Q: Why are people going on strike and protesting in the UK?
A: In the UK, the key problem is inflation which is very high at the moment at 10% - it is a real shock to the system of course when prices are rising so quickly and for many lower-income folks, this is a real problem as their wages simply don't keep up with inflation. The devil is in the detail, take food and drink for example, prices have risen by 19.1% as a result of poor weather in 2022, the war in Ukraine and a slow recovery from the pandemic. If you're a rich person, spending more on food wouldn't be such a big deal if you have plenty of money. But if you're surviving pay check to pay check, then you're forced to make a lot of sacrifices just to make ends meet and put enough food on the table. Public sector wages have only risen by 5.3% in the same period and these workers want their wages to increase by at least 10% to keep up with inflation, something the government is not willing to do as printing more money to give in to these demands is only going to drive inflation even higher, making the problem far worse for everyone. From an economics point of view, I actually believe that this is a sensible measure on the part of a government who is trying to make the best of a bad situation, but it means telling these working class folks, "tough shit, you are not going to get what you want - there's only more pain for you." Another factor is that the government was actually quite generous during the pandemic to find money to help out so many different people from ordinary folks to businesses to paying for people who were furloughed because of the lockdowns - there is this expectation by many for the government to simply find more money out of nowhere (hence the term 'the magic money tree' - as if money just grew on trees) to distribute to working class folks feeling the pain now just like the government did during the Covid-19 pandemic. The government was able to do that as the pandemic happened after a period of quite strong economic growth and there was enough money to spare; but now, any excess cash has been spent, the government has busted its overdraft and there's no money left to give out.
Q: Okay, what about France then?
A: Macron raised the retirement age at which public sector could access their pensions from 62 to 64, this was a necessary step to take as the French population has been ageing for a long time and it simply wasn't sustainable to keep the retirement age at 62 with more and more pensioners leaning on the system whilst there are fewer and fewer working age French people paying into it. This was a politically unpopular but very necessary move that previous presidents had been reluctant to take but as Macron cannot run for a third term under French law, he forced it through the system by presidential decree - this sparked protests all over France as a result but this was the final straw that broke the camel's back. Everything that I had described above for the UK applies to France as well, thus it is a question of the working class rising up and protesting at what they see as a very uncaring government, who are ignoring the pain of the citizens.
Q: Do such protests and strikes work?
A: Yes and no. It is the right of workers in Europe to protest and go on strike - this isn't illegal, this is completely within their rights to do so. However, whether or not it would ultimately help them achieve their means is another matter altogether. It is the threat to strike that is most effective: "if you don't give us a 10% pay rise in line with inflation, we will go on strike." The government can call their bluff at this stage and say, "go ahead and strike, see if I care." Strikes can cause massive disruption - London goes into meltdown when there is a public transport strike as commuters simply cannot get around the city and that's why the threat of a strike is taken very seriously by the government. But on the other hand, if strikes are so effective that the government would just give in to whatever demands are made by the public transport workers make, then you have the situation whereby the public transport workers could start making outrageous demands like "double our pay every six months or we'll strike again." At some stage, the government would have to say, "tough shit, we're simply not going to give you what you want even if you do go on strike, no way." So it is a threat that is only effective if you can hold the government ransom with it, but if you use that threat to strike too often then it stops being effective. Likewise, it is our right to protests in the streets - I have joined a number of protests over the years over issues that I feel very strongly about but in general, these protests are peaceful and not violent. The protestors want to make a statement, they want their voices to be heard. A small number of participants in these protests may turn violent and clash with the police, but believe me when I tell you that I have absolutely no intention of getting arrested and spending the night in jail (and then getting a criminal record) when I join a protest as I just want my voice to be heard. Again, if protests happen once in a while, they make the news and would have an impact but if they happen everyday (as in France now), people get bored and start losing interest in them. Such protests are futile without strong public support.
Q: When do strikes and protests happen?
A: An individual cannot just decide, "I'm going on strike until my boss increase my pay"; if they tried to do that, they would probably get sacked! It is a collective action taken by the members of a union, so if all the workers on the rail network go on strike, we'll have a rail strike when there would be no train services at all as all the workers refuse to work during that period. However, a strike is only carried out at the end of a prolonged negotiation for a pay rise or better working conditions, it's used as a last resort when all else fails. "If you don't give us what we want, we'll go on strike." The decision to strike is not taken lightly and often unions will require members to ballot to strike - the threshold is quite low in any case, usually it is a simple majority at 50% and at least 40% of the union members must take part in the ballot for the vote to be binding. Strikers do 'get away with it' if it is a collective action and they are protected by the unions. Protests tend to be a far more spontaneous reaction to something that has happened which has upset the people, such as in the case of France when Macron raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. Often these protests will last anything from a few days to a few weeks but eventually they run out of steam when the media loses interest. Take today (22nd April as I am writing this), I can see that the protests have still be happening in the last 24 hours in Paris, but there has been no coverage at all in the BBC news which is where I normally get my news. The BBC reported on the protests in France when they first kicked off but have essentially stopped covering it since it has moved onto other stories which are fresh and new, whilst the protests in France have simply become an ongoing situation that has not been resolved. Thus the French government is probably counting on such protests to run out of steam when they stop getting all that media attention they are hoping for and for public opinion to turn against those who do continue those protests. The French government is waiting it out and they know that without a major escalation on the part of the protestors, they will eventually win the waiting game. It's the easiest solution to a hard problem: just wait it out and the problem will go away.
Q: Is it dangerous to visit London or Paris now?
A: No, it's pretty normal. There are some situations which will be inconvenient - let's say if there's a rail strike, then trying to get around London by public transport would be a pain. A few weeks ago, there was an accident at my gym when a gymnast dislocated her knee and we were trying to call for an ambulance - we were told, "no way, we have to prioritize patients with medical emergencies like heart attacks so your friend will have to wait about four hours for an ambulance as there's a strike on; you're better off getting her to an A&E on your own or we can try to send you a paramedic to check on her." So we opted for the latter, waited an hour for the guy to turn up and he was on his own, he actually just pushed the dislocated patella back into position with his fingers and dashed off to the next emergency. So that whole episode took a bit longer than normal but the word is 'inconvenienced' by the delays rather than any imminent danger or threat to life. Likewise, when my friend was in Paris, he stayed at a nice hotel and the hotel concierge would warn him exactly where the protests were and so he was able to plan his journey around Paris to do as much sightseeing as possible whilst avoiding any of the protests. Was he able to just charge out of his hotel randomly without a plan? No, doing that might be unwise under the current circumstances, but for crying out aloud - he had only three days in Paris, he had so many things he wanted to see and do there, thus he was always going to plan those three days carefully anyway to make sure that he made the most of his time in Paris. I think there's definitely an element of the media focusing on the worst of the strikes and the protests to create "click bait news" - you're far more likely to want to read about "riots and tear gas on the streets of Paris" than "French people are unhappy with the latest pension reforms." For the vast majority of us, life just goes on and we are simply a bit more careful when planning our days - so for example, I am aware of when the transport workers would be on strike and so I will avoid traveling on those days; well, that's not rocket science.
Q: Are people really suffering now in the UK and France, is that why they are protesting and striking like this?
A: Yes and no - oh I never give a straight answer do I? High inflation is causing pain for the poorest people who don't have enough money in the bank. So if a wealthy person goes to the supermarket and realizes that he has to spend 25% more on their weekly shop, they'd grumble, perhaps get a bit upset over the situation but they'll just pay 25% more as they can afford it. But if a poor person realizes at the supermarket that prices have gone up by 25%, they simply don't have that extra money to pay for that and that's when they have to be forced to either buy cheaper alternatives or consume less. So the kind of people who are hit the hardest in this situation are those who are either dependent on government hand outs like some kind of benefits or disability payments or those who are in low-income jobs - they are literally struggling to make what they have last until the end of the month until they get paid again and so when prices are rising like that, they really struggle to even buy enough food to feed themselves and many are forced to turn to food banks (where free food is distributed to the very poorest in society) or else they will just starve. But it is also a question of how people make very poor choices - making their bad situations worse and find themselves unable to make ends meet.
Q: You're not going to demonize the working class again, are you?
A: Let me share with you a case study from my local gymnastics club: there are two coaches I know there, we'll call one coach 'Side' (as he is really good at side somersaults) and the other coach 'Papa' (as he has three young kids). They both approximately the same age (30), doing the same job as coaches at the gymnastics club, thus they are both earning the same amount of money. Side enjoys a reasonably decent standard of living: he rents a small apartment, goes on holidays, he is able to go out on weekends with his friends and do fun activities. However, Papa is unable to join Side in any of those fun activities as he has three young children - his wife isn't working as she has to care for their young children, thus his meagre income as a gymnastics coach has to support two adults and three children. Contrast that to the case of Side, where this same income is only supporting one adult. Thus whilst Side is going on nice holidays, Papa is going to the food bank to see what he can get for his family as they're really struggling to make ends meet. I have heard Papa complain that he isn't paid enough as a gymnastics coach, but then I look at Side and think, "Side is doing pretty okay, but that's because he is single and so he isn't trying to support a family of five on that salary as a coach. You are the one who has put yourself in this terrible position by having three children on that salary as a coach. Your poverty is a direct result of your poor decisions in life." Thus in a period of high inflation, Side is going to be far less affected by the higher prices than Papa. Based on their socio-economic status, the kind of education they have had, the kind of job they do, both Side and Papa are working class but I judge Papa a lot more harshly than Side, given that Side has been a lot more careful with money to ensure that he can sustain himself through this period of high inflation. Hence it is not a matter of social class, but one of personal responsibility and making wiser choices when we are facing a financial crisis.
