BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.0 -
Margins are pretty thin to be honest. We are in the strange position where our clients reluctantly accept that their materials have doubled in cost, trades will charge them more but trying to add an inflationary rise to your fees usually results in them asking for a reduction or they'll go elsewhere. There'll always be some new one man band start up that will promise the earth and charge a lower fee (not many deliver unsurprisingly).TheBigBean said:
Your current employers may become worried if people leave and therefore bump your salary.Pross said:
As I said in the other thread, I'd love to know who is getting 8.2% rises. My thinking is it is only being done by people moving companies. I could get around 15-20% more if I made a move to similar roles I've seen advertised but I've gone beyond the mving for extra salary stage, any future move I make will be for the type of work and the work / life balance and will possibly require a reduction in salary.TheBigBean said:ONS. Real wages are rising.
Growth in average total pay (including bonuses) was 7.0%, and growth in regular pay (excluding bonuses) was 4.2% among employees in January to March 2022.
Average total pay growth for the private sector was 8.2% in January to March 2022, and for the public sector was 1.6% in the same time period; the finance and business services sector showed the largest growth rate (10.7%), partly because of strong bonus payments.
In real terms (adjusted for inflation) in January to March 2022, growth in total pay was 1.4% and regular pay fell on the year at negative 1.2%.1 -
So the reason they don't take the recovery as long term growth (and refer to it as recovery) as you want to be looking at the overall long-term growth rates and trends.TheBigBean said:
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.
If you arbitrarily pick a point that happens to be at the bottom of a crash then everything looks rosier.
The long-term growth is about ignoring the year-to-year fluctuations and looking at the overall trend.
You can rail against the mainstream of economic wisdom and reporting if you so wish, but you need to come up with a better analogy than a bike ride.0 -
It would make a difference if bonuses in financial services are genuinely responsible for a large element of the total growth in the three months to March '22.TheBigBean said:
Mean, I believe. See the comparison chart which shows it doesn't make much difference on a relative basis.kingstongraham said:
Mean or median?TheBigBean said:A quick graph shows real wages have largely been increasing since March 2014. Bonuses or not it is all pay.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/methodologies/comparisonoflabourmarketdatasources
0 -
Come to the City my friend. Way over 8%.Pross said:
As I said in the other thread, I'd love to know who is getting 8.2% rises. My thinking is it is only being done by people moving companies. I could get around 15-20% more if I made a move to similar roles I've seen advertised but I've gone beyond the mving for extra salary stage, any future move I make will be for the type of work and the work / life balance and will possibly require a reduction in salary.TheBigBean said:ONS. Real wages are rising.
Growth in average total pay (including bonuses) was 7.0%, and growth in regular pay (excluding bonuses) was 4.2% among employees in January to March 2022.
Average total pay growth for the private sector was 8.2% in January to March 2022, and for the public sector was 1.6% in the same time period; the finance and business services sector showed the largest growth rate (10.7%), partly because of strong bonus payments.
In real terms (adjusted for inflation) in January to March 2022, growth in total pay was 1.4% and regular pay fell on the year at negative 1.2%.0 -
When you quote your average speed for a ride do you just pick a big descent?TheBigBean said:
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
or compare your increase in activity to the time when you were isolating with Covidpangolin said:
When you quote your average speed for a ride do you just pick a big descent?TheBigBean said:
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.0 -
Well, it's all captured in the graph.surrey_commuter said:
or compare your increase in activity to the time when you were isolating with Covidpangolin said:
When you quote your average speed for a ride do you just pick a big descent?TheBigBean said:
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.
You can all keep believing that growth to 2008 was built on a sustainable economic model which should be the basis of the future if you like.0 -
Given we're back at 2008 (well, a bit over) is that now sustainable? or are you of the view this level is basically the indefinite ceiling and we will bounce along that forever?TheBigBean said:
Well, it's all captured in the graph.surrey_commuter said:
or compare your increase in activity to the time when you were isolating with Covidpangolin said:
When you quote your average speed for a ride do you just pick a big descent?TheBigBean said:
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.
You can all keep believing that growth to 2008 was built on a sustainable economic model which should be the basis of the future if you like.
If so, on what basis?0 -
Yes, it is more sustainable although the full covid impact is yet to be weathered.rick_chasey said:
Given we're back at 2008 (well, a bit over) is that now sustainable? or are you of the view this level is basically the indefinite ceiling and we will bounce along that forever?TheBigBean said:
Well, it's all captured in the graph.surrey_commuter said:
or compare your increase in activity to the time when you were isolating with Covidpangolin said:
When you quote your average speed for a ride do you just pick a big descent?TheBigBean said:
When you ride your bike do you ever go up hills? Or is it all downhill because none of the peaks are Mt Everest?rick_chasey said:
No economist refers to post-crash recovery as growth. For very obvious reasons.TheBigBean said:
Why make reference to a peak that wasn't sustainable? So much so that it causes a massive recession.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
There has been 8 years of real wage growth. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.
