Re: The cost of living
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:11 pm
"eat out to help out"?
True.dyqik wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:10 pmCertainly that will help the single mums who own restaurants, who work in restaurants, who use restaurants, or who work in catering supply, etc.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:08 pmMore like in order to save single mums we must first save restauranteurs.
We can support both at the same time, you know.
And bar/pub, cafe and restaurant work can* be some of the more flexible jobs available, allowing single parents to work hours that fit around child care and to do as many hours as they are available for.
*obviously they aren't always.
Decoupling energy prices would mean that people would pay less for energy and therefore use more. It also reduced the incentive to create more non-gas sources of energy. That is not a sensible. In fact it's just about the exact opposite of what is required.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:09 pmmoves to e.g. decouple energy prices in general from marginal gas peakers could be sorted by the spring,
What makes you think that is possible? Insulation has been a possibility for decades. Are you assuming that there is an unused stockpile of raw material and lots of trained workers sitting around doing nothing? If not, why has the insulation of the worst properties not already been installed?and insulating the worst properties by next winter.
It seems that you're arguing that as with everything there is a tradeoff. Any massive shift of resources over a short period will result in people who gain and people who loose out. The problem with the UK and similar states is that a large part, perhaps a majority, or the electorate perceives it has an interest in the status quo remaining (or at least that any negative effects should be felt by other people). The current crisis offers an opportunity. Very high energy prices cause serious hardship which will also push people to make changes themselves (spending money to insulate their homes) and to support massive government intervention and the higher taxes that entails. There's a difficult balancing act. We need to provide people with enough targeted support so that they aren't destitute. But too much support will result in the continuing dominance of conservative complacency. If that balancing act could be got right then the UK (and other European states) might make a dramatic advance in decarbonizing the economy.lpm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:21 pmWhat I'm getting at is we need to shift a massive amount of resources to:
1) Transformation of energy generation (incl energy reduction via insulation etc)
2) Healthcare (incl mental health)
3) Care for elderly
4) Transformation of transport
5) Higher investment in education
6) Defense repositioning/rebuild (hopefully temporary Ukraine requirement)
7) Climate adaptation, flood defences etc
Plus a few other long term investments like fibre-optic connections to every home and a functioning sewage system.
We can't have everything. It always feels to me like the rest of you also want this list, while still wanting everything else in the status quo like restaurants and cars and foreign holidays.
There's not enough resources. We're not as rich as we think we are. We have to cut back in some areas if we are to invest resources on others.
And I think nobody else has any sense of how terrible this is going to be. If I was in power I'd be trying to shift more of the pain onto the top deciles but there's no way to shield everyone else. There's simply no way through this without a huge slump in what we think of as traditional living standards where we have all the nice things we like.
And curiously over the 10 years up to the pandemic total public spending (as % of gdp) was at historically high levels, even at the end when it had fallen back after the financial crisis. I'm supposed to be an economist and I can't really make sense of where that money was going and why we seemed to have to cut back on the kinds of public expenditure we value when public expenditure was so high.lpm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:21 pmWhat I'm getting at is we need to shift a massive amount of resources to:
1) Transformation of energy generation (incl energy reduction via insulation etc)
2) Healthcare (incl mental health)
3) Care for elderly
4) Transformation of transport
5) Higher investment in education
6) Defense repositioning/rebuild (hopefully temporary Ukraine requirement)
7) Climate adaptation, flood defences etc
Plus a few other long term investments like fibre-optic connections to every home and a functioning sewage system.
We can't have everything. It always feels to me like the rest of you also want this list, while still wanting everything else in the status quo like restaurants and cars and foreign holidays.
There's not enough resources. We're not as rich as we think we are. We have to cut back in some areas if we are to invest resources on others.
And I think nobody else has any sense of how terrible this is going to be. If I was in power I'd be trying to shift more of the pain onto the top deciles but there's no way to shield everyone else. There's simply no way through this without a huge slump in what we think of as traditional living standards where we have all the nice things we like.
Public expenditure just before Covid was at a similar level to the early 2000s, but yes, that was higher then it was in the 90s and as far back as the early 80s (when mass unemployment use a lot of government expenditure). Graph: https://www.statista.com/statistics/298 ... ingdom-uk/IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:14 pmAnd curiously over the 10 years up to the pandemic total public spending (as % of gdp) was at historically high levels, even at the end when it had fallen back after the financial crisis. I'm supposed to be an economist and I can't really make sense of where that money was going and why we seemed to have to cut back on the kinds of public expenditure we value when public expenditure was so high.lpm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:21 pmWhat I'm getting at is we need to shift a massive amount of resources to:
1) Transformation of energy generation (incl energy reduction via insulation etc)
2) Healthcare (incl mental health)
3) Care for elderly
4) Transformation of transport
5) Higher investment in education
6) Defense repositioning/rebuild (hopefully temporary Ukraine requirement)
7) Climate adaptation, flood defences etc
Plus a few other long term investments like fibre-optic connections to every home and a functioning sewage system.
We can't have everything. It always feels to me like the rest of you also want this list, while still wanting everything else in the status quo like restaurants and cars and foreign holidays.