Q: Are you blaming poor people like Papa for their poverty and do you have any compassion at all?
A: I have compassion for Papa's kids who are suffering as a result of Papa's inability to provide for his family, but I hold him and his wife responsible for a series of bad decisions which led them to having so many kids without realizing that Papa's salary as a gymnastics coach simply isn't enough to sustain a family of five like that, especially since Papa's wife is not working (for now at least) whilst she is caring for their very young children. I really feel sorry for Papa's children as they have started life at a massive disadvantage given that they were born into a very working class family with parents who are in no position whatsoever to provide for them, thus they are reliant on either the state and charity for them to get the kind of education they need in order to attain any kind of social mobility. That's a position that I have been in myself, so I know what it is like to grow up with the odds stacked against you like that. I did speak to Side about the matter - he is straight, he intends to get married one day and start a family, but he made it clear to me that he wants to make sure that his future child would be able to get access to great education in order to have a good life. In our gymnastics club, Side gets to coach a lot of students who are from top universities and he can see how they have a very bright future because of all the many advantages that a good education will give them so he wants that for his future child(ren). My parents didn't really care if they were able to give my siblings and I the kind of education we needed to succeed in life, all they wanted was a son and were going to keep having children until they got what they were seeking even if it meant plunging the family deeper and deeper into poverty. When Papa realizes that he can't support his family, he wants to go on strike to demand much higher wages rather than ask himself why he is in this position in the first place when people like Side are doing okay. You wanna have many kids, that's your right to do so but it is also your responsibility to earn enough for your family. It is his children who will be paying the price for his poor judgment, that's unfortunate as this is not their fault.
Q: So how many people in the UK are suffering like Papa and how many are okay like Side? What's the ratio?
A: It is hard to get the exact number, so it would be fair to assume that Side and Papa earn exactly the same amount of money given that they are colleagues, doing the same job in the same work place. But Side gets to keep every single penny he earns for himself and on top of that, he is slowly accumulating wealth - not a lot, but let's say he only spends 80% of what he earns every month and 20% of the money that is left is saved. With every month that passes, his savings increases and hopefully that would one day become the down payment for his house or he might use that money to invest in education for his his future child(ren). The fact that his outgoings are less than his earnings means that he is on the path to financial stability, whereby he will have enough savings to deal with whatever challenges he might face in the future. But with Papa, he spends every penny he earns before the end of the month and then he has to either go into debt or get free food from the food bank to feed his family. So despite earning the same amount of money each month, Side's socio-economic situation is improving whilst Papa is just stagnating exactly where he has been all this time and let's imagine if we give everyone working at the gym a 10% pay rise - this means that Side would be able to put aside 10% more money into his savings each month, allowing him to accumulate even more wealth whilst Papa's wife would have a long list of things that she has been waiting for (a new washing machine, maybe a new fridge etc). They could then spend a bit more on better food instead of depending on the charity of the local food bank but that 10% more cash would be spent quickly, leaving them wishing there was more money. This is why any kind of statistics based purely on earnings alone doesn't tell us the whole picture. In fact, some people might earn more than Side but are a lot worse off if those earnings have to support a big family. Hence those who are struggling the most in the UK now are not necessarily those who earn the least, but those who make the worst decisions like Papa. It has been estimated that about 20% of the people in the UK live in poverty, though that is at best a calculated guess and I think that figure is probably much higher.
Q: Is it poor people who are striking and protesting as they are angry that the government is not helping them?
A: Actually it's not that straightforward. Some of the people striking in the UK include junior doctors, teachers, university staff and even barristers. Some of these people actually have relatively well paid jobs certainly when you compare them to Side and Papa (who didn't strike), but a lot of it depends on the role of the unions who often negotiate the pay rises that their union members receive. People go on strike and protest when they feel a huge sense of injustice, when they are given a bad deal and want to fight for a better outcome. I understand that Side and Papa were given a very small pay rise in 2023 but that was way lower than the current 10% inflation rate. However, they just felt that even if they went on strike, it was highly unlikely that they would get a better deal and gymnastics coaches are simply not as well organized as say public transport workers when it comes to using unions to bargain for better work contracts collectively, hence Side and Papa simply accepted the tiny pay rise they were offered. Thus it is a myth that it is the poor who are striking and protesting, it's not always the case. My impression is that someone like Papa is so exhausted from working long hours, queueing for donations at the food bank and then helping his wife take care of the children when he is at home that he simply has no time or energy left to think about a strike and that is the reality for a lot of very poor, working class people struggling to make ends meet. It sucks to be poor, but then again, I'm just stating the obvious here - the other side of the coin is that whilst the bottom 20% are really struggling a lot and suffering, the next 30% are having to tighten their belts and make strategic choices with their budgets. The top 50% are not really affected and certainly, for those in the top 50% they're in a position to simply spend more money to ensure that they do not experience a drop in living standards as they can afford it - they are simply rich enough to do so. But then again, this is the exact same situation happening whether you are in the UK, Israel, Canada, Brazil, Costa Rica or South Africa; the top 50% are always going to be okay.
Q: Do you support the strikes?
A: In general, no I don't and okay, I admit that you can take the boy out of Singapore but you can't take Singapore out of the boy. Don't get me wrong, I support the right of people to strike, I just don't see it as a good solution when you look at the wider macroeconomic picture. If the government merely prints more money to give all the strikers the pay rise they want, then inflation would rise even further and that would render any pay rise meaningless - we are then back at square one where you have to strike again to fight for yet another pay rise. Surely a much easier solution would be to be aware of the job you're applying for: if you wanna become a teacher, then either you accept that this is a low-paying job compared to other opportunities in the private sector or you simply say no, I don't like the working conditions of the job and pick a better paid job if money is more important to you than to fulfil this desire to become a teacher. After all, you have a choice, you make your decision and you have to take responsibility for all consequences of that decision. If you're complaining that your job pays too little, then why did you go into that job in the first place? It's not like you were on a super lucrative contract then your employee slashed your pay by 50% overnight. No, you knew you were never ever going to be rich working as a teacher, if making a lot of money was your objective then you need to pick a different career path - not teaching, so why are you striking now? Wouldn't it be easier just to say, "okay, this isn't working out, I'm going to resign, cut my losses and do something else." That is the path of least resistance to arrive at a satisfactory result and that's why I don't believe striking is the answer. It is so much easier to fix your life than to try to change the whole system.
Q: What is going to happen in the next few months? Will the situation resolve itself?
A: Not much will change in the short run but the key problem that needs to be solved is that of inflation and then people would stop asking for big pay rises to keep up with rising prices. Even with a healthy dose of optimism, the best case scenario is for prices to stabilize later this year; that means prices will remain stubbornly high rather than drop down to where they used to be. Let me use a simple example of a one litre bottle of cooking oil that I get from my supermarket. Before the pandemic, I would pay as little as £1 for a litre of cooking oil. Today, the best price you can get is around £1.75 if you buy in bulk and so that represents a 75% increase in the price of that item! If prices stabilize, that means that bottle of oil will cost around £1.75 or £1.80 by the end of 2023 rather than be above £2.50 or £3. People are feeling the pinch now as they walk into the supermarket, see the price of that bottle of oil and say, "bloody hell that used to cost just £1 and now I have to pay this much?" But over time, people will just get used to the fact that this is what it costs, this is what they have to pay to buy cooking oil and other items that all now cost more. If the government does keep inflation under control, then people will at least have some time to get used to the 'new norm' of higher prices. But if prices just keep rising throughout this year, then undoubtedly there will be more protests and strikes. Thus it will boil down to what will happen with inflation for the rest of this year. Unfortunately for the strikers, keeping inflation under control does mean not giving in to the demands of these strikers - hence we have a stalemate here, it is a no-win situation and I refer you to my previous point: it's far easier to figure out how you can change your job and put yourself in a better position to earn a lot more money rather than take on the government on this issue. At least I know which battle is easier and so I am certain I have a better chance of becoming successful in my own career, even if the government fails to resolve the current crisis.
Q: Don't you think people like nurses and teachers deserve to get a fair pay package in line with inflation?
