UK jobless rate falls to five-year low, but real wages shrink

The UK unemployment rate has hits new five-year low.

But average earnings only grow by 0.7% -- well behind inflation -- partly due to bonus effect



Jeremy Cook, chief economist at the currency company, World First, is concerned to see that wage growth has slumped, even as employment increased strongly:

That means interest rates won't rise for another year, Cook suggests:

“Wage growth has fallen to 0.7%, vs 1.2% expected, and this is still a major cause for concern. As a result I am still expecting the Bank of England to hold policy right through into the second quarter of 2015, mainly courtesy of the lack of real wage increases.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/jun/11/uk-unemployment-real-wages-uk-world-bank-live

So basically the Government will be crowing that more people are employed, while in reality the state is still having to pay them because they are paid such low wages they have to claim benefit. Such is the myth of the 'Recovery' built on the backs of the low paid.

Waiting to see how this will be announced in HOC, probably as a 'big step forward'.   

Sassy wrote:The UK unemployment rate has hits new five-year low.

But average earnings only grow by 0.7% -- well behind inflation -- partly due to bonus effect



Jeremy Cook, chief economist at the currency company, World First, is concerned to see that wage growth has slumped, even as employment increased strongly:

That means interest rates won't rise for another year, Cook suggests:

   “Wage growth has fallen to 0.7%, vs 1.2% expected, and this is still a major cause for concern. As a result I am still expecting the Bank of England to hold policy right through into the second quarter of 2015, mainly courtesy of the lack of real wage increases.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/jun/11/uk-unemployment-real-wages-uk-world-bank-live

So basically the Government will be crowing that more people are employed, while in reality the state is still having to pay them because they are paid such low wages they have to claim benefit.   Such is the myth of the 'Recovery' built on the backs of the low paid.

That is one big assumption that the state is still paying for them when as seen those claiming Job seekers alone decreased by 27,000. Also it is still wage growth, so again you are going off a very big assumption those recently employed or employed are still in of need benefits, I have seen no evidence for that.
Also the number of people employed in public sector (5.4m) has fallen by 280,000 in last year. Number employed in private sector up 1m to 25.1m.

Sigh!   Of course Job Seekers will drop, Working Family Credit will go up! Thats hidden, all part of the cunning plan to make it look good.

The low paid aren't part of Job Seekers.

Sassy wrote:Sigh!   Of course Job Seekers with drop, Working Family Credit will go up!

And of course where is your evidence for your huge assumption?

I have shown less people on benefits and more people employed in the private sector and less now in the public sector, thus the recovery is working, slowly but working

FGS! When people are on low pay they get Working Tax Credit, or didn't you know that, there is no assumption.

Sassy wrote:FGS!   When people are on low pay they get Working Tax Credit, or didn't you know that, there is no assumption.

So the answer is no then, you do not have anything to back your assumption

It does not even say they are all on low pay either, just wage growth is not as high as expected, there is a difference you know and that a is a general view, thus how you can conclude from that is absurd.

Don't start your clever dick routine with me, you are wrong, the low paid get working tax credits, we now have more low paid than ever before and more people on tax credits. I have things to do, I suggest you inform yourself.

what are working tax credits? is it like part dole for low paid?   

They're counting people on job creation schemes, people on zero hours contracts, people who are underemployed on part time work because they can't get anything else as all being employed.
They are but it doesn't tell the true story of how employment in this country has changed in last few years under this lot. They want us to be like China and India so that we can compete with them. Well that's how we may well end up.

Got to go for now.

Sassy wrote:Don't start your clever dick routine with me, you are wrong, the low paid get working tax credits, we now have more low paid than ever before and more people on tax credits.   I have things to do, I suggest you inform yourself.

Not starting anything, I am rubbishing your claim, you are going off today's stats and drawing your own conclusion without any details on those claiming benefits released, except the number of those not claiming Job seekers anymore which is 27,000 less, which actually shows a decrease in people on benefits.
So we have an average wage growth, which is very broad to say the least, without details on who has gained what in wage increase, so you are speculating very badly.

