Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, oz was my hero said:

It's an independant clothes shop in the middle of Leicester. Ya must be nuts if you think people who work in these places will go in  to take a delivery in the middle of the night. 

Electric delivery trucks from a hub out of town.

[oz was my hero]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Oh my, how could I have been so blind? Of course the old ways of doing things are the only ways of doing things - which is probably why we do them. I am a dullard. *slaps head*
 

Are you available to pop down to Thames Water this morning? I think they could really use your insightful input to help them out with a little pickle of a problem. 
 

You should stand for Parliament or something. 

OK . If we're  going down that road. Slap your head hard enough  to wake yourself and get out of this fantasy land you live in and step in the real world. Where do you get the funding for all these fantasies? Who's going to staff this on probably minimum wage or would it be driverless throwing more people on the dole ?  Big business wouldn't  fund it . Why would they profit is their aim. So would the government  fund it?  Truth is its the public that would pay while also killing small businesses.

[leicsmac]

Making transportation both greener and more automated have issues of economic logistics, but none that cannot be overcome.

 

I'm reminded of a quote from R.Buckminster Fuller on automation:

 

"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

[Dunge]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Making transportation both greener and more automated have issues of economic logistics, but none that cannot be overcome.

 

I'm reminded of a quote from R.Buckminster Fuller on automation:

 

"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

Here’s the problem I always have with this:

 

What about the jobs that still need doing? It sounds great for examples like he gives of people creating non-jobs to keep people busy, but what about nurses? Cleaners? Plumbers? Teachers? How long does it take to train to become a doctor? How much effort do you have to go through; how many thankless long hours? And if you can look over at someone who’s getting, say, a comfortable Universal Basic Income to do nothing, do you really push on through those tough years to get your medical qualification, choosing to work when you don’t have to? Do you teach? Do you plumb? Or do you opt for an easier life?

 

To me, a big part of the reason these non-jobs exist is to keep people motivated to do the real ones. Because the easy-life alternative doesn’t exist. And that’s before you get into competing against other countries for the limited resources available.

 

None of this is to say that I wouldn’t like to see a land where we can have all the things we want (including schooling, healthcare and the contact number for a good plumber) and get to do what the hell we want. But I’m going to take a lot of convincing that that’s anything more than a pipe dream.

[FoxyPV]

This probably isn't unpopular but no one should own more than one property whilst there are so many in temporary or insecure housing.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Here’s the problem I always have with this:

 

What about the jobs that still need doing? It sounds great for examples like he gives of people creating non-jobs to keep people busy, but what about nurses? Cleaners? Plumbers? Teachers? How long does it take to train to become a doctor? How much effort do you have to go through; how many thankless long hours? And if you can look over at someone who’s getting, say, a comfortable Universal Basic Income to do nothing, do you really push on through those tough years to get your medical qualification, choosing to work when you don’t have to? Do you teach? Do you plumb? Or do you opt for an easier life?

 

To me, a big part of the reason these non-jobs exist is to keep people motivated to do the real ones. Because the easy-life alternative doesn’t exist. And that’s before you get into competing against other countries for the limited resources available.

 

None of this is to say that I wouldn’t like to see a land where we can have all the things we want (including schooling, healthcare and the contact number for a good plumber) and get to do what the hell we want. But I’m going to take a lot of convincing that that’s anything more than a pipe dream.

You do if the incentive is good enough. This isn't a zero-sum game and in a sufficiently automated and advanced society it is possible to both remunerate those who do those jobs well and still provide a good standard of living for everyone else. (Though at least a couple of those jobs could be automated themselves anyway.)

 

I see no reason to keep those spurious jobs in such a society.

 

And while it might seem far away now, think back 50 years and then look at the advances in tech and automation in that time. Then imagine where we might be after the next 50. But...not if tired old ideas about how work is "supposed" to exist in a society persist.

[Dunge]

30 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

This probably isn't unpopular but no one should own more than one property whilst there are so many in temporary or insecure housing.

Something I’ve wondered and I’d be interested to see a discussion:

If there were massive tax increases on multiple properties - say over two, meaning that someone can only be a landlord to one property and not have a portfolio (in my limited experience those landlords who have just one rental property tend to make far better landlords than those with a portfolio), and that this policy might force many houses out of the rental sector through pressurising said landlords to put them up for sale…

This is presented like it will have some terrible effect, but will it? I mean we’d probably be talking negative equity for recent buyers, but essentially there’s a big, quick increase in “buying” supply, meaning there would be fewer renters in the first place.

 

Can anyone in the industry explain what bad thing might happen that would make this a bad policy?