A: I think everyone deserves to be treated fairly but I refer you to Miley Cyrus' song Flowers - in this song, Miley sings about walking out of a relationship that has broken down. I quote her lyrics, "Mm, I didn't wanna leave you, I didn't wanna lie, Started to cry, but then remembered. I can buy myself flowers. Write my name in the sand. Talk to myself for hours. Say things you don't understand. I can take myself dancing. And I can hold my own hand. Yeah, I can love me better than you can." I have learnt the hard way that leaving a job where you are treated badly and unfairly is probably always the best option - the alternative of standing up for yourself, standing your ground and fighting your case may sound like a courageous, valiant option but in life, I pick my battles. I see all these strikers taking on a government desperate to keep inflation under control, I shake my head and think, if money is the issue here, then you should park any feelings you have about justice or fair play aside and just change careers here. Life is unfair, the world is full of injustice, the war in Ukraine should show you just how utterly fucked up and unfair the world is - I've stopped expecting any kind of fair play and just focused on solving my problems instead. I think it's naïve and even childlike believe in the concept of fairness in life and if you look at the situation in France for example - the government has all the mechanisms to force through this change in the law when they have raised the pension age from 62 to 64. It is done and there's nothing the protestors can do about it no matter how they strike. The government will stand their ground until public sympathy for the strikers wear thin and then the French people will just accept the new norm of retiring at 64 instead of 62. At the end of that, the strikers will feel defeated, like they have fought and lost this battle, some will feel vindicated that they at least tried to fight the government but the way I see it, they would've been better off spending all that time, energy and effort on their careers, making sure they find a way to earn more money to have a comfortable retirement. In life, you need to pick your battles a lot more strategically. Take care of yourself the way Miley Cyrus sang about it in her song Flowers rather than be stuck in a bad relationship. No you can't fix the world but you can certainly fix your own life and that's my advice for those striking.
Q: Do you support Macron and Sunak?
A: I am totally in love with Macron and I support his pension reforms - he is a president with balls. As for Sunak, meh - he is okay I suppose. After Johnson and Truss, I am so relieved to have someone with some brains in charge again but don't get me wrong. In terms of approval ratings out of a scale of 0 to 10, I would give both Johnson and Truss a big fat 0, I would give Sunak a 5 and I would give Macron a 10. Hence everything is relative - he is definitely an improvement within the context of this shit storm we call 'British politics', but when you compare Sunak to Macron, like there is smply no comparison: Sunak could never ever oozes French sex appeal, charisma and presence effortlessly like Macron does.
Q: You clearly like Macron a lot, but why do the French hate him now? Why is he so unpopular now?
A: Well he did win two elections to become president, but in both cases, he ran against the far right candidate Marine Le Pen. This is a result of the French voting system - basically, if no candidate wins an outright majority in the first round where there are typically many candidates, then there will be a second round of voting when it will be narrowed down to just two candidates. The two candidates with the most number of votes from the first round will move onto the second round whilst the rest are eliminated at that stage. Bear in mind the fact that the French are traditionally very left wing in their political outlook but Le Pen had managed to galvanize the support of many poorer working class folks who had felt neglected by the government and very disenfranchised with modern France. Thus Macron emerged in both cases as the centrist who will steer the economy through troubled times whilst Le Pen was dismissed as a far right extremist. If Macron had to run against a more moderate right wing candidate, he may not have won a second term in office, but Le Pen was and is still such a polarizing figure that she did more to ensure his success in both elections than anyone else. Thus Macron was always going to be the guy who wasn't the far right extremist candidate, most people voted for him to keep Le Pen out of power rather than because they were big fans of Macron so it wouldn't take that much for them to turn against him. However, the French people who do support Macron are not out in the streets fighting with those who are protesting against the pension reforms - no they are going to university or going to work, getting on with their lives like normal people. A president in a democracy can never be 100% popular, you can never have an approval rating of 100% as it is impossible to please everyone given the wide diversity of political opinions there are. So it's not like all French people have turned against Macron but it is just that those who hate him have become much more vocal about it.
That's it from me on this topic, please let me know what you think; leave a comment below and many thanks for reading.
Side is also lucky in being single because he can get many flatmates to make London rents livable. That isn't possible with a family due to loud toddlers. As for Papa, I googled the median salary for all workers in the UK, and I'm surprised it's only 31k pounds a year: https://www.esquire.com/uk/life/a41054364/average-uk-salary/
ReplyDeleteAnd that article was recent, March 2023. Using the income tax calculator, after taxes 31k becomes 25k. I assume Papa rents a 2 bedroom apartment for his 5 person family, which is still pretty cramped, and googling 2 bedroom rents the cheapest is 1.4k pounds/month. That leaves 1k pounds for food, clothing, transport, and other expenses for 5 people. I'm just thinking of all the laptop and textbook requirements I had during high school, and wonder how is Papa ever going to buy a smartphone and laptop for each of his 3 kids. Like what computer are they gonna use to complete assignments on? Not to mention the wifi, electricity, and water bills. I used to wonder why people would choose to have children living paycheck to paycheck, but if their parents also had kids paycheck to paycheck then they wouldn't think it was as bad of a decision.
Hi Amanda, I have done some sums and have worked out how much Side and Papa would earn as gymnastics coaches. Oh it is way below £31k, it is about £26k before tax - it can vary a bit as they primarily coach kids and there's only a limited number of hours they can work a day. The children have gymnastics after school (so the first class begins around 4 pm given that the school day ends around 3 pm in the UK) and they end quite early by 8 pm given that the kids need to go home, have dinner, do home work and get a decent night's sleep for school the next day. Sometimes us adults have the gym till 10 pm. Side is always there till 10 pm to chalk up as many hours as possible (they're paid by the hour and so Side works slightly longer hours than Papa as he doesn't have to rush home to help with childcare.) On weekends, they can work from 9 am to 6 pm though on Sundays, the gym can be open till 8 pm for adults to train. So let's say they chalk up 4 x 4 = 16 hours in week days, 8 x 2 = 16 on weekends (9 am to 6 pm, less one hour lunch break) and they take one day off a week, that's still like 32 hours a week. However, I know for a fact that this is Side's work schedule, whereas for Papa it is more like 26 hours a week. So Side is earning around 27k - 28k whilst Papa is closer to 25k. On top of that, Side makes more money on the side doing private lessons - if a rich parent wants their princess to have a private gymnastics lesson, they would go to Side as he is a very well respected coach in the area and they would pay like x4 his usual rate he gets from the gym for each hour. I get approached a lot for private lessons (hey what can I say, I'm brilliant), but I always say, "I'm just a volunteer at the gym, I don't give private lessons but you should speak to my colleague Side who is an absolutely brilliant coach." I would never recommend Papa given that he simply isn't as good a coach as Side and you could tell from this article that I am already judging him for having 3 kids before 30 on his meagre salary as a coach. So after tax, 25k = 21k and that means getting £1750 a month after tax. However, people who are living in poverty like Papa do get help from the government in the form of social housing - it's terrible, it's low quality, it's Grenfell Tower all over again (in case you don't remember that story, Grenfell Tower was a social housing tower block that went up in flames and 72 people died in the inferno as the thing just lit up like a match, that's how poorly constructed it was). So Papa lives in one of these social housing accommodations built for poor people who would be otherwise homeless without that extra help from the government and he pays approx £500 to £600 in rent only (as opposed to market rates of £1400 for a 2 bedroom on the private market) but I stress, these social housing flats are grim, they are nasty. They are where you end up if you're desperately poor like Papa. So that means out of the £1750 he gets after tax, he pays say about £550 in rent, he is left with £1200 - so actually despite him earning less than you estimated, thanks to his access to social housing, he is left with £1200 in cash to spend for his family, more than the £1k you estimated. Still, with three kids to support and a wife who isn't working, how on earth is that enough money? His kids are very young now but imagine the expenses in five or ten years as they get older and need more stuff as teenagers.
DeleteHey Alex, it's nice you funnel clients towards Side, he needs the extra money while you don't. That's a really good deal the government is giving Papa if he can rent a 2-3 bedroom for 500-600 pounds. But granted, it's probably in a poor neighborhood with bad schools for the kids. However, it seems Papa and Side's cases are very typical of an average working Brit if they don't even make 31k pounds a year. I guess what we think are "bad" conditions are pretty normal for the average person. So to these people they aren't "poor" just because they live paycheck to paycheck, it's just the reality of the income distribution in London and the UK for at least 50% of people. On one hand you have the financial industry in the UK where fresh grads can make 6 figure salaries, and on the other hand you have the average wage worker who struggles to get by on 31k/year(or less). I guess no wonder birthrates are low in western countries, most people just can't afford kids.
DeleteOh please, it's well paid work giving a little princess a private lesson but imagine dealing with a spoilt brat with zero talent and having to put on a fake smile and say, "well done, that's incredible, let's do it again" when you're thinking the complete opposite. "You lazy clumsy fat git, that was miserable and I wanna go home now, I hate having to do this for a living." Imagine serving rich people, the kind of customer service is on the level of Debbie the polite waitress from Florida working for her tips in a nice restaurant. Nah no way I can do that, but Side needs the money and he is happy to do that kinda thing.
DeleteDon't forget, 31k is the AVERAGE, hence that means there are poor people who earn a lot less and then there's rich people who earn a lot more. A gymnastics coach is always going to be earning less than the average for two reasons: it's not a highly skilled job apart from those at the very top of their game. A coach preparing the team for the next Olympics will be paid a lot, but if you're teaching fat kids how to do cartwheels and forward rolls, then you're either a level 1 or 2 coach, you don't need a degree and each course takes a few weeks to complete. This is why a doctor/lawyer is paid a lot as it takes years of professional training + degree + relevant work experience to be fully qualified and that's why they charge so much. But if you're teaching very basic gymnastics, you can get a qualification in a few weeks only; that's like working as a forklift driver, the barriers to entry is very low because the job is not difficult; hence the pay reflects that - the pay is terrible and people like Side have to either chalk up as many hours as possible to earn enough or turn to private lessons to increase their hourly rate.