Seriously can you debate anyone without getting all antsy if they disagree with you?

@didge
You know sassy and Irn are right though    Particularly Irn they want to reduce the lower wage relative to inflation, that way people that are not good maths (low paid) don't notice it straight away as they are still getting a pay rise but everything else is gong up a faster rate.
that is not unique to England the Liberal party (RW) here openly has it as a policy   .. but mind you the Labor party is openly formed and largely funded by workers unions    So everyone is pretty clear about which side of the fence they are on.

this has been practiced in the USA for god knows how long   

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
You know sassy and Irn are right though    Particularly Irn they want to reduce the lower wage relative to inflation, that way people that are not good maths (low paid) don't notice it straight away as they are still getting a pay rise but everything else is gong up a faster rate.
that is not unique to England the Liberal party (RW) here openly has it as a policy   .. but mind you the Labor party is openly formed and largely funded by workers unions    So everyone is pretty clear about which side of the fence they are on.

this has been practiced in the USA for god knows how long   

No I disagree Veya, because as stated before people can live very comfortably on lower wages without difficulties because they are good with their money Veya, you agree with them due o your political views where here I disagree, more to do with my own experience growing up. Many people are also in debt, through poor money management, where many do not even seek advice, so it is not a clear cut picture as is being portrayed as to how the state of money people are on affects them, when as seen we know very well other people manage well, which cannot be ignored, So yes there are still problems, but you cannot look at something so very much black and white


Do not get me wrong I would like to see better wages all round, but the fact is the Uk has to compete with the rest of the world and to do so many companies have to keep wages to a certain minimum to trade here, otherwise it is not viable, because companies if forced to pay to high will have to trade from elsewhere, mainly within the EU where labour is cheaper in some nations, which some companies do already. In fact, many has sites here and in the EU, what you have to do and the EU has to do is address this balance within the EU itself on wages. As I say much needs to be done but it is not clear cut or even easy to resolve without having counter affects happen, which could make matters worse within the job market as seen if we lost some industries. So people would be better paid, but less people would be employed again.

Didge,have to agree 100% with that.

Didge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Don't start your clever dick routine with me, you are wrong, the low paid get working tax credits, we now have more low paid than ever before and more people on tax credits.   I have things to do, I suggest you inform yourself.

Not starting anything, I am rubbishing your claim, you are going off today's stats and drawing your own conclusion without any details on those claiming benefits released, except the number of those not claiming Job seekers anymore which is 27,000 less, which actually shows a decrease in people on benefits.
So we have an average wage growth, which is very broad to say the least, without details on who has gained what in wage increase, so you are speculating very badly.

Seriously can you debate anyone without getting all antsy if they disagree with you?

There is a reason for not stating the number of people claiming working tax credits.   I think you will find they don't publish the number, on purpose. And now I'm sure you will go into your routine of how your parents lived on nothing and everyone can live happily on nothing even though rent, rates, food, gas, electricity and water take far higher percentage of income than they ever did. Ah well, it was ever thus.

Now I really must get on.

Sassy wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not starting anything, I am rubbishing your claim, you are going off today's stats and drawing your own conclusion without any details on those claiming benefits released, except the number of those not claiming Job seekers anymore which is 27,000 less, which actually shows a decrease in people on benefits.
So we have an average wage growth, which is very broad to say the least, without details on who has gained what in wage increase, so you are speculating very badly.

Seriously can you debate anyone without getting all antsy if they disagree with you?

There is a reason for not stating the number of people claiming working tax credits.   I think you will find they don't publish the number, on purpose.    And now I'm sure you will go into your routine of how your parents lived on nothing and everyone can live happily on nothing even though rent, rates, food, gas, electricity and water take far higher percentage of income than they ever did.   Ah well, it was ever thus.

Now I really must get on.

So you have just proven to me you do not have any evidence and are speculating.

