
Half of UK adults are financially vulnerable, City watchdog finds - rocking_duck
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/oct/18/uk-adults-financially-vulnerable-fca-interest-rate-rise
======
al452
Note how the Guardian headline has seamlessly converted the report's wording
“display one or more characteristics that signal their potential
vulnerability” to "are financially vulnerable". I think that's self-evident
distortion, just dropping the "potential" bit (let alone "signal").

Then again "vulnerable" is an extremely popular word in the UK media this
year, and nobody's ever precise about what it means, so maybe it's all
meaningless, I don't know.

------
pnutjam
That's a feature of capitalism, not a bug. Can't leave money on the table.

~~~
s_kilk
It really is remarkable how efficient capitalism is at ensuring that proles
are born with nothing and die with nothing. Every tiny bit of surplus beyond
maintenance of the body is siphoned away into the pockets of the capital
class.

~~~
adekok
Because in nature, organisms _don 't_ grow to the limits of their environment,
right? They willingly limit their growth so that all enlightened organisms can
share equally in a workers paradise, amidst songs of empowerment and
fraternity, while marching collectively towards a bold new future!

Yeah... no.

Evolution shows us that organisms _do_ grow to the limits of their
environment. A "capitalist" system is no different. Making thinly-veiled
religious statements about the evils of capitalism means rhetoric is more
important to you than understanding.

Edit: for the nay-sayers, who seem to have missed my point: These behaviors
aren't a result of capitalism. Blaming capitalism, or using ideological
rehetoric, is wrong. These behaviors are a result of _reality_. Of evolution.
Of the Dariwnian struggle for existence.

Blaming capitalism for these behaviors makes no more sense than blaming
capitalism for a disease like malaria. Malaria was around long before
capitalism, or even people, existed.

~~~
pygy_
Provided resources are finite and the sun's output is constant, gradually
limiting growth would indeed be wise unless we want to fall off a cliff at
some point.

————

 _Edit: in response to your edit:_

Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. If a species consumes more energy
than its environment can supply or produces more entropy than its environment
can dissipate, things go bad for the environment and for the species unless it
can move to greener pastures.

What is true for species is also true for non-biological dissipative
processes. Capitalism and the growth-fueled financial system are not
perennial. In this context, humanity is part of the environment, and greener
pastures is the automation epidemics, where capital is becoming self-
sufficient.

This is dangerous for humans.

~~~
adekok
> Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium.

Nonsense.

The only reason systems are in equilibrium is because of negative feedback.
Predators eat prey. Diseases kill plants / animals, etc.

Remove the negative feedback, and you get un-checked growth.

This is basic biology...

~~~
pygy_
Negative feedback is part of healthy ecosystems, because resources _are_
limited. These loops are necessary for long term survival.

What you describe is cancer.

~~~
adekok
Systems do NOT "strive for equilibrium". The only reason we see multiple
systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the ones _not_ at equilibrium destroy
themselves and their environment.

I'm not denying that negative feedback exists. I'm saying that _without_ such
feedback, systems _always_ run out of control, because _that 's the biological
imperative_.

And no, growing systems are _not_ cancer. That's just a ridiculous statement
to make. Don't straw-man me FFS.

~~~
pygy_
> The only reason we see multiple systems at (roughly) equilibrium is that the
> ones not at equilibrium destroy themselves and their environment.

Survival of the fittest. The fittest ecosystems are those who strive at
equilibrium. Unchecked growth leads to boom bust cycles that are very
destructive.

It may be an early propagation strategy (especially for autotrophs), but it
is, in the long run, overcome by checks and balances. AFAIK short of
catastrophic changes, ecosystems tend to reach equilibrium, because boom/bust
is not competitive.

This is also true of diseases. New, aggressive strains that kill their host
quickly usually evolve into milder versions of themselves that get better
chances to spread (because the host survives longer).

Most animals have builtin growth limits that matches what they can reasonably
extract from their environment. Within the boundaries of an individual,
uncheck growth is literally cancer. BTW, you should have that growth on your
nose checked (yeah, lame pun sorry ;-).

Humanity and its economy has a cancerous behavior right now. Even if the
population stabilizes, economic growth requires a proportional growth in the
consumption of resources (energy/matter) and thereby a proportional increase
in entropy (heat/pollution/destruction/death).

At some point the rest of the earth won't be hospitable to us as a species,
and that point may be precipitated by autonomous capital.

Farming and mining are being automated away. Transport is being automated.
Manufacture has been for a long while.

Why would an automated market feed billions of idle meat bags? I don't know
either.

Why do I care? I have kids, and I feel responsible for the mess I put them in.

------
cup-of-tea
What does struggle mean? Not be able to eat? Not be able to heat their house?
Not be able to go out as often?

~~~
whatok
I looked at the FCA report and it's not defined anywhere.

------
athenot
I'm no economics expert so there's probably flaws in this idea but I've been
wondering if we should levy a tax on usury (in its older interpretation).
Looking at all the ways that money flows from the poor to the rich, it seems
usury (in the form of profits derived from rent and interest) are large
contributors.

This has traditionally been the position in Judaism, Christianity and Islam
(and I think many tribal societies would greatly frown upon it).

~~~
tonylemesmer
My guess is that increased levies or taxes on loans would end up being paid by
the borrower and make the loan even more expensive.

------
Frye
Over here in the States your rent increases just about every time you renew
your lease.

~~~
lotsofpulp
In my experience, as long as you rent from small time owners who have day
jobs, you can leverage being a good tenant into at least not raising rents for
a few years. Sometimes even getting a discount, because that’s how much of a
headache bad tenants are.

If you rent from a big rental company, then they can absorb that risk so you
lose out on those savings.

~~~
zimpenfish
Can confirm - my rent has only gone up £150 in 19 years largely because I
never bother my landlords.

~~~
Frye
Yes if you can make this work stick with it. 19 years is a long time you've
probably paid off their mortgage by now!

------
shubb
The report itself is fairly easy reading.

[https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/research/understanding-f...](https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/research/understanding-
financial-lives-uk-adults)

There are summary sheets for each age group, and detailed tables. I found the
ones around self employment particularly interesting.

------
aetherson
I mean, that's $780 per year. I don't know what the, er, lowest hexile in the
UK makes, but surely it's no better than $30k per year, right? And in fact
probably much worse.

So they'd struggle if they suddenly had expenses that were 2.5% of their
income or more? That doesn't seem revelatory.

~~~
aninhumer
Really? I think the framing that 1 in 6 people don't have at least 2.5% of
slack in their finances is equally damning.

~~~
aetherson
As others have noted, it's not "will collapse into a disaster," it's
"struggle."

It is not news to me that in general, relatively poor people do not have a ton
of slack in their finances. If it's news to you, well... okay. But I think you
just weren't paying attention.

------
dest
would it mean that rents are not going to increase because people are not
going to pay for it?

~~~
lotsofpulp
It could also mean that they cut back on vacations and other ancillary
spending.

~~~
_joel
I really don't think you understand how bad the problem is. They don't take
holidays as they have _no_ money. The amount of rough sleepers I've seen on
the streets recently has risen beyond all comprehension. It's directly
correlated to austerity (and universal credit implementation)

~~~
stuaxo
Indeed it has increased by 134% 2010 - 2016 according to this org

[http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-
numbers/rou...](http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-
numbers/rough-sleeping/rough-sleeping-our-analysis)

Now universal credit is being rolled out, this is likely to massively
increase.

------
sshagent
having just left a long term rental(5 years), my new home is +50% rent :(

~~~
sophiaellis
Wow! What city are you living in? If you don't mind me asking

