Social Skills - What do you think?

I prefer to just think about it this way. Starting Point: I'm different. Therefore, my social skills will be different. It's not that I'm necessarily lacking social skills, I just have a different set of social skills and how I go about using them. Sure, I can try to make a bit of effort to bridge the gap with other people who have a different set of social skills to me, but if they're not willing to put in any effort in bridging the gap then I'm not particularly bothered. Instead of telling me how I should talk, communicate or behave, accept the way I do talk, communicate and behave, which will likely lead to some progress. As far as I'm concerned I manage just fine so anybody that tells me differently must be the one with the problem.

I don't care if people want to make comments that I'm doing something wrong, because for me it's the right thing to do. Therefore, I'm not the one doing anything wrong, I'm just doing it differently.

I suppose it's like the idea of computers running different operating systems and software. In order to interface there needs to be something to bridge that gap so that communication between the different operating systems and software can take place.

I couldn’t agree more Shadow, well said ~ I would have taken 10 pages just to say that and it wouldn’t have made sense! Lol! 

I agree, too.  The issue we face, of course - as with all minorities - is that because our way of doing something is 'rare', then it's 'wrong'.  This isn't true, of course.  But if you're in a situation where you have, say, 99 people who know how to do something the same way, and 1 person who does it in a different way, the majority are always going to see the different way as the wrong way.  And they have all that back-up to 'prove' it.

But then, without people doing things differently, we'd never have innovations.  We'd never have had things like Turing's code-breaking computer.  We'd never have solutions to problems - just more and more people moaning about the problems!

I always rail against that old saying 'Go with the flow'.

As far as I'm concerned, if you 'go with the flow' you'll end up on the rocks sooner or later!

I agree, too.  The issue we face, of course - as with all minorities - is that because our way of doing something is 'rare', then it's 'wrong'.  This isn't true, of course.  But if you're in a situation where you have, say, 99 people who know how to do something the same way, and 1 person who does it in a different way, the majority are always going to see the different way as the wrong way.  And they have all that back-up to 'prove' it.

But then, without people doing things differently, we'd never have innovations.  We'd never have had things like Turing's code-breaking computer.  We'd never have solutions to problems - just more and more people moaning about the problems!

I always rail against that old saying 'Go with the flow'.

As far as I'm concerned, if you 'go with the flow' you'll end up on the rocks sooner or later!

But mortgages are for 25 years (or more) - that's for ever for most people. My first house was a large 3-bed for 70k in 1989 - that's over 400k now - 600% growth.

That's providing all stays good, of course - job security maintained, income maintained, house prices maintained, health maintained, financial system maintained, professional skill set which will always be in demand and carry a premium rate of pay.  What's life without some level of risk, though?  Depends how well placed you are to manage the risk, I suppose.

I wonder, too, how many people before the crash thought it was all going to carry on alright.  I mean, mortgages after all.  What could be safer?  Those greedy b******s knew what was happening, but they carried on anyway.  Because they knew the financial system would never be allowed to fail.  They knew they'd be bailed out.

And the likes of Michael Burry and his investors made fat sums of money out of busting the big banks.  And people lost homes and jobs.

Personally, I'm less optimistic about where things are heading. 

As with Brexit, I guess... everyone's got an opinion, but nobody really knows...

option 1 - buy house at, say 3-bed semi 300k - pay mortgage - live in house, own it after 25 years

option 2 - buy bigger house, say 4 bed detached - pay interest only for 25 years, sell up, pay off mortgage and buy 3-bed semi with profit.

same end result - but in one route you lived in a big house for 25 years.

'Run out of steam' was how you put it.

£20k salary.  That would be nice.  Never got close in 40-odd years of work - not even in relative terms.  I guess it depends on what you do.  I remember when I was a recruiter for Microsoft Dynamics, I'd get guys in their 20s turning their noses up at £35k salaries.  Probably quite understandably, if they've done the work and got the skills.  IBM were regularly recruiting young people for in excess of 100k Euros p.a.  Again - good for them if they've studied and worked hard, and have got the knowledge and skills.  If that's what the market says they're worth, then they've gone into the right field.

It does depend, of course, on the field you go into.  The senior Behaviour Manager at the charity I work for is university-trained.  She has a hugely responsible job.  She could earn more in the private sector, probably, but she wants to work in the charity sector.  She's on around £28k, after 14 years working her way up.

Interest-only mortgage would be great - as long as, at the end of the period, the property is worth more than when you bought it, and your repayment vehicle performs well.  And who knows?

Consumerism bounces off me too - if i can't afford what I want then i don't need it badly enough.