So its just an opinion you have which I accept it is your opinion but not factual. My parents never lived on nothing, they managed what little money they had an ensured we had food on the table and clothes on our backs, many of which we shared the later, including books etc. Sorry but many people live beyond their means today and people keep excusing the fact that many people do. The ability to have access to credit has seen to that, but there is a growing problem with people being bad with there money. I do not say this is the only issue, but one of countless problems that need to be resolved and stated I wish to see wage increases, but as seen and pointed out such increases can have counter affects where by you could see unemployment rise again, it is thus addressing all these issues to find some balance

nicko wrote:Didge,have to agree 100% with that.

Thank you Nicko

Irn Bru wrote:
They're counting people on job creation schemes, people on zero hours contracts, people who are underemployed on part time work because they can't get anything else as all being employed.
They are but it doesn't tell the true story of how employment in this country has changed in last few years under this lot. They want us to be like China and India so that we can compete with them. Well that's how we may well end up....

  

IN ADDITION, there's also something called the "International Accounting Standards" that sets agreed-upon levels, measures and definitions for that terminology that is used in statistics and government circles, as well as in accounting practices...

I don't know if Britain has joined yet, but the USA and Oz have both signed up over the past decade..

UNDER this system, some relevant definitions are of interest in these discussions these days :

* Anyone working for more than an hour a week, whether paid or not, is now defined as being "employed" !  (THAT means that if you did any unpaid volunteer work or helped out in a family business in the past fortnight, you don't count in the unemployment statistics for that period, even though you probably continued to receive full benefits..).

* The standard for "full time work" - which was 40 hours up until the 1980's, and then lowered to 38 hours, has now been lowered again to only 25 hours a week !   

CERTAINLY makes it easier for our governments to "fuzzy" their figures even further when making their "feel good" announcements !

veya_victaous wrote:what are working tax credits?  is it like part dole for low paid?   

Pretty much, yes. There are rules about how many hours a week you have to work, depending on your circumstances, and they are means tested of course. There's also child tax credits.

It's ridiculously complicated, and it has nothing to do with tax really.

Sassy wrote:Sigh!   Of course Job Seekers will drop, Working Family Credit will go up!   Thats hidden, all part of the cunning plan to make it look good.

The low paid aren't part of Job Seekers.

Does it tell us how much people are earning?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
You know sassy and Irn are right though    Particularly Irn they want to reduce the lower wage relative to inflation, that way people that are not good maths (low paid) don't notice it straight away as they are still getting a pay rise but everything else is gong up a faster rate.
that is not unique to England the Liberal party (RW) here openly has it as a policy   .. but mind you the Labor party is openly formed and largely funded by workers unions    So everyone is pretty clear about which side of the fence they are on.

this has been practiced in the USA for god knows how long   

No I disagree Veya, because as stated before people can live very comfortably on lower wages without difficulties because they are good with their money Veya, you agree with them due o your political views where here I disagree, more to do with my own experience growing up. Many people are also in debt, through poor money management, where many do not even seek advice, so it is not a clear cut picture as is being portrayed as to how the state of money people are on affects them, when as seen we know very well other people manage well, which cannot be ignored, So yes there are still problems, but you cannot look at something so very much black and white


Do not get me wrong I would like to see better wages all round, but the fact is the Uk has to compete with the rest of the world and to do so many companies have to keep wages to a certain minimum to trade here, otherwise it is not viable, because companies if forced to pay to high will have to trade from elsewhere, mainly within the EU where labour is cheaper in some nations, which some companies do already. In fact, many has sites here and in the EU, what you have to do and the EU has to do is address this balance within the EU itself on wages. As I say much needs to be done but it is not clear cut or even easy to resolve without having counter affects happen, which could make matters worse within the job market as seen if we lost some industries. So people would be better paid, but less people would be employed again.

