UK falling behind rest of EU

[Render]

British wages falling faster than the rest of Europe: Pay drops by 3.2% in two years

• Only the Netherlands, Cyprus and Greece fared worse in 2010-11
  
• Figures show how far Britain is falling behind rest of Europe
  
• German private sector wages have gone up by 2.4 per cent
  
• The biggest improvements were in Bulgaria and Romania
  
• Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said UK is 'losing global race'
  

http://www.dailymail...-3-2-years.html

[Guest]

The hatchets are out for this shower of idiots.

Eastbourne is a little reminder that you can't abuse a whole country without consequences.

Br Cornelius

[freetoroam]

This started when they brought out the minimum wage. We have been shouting about the wage fiasco for years. Many companies who paid better wages, started paying 'just above the minimum wage" and thinking it was ok because they were above the legal requirement. NOT THE CASE!!

The minimum wage is great in countries were you do not pay high rents, council tax, overal tax on every day things, but here when the minimum wage came into force, we were already paying higher costs on everything else.

it is the companies to blame here for dropping the wages to meet the "minimum wage" pay, many would have paid double that wage, but no longer needed to because the law said they did not need to, as long as it was above the required figure, even be it by 5p.

[Frank Merton]

What you say about the imposition of minimum wage is puzzling. It is a "minimum," not a guide let alone a maximum. Most countries have minimum wage laws covering salaried employees, and most employers pay way above them. In general your wage is set by demand, not by some statute -- if there is great need for the work you do and it adds significant value to your product or service, you will make more.

Minimum wage laws regardless are helpful, if they are not set too high, to control certain situations where people get exploited.

[freetoroam]

What you say about the imposition of minimum wage is puzzling. It is a "minimum," not a guide let alone a maximum. Most countries have minimum wage laws covering salaried employees, and most employers pay way above them. In general your wage is set by demand, not by some statute -- if there is great need for the work you do and it adds significant value to your product or service, you will make more.

Minimum wage laws regardless are helpful, if they are not set too high, to control certain situations where people get exploited.

Many of the companies have taking this to their advantage.

Where a company would have paid say 8.00 an hour, when the minimum wage was brought in, new employees were put on 5.80 an hour instead. This happened a lot and many moaned about it, but because they were paying above the minimum wage, nothing could be said.

The minimum wage is very good for those who were being paid peanuts, but it backed fired for those getting employment with jobs which would have paid higher before, and there are far more jobs which got their wages cut for new employees than jobs which gained by the minimum wage.

The cost of living rose here and the minimum wage did not compete with that for many.

The minimum wage was really brought into force because many restaurant workers were getting paid low wages, but all the other jobs out there got affected by it, and it was legal for companies to do that.

[Frank Merton]

I would say what is legal is not necessarily good management; you get what you pay for, and that includes in worker loyalty and ability. It may be that a few employers are doing this to get a break while the new employee learns the ropes and then they will adjust. Otherwise employers who pay less than what people can get elsewhere are going to train people and then lose them.

It may be that the reduction in wages and the coming of minimum wages is a coincidence, with no particular causation. If times are deflationary, wages naturally drop and employers use whatever excuse is at hand.

[freetoroam]

I would say what is legal is not necessarily good management; you get what you pay for, and that includes in worker loyalty and ability. It may be that a few employers are doing this to get a break while the new employee learns the ropes and then they will adjust. Otherwise employers who pay less than what people can get elsewhere are going to train people and then lose them.

It may be that the reduction in wages and the coming of minimum wages is a coincidence, with no particular causation. If times are deflationary, wages naturally drop and employers use whatever excuse is at hand.

Were many of the companies began to struggle, this minimum wage was ideal for them.

Many did get adjusted once the employee was trained, but that only went up by a few pence an hour, still no where near what they would have received before.

But the main thing is it did affect many trained workers too, jobs were scarce in many places and people would take the job no matter if it meant taking a big pay cut.

We have a lot on benefits here, one reason is because they earn more on benefits than if they went back to work, and the low wages being paid in many sectors, although above or on the minimum wage, is still lower in comparison to the cost of living rises.

[Frank Merton]

Yea these things wash over time. Also, no one gets rich on salary; it stays hand-to-mouth all your life.

[Render]

UK 'fares badly in European health league table'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21654536

[Guest]

The UK has been run by a bunch of elitist public schoolboy spivs for the last 40years. There has been a revolving door between the Cabinet office and the square mile board rooms for decades. The consequence is a disfunctional unproductive economy with a wealth divide which leaves the majority in abject poverty.

If a nationally inclusive political party doesn't come along soon expect to witness a decade of riots and social disintegration.

That such a great nation should end up this way is a tragedy.

Br Cornelius

[Jackofalltrades]

The UK has been run by a bunch of elitist public schoolboy spivs for the last 40years. There has been a revolving door between the Cabinet office and the square mile board rooms for decades. The consequence is a disfunctional unproductive economy with a wealth divide which leaves the majority in abject poverty.

If a nationally inclusive political party doesn't come along soon expect to witness a decade of riots and social disintegration.

That such a great nation should end up this way is a tragedy.

Br Cornelius

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I personally think we are going to see a lot more riot's and social disintegration anyway, no matter what party is in power, wether they are a "nationally inclusive political party" or not.......

[cultanorak]

Get the capitalist pigs out of Westminster and have a proper socialist party running the country if there are any?

