Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

Couldn't put it better Alf. I wonder who the landlords of private housing vote for?

I would have thought it would be the party that throw benefits at people meaning they can charge more rent.

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

Why does anybody care what others are earning as long as the money isn't coming out of their pocket?

 

While I'm sure some do get jealous, it's not just that.... There's a desire for justice and fair esteem, and there are expectations for reasonable living standards.

 

Are you really saying that, if you and another bloke were hired to work on a project, you'd be quite happy for him to be offered twice as much pay as you for identical work?

 

My work is seriously undervalued (partly my fault, partly just the structure of the industry). As I'm not a very materialistic person, that doesn't bother me, provided we've enough for the things that matter. Likewise, it doesn't bother me that people I used to work with earn twice as much as me simply by having stayed put, been decent at their jobs and earned a couple of promotions. That's life! It does bother me, though, if people try to force me to accept rates below market value ("what others are earning") - and it certainly bothers me if top executives make ever more megabucks out of my professional labour while reducing my family's living standards....and we're not as badly off as many working people who now find themselves struggling to pay the bills, to afford a bit of fun or to buy things for their kids, while watching senior management or shareholders waltz off with millions. Resenting that isn't just jealousy, it's a recognition of injustice!

 

When companies tell workers that they have to accept pay freezes or pay cuts because the economy is tight, while handing out massive increases to executives, and workers object.....that's not jealousy, it's a recognition of injustice.

 

When the govt tells the low-paid or unemployed that, due to the deficit, they must accept cuts to tax credits or public services, but tells those earning £150k or £1m that they can have a tax cut, and people object....that's not jealousy, it's a recognition of injustice.

 

We are not "all in this together" - and please don't claim that it's just market forces. It's also a culture peculiar to the Anglo-American, neo-liberal version of capitalism. The gap between rich and poor is already much higher here than in most developed countries. That gap is much smaller in Germany, which has a more successful economy and society on just about any indicator you could quote. Yet the Tory government is allowing most people to get poorer, while helping a few to get even richer. Although modern political parties are complex creatures that have to build broad support, ultimately the Tories represent the interests of capital (near-synonym: wealth).

  • Like 3
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

If I did accept that this was important, which I don't, I feel I must point out that the reported rise is since the year 2000 where Labour were in power for 10 of those years. 10 years where Labour increased the gap between rich and poor and did nothing to reduce that gap, but I don't suppose that counts as that was all Blair's fault and Milliband and Balls weren't involved at all?

 

 

Directors' earnings have risen 278% in 14 years while average wages have gone up by 48%

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)
Private wealth and public squalor, take from the poor and give to the rich..... Same old Tories! Kick the fvckers out!

 

Certainly seems to be a healthy desire to oust the Tories, however their also appears to be just as much desire to make sure we don't have another Labour government looking at the latest polls.

 

Ed is now openly chasing a 35% vote to form a government and relying on his party holding enough seats in Scotland to try and scrape a majority against what appears to be a widely hated Tory government.

 

Both parties could be dead in 50 years, their voters are continually deserting them, membership falls every year, I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever see a majority again from either.

 

The taxpayer is making up the shortfall in wages of low paid, part time and zero contract  workers in order that they receive a living income. But while Cameron and co. put out the 'workers and shirkers' line fed through the media some of the public will not see it any other way.

I'll shut up now. My first rant for a fortnight I think I have held off well. :)

 

This is just unbelievable. I don't know how you can write this with a straight face.

 

You are part of the problem Ken, you are just as bad as any private landlord, crooked banker or tax exlie, you have openly used a government loophole to take money you aren't entitled to now to go on the piss all day, to take in beer festivals and have nice meals in fancy restaurants whilst others of the same age as you struggle pushing supermarket trolleys to earn their keep.

 

Taking money out the public pot by unethical means is wrong whether you are at the top or bottom, even more so in days like this where people are going to food banks etc.

 

We are not "all in this together" - and please don't claim that it's just market forces. It's also a culture peculiar to the Anglo-American, neo-liberal version of capitalism. The gap between rich and poor is already much higher here than in most developed countries. That gap is much smaller in Germany, which has a more successful economy and society on just about any indicator you could quote. Yet the Tory government is allowing most people to get poorer, while helping a few to get even richer. Although modern political parties are complex creatures that have to build broad support, ultimately the Tories represent the interests of capital (near-synonym: wealth).

 

The last Labour office oversaw the biggest rise in the gap between rich and poor in that space of time in our history.