But CEO wages and the upper end of town are rising that is why inflation is going up    those on the lower end of the scale are getting less money and having to pay more for the same goods so eventually they will not be able to afford those goods. that's not politics that is maths   

Your experience as a child is not relevant as the wage gap is already higher than it was back then and is increasing at a higher rate than it has been for my entire life   

it is not only about surviving it is also about fairness    if 2 people are still doing the same job as the used to, why is one getting paid relatively higher at an ever increasing rate when they also had a higher base to begin with    you an I both know the rich will always try and get richer, western gov'ts have become corrupted enough for them to exert enough pressure to change social policy.   in order to make more money themselves

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


No I disagree Veya, because as stated before people can live very comfortably on lower wages without difficulties because they are good with their money Veya, you agree with them due o your political views where here I disagree, more to do with my own experience growing up. Many people are also in debt, through poor money management, where many do not even seek advice, so it is not a clear cut picture as is being portrayed as to how the state of money people are on affects them, when as seen we know very well other people manage well, which cannot be ignored, So yes there are still problems, but you cannot look at something so very much black and white


Do not get me wrong I would like to see better wages all round, but the fact is the Uk has to compete with the rest of the world and to do so many companies have to keep wages to a certain minimum to trade here, otherwise it is not viable, because companies if forced to pay to high will have to trade from elsewhere, mainly within the EU where labour is cheaper in some nations, which some companies do already. In fact, many has sites here and in the EU, what you have to do and the EU has to do is address this balance within the EU itself on wages. As I say much needs to be done but it is not clear cut or even easy to resolve without having counter affects happen, which could make matters worse within the job market as seen if we lost some industries. So people would be better paid, but less people would be employed again.

But CEO wages and the upper end of town are rising that is why inflation is going up    those on the lower end of the scale are getting less money and having to pay more for the same goods so eventually they will not be able to afford those goods. that's not politics that is maths   

Your experience as a child is not relevant as the wage gap is already higher than it was back then and is increasing at a higher rate than it has been for my entire life   

it is not only about surviving it is also about fairness    if 2 people are still doing the same job as the used to, why is one getting paid relatively higher at an ever increasing rate when they also had a higher base to begin with     you an I both know the rich will always try and get richer, western gov'ts have become corrupted enough for them to exert enough pressure to change social policy.   in order to make more money themselves

My experience on how to manage money is very relevant to how this has now become a major issue in the west where people cannot manage their money. You can solve all the wage disparity you can, but without solving other issues like money management and living within your means, then no closing of the wage disparity between rich and poor is going to make much difference, because as seen many people on good incomes are also in debt and badly so. So increasing wages will help and again have stated for this to happen, but you need to address how this is achievable with as seen many companies only being able to run as they because of set wages, where they could do so cheaper outside the UK, this could cost jobs, and people working is better than many on the dole.

So unless you resolve many issues like for example money management, people are still going to be worse off unless they can change and stop living beyond their means. Again i am for fairness, so in this point is it fair that many others have to suffer and be hit hard on middle incomes because others are poor with their money?

Didge, your unending tale of 'when I was a kid we had ten people living in a cardboard box and fed ourselves and kept ourselves warm on tuppence' is not only tedious, it has absolutely no relevance to today's society.   If you have a total family income of £250 a week, put your electric down to as much as you can, but it still comes to £20 a week, both parents are working so you have to pay childcare, which can be at a minimum £50 a week for a couple of days, you have to have a car because the trains are too expensive, at least £30 a week on petrol and upkeep (if you are lucky and the car doesn't need any repairs) gas is a ludicrous price and even in summer if you have gas water heating and cooking you can pay a further £20 a week, council tax, clothes for the children, school trips, cleaning materials, money for when things break down, etc etc etc etc and that is before we take into account rent, which in this day and age for a family home is about £700 a month, £175 a week and I haven't mentioned food yet and we have covered £295, and lets not think about being careful and having life insurance to look after your kids if you have an accident, or contents insurance in case there is a fire etc.  Live in the real world and not in past times fantasy land.

And let's not forget the millions on zero hours (who are counted as employed), who could have £200 one week and nothing the next.

Just thought, the government expects everyone to have a computer so all forms can be done on line, and school work is expected to be done online, so how are they going to manage that!

