I was saying something similar not too long ago about "side hustles." Once some people have a bit of extra money from a "side hustle," prices will be raised to extract that money from them. This will then force everyone else to get "side hustles" just to be able to afford the same things they used to. Each person working two jobs is just going to be the new normal. Quadruple income households.
yup the economy actually works on distributing resources money intrinsically has no value, you sir, are quite an objective thinker ... commonly referred to as "smart"
@@jimz1024 The economy is descriptive of what exist. It does nothing because it is only a thought. If people have low confidence they wont invest in making things or doing things and thus their thoughts become reality.
This only applies if everyone, or close enough, does it. Also Inflation doesnt happen from extra productivity but from excess money in the system and speed of that money. actually if you have the same amount of money in the economy and more side hustles you would see deflation
Wow! First time I've heard this said outside the Red Pill community. I'm Rory's age - the last generation able to afford a wife, children and a house for a FAMILY. Women working 'was' an option, and great. Now house-prices have swallowed the advantage. Women work today to make up for what men can't earn on their own. Worse for women, worse for men and ABOVE all worse for CHILDREN.
The generational sweet spot was for those who could buy their houses when it was affordable on one salary and then unlocked the second income so that it could be spent on useful stuff. Later generations where two incomes were the norm simply bid up house prices by competing against other two income couples, even though it is against their collective long-term interest.
In the UK house prices will always rise to the maximum level of available money due to shortage of stock. I envy the USA where timber houses are cheap, easily extended, easy to heat, have no stigma and don’t represent your lifetime earning potential. This allows all the excess income to be spent on improving your lifestyle. The USA Declaration of Independence had it spot on …….. Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness!!!!!
It's not cheaper to be single, that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's cheaper to be in a bigger group (a flat share of 5 people) than it is to be in a couple (just 2 people). He's also, as a related point, saying that it's advantageous to have no ties to an area so that if a better opportunity comes for you as an individual, you can make use of it. Successful careers are remote careers. The push to get people back into the office is limiting the potential earnings of the household. Multigenerational households made up of remote workers will be able to negotiate better rents per person and earn more per person than a traditional "two parents and the kids" household.
I think the problem with working from home is that as the employer you don't know what you are getting, you also don't get a discount for the fact you just gave a massive benefit to workers. The reality is that as managers you often have no idea whether people are doing anything, unless they have some very quantifiable task. Over a year, stuff is getting done, but as to what is happening at any one time...And it turns out what many were doing at home was adding a second job. But on the flip side managers had no compassion for huge unpaid benefits they had captured. Like commuting time, or the extra time punctuality cost individuals. Over time employers will figure out how to get those unpaid gains back, maybe they will contract out jobs to cheaper centers. It was a little shocking to see Musk come in and just fire masses of employees, in an environment where the work probably was pretty quantifiable. How many workforces are even more vulnerable.
@@HondoTrailside Employers save money on rent on the office space which is by the foot. Since most employers are not flexible for parents with young children, this solves that issue because it's not visible to them anymore. As for adding a second job, there should be no problem if the work done for the company is getting done.
@@nauxsiwhat if the 2nd job is for a competitor & they're giving out trade secrets & other sensitive info to them that they probably won't be able to access outside the office or memorize if they had been working at the office? What if they're intentionally underperforming due to that 2nd job (as well as a grudge toward their employer), while telling you the task you gave them is impossible to complete within the given deadline & using their experience or knowledge in the field, which their manager/lead/employer might not have to sell the lie.
This has been going on forever. For example almost a century ago Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, was hired by Lucky Strikes Cigarettes to convince women to smoke. At the time it wasn’t attractive or feminine for women to smoke. For the cigarette co. it was simple math. Women smoking would double sales. Later on this caught on with government. Women working doubles tax money. Women working increased purchasing and sales in the private market. Women working increased the supply of labor. Thus reducing wages because of competition in the market. It was sold as female empowerment, but female happiness has been declining since the 1950’s. Despite all these facts I will be flamed in this thread. Because the propaganda has taken such a deep hold.
now they are coplaining about 'aging society'. if the society had better life on just one income 1-2 generation ago, why would that even be the problem. one the side - they should have invested our pension contributions in the sovereign fund, not just embezzle it on their cronies.
'Creative people spend more creatively'- is a great insight. They tend to set their own values, rather than adopt those around them. They end up with better value for less. Self knowledge of their abilities means they are more immune to the judgement of others- so they do not feel the need for positional goods.
I have been like that all my life as well as having the DIY capability to make just about anything I need. And to have a good income. But it is a bit of a grind to be an outlier, and probably cost me with my children.
@@HondoTrailside My 'make rather than buy' has saved me a fortune over the years- especially building my own house. No appliance insurance, roadside assistance, servicing, etc all adds up. Especially no loans. Or any other 'financial services'. Allows you to spend on the important stuff.
The oldest societies in europe are greece and rome. Nowadays both greeks and italians are derided for their lack of a work ethic compared to coutries like germany, but they have some of the best food and longest lifespans in the world.
Welcome to Capitalism. The market is a scarcity generator, not a scarcity reducer. The prices rise to the highest you'll bare, not the lowest to make a profit - because you don't set the price, they do.
The catalyst cause in the 80s was allowing multiple incomes on a mortgage. There have been many other reasons that pile on top or this, but this was the initial cause. At the time, all houses were brought very successfully on a single salary. It was all driven by greed not betterment.
I have noticed that new immigrants all live in the same house with 3,4,5+ incomes! Then the whole family, ie cousins,etc, pool their money to buy additional houses and rent them out!
I'm British born to Asian parents. And in Asian culture, it's much more accepted for two or three generations to live under one roof. And with the economic conditions as they are, it provides them with an advantage.
It's not "asian" cultures, it's "old cultures" that haven't been sold 'american dream' by banks. Only sensible thing I ever heard from the mouth of Grant Cardone is : American dream is a product invented by banks to sell mortgages. This is instilled into peoples brain from young age, so they always feel the pressure to move out or kick kids out.
@@henrydeval150 Be quiet racist. Immigrants aren't leeching off the government as you'd like to believe. Save your scorn for the native British underclass.
I said this over 10 years ago and I still think it's true now; A consistent contributor to many modern issues is non-vigilant spending. Compulsive or thoughtless purchasing that contributes funding to products and services that don't provide anything close to an equal value in return. I bought my first card for £5k because I had no undertsanding of what to look for or what was good value. It was probably worth £2.5k, and over the next 5 years cost an extra £1.6k to maintain because of parts in poor condition. I got quoted £475 on a seatbelt repair and did it myself for £15 (to full function), but I did consider paying initially despite that it was about 30 hours wages. I live in a city where there are a lot of young people and the spending is very heavily coming from parents money, or student loans. So I see a lot of careless spending here. That said, the previous generations also very willingly overspend to a huge degree. I think we'd see a ton of positive changes fairly quickly if we all became more conscious spenders.
similar experience here, a plumber charged me 200 euro for a job of 2 hours... after that I was a bit depressed for a week or two, then I went to learn plumbing and electricity in evening classes, since then I haven't had to pay a single electrician or plumber. When it's about cars, I'd rather buy a new toyota yaris and keep it 15 years... I owned an Aygo, now I drive a Smart 4 four.
This would unfortunately lead to a colapse of economy and goverment's ability to levy taxes on the useless things leading to it being unable to pay pensions and so on. It is regretfull, but western economies run on needless spending. They can't survive without it.
It is still possible to survive on one income. But it will take sacrifices. We are a family of five. And have been doing it for years. We’ve even bought a home. It took us 15 years to save a down payment. We drive ugly cars, I cook everyday, we only buy new things when the old one breaks. But we are all fairly happy and in good health. I know it can be tough but where there is a will there is a way.
This is a fragile strategy with a lot of failure conditions. Illness, local problems, relationship problems, or to be honest, any problems at all could completely dismantle this approach. 15 years is a huge window for incidents to interrupt the strategy.
@@aaronbeedle941it’s called being frugal. I’ve never heard of frugal being referred to as fragile. At the end of the day, many frugal, one income families end up with a lot of money saved compared to dual income big spender families with their expensive mortgages and fancy cars who are in total debt. The more money you make, the more bills you have.
@@MichelleNovalee hmmm yeah it is fragile. What if the single breadwinner has a work accident and cannot work? Emergency funds? If you live in the US, the moment you deal with healthcare there's a big chance you'll accrue medical debts. C'mon! This is real stuff.
@@Bresto88 any moment you could get in a car crash and die. No one is saying this isn’t real stuff. But there was a time in America that single family income households were the most common type of household and our society was doing just fine and didn’t say, “Are we sure we should have only one income? This seems too fragile.” It was worth the risk and families were much happier and better off having a mother to take care of the children and not stick them in daycare with a dozen other crying babies while the mom went to work. Raising a child is a more important job (arguably the most important) than leaving that kid with a stranger to work a mediocre job.
@@Bresto88I would argue that two income families are generally more fragile. Assuming a two income families expenses are dependent on those two incomes, then it only takes one person to get sick or lose a job to cause a financial problem. You have essentially doubled your chances of having a problem. I believe that is one of the things Warren argued in the book.
35 years ago my wife and I made a decision to only try to use one of our wages to get a mortgage. My wife never had to work if she didn’t want to and we never needed child care. After 35 years, we may not have had many holidays or fancy cars but we are still happy together and have a lovely mortgaged free home. I give this advice to young couples. Try to only take a mortgage on one of your wages. It will give you so much freedom of choice in later life when you are trying to bring up a family.
Whilst I commend you and I think there's an underlying principle which I agree with, I don't think this is realistic anymore for most people. You are from the generation where this was a real option, before you it was an expectation, now it's a distant dream. Take the average UK salary of £35,000 (student loan before 2012, 5% pension contribution, marriage tax allowance): That's £2,250 per month. Average rent is £1,225 per month + £200 council tax + £125 utilities (a LOT less than I'm paying) + £350 food + £300 commuting costs So they have £50 per month left for everything else (savings, car insurance and upkeep, TV license, phones, internet, emergencies, fun...) Average house price is £310,000. Lets say they aim to buy for half of that: £155k. First they need to save all their money for 13 years (do nothing, have no emergencies), then they need to hope that by some miracle house prices have remained stable, then they can put 5% down on a house nowhere near their work which needs complete refurbishment.
