Yes but compared to the size of their economies - let's keep it simple by looking at the GDP - the UK would be hurt disproportionately more. The UK GDP is ~$2.5 trillion, the EU GDP (sans UK) is ~12 trillion.
Why do most Brits still assume the UK is a large market compared to the rest of the EU? The UK is no longer the empire it used to be, it is weak on it's own. The UK GDP is about ~$2.5 trillion, the EU GDP (sans UK) is ~$12 trillion. The UK economy is puny compared to the mainland Europe. I very much agree that a good trade deal would be beneficial for both sides, at this point the EU is under strong pressure to make an example out of the UK secessionist tendencies and the power is squarely on the European side.
> at this point the EU is under strong pressure to make an example out of the UK secessionist tendencies and the power is squarely on the European side.
If that is indeed true then I think every other country should leave EU with the urgency of a man whose hair are set on fire. It clearly shows that EU is not something that protects the interest of its members but a bureaucratic agency who is interested in expanding authority.
London is perfectly fine on a 50k salary, provided you don't try to keep up with people who earn 3-4 times as much. It sounds to me that she was on an entry level or clerical/secretarial position (nothing wrong with that), but that's not what is usually associated with people who work in finance. The solution there is not necessarily to move out of London, but simply realize that in banks in London you are going to be surrounded by people earning >150k (and often much more) and there is no point in trying to keep up with them on a 50k budget.
My ex works in HR in a major bank. You'll be surrounded by people earning >1.5m, who complain about how they're going to make their ends meet because their bonus this year was only 150k (my ex has had to deal with that exact complaint; said person was worried how he was going to afford the second nanny).
I absolutely agree with you, but I also regularly get to hear about the pressure people are under to keep up appearances, and I'm not surprised a lot of younger people feel they can't resist it.
It's made worse by the toothless UK working time restrictions (look forward to those being gutted even more with an EU exit) that are abuse relentlessly in law and finance and result in staff that basically don't have time to recognise how messed up their lives are and/or time to find a way out. The amount of misery my ex has dealt with both personally (she is now in HR because while it's still tough, it's a walk in the park compared to her previous job as finance lawyer at one of the magic circle firms), and in her current job (including people regularly having breakdowns in the office at rates I've personally never seen anywhere I've worked) makes me totally unsurprised at younger employees at these places having problems finding ways to cope.
> It's made worse by the toothless UK working time restrictions (look forward to those being gutted even more with an EU exit) that are abuse relentlessly in law and finance (...)
I assume you're referring to the EU Working Time Directive, which pretty much every major employer requires their staff to opt-out of when starting a new job?
It's a pointless EU law that just adds more paperwork to the recruitment process.
It is with very limited exceptions illegal to require your staff to opt out, even in the UK, and the same restrictions applies to taking punitive actions against staff that chooses to opt back in.
EDIT: For my part I've never worked for anyone asking for an opt-out, and I'd never sign an opt-out, and I would sue if I suspected an employer punished me for not signing an opt-out.
EDIT2: Here's the UK government advice on the opt-out [1]. Note: "Your employer can ask you to opt out, but you can’t be sacked or treated unfairly for refusing to do so. You can opt out for a certain period or indefinitely. It must be voluntary and in writing." Additionally there are exceptions for a very small set of types of workers [2].
Yes, that's the law, but as I mention in response to another comment, you only defer to the letter of the law if you have/want an adversarial relationship with an employer.
Most major employers include the waiver as part of their onboarding process, and if you refuse to sign, although legally they cannot do anything, in practice you're going to start off on the wrong foot with that employer.
Likewise, if you turn around to your manager and refuse to work more than 48 hours (having not signed a waiver), although legally they cannot punish you for that, it's hardly going to help your career.
If an employer is asking me to opt out, they have already started off on the wrong foot with me, in which case I'm very pleased to have legal protections.
A restriction on working hours is only going to be useful if you have, or aim to create, an adversarial relationship with your employer.
People are, by and large, aware of what they are getting into when they start a new job, and working hours are a factor in most remuneration calculations.
If the working hours are simply too much for you, then you should find a different job.
I'd say that, if the employer doesn't cover a need with a full-time employee working a healthy amount of time, he/she should hire another employee, full or partial time.
Thus, unemployment is reduced, more money is put into the economy and the full automation apocalypse is delayed for a little bit. And if another employee can't be paid, then that business is not really viable and should close.
And for anyone expecting shorter working hours to lead to the apocalypse: They should consider that France, the canonical UK example of "too strict" working time restrictions, for the vast majority of the last 50 years or so have had a higher GDP per capita than the UK (their GDP per capita was lower for a few recent years, but then they overtook again).
If you actually believe this, count yourself lucky to be so privileged. Given all the shit I've heard from HR people over the years, it is a hopelessly naive viewpoint.
£50k is a pretty awkward salary to live on in London.
It's enough to live quite comfortably in a house/flat share, or if you share a single bed apartment with a partner, but if you live independently (in a studio or single bed) you're still firmly in "mere existence" territory, unlikely to be able to add much to savings each month.
