Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbeach | Hacker News Reader

Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide.

If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they need.

View on HN

In a theoretically perfect economic market you're right, but there is little if any evidence to suggest there is a causal link between economic displacement and wage growth. In fact wage growth at the low end has stagnated in London[0] despite the advancing economic displacement of it's low paid workers[1].

[0]: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Economy%20Comm... [1]: http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/lo...

The situation in London is complicated by a large influx of workers from elsewhere in the EU, who are willing to live in sub-standard conditions (many to a room, sharing beds, sheds in back gardens, etc.) and work for minimum wage, or even less.

Some larger employers pay a "living wage" on principle, but nobody feels the need to raise wages for unskilled workers for lack of supply.

This is a very salient point about London. It's not widely known about just how squalid and cramped the living conditions are — though just ask any recently arrived migrant. It is not as black and white as poor people living in zones 3-9 and rich people living in 1-3.

Those doing the high-paid "work" are often those abusing state granted powers to issue credit. They say to the poor "pledge more of your working life to me in exchange for the right to exist or I will banish you".

There is no relationship between value added and money gained in London.

If you don't understand the benefit to society of mortgages and business loans, this really isn't the forum for you.

I understand the benefit of credit but not loose credit. If you don't understand 2008 being a problem then this isn't the planet for you.

I also like water but understand I can drown in it.

The problem in 2008 was that credit dried up! Remember? The "credit crunch"? A lack of available credit? Which ground the economy to a halt?

#facepalm

I'm afraid you are looking at the problem from the wrong end. You are looking at an event and associating it with the immediate result.

Banks lost trust in each other and stopped lending because they knew many were going to fail due to over-issuance of credit leaving them far too leveraged.

Citigroup head: whilst the music is playing we keep dancing.

Your use of twitter hashtag in this debate seems very young.

When you fall off a building it's only the last second that is a problem. Your solution is to keep digging a hole faster than terminal velocity. Mine is to not jump off the building.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com