[stevewinn]

both these news pieces mean very little, its good headlines, but in real terms not much if anything as changed. its hardly shocking about a decrease in wages. when most companies put in a place a wage freeze for three years. so if you was getting paid £7.50 an hour in 2010 your still getting £7.50 an hour in 2013. its not actually a wage decrease. but when they factor in inflation/cost of living they calculate it as a wage decrease. comparing us to the rest of europe like europe is something to be compared to means nothing.

the same goes for health why compare us to europe our health service is better than most european countries just ask all their citizens who come here to take advantage of it. the NHS i wouldnt swap it for any other health service in the world. because the problems we face with health is down to the British culture, and not the NHS ability to treat people. and when you look at the statistics its not as shocking as the headline says, so what if in Italy spain they live one to three years longer, its as more to do with their culture/lifestyle. than their health services compared to the NHS.

Edited March 5, 2013 by stevewinn

[Frank Merton]

Get the capitalist pigs out of Westminster and have a proper socialist party running the country if there are any?

You know Vietnam got the capitalist pigs out over 40 years ago and went through 20 years of rule by a "proper socialist party." It didn't work too well and that party decided some "new thinking" was in order. Now we are aiming at a mixed form of socialism that has markets and is open to the world. It seems to be working a lot better, and, at the moment, since I travel extensively, I would say there is more socialist control in Britain than there is here.

[Frank Merton]

I find myself comment on British and American affairs more than I expected to; I guess that 'cause this is an English-language forum. So if I want to practice English I gotta.

I think austerity is the problem. When you raise taxes and cut spending you reduce economic growth, and this lowers revenue and increases expenses -- a rather vicious downward circle. I guess the old dogma about budget deficits being evil and inflation being evil have too firm a grip on many public leaders. Yes, budget deficits and inflation are evil, but budget surpluses and deflation are worse evils.

What I think Britain needs to do is to go on a public spending spree on needed (its easy to waste money here) infrastructure. This invests in the future, makes the economy more efficient, creates jobs, stimulates the economy and of course costs money, but if done right the cost is paid for out of the increased revenues from the growth it creates. Some public debt and some inflation are far less serious problems than deflation and austerity.

[TheLastLazyGun]

British wages are probably still the highest in the EU anyway.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Get the capitalist pigs out of Westminster and have a proper socialist party running the country if there are any?

The last time we had a socialist party running the country they emptied the Treasury and left us broke.

[TheLastLazyGun]

What I think Britain needs to do is to go on a public spending spree on needed

We can't. We don't have any money.

[Guest]

British wages are probably still the highest in the EU anyway.

Not even remotely true. The average British wage is about £26K which means that most people are earning considerably less.

The UK is a low wage economy and has been for a considerable time.

If you want to make that statement again your going to have to support it with evidence.

Br Cornelius

The last time we had a socialist party running the country they emptied the Treasury and left us broke.

Not true again, they were in surplus until the economy crashed due to a world recession.

I would not seek to defend the last Labour Government since they failed to address the fundamental systemic issues with the UK economy, but I cannot let a false statement go unchallenged.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 6, 2013 by Guest

[TheLastLazyGun]

Not even remotely true. The average British wage is about £26K which means that most people are earning considerably less.

The UK is a low wage economy and has been for a considerable time.

If you want to make that statement again your going to have to support it with evidence.

Britons have the highest take-home pay in Europe.

UK average net household income is put at £38,547, well ahead of the £31,767 in France, £25,601 in Italy, £23,398 in Spain and just £8,759 in Poland.

Read more: http://www.thisismon...l#ixzz2MrAojPUa

And the article provided in the opening post failed to mention that British take-home pay rose by above-inflation 4% between May 2011 and May 2012.

Families have seen their finances improve over the last year which has helped them to boost their savings despite the recession, according to a report

http://www.telegraph...-increases.html

Not true again, they were in surplus until the economy crashed due to a world recession.

The last Labour Government not only spent all the money in the Treasury but they carried on spending money we haven't got, giving us the huge debt we have today.

You need to take your head out of the sand and join the real world.

Edited March 7, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Frank Merton]

We can't. We don't have any money.

Of course you don't, that's why you have to borrow it. Cutting spending and raising taxes will just make the situation worse by making the deflationary forces stronger.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Of course you don't, that's why you have to borrow it.

That's exactly what Labour did to get us into debt in the first place.

Borrowing would only put us deeper into debt.

The Left keep wanting us to spend money we haven't got by borrowing it. They don't seem to realise that by borrowing it we have to eventually pay it back, leading us into bigger debt.

Edited March 7, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[Frank Merton]

Its what you spend the money on. Do it on quality infrastructure that make the economy more efficient, not on buying votes.

If the money is well spent, the expenditure will pay for itself in economic growth.

[Guest]

The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26,500 in the year to April 2012.

The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26,500 in the year to April 2012.

The figures have been published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its annual survey of hours and earnings.

There was a cut in the real value of pay, however, as inflation was higher during the same period, at 3.5%.

"

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-20442666

Exactly the figure I quoted.

This link is even more illustrative;

http://en.wikipedia....ly_average_wage

How did you find such radically different figures to the ones which are recognised as the standard ?

That article you pointed to paints a very interesting picture of British life - not a happy one

Br Cornelius

Edited March 7, 2013 by Guest

[itsnotoutthere]

Get the capitalist pigs out of Westminster and have a proper socialist party running the country if there are any?

:-* :D :D :lol: :lol: :w00t: :w00t: .................