£50k after taxes (and student loan) is ~£2750/month.
If you're prepared to live South of the river (which contrary to popular belief isn't the end of the world) flat prices are in my area (SE4) around £800-1200/month which if you're sharing can still leave you over £1500/month disposable cash.
For a decent one bed flat anywhere in Zone 2/3 you're looking at £1500pcm. Let's be charitable and say that includes bills and council tax.
That leaves £1250pcm disposable. At least £100 will go on a Travelcard. If you're sensible, you'll be putting some money away in a pension as well. Let's say another £100 of net income.
That really doesn't leave much to lead a lifestyle commensurate with a young professional earning £50k. Yes, you can scrimp and save, but even then you're not going to be putting more than £500 away in savings each month.
At that rate, it would take you upwards of 10 years to save even a measly 10% deposit on a £600k property (which, at this rate, would get you an even worse one bed flat than the one you're renting).
Here's a 1 bedroom for 750/month ca. 10 minutes walk (or a choice of 3 buses) from East Croydon station, zone 5. The 50/month drop from 800 makes up for the majority of the increased cost over a zone 1 travel card:
That first property is an HMO. It looks like they've turned a small house into five 'studio flats', with a tiny communal kitchen.
The second, judging by the photos, is a small living room which has been converted into an 'open plan' studio. Doesn't even look like there's room for a double bed.
Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
There are doubtless other catches to both properties, as decent properties never make it online.
Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
The first one is not one property, but two pages of results with a wide range of different properties. I don't know which one you are getting first - the one I'm getting first does not match your description.
The second one is a one bedroom flat. The last picture is the bedroom, at the back of the house. I live down the road from that row of flats. They're not fantastic, but they're proper 1 bedroom flats of perfectly adequate quality.
> Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
From that flat it'd take ~25 minutes to be at London Victoria. ~25-30 minutes to be at London Bridge. ~20 minutes to Clapham Junction. Having lived about as centrally as you can in London, yes, it takes you longer to get "to the centre". But if you are going somewhere specific, it's not at all given that you won't get there in the same amount of time.
> Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
In London, they can choose between something like that, and have money to save and invest for the future, or they can spend all their money now, and screw themselves over. A "young professional" who can't deal with living like that for a few years does not have any sympathy from me - they are spoiled.
You provide zero evidence that the US stocks are overvalued (I'm not saying they aren't) so you should refrain from demanding evidence from others.
Furthermore, why do you think the FED should've raised raters earlier? Supporting the stock market is not their mandate and it is thus not directly relevant whether and how long has the current bull market lasted. A big market crash just a few years after 2008 (and 2011) would've certainly had a dampening effect on recovery so they might have felt justified in increasing the money supply. Inflation is running low, economic growth and labor markets were very weak for many years after the 2008 crash. They had pretty good reasons to be supportive.
Ah the good old days of worry free high school chemistry/physics classes. My chem teacher poured out a pint of mercury and allowed us to push our fingers into it to feel how different it was from liquids like water. Good times.
While I agree with your statement that open sourcing code can help with improving it's quality, how exactly do you envision (paraphrasing) "hackers contributing pull requests" to code that controls engines on an airplane? Here you have an extremely specialized codebase which can perhaps be understood by a tiny group of professionals and it can actually be tested by an absolutely vanishingly small group of individuals under special circumstances. I don't think "hackers" could even begin to make useful critique of this kind of software, let alone contribute pull requests to it.
I agree with your conclusion, but not exactly for the same reason. Those projects are huge, there is never really small group of people working on something, it's often spread upon contractors over sub-contractors, with people leaving and coming, over many years, so in the end the information is quite spread. Plus there is a lot of documentation (which might also be a downside, because there is a hunt for relevant information). But what I would fear is that people would feel good about it being open source, and never go to have an actual look at it. Or go for a little bit in the beginning and then never again.
Did you actually read my post? If yes, can you seriously not see the difference between writing/testing an OS and writing/testing the software that controls jet engines?
Open sourcing something like Linux works very well _precisely_ because it has a very large audience and is (relatively) approachable by hobbyists too.
On the other hand, aerospace engineering and software is narrowly specialized with a (relatively) small group of experts and code used in commercial/military aircraft is anything but approachable to hobbyists.
Then there is the fact that unit testing this kind of code requires engineering knowledge of the specific hardware involved (e.g. not just any jet engine, but one very specific model). Finally, let us not even mention the huge pink elephant in the room, namely that the absolute and vast majority of "hackers" does not have access to jet engines used in commercial (or military) airplanes and even fewer have the ability to conduct test flights.
If they can raise their prices to pass on the costs, why haven't they done so before, increasing their profits? If they can't, how is that passing on the costs?
Agree 100% but there are always idealists who thinks China is some miracle country pushing ahead of anyone else. China is basically your neighbor who just bought a second Porsche by taking out an even higher mortgage after his home price was marked higher by the bank. You can call that success. I call it unsustainable debt.