 

Why when Labour oversee this do people seem to completely ignore it? For what's it's worth I don't think it's something any government would be able to stop as the rich would just up and leave if you start to 'redistribute their wealth'. (even more so while we ae in the EU).

 

I suppose you could do it if you just made everybody very poor. Sadly I actually think that wouldn't bother some.

Edited by MattP
MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted (edited)

Who is being offered twice as much pay for "identical work" Alf? You can't seriously be suggesting that being the director of one of the biggest global companies in the world is in any way comparable to being an average employee? Shows an enormous amount of ignorance if you are.

Edited by MooseBreath
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

Matt the retirement age for men and women are being brought in line with each other. Because women are allowed to retire at 60 by law for equality purposes the law was changed to allow men to take pension credits. No law is broken it is legal and there is no loophole. If I was on JSA I would be receiving the same money as I have contributed the required amount for over 45 years. i would very likely still be searching for work. I now have two years to go to retirement. It is highly unlikely that any company would be willing to train me in that time. I do not live a life of luxuary. i do not have Sky TV the latest Iphone games consule. I do not smoke or drive. I do not have a family to support so I can live fairly cheaply. I do not have roast beef and yorkshire pudding every Sunday. I buy from the bargin counter at the supermarket. I save money in this way so I have enough for an extra pint now and again.

 

As for wages, as said before the majority of people claiming benefit are low paid workers. Benefits are there as a safety net and always have been since 1948. The less  a person earns the more they are entitled to by law. So it is fair to say the more they are paid the less they will claim thus saving money for the welfare system. While people are struggling they will fall behind with rent mortgage and other household bills and therefore be in danger of losing their homes. The taxpayer will then have to pick up the bill when they are housed in B&B much delight to the owners as they will be guaranteed a regular income.

 

As I said I do not live a life of luxuary. I do not go out until mid afternoon and only have a couple of drinks. At the beer fest as a CAMRA member it was free entry and I bought £10 of tokens then came home. Consession train fair for being over 60 not for being out of work. I have a Railcard which is available to anyone over 60 working or not as are student Railcards.

I am not a skiver and never have been. Because of a condition I was born with I am unable to do heavy physical work that may have an affect on my health. So what do you suggest I take a job pushing trolleys and then drop dead in 6 months time? No thank you. I want to see City see out the year in the Preniership. If I was already in a job I would see it out for a couple more years. I do volunteer work and have my name down for some bar work. I doubt I will get it as there are 4 or 5 other applicants who no doubt  have experience. i am willing to work in a charity shop or light part time work but I am not required to do so by law. It is my choice to try and manage on a little less than a low paid job would bring in. My health matters more to me than anything else and when you are my age you will agree.

  • Like 1
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wish I was good with words and shit like Alf.

 

Same. Has a superb way of eloquently putting his points across.

 

I'm considering deleting my last post and just Copy Alfs.

 

Who did write that for you anyway? It's a completely different style to anything you have ever written on here before.

Edited by MattP
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

Same. Has a superb way of eloquently putting his points across.

 

 

Who did write that for you anyway? It's a completely different style to anything you have ever written on here before.

Just the usual rant. I have done it before. wrote long pieces then deleted. makes me feel better. Anyway its 2.30 need to do some shopping for my £1 meal from Iceland :) Splashing out today.

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

Certainly seems to be a healthy desire to oust the Tories, however their also appears to be just as much desire to make sure we don't have another Labour government looking at the latest polls.

 

Ed is now openly chasing a 35% vote to form a government and relying on his party holding enough seats in Scotland to try and scrape a majority against what appears to be a widely hated Tory government.

 

Both parties could be dead in 50 years, their voters are continually deserting them, membership falls every year, I'm starting to wonder if we'll ever see a majority again from either.

 

 

 

The last Labour office oversaw the biggest rise in the gap between rich and poor in that space of time in our history.

 

Why when Labour oversee this do people seem to completely ignore it? For what's it's worth I don't think it's something any government would be able to stop as the rich would just up and leave if you start to 'redistribute their wealth'. (even more so while we ae in the EU).

 

 

Completely agree with your first 3 lines, Matt. Mind you, if UKIP keep taking proportionately more votes from the Tories than from Labour, as they did at the byelections and are set to do in Rochester according to your polling data, Ed could win an overall majority with 32% of the vote, never mind 35%. That would be quite amusing, in part, but also a pretty poor mandate and a democratic outrage. Long way to go yet, though. UKIP could either surge further or implode, Labour could get its act together or Ed could get badly duffed up by the media etc. However, even allowing for UKIP ratings to fall when people are choosing a government rather than sending a message, they could already be on for 10-12 seats. That would probably only matter if the Tories were the biggest party in a hung parliament, though, as Labour would surely just ignore them and form a minority government or a coalition with the Lib Dems, Ulster Unionists or even the SNP?

