How much has Britain changed since 1993? (fit in, 2013, rent)

[BECLAZONE]

Many people now have plastic faces, and other bits, the place has become fake, in almost every way.

[patrix542]

all of the things people say in here apply to pretty much the rest of the world as well lol
so theres nothing different.

someone said houses were below 100k on average... well so what if earnings were only half of what they are now, it wasnt cheaper at all.

[Jezer]

I found this link which compares average house prices to earnings over the last thirty years;

Graphs > First time buyer average house price to earnings ratio - HousePriceCrash.co.uk

[comstock]

I was 18 in 1993 and I'm 38 now.....

Originally Posted by Jezer

24/7 shopping has also altered the status quo, and out of town shopping has increased dramatically.

It has, and also Sundays in general have opened up. Most shops are open (albeit only for 6 hours), pubs open all day as do cinemas, bowling alleys, gyms and so on. Sunday has gone from a day of rest to a day of leisure activites.

What else? Immigration has increased- 'traditional' immigrant communities from the caribbean and India and Pakistan have been joined by immigrants from Eastern Europe- Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

The roads have got more crowded, except in Central London where a £10 a day congestion charge keeps car numbers down

Refuse bins are now only emptied fortnightly in many areas, supposedly to encourage recycling. Many are overflowing come bin day.

TV is now all-digital, with anywhere from 40 to 400 channels, compared with 4 in 1993. On the downside, watching many major sporting fixtures now requires a premium TV subscription of circa fifty pounds/month.

Wind farms are fairly common, with around 12% of electricity coming from green energy.

Wealth inequality seems to have increased, with the rich getting even richer. A minimum wage and tax credit system has removed quite a lot of absolute poverty, but done little to reduce inquality


The remaining taboos about sex before marriage etc, which were already dying in 1993 are now well and truly dead. The downside is a rise in single parent families and STDs. That said, many single mums do a first rate job.

And things have got much much better for gay people. In 1993 the age of consent for gay people was 21, with little in the way of anti-discrimation protection. Gay people now have an equal age of consent, full protection (in theory at least) against discrimination at work, and will soon be able to marry.

EDIT: Oh and of course the smoking ban. How could I forget that. Smoking is banned in pretty much all enclosed public spaces and all workplaces. Pubs and clubs that were smoke filled in 1993 are smokeless zones now.

[belmont22]

Originally Posted by comstock

I was 18 in 1993 and I'm 38 now.....



It has, and also Sundays in general have opened up. Most shops are open (albeit only for 6 hours), pubs open all day as do cinemas, bowling alleys, gyms and so on. Sunday has gone from a day of rest to a day of leisure activites.

What else? Immigration has increased- 'traditional' immigrant communities from the caribbean and India and Pakistan have been joined by immigrants from Eastern Europe- Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

The roads have got more crowded, except in Central London where a £10 a day congestion charge keeps car numbers down

Refuse bins are now only emptied fortnightly in many areas, supposedly to encourage recycling. Many are overflowing come bin day.

TV is now all-digital, with anywhere from 40 to 400 channels, compared with 4 in 1993. On the downside, watching many major sporting fixtures now requires a premium TV subscription of circa fifty pounds/month.

Wind farms are fairly common, with around 12% of electricity coming from green energy.

Wealth inequality seems to have increased, with the rich getting even richer. A minimum wage and tax credit system has removed quite a lot of absolute poverty, but done little to reduce inquality


The remaining taboos about sex before marriage etc, which were already dying in 1993 are now well and truly dead. The downside is a rise in single parent families and STDs. That said, many single mums do a first rate job.

And things have got much much better for gay people. In 1993 the age of consent for gay people was 21, with little in the way of anti-discrimation protection. Gay people now have an equal age of consent, full protection (in theory at least) against discrimination at work, and will soon be able to marry.

EDIT: Oh and of course the smoking ban. How could I forget that. Smoking is banned in pretty much all enclosed public spaces and all workplaces. Pubs and clubs that were smoke filled in 1993 are smokeless zones now.

So basically the UK is more capitalist and more libertarian, with the exception of the smoke ban which kind of runs counter to all the other trends?