That's lovely to hear but the premise of this video is that now, 35 years later, what you describe is no longer achievable due to the massive discrepancy between wages and house prices.
@@somebloke5565 I bought a large roadworks tent & a set of traffic cones, I have a brazier to do my cooking on (whilst wearing wellies & hi vis jacket) and I move it all once a week in a transit van with Thames Water written on it to confuse the council & park it near a reservoir on a weekend. Dead cheap & works a treat.
Back in the early 1980s, a single person couldn't buy themselves a house 30 miles outside London. Couples bid up the price beyond the individuals ability to buy.
If it was just "no interest" it would be one thing, but there only so many males and females. There are bound to be people who just cannot find a partner because those potential partners are not on the market. So even people who want to have kids/family cannot because their potential partners do not want that
We built a new home and planned for multi-generational accommodation. Initially we thought, "kids and their families coming for Christmas", but now its looking more like we need on-site granny flats which will become something else later.
The world is moving faster each year. Businesses need people with specialized skillsets for a temporary amount of time. Im an Electrical Tech and travel different contracts for months at a time. Contractors make considerably more then their direct employee coworkers (since they don’t get company benefits) and sometimes get hotels/housing included. If you like to travel its a win/win. Plus you hardly have to look for work. Recruiters are blowing you up constantly. You are always needed somewhere if you have skills that are in demand. Plus if the company sucks just leave and move to the next contract. I see so many direct employees getting exploited just because they don’t want to move. It truly amazes me how much abuse people will take. But I get you have to work those bad jobs to learn what you don’t want to do the rest of your life. He is totally right about the mobile home/RV bit. RV parks are exploding around Texas cities
even worse, we are doing this to ourselves by being blind to inflation and corruption. Everyone that works for companies that make millions in profit should demand higher wage or quit. Every government regulation that promotes artificial monopolies should be erased and politicans should have stricter corruption controls. But no, we keep on working like slaves for pennies while they keep on printing money and stuffing their pockets
@@plebjames That's the question 🤔 I think it's a managerial elite, they're not lizards, they're not members of some specific ethnic or religious group. They're just a class of people who've emerged in the West; especially since the Cold War ended, who believe they possess great wisdom, and the modern tools to 'apply' that wisdom. They dislike democracy for this reason, since if you've all the answers, why would you ask the plebs their opinion? It's driven by ego, and hubris, and in that sense these people are nothing new. They've looked at their spreadsheets for so long they've mistaken them for reality. As Charlie Chaplin said in The Great Dictator, "machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts". They've lost all human perspective.
Lol. This guy is describing me. I live in Spain, I own a flat in London which I rent out, and I've been considering converting an electric van into a motor home for when Im in London while I park in my own space at the flat I rent out. Brilliant!
Jesus Christ what a depressing vision. Housing is such a disaster that it's easier to live in a van. I think we're at the point where we need a completely different form of governance. Not sure what but this isn't working.
Houses are a prime positional good. To 'win' such a race, you can expend more effort to improve yours, or resist others getting one (planning objections, reducing volume etc). So, we have the housing 'ladder'. The issue is land- a van is a house plus wheels, engine, etc - the only reason it is cheaper is that there is no land attached. But you still need the land to put it on- so you are renting that. Perhaps by the day. Increase the number of such vans, and guess what will happen to the rent...
@@tortozzaThat's it .The U.K. , maybe 70 million people on a medium sized island ! I've been in most of Europe , can't believe there is many miles between towns with virtually no houses . Check population density online of Europe , it's virtually empty !
I didn't need Pocahontas to know that two full time incomes can outbid one - I'm old enough to have lived it. Yet it's never mentioned today, when people bemoan the cost of real estate. Because they can't 'criticize working women.' Warren certainly hasn't said it for years. The house my parents sold in Boston (USA) in 1971 for $23,000 is now listed online at an estimate of $1.8 million. That's not inflation. In fact, the district of Boston we lived in became colonized and gentrified by lesbian couples in the 1980s. Duel income, no kids, easy to pay more in a working class neighborhood and then fill the front yard with flowers. The neighborhood got nicer - the renters got priced out.
Brilliant....Yes the model for life in Britain is broken....It used to be the case that most people would leave school at 16 maybe do a bit of tech college or go into an apprenticeship or traineeship and earn money. By the time they were 21 they were earning a full adults salary and could save money with decent interest rates. This meant they could save for a house deposit, get married etc....Now young people leave school at 18 spend a year on sabatical and go to university for three years or more. Some aren't starting work until they are 22 or older and are saddled with debt....If they left work at 16 they would already have been earning for six years....
this is entirely OFSTED's fault. In hindsight I would have gone to work at 16, but EVERY adult I knew told me that was for losers, and to be anything I had to go to university. Basically I was taught that my only option in life was to take on like 200k in debt before starting work at 22. OK, I had a 'choice' , but when the whole culture tells you one choice is for losers and one is for winners.. how is a 17 year old supposed to know all the adults are wrong?
@@greenwoodorganics4681 It's a mix of OFSTED, the statutory guidance on careers claiming that legally schools should show no bias on post-16 and post-18 routes, but the system still incentivises the academic uni route, and the fact that all senior leaders in schools will all have gone down the university & work as life route to get to those positions so have neither the experience or care for others beyond that (and view it as better for the school's reputation). They all talk a lot about 'aspiration', but view it through their own lens, openly calling apprenticeships "there for those that need them", which makes my blood boil. I've sat on a school board, been a school governor for careers and it's like talking to a wall. I even had a senior leader try to tell the career lead that career guidance should only take ten minutes, like it's a box to tick off, not supporting someone's future. He even wanted her to just gather all the the students interested in apprentices for one meeting like that would somehow support them, while he has fortnightly meetings with those he's pushing to Oxbridge. It's technically illegal, but nothing is done to enforce it. I'm in an area with so many great apprenticeship providers, but very few schools show those as an actual choice, so it's unsurprising that many students end up like you and those apprenticeships are largely filled by those who've already been through the system after far too long and see how they've been failed.
Thats another reason why the birth rate is dropping. Also if you do buy a house as a single person, the council will try there best to flees you for every penny you have and all the utility companies
Housing is expensive because in the places where there is highest demand, there are also very strict regulations that prohibit development. London and San Fransisco should look more like New York City if they weren't so restrictive. New York City would probably look more like Tokyo. Tokyo while relatively expensive in Japan is relatively cheap compared to those places because they build so much housing. Japan builds as much housing as the USA with a third of the population. The number of homeless in Japan is below 10,000 while the homeless in Los Angeles is around 75,000 as of 2024.
@reprogrammingmind inflation changes year after year. Money supply changes prices but only numerically. In the short term, inflation affects affordability as people’s wages need time to catch up to rising prices. In the long term what matters is the relative value of good and services. Of which, prices are a function of supply and demand. In the case of housing, its wages vs housing costs and housing prices. For example, in 1970, house prices were only 2.5 times median household income while in today’s time that is 5.6 times. Inflation is important factor short term but the most important factor long term is not the absolute price level but the relative prices of goods.
Japan has low (frequently zero) inflation and until recently low immigration. Japanese apartment prices to my understanding would have been seen as expensive relative to the west a few decades ago; the difference is that they haven’t really increased, while western prices seem to have gone up by 2-4x.
House prices are so high everywhere because of ever increasing printing of fiat money like £ $ €. People or companies buy property to try and protect the value of their money from being inflated away to nothing by fiat and Keynesianism
Good point tommyrich - a fact missed by a lot of commentators. Whenever the sterling loses value asset prices go up. For example FED has lower rates, whose effects will be felt 6 months from now when housing prices go up to reflect the dollar has weakened as they have too much debt.
Rents are high because of dynamic pricing set by algorithms purposely and slowly increasing the rent prices all over the country. It's why undesirable places to live are priced nearly the same as thriving cities. There is a law suit against this type of price fixing in the DOJ in the USA right now.
Nope the banks will be new lease landlords you can rent from them own nothing be happy biggest scope to hold maxim immigration capacity and housing stocks.
I have been very conscious that either myself or my wife must be able to survive on one income (if anything happens to either of us work wise or health etc) On the mobile home here in the U.K. they are clamping down big time on people staying in these in their own land so even that avenue is being shut off
One of the big drivers of this is the mortgage system. Mortgages need to be based on the new construction (labour & materials) cost of new houses. Currently typical construction costs are between 25% to 33% of the sales price. There are huge profits made by developers, landbankers, financiers, all paid for by massive mortgages. Which the banks have conjured out of thin air. We should treat loans on houses like cars, if you want to buy a new Mondeo the banks won't lend you 4x the manufacturers price, nor will they lend you even more in 4 years time when it has partly depreciated and worn. We need to unravel the fractional lending system, let house prices fall, improve planning standards (require bigger houses on more land with parking, hobby spaces, garages, bungalows for the elderly). The government need to buy agircultural land at cost, and rent housing at cost. Once the supply of housing exceeds demand, older, low standard housing can be replaced. Instead of family income going to fund the banks and the land industry, we need funds going into funding care, savings, pensions, utilities, infrastucture. That way the money stays in the real economy and is not siphoned off to global financiers. Finally we need a system of much better savings, instead of the money flowing to landlords, developers. Interestingly, the civil service employer pensions contribution rate is between 26.6% and 30.3% (with employees contributing between 5.5% and 12.5%) compared to a minimum of 3% for a private sector employer paying into a stakeholder pension. There also needs to be much better mechanisms for those who have periods of no/low contributions. Currently the limits on contributions and/or tax topup prevent those who have had problems from catching up even on the contributions, let alone the growth pensions can accummulate over long periods.
I remember reading a while back, some banks were "working to fix the problem" by lowering the percent of the price of the house that has to be put as a down payment.
Your comments about fractional reserve banking are spot on. The idea that any developer would build a property without profit is asinine. And the idea that the government can do it instead has been proven wrong so many times that it’s amazing that anyone believes that is a valid approach.
