Webbo Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 Just now, Buce said: Has no effect on the poorest. More people in work. Don't tell me, zhc.
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: More people in work. Don't tell me, zhc. The zhc argument is bullshit. However if you’re poor, on benefits etc and get a job taking you off benefits, odds on you aren’t going into a job that financially puts you in a noticeably better position. The job market at the lower end is absolute dog balls. If I had to find another job, I know I could walk into a BDM or Sales Manager job, get paid £60k + bonuses + car blah blah blah. If you work at Poundland, put the hours in, work your bollocks off, in 3 or 4 years, you might make shift supervisor and from £7 an hour to £7.50. Wowsa. I feel for anyone on the breadline. It must be fvcking horrendous at the minute.
Webbo Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: The zhc argument is bullshit. However if you’re poor, on benefits etc and get a job taking you off benefits, odds on you aren’t going into a job that financially puts you in a noticeably better position. The job market at the lower end is absolute dog balls. If I had to find another job, I know I could walk into a BDM or Sales Manager job, get paid £60k + bonuses + car blah blah blah. If you work at Poundland, put the hours in, work your bollocks off, in 3 or 4 years, you might make shift supervisor and from £7 an hour to £7.50. Wowsa. I feel for anyone on the breadline. It must be fvcking horrendous at the minute. I'd guess being on the breadline isn't much fun at any time.
Guest Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 2 hours ago, Webbo said: If you look on your graph it shows 2% growth. As I said, it shows that the poor are becoming RELATIVELY poorer. Ie their income is increasing slowest.
Webbo Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 11 minutes ago, toddybad said: As I said, it shows that the poor are becoming RELATIVELY poorer. Ie their income is increasing slowest. But they arent getting poorer. If you're 2% better off but someone else is 5% better off, you're still better off. According to YOUR graph the top 10% are less well off, so by your reckoning the poor are even better off?
Strokes Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: As I said, it shows that the poor are becoming RELATIVELY poorer. Ie their income is increasing slowest. So the poor are getting richer but not as much as everyone else, is that right?
Innovindil Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 15 minutes ago, Strokes said: So the poor are getting richer but not as much as everyone else, is that right? Yeah but they're also getting poorer. Yeah, I'm confused too. One day it's the poor are getting poorer, the next the poorer are getting richer but less richer than the richer which is making them poorer in comparison to the richer. 1 2
Guest Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Strokes said: So the poor are getting richer but not as much as everyone else, is that right? The poor (but not the absolute poorest who don't appear on the graph) have gained 2% over multiple years which is pathetic. But, they've lost sure start centres, less money for the public services most used by the poor, more poor people are becoming homeless, there has been huge increases in food bank use etc. Universal credit is about to see people not receive their benefits for 6 weeks. It funny how you don't factor in the reductions in services used by the poor which are far more valuable that a 2% rise on extremely poor earnings. But then your beloved Tories are doing everything right aren't they? Edited 20 October 2017 by Guest
Strokes Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 15 minutes ago, toddybad said: The poor (but not the absolute poorest who don't appear on the graph) have gained 2% over multiple years which is pathetic. But, they've lost sure start centres, less money for the public services most used by the poor, more poor people are becoming homeless, there has been huge increases in food bank use etc. Universal credit is about to see people not receive their benefits for 6 weeks. It funny how you don't factor in the reductions in services used by the poor which are far more valuable that a 2% rise on extremely poor earnings. But then your beloved Tories are doing evening right aren't they? I dont know much about sure start centres but i did listen to an interview with Angela Rayner and she made a very passionate and strong pitch for their return. I'm not claiming the world is rosy under the conservatives, but i do think things have improved both on a personal level and society in general. I live on a council estate, ive seen at least 3 families go from nobody working to one or more working. I dont know them well enough to know their general happiness but to see them in the morning, clean and smart, instead of in the afternoon in pyjamas and slippers which seems represents a positive change to me. You seem to act like i dont criticise the conservatives but thats not true, i have and most likely will again. I'm not the one infatuated by an ideology and blinkered here, you might want to look a little closer to home.