You can all keep believing that growth to 2008 was built on a sustainable economic model which should be the basis of the future if you like.
If so, on what basis?
Another analogy for you. In 2008, you had a job earning an average wage. You decided to bet your entire salary at a casino and won. As a result, you had a bumper year. The following year, you did the same, but lost. You then spent a decade complaining that you weren't earning as much as you did in 2008. By 2022, you were actually earning more than you were in 2008 without any visits to a casino.0 -
I mean, that analogy is such nonsense I don't even know where to start.
I'll go with "macro economics is not personal economic" and leave it at that.0 -
if we could break away from arguing about start points...TheBigBean said:Wage graph.
... does this graph show a break in the relationship between wages and total pay?1 -
Possibly, but probably not. My take would be that companies need to retain staff, so are throwing bonuses at them rather than salary increases with the hope that things will calm down.surrey_commuter said:
if we could break away from arguing about start points...TheBigBean said:Wage graph.
... does this graph show a break in the relationship between wages and total pay?0 -
It does seem to.surrey_commuter said:
if we could break away from arguing about start points...TheBigBean said:Wage graph.
... does this graph show a break in the relationship between wages and total pay?0 -
If you think I don't know that then this discussion is pointless.rick_chasey said:I mean, that analogy is such nonsense I don't even know where to start.
I'll go with "macro economics is not personal economic" and leave it at that.0 -
so we wait to see if it is purely a City distortion or people are upping the overtime?TheBigBean said:
Possibly, but probably not. My take would be that companies need to retain staff, so are throwing bonuses at them rather than salary increases with the hope that things will calm down.surrey_commuter said:
if we could break away from arguing about start points...TheBigBean said:Wage graph.
... does this graph show a break in the relationship between wages and total pay?0 -
In FS there has been a round of out-of-cycle salary increases across the board.TheBigBean said:
Possibly, but probably not. My take would be that companies need to retain staff, so are throwing bonuses at them rather than salary increases with the hope that things will calm down.surrey_commuter said:
if we could break away from arguing about start points...TheBigBean said:Wage graph.
... does this graph show a break in the relationship between wages and total pay?
Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
0 -
FWIW, you're probably both right (*) but arguing different points. Post-GFC wage growth has been strong, but wages are barely higher now than immediately pre-GFC. To complete picture, one also needs to observe that the immediate pre-GFC position looks like being the result of a one-off spike, with growth over the period "Pre-pre-GFC spike to now" being noticeably lower than over the period 2005-2007, with the caveat that 2005-2007 is a short time period and the period of analysis would be better if it started pre dot.com crash / 911 etc.rick_chasey said:
So look, I spend most of my time parroting economists who do this for a living.TheBigBean said:10.2% or 5.5% since March 2014 (total/regular). It really does not support your narrative that real wages have been falling. They did fall after a big recession.
It is general practice to refer to the previous high when talking about growth, right?
So the previous high was 2008 - real wages have barely crept above that over 14 years, around 2% according to your own chart.
By contrast, the previous decades saw around 1 and a half to 2 and a half, *per year* on average.
(*) caveat to this is Rick's claim that economists don't refer to post-crash growth as growth. Of course they mostly do (I'm sure Rick can find a distant relative who doesn't) but the good economists provide commentary about the cyclical nature of economic growth and the implications of being in a particular stage of the cycle.0 -
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
0 -
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
0 -
Obviously. I was thinking that Rick would experience employers reneging on bonus commitments vicariously via his angry ex-clients getting in touch to tell him that he'd trousered a commission from a disreputable employer.Dorset_Boy said:
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
0 -
Er yes I do!Dorset_Boy said:
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
0 -
Hey guaranteed bonuses are that but there are often good reasons firms never pay as big a bonuses as verbally promised - loss somewhere else in the firm, tough margins, blah blah.wallace_and_gromit said:
Obviously. I was thinking that Rick would experience employers reneging on bonus commitments vicariously via his angry ex-clients getting in touch to tell him that he'd trousered a commission from a disreputable employer.Dorset_Boy said:
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
Always a good reason.
People aren’t stupid0 -
Interesting. Perhaps you need to explain to your clients the concept of a "political promise". They're not just made by politicians and they're not worth the value of the paper they're not written on.rick_chasey said:
Hey guaranteed bonuses are that but there are often good reasons firms never pay as big a bonuses as verbally promised - loss somewhere else in the firm, tough margins, blah blah.wallace_and_gromit said:
Obviously. I was thinking that Rick would experience employers reneging on bonus commitments vicariously via his angry ex-clients getting in touch to tell him that he'd trousered a commission from a disreputable employer.Dorset_Boy said:
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
Always a good reason.