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by belmont22

So basically the UK is more capitalist and more libertarian, with the exception of the smoke ban which kind of runs counter to all the other trends?

It's more liberalist than libertarian (which is why our moral foundational values are going down the pan).

There's no emphatic grass roots movement in the UK that calls for limited government and decentralisation, at least not to the extent that you see in the USA.

[cushla]

Originally Posted by comstock

I was 18 in 1993 and I'm 38 now.....



It has, and also Sundays in general have opened up. Most shops are open (albeit only for 6 hours), pubs open all day as do cinemas, bowling alleys, gyms and so on. Sunday has gone from a day of rest to a day of leisure activites.

What else? Immigration has increased- 'traditional' immigrant communities from the caribbean and India and Pakistan have been joined by immigrants from Eastern Europe- Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

The roads have got more crowded, except in Central London where a £10 a day congestion charge keeps car numbers down

Refuse bins are now only emptied fortnightly in many areas, supposedly to encourage recycling. Many are overflowing come bin day.

TV is now all-digital, with anywhere from 40 to 400 channels, compared with 4 in 1993. On the downside, watching many major sporting fixtures now requires a premium TV subscription of circa fifty pounds/month.

Wind farms are fairly common, with around 12% of electricity coming from green energy.

Wealth inequality seems to have increased, with the rich getting even richer. A minimum wage and tax credit system has removed quite a lot of absolute poverty, but done little to reduce inquality


The remaining taboos about sex before marriage etc, which were already dying in 1993 are now well and truly dead. The downside is a rise in single parent families and STDs. That said, many single mums do a first rate job.

And things have got much much better for gay people. In 1993 the age of consent for gay people was 21, with little in the way of anti-discrimation protection. Gay people now have an equal age of consent, full protection (in theory at least) against discrimination at work, and will soon be able to marry.

EDIT: Oh and of course the smoking ban. How could I forget that. Smoking is banned in pretty much all enclosed public spaces and all workplaces. Pubs and clubs that were smoke filled in 1993 are smokeless zones now.

Good post, town centers are under threat from shopping malls, councils trying to find ways of putting some life back in.
In my home town in the Midlands the market place has gone, that was the hub of activity on Fri. Sats. The pubs in town are no longer used by older residents as in my day, they now have bouncers on the doors.youth has taken over. Cinemas are now on the outskirts of the town instead of in the centre. Most of this has happened in the last 20 years or so.

[Eoin (pronounced Owen)]

Originally Posted by belmont22

So basically the UK is more capitalist and more libertarian, with the exception of the smoke ban which kind of runs counter to all the other trends?

That appears to be the perception, although in truth it doesn't reflect the figures. This makes for a worthy post because it will amply demonstrate the gulf between perception and fact.

In 1993 public spending accounted for 39.7% of GDP, in 2010 it accounted for 45% of GDP. Public spending, i.e. Government involvement in the economy - has increased not decreased. To an extent this figure is misleading, because a sensible Government has to spend more in a recession (like in 2010) than during boom years. Anyone who disagrees with that point come back when you have a degree in economics; however, even at the height of the economic boom in 2007, public spending still accounted for 38.69% of GDP, a figure relatively unchanged since 1993. (1)

What has changed since 1993 is what that money is being spent on. Once again, peoples perceptions of changes since 1993 probably do not reflect the truth of the matter.

Things we spent noticeably more on in 2010 than we did in 1993: (2) & (3)

Pensions: 5.2% vs 7.8%
Healthcare: 6.19% vs 8.1%
Education: 5.0% vs 6.06%

Things we spend noticeably less on in 2010 than 1993:

Defence: 4.2% vs 2.97%
National Debt Interest: 3.25% vs 2.08% (Yes you read that correctly doom-mongers!)

Spending for which levels have barely altered:

Welfare: 7.42% vs 7.6% (Someone please inform the Daily Mail)
Protection (Police/Courts etc): 2.18% vs 2.34%
Transport: 1.16% vs 1.57% (Privatisation of the railways has demonstrably failed to save any money)

Obviously the above doesn't reflect what's happened culturally and in the private sector in which there have been more significant changes, however on the narrow point of Government spending and involvement in the economy it helps put things in perspective.

