Hattifattener
@hattifattener.bsky.social
I work in the museum and charity sectors. Interested in buildings, wildlife, art, and fossils.
I still contend that a 25 year old is better off now than they were in 1995 even taking housing into account.
I think people don't think this because expectations have continued to rise. Also prior to 2008 everyone was buying luxury goods, but it was fueled by barely controlled debt.
I think people don't think this because expectations have continued to rise. Also prior to 2008 everyone was buying luxury goods, but it was fueled by barely controlled debt.
December 13, 2025 at 11:09 AM
I still contend that a 25 year old is better off now than they were in 1995 even taking housing into account.
I think people don't think this because expectations have continued to rise. Also prior to 2008 everyone was buying luxury goods, but it was fueled by barely controlled debt.
I think people don't think this because expectations have continued to rise. Also prior to 2008 everyone was buying luxury goods, but it was fueled by barely controlled debt.
The cost of housing began to diverge markedly from incomes in 2008 following the crash. The price of property (and interestingly gold) continued to grow at it's previous pace.
But the price of goods and food has (generally) continued to fall.
But the price of goods and food has (generally) continued to fall.
December 13, 2025 at 11:07 AM
The cost of housing began to diverge markedly from incomes in 2008 following the crash. The price of property (and interestingly gold) continued to grow at it's previous pace.
But the price of goods and food has (generally) continued to fall.
But the price of goods and food has (generally) continued to fall.
When I worked at Boots 30 years ago I was paid £2.96 per hour. That's the equivalent of £6.43 per hour today or an annual salary of about £13k in today's money.
Today a Boots employee on minimum wage gets almost double that. If that isn't progress for lower paid people what is?
Today a Boots employee on minimum wage gets almost double that. If that isn't progress for lower paid people what is?
December 13, 2025 at 10:34 AM
When I worked at Boots 30 years ago I was paid £2.96 per hour. That's the equivalent of £6.43 per hour today or an annual salary of about £13k in today's money.
Today a Boots employee on minimum wage gets almost double that. If that isn't progress for lower paid people what is?
Today a Boots employee on minimum wage gets almost double that. If that isn't progress for lower paid people what is?
I'm sure that's true. And often generational. As the population ages, more of the wealth is held by older generations.
But repeated above inflation increases to minimum wage have had a transformative effect on millions.
But repeated above inflation increases to minimum wage have had a transformative effect on millions.
December 13, 2025 at 9:55 AM
I'm sure that's true. And often generational. As the population ages, more of the wealth is held by older generations.
But repeated above inflation increases to minimum wage have had a transformative effect on millions.
But repeated above inflation increases to minimum wage have had a transformative effect on millions.
I think the far right press are then capitalising on this sense of things slowing down (compared to the previous boom times) giving a general feeling of "things are getting worse".
We live in interesting times, but we have nearly full employment, relatively high wages, and still decent growth.
We live in interesting times, but we have nearly full employment, relatively high wages, and still decent growth.
December 13, 2025 at 9:53 AM
I think the far right press are then capitalising on this sense of things slowing down (compared to the previous boom times) giving a general feeling of "things are getting worse".
We live in interesting times, but we have nearly full employment, relatively high wages, and still decent growth.
We live in interesting times, but we have nearly full employment, relatively high wages, and still decent growth.
So while people in the UK are still better off than they were 20 years ago, at that point Western economies were growing fantastically. 2008 ended that and the rest of the world is catching up.
So I think it's much slower growth, plus no longer being as wealthy compared to the rest of the world.
So I think it's much slower growth, plus no longer being as wealthy compared to the rest of the world.
December 13, 2025 at 9:45 AM
So while people in the UK are still better off than they were 20 years ago, at that point Western economies were growing fantastically. 2008 ended that and the rest of the world is catching up.
So I think it's much slower growth, plus no longer being as wealthy compared to the rest of the world.
So I think it's much slower growth, plus no longer being as wealthy compared to the rest of the world.
It is interesting why many people feel worse of when they objectively aren't. I suspect we are seeing the consequences of decades of strong growth now slowing down and the rich "west" now having a smaller relative proportion of global wealth.
December 13, 2025 at 9:43 AM
It is interesting why many people feel worse of when they objectively aren't. I suspect we are seeing the consequences of decades of strong growth now slowing down and the rich "west" now having a smaller relative proportion of global wealth.
I think this makes me a critical realist (though I never did fully understand the epistemological labels).
December 13, 2025 at 9:37 AM
I think this makes me a critical realist (though I never did fully understand the epistemological labels).
It is useful in some circumstances. Focus groups are useful for politicians. Or if you need to work out what the underlying causes of e.g. a shift in attitudes shown in your quant might be.
But for economic health (relative and absolute), you need quantitative data. Otherwise it's just opinion.
But for economic health (relative and absolute), you need quantitative data. Otherwise it's just opinion.
December 13, 2025 at 9:33 AM
It is useful in some circumstances. Focus groups are useful for politicians. Or if you need to work out what the underlying causes of e.g. a shift in attitudes shown in your quant might be.
But for economic health (relative and absolute), you need quantitative data. Otherwise it's just opinion.
But for economic health (relative and absolute), you need quantitative data. Otherwise it's just opinion.
This just means it is being gathered with a lot of thought and care. There are plenty of people on the far right, and far left, who are trying to make people believe things are getting far worse. They (objectively and according to the known facts) are not.