I realize you're unaware of this because you probably have met gymnastics coaches in the US who are graduates, intelligent and fun to hang out with and that has probably given you the impression that, "oh John is a nice person, he's a coach, he comes across as intelligent so he can't possibly be earning peanuts and living in poverty." There are many coaches who are overqualified in that they have qualifications and degrees they don't use - they're not rewarded for having a degree that's totally not relevant to gymnastics. This is why I volunteer at my gymnastics club - I don't need the money (it's peanuts) but I love the sport so much and I'm just happy to be in that environment.
If you've met Side, you'll like him - he's funny, handsome, charming, good at gymnastics and based on that alone, it would probably give you the impression that he is earning a LOT more than he is because he has succeeded in giving you a very good impression of himself as someone who is happy, successful, confident and great at his job. But if you met Papa, you'll probably assume that he is earning peanuts because he has all the characteristics of a working class person who is simply doing his job to pay the bills, with no passion or joy at all.
Side is popular amongst the gymnasts and coaches, nobody likes Papa - Side is always the one who runs over and helps you without you even having to ask for help whilst Papa would sit on a chair and take out his phone, something he's not supposed to do at work for crying out aloud and I have even reported him to the head coach on several occasions when he was caught doing that red handed. But they're on the same hourly rate at the gymnastics club despite the fact that Side is one of their best coaches and Papa is definitely their worst coach there - there's ZERO performance related pay component to what they get paid, so Side is merely doing his job well because he's a nice person and Papa is getting away with sitting in the corner staring at his phone instead of actually working. Such is the problem with working class jobs - at least I can try to help Side by giving him as much private work as possible to boost his income as he deserves it and he is a really good friend & nice guy, but that's just me bringing that element of performance related pay from the private sector to a very working class environment. Ironically, gymnastics is seen as a rich kid's sport given how expensive the classes are but the coaches are definitely very working class.
DeleteI have a friend who is a professor who loves to complain whenever he has to teach a remedial class for failing engineering students in the bottom 20%. Being a prof is better paid because it takes 10 years or so of training, but it's still a service job with the same annoyances. The thing is, profs do love volunteering to give free extra lessons to groups of honors students, the ones in the top 10% or higher, at no extra cost to the university. I guess if you had to teach, talented students are more interesting.
DeleteI wonder how much Side could make from giving private lessons to a rich person's kid. If it's one hour a week per child at 4x minimum wage, that's an extra 240 pounds a month. Well I didn't do gymnastics growing up, but I did take piano lessons and tennis so I was the "princess" at one point. I hated going and would randomly sneak out, and this was when I was under 10. But my narcissist mom just couldn't let me drop out of these classes even if I didn't like them and it wasn't my choice to go. As an adult, I do feel sorry for the instructors who had to deal with me though.
I think my gymnastics coaches are probably volunteers, at least for the adult classes. Regarding that 31k figure being the average, if 50% of people went to university in the UK, that means that a lot of them are underemployed because there aren't enough jobs that need a degree to employ them. Its why the league table matters so much, get into the top 50% of universities, and its easier to get into the top 25% of jobs. It just makes me wonder why the UK even set the target of 50% going to university. In SG the target is set closer to 30%, and places for certain majors are routinely adjusted to reflect market demand. It still doesn't solve the problem of the other 70% living in poverty, but sending 1 in 2 people to uni in the UK doesn't solve the issue either. At least HDBs are better built than council houses, I've never heard of an HDB going up in flames.
The thing about private lessons is that you get to state your price - it then becomes a private business transaction between buyer and seller. Whilst the gymnastics club can have a standard hourly rate for all coaches, what Side negotiates with the rich parent is between him and them - he even comes to me sometimes to ask me, "how much should I ask them to pay?" I then guide him through the art of negotiating for the best price. But of course, this is not a straight forward process - Side could probably negotiate a much higher rate for a private lesson as he has a superb reputation as a coach, like everyone says great things about him (including me!) but Papa simply doesn't have that good reputation. Sorry to use a crass analogy, but how much a prostitute can negotiate boils down to how good looking the prostitute is - a stunningly good looking prostitute can say, "I charge this much and that's my rates, no bargaining, no discount, you take it or leave it. If you wanna pay less, you can always get an old and fat prostitute but remember, you get what you pay for." Ooh there's the element of performance related pay here.
DeleteAs for council housing in the UK, it is not all bad but a lot of it depends on the age of the council housing. Some of the housing stock date back to the 1920s as the law to provide council housing dates back to 1919. So if the building is still standing and functional, then the government will continue to use it to house poor people desperate for housing given the desperate shortage for more council housing. They are still building new ones but not fast enough, so if you are on the waiting list you don't get to pick & choose, you get what you're given if you say no, you don't know when you'll be offered something else given how long the waiting list is. If you're lucky, you get allocated something that was built fairly recently and so the building is still in decent condition but if you're unlucky then you get placed in a block that is very old and falling apart. I think that being able to pick a nice place to live in something I just take for granted and people like Papa are totally at the mercy of the council housing allocation system whereby he has to cross his fingers, hope for the best but expect the worst.
Sorry typo: "to pick a nice place to live *IS* something I take for granted" 2nd para
DeleteIf the rich parent's child also really likes that gym in particular then Side could also exploit that to get a higher rate. I would ask you how to negotiate my contracts and offers lately, but I'm basically a fresh grad even though I have more skills than a bachelor's degree holder.
DeleteI googled the rent for a 2 bedroom in Camden, it's the 3rd most expensive borough in London, and it was 2000 pounds. Not that that isn't a lot to the average person, but for someone who is an engineer, doctor, lawyer, or works in finance, that is affordable. When G-Research messaged me on LinkedIn asking me to apply for an internship in London, I was worried about having to pay crazy rents like New York level(5k for a 1 bedroom in Manhattan), but it actually seems affordable on a quant salary, even though G-Research provides summer housing anyway. I see how the finance industry can massively overinflate rents for the average person, it happens in Singapore as well. Do people ever live in the suburbs in London to lower their rents? It just seems like living in the city is unsustainable unless you work in a high paying job or live in social housing.
Btw I see why King Charles had to cut off Prince Harry and not use any more taxpayer money on his security expenses. If the average brit can barely pay for rent and food, then why should they pay for a prince to live lavishly with his wife and two kids in America?
DeleteHi Amanda, the problem with London is that public transport is expensive. We have this zone system in London, concentric circles with central London being in the middle of the donut - that's zone 1. Then if you move out to the second layer/ring where Camden is, that's zone 2. This keeps going until you get to zone 9. So if you were to say, I work in central London but I wanna save money by renting say in zone 6, then you have to pay for your train travel from zone 8 to central London and that costs £367.20 a month. So even if you pay £500 less a month in rent by moving out to zone 8, that high cost of train tickets will eat away at the savings you've made. Besides, you're spending 2 hours a day at least commuting and that's less time for leisure activities or sleep. That's why moving out to the suburbs is a false economy, yeah you get cheaper housing out there but you also have to pay a lot more for transport. Living out in the suburbs only works out cheaper if you work locally, say you live in zone 8 but you are a teacher at the local school which is walking distance from your house so you don't need to get on the train to go to central London everyday, you simply walk or cycle to your place of work. Yeah that way, it's a lot cheaper. But for those of us who work in central London, commuting from the suburbs isn't such an attractive option, not at all. As for the average Brit being able to afford rent and food - remember, Side is living pretty well, eating well, going on holidays and having a nice life whilst Papa is really struggling. They both earn about the same amount of money as coaches but it's down to each individual managing their finances to make sure they have a decent quality of life. Side has made some wise choices which Papa has done the complete opposite. That's why Side is going out to nice restaurants with his friends whilst Papa is queueing at the food bank to collect free food to feed his family.
DeleteAa for King Charles cutting off Prince Harry, it was a decision that was probably not made by the King directly but he would have a team of advisors to tell him what would be the best thing to do. The security should be available to Prince Harry if he was a working royal but if he no longer wanted to do that, then there was no reason for him to enjoy the perks of a working royal such as having private security but in any case, I doubt this is a matter of a father disciplining his son but rather one that's a matter of policy - there are probably a lot of rules & regulations governing what working royals are entitled to and which one of these privileges they will lose should they decide to step back from public life.
DeleteOh wow it's just not manageable to support any dependents on an average Brit salary, even with reduced rents from council estates. Side is making a good decision, if he doesn't make a lot, at least cut his non-reducible expenses so he can have some extra. In America there's a greater push for remote work because it means highly paid software engineers and other professionals can move out of crowded and expensive metropolitan areas like San Francisco and New York, and move to places like Dallas or Cincinnati. This lowers rents in big cities, but raises them in smaller ones, where people are already poor. But this is only an option for white collar, university degree work. Remember when you made the post about Norway? It seems Norway just doesn't care about efficient markets because low paid work isn't enough to sustain someone to a reasonable degree. In their economy they will overpay and overeducate for a service if it reduces poverty. I don't think the UK is capable of that shift in political mindset, it's way too capitalist because of the finance industry.
