BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Latest trade data from ONS. Some significant caveats.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/january2022

Thanks. Time will tell..

It'll be too late by then, time to move on.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Latest trade data from ONS. Some significant caveats.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/january2022

Thanks. Time will tell..

It'll be too late by then, time to move on.

I've moved on to wondering if there's a large trade bloc near the UK that would be worth joining, in the longer term.

briantrumpet

Is this how democracy works?

tailwindhome

It's not even how the Assembly works

briantrumpet

I thought that it was a Failing Grayling screw up? But let's blame the EU anyway...

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

I thought that it was a Failing Grayling screw up? But let's blame the EU anyway...

They're still going to be blaming Brussels in 10 years time, aren't they.

Dorset_Boy

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.

Jezyboy

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.

I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.

john80

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

rick_chasey

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.

I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.

The situation isn't gonna improve if we have decades of no wage growth.

rick_chasey

I do think my point has whooshed over some heads, but nevermind.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.

I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.

The situation isn't gonna improve if we have decades of no wage growth.

I'm not as relaxed on that matter as I came across in the other thread.

I suspect if we'd had healthy real wage growth after 2008 this thread would not have started...and if it had started it wouldn't have gone on for so long.

Pross

john80 said:

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?

john80

Pross said:

john80 said:

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?

Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.

webboo

…..

Pross

john80 said:

Pross said:

john80 said:

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?

Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.

As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article

skyblueamateur

Pross said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

john80 said:

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?

Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.

As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article

Get with the program, it's the EU's fault and the Government is doing the best it can.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

john80 said:

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?

Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.

As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article

That's about whether or not the government needed to be notified. They were notified in any case, so I'm not sure it is relevant.

skyblueamateur

Fire and rehire - The EU's fault.

Dorset_Boy

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.

I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.

I really don't think you should be that pessimistic if you are in a reasonable job.
since the introduction of auto-enrolment the pension situation for your generation has improved (assuming you're not stupid enough to have opted out) as you get a compulsory employer contribution, something that wasn't there in the previous 20+ years.

The 'new' state pension is significantly better than the old one, and even though it may kick in a bit later, you are still likely to have more years post SPA than those currently retired.

Sure, outside the public sector there are no salary related pension schemes anymore, but many employers realise the importance of a proper remuneration package and make more than the statutory minimum contributions.

The key has always been to start saving young, and a good rule of thumb is to save half of every pay rise. I wish in hindsight I'd done that better, rather than going to the pub so often and buying frivilous things, whilst coping with a mortgage rate of 16%.

Having said all that, and before I get jumped on, note my caveat about a reasonable job. I also recognise, as I think we all do, that there are a significant number of people who struggle just to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads and some heat in their homes, and for them any form of saving, is impossible (though they should still join their employer's pension scheme).

rick_chasey

To be clear, the issue dorset is highlighting is an inequality issue, and isn't really much to do with the fact boomers have 80% of total UK private wealth and that over 60s are the only age cohort to be collectively better off than they were in 2008.

Dorset_Boy

Seeing as older people have worked for longer and progressed up the seniority ladder in the workplace, it would be utterly crazy if they didn't hold most of the wealth. They've been saving towards their retirement for 45-50 years.
The Under 35s have been saving for no more than a third of that time.

TheBigBean

Dorset_Boy said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email

Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.

My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.

I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.

I really don't think you should be that pessimistic if you are in a reasonable job.
since the introduction of auto-enrolment the pension situation for your generation has improved (assuming you're not stupid enough to have opted out) as you get a compulsory employer contribution, something that wasn't there in the previous 20+ years.

The 'new' state pension is significantly better than the old one, and even though it may kick in a bit later, you are still likely to have more years post SPA than those currently retired.

Sure, outside the public sector there are no salary related pension schemes anymore, but many employers realise the importance of a proper remuneration package and make more than the statutory minimum contributions.

The key has always been to start saving young, and a good rule of thumb is to save half of every pay rise. I wish in hindsight I'd done that better, rather than going to the pub so often and buying frivilous things, whilst coping with a mortgage rate of 16%.

Having said all that, and before I get jumped on, note my caveat about a reasonable job. I also recognise, as I think we all do, that there are a significant number of people who struggle just to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads and some heat in their homes, and for them any form of saving, is impossible (though they should still join their employer's pension scheme).

The tricky thing is that even if you max out your pension pot, it doesn't really compare to a public sector pension.

john80

Pross said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

john80 said:

Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?

Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?

Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.

As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article

Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

Seeing as older people have worked for longer and progressed up the seniority ladder in the workplace, it would be utterly crazy if they didn't hold most of the wealth. They've been saving towards their retirement for 45-50 years.
The Under 35s have been saving for no more than a third of that time.

If you don't understand that over 60s have *80%* of the wealth and being the only cohort to see earnings rise as a problem, then you are being obtuse.

There's having the most wealth, and there's the entire population under 50 having only 20% of the wealth.

skyblueamateur

Dorset_Boy said:

Seeing as older people have worked for longer and progressed up the seniority ladder in the workplace, it would be utterly crazy if they didn't hold most of the wealth. They've been saving towards their retirement for 45-50 years.
The Under 35s have been saving for no more than a third of that time.

Exactly. RC continually thinking all the worlds ills are the fault of 'Boomers' is tiresome.

My parents worked their fingers to the bone bringing us up and providing for us while they went without. I'm not going to begrudge them having a 'comfortable' retirement. I'm sure that's the case for most.

Unfortunately some of the elderly of that generation around here don't have a pot to p1ss in and it is a real, real struggle.

rick_chasey

skyblueamateur said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Seeing as older people have worked for longer and progressed up the seniority ladder in the workplace, it would be utterly crazy if they didn't hold most of the wealth. They've been saving towards their retirement for 45-50 years.
The Under 35s have been saving for no more than a third of that time.

Exactly. RC continually thinking all the worlds ills are the fault of 'Boomers' is tiresome.

My parents worked their fingers to the bone bringing us up and providing for us while they went without. I'm not going to begrudge them having a 'comfortable' retirement. I'm sure that's the case for most.

Unfortunately some of the elderly of that generation around here don't have a pot to p1ss in and it is a real, real struggle.

If you don't understand there is a real problem with intergenerational inequality you don't understand modern politics.

It's not about attributing blame. It's understanding what is driving people to think certain ways and the problems that creates.

It's the same forces that drove Brexit, to get it back on topic.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Seeing as older people have worked for longer and progressed up the seniority ladder in the workplace, it would be utterly crazy if they didn't hold most of the wealth. They've been saving towards their retirement for 45-50 years.
The Under 35s have been saving for no more than a third of that time.

If you don't understand that over 60s have *80%* of the wealth and being the only cohort to see earnings rise as a problem, then you are being obtuse.

There's having the most wealth, and there's the entire population under 50 having only 20% of the wealth.

So, what is, in your opinion, the 'fair' amount of wealth for the over 60s to hold? Given they will be largely mortgage free, kid free, and been saving for 40+ years, against the under 50s who will have mortgages and other debts, still have resposibilities for children, be lower on the pay scale, and not had anywhere near as long to save?