Sassy wrote:Didge, your unending tale of 'when I was a kid we had ten people living in a cardboard box and fed ourselves and kept ourselves warm on tuppence' is not only tedious, it has absolutely no relevance to today's society.   If you have a total family income of £250 a week, put your electric down to as much as you can, but it still comes to £20 a week, both parents are working so you have to pay childcare, which can be at a minimum £50 a week for a couple of days, you have to have a car because the trains are too expensive, at least £30 a week on petrol and upkeep (if you are lucky and the car doesn't need any repairs) gas is a ludicrous price and even in summer if you have gas water heating and cooking you can pay a further £20 a week, council tax, clothes for the children, school trips, cleaning materials, money for when things break down, etc etc etc etc and that is before we take into account rent, which in this day and age for a family home is about £700 a month, £175 a week and I haven't mentioned food yet and we have covered £295, and lets not think about being careful and having life insurance to look after your kids if you have an accident, or contents insurance in case there is a fire etc.  Live in the real world and not in past times fantasy land.

I did not live in a cardboard box, that would mean we would be homeless, my father worked and rented for years a house out of his own money, so thanks for now stating I was homeless, how low and insulting can you get to my family.

You still avoid the point on people that do manage their money, I am not denying some struggle an take into account many factors as to why they might struggle, but what you do not is where people live beyond their means, and there is no denying this face. So you can give me examples of what you think is hard to do but we have been through this before and I can show people that do manage on this money.

So if some people can do so, the question is why cannot more and again I do not discount the fact some people have reasons that make it difficult, but one big problem is people themselves with money management, hence why no matter even if you increase wages, people will still be in debt because countless people on good wages are also in debt. So I do live in the real world, you actually choose to ignore the real world as seen and refuse to take on all reasons there are issues, I actually see them all.

I am going you are as usual so poor in your choice of words that you again and not for the first time insult my family. That experience was one of the best times of my life, which I will always cherish and not have some antsy woman on a forum ruin

laters

Oh FGS Didge, I wasn't stating you were homeless.   You obviously never saw the Monty Python sketch of the old people trying to outdo each other on how bad it was for them and how they managed:

Monty Python's Flying Circus -
"Four Yorkshiremen"

[ from the album Live At Drury Lane, 1974 ]

The Players:
   Michael Palin - First Yorkshireman;
   Graham Chapman - Second Yorkshireman;
   Terry Jones - Third Yorkshireman;
   Eric Idle - Fourth Yorkshireman;
The Scene:
   Four well-dressed men are sitting together at a vacation resort.
   'Farewell to Thee' is played in the background on Hawaiian guitar.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
   Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh, Josiah?
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   You're right there, Obadiah.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
   A cup o' cold tea.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   Without milk or sugar.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   Or tea.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   In a cracked cup, an' all.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
   The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   Aye, 'e was right.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   Aye, 'e was.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
   House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
   We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   Cardboard box?
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   Aye.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
   Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
   Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
   Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
   And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
ALL:
   They won't!

http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm

Your tendency to do that was what I was referring to with the 'cardboard box'.  

The point I was making was that none of it has any relevance to living today.   We did all kinds of things to make ends meet when I was young, so what.   How we lived then has bearing, we used to scrounge coal, wouldn't do us much good today would it?

Sassy wrote:Sigh!   Of course Job Seekers will drop, Working Family Credit will go up!   Thats hidden, all part of the cunning plan to make it look good.

The low paid aren't part of Job Seekers.

What is with you you have been claiming for the last 4 years we needed more taxation and spending to get growth. You were wrong. We have a fanatastic growth in jobs and peoples lives devastated by Labours busted economy have a chance to recover. The Conservatives didn't create the deficit Labour did.

The Conservatives didn't create the huge debt requiring huge chunks of money to pay the interest Labour did.

You and your lunatic lefty friends wanted even more debt thank God we didn't go the route you suggested as France did.

The fact is comrade we have a growing economy and more inward investment than any country at present with a huge upturn in private sector employment. You know the ones that produce taxes not spend them.

Sassy your views have been proven to be wrong time and time again please don't pretend otherwise.

Wow great attempt by sassy to get out of jail from a very poor remark which I do not buy and yes it has every relevance today due to the fact again people manage there money well on low incomes something you keep refusing to accept.
To claim it has no relevance is again absurd, as we had no central heating when we were kids for example so was much harsher back then where people got by on far less.