Guest Posted 20 October 2017 Posted 20 October 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Strokes said: I dont know much about sure start centres but i did listen to an interview with Angela Rayner and she made a very passionate and strong pitch for their return. I'm not claiming the world is rosy under the conservatives, but i do think things have improved both on a personal level and society in general. I live on a council estate, ive seen at least 3 families go from nobody working to one or more working. I dont know them well enough to know their general happiness but to see them in the morning, clean and smart, instead of in the afternoon in pyjamas and slippers which seems represents a positive change to me. You seem to act like i dont criticise the conservatives but thats not true, i have and most likely will again. I'm not the one infatuated by an ideology and blinkered here, you might want to look a little closer to home. I'm not infatuated by corbynism, my experiences of the last 7 years make me ultra critical of this government, despite having voted for them in 2010. Things may have improved for you but i genuinely find it impossible to understand how things have improved for society when public services are being razed to the ground. And I'm really not going ott there. My experiences within the nhs tell me that the concerns you hear about are true, and at the top levels people are genuinely worried about how the NHS can cope. This is repeated across the public sector. Hard to know whether the people near you getting jobs is as a result of politics or something else tbh. Edited 20 October 2017 by Guest
Sampson Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, toddybad said: The poor (but not the absolute poorest who don't appear on the graph) have gained 2% over multiple years which is pathetic. But, they've lost sure start centres, less money for the public services most used by the poor, more poor people are becoming homeless, there has been huge increases in food bank use etc. Universal credit is about to see people not receive their benefits for 6 weeks. It funny how you don't factor in the reductions in services used by the poor which are far more valuable that a 2% rise on extremely poor earnings. But then your beloved Tories are doing everything right aren't they? It's not pathetic. As the poor's wages increase, the more they spend at the supermarket, the more demand for products go up ergo the more supermarkets either have to pay supplier and prices go up and inflation goes up or the more the suppliers and supermarkets have to invest in their infrastructure to increase supply (but this takes time). Your lowest end is always going to stay at a similar level of real wages to an extent in the short-term though, that's how supply and demand works, because the more spending power people have, the more they want to spend on items and the more demand goes up and therefore prices must go up to meet that demand before companies can invest in creating more supply - because inflation happens as a result of increased spending and the minimum wage laws should go up as a result of inflation - you want the wages of the majority of your population to grow at a steady and predictable rate so companies have time to invest in infrastructure so they can increase their supply to match the extra demand created by the extra spending power meaning they don't have to put prices up to meet their demand If they can match it with increased supply. If companies don't have time to do this because the spending power of the public goes up too quickly then they can only respond to increased demand by putting prices up leading to inflation. 2% is a long way from a "pathetic" rise in a short time - it's a very good one and you don't want a huge rise of like 15% or something because that hugely increased the spending power in the Economy in the short-term can lead to hyper-inflation. Edited 21 October 2017 by Sampson 1
Guest MattP Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 http://thetimes.co.uk/article/4007a060-b5d7-11e7-a7ed-96e3d3dae681 More leeway for the Chancellor but I do hope he doesn't bow to pressure to start spending money we don't have.
Guest Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 7 hours ago, Sampson said: It's not pathetic. As the poor's wages increase, the more they spend at the supermarket, the more demand for products go up ergo the more supermarkets either have to pay supplier and prices go up and inflation goes up or the more the suppliers and supermarkets have to invest in their infrastructure to increase supply (but this takes time). Your lowest end is always going to stay at a similar level of real wages to an extent in the short-term though, that's how supply and demand works, because the more spending power people have, the more they want to spend on items and the more demand goes up and therefore prices must go up to meet that demand before companies can invest in creating more supply - because inflation happens as a result of increased spending and the minimum wage laws should go up as a result of inflation - you want the wages of the majority of your population to grow at a steady and predictable rate so companies have time to invest in infrastructure so they can increase their supply to match the extra demand created by the extra spending power meaning they don't have to put prices up to meet their demand If they can match it with increased supply. If companies don't have time to do this because the spending power of the public goes up too quickly then they can only respond to increased demand by putting prices up leading to inflation. 2% is a long way from a "pathetic" rise in a short time - it's a very good one and you don't want a huge rise of like 15% or something because that hugely increased the spending power in the Economy in the short-term can lead to hyper-inflation. It's 2% over 7 years. That is most definitely pathetic.