@@derekmerkler1271 Indeed Government, can't do it alone, but the development process should not provide developers, landowners, landbankers, financiers with the huge windfall profits they have seen for decades. Understand that there are billions flowing to 'investors/shareholders/directors'. The developers are very good at nailing the subcontractors to the ground along with their own surveyors, engineers, managers. What does an efficient structure look like, how does it deliver high quality, durable, life-long housing? Perhaps it takes a combination of more serviced plots as available in Germany, restrictions on rental ownership to particular entities. Turn the planning model on its head to focus on reducing the housing density and improve the quality, regardless of occupation route, introduce far higher minimum land areas. Prevent the ghettoisation of towns, districts. Think of the businesses in the UK which operate in highly competitive markets, they try to pay staff fairly, deliver a return on the true capital invested (not the inflated valuations as per property companies). Battle with single digit profits, pay small dividends and retain profits to keep up. Somehow the housing industry has managed to bypass those rigours. That will change. Waiting for the banks to collapse again is lazy. Best design it and evolve it.
He's not too far off though. A dual income household making close to $200k/year here in the US can't comfortably afford a new home and be able to raise a family. It's either one or the other.
Love Rory, a voice of sanity in an increasingly insane world, one of the biggest changes in my lifetime has been the "re-calibration" of housing costs towards double income professional households driven by the increase in professional woman. This is in itself shouldn't be an issue if government had continued to build/supply low cost social housing to lower income households, but they didn't so here we are living in a perpetual housing crisis where politicians pretend they can drive down housing costs get getting more private homes built, which is never going to happen..
Women flocking into the workforce in droves was a reaction to the west not allowing women to earn an income until yesterday. They should have allowed women to work and earn their own money, but men should still have been responsible for paying for everything, i.e. the Islamic model.
Back in the 90's people were taking a year out to go travelling and then coming home working for a year or two and buying houses. People were also decidingto ditch their management roles and go into low paid jobs because you coud still live off them.
I bought a large roadworks tent & a set of traffic cones, I have a brazier to do my cooking on (whilst wearing wellies & hi vis jacket) and I move it all once a week in a transit van with Thames Water written on it to confuse the council & park it near a reservoir on a weekend. Dead cheap & works a treat.
I think this is the reason that cannel boats in Britain has become much more popular. If you get bored of your scenery or fall out with your neighbour you can move easily. Or on the weekend take a slow cruise down the cannel and stop at a pub/ restaurant.
The problem with Warren was, she didn't even stand behind her book because she was afraid of alienating her voters. I don't care how smart you are, but you have to be able to stand up for something if you want my vote. You have to have the ability to do the right thing in such a position.
Listening to the point being made. We were better off 4 decades ago (in most cases) with one income per household, than we are now with 2 incomes per household. I don’t care if Liz Warren is a numpty, that is one point I can agree with her on.
@@RJames-uy2mt was that the deciding factor? Why are people like you so eager to dismiss the reasons others vote differently than you? You want to act so enlightened and educated and above the rest of us but never seem willing to actually apply your perceived greater intellect. You just want to reduce your opponents to movie characters. I wonder why your side keeps losing 🤔
@@Mr_Fairdale I’m not a member of a political party, so I don’t have a side. Judging by how offended you got, you’re probably a MAGA conservative who ironically LOST the last election even though he keeps telling you that he didn’t.
This is all valid but only as a result of supply side restrictions. Housing hasn't been allowed to grow with demand. The blame lies with nimbyism and the town and planning act rather than landlords. The fact so much value accrues to landlords is a function of lack of building. I live in zone 2 in London in an area that is only two stories high across acres and acres of land. It is absurd.
Because of mismatched demand and supply. As soon as supply outstrips demand properties won't be seen as an investment asset as their capital values and/or yields will fall. No sensible person would buy an asset that's decreasing in value (other than as a home).
@@sammckenzie6760 I mean, there are ways to prevent that, if regulators actually wanted to...But even if it happens, landlords can only get away with charging inflated rents because supply is so low and demand is so high.
@@ABCDefpaco house prices only go up in Australia due to horrendous tax policy. Serial landlords and/or money launderers buy out any new homes and keep supply artificially low. Housing has inelastic demand anyway, so supply demand is a poor model
Supply constraints are a policy matter, nothing to do with landlords or money launderers. Housing is inelastic to a point. Perhaps where everyone has a home or at least where everyone has a home equal to their self perceived status. The point being supply constraints remain the issue, and demand above and beyond primary residence demand is a function of supply constraints.
The UK might be able to solve its productivity problem if labour could move around to get better jobs. However the housing market is screwing everyone who goes out to work since it only works for people who don't.
I am exhausted with modern society....I think there will be a seismic shift with people moving out of the so called first world and live in sunny third world counties.
There comes a point where we have to look at our lives as more than a number on a balance sheet or a few points up or down on GDP. It’s funny how every single “improvement” has come with a serious of unintended consequences. We need a serious think about how life used to be and the value of traditions and taking time to enjoy all areas of our lives.
you CANT base a society on economics. I dont know how it could happen, but I can absolutely see a "post-economy" or "post-capitalism" world that no longer bases stuff on GDP and stock prices. And other markers are used to see how well society is doing.
@@soaringgrasslands3148 indeed although be honest I think if the state has to constantly create index measures of happiness that’s a sad state of affairs.
@aussiejubes It's still hilarious in 2024 that a fake Native American wrote a book with that name. It is timeless. It was funny then and it's funny now. The name itself isn't actually the funny bit. The funny bit is her having about 1% Native blood AND writing a book with that name.
@@jonathanrabbitt She had a clever consumer advocate period, rocketed to stardom, and became one of those people that are named as potential leadership candidates, and then sold out, or that is how it looked. Also the accusation that she had the academic equivalent of a stolen valor crime, made her seem just as conflicted as the people she had devoted her career to criticizing.
Dyson has a campus, but it's quite remote in Wiltshire. No idea what the people working there think of it but that's one British company with a campus set-up for new graduates
Women went into the workforce because of the economic crisis in the late 70s and early 80s with the oil embargo’s and inflation. They wrapped the necessities of women going into the workforce in the women’s lib movement but they had no option but to work. Initially they two incomes caused a spending boom. But then it evened out and now is barely enough.
There are huge differences between the US and the UK. Living in a quaint English village with a thatch roof can be popular/expensive in the UK. In the US, moving outside of the major metropolitan regions saves you money (even when gas prices are taken into account) I've watched Americans refuse to move farther out, even if the schools are better, there is less crime, the homes are nicer, and it is cheaper to live. But that's one strategy to survive on a single wage in the US.
I always shared space with other people. I lived with other men, then married and lived with a woman, a "wife" whatever that means these days. We raised 4 children. I built our house. I worked to keep her home with the kids and paid for their educations. I went back to school to earn another degree to enable me to earn more money. We drove a fleet of old cars which I repaired. Looking back it was pretty great. My children are now married (whatever that means these days) with children of their own. But they are two income families, living in large houses their mother and I could never afford although had she continued to work outside the home, but then there is child care and other expenses. So my kids live "better" than I did not to mention they have Internet and large screen TVs that simply did not exist in 1980. Now I'm retired, divorced and living in a small flat in a shall we say "less desirable" part of town (but I own a gun, haha). Frankly, cry me a river. Kids today are not conservative and careful with money, they live for today. Me? I'm happy as a clam in warm water.
Personally, we've managed to do so much better financially as a couple than we could have done as singles. Neither of us alone could have bought a house in our area.
Women flocking into the workforce in droves was a reaction to the west not allowing women to earn an income until yesterday. They should have allowed women to work and earn their own money, but men should still have been responsible for paying for everything, i.e. the Islamic model.
The problem he's talking about is not about double income, it's about the housing construction regulations. The problem isn't higher income of households, it's governments restricting the construction of new housing so that we can't meet the housing demand. Why hasn't food gone up as much as housing in relativ terms? Why haven't clothes gone up as much in relative terms? Why have most basic goods not gone up in the same way? Because nobody is restricting growing food and supplying it to cities. Now try and construct housing in London, San Francisco or Munich and see how much harder it has become to get a bloody construction permit.
The labor force participation rate has fluctuated between about 60% and 67% since the year 1948 so I don't understand what people are talking about two income change
The more money we make as a household the more will be taken from us to balance "the economy", prices and bills going up, we are supposed to live with a bit of pocket money left over and keep our mouth shut because nobody wants to risk their pitiful lifestyle being taken away or degraded.
TLDR, house prices are more expensive due to more shared housing, bigger earnings, bigger borrowing, housing supply that hasn't increased with the population. Housing price gains have accrued in megacities, due to more diverse job opportunities (for a couple), and in zones with good schools. Therefore double income families can be trapped with wealth siphoned off to landlords/banking system but quality of life has decreased. Creative people can find innovative solutions in more rural areas, and he proposes the electric motorhome/RV, could be one way in future.
Council housing was sooooo much more widespread when Rory "was a kid". We need councils to build hundreds of thousands of houses with rent pegged to average local incomes
"[....] While technological progress as a whole continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance considered by itself appears to be desirable. [...]"
Well just because people earn more does not mean the house prices / rents have to go up. It‘s like saying water should cost more now (also a necessary thing). That is bad regulation that house/flat prices (something we depend on for having a longer and better life) can be too easily made higher and basically abuse renters with impunity. I hated living in London. It‘s a nightmare and not worth the investment living there. I think the cause is bad regulation, not the double income, on something necessary, profit maximizing should be illegal.
300 kwh solar charged batteries keeps the lights and fans on for small RV and I can use the microwave on sunny days! The water refilled and toilet can be dumped at sani station for $5 to 10 a week ... Finding a place to park overnight for cheap or free... That's the problem. Societies rules are the problem. No one wants people to live cheap.
Though usually brilliant, Rory does not mention a current phenomena with the generations that followed him and that is they are more demanding. They prefer newer flats in central London with little to no maintenance. They will spend a large proportion of their income of coffee, holidays, leisure and impulse buys than any previous generation. Instead of moving out when they enter a relationship, they do so on finishing university. They will not commute to work while living at home in order to save a deposit (indeed many have very little in savings) and, outside of London, they will have new a brand new car on a lease every 3 years. Add to this that the UK has net migration of 750,000, but only builds 200,000 homes. Landlords are actually essential for labour movement and the anti-landlord lobby will see renting made impossible in the coming months.
