FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sex for rent
Sex for rent
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
"Is that the same as getting married? "  | |||
"Is that the same as getting married? "No as a wide you get a crap deal | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I watched the local news last night which had a ten minute slot about this . My first thoughts were simple . If the women don’t like the arrangement , don’t enter into it . Simple . It’s like a FB , but actually a RB , a rent buddy . The women get to see him first and chat to see if it’s mutually agreeable . However it seems some of the landlords use the women for group sex without the women agreeing , and that’s way out of order . It’s a kind of prostitution but bloody expensive for the landlord who would surely get more sex for his money if he let the room normally ? " See this is where the bad starts, when the landlord takes it too far | |||
| |||
"I watched the local news last night which had a ten minute slot about this . My first thoughts were simple . If the women don’t like the arrangement , don’t enter into it . Simple . It’s like a FB , but actually a RB , a rent buddy . The women get to see him first and chat to see if it’s mutually agreeable . However it seems some of the landlords use the women for group sex without the women agreeing , and that’s way out of order . It’s a kind of prostitution but bloody expensive for the landlord who would surely get more sex for his money if he let the room normally ? " The thing is that being a landlord is a proper job for a lot of people and 99.9% of professions will agree that you don't mix sex and work. It is also illegal. If they want to do it legally and professionally then it's very simple, she pays the rent and he pays her, as and when the sex takes place. That would be legal and permissible, if not strictly professional. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." Women have always worked in and outside the home | |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off. Women have always worked in and outside the home" His point is about the relative value of wages | |||
"Is that the same as getting married?
No as a wide you get a crap deal"I suppose you mean as a wife, but some husband's get a crap deal too  . I must admit I am finding it difficult to see the need for marriage in today's world but I digress... I think it is a bit of a grey area as anyone not interested can just not answer such an ad. It is where specific scenarios become exploitative that there is a problem. I put the blame on society where even people who are working hard have difficulty meeting their basic needs and have to resort to things they'd rather not! | |||
"Its terrible some people have to resort to this it is quite sickening. "
I'd hate to have to lose my autonomy just to fulfil my basic needs. | |||
| |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." I work, but houseshare because I can't afford to rent on my own. No sexual favours included in my rent. I can't quite work out who you are blaming here; women who work or (the real people at fault) the slimy landlords? | |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off. I work, but houseshare because I can't afford to rent on my own. No sexual favours included in my rent. I can't quite work out who you are blaming here; women who work or (the real people at fault) the slimy landlords?" Not sure he was blaming anyone, just explaining why rents /house prices are so high. He's talking about a little known fact on wages which is quite interesting. | |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off. I work, but houseshare because I can't afford to rent on my own. No sexual favours included in my rent. I can't quite work out who you are blaming here; women who work or (the real people at fault) the slimy landlords? Not sure he was blaming anyone, just explaining why rents /house prices are so high. He's talking about a little known fact on wages which is quite interesting. " It's an obvious fact why house prices/rent is so high. And I do think he was blaming women for the situation. | |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off. I work, but houseshare because I can't afford to rent on my own. No sexual favours included in my rent. I can't quite work out who you are blaming here; women who work or (the real people at fault) the slimy landlords? Not sure he was blaming anyone, just explaining why rents /house prices are so high. He's talking about a little known fact on wages which is quite interesting. It's an obvious fact why house prices/rent is so high. And I do think he was blaming women for the situation." What's an obvious fact? Do you agree with his second paragraph or not? | |||
| |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off. I work, but houseshare because I can't afford to rent on my own. No sexual favours included in my rent. I can't quite work out who you are blaming here; women who work or (the real people at fault) the slimy landlords? Not sure he was blaming anyone, just explaining why rents /house prices are so high. He's talking about a little known fact on wages which is quite interesting. It's an obvious fact why house prices/rent is so high. And I do think he was blaming women for the situation. What's an obvious fact? Do you agree with his second paragraph or not? " Yes, I agree with his second paragraph. I have issue with the last one that blames women for this situation. It's not women that's caused the problem, it's greedy landlords and homeowners. | |||
"Women wanted the right to work, they got it, they wanted higher pay they got it, now they want to be handed top level pay without asking for it. All it does is increas the price of a house from one medium income, to two medium incomes, to two good incomes and the single people, well they are fucked all together. All these people want is a little apartment, with a kitchen and bedroom, and they cant do it, they have to share beds, have sex, share their room just to get a single bedroom. Everyone can judge them, but there is no solutions. Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off. I work, but houseshare because I can't afford to rent on my own. No sexual favours included in my rent. I can't quite work out who you are blaming here; women who work or (the real people at fault) the slimy landlords? Not sure he was blaming anyone, just explaining why rents /house prices are so high. He's talking about a little known fact on wages which is quite interesting. It's an obvious fact why house prices/rent is so high. And I do think he was blaming women for the situation. What's an obvious fact? Do you agree with his second paragraph or not? Yes, I agree with his second paragraph. I have issue with the last one that blames women for this situation. It's not women that's caused the problem, it's greedy landlords and homeowners." I think if you have an economic system that is predicated on people not being "greedy" then it is bound to fail. Women entering the work place in higher numbers is just one factor in the trend. Doesn't mean that it was the wrong thing to happen, just means it could have been organised better. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. " When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation." Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. " "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote." I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? " Seriously? | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously?" I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see . | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously? I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see . "No, the seriously was because I was meant to say that Thatcher was the worst thing that happened to this country because I'm meant to be some hard left wing commie. And in doing so, I'm confirming that it was a woman's fault for the economic mess we are in around housing. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously? I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see .