I didn't play a get out of jail card, because I didn't need one. The sketch is etched in everyone's brain who was around in the sixties so stop being so silly.

Right, you had no central heating, probably had coal like we did, which we could scrounge if necessary. You can't scrounge gas. What happened years ago has no relevance at all to what is required today. People work much further away from home for a start and travel is much much much more expensive. That's just an example.

Sassy wrote:I didn't play a get out of jail card, because I didn't need one.  The sketch is etched in everyone's brain who was around in the sixties so stop being so silly.

Right, you had no central heating, probably had coal like we did, which we could scrounge if necessary.   You can't scrounge gas.   What happened years ago has no relevance at all to what is required today.   People work much further away from home for a start and travel is much much much more expensive.  That's just an example.

Sorry it is a pathetic excuse which I am not buying because as stated when people disagree with you this is always what you do.
Again, we had no coal, we had one paraffin heater and made do with blankets, showing we made do with far less, where again you are not refuting people manage on such low incomes. Many people work locally as well, so that is a moot point to those who do work local and are o low incomes.

Didge, I don't give a fuck whether you buy it or not, I know it to be the truth and I'm the only person I account to. Carry on waffling while wages get lower and lower.

Sassy wrote:Didge, I don't give a fuck whether you buy it or not, I know it to be the truth and I'm the only person I account to.   Carry on waffling while wages get lower and lower.

Well again that proves to me even more, wages are growing as seen by today overall.

The reality is you made a poor claim, which as seen was easy to rebuke and the reality is more people are employed working which is way better than not working, it gives a sense of worth, which is encouraging to a nation recovering.
Again wages still need improving but as seen it is finding a balance when as seen many of these companies that have sister sites in the EU could easily move much of their operations there if forced to pay much higher incomes, thus , much has to be one to address this balance which again you ignore. There is many reasons behind problems in this country but to ignore the reality which is back with reports that people do not manage their money, is very short sighted, because again even if you improve wages, people will still be in debt based again on many higher waged earners are in debt also.

  You believe that don't you. Christ on a bike!

For didge....


so stop playing the poor insulted little didge act......

victorisnotamused wrote:For didge....


so stop playing the poor insulted little didge act......

Not playing any act, I know sassy when she has her views discredited does this all the time, so you can back her until the cows come home Victor I do not buy it because of years of experience of what she does.
She has insulted my father before also on your forum, of which you well know also, so you will forgive me for not buying this.

Anyway my points still stand and not going around in circles over my view of a poster known for doing this all the time

Ah well Victor, as we know, this is what Didge does all the time as we have years of experience of it, when he realises that other people think he is being foolish he latches around to say he has been insulted. In this case, anyone who lived in the 60s would have know exactly what I meant without even thinking about it. Sad man sometimes.

Sassy wrote:Ah well Victor, as we know, this is what Didge does all the time as we have years of experience of it, when he realises that other people think he is being foolish he latches around to say he has been insulted.   In this case, anyone who lived in the 60s would have know exactly what I meant without even thinking about it.   Sad man sometimes.

Which shows even more how your point has no relevance to post to someone who was born in 1970.

Again I know what you are like and now it seems you wish to divert off the fact you made poor assumptions off the unemployment levels dropping and could not back it up as per usual.

:-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

There were no poor assumptions, but you carry on kidding yourself if it makes you feel better.

Sassy wrote::-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

There were no poor assumptions, but you carry on kidding yourself if it makes you feel better.

Then back it up with evidence, as I keep asking, which at every turn you have failed to do so.

Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics - Finalised annual awards 2012-13
Section 1 : Time series
Figure 1.2 shows that annual entitlement to tax credits has risen over time, increasing from
around £16bn in 2003-04 to over £29.5bn in 2012-13. The bulk of entitlement is claimed by
families entitled to either the full amount of CTC (when out of work) or families in work and
entitled to both WTC and CTC. Over time, the proportion of entitlement covered by those
claiming WTC and CTC has risen from around 51% to 57% of entitlement while the proportion
covered by out of work families has fluctuated slightly between 31% and 27%, but rising again






there ya go didge...its going up...tax credits that is...