Strokes Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 26 minutes ago, toddybad said: It's 2% over 7 years. That is most definitely pathetic. Actually its quite impressive, considering we are told how bad Austerity is. Anyone can manage wage wage rises whilst spending more and more every year but to do it whilst reducing and reining things in, well thats a different thing all together.
Guest Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 36 minutes ago, Strokes said: Actually its quite impressive, considering we are told how bad Austerity is. Anyone can manage wage wage rises whilst spending more and more every year but to do it whilst reducing and reining things in, well thats a different thing all together. Income growth has been its slowest for something like 210 years. Stop kidding yourself.
Guest Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 37 minutes ago, Strokes said: Actually its quite impressive, considering we are told how bad Austerity is. Anyone can manage wage wage rises whilst spending more and more every year but to do it whilst reducing and reining things in, well thats a different thing all together. And let's not forget that incomes are now falling in real terms.
Strokes Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Income growth has been its slowest for something like 210 years. Stop kidding yourself. The national debt level is the highest its ever been, spending is being cut and wages are still rising and the economy is still growing. I dont think i will ever understand why you think thats a crisis.
Webbo Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: And let's not forget that incomes are now falling in real terms. Haven't we had pages of discussion proving that wrong?
Webbo Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 You have to remember that we had 3 or 4 months of deflation a couple of years back which helps the figures and if it wasn't for the spike in inflation caused by the brexit vote wages would be in front of inflation now.
Guest Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 2 hours ago, Webbo said: Haven't we had pages of discussion proving that wrong? No, you've been looking over the whole period of Tory rule. Wages are rising for the first few years. More recently, wages have been falling for the longest sustained period for what I think is 210+ years.
Guest Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/aa299754-3ae0-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23 Presumably that infamously left wing FT is just being this up.....?
Innovindil Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/aa299754-3ae0-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23 Presumably that infamously left wing FT is just being this up.....? Total pay (including bonuses) rose slightly faster than inflation. Depends on what you're looking at I guess. Why we wouldn't include bonuses, I don't understand.
Guest Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Total pay (including bonuses) rose slightly faster than inflation. Depends on what you're looking at I guess. Why we wouldn't include bonuses, I don't understand. Look, whether it's gone up, down, sideways or to the ****ing moon, wage growth this decade is the worst in over 200 years. How hard is it to admit that isn't very impressive? Jesus....
Webbo Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Look, whether it's gone up, down, sideways or to the ****ing moon, wage growth this decade is the worst in over 200 years. How hard is it to admit that isn't very impressive? Jesus.... No one's saying its impressive but we're not going backwards. You've posted a graph to prove we're getting poorer that showed we weren't and you've posted an article in the FT that's done the same. How hard is it to admit you were wrong?
Innovindil Posted 21 October 2017 Posted 21 October 2017 18 minutes ago, toddybad said: Look, whether it's gone up, down, sideways or to the ****ing moon, wage growth this decade is the worst in over 200 years. How hard is it to admit that isn't very impressive? Jesus.... It isn't very impressive. That doesn't mean I need to believe outright lies about incomes falling. In the end, some might be, but to generalise INCOMES FALLING! COUNTRY DOOMED! CAN'T FEED OUR CHILDREN! is nonsense of the highest order. My wages haven't fallen, I'm better off than I've ever been, even with self inflicted inflation, you keep trying to get me to side with you that things aren't impressive? It depends where you're looking, at the minute, I'm on the highest income I've ever been on, coupled with the highest sense of job security I've ever had since we literally have back orders for the next 2 years. I couldn't care less whether the bottom 5% are earning 2% more, 50% more or 50% less. It doesn't affect me one bit, and certainly won't affect the way my vote goes.
Recommended Posts