My question would be if we're talking about 500,000 homes, at that kind of quantity why aren't the govt owning all of it. But they don't want to provide housing. It's a drain on their resources. They can be held accountable for it in a real way. Just like they want to wriggle out of healthcare, education, clean drinking water. They just want to get their 20% off everything for doing nothing except throw sweeties every 4 years. no.1 demand for housing isn't even first time buyers. It's council tenants. Some who have been waiting 7 years or more. That should be the priority.
I don't know who you are referring to. Buying a coffee isn't a make or break financial decision. That's absurd. If you simply look at median earnings versus average living costs that explains everything.
@@JoBlakeLisbonIve seen some yound people spending hundreds in a month on Starbucks every morning and at times twice or even three times a day. So hes not exactly wrong.
@@lcako1616 Yes and update the iphone when a new one comes out, get another tatt, cosmetic surgery, gym memberships, supplements, go o/s for holidays and so on. They are the consumers that corporations dream about. Though it must be said that Gen X are the big earners now. However I think previous generations might have had lower material expectations.
How to increase the production and output in market economy? Drive up the minimum living costs, so in this case mainly housing. This way, people are forced to work full time and they are actually dependent on working full time and not just any job but at least close to middle class wage. Think about this the other way around: If housing costs were a lot lower, would couples be working full time both? I doubt it. Personally, if I could get by working 1/2 or 2/3 of the time, so like 20-30 hours per week, I would absolutely do it. Inherently there is nothing wrong with this concept, you want a good and enjoyable life, you have to work for it. I'm sure most people agree with this. However the housing costs are being driven so high that it's becoming unhealthy for the economy and housing ownership is more akin to rent-seeking, as the only way to escape the wheel of market economy is to own your own house and own assets (I'm sure you figure out how consumption fits in to this mentality - don't consume, save like the rich people save). Generally, it's very difficult to get rich with wages as the the wages are disproportionally harshly taxed compared to capital income, especially here in the western countries.
That electric motorhome thing isn’t happening, people want floor space and proper furniture not plywood fixtures in a Tupperware box. Electric cars have to have light flimsy bodywork at the best of times to make up for the vast weight of the battery, and campervans also have very light weight body so an electric one would be doubly so. Not that it’s a bad idea per se, get a decent condition truck and fit it out inside like a house. Trucks are roomy and heavy duty and can handle many tons of weight so you can have normal furniture inside. Get starlink, that patch of land and work from home. London wages and cheap living costs.
The problem with property in the UK is huge population expansion has significantly outpaced the supply of homes. I would also suggest that if people want to be flexible for work and move locations every few years, buying is not necessarily a good option due to SDLT, estate agent fees, where as renting offers much greater flexibility.
There is quite a large cost associated with relocating to where there is a better job (or any job). Stamp duty, real estate, removals etc this is by design - the government controls mobility of the population. Same as their control on the unemployment rate to keep workers where they are and control wages.
Trump borrowed the nickname for Warren from Howie Carr, a Boston talk show host. Warren teaches one course at Harvard for $300,000 a year. Harvard students get to fund her easy life by going into debt for tuition. Warren was a DEI hire. The host needs more research.
Women flocking into the workforce in droves was a reaction to the west not allowing women to earn an income until yesterday. They should have allowed women to work and earn their own money, but men should still have been responsible for paying for everything, i.e. the Islamic model.
Fixed costs are the same for singles so this fellow is wrong. Blame governments for deficit budgets and inlation. The 1% are now the landlord class and usually an absentee landlord class at that.
They're not, council tax and most bills including standing charges are more per person for a single person than a couple. The biggest disadvantage though is the tax system. A couple can earn £100k at basic rate, a single person can earn only £50k before most of their earnings goes in taxes.
Such a misleading video title. At no point does Rory say it’s cheaper to be single. He argues the opposite: that the modern economy has forced dual income upon couples and singles (who live in house shares) as they can no longer survive on one income.
The point around the benefits of a 2 income house going to the treasury and landlords hits home, but aren't these topics so far out of reach given that western countries can scarcely control their borders never mind drastically restructure the building blocks of the economy.
In England (where there's essentially nowhere to live) you would spend a large chunk alone renting a nice bungalow in a quaint village. Put two incomes together hey presto! you now live live in a nice bungalow in a village.
If you bought a £200,000 electric RV, it would depreciate like a brick. Because the moment that battery dies, the thing is a write off. And then where do you park it? Oh yes, a campsite where you pay rent. You just re-invented the caravan park. ... Also I've seen a few videos with this Rory chap and he is always sucking on that pacifier.
@@gauloise6442 The idea is ludicrously stupid. Charge the RV to run your microwave ... well charging transfers about 1/3 of the power and the rest is losses, so you tripled your electricity bills.
You can have a temporary septic hookup when not traveling by a dump station. The main problem is the laws by the government nazis and the build quality for weather tolerance.... Having a settlement has almost always been the better large family option... But we have people like Putin, forcing compliance while claiming to be a hero...
So I think Rory would appreciate this angle. In the US Native Americans are provided certain legal remedies for past discretions and it was an established trend of claiming Ancestry to take advantage of the remedies. I think personally she should have owned it and said it like your bankruptcies and your Tax filings
Rory never said why a RV with a big stonking battery is better than a petrol or diesel-powered RV with a more than adequate battery to run all the electrics that many of them have today and even a generator as backup is going to increase the number of people choosing to live this way.
He may understand that battery prices are fast falling and have very very low maintenance, no noise or pollution and so forth. That being said i think the powerwall 3 from tesla has a 12/14 kw battery as well as inverter which along with solar panels is sufficient for average houses. An rv with optimized solar panels could probably work with an 80- 100 kw battery if you dont need to travel more than say 200km at a time
@@pietersteenkamp5241 A 100 kw battery would cost a fortune even with prices coming down and needing to be replaced after 10ish years. 200 km range and how long to charge? Roy needs to do some homework before talking.
@@FLSTFB103 a battery of that size will see degradation to say 70% after 1 million miles or say 20 years or more. Cybertrucks with 100 kw batteries cost 100k now . Can refurb an old rv to electric for much much less right now so i think you need to do your research instead. He picked s very high number because he wasnt sure.
@@pietersteenkamp5241 Range is still a big issue and how about weight? More weight means less freight that can be transported and more wear and tear on roads. Can you post some links to these cyber trucks?
The biggest difference is that modern people feel entitled to far more. They would turn their noses up at lives people found perfectly adequate in the 1950s.
I was saying something similar not too long ago about "side hustles." Once some people have a bit of extra money from a "side hustle," prices will be raised to extract that money from them. This will then force everyone else to get "side hustles" just to be able to afford the same things they used to. Each person working two jobs is just going to be the new normal. Quadruple income households.
the juice isnt worth the squeeze
AND they’re highly regulated and usually taxed by the government.
yup the economy actually works on distributing resources money intrinsically has no value, you sir, are quite an objective thinker ... commonly referred to as "smart"
@@jimz1024 The economy is descriptive of what exist. It does nothing because it is only a thought. If people have low confidence they wont invest in making things or doing things and thus their thoughts become reality.
This only applies if everyone, or close enough, does it. Also Inflation doesnt happen from extra productivity but from excess money in the system and speed of that money. actually if you have the same amount of money in the economy and more side hustles you would see deflation
Wow! First time I've heard this said outside the Red Pill community. I'm Rory's age - the last generation able to afford a wife, children and a house for a FAMILY. Women working 'was' an option, and great. Now house-prices have swallowed the advantage. Women work today to make up for what men can't earn on their own. Worse for women, worse for men and ABOVE all worse for CHILDREN.
The generational sweet spot was for those who could buy their houses when it was affordable on one salary and then unlocked the second income so that it could be spent on useful stuff. Later generations where two incomes were the norm simply bid up house prices by competing against other two income couples, even though it is against their collective long-term interest.
The country hates children.
In the UK house prices will always rise to the maximum level of available money due to shortage of stock. I envy the USA where timber houses are cheap, easily extended, easy to heat, have no stigma and don’t represent your lifetime earning potential. This allows all the excess income to be spent on improving your lifestyle.
The USA Declaration of Independence had it spot on …….. Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness!!!!!
@@mattmckeon1688 Exactly the point. We weren't careful with what we wished for.
@@AaaaandAction Even in the US people are sleeping in cars.
It's not cheaper to be single, that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's cheaper to be in a bigger group (a flat share of 5 people) than it is to be in a couple (just 2 people). He's also, as a related point, saying that it's advantageous to have no ties to an area so that if a better opportunity comes for you as an individual, you can make use of it. Successful careers are remote careers. The push to get people back into the office is limiting the potential earnings of the household. Multigenerational households made up of remote workers will be able to negotiate better rents per person and earn more per person than a traditional "two parents and the kids" household.
I think the problem with working from home is that as the employer you don't know what you are getting, you also don't get a discount for the fact you just gave a massive benefit to workers. The reality is that as managers you often have no idea whether people are doing anything, unless they have some very quantifiable task. Over a year, stuff is getting done, but as to what is happening at any one time...And it turns out what many were doing at home was adding a second job. But on the flip side managers had no compassion for huge unpaid benefits they had captured. Like commuting time, or the extra time punctuality cost individuals. Over time employers will figure out how to get those unpaid gains back, maybe they will contract out jobs to cheaper centers. It was a little shocking to see Musk come in and just fire masses of employees, in an environment where the work probably was pretty quantifiable. How many workforces are even more vulnerable.
@@HondoTrailside You really don't know what you're talking about, have you ever worked remotely or lead a team in person or remotely?
@@HondoTrailside Employers save money on rent on the office space which is by the foot. Since most employers are not flexible for parents with young children, this solves that issue because it's not visible to them anymore.
As for adding a second job, there should be no problem if the work done for the company is getting done.
@@HondoTrailside Micro-managers like you are the problem. If people turn in the work on time, that's all you need.
@@nauxsiwhat if the 2nd job is for a competitor & they're giving out trade secrets & other sensitive info to them that they probably won't be able to access outside the office or memorize if they had been working at the office?
