Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Politics

Flip

Original poster

Standard of living and wages

19 replies

newwave · 30/03/2011 19:19

It was reported today that for the first time in decades the UK standard of living is going into reverse and wages have lost value.

What I find hideous is that the wages and bonuses at boardroom level are running ahead of inflation also a large number of cunts bankers have have large salary increases to avoid any government attack on their theft bonuses.

Is their anyone who does not find it totally unacepptable that those who caused and profited from the financial crash, those who were bailed out by the taxpayer, still have their fucking snouts deep into the trough whilst those who had who had nothing to do with the crash are made to pay the price.

OP posts:

LegoStuckinMyhoover · 30/03/2011 20:12

what like this? 'New Lloyds boss receives 'golden hello' worth £4.6m'

Maybe we should be doing this? The Dutch seem to have the right idea!

Niceguy2 · 30/03/2011 21:38

I don't mind any bank which has received a direct bailout from the UK govt being banned from paying out large bonuses.

But those who didn't should be still allowed to continue to determine their own pay. Now I know newwave, you'll argue the likes of HSBC/Barclays have profited indirectly but that's a bit like saying I should be punished for the fact my mortgage went down as a result of the BOE having to lower interest rates.

Niceguy2 · 30/03/2011 21:39

Kinda makes you wonder why Labour didn't make this a precondition of injecting money into the said banks?

Original poster

newwave · 30/03/2011 22:37

But those who didn't should be still allowed to continue to determine their own pay.

Maybe if everyone in the organisation received the same percentage pay rise but as I said the only ones getting over inflation rises are those at the top who need the extra money the least.

Kinda makes you wonder why Labour didn't make this a precondition of injecting money into the said banks?

Totally agree.

It would be nice if the greedy scumfilth our leaders lead by example for once.

OP posts:

Niceguy2 · 31/03/2011 09:48

Maybe if everyone in the organisation received the same percentage pay rise but as I said the only ones getting over inflation rises are those at the top who need the extra money the least.
In an ideal world yes....but I don't work in a bank and like many, I won't be getting a payrise this year. But you can bet your bottom dollar my CEO will be picking up a multimillion dollar bonus. No wonder he has a big grin every photo I see of him!

Fair? Perhaps not. Will it happen. You bet!

ttosca · 02/04/2011 15:19

Our real standard of living has pretty much remained stagnant or declined for decades. Since the concerted class warfare from the 80s onwards (attacks on unions, workers rights, wages, job security, etc), wages have stagnated, while the cost of living has increased.

This was done to keep increasing the rate of profit for Capitalists.

Our standard of living has only been able to keep up, until now, because consumers have run on credit. This same credit has kept the economy going, so consumers kept buying shit, and making the rich richer.

Unfortunately with Capitalism, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing and short-termism prevailed: You need to pay your workers at least as much money so they can afford to buy your shit and keep the economy going. Now that the credit bubble has burst, consumers are massively in debt, cannot borrow and more money, and have shit wages.

The economy is now truly fucked. They'll have to invent another scheme to increase consumer demand.

MrsWobble · 04/04/2011 16:57

ttosca - the one section of the economy where returns to labour have outstripped returns to capital is of course the banking industry. Not sure what this means or implies about economic theory but it is quite ironic I think.

Niceguy2 · 04/04/2011 22:27

They'll have to invent another scheme to increase consumer demand.

I sincerely hope not. That's the last thing we bloody need. Any artificial method of increasing demand will ultimately fail. The only question is when.

The best thing to do would be to steer our economy towards higher end manufacturing (eg. green technologies, high end computing, luxury items) and export those to the developing countries like China.

That's the only sustainable way for our economy to recover.

Unfortunately that sort of direction change will take a LONG time to bear fruit and given how short term our governments and companies are, I doubt it will happen.

I remember a few years ago, reading about (old) GM versus Toyota. One of the biggest reasons Toyota overtook GM as the biggest car manufacturer in the world was because Toyota had a ten year plan. GM looked one quarter ahead for the shareholders.

hissymissy · 06/04/2011 19:37

So, niceguy, would you approve of a return to the good old inequalities of the 1800s? Because that is what is happening, albeit slowly. The cost of living keeps on rising. The incomes of those on the bottom is not. The salaries of those at the top is still rising, at exponential rates.