No, the seriously was because I was meant to say that Thatcher was the worst thing that happened to this country because I'm meant to be some hard left wing commie. And in doing so, I'm confirming that it was a woman's fault for the economic mess we are in around housing. "Even left wing commies have to accept that she made owning your own home possible for so many more people than anyone believed was feasible . They weren’t complaining back then were they ? And the great British public loved the fact that they could double the value of their house in a few years . Even the labour party loved the new found wealth people had . They went more Tory than the Tories ever were when they got back into power . And subsequently , since we now have over ten million more people living here than back in 1979 , and they are living longer , the demand is so great that they are way overpriced . That’s not her fault ! | |||
" Even left wing commies have to accept that she made owning your own home possible for so many more people than anyone believed was feasible . They weren’t complaining back then were they ? And the great British public loved the fact that they could double the value of their house in a few years . Even the labour party loved the new found wealth people had . They went more Tory than the Tories ever were when they got back into power . And subsequently , since we now have over ten million more people living here than back in 1979 , and they are living longer , the demand is so great that they are way overpriced . That’s not her fault ! " You make the mistake of assuming they think private ownership of anything is good. It's all greedy landlords and greedy people bidding up the prices. Apparently. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Even left wing commies have to accept that she made owning your own home possible for so many more people than anyone believed was feasible . They weren’t complaining back then were they ? And the great British public loved the fact that they could double the value of their house in a few years . Even the labour party loved the new found wealth people had . They went more Tory than the Tories ever were when they got back into power . And subsequently , since we now have over ten million more people living here than back in 1979 , and they are living longer , the demand is so great that they are way overpriced . That’s not her fault ! You make the mistake of assuming they think private ownership of anything is good. It's all greedy landlords and greedy people bidding up the prices. Apparently. " Well I suppose in truth , a true left wing communist wouldn’t agree that private ownership is a good thing . With recent increased government taxation on private landlords , it’s any wonder rents are increasing . And yes , greedy people are the main reason for the prices being so high . In 1980 you could get a decent house for £20,000 . You were offered the opportunity to buy your council house at a massive discount depending on how long you had rented it for . Often less that £10,000 for a house worth over £20,000 . So greedy people bought their own home , saw it go up in value astronomically , sold it , downsized , had holidays abroad , got the best new technology , got two cars instead of one and then forty years later , their kids blame Thatcher ! | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously? I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see .
No, the seriously was because I was meant to say that Thatcher was the worst thing that happened to this country because I'm meant to be some hard left wing commie. And in doing so, I'm confirming that it was a woman's fault for the economic mess we are in around housing.
Even left wing commies have to accept that she made owning your own home possible for so many more people than anyone believed was feasible . They weren’t complaining back then were they ? And the great British public loved the fact that they could double the value of their house in a few years . Even the labour party loved the new found wealth people had . They went more Tory than the Tories ever were when they got back into power .
And subsequently , since we now have over ten million more people living here than back in 1979 , and they are living longer , the demand is so great that they are way overpriced . That’s not her fault !