DeleteIt's funny how Prince Harry makes it sound like King Charles is the bad guy cutting off his son. But like you said, it's probably an advisory team forcing his hand, and Charles can't be bothered to fight Harry's corner lest lose his kingship, something he's been waiting over 7 decades for. But Harry doesn't seem like a very smart royal. If he was, then he could just quietly use his wealth as a springboard to succeed in other venues like business, law, or science even. Not to discount the press bullying that both of them have experienced, but they have access to money and opportunities that 99% of people don't have, and I don't think Harry realizes he didn't play his cards right if he still has to depend on Charles for money in his 30s.
Let me offer you a different model of ordinary, average Brits having children. I have these friends, let's call them Mr & Mrs J. They both earn about 31k - well Mr J earns a bit more than Mrs J, but on average, they meet in the middle at 31k, the average salary, but that makes it 62k as a household together. That's a very respectable figure. They have a 6 month old baby, but Mrs J went on maternity leave from her job for a few months, then went back to work as they did not want to go down from 62k to 31k in terms of their household income to bring up the baby. They have parents who love the idea of spending time with their grandchild, so they have some support in terms of childcare but they are also happy to pay for it so Mrs J can return to work. Overall, they're doing pretty okay despite the fact that they're considered average, but let's do some maths here: 31k a month after tax = 25k and that's £2083 take home pay a month, but let's multiply that by 2 given they're both working, hence £4166 a month disposable income. A lot of it goes towards their mortgage as they're buying their own home, but that's still leaves them with more than enough money to live quite comfortably, living a pretty good life in London. They are accumulating wealth like Side, they are not struggling at all. So we have Side who is earning below the average but doing okay as he is the bachelor, we have Mr & Mrs J who are doing okay despite being average as she is working and thus they have 62k together to raise their small family. Papa is the only one in trouble for two reasons: firstly, he has 3 children instead of stopping at 1 child. Secondly, his wife doesn't work - if she did, even if she worked say part time and brought in 15k a year, then she would increase their household income from 25k to 40k. If Papa was earning at least 60+k, then his family would be as well off as Mr & Mrs J but no, Papa and his wife really don't have the luxury of Mrs Papa being a housewife, yet she was forced into it because they have 3 young children and cannot afford child care at all. Ordinary average Brits will be okay if they are sensible with money like Side and Mrs & Mrs J, they will only struggle badly if they make terrible decisions like Papa.
DeleteAs for Norway being a totally different system, it's this left vs right wing divide in our cultural values. They have a massive finance industry in Norway as well and please don't imagine that loads of people in the UK work in finance - yes I do work in banking, but loads of ordinary Brits like Side, Papa and Mr & Mrs J do other jobs that have nothing to do with banking at all. The fact that the UK is more right wing than Norway, Sweden, Finland, France and Finland is cultural one whereby we've always had kings, queens, royalty and nobility who lived very well in the middle ages whilst the ordinary masses just lived in abject poverty and died at 30. That gap has closed a lot in the last 100 years but even during the industrial revolution, there was a MASSIVE gap between the rich and the poor when those who worked in the factories in England were paid peanuts and died at 35 after working themselves to death. I'm straddling this divide as I do meet people like Papa and Side in my gymnastics club and they're poor, I'm rich, but I don't let on just how much richer than them I am, though Side has been to my house and he knows. I can spend ages talking about why countries like France and Scandinavia are so much more left wing than the UK and US, but that's another topic for another day.
Actually, I realized that if Papa earned 60k and his wife was just a housewife, then he would be hit so hard with personal income tax that he would have to earn more like 72k a year to work out to 50k take home pay. The personal income tax allowances for average Brits is actually quite generous, that's to make sure that low-income working class folks don't lose too much of their earnings to tax whilst richer people who earn more are the ones who end up paying a lot more tax; that is a progressive, fairer way to do income tax. In any case, even if Papa did earn 72k a year, he still has 3 kids compared to Mr & Mrs J who have only one. So to be as well off as Mr & Mrs J who have 4166 divided 3 = £1388 in disposable income per month per person (husband, wife, kid) in their household, Papa would need to earn a massive £138k a year to have the same amount of disposable income a month for each member of his family of five - this is because the more you earn, the harder income tax hits you, the more tax you pay, the less you take home. Earning £138k a year would put Papa in at the top 5% of the country, he would certainly be very rich but that's just how much he would have to earn to a) have a family of 5 whilst b) enjoying the same amount of disposable income per member of his household after tax. It's just mathematics, the difference between dividing by 3 and dividing by 5. But no, he is earning just 18.1% of 138k a year as he's a gymnastics coach, not an investment banker. Thus his family is an example of modern British poverty. Note that he dug his own grave, he created this problem, I refer you to Side and Mr & Mrs J who are doing okay and not living in poverty like Papa's family.
DeleteCall me paranoid or crazy but I bought an apartment without a mortage and have 0 debt which I would say is pretty rare for someone my age. Yet I don't want children since I want a better lifestyle and don't need extra liabilities.
DeleteBut that is just mean, I know lots of millennials who YOLO and live like each day is their last. https://youtu.be/37oP3T5Cj4E
I have observed Papa in action in the gym and I think I know why he wants children - in the gym, even amongst the coaches, I'd be like, "yeah you wanna learn this skill, go to Side as Papa doesn't know how to teach something this difficult, Side is the better coach." Even within his work place, he is seen as the inferior coach who isn't good at his job, but hey, the gymnastics clubs gets loads of young children who do very, very basic gymnastics and Papa is tasked with teaching those kids and that's fine - he doesn't need to know that much about gymnastics as long as he can control a group of 6 year old kids. Whereas for someone like Side, yeah he can teach you pretty complex skills for your next competition - it's the difference between teaching at university vs a kindergarten teacher there. Never mind the coaches, even amongst the gymnasts who are serious about gymnastics, we look at Side as the best coach there and Papa as someone who is an inferior coach (and I am already choosing my words carefully to be diplomatic). But when Papa is with his kids (yes I have met them), these young kids don't know enough about the adult world, they don't know that dad's not getting any respect at work or how dad isn't earning enough money, they are still too young to understand any of that - he exerts total power over them and in return he does get some love and adoration from his very young children (which is natural of course). Very young children are never going to say, "my friend's father is a lawyer, he earns a lot of money, takes his family on nice holidays and they live in a big house on the hill - what is wrong with my own parents, why can't we have nice things like my rich friends?" Well, children need to be probably at least 7 or 8 years old before they can have any concept of that and the very young children are blissfully unaware of their own situation even if they are from a terribly poor family. They are unlikely to challenge their own parents over things like that at the age of 3 or 4. Given that Papa get no respect from his colleagues, management or even his gymnasts at work, probably the only people who give him that kind of love and respect are his young kids and he is thus thinking, "young kids are great, they are too dumb to realize what a loser I am and they give me so much love, I wanna have more kids."
DeleteGrowing up I was always envious of my friends from rich families who had very nice things and if I tried to suggest that I wanted to have those nice things in life, then I was scolded and condemned for being greedy, materialistic, unreasonable and a demanding spoilt brat- of course, I know now that none of those things were true. It's just that my parents didn't know how to explain it to me as a child why some adults earn a lot more than them - they felt ashamed, inferior and like losers compared to some of the richer, more successful people out there. But instead of having a calm conversation about explaining this aspect of life, they would just scream abuse at me for being the devil child who has done something terrible, just to avoid talking about the topic. But anyway, that's why I think Papa wants to have more young children to get that kind of unconditional love from them, the kind of unconditional love that only an infant devoid of formal education can offer.
DeleteIn the US if one partner doesn't work then the couple are taxed lower overall and given the tax rate of the income divided between the two spouses. But there's hardly any difference in taxes if both partners make similar amounts. However, there is hardly any subsidized housing in the US so poor couples are still screwed on rent. But I see your point, it is possible for the average Brit to get by with enough planning, but it seems there was no planning at all with Papa with regards to giving up a 2nd income and how many kids to have. I also assume that Mr and Mrs J probably waited till they could get a mortgage to have a kid, thereby lowering their housing costs compared to having to rent a bigger space as soon as they had a child. The difference between a one bedroom and a two bedroom is huge after all.
DeleteFurthermore, if you ever met Mr & Mrs J, they seem like really nice people with a good future, the kind who will be doing a lot better in five or ten years from now because they clearly make an effort to plan for their future and know how to make plans when it comes to their finances. Whereas Papa and his family are not going to ever get richer, their situation is only going to get worse as his kids grow older and have more complex needs for their education. I have met Papa's wife, she's not that educated so I can't imagine her getting a particularly well paid job, but even if she just worked a minimum wage job part time - any extra money she would've earned would go a long way to help their 3 kids.
DeleteDo you think personal finance should be a mandatory course in schools? It seems some people are just a lot better at financial planning than others. Maybe when the kids are older and in school then Papa's wife could get a part-time job during the daytime. Anything to give them more food on the table and money for clothes and school supplies. People say that lottery winners tend to blow their money in a few months because they aren't used to being rich. Even if you're rich you still have to budget, money isn't unlimited.
DeleteY'know, I'm on the fence about kids even though I would make a decent amount even as a single earner. The reason being, what if I end up with a psychopath for a child? I've just heard that one of my friends from high school got in trouble for stealing from his parents to go see prostitutes. What if I end up with that type of child? He also promised them he would get a job in the country he's living in so he can sponsor permanent residency for his parents, but he hasn't sent out a single resume and works a minimum wage job which doesn't meet the income requirements. However, he has the audacity to constantly lie to everyone saying he wants to help his parents. Even if you raise a child in luxury, there is no guarantee they'll be a nice person who can take care of themselves.