Edited 29 June 2023 by Dunge

[ajthefox]

4 hours ago, Dunge said:

Something I’ve wondered and I’d be interested to see a discussion:

If there were massive tax increases on multiple properties - say over two, meaning that someone can only be a landlord to one property and not have a portfolio (in my limited experience those landlords who have just one rental property tend to make far better landlords than those with a portfolio), and that this policy might force many houses out of the rental sector through pressurising said landlords to put them up for sale…

This is presented like it will have some terrible effect, but will it? I mean we’d probably be talking negative equity for recent buyers, but essentially there’s a big, quick increase in “buying” supply, meaning there would be fewer renters in the first place.

 

Can anyone in the industry explain what bad thing might happen that would make this a bad policy?

I've wondered about that as well. 

 

I've seen negative talk about the incoming effect of all rentals having to get a C on an EPC because loads of landlords will have to sell.

 

This is an incredibly blunt way of doing things and given the inaccuracies with EPCs it won't necessarily even affect all of the properties that it should, but if loads of landlords sell it will certainly mean more housing coming to market. 

 

There is the obvious issue of displacing renters who may not be in a position to buy, and arguably more competition for rentals, but I would imagine there would also be an uptick in people being able to afford to buy.

 

Clearly not a simple one to assess the full impact of.

 

 

[Wymsey]

Labour would do a better job in sorting most of the country's problems.

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Labour would do a better job in sorting most of the country's problems.

Extremely unpopular opinion:

[Wymsey]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

Extremely unpopular opinion:

Well, I say that after hearing some work colleagues and my girlfriend and her Father detest Starmer and the party..

[Daggers]

Just now, Wymsey said:

Well, I say that after hearing some work colleagues and my girlfriend and her Father detest Starmer and the party..

#getABetterWife

[Mike Oxlong]

@Wymsey does come up with some Foxestalk gold and in my opinion should be preserved for future generations to admire and cherish. In the absence of a better option I suggest he be  pickled 

[Daggers]

5 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

This probably isn't unpopular but no one should own more than one property whilst there are so many in temporary or insecure housing.

No one from abroad should own a property in the UK. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Daggers said:

No one from abroad should own a property in the UK. 

 

A couple that move here, work, have a kid etc shouldn't be allowed to buy a house?

[Daggers]

8 minutes ago, bovril said:

 

A couple that move here, work, have a kid etc shouldn't be allowed to buy a house?

No. 

[FoxyPV]

6 hours ago, Dunge said:

Something I’ve wondered and I’d be interested to see a discussion:

If there were massive tax increases on multiple properties - say over two, meaning that someone can only be a landlord to one property and not have a portfolio (in my limited experience those landlords who have just one rental property tend to make far better landlords than those with a portfolio), and that this policy might force many houses out of the rental sector through pressurising said landlords to put them up for sale…

This is presented like it will have some terrible effect, but will it? I mean we’d probably be talking negative equity for recent buyers, but essentially there’s a big, quick increase in “buying” supply, meaning there would be fewer renters in the first place.

 

Can anyone in the industry explain what bad thing might happen that would make this a bad policy?

Tbh honest, I'd advocate a Mao Zedong approach to landlords 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Daggers said:

No. 

Nah man, I go with you on a lot of stuff but not this.

 

Folks should have the opportunity to set up shop wherever the hell they like. The issue is portfolio slumlords of whatever nationality, so the limit to one property (or two) would do the job.

[Daggers]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nah man, I go with you on a lot of stuff but not this.

 

Folks should have the opportunity to set up shop wherever the hell they like. The issue is portfolio slumlords of whatever nationality, so the limit to one property (or two) would do the job.

Your example is not the norm. The bulk of expat property investment is in the form of millionaires and billionaires buying homes that languish empty. It inflates the market and removes residences from occupancy. 
 

If someone is moving here and settling then of course they have the right to own a home. Invariably these people apply for status, thereby removing themselves from my objection. 
 

Foreign property ownership is fundamentally wrong…as is ownership by individuals and corporations based in tax havens. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Your example is not the norm. The bulk of expat property investment is in the form of millionaires and billionaires buying homes that languish empty. It inflates the market and removes residences from occupancy. 
 

If someone is moving here and settling then of course they have the right to own a home. Invariably these people apply for status, thereby removing themselves from my objection. 
 

Foreign property ownership is fundamentally wrong…as is ownership by individuals and corporations based in tax havens. 
 

 

Ah, thanks for clarifying and totally agree with you on that.

[SemperEadem]

I don’t find chucking milk over climate protestors funny like many seem to.

[TJQuik]

Burger King is better than McDonald's.

[Filbert_Ross]

10 minutes ago, TJQuik said:

Burger King is better than McDonald's.

Agreed.  

[Zear0]

10 minutes ago, TJQuik said:

Burger King is better than McDonald's.

Chips are s**t though

[TJQuik]

31 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Chips are s**t though

No, they're much better than the floppy, artificial McDonald's chips.