 

While you're right that the incomes of higher earners rose by much more than middle/most incomes while Labour was in office, the bottom 10% or so also did very well, as I recall, particularly the working poor, due to the expansion of tax credits, childcare provision etc. Haven't got time to look for stats just now. From a left perspective, they could certainly be criticised for allowing such a surge in inequality (excluding the working poor). The Blairites would doubtless say that they needed to accept that to keep the support of an election-winning majority, so they couldn't launch into some massive wealth redistribution exercise, even if they'd wanted to (which they didn't - remember Mandelson being "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"?).

 

The context is a bit different now, though. Until 2008, living standards were rising almost continuously for almost everyone, even if the super-rich gained most. Since the financial crash and throughout the coalition government, through austerity real incomes have been falling continuously for most people and public services have been getting cut instead of expanded. So big pay rises for top earners - supplemented with tax cuts - look a lot more outrageous than pre-2008.

 

I'm amazed at how easily you accept the emotional blackmail and lack of patriotism of the rich, if you believe they'd emigrate if they didn't get even more megabucks. If workers were demanding massive pay rises and threatening to leave the country if they didn't get them, you'd be less forgiving, I think! This alleged attitude of top earners is a direct mirror image of the 1970s trade unions holding the country to ransom - and you rightly criticise them! Even so, I'm dubious. Top pay and inequality are much lower in Germany (though rising), yet we don't see all the top German executives moving to London and the German economy falling apart....

 

Who is being offered twice as much pay for "identical work" Alf? You can't seriously be suggesting that being the director of one of the biggest global companies in the world is in any way comparable to being an average employee? Shows an enormous amount of ignorance if you are.

 

The "twice as much pay" example was hypothetical, Moose. I was imagining 2 painters & decorators to question Webbo's implication that people shouldn't mind what others are paid so long as the money doesn't come out of their own pocket - and FoxesAreBlue's claim that it's all about jealousy. I was arguing that justice, professional esteem and the expectation of reasonable living standards are other motives to care about other people's pay.

 

No, I'm not questioning that top executives take on a lot more responsibility and often stress than average employees, and need much better skills/judgment. It's quite right that people should be paid significantly more for doing work that demands high levels of skill, responsibility, stress etc. Similarly, a teacher deserves more than a clerk, a soldier more than a shop assistant etc. However, I see no reason why top execs should earn 120 times more than the average employee, compared to 47 times more in 2000.

 

I wish I was good with words and shit like Alf.

 

Thanks for all the flattery, sincere or tongue in cheek.... Words are my job, (bull)shit my vocation, the only 2 fields in which I have any skill whatsoever !  :thumbup::D  

  • Like 3
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)

Absolutely not a cat in hell's chance of a coalition between the SNP and the Labour party now. Probably more hatred between those two than any other two in British politics now post Scot ref, I know a few up north now and have read enough on Twitter from the Yes camp to see that a lot view voting Labour as traitorous as voting for the Tories now up there.

 

Here's the odds here, Labour/SNP coalition is even longer odds than a Labour/Conservative coalition lol

 

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government

 

I'm personally on a Con/Lib coalaition again at 10/1 and it's into as low as 3/1 now, that to me appears the only certainty if they garner enough seats between them.

 

The Bottom 10% might have done well under Labour but it appears clear now we were just borrowing to do it, using the good years to raise borrowing even more, families like my relatives were bringing in 50k a year in joint incomes and voting Laour because of the lucrative tax credits they were offering. It was like a lottery winner winning £8million and then using it to borrow another £15million to share the wealth without thinking about paying it back.

 

I think at some point now we are all going to have to realise hard times could be on the way for everyone, you have people moaning about wages and cuts now and we are still borrowing more than we are creating in terms of public spending. I can't imagine what's it's going to be like when we actually do having to start to cut and pay off our debts.

Edited by MattP
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

The "twice as much pay" example was hypothetical, Moose. I was imagining 2 painters & decorators to question Webbo's implication that people shouldn't mind what others are paid so long as the money doesn't come out of their own pocket - and FoxesAreBlue's claim that it's all about jealousy. I was arguing that justice, professional esteem and the expectation of reasonable living standards are other motives to care about other people's pay.