Shows it was rising all through labour years at about the same rate.




As mass immigration drove down wages.....

victorisnotamused wrote:Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics - Finalised annual awards 2012-13
Section 1 : Time series
Figure 1.2 shows that annual entitlement to tax credits has risen over time, increasing from
around £16bn in 2003-04 to over £29.5bn in 2012-13. The bulk of entitlement is claimed by
families entitled to either the full amount of CTC (when out of work) or families in work and
entitled to both WTC and CTC. Over time, the proportion of entitlement covered by those
claiming WTC and CTC has risen from around 51% to 57% of entitlement while the proportion
covered by out of work families has fluctuated slightly between 31% and 27%, but rising again






there ya go didge...its going up...tax credits that is...

Yes as it would be because birth rates are up each year the last year we had 800,000 births, so what have you proven, except the natural state of affairs of people having children, that is not showing anything really is it Victor?

DIdge obviously can't understand why different colours are used in The graph.......

Tommy Monk wrote:DIdge obviously can't understand why different colours are used in The graph.......

Yes I can.


You really need to get over the fact you are the village idiot

Night

Yes, Didge...but even if that IS the case...one then has to ask WHY that should be a factor....

firstly ..if you look at the light green section THAT is working tax credits...NOT child tax credits...so working people without children...and THAT has gone up in fact that has driven the main rise....

NOW....even if you factor in the CTC...

what are these tax credits for....

THEY ARE TO compensate for the fact that minimum wage, and even some wages over minimum wage ARE NOT ENOUGH to live on...

It is in fact state subsidy to firms via the back door.
They are an indication that the ruining of the unions, and subsequent effective state/corporative wage control has failed.

The "market place" cannot be trusted to recompense working people for their time and labour in a fair and propper way, and similarly no existing party can be trusted likewise.

Tommy Monk wrote:DIdge obviously can't understand why different colours are used in The graph.......

Oh he can tommy...its just they tell him something he doesnt want to hear....

victorisnotamused wrote:Yes, Didge...but even if that IS the case...one then has to ask WHY that should be a factor....

firstly ..if you look at the light green section THAT is working tax credits...NOT child tax credits...so working people without children...and THAT has gone up in fact that has driven the main rise....

NOW....even if you factor in the CTC...

what are these tax credits for....

THEY ARE TO compensate for the fact that minimum wage, and even some wages over minimum wage ARE NOT ENOUGH to live on...

It is in fact state subsidy to firms via the back door.
They are an indication that the ruining of the unions, and subsequent effective state/corporative wage control has failed.

The "market place" cannot be trusted to recompense working people for their time and labour in a fair and propper way, and similarly no existing party can be trusted likewise.

Quite simple really Victor since many people lost jobs and took on part time roles at the time, which has increased or where families may have split up, which you would have to provide how many this has happened to as well


Minimum wage is  as seen manageable with some to live on and again you do not factor in many people who have gotten into debt, by their own means, so it is easy to go off a graph and not factor in so many points as already stated

Anyway, have to go so have a good evening will pick up tomorrow Victor

Sassy wrote:Didge, I don't give a fuck whether you buy it or not, I know it to be the truth and I'm the only person I account to.   Carry on waffling while wages get lower and lower.

When Labour ruined the economy did you think it wouldn't have ramifications.

You are the tosspot Sass under another Labour govt we would have more equality all right. Everybody would be fucking miserable the rich would have gone elsewhere along with businesses as investment flooded out.

With shrinking employment opportunities reduced Income to the Treasury from high rate taxpayers who have gone abroad we would have to raise more taxes from lower income people. A perfect storm but of course you would be telling us we are all equal ad that's OK.

  

Change the record Drinky, you bore me.

Napp immigration has driven usuampt of living and driven down wages.



Cost of living has risen so much that many firms cannot afford to pay staff enough they now need and remain profitable and or competitive.



Economic madness, as I have said for over ten years.



Labours false economy has left a lasting legacy.

Sassy is in denial again. She is obviously traumatised by looking such a loser when he calls everything wrong. Still in fairness she is innumerate so I shouldn't expect more.