Yes and no - I think children learn by example, I have always been careful with money because that was how I observed my parents in action when I was growing up, we were a poor family and money was tight, so they had to be careful. That's me observing them in action over the years, their behaviour when we were in situations like picking products in the supermarket - what they said yes to, what they said no to. Situations like working out which product was better value for money; that was a lot of real life training over many years. What can a teacher achieve in a classroom environment over a few hours a term? I'm sorry I know it's better than nothing, but let's take someone like Papa for instance, his kids are gonna grow up watching Papa being terrible at managing his finances. and setting a very bad example for his kids - how is a teacher gonna undo all that damage with a few lessons of personal finance in the classroom? I don't think the teacher can even begin to scratch the surface, it'll be like trying to drain the ocean with a teaspoon. Within that context, I just think, what's the point?
DeleteAs for you having children, I don't know if I am too cynical, I get the feeling losers like Papa just want to have kids as very young children don't know how to exercise cruel judgment - the kids offer him unconditional love as they're just infants and toddlers at this stage. They only care about being fed and having daddy play silly games with them; they're too young to even understand that their family is very poor and why Papa's poor decisions have created this situation, their love is unconditional. Being a parent is a calling, you have got to want to be a good parent regardless of what you get. Just this year, I have two friends around my age really struggle with parenting - both are nice guys you'd think would make good fathers and provide for their families (which they do, they earn a lot), but both are really struggling with their teenage children at the moment. Mr H's 17 year old daughter ran away from home and left them in a real panic and Mr D's 18 year old son keeps fighting with his both Mr & Mrs D and I'm left baffled as I thought both Mr H and Mr D are both extremely nice, responsible fathers - the best kind of parent you could hope for yet they are still experiencing problems at home like that. Such is the nature of parenting.
@LIFT the strange thing is that I grew up very poor and stayed in a rental flat when young. My parents skipped meals to feed us and when I was schooling I never had enough pocket money to last the whole day (since my elder brother stole most of mine).
DeleteNow I am extremely careful with money and dislike taking on debt. My elder brother went on to purchase 2 private properties with his gratuity earned after leaving the airflorce. I paid up for my BTO in full without a mortgage.
I am now studying personal finance for selfish reasons which I doubt I had the maturity to handle while in secondary school.
Oh and kids are smarter than you give them credit for. I still remember from a very young age of 6 or 7 sitting in my friend's mother's BMW (7? series) and that is when I realized my family was poor because I had to wake up at 5am to catch the school bus and subsequently take public transport to school.
DeleteSome context here: Papa's oldest child is just over 3 years old and his youngest child is about 6 months old. So for the babies under one, they're just glad to get fed and it's this feeling of having complete control over a baby that probably gives him a power kick, like he has no other power in life but he now has another human being completely dependent on him. As for the oldest kid at 3, I suppose once the kid starts going to kindergarten or pre-school, then the kid would be able to start to compare & contrast. In the UK, compulsory education starts at the age of 5, ie. if your kid is gonna turn 5 in this academic year (which runs from 1st September to 31st August), then you have to send your kid to school by law. Some richer parents can enrol their children between the ages of 18 months to 4 in some kind of private pre-school type programme for a few hours a day, but that's more a luxury for rich parents than something people like Papa can afford. So at the moment, even Papa's oldest child at 3 years old isn't socialized in a school/kindergarten environment but that will come soon. You were talking about a memory from the age of 6, well that's still a lot older than Papa's oldest child who is only 3 years old today. But yes, that kind of comparison will come inevitably in the future, Papa just hasn't experienced that yet.
DeleteWell actually it goes back further than that I remember when I was like K1 (around 5?) and I had to wait for more than 3-4 hours after school for my dad to come fetch me because he was busy working. Some kindhearted stranger set with me during the wait. If I were in JP I would have probably walked home on my own.
DeleteY'know, Papa sounds like one of those people who get a puppy thinking it's cute and will love them, but drop it off at the pound when they find they can barely afford dog food or emergency vet visits. But unlike a dog, a child cannot be dropped off at a pound so easily. Are you seriously telling me Papa had 3 kids in 3 years? I mean, that's a lot of work for both parents to juggle, and they can't afford outside help because they can't even afford food. Right now the 3 kids don't need to go anywhere so don't need a bus pass, but when they get older and have to go to school they will, which would add even more strain to the budget. I remember when I first moved to America I really didn't want to buy a car just to get around because I was used to SG's public transport, but I had little choice. However, I'm a single person like Side so it's just a few hundred dollars a month which is affordable on my graduate student stipend. But more importantly, because my expenses never exceed my income, I was able to build a good credit score relatively easily which let me secure a car loan. But for many poor young people, they can't get a car loan because of bad credit in the past, e.g using credit cards to buy groceries while unemployed. So some poor people in rural areas have to uber to work because of zero public transport. Yeah but strangely enough, these people don't vote for better public transport.
DeleteYup, pregnancy lasts 9 month so technically speaking, a pregnancy a year isn't impossible as long as the woman is fertile and of child-bearing age. I believe his wife is in her late 20s, so that's completely normal for a woman her age to be able to do this from the biological POV, but from a financial POV, it makes no sense. Of course the kids will go to kindergarten one day soon and start comparing to their peers, but given that his oldest child is barely 3 years old, Papa isn't obliged by law to send his child to any kind of kindergarten yet. As I understand, the kids socialize with friends & family at the moment, so Papa and his wife are unlikely to rub shoulders with rich people, thus the playdates organized for his children are with other very poor people and therefore the possibility of his child meeting a rich kid from a wealthy family at the moment is practically zero. That will come in a few years and of course, there will be the day when Papa's oldest child will argue with him, "all my friends have phones, nice phones, why can't I have my own mobile phone?!" The answer, Papa cannot afford to get you a mobile phone along with all the other nice things he cannot afford to buy for his family. That argument is still a few years away.
DeleteYou know I have had multiple massive arguments with my dad about having kids on a low salary.
DeleteHis boomer argument is that he has (many?) friends who raised multiple kids with a 2k or less salary as a McDonald's manager or a migrant labourer.
I kept arguing that just because it is doable does not make it optimal. But his counter-argument is that all his friends' kids are happy with their current lifestyle.
This is where I had to vehemently disagree and call all his friends financially irresponsible and dooming their kids to a lifetime of poverty.
1) My main argument is that his tiny sample size of 2 is impossible to conclude that 2k is possible to fund a happy lifestyle for kids. Besides even if those kids were unhappy would they really disclose it to a complete stranger (face saving).
2) One of the predictors of success is having a wealthy family. A high percentage of doctors come from families who have doctor parents. Even then what kind of strings could a McDonald's manager or manual labourer hope to pull for their kids? Nepotism is very real and social mobility is almost impossible in current day SG.
Sounds like these kids will have to do with hand-me down phones from relatives to access the Internet and do their homework. Not having a phone as a young person is very socially isolating nowadays. Unless Papa changes jobs that's the situation they're in. It's a very sad situation, during the pandemic some poor families didn't have smartphones or laptops for their kids so they fell behind in school when things shifted online. Some of my friends had old laptops which they tried to donate to schools specifically for this purpose.
DeleteBtw I didn't make it past the 2nd round of my quant interview. It was another math test, but one about betting odds, and I hardly ever gamble. However, the company said they'd give me a 2nd chance if I signed up for an intense week long course over zoom with their traders in August about options trading and did well in that. But I've learned I probably don't want to spend my life in front of a screen looking at numbers all day and fielding calls about whether I'd like to buy X amount of Y futures in the next 10 seconds. This was a trader role at a market maker, not a researcher/analyst role, which I'd prefer. And I already have an offer from the software industry to do A.I, so I think I'd prefer that long term. I was lucky to get a job in software considering how bad the economy is and how layoffs were concentrated in software. It was way easier to get interviews 6 months ago.
@Choaniki - my parents are the same, the problem is that they are very working class and hence they compare themselves to other working class people who are struggling to make ends meet rather than with more successful people. Sure they were aware of the existence of more successful people, but that's when they would shove these people into a massive blind spot to avoid feeling bad about their own failures. My parents had zero sense of financial management as their aim was "keep having children until we get a son" and any kind of calculations with money was never part of their planning. That's how toxic their Chinese culture is - yeah have a son even if it'll plunge you and your family into poverty, that's why I have totally rejected their culture. But hey, when you're a loser who's uneducated, holding down a crap job that you hate with a family that's so dysfunctional, then all you have is your culture as you have literally nothing else and that's why my parents are so freaking Chinese. They think I should be eternally grateful to them for bringing me into the world - I disagree and that's why we don't talk anymore.
Delete@Amanda, phones is just one thing. It's just one example of something a child will need for their education growing up, education is expensive and Papa cannot stop working for a day to get training to switch jobs given that he already has a family of five to support, quite unlike Side who has a lot more options. If he wants to be poor, that's his business but I feel sorry for his kids. And I am sorry about the quant interview, there will be future opportunities as you're awesome.
@Amanda trust me being a trader, quant or not is a very stressful position and most guys would burn up and leave within a year. You are better off doing AI since it won't be so stressful.
