Sert (∞)
415 posts
HR: We lost our top candidate today.
CEO: What happened?
HR: He left before the interview even started.
CEO: Left? Why would he do that?
HR: His interview was scheduled for 11:00 a.m.
CEO: Okay.
HR: He arrived at 10:50 a.m.
CEO: Early. That sounds ideal.
HR: Yes. But when he got there, the interviewer was unavailable.
CEO: So what did we tell him?
HR: He was instructed to come back at 12:00 p.m.
CEO: That seems reasonable.
HR: He did not think so.
CEO: Why? It was only one hour.
HR: Because candidates get rejected here for arriving 5 minutes late.
CEO: That is different. Punctuality matters in interviews.
HR: According to him, it should matter for both sides.
CEO: We were offering him double his current salary.
HR: Yes. But salary was not the issue.
CEO: Then what was?
HR: He said hiring is a two-way process. And respect for time should not be negotiable.
CEO: He rejected the interview over that?
↓↓
English
I hear you on point 1. I feel this could be addressed with longer stretches between checks (i.e. 10 years instead of 3) OR no inheritance for SH (I favour the latter). Agree the incentives matter.
On point 4. if we could properly assess costs, ie. allocate based on the most accretive option I would be game.
I worry by over generalising the problem today we end up in extremes, ie. not all families being housed today would be more accretive than another option in the waiting list. I also feel wait times itself should be a more influencing factor.
Anyway just throwing ideas out there. Reform needed, there are many options to improve the system.
English
I think point 1. Creates a huge incentive for people not to work, stay in part time work, or stay in low paid work.
4. Could create issues too, financially not just ethically. A homeless family costs the taxpayer A LOT to house in emergency housing. Someone who is relatively adequately housed winning a lottery before a rare social tenancy before them, causes issues in that regard.
English
What would be a reasonable alternative? Because mass evicts would be cruel and unjust.
I guess in Zone 1, once a tenancy is expired, the property is sold on the open market. The receipts of the sale are then spent on building more social and affordable housing elsewhere further out.
In Zone 2, once a social rent tenancy is expired, the property is turned into intermediate-rent housing with secure tenancies that are tied to the lead occupant’s job in a key or frontline job (however, this feels open to mission creep on what key workers might be). Perhaps it should simply be housing pegged at 60% of the market average. Essentially, very similar to London Living Rent homes.
Perhaps that’s a compromise position?
Chris Howell@ChrisHowellFCA
The tweets around inner London social housing are wild. Any attempt to discuss the manifest unfairness of social housing allocation gets attempts to shut this down with 'you want to forcibly relocate half of London' without any attempt to engage in the problem.
English
You should put your degree to better use and apply yourself.
The ruling class, of which you are a cheerleader - is incentivising welfare over work and pricing lower and middle-income workers out of London.
This is why we get perverse outcomes like the first lady of Sierra Leonne being in Social housing, a share of lower earners take home less than people on benefits or 60% marginal tax rate for those earning £100k–£125k (higher than for those above £125k).
London's housing is supply constrained, the government prioritises those in "need" - which too often means non-workers or recent arrivals - over people actually contributing through employment.
The result is workers are being forced out of the city they power and only multimillionaires or those lucky enough to be in social housing are left.
You are a cheerleader for this status quo driven by the ruling class, we wish to reform it.
English
@SertSystems @CHinchliffMP AND KINDLY EXPLAIN .....do take as many tweets as you like......HOW THIS STATEMENT in Chris's tweet IS BEING A SYCOPHANT FOR THE RULING CLASS? Btw both Chris and I have first degrees from Oxbridge and post graduate degrees.
English
Daily reminder that YIMBYism is about the self-interest of well paid graduates, not solving the housing crisis for those stuck on waiting lists.
Your value isn't based on your wage.
Labour must reject this grotesque social cleansing nonsense and build 000s of council homes.
Vicky Spratt@Victoria_Spratt
A tweet by a prominent “YIMBY” argues against having social housing in some London boroughs because the homes could be lived in by more “economically productive” people… FYI 41 per cent of lead tenants in social housing are in work Others are carers or retired (and there are some who are out of work) It is not correct to say social housing tenants are economically unproductive - many do vital jobs which the Capital couldn’t function without
English
@stellastafford @CHinchliffMP Calm down there Stella, we can trade dictionaries... the actual issue isn't whether Chris can read.
English
@SertSystems @CHinchliffMP NOT in the Cambridge Dictionary and this is it's usual use in UK English. Unless you have evidence that Chris Hinchliff cannot read or write? Which would, in any case, not preclude his abiliity to BE CORRECT. I am never a sycophant for ANYONE & ESPECIALLY NOT NEOLIBERAL PROP IND
English
Daily reminder that Richard Burgon is economically illiterate and is once again trying to deceive the good people of x.
Average billionaire wealth is loosing to inflation (ie the average billionaire has lost real wealth and purchasing power since 2010).
Absolute billionaire wealth is up because there are approximately double the amount of billionaires in the UK today versus 2010 - we just have poorer billionaires (if such a thing can exist 😁)
English
New figures show British billionaire wealth is UP again.
It’s more than DOUBLED since 2010.
▪️2010: £250bn
▪️2026: £670bn
While millions struggle to get by, the billionaire class keeps taking more and more.
Tax extreme wealth now!