December 13, 2025 at 9:11 AM
This just means it is being gathered with a lot of thought and care. There are plenty of people on the far right, and far left, who are trying to make people believe things are getting far worse. They (objectively and according to the known facts) are not.
Qualitative research is generally garbage and just serves the interests of whoever commissions it. At best exposed which lies and manipulation they have swallowed.
You need good quant data if you value truth.
You need good quant data if you value truth.
December 13, 2025 at 9:07 AM
Qualitative research is generally garbage and just serves the interests of whoever commissions it. At best exposed which lies and manipulation they have swallowed.
You need good quant data if you value truth.
You need good quant data if you value truth.
I meant Union sorry. I hate all rugby, though I respect other people's right to imagine they enjoy it.
December 11, 2025 at 12:04 PM
I meant Union sorry. I hate all rugby, though I respect other people's right to imagine they enjoy it.
It's Lando. He's super nice as well as being a world champion. And nobody likes rugby league outside the South East.
And please not golf.
And please not golf.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 AM
It's Lando. He's super nice as well as being a world champion. And nobody likes rugby league outside the South East.
And please not golf.
And please not golf.
It's a shame he didn't extend the principles of natural law to his hair and moustache colouring.
December 8, 2025 at 10:07 PM
It's a shame he didn't extend the principles of natural law to his hair and moustache colouring.
I mean, if they were running now, they wouldn't be my last choice.
December 8, 2025 at 10:06 PM
I mean, if they were running now, they wouldn't be my last choice.
I will never forget the Natural Law Party c.1992 which had the policy "demolish all the hospitals and replace them with community herb gardens". They thought the herb gardens would somehow stop people from getting ill in the first place.
This isn't far off that level of bonkers.
This isn't far off that level of bonkers.
December 8, 2025 at 7:21 AM
I will never forget the Natural Law Party c.1992 which had the policy "demolish all the hospitals and replace them with community herb gardens". They thought the herb gardens would somehow stop people from getting ill in the first place.
This isn't far off that level of bonkers.
This isn't far off that level of bonkers.
I think this is why he repeatedly steps back from the limelight. Too many skeletons. He will again before the next election.
December 6, 2025 at 11:57 AM
I think this is why he repeatedly steps back from the limelight. Too many skeletons. He will again before the next election.
They have to get attention somehow.
December 6, 2025 at 11:54 AM
They have to get attention somehow.
In the UK we had (very briefly):
- French Revolution (bad)
- Napoleon B (even worse)
- Battle of Waterloo (great)
- Exile to St Helena (phew)
Then nothing about France until First World War.
- French Revolution (bad)
- Napoleon B (even worse)
- Battle of Waterloo (great)
- Exile to St Helena (phew)
Then nothing about France until First World War.
December 4, 2025 at 11:54 AM
In the UK we had (very briefly):
- French Revolution (bad)
- Napoleon B (even worse)
- Battle of Waterloo (great)
- Exile to St Helena (phew)
Then nothing about France until First World War.
- French Revolution (bad)
- Napoleon B (even worse)
- Battle of Waterloo (great)
- Exile to St Helena (phew)
Then nothing about France until First World War.
Anyway this is an old debate and we aren't going to solve it here. But there is more than one side to this story. There is no black and white.
December 4, 2025 at 12:30 AM
Anyway this is an old debate and we aren't going to solve it here. But there is more than one side to this story. There is no black and white.
That has some complication surely. Was Argentina a slave country? Or the Spanish colonial oppressor of the original inhabitants?
And surely what matters now is what the people who live there want. If they want to become part of Argentina, they would be free to do so.
And surely what matters now is what the people who live there want. If they want to become part of Argentina, they would be free to do so.
December 4, 2025 at 12:28 AM
That has some complication surely. Was Argentina a slave country? Or the Spanish colonial oppressor of the original inhabitants?
And surely what matters now is what the people who live there want. If they want to become part of Argentina, they would be free to do so.
And surely what matters now is what the people who live there want. If they want to become part of Argentina, they would be free to do so.
This has led to the court's interpretation to be expanded to all sorts of things beyond the scope of that case. Probably incorrectly. It will take another case interpretation to alter this, unless the government legislate again. But they don't seem keen.
December 4, 2025 at 12:22 AM
This has led to the court's interpretation to be expanded to all sorts of things beyond the scope of that case. Probably incorrectly. It will take another case interpretation to alter this, unless the government legislate again. But they don't seem keen.
They weren't implemented at all. It's quite complicated. The legislation was very much in favour of trans rights. But we have a common law system which allows courts to "interpret" the parliamentary law if it isn't clear.
In a very specific context, they interpreted sex to mean biological.
In a very specific context, they interpreted sex to mean biological.
December 4, 2025 at 12:20 AM
They weren't implemented at all. It's quite complicated. The legislation was very much in favour of trans rights. But we have a common law system which allows courts to "interpret" the parliamentary law if it isn't clear.
In a very specific context, they interpreted sex to mean biological.
In a very specific context, they interpreted sex to mean biological.
I don't have any issue with Brazil. It started with a post about whether the Falklands / Malvinas residents would prefer to live as they are or under the current Argentine government. I know what I'd prefer but everyone's different.
December 4, 2025 at 12:16 AM
I don't have any issue with Brazil. It started with a post about whether the Falklands / Malvinas residents would prefer to live as they are or under the current Argentine government. I know what I'd prefer but everyone's different.