 

 

If I was working on a firm and the other bloke was doing more/better work than me I wouldn't have a problem with it. As that's highly unlikely it's more likely I want to know why the man who was doing less/ a worse job than me was on the same money. If my money wasn't upped I'd be looking for another job.

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

 

The Bottom 10% might have done well under Labour but it appears clear now we were just borrowing to do it, using the good years to raise borrowing even more, families like my relatives were bringing in 50k a year in joint incomes and voting Laour because of the lucrative tax credits they were offering. It was like a lottery winner winning £8million and then using it to borrow another £15million to share the wealth without thinking about paying it back.

 

I think at some point now we are all going to have to realise hard times could be on the way for everyone, you have people moaning about wages and cuts now and we are still borrowing more than we are creating in terms of public spending. I can't imagine what's it's going to be like when we actually do having to start to cut and pay off our debts.

 

Pretty good read here showing just how chaotic next year's negotiations could become.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/2015-general-election-multi-party-coalition-ukip-snp

 

We certainly shouldn't have been consistently running a deficit during the 1997-2007 boom years, I agree with you there (though I'd have increased tax take, whereas you'd have cut spending, I expect). That said, the same applies to the 92-97 Major government, when the deficit was higher than under Blair/Brown 97-07. Mind you, what was "a little inadvisable" at the time suddenly looks a whole lot worse with hindsight when the biggest global financial crash for 80 years descends on you. 75% of the deficit was caused purely by the financial crash. Here's the graph of the deficit since 1980 that I boringly post every time this is mentioned: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

 

There are all sorts of debates to be had over what sort of economy the UK can aspire to in the coming decades - and how fast the deficit needs to come down is open to debate (neither of us is probably qualified to answer that). It certainly must come down, though, as we can't just keep on adding to the debt - and to the debt interest, thereby severely limiting our opportunities for productive public investment/spending and leaving ourselves vulnerable to interest rate hikes and downgraded credit ratings. You might be right that long-term hard times might be around the corner if we don't find ways of addressing this. How to cut the deficit is quite another argument - and a very political one (More tax or less spending? Tax who? Cut which spending? etc.). Whether the actual debt then needs to be cut is a separate issue. Up to a point it might be viable to remain in debt, so long as the debt wasn't increasing; debt usually even falls in real terms through inflation.

 

Interesting Kellner article (fancy you quoting the Grauniad!). It certainly could get messy. I suspect that he's significantly over-estimating how many seats the SNP might win (26 seats is long odds with Oddschecker), but after the byelections I'm now thinking that UKIP could easily take 10 seats or more, mainly (but not entirely) off the Tories in the SE/East. His central point that there's the possibility of serious political instability and/or cynical deals after the election is spot on, though.

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

If I was working on a firm and the other bloke was doing more/better work than me I wouldn't have a problem with it. As that's highly unlikely it's more likely I want to know why the man who was doing less/ a worse job than me was on the same money. If my money wasn't upped I'd be looking for another job.

 

Supports my point that there are valid reasons, other than jealousy, for taking an interest in other people's pay. It's only natural to want to feel that you've been treated fairly vis-a-vis others. You don't have to be either jealous or materialistic to want that.

I'd be the same.

  • Like 1
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

Supports my point that there are valid reasons, other than jealousy, for taking an interest in other people's pay. It's only natural to want to feel that you've been treated fairly vis-a-vis others. You don't have to be either jealous or materialistic to want that.

I'd be the same.

The difference is I wouldn't blame the govt, I'd take responsibility for my own life.

MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted

However, I see no reason why top execs should earn 120 times more than the average employee, compared to 47 times more in 2000.

Lots of explanations. The increases stated relate mostly to share incentives, actual pay for directors only increased by 2.5% which I reckon is probably in line with what most average to above average earners have experienced in the last year. Share incentives are more common now than they were in 2000. In 2000 we were at the height of the tech boom when ftse-100 earnings were considerably lower than they are now. Makes sense that increased usage of share incentives should create large paper pay increases for directors in 2014, when the index has been touching all time record highs. Also by necessity companies that have recently entered the ftse 100 will have recently undergone significant growth, making those share incentives worth that much more.

Looking at the directors of such a small amount of companies really is useless for comparing against the average employee. I'd be interested to see wage growth in percentage terms of all those earning above say £80k, against lower earners, but even then, you surely have to appreciate that those with the necessary skills and motivation to become wealthy in the first place, are likely to be ahead of the curve when it comes to taking advantage of improving economic conditions.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...