I think it's probably based on what people think they should be able to afford, or be entitled to.  Young people especially are bombarded with adverts for things that they really (so the advertisers want them to believe) can't live without.  They see their friends with these things, so they must have them too.  It's how the whole system works - drag them onto that treadmill, get them spending money they often don't have.  A lot of young people I know live far beyond their means - earning what I earn, but feeling the need (quite naturally) to buy fashionable clothes, go out with friends, have gadgets.  Keep up, in other words.  It costs money to maintain that kind of lifestyle.  It's never particularly bothered me, either - as long as I don't get into debt.  I worry about not having money at all - about the day arising when something expensive comes up and I don't have anything to cover it.  I'll find a way around it because I'll have no choice.  At the same time, though, I've never been pulled into that buy buy buy system.  It's all just stuff.  It's meaningless.

The money first time buyers can generate is always compared to average property prices (3-bed semis), not the first houses or flats that they will be buying which are much cheaper. They could always get a fixer-upper but that requires skill & effort and they lack one or both.

150k is only £300 per month, 100% mortgage, interest only.

Bank of mum and dad is being tapped out - most kids go to uni these days under the illusion that they'll never pay the 50k back - but it's growing at 6% so if they don't pay a penny back, it's up to 300k by the time they're 51.

Do they seriously think that they'll never get above 20k salary in their lifetime?

Why will it run out of steam with somewhere between 300k and 1m arrivals every year? They all need to be housed.

I see how Thatcher's 'back to Victorian Values' quote really meant multi-generation housing and only one person working for a pittance.

Relative poverty?  That's what I told I'm in - with a net income of £12k per annum, little savings, no property.  I don't feel impoverished - but in the sense of the metrics they use, and judged against average living standards (whatever they are) I'm assessed as being in financial poverty.

My biggest fear is debt, having been brought up under the shadow of it.  I hope I'll always manage.  But yes... I fear having no money.  I suppose it's different if you have a nice little sum to fall back on if the fat hits the shin.  I've never been in that position, so I tread a fine line.  If my health gives out, I'll have no choice but to rely on state benefits.

Well, to be fair... not many iPhones, trainers and cars cost hundreds of thousands of pounds - but I take the general point you're making.

Future stability in property?  Not according to some of the personal bankruptcies I used to handle.

Where does it mention anything about first-time buyers buying mid-priced property?  Even a one-bedroomed flat around here is £150k.  No good for a couple planning to have a family, of course.  Property prices are crazy - unless you live in a poorer, or less sought-after area.  The sooner it all runs out of steam, as you say, the better.

I guess there's always the bank of mum and dad, of course.

Ba-Boom-tish.

I guess the bottom fell out of the Lego market.  All those bricks not worth anything anymore without mortar :-D.

There's also a huge manipulation of these figures to make things seem worse than they are. Even my daughter has been told she is in poverty according to the current metrics.

The numbers are total BS - since when did a first time buyer get a mid-priced property as their first move?

I hear people whinging all the time about house prices but they all have i-Phones and expensive trainers and new cars. Young people today live in a fantasy entitled facebook world where they expect everything for nothing without any effort of commitment.

I worked with a young guy who was bleating all the time about how hard it all was until I showed him what we started out with and what he could realistically afford - if he wanted to. Unfortunately, he valued his trinkets more than his future stability.

I don’t have neither hopes nor fears about money, and just because the majority of other people do, it doesn’t inspire me to get so obsessed about it as well. Let them get on with it, I say, but I’ll skip that particular obsession. I love making money, don’t get me wrong and I love the extra freedoms that it gives you but it’s not something I worry about or hope for. And I don’t define myself in any way by how much money I have or don’t have. I rarely do fall in to categories that has the biggest mass opinion though, so I’m not surprised that I’m not like the masses on the issue of finances. It never seems to make people happy when they worry and it never seems to change their situation either, so I could never figure out why they bothered ‍♀️An nt thing maybe? 

Yes.  I should have been clearer on that point.  I didn't mean that the UK housing market was a sub-prime bubble waiting to explode.  Young people nowadays see 'property ownership' not so much as something to aspire to, but as a basic requirement of establishing a foothold in the world (goodness knows why, but there it is).  And with even small flats rising in price beyond the reach of many, the days of house-price inflation are surely numbered. 

I was looking at the results of some polls conducted before Christmas into people's hopes and fears for the future.  Money is the main worry (though when has it ever been otherwise?)  Polls don't necessarily tell us very much, of course.  But anyway...

* 37% of people expected their household finances to worsen in 2019

* 31% of British people - and 50% of those aged between 18 and 24 - believe they won't be able to clear their debts during their lifetime

* 32% of Britain's workers have less than £500 in savings, and 41% have less than £1,000.

* The average debt per worker (excluding mortgages) is over £7,000.

It's not going to do that in this country - it's going to just run out of steam. Then all the grossly overpriced rubbish will have to adjust down to it's true value so there will be lots of 'sky is falling' predictions but, around here especially, nothing will happen.

The out-lying areas will have to drop their prices if they want to sell but it will really just self-regulate depending on the buyers.