Eoin

(1) UK Public Spending As Percent Of GDP for United Kingdom 1900-2010 - Central Government Local Authorities
(2) 1993 - UK Central Government and Local Authority Spending 1692-2015 - Charts
(3) 2010 - UK Central Government and Local Authority Spending 1692-2015 - Charts

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by Eoin (pronounced Owen)

Welfare: 7.42% vs 7.6% (Someone please inform the Daily Mail)
National Debt Interest: 3.25% vs 2.08% (Yes you read that correctly doom-mongers!)

Nice analysis. But can you address two ostensible problems in your reasoning?

1. Why should welfare spending increase proportionately with GDP given a relatively stable population?

This is bearing in mind the UK GDP was £600 billion in 1993 and £1400 billion in 2010. When assessing changes in welfare dependency (ie. not simply as a macroeconomic factor) over this period, wouldn't it be more substantive to compare welfare spending in nominal or real terms per capita?

2. Why did you not consider interest rates when comparing national debt interest payments between 1993 and 2010?

[Eoin (pronounced Owen)]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Nice analysis. But can you address two ostensible problems in your reasoning?

Thank you, I shall endeavour to address your points.

1. Why should welfare spending increase proportionately with GDP given a relatively stable population?

This is bearing in mind the UK GDP was £600 billion in 1993 and £1400 billion in 2010. When assessing changes in welfare dependency (ie. not simply as a macroeconomic factor) over this period, wouldn't it be more substantive to compare welfare spending in nominal or real terms per capita?

To compare welfare spending in purely nominal terms could lead to a bit of a problem. By that rationale, one could compare current welfare spending per capita in 2013 versus 1911 when the National Insurance Act was passed and ask why benefit claimants should be entitled to any more than 2 shillings and sixpence a week. I think including inflation in the calculation has to be a no-brainer.

Comparing the welfare spend in real per capita terms has more merit, and I'll do it for you, but I wish to note that this goes beyond the scope of the point that I was originally making. The point I was making is that we spend no greater a proportion of our national income on welfare payments in the midst of the worst recession in decades than we did in 1993. However, I'll bite and respond to your point anyway. I've taken 2009 as the year for comparison because it's the last year for which I could source all the available information to make the point, on the understanding that circumstances have not changed significantly since then. Here are the figures:

The numbers are thus:
UK population in 1993: 57.7 million (1)
UK population in 2009: 61.7 million (1)

Nominal Welfare spend in 1993: £48.5Bn (3)
Nominal Welfare spend in 2009: £99Bn (4)

Consumer Price Level in 2004 £ in 1993: 82.13 (2)
Consumer Price Level in 2004 £ in 2009: 110.83 (2)
(i.e. 28.7% increase in real consumer prices, note the consumer price index does not cover housing costs)

Firstly we're going to calculate welfare spending per capita and then compare them.

In 1993, welfare spending per capita (in nominal terms) was £840.55.
In 2009, welfare spending per capita (in nominal terms) was £1604.53.

Adjusting for inflation, £840.55 in 2009 £ equates to £1081.78

Ergo, the welfare bill in 2009 was 52% higher in real terms. That is where the Daily Mail would leave this story, and I presume this is the point you are alluding to. We're now going to examine why the Daily Mail et al are pandering to a falsehood by leaving this story here. The narrative the Daily Mail wish to spin is that this increase is the result of the burgeoning profligacy and laziness of the underclass. (I hope by your use of the term 'benefit dependency' that you haven't been duped into believing it!)

Here is where our welfare money goes:



The above source is for the 2010/11 year but for our purposes it should be ok. You'll note that the largest single benefit (aside from state pensions) are Working & Child Tax Credits at £29.91Bn. Tax credits were introduced to eliminate the perverse incentive which previously existed, whereby somebody could actually be financially better off by living on benefits than taking a low-paid and/or part-time job. Though the tax credit system has flaws in its implementation, it has seen large-scale uptake. If you want to criticise the Tax Credit system be my guest, but for the purposes of the point I'm making here, the biggest single increase in the benefit bill between 1993 and the present has been towards people who are working on low incomes. Furthermore, as those people are working, they are also a contributing factor to UK GDP growth between 1993 and the present.