What if they're intentionally underperforming due to that 2nd job (as well as a grudge toward their employer), while telling you the task you gave them is impossible to complete within the given deadline & using their experience or knowledge in the field, which their manager/lead/employer might not have to sell the lie.
This has been going on forever. For example almost a century ago Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, was hired by Lucky Strikes Cigarettes to convince women to smoke. At the time it wasn’t attractive or feminine for women to smoke. For the cigarette co. it was simple math. Women smoking would double sales. Later on this caught on with government. Women working doubles tax money. Women working increased purchasing and sales in the private market. Women working increased the supply of labor. Thus reducing wages because of competition in the market. It was sold as female empowerment, but female happiness has been declining since the 1950’s. Despite all these facts I will be flamed in this thread. Because the propaganda has taken such a deep hold.
It was a psyops operation all along
Liberty sticks! Women have been blinded by activist feminists and government/corporate greed to become inferior men. No wonder they’re miserable.
lucky man, getting flamed. ive been commenting on youtube for years now and have not gotten a singke reply yet. man i wish someone flamed me
What's fueling this system? MONEY
now they are coplaining about 'aging society'. if the society had better life on just one income 1-2 generation ago, why would that even be the problem.
one the side - they should have invested our pension contributions in the sovereign fund, not just embezzle it on their cronies.
'Creative people spend more creatively'- is a great insight. They tend to set their own values, rather than adopt those around them. They end up with better value for less. Self knowledge of their abilities means they are more immune to the judgement of others- so they do not feel the need for positional goods.
I have been like that all my life as well as having the DIY capability to make just about anything I need. And to have a good income. But it is a bit of a grind to be an outlier, and probably cost me with my children.
@@HondoTrailside My 'make rather than buy' has saved me a fortune over the years- especially building my own house. No appliance insurance, roadside assistance, servicing, etc all adds up. Especially no loans. Or any other 'financial services'. Allows you to spend on the important stuff.
But you're missing out on scratch cards, tattoos and fish lips!!
@@mooseyman74 Not to mention hookers and crap tables...
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop you built your own washing machine?
What I get from this is that no matter how hard we work, market will raise prices to keep us poor.
The oldest societies in europe are greece and rome. Nowadays both greeks and italians are derided for their lack of a work ethic compared to coutries like germany, but they have some of the best food and longest lifespans in the world.
@@maxvarjagen9810 'germans' border with Poland.
Inequality makes most of society feel poorer. Bring the wealth of the richest down, spread their money about more evenly - hey presto!
@maxvarjagen9810 But is that due to working less, or just a Mediterranean climate?
Welcome to Capitalism. The market is a scarcity generator, not a scarcity reducer. The prices rise to the highest you'll bare, not the lowest to make a profit - because you don't set the price, they do.
The catalyst cause in the 80s was allowing multiple incomes on a mortgage. There have been many other reasons that pile on top or this, but this was the initial cause. At the time, all houses were brought very successfully on a single salary. It was all driven by greed not betterment.
Good point. And the cat food quality has marginally improved because of selfish hoomans only thinking about themselves
Yes it definitely comes down to greed.
People selling their homes are and home owners like knowing their property value has held up or grown.
hmm...interesting point. i will deep dive into this topic
The 'home owner' , 'landlord' titles were also a marketing ploy, as the houses are really owned by banks.
I have noticed that new immigrants all live in the same house with 3,4,5+ incomes! Then the whole family, ie cousins,etc, pool their money to buy additional houses and rent them out!
Capitalism 101
rent them out to their relatives and rent is paid by the tax payer through housing benefit.
I'm British born to Asian parents. And in Asian culture, it's much more accepted for two or three generations to live under one roof. And with the economic conditions as they are, it provides them with an advantage.
It's not "asian" cultures, it's "old cultures" that haven't been sold 'american dream' by banks.
Only sensible thing I ever heard from the mouth of Grant Cardone is : American dream is a product invented by banks to sell mortgages.
This is instilled into peoples brain from young age, so they always feel the pressure to move out or kick kids out.
@@henrydeval150 Be quiet racist. Immigrants aren't leeching off the government as you'd like to believe. Save your scorn for the native British underclass.
I do love listening to Rory speak, but it always amuses me that he can't let go of his vape!
I said this over 10 years ago and I still think it's true now; A consistent contributor to many modern issues is non-vigilant spending. Compulsive or thoughtless purchasing that contributes funding to products and services that don't provide anything close to an equal value in return.
I bought my first card for £5k because I had no undertsanding of what to look for or what was good value. It was probably worth £2.5k, and over the next 5 years cost an extra £1.6k to maintain because of parts in poor condition. I got quoted £475 on a seatbelt repair and did it myself for £15 (to full function), but I did consider paying initially despite that it was about 30 hours wages.
I live in a city where there are a lot of young people and the spending is very heavily coming from parents money, or student loans. So I see a lot of careless spending here. That said, the previous generations also very willingly overspend to a huge degree.
I think we'd see a ton of positive changes fairly quickly if we all became more conscious spenders.
similar experience here, a plumber charged me 200 euro for a job of 2 hours... after that I was a bit depressed for a week or two, then I went to learn plumbing and electricity in evening classes, since then I haven't had to pay a single electrician or plumber.
When it's about cars, I'd rather buy a new toyota yaris and keep it 15 years... I owned an Aygo, now I drive a Smart 4 four.
This would unfortunately lead to a colapse of economy and goverment's ability to levy taxes on the useless things leading to it being unable to pay pensions and so on. It is regretfull, but western economies run on needless spending. They can't survive without it.
It is still possible to survive on one income. But it will take sacrifices. We are a family of five. And have been doing it for years. We’ve even bought a home. It took us 15 years to save a down payment. We drive ugly cars, I cook everyday, we only buy new things when the old one breaks. But we are all fairly happy and in good health. I know it can be tough but where there is a will there is a way.
This is a fragile strategy with a lot of failure conditions. Illness, local problems, relationship problems, or to be honest, any problems at all could completely dismantle this approach. 15 years is a huge window for incidents to interrupt the strategy.
@@aaronbeedle941it’s called being frugal. I’ve never heard of frugal being referred to as fragile. At the end of the day, many frugal, one income families end up with a lot of money saved compared to dual income big spender families with their expensive mortgages and fancy cars who are in total debt. The more money you make, the more bills you have.
@@MichelleNovalee hmmm yeah it is fragile. What if the single breadwinner has a work accident and cannot work? Emergency funds? If you live in the US, the moment you deal with healthcare there's a big chance you'll accrue medical debts. C'mon! This is real stuff.
@@Bresto88 any moment you could get in a car crash and die. No one is saying this isn’t real stuff. But there was a time in America that single family income households were the most common type of household and our society was doing just fine and didn’t say, “Are we sure we should have only one income? This seems too fragile.” It was worth the risk and families were much happier and better off having a mother to take care of the children and not stick them in daycare with a dozen other crying babies while the mom went to work. Raising a child is a more important job (arguably the most important) than leaving that kid with a stranger to work a mediocre job.
@@Bresto88I would argue that two income families are generally more fragile. Assuming a two income families expenses are dependent on those two incomes, then it only takes one person to get sick or lose a job to cause a financial problem. You have essentially doubled your chances of having a problem. I believe that is one of the things Warren argued in the book.
35 years ago my wife and I made a decision to only try to use one of our wages to get a mortgage. My wife never had to work if she didn’t want to and we never needed child care. After 35 years, we may not have had many holidays or fancy cars but we are still happy together and have a lovely mortgaged free home. I give this advice to young couples. Try to only take a mortgage on one of your wages. It will give you so much freedom of choice in later life when you are trying to bring up a family.
Whilst I commend you and I think there's an underlying principle which I agree with, I don't think this is realistic anymore for most people. You are from the generation where this was a real option, before you it was an expectation, now it's a distant dream.
Take the average UK salary of £35,000 (student loan before 2012, 5% pension contribution, marriage tax allowance): That's £2,250 per month.
Average rent is £1,225 per month + £200 council tax + £125 utilities (a LOT less than I'm paying) + £350 food + £300 commuting costs
So they have £50 per month left for everything else (savings, car insurance and upkeep, TV license, phones, internet, emergencies, fun...)
Average house price is £310,000. Lets say they aim to buy for half of that: £155k. First they need to save all their money for 13 years (do nothing, have no emergencies), then they need to hope that by some miracle house prices have remained stable, then they can put 5% down on a house nowhere near their work which needs complete refurbishment.
That's lovely to hear but the premise of this video is that now, 35 years later, what you describe is no longer achievable due to the massive discrepancy between wages and house prices.
Where have you been for 35 years?. Unless you're in the top 10% of earners you cannot do that today.
@@somebloke5565 I bought a large roadworks tent & a set of traffic cones, I have a brazier to do my cooking on (whilst wearing wellies & hi vis jacket) and I move it all once a week in a transit van with Thames Water written on it to confuse the council & park it near a reservoir on a weekend.
Dead cheap & works a treat.
Back in the early 1980s, a single person couldn't buy themselves a house 30 miles outside London. Couples bid up the price beyond the individuals ability to buy.
In the early 80s if you were a single adult you were a pariah. At least today, people can stay unmarried without social shunning.
It is probably healthy for society to shun those with no interest in perpetuating society.
@@billbadson7598 bingo
If it was just "no interest" it would be one thing, but there only so many males and females. There are bound to be people who just cannot find a partner because those potential partners are not on the market. So even people who want to have kids/family cannot because their potential partners do not want that
@@billbadson7598 Not finding a decent partner to have a child with in this age of rampant narcissism is not the same as "no interest"
We built a new home and planned for multi-generational accommodation. Initially we thought, "kids and their families coming for Christmas", but now its looking more like we need on-site granny flats which will become something else later.
The world is moving faster each year. Businesses need people with specialized skillsets for a temporary amount of time. Im an Electrical Tech and travel different contracts for months at a time. Contractors make considerably more then their direct employee coworkers (since they don’t get company benefits) and sometimes get hotels/housing included. If you like to travel its a win/win. Plus you hardly have to look for work. Recruiters are blowing you up constantly. You are always needed somewhere if you have skills that are in demand. Plus if the company sucks just leave and move to the next contract. I see so many direct employees getting exploited just because they don’t want to move. It truly amazes me how much abuse people will take. But I get you have to work those bad jobs to learn what you don’t want to do the rest of your life.