"My main issue is that I'm not a commie lefty! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Its terrible some people have to resort to this it is quite sickening. " Agreed It's terrible some people are so poor that they have to resort to doing that. Especially as a lot of them are in fulltime work. It's also terrible some people in full time work are so poor they have to use food banks. Did you know the richest 80 people in the world have more money than the poorest 3.5 billion? | |||
| |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. " There was a reason for the suffragettes. The Goverments realised they were only taxing half of the population. They knew if they could also get women working they would nake a lot more money in tax. In america in the 1950's a working class man could afford to let his wife be the home maker, raise 4 kids and be able to put money away each week for their university education. Fast forward to today with both parents working and only having 2 kids they are struggling. In the 70's in the UK the really big bosses earned around 20 times the average worker. Today the really big bosses earn around 120 times the average worker. A lot of people in the UK have not had a wage rise since 2008. Each year more and more people are struggling financially. It's a disgrace. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. There was a reason for the suffragettes. The Goverments realised they were only taxing half of the population. They knew if they could also get women working they would nake a lot more money in tax. In america in the 1950's a working class man could afford to let his wife be the home maker, raise 4 kids and be able to put money away each week for their university education. Fast forward to today with both parents working and only having 2 kids they are struggling. In the 70's in the UK the really big bosses earned around 20 times the average worker. Today the really big bosses earn around 120 times the average worker. A lot of people in the UK have not had a wage rise since 2008. Each year more and more people are struggling financially. It's a disgrace. " So the women should have stayed in the kitchen? | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously? I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see . "She turned around the economy? When I left school in the 80's the only way you got a job in Liverpool was if your dad or mum had their own business, your dad or mum worked as a local councellor or you moved down south to somehwere like London. I lived in London for 5 years. It was not by choice. It was the only way for me to get work. I did like London though. I think the cockney accent is sexy and I like cockneys. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously? I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see .
No, the seriously was because I was meant to say that Thatcher was the worst thing that happened to this country because I'm meant to be some hard left wing commie. And in doing so, I'm confirming that it was a woman's fault for the economic mess we are in around housing.
Even left wing commies have to accept that she made owning your own home possible for so many more people than anyone believed was feasible . They weren’t complaining back then were they ? And the great British public loved the fact that they could double the value of their house in a few years . Even the labour party loved the new found wealth people had . They went more Tory than the Tories ever were when they got back into power .
And subsequently , since we now have over ten million more people living here than back in 1979 , and they are living longer , the demand is so great that they are way overpriced . That’s not her fault !
"She made it possible to buy your own home by relatively selling council houses for pennies. My mum and dad bought their 3 bedroomed house with front and back garden for £2,500. It is now worth £125,000. Thatcher had a reason for selling the houses cheaply. She was determied to stop people going on strike. When people were renting their house from the council if you went on strike the council allowed to build up rent arrears. They had a bit of compassion. Thatcher knew if you had a mortgage the morgage lenders wouldn't care. It would be a case of pay your mortgage or lose your house. Once everybody had mortgages they couldn't afford to go on strike. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. When women worked (before the world wars), it was seen a supplementary money - pin money - and their wages were never taken into account because the men were the provider (plus the majority of work took place in the home - spinning thread/wool, loom weaving, washing etc). Then came the Industrial Revolution and women went out to work, but again only really for pin money. It was a sign of status if your wife stayed at home and didn't work. Nowadays, it is the norm for women to work, so that means that two incomes are taken into consideration when renting/mortgaging. This has put renting/home ownership out of reach for most single people and couples on a low income. My inference from the post above that I have the issue with is that he's blaming women for the situation. Then also blaming women for potentially getting into a tricky, and illegal, housing situation. Well that's a good analysis by itself but there's more that would be needed to give the full picture (i.e. the shitty levels of productivity in this country and reasons for it. Lack of house building, lack of high rise flats...). I didn't see it as blaming women, just making a statement of fact that since 1957 houses have become less affordable (which is how far back the data goes). Today, two people working at the median income rate can afford less of a house than one person in 1957, much less. Which is crazy when you think about it, work more, get less. That's not how most things in an economy behave so the reasons houses do, are quite complicated. I don't see it as womens fault for joining the workplace, more a shitty management of the economy. "Either get a really high paid job to live on your own, or fuck off." After starting the post complaining about women being in the workforce, I would say the poster was blaming women based on the above quote. I'm sure you agree that the person who did the best job of trying to correct the economy was Margaret Thatcher, so it's not fair to blame women when the best economic management we had, came from one. Isn't that right? Seriously? I would say so , yes . She turned around our economy , that can’t be denied . Love her or loathe her the facts are there for all to see .