Since the 1990s, due to the inflation of property prices, the actual level of income vs outgoings has dropped dramatically for those on the lowest levels of pay. The only thing that stopped real hardship for many workers was Tax Credits. The minimum wage has not kept up with the real cost of living, even in the "good" times.

The unions that fought for fair treatment and fair pay have had their influence and power restrained to the point that there is nothing the ordinary joe can do except shut up and put up. Yes, before those unions were formed, the majority of British workers (men women and children as young as 7) had to work up to 16 hours a day, for a pittance. That didn't change because of the government, it changed because of the oh-so reviled and hated unions.

If it keeps on like this, in a few years many people will be living in real poverty again, not just relative poverty.

Original poster

newwave · 06/04/2011 21:46

If it keeps on like this, in a few years many people will be living in real poverty again, not just relative poverty.

You do realise that this is the ultimate plan of this and any Tory government.

OP posts:

hissymissy · 08/04/2011 20:04

Yes, I do realise this, and that is why I hate them. And it takes a lot for me to say I hate someone.

Niceguy2 · 08/04/2011 21:25

Eh? Who was talking about inequalities?

I was saying that we should not try to [b]artificially[/b] stoke the economy back into action with short term measures. That we need to take a longer term view. That we need to invest in high end manufacturing because that's the ONLY way to create real wealth. If we were floating in oil or other natural resources, we could mine those but we don't have any really so we're stuck with manufacturing as our means of wealth creation.

The government has no money. Honestly it hasn't. All it can do is tax & borrow. We already have the highest tax rates in Europe and one of the most generous benefit systems. We've also borrowed excessively for three decades. Yet despite that, the gap between rich and poor continues to expand.

The last thing we need is the government borrowing even MORE money to spend on benefits, defence or international development. We need to invest in manufacturing industries, R&D and education. And if politicians were able to be honest and truly represent people then be up front enough to say "Yes, we're doing this now so in 10-20 years, you will reap the rewards".

AlpinePony · 09/04/2011 19:07

Newave, are you seriously suggesting that wage inequalities have come about since last may? Seriously? I'm stunned.

ttosca · 09/04/2011 19:44

Newave, are you seriously suggesting that wage inequalities have come about since last may? Seriously? I'm stunned.

No, he isn't.

Original poster

newwave · 09/04/2011 22:58

He!

OP posts:

Original poster

newwave · 09/04/2011 23:02

Newave, are you seriously suggesting that wage inequalities have come about since last may? Seriously? I'm stunned.

No. of course not. What I am suggsting is that the Tory governments policy will excelerate and exacerbate the problem.

Bear in mind that the value of the bottom 10% incomes is now going into reverse, this is not a mistake but government policy. The theft earnings in the boardrooms are outstripping inflation.

OP posts:

AlpinePony · 10/04/2011 07:11

But you do understand that the gap between rich and poor widened under the Labour government?

I totally agree that the gap is getting ridiculous - and I'm one of the ones who thought they were doing pretty well 10 years ago (and obviously I'd rather have more than less cash, who wouldn't!) - but I seriously think it's just mental to try and blame one government.

I read OP's post saying "Yes yes yes" even though I know they're a big ol' leftie - trouble is, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in.

Btw, if newwave "didn't sugest that the inequalities have come about since May, why did he say "If it keeps on like this, in a few years many people will be living in real poverty again, not just relative poverty.

You do realise that this is the ultimate plan of this and any Tory government." ?

If Labour were actually going to change anything they had 13 fucking years to do it.

Same old, same old.

AlpinePony · 10/04/2011 07:12

Sorry, was not OP's post I was "yes yes yes" to, but ttosca's.

ttosca · 11/04/2011 01:26

Btw, if newwave "didn't sugest that the inequalities have come about since May, why did he say "If it keeps on like this, in a few years many people will be living in real poverty again, not just relative poverty.

Your question doesn't make sense. It assumes that newwaves two positions are inconsistent when they're not.

Inequality increased greatly under New Labour. The Tories are continuing this policy in extremis. Therefore, 'if it keeps up like this, people will be living in real poverty again'.

There is nothing inconsistent there.

Are you trying to say that relative poverty can keep increasing while people are still kept out of poverty? Well, that's true theoretically, so long as people generally keep getting a share of the collective increased wealth in society, even if in unequal numbers. That doesn't seem to be happening, though. People's wages have remained stagnant in real terms since the 1980s. In general, all the goodies and stardard of life increase the 'common' people have enjoyed has come from credits and loans, much of it based on inflated house prices.

Flip