LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
That's fine though because it would have been worse under Labour. For one thing we'd still be dragged down by a vast free trading bloc and unable to do free trade deals with New Zealand.
0 -
Maybe. Pay and how much it costs to live places is something I actually have a pretty good idea about, as I spend a lot of time negotiating it.
You think you're the first person to have thought of living costs when moving between countries? You don't think I've ever negotiated a move from say London to NYC? Or visa versa?
And anyway, I appreciate comparisons to the US are a red rag to a bull and you missed the rest of the post, but I'll say it again, people earning more money is good for everyone - crab bucket mentality is really problematic in this country.
0 -
Fair point.
One quirky stat from looking at inflation and earning growth: Earnings have grown slightly faster (0.2% real pa) since we left the EU whilst being flat in real terms in the post-GFC to pre-Brexit phase.
Not statistically significant, but counter-intuitive, perhaps.
0 -
-
I guess you can choose a time range that suits your purposes, but do you agree that wages are not stagnant now? Otherwise the point might have been phrased along the lines of 'wages used to be stagnant in the past'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Meanwhile Rick has not yet realised that being patronising doesn't win arguments.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm talking about now and the ONS data says they the current annual growth in wages generally is around 6%. Would you call that stagnant?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
FA, you have to admit he is very good at it. Include the rest of Cake Stop an the UK could be a world leader in this area.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
So growing, not stagnant then?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I agree that everyone earning more money is generally good for individuals and the economy. My major problem is how do you propose we fund it (genuine question)?
I run a small manufacturing business, to pay my staff more I need to either generate more sales or increase prices, neither of which are really feasible. Ours is a niche product and our turnover is pretty consistent year on year. I suspect many small businesses across the UK are in a similar position.
When you step up to larger businesses, the greatest concentration of profit generated goes to shareholders or exec salaries, not evenly distributed amongst the workforce. Unless there is a significant change in culture then we will continue with fewer people earning even greater sums, not more people taking a proportionate increase.
Politicians will say grow the economy. But again, how and where, and how is this going to actually grow wages for the majority of people?
I do agree that real wages need to increase, I just haven't seen anyone offer a credible plan in the UK as yet.
0 -
Again as others have said one snapshot is not much use. "I'm talking about now" doesn't mean much when the conversation is about growth over several years.
The end of your chart says 2% real growth. 1 year back it says -2% real growth. Hip hip hooray.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I mean, 1 quarter in 40 isn't the stellar performance you think it is.
And you need to put it in context of wider wage growth across the world where 2% isn't all that good.
0 -
Yeah, I mean I'd suggest in the long run if revenue is the same and your wages rise - if you amplify that across an economy that's not real wage rises, as the wage rises you do provide get eaten up instantly by inflation.
Ideally you want productive wage growth, i.e. you make more money so you can then pay your people more.
0 -
0 -
Great. But the current growth rate could be 15%: if this last short period of above inflation growth follows a long period of at or below inflation growth, we're still just catching up.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
I think we are actually agreeing.
0 -
The thing with graduate employer is that it is actually a cost. Graduates need training and companies swap this for their future potential. I'd probably choose to pay someone with two years' experience £60k rather than pay a graduate £35k.
0 -
The flip side is that people who grow up through your business are the backbone of your business - they're steeped in the company way of working, culture, know where the skeletons are, know how to operate etc, and so the quality of your grad intake has a disproportionate effect on your business.
So if you're not competitive at grad level, the effects will be felt for long after they've stopped being graduates.
0 -
I'd agree with that. My son got his masters in engineering last summer and got a job paying in the mid-30s, he's the highest paid of his friends. I think he's good at his job and will be rewarded, he got a decent Christmas bonus having only been there 3 months and I would expect him to get a reasonable rise as it seems he's proving his worth.
1 -
-
I just find it interesting that there is so much dissatisfaction at being paid an above average salary to receive training.
0 -
TBF, I don't think it is ALL pensioners, and entitlement exists amongst people of all ages, usually most prevalent amongst those from fairly affluent backgrounds.
For all the talk of pensioners/boomers and the alleged benefits they enjoy (supposedly all at the expense of young people), 20% of pensioners do live in relative poverty, many have to contend with being old and the physical difficulties that brings, social isolation/loneliness, essentially becoming invisible to most of society etc. Yes, there will be many who live in wealth and good health, but as with all age groups, many will not.
I think a bit of balance may be required here!
0 -
-
That's very clearly the opposite of what he said.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
Pension incomes are higher than they've ever been versus working incomes and working age poverty has risen 58% over the last 10 years, so forgive me for thinking this govt has strongly favoured pensioners - all the more remarkable that Sunak gets booed for it.
As I read somewhere else, "The boomerocracy will eat its own children".
Absolutely nuts - they should be f*cking grateful. They won't have it so good again!
0 -
As long as you are away that the State pension is a very small part of a wealthy pensioner’s pension then fair enough.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You're fighting a losing battle, some pensioners in the South East are millionaires due to the houses they've lived in for 50 years increasing massively in value and some pensioners have gold plated final salary schemes ergo an entire generation is loaded and as they hate younger people they deserve lots of bad stuff happening to themor something like that.
0 -
What's most important is what is happening now. As I mentioned above.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