He is totally right about the mobile home/RV bit. RV parks are exploding around Texas cities
The moral of the story is don't let your career interfere with your personal life.
Don’t tell that to women. They’ll hiss and steam will come out of their ears
How do you come up to the conclusion based on the discussion here?!
This is all being done on purpose!
The Road to Serfdom.
Nah! Surely not! It's just merely incompetence, globally coordinated /s
even worse, we are doing this to ourselves by being blind to inflation and corruption.
Everyone that works for companies that make millions in profit should demand higher wage or quit.
Every government regulation that promotes artificial monopolies should be erased and politicans should have stricter corruption controls.
But no, we keep on working like slaves for pennies while they keep on printing money and stuffing their pockets
By who?
@@plebjames That's the question 🤔
I think it's a managerial elite, they're not lizards, they're not members of some specific ethnic or religious group. They're just a class of people who've emerged in the West; especially since the Cold War ended, who believe they possess great wisdom, and the modern tools to 'apply' that wisdom. They dislike democracy for this reason, since if you've all the answers, why would you ask the plebs their opinion? It's driven by ego, and hubris, and in that sense these people are nothing new.
They've looked at their spreadsheets for so long they've mistaken them for reality. As Charlie Chaplin said in The Great Dictator, "machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts". They've lost all human perspective.
Lol. This guy is describing me.
I live in Spain, I own a flat in London which I rent out, and I've been considering converting an electric van into a motor home for when Im in London while I park in my own space at the flat I rent out.
Brilliant!
Im saving $1000 AUD a week doing Van life in Sydney. Rory is not wrong.
I work from home or I don't work. Commuting or living in modern cities isn't worth the bother.
Give me that cat lazy hooman
@@Venmaylove haha, is that a Norwegian forest cat in your profile?
@@SK-yb7bx yes it certainly is.
@@Venmaylove Lovely cats. I found one when she was a kitten abandoned in a ditch underneath a tree stump only 3 weeks old.
@@SK-yb7bx that's so sad. Poor kitten
Jesus Christ what a depressing vision. Housing is such a disaster that it's easier to live in a van. I think we're at the point where we need a completely different form of governance. Not sure what but this isn't working.
It’s working perfectly, just not for you. Unless you think we actually live in a democracy? 😂
The world is just overpopulated
Houses are a prime positional good. To 'win' such a race, you can expend more effort to improve yours, or resist others getting one (planning objections, reducing volume etc). So, we have the housing 'ladder'. The issue is land- a van is a house plus wheels, engine, etc - the only reason it is cheaper is that there is no land attached. But you still need the land to put it on- so you are renting that. Perhaps by the day. Increase the number of such vans, and guess what will happen to the rent...
@@tortozzaThat's it .The U.K. , maybe 70 million people on a medium sized island ! I've been in most of Europe , can't believe there is many miles between towns with virtually no houses . Check population density online of Europe , it's virtually empty !
@@normanpearson8753 The UK is like that too. Anyone driving on the motorway will confirm this.
I love a bit of Rory - the guy speaks so well!
There are RV toilets that incinerate poop. We just need the battery for the RV...
I noticed this problem as a child, the case of "what happens when you move the normal standards"!
I didn't need Pocahontas to know that two full time incomes can outbid one - I'm old enough to have lived it. Yet it's never mentioned today, when people bemoan the cost of real estate. Because they can't 'criticize working women.' Warren certainly hasn't said it for years. The house my parents sold in Boston (USA) in 1971 for $23,000 is now listed online at an estimate of $1.8 million. That's not inflation. In fact, the district of Boston we lived in became colonized and gentrified by lesbian couples in the 1980s. Duel income, no kids, easy to pay more in a working class neighborhood and then fill the front yard with flowers. The neighborhood got nicer - the renters got priced out.
Brilliant....Yes the model for life in Britain is broken....It used to be the case that most people would leave school at 16 maybe do a bit of tech college or go into an apprenticeship or traineeship and earn money. By the time they were 21 they were earning a full adults salary and could save money with decent interest rates. This meant they could save for a house deposit, get married etc....Now young people leave school at 18 spend a year on sabatical and go to university for three years or more. Some aren't starting work until they are 22 or older and are saddled with debt....If they left work at 16 they would already have been earning for six years....
this is entirely OFSTED's fault. In hindsight I would have gone to work at 16, but EVERY adult I knew told me that was for losers, and to be anything I had to go to university. Basically I was taught that my only option in life was to take on like 200k in debt before starting work at 22. OK, I had a 'choice' , but when the whole culture tells you one choice is for losers and one is for winners.. how is a 17 year old supposed to know all the adults are wrong?
@@greenwoodorganics4681 It's a mix of OFSTED, the statutory guidance on careers claiming that legally schools should show no bias on post-16 and post-18 routes, but the system still incentivises the academic uni route, and the fact that all senior leaders in schools will all have gone down the university & work as life route to get to those positions so have neither the experience or care for others beyond that (and view it as better for the school's reputation). They all talk a lot about 'aspiration', but view it through their own lens, openly calling apprenticeships "there for those that need them", which makes my blood boil.
I've sat on a school board, been a school governor for careers and it's like talking to a wall. I even had a senior leader try to tell the career lead that career guidance should only take ten minutes, like it's a box to tick off, not supporting someone's future. He even wanted her to just gather all the the students interested in apprentices for one meeting like that would somehow support them, while he has fortnightly meetings with those he's pushing to Oxbridge. It's technically illegal, but nothing is done to enforce it. I'm in an area with so many great apprenticeship providers, but very few schools show those as an actual choice, so it's unsurprising that many students end up like you and those apprenticeships are largely filled by those who've already been through the system after far too long and see how they've been failed.
This Rory is quite an intelligent guy. Appreciate hearing his first person view on the other side of the system (and of people).
Thats another reason why the birth rate is dropping. Also if you do buy a house as a single person, the council will try there best to flees you for every penny you have and all the utility companies
Housing is expensive because in the places where there is highest demand, there are also very strict regulations that prohibit development. London and San Fransisco should look more like New York City if they weren't so restrictive. New York City would probably look more like Tokyo.
Tokyo while relatively expensive in Japan is relatively cheap compared to those places because they build so much housing. Japan builds as much housing as the USA with a third of the population. The number of homeless in Japan is below 10,000 while the homeless in Los Angeles is around 75,000 as of 2024.
zero mention of money supply and inflation....sit down.
@reprogrammingmind inflation changes year after year. Money supply changes prices but only numerically.
In the short term, inflation affects affordability as people’s wages need time to catch up to rising prices.
In the long term what matters is the relative value of good and services. Of which, prices are a function of supply and demand. In the case of housing, its wages vs housing costs and housing prices.
For example, in 1970, house prices were only 2.5 times median household income while in today’s time that is 5.6 times.
Inflation is important factor short term but the most important factor long term is not the absolute price level but the relative prices of goods.
Japan has low (frequently zero) inflation and until recently low immigration. Japanese apartment prices to my understanding would have been seen as expensive relative to the west a few decades ago; the difference is that they haven’t really increased, while western prices seem to have gone up by 2-4x.
@@globalistgamer6418 Hence the reason for unlimite immigration. The landlords need infinite growth and screw the masses to get it.
House prices are so high everywhere because of ever increasing printing of fiat money like £ $ €. People or companies buy property to try and protect the value of their money from being inflated away to nothing by fiat and Keynesianism
Also, the zoning laws in many locations make housing a lot more expensive.
Good point tommyrich - a fact missed by a lot of commentators. Whenever the sterling loses value asset prices go up. For example FED has lower rates, whose effects will be felt 6 months from now when housing prices go up to reflect the dollar has weakened as they have too much debt.
Rents are high because of dynamic pricing set by algorithms purposely and slowly increasing the rent prices all over the country. It's why undesirable places to live are priced nearly the same as thriving cities. There is a law suit against this type of price fixing in the DOJ in the USA right now.
@@gauloise6442 So are the properties in the bad places staying empty longer?
Nope the banks will be new lease landlords you can rent from them own nothing be happy biggest scope to hold maxim immigration capacity and housing stocks.
I have been very conscious that either myself or my wife must be able to survive on one income (if anything happens to either of us work wise or health etc)
On the mobile home here in the U.K. they are clamping down big time on people staying in these in their own land so even that avenue is being shut off
One of the big drivers of this is the mortgage system. Mortgages need to be based on the new construction (labour & materials) cost of new houses. Currently typical construction costs are between 25% to 33% of the sales price. There are huge profits made by developers, landbankers, financiers, all paid for by massive mortgages. Which the banks have conjured out of thin air. We should treat loans on houses like cars, if you want to buy a new Mondeo the banks won't lend you 4x the manufacturers price, nor will they lend you even more in 4 years time when it has partly depreciated and worn. We need to unravel the fractional lending system, let house prices fall, improve planning standards (require bigger houses on more land with parking, hobby spaces, garages, bungalows for the elderly). The government need to buy agircultural land at cost, and rent housing at cost. Once the supply of housing exceeds demand, older, low standard housing can be replaced. Instead of family income going to fund the banks and the land industry, we need funds going into funding care, savings, pensions, utilities, infrastucture. That way the money stays in the real economy and is not siphoned off to global financiers. Finally we need a system of much better savings, instead of the money flowing to landlords, developers. Interestingly, the civil service employer pensions contribution rate is between 26.6% and 30.3% (with employees contributing between 5.5% and 12.5%) compared to a minimum of 3% for a private sector employer paying into a stakeholder pension. There also needs to be much better mechanisms for those who have periods of no/low contributions. Currently the limits on contributions and/or tax topup prevent those who have had problems from catching up even on the contributions, let alone the growth pensions can accummulate over long periods.
I remember reading a while back, some banks were "working to fix the problem" by lowering the percent of the price of the house that has to be put as a down payment.
A "catch-up" system sounds like a great idea, where there could equitable realization.
Your comments about fractional reserve banking are spot on. The idea that any developer would build a property without profit is asinine. And the idea that the government can do it instead has been proven wrong so many times that it’s amazing that anyone believes that is a valid approach.