She turned around the economy?
When I left school in the 80's the only way you got a job in Liverpool was if your dad or mum had their own business, your dad or mum worked as a local councellor or you moved down south to somehwere like London. I lived in London for 5 years. It was not by choice. It was the only way for me to get work. I did like London though. I think the cockney accent is sexy and I like cockneys. "I left school in 1977 . And it was shit in the years leading up to it .... Strikes , no rubbish being collected , schools were short of teachers and books . The country had to borrow from the IMF . We were in the shit , and yeah I was living not far from London , but it was still far from good . She came along and we pulled ourselves out of the mire we were in . As I said earlier , she was a lot of things , and not all good , but she did turn our economy round . | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. There was a reason for the suffragettes. The Goverments realised they were only taxing half of the population. They knew if they could also get women working they would nake a lot more money in tax. In america in the 1950's a working class man could afford to let his wife be the home maker, raise 4 kids and be able to put money away each week for their university education. Fast forward to today with both parents working and only having 2 kids they are struggling. In the 70's in the UK the really big bosses earned around 20 times the average worker. Today the really big bosses earn around 120 times the average worker. A lot of people in the UK have not had a wage rise since 2008. Each year more and more people are struggling financially. It's a disgrace. So the women should have stayed in the kitchen? " No of course not. I am just saying there was a reason why the governments wanted women in work. They didn't do it for nice reasons. They wanted women in work to make more tax money. The governments basically looked at all the women being homemakers and thought if we can get women in to work we can really increase our tax revenues. Getting women in work was nothing more than a tax revenue increase exercice. | |||
"It's not womens fault that women wanted to work, they did used to work until men didn't want them in the workplace when jobs became scarce. It's why we have ladies and gents toilets now, so that women could be excluded from certain places in the workplace and be made to feel more unwelcome. It may be that couples working pushed up the cost of homes (although everyone i know who is poor as shit and can't afford to rent hasn't pushed the cost of that down so i'm dubious about that but also know what people will pay (or borrow) can push up the price of things) but you can't blame women for working because they did it before it became popular place the expectation of staying home with children onto them so that men had all the jobs. There was a reason for the suffragettes. The Goverments realised they were only taxing half of the population. They knew if they could also get women working they would nake a lot more money in tax. In america in the 1950's a working class man could afford to let his wife be the home maker, raise 4 kids and be able to put money away each week for their university education. Fast forward to today with both parents working and only having 2 kids they are struggling. In the 70's in the UK the really big bosses earned around 20 times the average worker. Today the really big bosses earn around 120 times the average worker. A lot of people in the UK have not had a wage rise since 2008. Each year more and more people are struggling financially. It's a disgrace. So the women should have stayed in the kitchen? No of course not. I am just saying there was a reason why the governments wanted women in work. They didn't do it for nice reasons. They wanted women in work to make more tax money. The governments basically looked at all the women being homemakers and thought if we can get women in to work we can really increase our tax revenues. Getting women in work was nothing more than a tax revenue increase exercice. " So the women were duped into it? | |||
| |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable...." Is it ok in modern eastern society? | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... Is it ok in modern eastern society? " Hmm I’ll try to answer your comment without sounding like a elitist..... No it’s not okay anywhere in the world..... But in the first world, it’s more shocking.... We should be able to provide basic housing for our citizens..... | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... Is it ok in modern eastern society? Hmm I’ll try to answer your comment without sounding like a elitist..... No it’s not okay anywhere in the world..... But in the first world, it’s more shocking.... We should be able to provide basic housing for our citizens..... " Who should provide it? I disapprove of the conduct of the landlords but i don't have massive sympathy for the women flagging their golden vagina for a place to stay. It's highly unlikely their life was a series of good choices before they got to that point and what do you think happens to the men who don't have a golden vagina to sell. There's a reason 71% of homeless people are men and 85% of people sleeping on the street are men. | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... Is it ok in modern eastern society? Hmm I’ll try to answer your comment without sounding like a elitist..... No it’s not okay anywhere in the world..... But in the first world, it’s more shocking.... We should be able to provide basic housing for our citizens..... Who should provide it? I disapprove of the conduct of the landlords but i don't have massive sympathy for the women flagging their golden vagina for a place to stay. It's highly unlikely their life was a series of good choices before they got to that point and what do you think