Absolutely.  And all everyone kept saying was 'Who bets against housing?  Everyone has to have somewhere to live.'  The ratings agencies, too, were complicit.  They gave these sub-prime bonds Triple A ratings when they were practically worthless.  Because they were in competition with one another, and they didn't want to lose business.  Everyone was just sucked into it, and no one believed it could go wrong.

When's it going to happen here, I wonder?

Maybe billionaires buying up properties in London will inflate prices enormously there, which will have knock-ons that radiate out from the capital... but it can't keep going indefinitely, because there aren't enough billionaires!

Where I live, in the south-east (just over an hour's commute from the capital), property prices have risen 10% in just a couple of years.  This town was always known as a retirement town: wealthy pensioners moved here, to be by the sea, and not-so-wealthy pensioners occupied one of its dozens and dozens of residential and nursing homes. 

Now it's known for its gentrification schemes and its influx of well-off professionals who can't afford to live in London any longer, but can afford to live here and commute.  New-build flats are going for upwards of £300k.  Less than 20 years ago, you could buy a nice 2-bedroomed bungalow in a sought-after part of town for around £60k.  Now, you're looking at over £300k.  Have wages quintupled in that time?

Because of the high concentration of 'retirement' homes, a large proportion of the workforce (including myself) is employed in low-paid care work.  The council has capped housing benefit, so it's getting harder and harder for someone like myself to live here.  Fortunately, because of my condition (which is being regarded as a disability) I've managed to get on the social housing register.  But the stock is really low, thanks to 'Right to Buy' and lack of investment in the sector.

This has knocked-on to us from the next town up the line from us, nearer to London.  That's now Hipster-ville, full of art galleries, antique shops - and, of course, estate agents.  The next town down the line from here is now feeling the effect, too.  Rents have gone up in line with house prices, and what would have cost £400 a couple of years ago is now over £500.

So... where are the low-paid workers to live?

How soon before that all comes tumbling down, too?

I travel to the US a lot - I predicted the bubble burst too - I made a load of cash from shares collapsing.

It was so obvious it was going to happen. Lending huge sums of money to people who clearly couldn't pay it back.

The reason was US pensions are a lot more self-driven in the US - people were encouraged into buying property off-plan with low-start mortgages with the promise of selling their option before the house was even built and pulling a huge profit of the increased value.

It looked so good that people overstretched themselves and bought 2 or 3, financially stretching themselves for a couple of years knowing they were going to make a load of cash.

All good so far...

Then brokers started telling lies on mortgage forms - Miguel the gardener was now a brain surgeon on the form to get the low start mortgage - he could afford the $500 per month discounted rate.

Then the time came to sell the options - and everyone tried to sell at the same time - the prices collapsed and the people were stuck with their options.

Then the low-start discounts ended and no-one could afford to pay the massive full payments.

Miguel's mortgage jumped to $2000 and he defaulted - along with everyone else.

Suddenly, the entire mortgage system fell flat. There was no real money left - it was all defaulted.

Crash!

You could plot is on the crazy artificial house inflation in 2004 a 4-bed house in Fl = 160k, 2003 = 250k, 2004 = 350k, 2005 = 420k, 2006 = 450k, 2007 = 480k, 2008 = 200k. Lots of burnt fingers.

I can see what you’re saying. But I see it differently. ((I’m not saying I’m right and your wrong, nothing of the kind)), I just see it a different way. 

If I’m in a situation where 99 people do it one way and I do it another, I see that as a possibility and an opportunity of finding a new way of doing something, for the 99, if my thing works out better than theirs. And if not, I learn a new way. So either way, it’s a win win situation. 

I only see an issue if I choose to believe the 99 and stop believing in myself and as a consequence, I don’t do what I was going to do. I see that as an issue and one that I’ve had to face. 

There have been times in my life, pre diagnosis, where, for whatever reason I have I given my power away. I’ve believed what the other people are saying or doing and I’ve stopped believing in myself. 

I don’t see it as an ‘issue’ as such though. Because these such incidents are what lead me to my diagnosis really, where I could really know myself and believe in myself. I don’t rail against anything, it’s more that I move towards something, which for me, is always the truth. And I don’t care if I’m ‘right’ or ‘wring’ because either way I win. I cement what I know or I learn something new. 

So I can see what you’re saying. I just see it in a different way. I don’t know why? I just do ‍♀️

Another fine example from recent history is Dr Michael Burry - the investment analyst who, back in around 2006, first noticed the time-bomb ticking away in the sub-prime mortgage bonds market.  He ploughed over a billion dollars of his own and his investors' money into shorting the housing market, firmly believing that it was all going to come tumbling down very soon.  Everyone disagreed with him.  Everyone was against him.  Investors tried to withdrawn their money.  People threatened to sue.  But he insisted that everyone was wrong - the US Treasury, Alan Greenspan, the investment banks... everyone.

And he was right.

And we've been living with the effects of the sub-prime collapse ever since.

(Burry, incidentally, is an Aspie!)