To put this in its mathematical perspective, if the tax credit system had not been introduced, the welfare bill in 2009 would have been ~£30Bn lower, and GDP would have been commensurately lower also. That would take 2009's welfare bill down to ~£69 Billion. Remember, 1993's welfare bill was £45Bn, but inflation adjusted to 2009 £ that would be £57.9Bn. So now we're down to a gap of £11.1Bn in 2009 £, even without considering the adverse effects on the UK economy of those in receipt of tax credits who would not be working were that system not in place.

The second biggest benefit is Housing Benefit, the benefit that pays/helps to pay peoples rent if they are not working or are on a low income. You'll remember that in the inflation figures I described earlier, I noted that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) does not fully take account of housing costs when calculating inflation. i.e.

Real Average House Price in Q1 1993: £89,366 (5)
Real Average House Price in Q1 2009: £175,525 (5)

House price inflation over this period has been 50.91% between 1993 and 2009, whereas consumer price inflation has only been 28.7%. Therefore, the Housing Benefit bill and the Rent Rebate bill (£16.94Bn and £5.45Bn respectively) are 22.2% more expensive in 2009 than in 1993 on top of the inflation adjustment carried out earlier. This represents another £5Bn of the increase in the welfare budget. This fact is exacerbated by the fact that since Right to Buy was introduced, Council's have all but stopped expanding their social housing portfolio's, and increasingly those reliant on benefits have to rent from the private sector at market rates. I can't find exact figures to illuminate that last point so I'm going to be extremely conservative in my estimation and assume that housing costs for benefit claimants have only risen at the same rate as for everyone else.

The gap of £11.1Bn I mentioned before is therefore reduced to £6.1Bn after the above housing considerations. As the consumer price index doesn't consider Council Tax costs either, I'm sure I could squeeze another billion or so out of that. I reckon the ageing population probably leads to more people claiming for attendance allowance, carers allowance and disability benefits than was the case in 1993 and that would probably another few billion. I could point out that 1993 was something of an anomalous year, in that for reasons I could only guess at welfare spending was lower than in the 3 years before or after it, that would probably eek out another billion or so.

Effectively though, we're down to peanuts of a difference either way. That we spend more per capita on social welfare is not in question. However, the one thing we can rule out entirely is that any of this increase is down to factors that the Daily Mail would relish reporting on. We're spending more primarily because we subsidise people on low incomes into employment, which in turn boosts UK GDP; and secondly we spend more because we haven't built enough houses to keep prices in check.

2. Why did you not consider interest rates when comparing national debt interest payments between 1993 and 2010?

I didn't discuss interest rates because it wasn't relevant to my conclusion. We spend substantially less servicing our national debt now than in 1993. That was my point, nothing more, nothing less. You may have noticed that I have something of a passionate loathing of the Daily Mail. To me the Daily Mail is more than a newsrag, it's an entirely debased way of thinking. There is a calibre of person who is genuinely convinced that the world is collapsing around him because other people are either:

A - Lazy (Benefit scroungers and Immigrants)
B - Corrupt (Bankers, Benefit Scroungers and Immigrants)
C - Inept (Politicians and Bankers)
D - Outright Belligerent (Muslims and Bankers)

This kind of person makes up about 50% of the posters on this wider forum. Admittedly we're spared a little bit in the UK forum but there are still clear culprits. One of the founding articles of faith amongst these morons is that we're burdened with so much national debt that everyone will be forced down the salt mines for 80 hours a week to pay it off. I therefore take glee in reporting that we pay less servicing this (insert Daily Mail superlative here) debt than we did in the past.

Eoin

(1) http://www.populationmatters.org/doc...ion_growth.pdf
(2) http://www.city-data.com/forum/unite...riesofdata.xls (Search for three centuries of data - bank of england in google if link doesn't work)
(3) UK Central Government and Local Authority Spending 1692-2015 - Charts
(4) UK Central Government and Local Authority Spending 1692-2015 - Charts
(5) Graphs > Nationwide average house prices adjusted for inflation - HousePriceCrash.co.uk