English
The system discriminates against the working majority. Prioritising "needs" assumes if you have a job, you belong in a Zone 6 HMO. Low pay and high rent mean most workers simply cannot afford inner London.
Workers pay inheritance tax, yet social housing is passed down. Restricted supply prices the middle out entirely. London is now reserved for the 1% and social housing tenants.
The UK is cooked - it penalises work and incentivises generational dependency.
A fair system balances trade-offs between competing groups, rather than prioritising just one. You are not developing a fair system, you are developing a system that advances grievances.
English
@EggrollShogun @smx_pd I've never seen a metric that I think *actively attempts* to discriminate against working people - it's just that more of the people who meet the very acute need criteria you have to hit to get a house these days are, ergo, also unable to work. Working people do get homes too.
English
Seeing a lot of *very* strong opinions on social housing policy from people who’ve never had to support a tenant in unsafe conditions, help someone secure emergency housing, or figure out how we actually finance and secure planning permission to deliver enough of the right homes.
English
@stellastafford @CHinchliffMP I’d suggest you stop being a sycophant for our incompetent ruling class.
I’ve highlighted the relevant bit to save you the trouble.
English
@SertSystems @CHinchliffMP Clearly you do not know the meaning of 'illiterate' in English usage, suggest look it up!
English
@JackxJewell They aren't being led to believe this
They do so of their own free will
Regardless, that's not my point.
They are degrading and sexualising one group of women against another
English
In this country, people have the right to criticise religion.
But there’s a clear line between criticism and the degradation of women. What we’re seeing here is the sexualisation and humiliation of brown women.
That should never be acceptable.
This isn’t clever or empowering.
it’s the public humiliation of one group of women by another group of women. Sad and pathetic.
English
@JeevunSandher "the net effect (inc expenditure) will be growth-enhancing"
Yeah you guys are really nailing this at the moment. More of the same should do it.
English
This is a straw man.
Any Labour PM will implement *sensible* policies.
If taxes are to be raised, then the net effect (inc expenditure) will be growth-enhancing. We’re all committed to the fiscal rules.
And we’re going to win in Makerfield.
Sam Bowman@s8mb
If Burnham wins, he’ll treat it as a mandate to do whatever terrible leftist policies he wants (nationwide rent controls, wealth tax, exit tax, ultra-high CGT). This could be quite bad. If he loses, Rayner or Miliband will become PM instead as obvious second-best choices, wounded and weak from day one and with no claim to a mandate. They are also clearly less electorally appealling. Reform winning in Makerfield therefore seems very desireable, and a lot of economic growth may be at stake.
English
Dear @Keir_Starmer, please carry on as PM. We need you, we chose you and we value your leadership. The ship will sink without you.
English
The Overnight Visitor Levy is a big moment in the history of devolution in England.
Opponents would prefer we stuck in the past - with Mayors denied the choice to raise revenue to invest locally, supporting growth, tourism & raising the economic potential of their areas.
English
@ToryWipeout You are not good at data and clearly don't understand scale.
English
Why do these Brexity types keep lying?
Daniel Lacalle@dlacalle_IA
The UK economy was not destroyed "by Brexit". If it were the cause, Germany and France would be thriving. What demolished the UK economy, like the French and German ones, was net zero crippling industry and agriculture and keeping all EU taxes and overregulation.
English
@DanicaPriest You don't understand the argument, it is about fairness. The only people who can live in zone 1 are:
- People in social housing
- Wealthy people (UK standards)
80% of workers under 50k. Why should people in social housing have access to something 80% of workers do not
English
It’s 100% selfish to think you have the right to kick people in need (more need than you btw) out of their homes. Untill Labour gets rid of its Tory yimbys it’s never going to deliver the change we need.
Max Abdulgani@max_abdulgani
These ‘well paid graduates’ you speak of are often earning close to minimum wage in the capital city for doing a high stakes job, living in a tiny attic in zone 5. Why on earth is it selfish to want to change this reality for people who contribute daily to our economy?
English
@OBEhizele You don't understand the argument, it is about fairness.
The only people who can live in zone 1 are:
- People in social housing
- High income people (UK standards)
80% of workers under 50k. Why should people in social housing have access to something 80% of workers do not?
English
So the argument today is partly a clash between two visions of the city:
1) The city as an economic engine optimised for productivity.
2) The city as a shared civic home containing multiple classes and vocations.
Vicky Spratt@Victoria_Spratt
A tweet by a prominent “YIMBY” argues against having social housing in some London boroughs because the homes could be lived in by more “economically productive” people… FYI 41 per cent of lead tenants in social housing are in work Others are carers or retired (and there are some who are out of work) It is not correct to say social housing tenants are economically unproductive - many do vital jobs which the Capital couldn’t function without
English
@Sai_Ishaya_ Why would only 83% of welfare go to British nationals? 20p out of every £1 on welfare going to foreign nationals.
76 % of UC going to the white population means they are under represented (being 82% / 85% of the population).
Learn to understand absolute numbers and rates.
English
You want a White nationalist country and this is your strategy?
📊 Over 55% of the UK welfare budget goes to pensioners.
📊 76.6% of Universal Credit claimants are White.
📊 83.6% of UC claimants are British/Irish nationals.
If your grand master plan to stop migration is deporting White British retirees to refugee camps in Thailand and Malaysia, it’s a bold strategy 💀
Nina Wysocka@realninawysocka
Get rid of Universal Credit, Benefits and watch them leave.
English