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.

BIossomtoes
Perhaps we should question the OBR’s powers of prediction instead

Perhaps we should question why Rachel Reeves is handing the OBR more powers as well.

At least two posters on the thread are Dutch - is that who you mean?

Oh dear, you really don't get it do you 😅

The personal allowance now is a bit higher than it was in 2010, in real terms, but years of freezing it means it's not huge anymore like it was in 2012. It's not the reason the middle class are so punitively taxed either.

The real reason is that we're taking home a much smaller share of the wealth we create than we did 20-30 years ago. Take any set of financial statements from now and from the same company 30 years ago. Look at the ratio of wages to dividends then and look now. And look at the ratio of wages to profits. That's where the money has gone.

And as we're all earning less for the same jobs as we were 30 years ago, we're also paying less tax in real terms too. The only reason so many people are paying very little tax is that they are paid much less for the job than they would have been before.

In turn, more of our money is going to the super rich and they are using it to buy assets. That's why ordinary wages aren't enough to buy houses, because so much of the wealth we create is sloshing up into the hands of a few rich people who use it to buy assets.

Well, let’s fact check that by looking at Tescos accounts shall we?

In 1994 it turned over £8.6 billion, made profits of £435m, paid its staff £860 million and paid dividends of £152m. So staff costs were 10% of turnover, and dividends were 18% of staff costs. In round numbers, the staff got five times as much as the shareholders, and profits were half of staff costs.

In 2023 it turned over £66 billion, made profits of £1 billion, paid its staff £7.7 billion and paid dividends of £731 million. So staff costs are now nearly 12% of turnover and dividends were only 13% of staff costs. The same stats now are that the staff got 8 times as much as the shareholders, and profits were just one eighth of staff costs.

Now, it’s just a data point of one, but Tesco is probably as average as it’s gets when it comes to UK plc. But it looks like staff are doing considerably better than shareholders, and that staff costs as a multiple of profits has also increased substantially. So I’d be interested to see some stats to back up your claim…

I like how you cherry picked a business that was doing exceptionally well in 1994 and not so well now.

How about picking one where performance is a bit flatter?

Suggest a business that’s representative of the UK and I’ll check it. But I didn’t have time to actually cherry pick - I just looked at Tesco because it represents the UK. Sorry it doesn’t support your bias ;)

Actually the interesting thing with Tesco is that their salaries were godawful even in 1994. A typical ratio used to be 30-40% and nowadays will be more like 15-30%. Try a bank. Barclays or someone.

Well, that's low. As a Dutch person who has been living in the UK for 27 years and has made a life here, I'm entitled to an opinion on UK politics and economics. Honestly, Clav. I'm disappointed in you.

I misses this gem

As the other person in the reference, 28 years and counting

Bad faith actors, you say @Clavinova ?

If your job title is not “Economist” at the Bank, then you are NOT doing the job of an Economist.

Why is that confusing?

Well. My jobs in schools have had several titles. Head of Department, for example, Assistant Housemistress. Literacy coordinator. Gifted and Talented coordinator. At all times I was also a teacher, because that’s the background skill and knowledge base I was applying. I suspect it’s rather the same with Reeves at HBOS. Plus it was her job title at the BoE. As it still says in her LinkedIn.

So when you are delivering the pizza …

Teacher
Pizza Hut

As has been pointed out to you before your analogy is flawed. The jobs I had were in schools and required me to have teaching qualifications. They weren’t unskilled. Reeves’ job at HBOS required her to have the economics qualifications she has.
And again, she had the title at the BoE. It’s not possible you’ve missed this every time I (and other posters) have asked you to address your initial lie that she isn’t an economist.

So when you are delivering the pizza.....

Working class according to the LOTO?

Added to that time she was caught out plagiarising her book from Wikipedia (how dry and dull that work must have been), it doesn't exactly speak to her integrity. She seems incredibly boring but she'll probably be brought down by some kind of minor scandal in the future.

Your logic is poor. Now when are you going to ask MNHQ to change your thread title so it's not a lie?

Are the Dutch famous for lacking in humour? My post was clearly a joke and I didn't name you.

Tesco salaries were in line with the sector in ‘94. I know as I was offered, but declined, a place on their grad programme as I’d had a summer job on one of their delis :)

As for banking, it’s not exactly representative of the UK economy..! But even so, I’ve looked at Barclays - despite the rather rude nature of your request, And the story is similar. In ‘94 it made £2.3 billion, paid its staff £2.8 billion and paid dividends of 26p a share.

By 2023 it made £6.5 billion, the staff got £9.3 billion and paid a dividend of 8p per per share. So on the face of it the staff have done better (profits now 2/3rds of staff costs, down from 80%) and shareholders worse - down from 26p to 8p share. But, there have been two share splits since 1994 - even so, the staff have done better.

Now Barclays accounts are 500 pages long, so I’m not repeating the exercise again. But I think it’s fair to say that your claim that the reason people feel worse off is because all of the profits have gone to shareholders is wrong.

The real reason is that we are a nation in decline. We rose further and peaked higher than many… at one point a quarter of the world’s population was under British rule. But all economies rise and fall, and our story is being played out again in the US and Europe as their influence wanes, just later than ours did. Germany in particular, as a result of clinging on to manufacturing, is feeling the pain particularly acutely. The machinations at VW are a replay of British Leyland in the 70s and 80s. The rise of China, and now India, is irrefutable and unstoppable.

It was a piss poor attempt at humour Clav, and not worthy of you.

Clearly it wasn't me who posted bad faith actors.

I thought it was quite amusing.

Yet, you replied with the Dutch posters comment.

Anyone can claim to be an economist, it’s not a protected title. She’s certainly better placed than many to call herself an economist though The question is, is she a good economist? And if so, why move from the BofE to a HBOS 😂😂

Well, I was implying that Dutch posters are harmless - contrary to what the pp was implying about foreign posters.

100% not now, not ever.