@@derekmerkler1271 Indeed Government, can't do it alone, but the development process should not provide developers, landowners, landbankers, financiers with the huge windfall profits they have seen for decades. Understand that there are billions flowing to 'investors/shareholders/directors'. The developers are very good at nailing the subcontractors to the ground along with their own surveyors, engineers, managers. What does an efficient structure look like, how does it deliver high quality, durable, life-long housing? Perhaps it takes a combination of more serviced plots as available in Germany, restrictions on rental ownership to particular entities. Turn the planning model on its head to focus on reducing the housing density and improve the quality, regardless of occupation route, introduce far higher minimum land areas. Prevent the ghettoisation of towns, districts.
Think of the businesses in the UK which operate in highly competitive markets, they try to pay staff fairly, deliver a return on the true capital invested (not the inflated valuations as per property companies). Battle with single digit profits, pay small dividends and retain profits to keep up. Somehow the housing industry has managed to bypass those rigours. That will change. Waiting for the banks to collapse again is lazy. Best design it and evolve it.
@@Tomm9y All a product of regulation. And all of your proposals are more regulation which will merely reduce the supply of quality housing.
Getting to the point where you gotta be on £500,000 per year.
We don't need wildly exaggerated numbers. It diminishes the argument.
@@robovac3557 I jest. But it's still virtually impossible for 'normal' people to get a foot on the ladder.
He's not too far off though. A dual income household making close to $200k/year here in the US can't comfortably afford a new home and be able to raise a family. It's either one or the other.
@@DaManDaMythDaLegend He's way off. And $200k is about. £600k
Love Rory, a voice of sanity in an increasingly insane world, one of the biggest changes in my lifetime has been the "re-calibration" of housing costs towards double income professional households driven by the increase in professional woman.
This is in itself shouldn't be an issue if government had continued to build/supply low cost social housing to lower income households, but they didn't so here we are living in a perpetual housing crisis where politicians pretend they can drive down housing costs get getting more private homes built, which is never going to happen..
Women flocking into the workforce in droves was a reaction to the west not allowing women to earn an income until yesterday. They should have allowed women to work and earn their own money, but men should still have been responsible for paying for everything, i.e. the Islamic model.
I love the remark about how creative people use money more creatively
Back in the 90's people were taking a year out to go travelling and then coming home working for a year or two and buying houses. People were also decidingto ditch their management roles and go into low paid jobs because you coud still live off them.
I bought a large roadworks tent & a set of traffic cones, I have a brazier to do my cooking on (whilst wearing wellies & hi vis jacket) and I move it all once a week in a transit van with Thames Water written on it to confuse the council & park it near a reservoir on a weekend.
Dead cheap & works a treat.
I think this is the reason that cannel boats in Britain has become much more popular.
If you get bored of your scenery or fall out with your neighbour you can move easily. Or on the weekend take a slow cruise down the cannel and stop at a pub/ restaurant.
The problem with Warren was, she didn't even stand behind her book because she was afraid of alienating her voters. I don't care how smart you are, but you have to be able to stand up for something if you want my vote. You have to have the ability to do the right thing in such a position.
Says Liz Warren is brilliant right off the bat.... I am proceeding with the rest of the video cautiously....
Listening to the point being made. We were better off 4 decades ago (in most cases) with one income per household, than we are now with 2 incomes per household. I don’t care if Liz Warren is a numpty, that is one point I can agree with her on.
Exactly, I wouldn't trust a word he says after that
She is brilliant, but just like the movie idiocracy, the guy using the prowrestling schtick was more popular than the smart people.
@@RJames-uy2mt was that the deciding factor? Why are people like you so eager to dismiss the reasons others vote differently than you? You want to act so enlightened and educated and above the rest of us but never seem willing to actually apply your perceived greater intellect. You just want to reduce your opponents to movie characters. I wonder why your side keeps losing 🤔
@@Mr_Fairdale I’m not a member of a political party, so I don’t have a side. Judging by how offended you got, you’re probably a MAGA conservative who ironically LOST the last election even though he keeps telling you that he didn’t.
This is all valid but only as a result of supply side restrictions. Housing hasn't been allowed to grow with demand. The blame lies with nimbyism and the town and planning act rather than landlords. The fact so much value accrues to landlords is a function of lack of building. I live in zone 2 in London in an area that is only two stories high across acres and acres of land. It is absurd.
The moment new houses are built, they're snatched up by serial landlords
Because of mismatched demand and supply. As soon as supply outstrips demand properties won't be seen as an investment asset as their capital values and/or yields will fall. No sensible person would buy an asset that's decreasing in value (other than as a home).
@@sammckenzie6760 I mean, there are ways to prevent that, if regulators actually wanted to...But even if it happens, landlords can only get away with charging inflated rents because supply is so low and demand is so high.
@@ABCDefpaco house prices only go up in Australia due to horrendous tax policy. Serial landlords and/or money launderers buy out any new homes and keep supply artificially low.
Housing has inelastic demand anyway, so supply demand is a poor model
Supply constraints are a policy matter, nothing to do with landlords or money launderers.
Housing is inelastic to a point. Perhaps where everyone has a home or at least where everyone has a home equal to their self perceived status. The point being supply constraints remain the issue, and demand above and beyond primary residence demand is a function of supply constraints.
The UK might be able to solve its productivity problem if labour could move around to get better jobs. However the housing market is screwing everyone who goes out to work since it only works for people who don't.
Landlords and moneylenders...
I am exhausted with modern society....I think there will be a seismic shift with people moving out of the so called first world and live in sunny third world counties.
M8, those places are all low IQ, it-holes.
There comes a point where we have to look at our lives as more than a number on a balance sheet or a few points up or down on GDP. It’s funny how every single “improvement” has come with a serious of unintended consequences. We need a serious think about how life used to be and the value of traditions and taking time to enjoy all areas of our lives.
you CANT base a society on economics. I dont know how it could happen, but I can absolutely see a "post-economy" or "post-capitalism" world that no longer bases stuff on GDP and stock prices. And other markers are used to see how well society is doing.
@@soaringgrasslands3148 indeed although be honest I think if the state has to constantly create index measures of happiness that’s a sad state of affairs.
I can see motorhome service areas becoming a business opportunity; laundry/showers/water /electric recharging etc.
All the way back in 1984, Warren also contributed to a book called Pow Wow Chow about Native American cuisine. Yes, you couldn't really make that up.
Great name. It was 1984 mate. If you don't start critiquing things based on context & time then you'll never be competent in the skill of critiquing.
@aussiejubes It's still hilarious in 2024 that a fake Native American wrote a book with that name. It is timeless. It was funny then and it's funny now. The name itself isn't actually the funny bit. The funny bit is her having about 1% Native blood AND writing a book with that name.
I am bewilided that Elizabeth Rory finds her brilliant!😪
She has been quite insightful in the past (around the GFC era), but I think she has lost the plot.
@@jonathanrabbitt She had a clever consumer advocate period, rocketed to stardom, and became one of those people that are named as potential leadership candidates, and then sold out, or that is how it looked. Also the accusation that she had the academic equivalent of a stolen valor crime, made her seem just as conflicted as the people she had devoted her career to criticizing.
Dyson has a campus, but it's quite remote in Wiltshire. No idea what the people working there think of it but that's one British company with a campus set-up for new graduates
Women went into the workforce because of the economic crisis in the late 70s and early 80s with the oil embargo’s and inflation. They wrapped the necessities of women going into the workforce in the women’s lib movement but they had no option but to work. Initially they two incomes caused a spending boom. But then it evened out and now is barely enough.
There are huge differences between the US and the UK. Living in a quaint English village with a thatch roof can be popular/expensive in the UK. In the US, moving outside of the major metropolitan regions saves you money (even when gas prices are taken into account)
I've watched Americans refuse to move farther out, even if the schools are better, there is less crime, the homes are nicer, and it is cheaper to live. But that's one strategy to survive on a single wage in the US.
I always shared space with other people. I lived with other men, then married and lived with a woman, a "wife" whatever that means these days. We raised 4 children. I built our house. I worked to keep her home with the kids and paid for their educations. I went back to school to earn another degree to enable me to earn more money. We drove a fleet of old cars which I repaired. Looking back it was pretty great.
My children are now married (whatever that means these days) with children of their own. But they are two income families, living in large houses their mother and I could never afford although had she continued to work outside the home, but then there is child care and other expenses. So my kids live "better" than I did not to mention they have Internet and large screen TVs that simply did not exist in 1980. Now I'm retired, divorced and living in a small flat in a shall we say "less desirable" part of town (but I own a gun, haha). Frankly, cry me a river. Kids today are not conservative and careful with money, they live for today. Me? I'm happy as a clam in warm water.
Being strapped aye aye!
Personally, we've managed to do so much better financially as a couple than we could have done as singles. Neither of us alone could have bought a house in our area.
Which is the cause and which is the effect?
Women flocking into the workforce in droves was a reaction to the west not allowing women to earn an income until yesterday. They should have allowed women to work and earn their own money, but men should still have been responsible for paying for everything, i.e. the Islamic model.
The problem he's talking about is not about double income, it's about the housing construction regulations. The problem isn't higher income of households, it's governments restricting the construction of new housing so that we can't meet the housing demand. Why hasn't food gone up as much as housing in relativ terms? Why haven't clothes gone up as much in relative terms? Why have most basic goods not gone up in the same way? Because nobody is restricting growing food and supplying it to cities. Now try and construct housing in London, San Francisco or Munich and see how much harder it has become to get a bloody construction permit.
The labor force participation rate has fluctuated between about 60% and 67% since the year 1948 so I don't understand what people are talking about two income change
Fortunately I've been able to earn enough so my wife didn't have to work.
The more money we make as a household the more will be taken from us to balance "the economy", prices and bills going up, we are supposed to live with a bit of pocket money left over and keep our mouth shut because nobody wants to risk their pitiful lifestyle being taken away or degraded.
TLDR, house prices are more expensive due to more shared housing, bigger earnings, bigger borrowing, housing supply that hasn't increased with the population. Housing price gains have accrued in megacities, due to more diverse job opportunities (for a couple), and in zones with good schools. Therefore double income families can be trapped with wealth siphoned off to landlords/banking system but quality of life has decreased. Creative people can find innovative solutions in more rural areas, and he proposes the electric motorhome/RV, could be one way in future.