DeleteAnyway I have officially switched to financial services and would be starting my new position on 2nd May.
@Choaniki, many congratulations and best wishes for your new job!
Delete@Amanda, I have something really bitchy to say about Papa vs Side. Today at the gym, I witnessed how two younger ladies came to talk to Side and it was so obvious that they both liked him, they gave him loads of compliments and were asking for his social media handles - like they were flirting with him and was one them was like, "you know we should hang out". And Side was just totally cool, like this happens all the time with him as he is tall and handsome, has great social skills and he's straight - he's a babe magnet. That would NEVER happen to Papa, probably never did when he was in school and never would today but of course, he can say, I am a married man and a father, I only have eyes for my wife, I am a respectable man and I would be like, yeah you're ignoring the fact that you're so unattractive that no woman would ever flirt with you. And Papa's wife is fat - like really fat. It reminds me of my own parents. My father is so autistic and weird, with zero social skills - he wanted to get married, so he found someone even more autistic than himself and even more socially inept. So in Side's case, if he constantly gets all of this attention and positive feedback from people around him everyday, he doesn't feel the need to become a parent just to get unconditional love from a baby/toddler/infant who doesn't know any better, but for Papa, short of getting a puppy to experience that kind of love, well he decided to become a father. Is there a point to my bitching? Yes actually, you raised the issue about whether you wanted to become a parent or not. Well, think about what you wanna get out of it and where/how you're gonna get all the love and validation you need in your life - becoming a parent isn't the answer to that at all but Papa chose to go down that path.
@LIFT it is all thanks to you! But I need your permission to share my story.
DeleteActually I can think of 10 good reasons not to have children including overpopulation and climate change. But apart from demographical reasons I really can't think of any good one why one should have children. But I know @Amanda doesn't want children too...
Good luck on the new job Choaniki. Yeah I notice I was only applying to finance as a backup because there were many layoffs in software lately, which was my main target. And the hedge funds saw right through that, I didn't take a single mathematical economics or finance course in grad school, even though I could've if I wanted to. But whatever, I got the software role I wanted. The salary is a little lower than market rate, but it's still 6 figures and the economy is shitty right now. The employer said in 6 months we can renegotiate based on current performance, and I may get to do a little quant stuff because there's some money to invest.
DeleteY'know one of my gymnastics coaches is quite handsome and charming, but he's gay so he's not on the market for women haha. Sounds like Side is already quite happy with his life despite not making a lot, while Papa was miserable and started a family when it was financially inadvisable. I get what you mean, if someone is already unhappy in their lives(e.g poor, has no friends, doesn't feel accomplished, bored at work, etc.), a child is not going to fix that. The problems still exist, the child adds some joy but also other problems. I guess if Side got married he could be like Mr and Mrs J when it comes to budgeting for a child and saving for a mortgage, it's doable. With his looks he might even land a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Not all women care about marrying a guy who makes more, especially if they don't need someone to support them. If I opened Tinder and only wanted men who made more than me, I'd have a much smaller dating pool to work with.
@Choaniki, yeah please go ahead, feel free and all the best!!
Delete@Amanda, yeah I am being a bitch when I pointed out the difference between Side and Papa when it comes to getting attention from the pretty ladies - Side didn't even need to try last night, he was just walking down the corridor of the sports centre when the two women approached him. And I did wonder, so that's what it's like to be thaaaat good looking - people naturally gravitate towards you because they like the way you look, you don't even need to make any effort at all and perhaps that's just me being jealous there. But with people who are below average like Papa (and I am already choosing my words carefully here), he can only resort to finding a fat woman who wouldn't say no to him as she wants to get married and settle down and he's gone further to have three kids, just to have that kind of attention from someone, anyone, even if it is a baby when Side gets it from strangers just walking down the road - by the same token, Papa is effectively invisible when he walks down that same road or corridor as people just don't notice him as he's -ahem- below average in the looks department. It's sad when you can be that desperate but let me give you an example of how you don't need to be super good looking to get attention - at training last night, I did a new skill and this other gymnast Joan came over and complimented me on my progress, then we started chatting. She was kind enough to notice not just that I had done well but that I had improved, then she came over and gave me some validation and encouragement - that's not quite the same as two hot ladies throwing themselves at Side in the corridors of the sports centre but hey, at least I still get this kind of attention in the gym because Joan hasn't showed up in a while and the moment she walked through the door, I was like hello Joan, how nice to see you, you know where to find us, where have you been? You know you love gymnastics and I'm so happy to see you. People like Papa would probably take a look at Joan and think, yeah her face looks familiar but I have no idea what her name is. So it goes beyond money and good looks, it also involves social skills as well.
Hey Alex. I think you see a lot of your own parents in Papa, as in people who have a miserable life who instead of rising to the challenge and trying to improve themselves just "settle" and have kids to entertain themselves. Meanwhile they also get some respect from society by being a married person and parents, without actually fighting that hard to give their kids the best start in life. Well, I know rich people who are also miserable and settle in life, so although money ensures they won't starve or be homeless, it is no substitute for self esteem and good social skills. That friend who stole money from his parents to see prostitutes is still rich and lives in a big house(hence why he's so spoiled), but not quite rich enough that his parents can just buy a passport in a developed country. His problem is he can't be as nice and charming as you and Side are, so he can't attract women despite having some money. Even though he doesn't make a lot, he will get a big inheritance, but even then given how annoying he is, most girls don't think it's worth it! Oh and he is also fat, very fat, and has a terrible takeout addiction(multiple portions each time too).
DeleteI think I'll get a dog in a couple years, after I buy a house with a big yard so the dog has plenty of space to run around, and I have a sizable emergency vet fund. As for kids, I don't know... Especially given how expensive America is with regards to healthcare and university tuition. Maybe it's not such a bad thing if the US population falls, then corporations see they can't just take people for granted and increase prices indefinitely.
Here's yet another bitchy comment from me - I was standing at the exit of my local Korean supermarket getting my umbrella out as it was raining when I overheard a conversation amongst a group of people. This man said, "I'm bisexual, so that way I get the best of both worlds - I get to date both men and women." But wait, this guy was FAT, sorry, he was so fat and I was thinking, great - you're bisexual, now you will get rejected by both men and women instead of just women if you were straight or men if you were gay. Double the dose of rejection, double the pain, that's not what I'd call the best of both worlds mate, but hey, good for you for being so optimistic about the situation.
DeleteLol rejected by both men and women, that's what a lot of bi people say. Or people suspect them of cheating twice as often as a straight or gay person. Btw I heard it's harder to be a fat gay man than a fat straight man because men are more judgemental about looks, is that true?
DeleteHere's a very analytical response: by and large, yes that's true. Straight women are judging men for a range of factors, some are thinking long term in terms of "what kind of husband material will he be? Will he cheat on me? Will he be a good father to my future kids? Will he be out drinking at the bar after work or will he rush home to help me with child care and play with the kids?" Thus if a man was below average in looks (speaking generally, not just on the issue of a man being fat) but scores well in those other factors of having money, then a woman can still see a man like that in a favourable light. Furthermore, a woman who simply considers herself average in the looks department may be afraid to date a man who is stunningly good looking as she might think, "he might get bored of me the moment another prettier woman walks past him on the street" and she might therefore compromise and aim lower if her aim is to create a stable family environment to raise her future kids, then that might make complete sense (at least in her head). But for gay men, even though gay couples in the West can adopt, most of us are not at all interested in having kids - only a very small minority of gay men want to adopt. Thus our criteria for meeting someone is more focused on physical attraction and of course, money. So a good looking gay man will know he can get what he wants in the looks department when dating whilst a gold digger can use his looks to get a rich man. I've seen rich and fat older gay man still do pretty well on the dating scene as long as they're aware of the fact that money is always going to be a part of the equation. But if you're gay, fat and poor, forget it - either resign to a life of celibacy or lower your standards to the point where you can date other fat and poor gay men. Nobody needs to be alone as long as they're willing to lower their standards far enough - just look at Papa (case in point), I rest my case.
DeleteOh my I must've messed up my maths, Papa would have even less money available, 25k/year is about 2100/month, which leaves less than 700 pounds a month after rent expenses. If all of that went to food, feeding a person on 140 pounds a month is less than $5 a day per person. But in short, it doesn't look like even the median wage is enough to raise a family on a single income. It sounds like two average people (in terms of income) need to both keep working to have any savings when raising 2 kids. But the UK has the 2nd highest childcare expenses in the developed world (behind capitalistic USA), so that would just be an additional expense unless grandparents are involved in raising children.
ReplyDelete25k a year is before tax and after tax and national insurance (ie. the British version of social security payments) he is left with 21k or £1750 a month. But he pays only £550 or so for rent, leaving him with £1200 a month in cash to spend after rent + tax. But that's £1200 for 5 people, leaving them with £240 each to last them the whole month. Look, a client wanted me to help him with a project so he took me out for high tea at a nice London hotel - we had a pot of lovely tea, cakes, scones, sandwiches and a bit of juice. That came up to £125 (62.50 pp https://www.parkroom.co.uk/menus ) and that's typical London prices for you. The two of us spent £125 in an afternoon whilst Papa has £240 to last him an entire month. I can't even begin. He spends at least £100 a month just getting to work and back on the train, that least him with £120 for everything from food to bills to internet/phone to clothes and medicine etc. This is why he literally runs out of money and has to go queue at the food bank to get free food for his family or else they just won't eat. His situation might be a bit better if his wife could work, but they simply cannot afford childcare for their 3 kids and it's not like she can access highly paid professional work in any case, she isn't highly skilled or educated either so given how little her earning potential is, they figured it was not worth it for her to work - it would be cheaper for her to simply be the stay at home mum taking care of the kids as the childcare is so expensive (and there's just no way she can earn even enough to cover that childcare).
