scheme. In general more women look after children than men, but this is not always the case. In some case men may chose to stay home and look after children.To put in in more political correct language families should not have to both parents working just to provide for a basic need like housing.

Have you read your Kropotkin?
Not real a fan of Anarchist communism.
I am more into Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson.
I am mixture Classical liberalism and free-market anarchism.

I wouldnt look at this though the prism of planning permission as countries like Australia and Canada have housing bubbles and I assume more efficient planning systems. I do agree with you general point though, looking at the US, the standard of living of middle class people has dropped since the 1960's, where one salary was sufficient, now it takes 2 salaries, 40 year 100% mortgages, and read below to see whats starting to happen now. the ultimate cause is a debasement of the money supply. inflation always screws the middle and lower class and transfers wealth to the rich and the % merchants.


http://www.globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Pawnshop Society

A telling sign of overconsumption can be seen in the now booming pawnshop business.

Carin Dillingham handed over her watch to the pawnbrokers at Society Hill Loan as if she were giving up one of her bones.

The 30-year-old bookkeeper stood pregnant, broke and sad under rows of pawned guitars hanging like curing hams from the ceiling of the ragged South Street shop. She got a $20 loan for her $200 Bulova, a gift from the Harley-Davidson Co., where she used to work.

"It feels so weird," said Dillingham, accompanied by her fiance, Pat Lapetina, 35, an unemployed ironworker doing painting jobs on the side. The couple recently moved to South Philadelphia from Florida to build a life.

"I worked hard for this watch. I'm middle-class, not poor. I can't believe I have to do this to buy gas."

"People are cleaning out their houses of gold, silver, whatever, to get money just to fill their cars with gas," said Nat Leonard, 51, whose grandfather opened Society Hill in 1929. "People are pawning out like crazy." "I've got business owners coming in to pawn things just to make their payrolls," Leonard said, incredulous. "I've never seen that before."

"Upper-income people are in pawnshops nowadays, needing money right away to meet payments," said Bill Stull, chairman of the department of economics at Temple University's Fox School of Business and Management.

"We are in an economy in which many people are living right at the margins, even middle- and upper-income people. They have little savings, they've borrowed so much, their credit-card bills are high, and their house values are going down."

Over at Carver W. Reed & Co., a pawnshop at 10th and Sansom Streets since Lincoln was president, more and more higher-echelon people are filing in, owner Tod Gordon said.

"The upper middle class is feeling the crunch like never before," he said. "They're bringing in diamonds and gold to pay for margin calls on stocks. There's a feeling of despair.

And the shop is holding 30 guitars, worth $170,000, that a Grammy Award-winning Philadelphia musician owned. "He bought a bunch of properties right when everything in the economy was hitting the fan," Leonard said. "I feel awful about it. I don't want to sell his stuff out."

Of course, as always, things are worse at the bottom of the ladder.

"I'm seeing people extending their loans, unable to pay back their $100 loans for diapers, food, medicine," said Bob Sink, owner of JR Auto Tags & Pawnshop in Bristol Township.

"These folks are making $10 an hour or whatever working at Home Depot and can't cut down on expenses any more," Sink said. "So they borrow against a gold chain or a new tool. The economy is really hurting them."

Also stung are young people, hitting pawnshops in unprecedented numbers.

"We never saw so many people in here 30 and younger," Society Hill associate Damien Robinson said. He spoke as a 22-year-old Neumann College graduate walked out with a $75 loan on her Dell laptop computer. "What are young people going to do for rent now that apartments are so expensive?"

Belfast

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldnt look at this though the prism of planning permission as countries like Australia and Canada have housing bubbles and I assume more efficient planning systems. I do agree with you general point though, looking at the US, the standard of living of middle class people has dropped since the 1960's, where one salary was sufficient, now it takes 2 salaries, 40 year 100% mortgages, and read below to see whats starting to happen now. the ultimate cause is a debasement of the money supply. inflation always screws the middle and lower class and transfers wealth to the rich and the % merchants.


http://www.globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

I agree with about planning permission is not the only problem. Debasement of the money supply and the resulting inflation is also a major problem.

meathstevie

I agree with the planning permission angle : the planning permission system Irish style has only served one purpose and that is making developpers rich and create unviable one entry/exit housing estates with zero amenities while putting every hurdle imaginable in the way of Joe Public who wants to build their own.

As for the printing money angle : hello ? Any idea why the ECB is so stringent on budget overspending, is so moderate and conservative in it's rate policies and is like a pitbull when it comes to inflation ? Well, exactly to avoid the mistakes that were made in the US and Europe in the 1930's and are still being made every day of the week in the likes of Zimbabwe.

Belfast

meathstevie wrote: »

I agree with the planning permission angle : the planning permission system Irish style has only served one purpose and that is making developpers rich and create unviable one entry/exit housing estates with zero amenities while putting every hurdle imaginable in the way of Joe Public who wants to build their own.

As for the printing money angle : hello ? Any idea why the ECB is so stringent on budget overspending, is so moderate and conservative in it's rate policies and is like a pitbull when it comes to inflation ? Well, exactly to avoid the mistakes that were made in the US and Europe in the 1930's and are still being made every day of the week in the likes of Zimbabwe.

I agree that the ECB is doing a much better job that the Federal Reserve. it is still expanding the money supply just not as fast as the Federal Reserve.

Germany history of hyperinflation was what made the Germans push for a conservative approach when it was setup.

silverharp

meathstevie wrote: »

As for the printing money angle : hello ? Any idea why the ECB is so stringent on budget overspending, is so moderate and conservative in it's rate policies and is like a pitbull when it comes to inflation ? Well, exactly to avoid the mistakes that were made in the US and Europe in the 1930's and are still being made every day of the week in the likes of Zimbabwe.

A pitbull is a bit strong, M3 money supply growth is in excess of 10% at a time when the economy is growing at less then 2%, thats pretty inflationary. Also bear in mind that the euro hasn't been tested during a serious downturn. when part 2 of the credit crises starts, and italy and spain threaten to leave the euro because their economies are falling apart lets see how tough the ECB is then.

Dalfiatach

is_that_so wrote: »

I also wonder why 1962 is a key year

It's the year before the TACA-inspired 1963 Planning Act, which created the rigged and dysfunctional land market and ludicrous "planning" system we enjoy to this day.

At least, I assume that's why he picked 1962.

A lot of what is wrong with the way this country is run has its roots in the 1963 Act. That's the primary cause of poorly planned, poorly delivered, and wildly expensive public projects; expensive badly-built houses in inappropriate locations; and our particular brand of political corruption - Haughey, Burke, Lawlor and (unproven as yet but looking very likely) Ahern.

It all goes back to TACA.