happens to the men who don't have a golden vagina to sell. There's a reason 71% of homeless people are men and 85% of people sleeping on the street are men. " I’m sure these homeless men can find a bi or gay landlord to live with..... In America if you don’t have a place to stay. Our government puts you in a shelter first and then finds you permanent housing.... I wonder why these people choosing to exchange sex for a place to live are not looking to the government for help first? Exchanging sex for a home just seems like a act of extreme desperation ... I know the UK government should have plenty of programs to help people... | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable...." I don't know if they sign a lease. Maybe not as it is technically illegal! Not everyone has the option of moving back home - and there are many reasons which don't include being a care leaver. Homeless shelters are always full. The type of women (I'm assuming it's women) would be in work, just unable to afford the rent on top of all the other bills. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... I don't know if they sign a lease. Maybe not as it is technically illegal! Not everyone has the option of moving back home - and there are many reasons which don't include being a care leaver. Homeless shelters are always full. The type of women (I'm assuming it's women) would be in work, just unable to afford the rent on top of all the other bills." Rent/mortgage is the first bill you pay...... That’s the first rule of any budget | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... I don't know if they sign a lease. Maybe not as it is technically illegal! Not everyone has the option of moving back home - and there are many reasons which don't include being a care leaver. Homeless shelters are always full. The type of women (I'm assuming it's women) would be in work, just unable to afford the rent on top of all the other bills. Rent/mortgage is the first bill you pay...... That’s the first rule of any budget " And if you don't earn enough money to cover rent? | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... I don't know if they sign a lease. Maybe not as it is technically illegal! Not everyone has the option of moving back home - and there are many reasons which don't include being a care leaver. Homeless shelters are always full. The type of women (I'm assuming it's women) would be in work, just unable to afford the rent on top of all the other bills. Rent/mortgage is the first bill you pay...... That’s the first rule of any budget And if you don't earn enough money to cover rent?" You get a second job...... Why is ok to fail and make excuses? If I made 100 dollars a week.... I would pay $200 a month to sleep on a couch... Or pay $50 a month for a 24 hour gym membership and shower and sleep there... The first rule of a budget is to pay for a place to live...... Give me any financial scenario and I will find a solution...... Using your body for a place to stay , should always be last option if you’re working | |||
"Tenants have far too little protection and it's abhorrent that people abuse people desperate for somewhere to live. A home should be a right and people should not have to make themselves available as unscrupulous home provider see fit. " I sincerely doubt these people are actually recognised as tenants. It's also illegal anyway. Tenants have so much protection in this country, it's unbelievable. No sensible landlord would even rent to a single mother since they are so well protected. | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... I don't know if they sign a lease. Maybe not as it is technically illegal! Not everyone has the option of moving back home - and there are many reasons which don't include being a care leaver. Homeless shelters are always full. The type of women (I'm assuming it's women) would be in work, just unable to afford the rent on top of all the other bills. Rent/mortgage is the first bill you pay...... That’s the first rule of any budget And if you don't earn enough money to cover rent? You get a second job...... Why is ok to fail and make excuses? If I made 100 dollars a week.... I would pay $200 a month to sleep on a couch... Or pay $50 a month for a 24 hour gym membership and shower and sleep there... The first rule of a budget is to pay for a place to live...... Give me any financial scenario and I will find a solution...... Using your body for a place to stay , should always be last option if you’re working " You do know I don't agree with the practice, right? I'm just pointing out it's not quite as black and white as you make it seem. | |||
"Do these tenants sign a lease? This idea just seems crazy to me.... Wouldn’t moving back home or a homeless shelter be a option for these people? In a modern western society this is despicable.... I don't know if they sign a lease. Maybe not as it is technically illegal! Not everyone has the option of moving back home - and there are many reasons which don't include being a care leaver. Homeless shelters are always full. The type of women (I'm assuming it's women) would be in work, just unable to afford the rent on top of all the other bills. Rent/mortgage is the first bill you pay...... That’s the first rule of any budget And if you don't earn enough money to cover rent? You get a second job...... Why is ok to fail and make excuses? If I made 100 dollars a week.... I would pay $200 a month to sleep on a couch... Or pay $50 a month for a 24 hour gym membership and shower and sleep there... The first rule of a budget is to pay for a place to live...... Give me any financial scenario and I will find a solution...... Using your body for a place to stay , should always be last option if you’re working You do know I don't agree with the practice, right? I'm just pointing out it's not quite as black and white as you make it seem." Yes I know..... I’m just having a bit of a rant | |||
