Rachel Reeves lied on her CV was not an “Economist”

[Disappointedagain22]

AIBU - it’s OK to lie to get ahead

AINBU - it’s bad RReeves very Publicly lied about her prior work. We are right to feel annoyed by this lie.

saw this headline and am feeling really disappointed. Think Rachel Reeves needs to tell public exactly her job title.
She changed job title from Economist, to “Retail Banking”
An Economist at a Bank, is a clear and specific job, it’s a economic research position. A good experience for her current position.

”Retail Banking” - is not a job title … she could have been doing anything in a branch from Bank Teller, to Branch manager, or working in back office operations putting bank notes in the plastic bags or in HR.

That’s right.

And they wont hesitate to report you to MNHQ either.

They don’t understand business’: Corporate Britain cools on Labour

FT.

This isn't surprising

A different showing by business - more money for R&D, fewer zero hours contracts, lesser pay differentials between the top and the bottom, etc - might have kept your lot in power. Business failed every opportunity to police itself voluntarily. Labour understand ‘Business’ very well.

But, but, but, you can just borrow and print money and tax people to drive away net contributors and have businesses go to the wall. Or alternatively, shake the magic money tree. Who need business. The story of our times, or at least the last 25 years. You need incompetent moron on your list of achievements make it into government.

I disagree.

Workers’ rights reforms that will cost businesses up to £5bn a year and a Budget that raised the minimum wage and increased employers’ national insurance payments, for starters.

Tell me, where’s the growth?

If the price of growth is to keep workers poor and increase societal inequality to the point where a very few people own everything and have so much money that it becomes meaningless, we need a better model. It's all very well to go 'oh the poor employers'. but they could have avoided this.

Go on.

So your preference is for non-growth equality, premised on lower wealth for all, correct?

Did you also work as an economist in the BoE?
Do you have a degree in PPE and a masters in economics?

Well that’s how it goes isn’t it. Silence anyone not in the club?

People are still bitter then. Move on.

Workers’ rights reforms that will cost businesses up to £5bn a year and a Budget that raised the minimum wage and increased employers’ national insurance payments, for starters.

This. So businesses either cut salary costs to compensate for the higher NIC (presumably at the next round of pay reviews by giving no/smaller increases), raise prices (inflationary and hits the cost of living) or see their profits fall (reduces corporation tax revenue and could have a knock on effect on dividend payments which underpin pension schemes).

And, as I said earlier, the impact of higher for longer rates will reduce debt-financed expansion for companies (and consumer spending due to higher mortgage payments). Ditto for consumer and business confidence (both have fallen post the new government).

Doesn't feel pro-growth to me, just thinly-disguised tax rises.

I know. I know the industry. The mixing up is pretty standard MN.

That’s simply because the majority are from a non-finance, non-economics background, but pontificate as if they know what they are talking about.

They know who they are, we know who they are.

Not necessarily. But I'd like to be back in the days where pay differentials in companies weren't the orders of magnitude that they are now. I don't mind people being financially rewarded for work and/or innovation, but the pendulum has swung too far and there is no balance. If you create a society where social mobility is out of reach for the vast majority of people whilst the very few get ever richer and richer, that is a recipe for social unrest and ultimately for societal breakdown. We don't need another French Revolution, but there's going to be a breaking point.

Can anyone explain how any poster can stop you posting, or get you deleted if you don’t break a rule?
If you think posters are breaking rules and being insulting or intimidating, report them.

Well that is the socialist way. Equality, even if and especially if everyone is equally poor.

Quite.

Good thing we don't have a socialist government, then!

Did you also work as an economist in the BoE?
Do you have a degree in PPE and a masters in economics?

No one is disputing she has a PPE degree and worked at the BoE (in whatever capacity). But that's irrelevant to whether she should have put her role as economist when she worked in retail banking.

There's a lot of reaching about audit and compliance (both of which I've worked in) and neither would qualify me as an economist in any way. It's quite a specific role. My current role has a significant macroeconomic angle to it but it still doesn't make me an economist.

Presumably she wouldn't have chosen to amend it on LinkedIn if she had actually worked as an economist in that particular role. And no I'm not a Tory bot from HQ and I'll happily call out politicians on either side.

So, you would regulate then, yes? Cap comp etc yes?

Then, how do you square that with competition for talent globally? I am talking C-suite, the legal profession, material risk takers.

Or would you target those above with punitive taxation?

You are also assuming that life is egalitarian - it isn’t. People are not equal, in their aptitude, in their abilities, and their ambitions.

Social unrest may well come from other quarters btw - but that’s another discussion.

She declared herself an economist to burnish her credentials as Chancellor, lets be honest.

Compare and contrast with Christine Lagarde.

Witchcraft?

I'm not assuming life is egalitarian, and I'm not an economist so I have no solutions. I'm just pointing out that there need to be some controls. Trickle down economics doesn't work because there is no trickle down - there is trickle sideways into tax havens. The solution, if there is one, is going to have to be one that's internationally agreed and that's unlikely to happen any time soon. I'm fully aware of the problems - it's just that the capitalist supporters on here don't seem to be aware that their model is unsustainable in the long term.

And I'm fully aware that people have different talents, aptitudes etc. I'm not against people being substantially richer than others, not at all. But there has to be a limit somewhere because people are out there making more money in a year than a family could possibly spend in a lifetime, and money is just a matter of keeping score for people like that. Meanwhile there are people working hard in jobs that are essential to keeping business and infrastructure going, and yet they don't earn enough for a modest but comfortable and secure roof over their head and food on the table. That's ridiculous and I don't understand why people think that is perfectly fine.