People aren’t stupid
But the key point is that there are a lot of good employers out there who honour their commitments and don't make "commitments" that they don't intend to honour (good quality staff tend to vote with their feet these days if an employers plays silly b*ggers) and it's unfortunate that you seem to have little or no experience of these.0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I don’t think you understand the dynamic I am describing, which is fine.wallace_and_gromit said:
Interesting. Perhaps you need to explain to your clients the concept of a "political promise". They're not just made by politicians and they're not worth the value of the paper they're not written on.rick_chasey said:
Hey guaranteed bonuses are that but there are often good reasons firms never pay as big a bonuses as verbally promised - loss somewhere else in the firm, tough margins, blah blah.wallace_and_gromit said:
Obviously. I was thinking that Rick would experience employers reneging on bonus commitments vicariously via his angry ex-clients getting in touch to tell him that he'd trousered a commission from a disreputable employer.Dorset_Boy said:
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
Always a good reason.
People aren’t stupid
But the key point is that there are a lot of good employers out there who honour their commitments and don't make "commitments" that they don't intend to honour (good quality staff tend to vote with their feet these days if an employers plays silly b*ggers) and it's unfortunate that you seem to have little or no experience of these.
I am not talking about promises made when hiring.
It is more bonuses are never as high as people expect.
Promising bonuses is meaningless as they are contingent on so much stuff, a lot of it which is beyond people’s control - it does not retain people.
0 -
The bit of the 'trusted trader' scheme we're proposing that confuses me is if I sell a product to a company in NI how do I know it's staying in NI and not being sold on into ROI or the EU?
I can fully understand why the EU doesn't think this is a goer.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Promising bonuses is meaningless as they are contingent on so much stuff, a lot of it which is beyond people’s control - it does not retain people.
Ok. I see what you're saying now. You confused me by referring initially to "promising big bonuses" and then switching tack to bonus expectations which is obviously a different concept and where "political promises" come into play.rick_chasey said:
I don’t think you understand the dynamic I am describing, which is fine.wallace_and_gromit said:
Interesting. Perhaps you need to explain to your clients the concept of a "political promise". They're not just made by politicians and they're not worth the value of the paper they're not written on.rick_chasey said:
Hey guaranteed bonuses are that but there are often good reasons firms never pay as big a bonuses as verbally promised - loss somewhere else in the firm, tough margins, blah blah.wallace_and_gromit said:
Obviously. I was thinking that Rick would experience employers reneging on bonus commitments vicariously via his angry ex-clients getting in touch to tell him that he'd trousered a commission from a disreputable employer.Dorset_Boy said:
Rick don't get paid on the employee's bonus......wallace_and_gromit said:
You must place your clients with some fairly shonky employers if that is your experience!rick_chasey said:Promising big bonuses usually doesn’t work re retention as no one trusts firms - boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome
Always a good reason.
People aren’t stupid
But the key point is that there are a lot of good employers out there who honour their commitments and don't make "commitments" that they don't intend to honour (good quality staff tend to vote with their feet these days if an employers plays silly b*ggers) and it's unfortunate that you seem to have little or no experience of these.
I am not talking about promises made when hiring.
It is more bonuses are never as high as people expect.
Promising bonuses is meaningless as they are contingent on so much stuff, a lot of it which is beyond people’s control - it does not retain people.
I would think that broken actual promises re bonuses do affect retention by motivating those affected to leave sooner than they might otherwise have done!0 -
I think that's where the "Trusted" part of the definition comes from. There would be a lot of work required to vet and accredit suitable traders for the scheme to work. But it's probably a "good" idea that will demonstrate the value of the old adage "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".skyblueamateur said:The bit of the 'trusted trader' scheme we're proposing that confuses me is if I sell a product to a company in NI how do I know it's staying in NI and not being sold on into ROI or the EU?
I can fully understand why the EU doesn't think this is a goer.
I can fully understand why the EU wouldn't trust anything proposed by the UK given the insults and threats over the last few years.0 -
But the border between ROI and NI is porous I don't see how it's workable.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think that's where the "Trusted" part of the definition comes from. There would be a lot of work required to vet and accredit suitable traders for the scheme to work. But it's probably a "good" idea that will demonstrate the value of the old adage "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".skyblueamateur said:The bit of the 'trusted trader' scheme we're proposing that confuses me is if I sell a product to a company in NI how do I know it's staying in NI and not being sold on into ROI or the EU?
I can fully understand why the EU doesn't think this is a goer.
I can fully understand why the EU wouldn't trust anything proposed by the UK given the insults and threats over the last few years.0