Council housing was sooooo much more widespread when Rory "was a kid". We need councils to build hundreds of thousands of houses with rent pegged to average local incomes
"[....] While technological progress as a whole continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each
new technical advance considered by itself appears to be desirable. [...]"
Well just because people earn more does not mean the house prices / rents have to go up. It‘s like saying water should cost more now (also a necessary thing). That is bad regulation that house/flat prices (something we depend on for having a longer and better life) can be too easily made higher and basically abuse renters with impunity. I hated living in London. It‘s a nightmare and not worth the investment living there. I think the cause is bad regulation, not the double income, on something necessary, profit maximizing should be illegal.
Research shows people buy the most house they can afford whether they need it or not.
Depending on what you’re looking for there are already all electric RVs
I live in an area where women normally make $100+ and STILL require a man to finance their lifestyles.
There are now composting toilets in caravans and motor homes
300 kwh solar charged batteries keeps the lights and fans on for small RV and I can use the microwave on sunny days! The water refilled and toilet can be dumped at sani station for $5 to 10 a week ... Finding a place to park overnight for cheap or free... That's the problem. Societies rules are the problem. No one wants people to live cheap.
Though usually brilliant, Rory does not mention a current phenomena with the generations that followed him and that is they are more demanding.
They prefer newer flats in central London with little to no maintenance. They will spend a large proportion of their income of coffee, holidays, leisure and impulse buys than any previous generation. Instead of moving out when they enter a relationship, they do so on finishing university. They will not commute to work while living at home in order to save a deposit (indeed many have very little in savings) and, outside of London, they will have new a brand new car on a lease every 3 years.
Add to this that the UK has net migration of 750,000, but only builds 200,000 homes. Landlords are actually essential for labour movement and the anti-landlord lobby will see renting made impossible in the coming months.
My question would be if we're talking about 500,000 homes, at that kind of quantity why aren't the govt owning all of it. But they don't want to provide housing. It's a drain on their resources. They can be held accountable for it in a real way. Just like they want to wriggle out of healthcare, education, clean drinking water. They just want to get their 20% off everything for doing nothing except throw sweeties every 4 years.
no.1 demand for housing isn't even first time buyers. It's council tenants. Some who have been waiting 7 years or more. That should be the priority.
@@nauxsi No, the people who can afford to pay for their own consumption should be the priority actually.
I don't know who you are referring to.
Buying a coffee isn't a make or break financial decision. That's absurd.
If you simply look at median earnings versus average living costs that explains everything.
@@JoBlakeLisbonIve seen some yound people spending hundreds in a month on Starbucks every morning and at times twice or even three times a day. So hes not exactly wrong.
@@lcako1616 Yes and update the iphone when a new one comes out, get another tatt, cosmetic surgery, gym memberships, supplements, go o/s for holidays and so on. They are the consumers that corporations dream about. Though it must be said that Gen X are the big earners now. However I think previous generations might have had lower material expectations.
How to increase the production and output in market economy? Drive up the minimum living costs, so in this case mainly housing. This way, people are forced to work full time and they are actually dependent on working full time and not just any job but at least close to middle class wage.
Think about this the other way around: If housing costs were a lot lower, would couples be working full time both? I doubt it. Personally, if I could get by working 1/2 or 2/3 of the time, so like 20-30 hours per week, I would absolutely do it.
Inherently there is nothing wrong with this concept, you want a good and enjoyable life, you have to work for it. I'm sure most people agree with this. However the housing costs are being driven so high that it's becoming unhealthy for the economy and housing ownership is more akin to rent-seeking, as the only way to escape the wheel of market economy is to own your own house and own assets (I'm sure you figure out how consumption fits in to this mentality - don't consume, save like the rich people save). Generally, it's very difficult to get rich with wages as the the wages are disproportionally harshly taxed compared to capital income, especially here in the western countries.
That electric motorhome thing isn’t happening, people want floor space and proper furniture not plywood fixtures in a Tupperware box.
Electric cars have to have light flimsy bodywork at the best of times to make up for the vast weight of the battery, and campervans also have very light weight body so an electric one would be doubly so.
Not that it’s a bad idea per se, get a decent condition truck and fit it out inside like a house. Trucks are roomy and heavy duty and can handle many tons of weight so you can have normal furniture inside. Get starlink, that patch of land and work from home. London wages and cheap living costs.
The problem with property in the UK is huge population expansion has significantly outpaced the supply of homes. I would also suggest that if people want to be flexible for work and move locations every few years, buying is not necessarily a good option due to SDLT, estate agent fees, where as renting offers much greater flexibility.
Problem is since Thatcher we havent built houses at the needed rate . Thats 40+ years of housing shortages
There is quite a large cost associated with relocating to where there is a better job (or any job). Stamp duty, real estate, removals etc this is by design - the government controls mobility of the population. Same as their control on the unemployment rate to keep workers where they are and control wages.
It's cheaper to be single. Makes perfect sense for men. For women it's the opposite.
Microwave toilet. 🤣🤣🤣🤣. Love it
You can't say that women working is a good thing, then go through all the negative things it has caused.
He's stating that women working is good, that two income houses are bad - doesn't mean that men have to be the income earners!
A motorhome depreciates an insane amount.
Trump borrowed the nickname for Warren from Howie Carr, a Boston talk show host. Warren teaches one course at Harvard for $300,000 a year. Harvard students get to fund her easy life by going into debt for tuition. Warren was a DEI hire. The host needs more research.
What research if he likes what she talks about? Trump is a shitmuncher if you researched it, but people like what he says and that's it
dancing around the issue that this is the PURPOSE of feminism and female "empowerment"
Women flocking into the workforce in droves was a reaction to the west not allowing women to earn an income until yesterday. They should have allowed women to work and earn their own money, but men should still have been responsible for paying for everything, i.e. the Islamic model.
Fixed costs are the same for singles so this fellow is wrong.
Blame governments for deficit budgets and inlation.
The 1% are now the landlord class and usually an absentee landlord class at that.
They're not, council tax and most bills including standing charges are more per person for a single person than a couple.
The biggest disadvantage though is the tax system. A couple can earn £100k at basic rate, a single person can earn only £50k before most of their earnings goes in taxes.
I'm not sure Rory knew he was being filmed.
A massive electric is “not going to depreciate that much” ☠️
Just an fyi, there is a toilet that will turn your poo into carbon, and you just check it about once a month to empty it.
You honestly think that the government won't find a way to prevent your `motor home' proposal if taken up en masse?
Such a misleading video title. At no point does Rory say it’s cheaper to be single. He argues the opposite: that the modern economy has forced dual income upon couples and singles (who live in house shares) as they can no longer survive on one income.
I have a wife and 2 kids. Our household income is about 160k. We’re poor as shit. lol.
It’s called a composting toilet. Check it out.
Did he just say, microwave toilet?
Let's see what happens in 10 years
The point around the benefits of a 2 income house going to the treasury and landlords hits home, but aren't these topics so far out of reach given that western countries can scarcely control their borders never mind drastically restructure the building blocks of the economy.
He's a genius at marketing, not economics.
In England (where there's essentially nowhere to live) you would spend a large chunk alone renting a nice bungalow in a quaint village. Put two incomes together hey presto! you now live live in a nice bungalow in a village.
Today's society just needs a better metric and standard.
Uk tax. You can earn a fortune but keep very little. Two incomes are needed to benefit from the lower tax.
6:07 - Van life is aspirational
If you bought a £200,000 electric RV, it would depreciate like a brick. Because the moment that battery dies, the thing is a write off. And then where do you park it? Oh yes, a campsite where you pay rent. You just re-invented the caravan park. ... Also I've seen a few videos with this Rory chap and he is always sucking on that pacifier.
Just get a boat I pay £3k per year for mooring and a licence to use the river sweet life too
A plot in a mobile home park these days is over 1K a month. (It's not cheap.
@@gauloise6442 The idea is ludicrously stupid. Charge the RV to run your microwave ... well charging transfers about 1/3 of the power and the rest is losses, so you tripled your electricity bills.
@@gauloise6442 proctors park barrow upon soar the plots about £600 a month
You can have a temporary septic hookup when not traveling by a dump station. The main problem is the laws by the government nazis and the build quality for weather tolerance.... Having a settlement has almost always been the better large family option... But we have people like Putin, forcing compliance while claiming to be a hero...
So I think Rory would appreciate this angle. In the US Native Americans are provided certain legal remedies for past discretions and it was an established trend of claiming Ancestry to take advantage of the remedies. I think personally she should have owned it and said it like your bankruptcies and your Tax filings
Misleading title
Rory never said why a RV with a big stonking battery is better than a petrol or diesel-powered RV with a more than adequate battery to run all the electrics that many of them have today and even a generator as backup is going to increase the number of people choosing to live this way.
he's not an engineer, he's just repeating the EV meme without thinking.
He may understand that battery prices are fast falling and have very very low maintenance, no noise or pollution and so forth. That being said i think the powerwall 3 from tesla has a 12/14 kw battery as well as inverter which along with solar panels is sufficient for average houses. An rv with optimized solar panels could probably work with an 80- 100 kw battery if you dont need to travel more than say 200km at a time
@@pietersteenkamp5241 A 100 kw battery would cost a fortune even with prices coming down and needing to be replaced after 10ish years. 200 km range and how long to charge? Roy needs to do some homework before talking.
@@FLSTFB103 a battery of that size will see degradation to say 70% after 1 million miles or say 20 years or more. Cybertrucks with 100 kw batteries cost 100k now . Can refurb an old rv to electric for much much less right now so i think you need to do your research instead. He picked s very high number because he wasnt sure.
@@pietersteenkamp5241 Range is still a big issue and how about weight? More weight means less freight that can be transported and more wear and tear on roads. Can you post some links to these cyber trucks?
Try buy a house as a single person and then tell me forever renting is cheaper.
This is why I am single for now.
Havent found any crazy sugar mommas yet. 😂
The biggest difference is that modern people feel entitled to far more. They would turn their noses up at lives people found perfectly adequate in the 1950s.
I realised this as a kid
Have you actually read this Daniel? x