There's not enough resources. We're not as rich as we think we are. We have to cut back in some areas if we are to invest resources on others.
And I think nobody else has any sense of how terrible this is going to be. If I was in power I'd be trying to shift more of the pain onto the top deciles but there's no way to shield everyone else. There's simply no way through this without a huge slump in what we think of as traditional living standards where we have all the nice things we like.
Yes, if people want Scandinavian levels of services then they need to pay another 10% or so of their GDP in taxes: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6c4 ... en#fig2-22IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:14 pmBasically, you are arguing for much higher taxes, so that these public investments replace general consumer consumption - the cars and restaurants, etc. And, guess what, those civilised countries the other side of the North Sea have much higher taxes than us. It's hardly unusual.
The WW2 example is encouraging, only taking 13 years from start to finish. Modern economies and production are probably slower. But even so we could achieve a massive shift in just two or three decades and emerge with resilient infrastructure and a rebalanced economy.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:52 pmIt seems that you're arguing that as with everything there is a tradeoff. Any massive shift of resources over a short period will result in people who gain and people who loose out. The problem with the UK and similar states is that a large part, perhaps a majority, or the electorate perceives it has an interest in the status quo remaining (or at least that any negative effects should be felt by other people). The current crisis offers an opportunity. Very high energy prices cause serious hardship which will also push people to make changes themselves (spending money to insulate their homes) and to support massive government intervention and the higher taxes that entails. There's a difficult balancing act. We need to provide people with enough targeted support so that they aren't destitute. But too much support will result in the continuing dominance of conservative complacency. If that balancing act could be got right then the UK (and other European states) might make a dramatic advance in decarbonizing the economy.
In utilitarian terms that strategy might result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
But, is if feasible? In practice 'shifting resources' at that scale means that millions of workers need to be retrained or re-deployed, and they need to get hold of different materials and products. That transformation would take years.* Maybe the pain of the winter of 2022/2023 will be a distant memory by the time that the transformation happens.
*People keep mentioning WW2, but don't forget that British rearmament started in 1932 and was intensified in 1934.
Yes, clearly we need a much lower C, and higher I and G.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:14 pmBasically, you are arguing for much higher taxes, so that these public investments replace general consumer consumption - the cars and restaurants, etc. And, guess what, those civilised countries the other side of the North Sea have much higher taxes than us. It's hardly unusual.
Ronald Reagan said a lot of stuff that had poor consistency with the facts in his very successful election campaign. The Democrats exposed this mercilessly, but it had very little effect. What this illustrates is that what matters for winning a campaign is not whether what these politicians say is true or not - though telling the wrong kind of lie can rebound very badly. What matters instead is the emotional connection they obtain with voters, through the kinds of ideas they express and the way they express them. A lot of Americans were simply taken by Reagan's vision for their country, and the rest was just noise.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:48 pmThough I'd be interested in hearing a plan that would be impervious to right-wing lies.
Almost all kettles have elements built into the base these days, so the stated minima are not that important. They just ensure enough steam to trip the off sensor. They will also have some tolerance built in for people who live in hard water whose sensor flues get gummed up with chalk.Gfamily wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 12:55 pmIn
Not having watched the visit, I've no idea what he meant, but when I was looking for a new kettle, I found a few 'styled' ones that had a MIN mark at 0.7 litres, so unless you're consistently making hot drinks for two or three people, you'll be consistently boiling more water than you need.
The one we bought does .25l, so is much more economical. It also unlatches the 'on' switch when you lift it off the base, so it doesn't keep heating the element when you put it back down.
Someone was sharing a table the other day claiming that using a single ring on an induction hob costs £1 per hour. I was under the, possibly mistaken, impression that induction hobs were more energy efficient that gas or standard electric - now I'm going to have to go look it up.
I found this: https://chefspick.co.uk/how-much-electr ... n-hob-use/ while checking the exact figures. It seems to cover most of it. The true cost being more like 50p. But one thing it doesn't cover very well is that induction hobs transfer the energy to the pan much more efficiently, so you don't normally run them at full power. It does say that they are 84% efficient compared to 74% for gas and ceramic hobs, but I suspect that's not accurate as if you use a gas cooker, it's quickly very obvious that a lot of heat is escaping around the pan unless you have a very big pan or turn the gas down very low.kerrya1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 1:11 pmSomeone was sharing a table the other day claiming that using a single ring on an induction hob costs £1 per hour. I was under the, possibly mistaken, impression that induction hobs were more energy efficient that gas or standard electric - now I'm going to have to go look it up.
When we first got our induction hob we raced it against our kettle. Both with 1L water. The large ring on boost is 3kW so is our kettle. Guess what? They both boiled at exactly the same time. I'd say our kettle is pretty efficient.
Would be interesting to compare with 1 or 2 cups, as that (for us anyway) is the more usual amount for a kettle boil.Nickynockynoonoo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:37 amWhen we first got our induction hob we raced it against our kettle. Both with 1L water. The large ring on boost is 3kW so is our kettle. Guess what? They both boiled at exactly the same time. I'd say our kettle is pretty efficient.