DeleteOh that price for the hotel high tea is pretty much normal if it's a 5 star restaurant in New York, Singapore, or Jakarta. I mean I spent about the same on food when I was flown in as a contractor for a software job last month, which was reimbursed. I'm just thinking, if Papa only had 1 kid, then that 1200 would be spread amongst 3 people and not 5. It's still not a lot, but an extra 160 pounds per person. That's more than child benefit in the UK, which is 75 pounds a month for the first child, and 50 pounds a month for every other child. I mean, with this kind of wage disparity, poor kids really have it hard to move up the ladder, considering rich parents can also afford private tuition to improve their kids' A level results. I can see why people are striking, they were already on the margins before any crises, and raising the heating bill or the food bill means they won't even break even. Here in the US people have been turning to buy now pay later loans just to buy groceries. It sounds like a ticking time bomb unless wages rise with respect to inflation, or prices come down.
DeleteRight now Papa's kids are very young, so we're talking about spending money on things like diapers (for the youngest), shoes, food, bedding etc but as the kids get older, then they're going to need a lot more money for their education. The more Papa can invest in their kids' education, the better chance they have to succeed and right now, they don't even have enough money for food (ref: free food from the food bank sustains them) - how is he gonna invest anything at all in his children's education? That's why I feel sorry for themselves, it's not their fault. The odds are already stacked against them from the very start.
DeleteFrance pension reform is not that urgent given its low unemployment rate and relatively high birth rate. The major reason Marcon's reforms were unpopular it because he didn't put it to a vote.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcG44jDBt9M
On this topic, I have to disagree with you - pension reform is something that needs to be done. Imagine if there's very heavy rain forecast and you know the low-lying areas of the town will have to be evacuated as the river is going to overflow after 12 hours of non-stop heavy rain. Do you A) evacuate when you have an accurate weather forecast and get the folks in low-lying areas to safety when the roads are clear and have enough time to prepare the shelters for them to wait it out? Or B), wait till the river bursts its banks, the water is waist-deep on the main street before you say, I think we should consider getting those in the most vulnerable areas to safety. This is an example of how kicking the can down the road isn't going to solve the problem - it just makes it a lot harder if you procrastinate and say, it's not that urgent, I'll tackle the problem later. It's not just a question of the unemployment rate (which can go up anytime, if there's an economic crisis) and the birth rate (which whilst hire than other countries like South Korea and Singapore, is still below replacement rate of 2.1 so the population is still ageing). So Macron is only being prudent in choosing option A instead of B, which previous presidents have done. Doing it in 2023 will be painful but not as painful as if you tried to do it in 2033 or 2043, when the situation would be a lot more grave and desperate - hence my flood evacuation analogy.
DeleteAs for the vote, it was a political deal that fell apart - Macron is in a coalition government. Whilst the presidential vote is a direct one by the citizens, they still get to vote for their local MPs and Macron's party didn't win an outright majority on that front in the last election in 2022. I quote from the BBC: Even though President Emmanuel Macron was re-elected last year on a platform of retirement reforms, his ruling coalition has no majority in the Assembly and would have needed support from the Republicans party. Officials from his Renaissance party spent the morning desperately whipping members into line in a bid to get their bill over the line. They knew some of their MPs could vote against or abstain, faced with the evident unpopularity of the bill.
Essentially even his own party knew how potentially divisive and controversial this reform would be even though Macron was re-elected as president on the very promise of pension reforms. So the Republicans party who know that he is desperate to see this through held him to hostage, making more and more demands on his party in exchange for their support on this reform. Thus he forced in through via presidential decree but had he reached a compromise with the members in his coalition government, it would have gone through anyway. His coalition partners the Republicans took things too far by forcing him down this route - thus they got nothing in return as Macron forced it through without giving them a single concession (that's a poor result for the Republicans when they could have at least gotten something out of Macron in exchange for their support) since the result would be the same regardless. The pension reforms were always going to be unpopular and spark protests in the streets regardless of whether it was put to a vote in the French Assembly or not.
Eeeks typo sorry, "whilst *HIGHER* than other countries" 1st paragraph.
DeletePapa sounds alot like my friend Ricky who has to drive taxi to support his family and mortgage. I have no debt but still feel poor since i have very little savings so don't intend to have kids....
ReplyDeleteEven before you get a pet dog, you have to consider, do I have the money to afford to take the dog to the vet if the dog gets ill? Do I have money to buy all the dog food the dog needs to eat? Do I have the time to take the dog out for a walk twice a day? What kind of arrangements can I make if I have to leave town for two days - whom can I leave the dog with and how much is that gonna cost me? What is the life expectancy of the dog and how long is this commitment for? That's just the simple questions I'd ask myself before I even get a dog and that's why as much as I like the idea of having a pet dog, I don't have one. Yet Papa had not one but three kids despite not earning enough to support even one child. His salary is barely enough to support himself (ref: Side) but he wants to support a family of five on that same amount of money? What was he thinking when he decided to start a family? Did the issue of money ever cross his mind at all?
DeleteWhat I find astonishing is this - I would've assumed that when Papa had his first child, him and his wife would've sat down to do some planning for the child. How much money would we need to allocate for this child's education? They ought to have done some sums and calculated what it would cost to bring up a child in London. Then they would've come to the conclusion, we barely have enough money to make ends meet and now we have a baby to take care of, money is going to be a major issue. But no, it seems that conversation never happened, they just never ever thought about it at all - they then went on to have a second and even a third baby. And I'm like, at this stage, I won't even be surprised if they have a fourth and fifth baby since they're not thinking this through. A packet of condoms and other forms of birth control will cost a lot less than having to bring up a child in a city like London. Like I said, I feel sorry for his kids because they are growing up in a very poor family with parents who don't seem to have any concept of financial planning or even thinking about their children's future.
DeleteY'know that reminds me of this story where a single mom's son made friends with a rich boy at the same public school whose parents tried to adopt her son away from her: https://www.boredpanda.com/wealthy-parents-want-to-adopt-sons-friend-mom-furious/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
DeleteThe background was the single mom was 24 with an 8 year old son. She said that her parents disowned her after she got pregnant(at 15!), and the boy's father never paid a cent in child support. But Papa is not a teen dad who had an accident, he got married and chose to have 3 kids in his 20s.
Unlike Ricky and the lack of a welfare system in Singapore, I know UK has a basic welfare system which is why there is an occupation known as a "welfare queen". They just pop out kids and live of state handouts.
DeleteIn the case of Papa, he isn't a welfare queen in that he is actually working - you need to be literally unemployed and unemployable in order to qualify for state handouts in the form of child benefits. The state does offer child benefits to parents like Papa to make sure that the kids don't starve and the kids get other perks like free lunches at school because the state knows that parents like Papa don't have enough money to feed their children or give their children pocket money hence they at least get one decent (but v basic) meal a day at school. Often for kids in this kind of situation, that's the only hot meal a day they will get and they might get a piece of bread when they get home and that's it - that's how drastic the poverty is for people in that situation. To live off state handouts doesn't qualify you for a life of luxury, you're not working but you're living from day by day, struggling to work out what you can afford, what you have to say no to. You will get a basic amount of money for food but when you walk into the supermarket and see some fresh strawberries, you look at the price and realize, I can't afford it. You feel a hole in your jacket sleeve and you think, I need a new jacket but then that costs money that you just don't have at all. The basic welfare system is very, very basic - the state isn't that generous and there simply isn't enough money to pay for single moms to sit around and go shopping. They are given a little bit of money to make sure they don't starve to death but I stress that's a little bit of money for food, it's a really miserable existence in poverty.
DeleteWell there isn't even that option in Singapore. Not that I know of, but time for me to explore more since I will technically be unemployed come May...
DeleteStaying on the topic of new clothes, we have a concept in the UK called the charity shop - so if I want to throw out some old clothes I no longer wear, it doesn't go into the bin but it goes to the local charity shop. The charity shop then sells the clothes (and other items) second hand at a massive discount given that it is 2nd hand at this stage. So if a shirt was £60 full price, at second hand, it may go for like £8 or whatever the shop thinks it can fetch - the money goes directly to the charity whilst the shopper gets a bargain. The charity shop is totally dependent on donations to stock their shop shelves and so for those living on benefits, that's where they get their new clothes. They never can afford anything at full price, even in the sales. They have to buy second hand at charity shops in order to afford any new clothes because of the massive discounts they offer (well it is second hand clothes). So if you're completely uneducated, have no skills, no motivation, nothing going for you at all, living on benefits and going from charity shop to charity shop might be a better existence than working long hours at the local Burger King or McDonald's for very little money, but I stress it is a fucking miserable existence in extreme poverty. You won't starve to death but it is so fucking miserable, hence I wouldn't use the word 'queen' to describe it given how awfully miserable that kind of life is!
Delete