The U.K. in 2019 -

It's fine Iam - very easy to do.

I always remember a quote from a book (I just can't remember which one but it may have been "Scarcity" ) that "poverty is not caused by bad decisions, bad decisions are caused by poverty"

"… very interesting reading the stats on this subject....far, far more to it than poverty."

Now that would be a comforting thought wouldn't it.? Because we can do something about poverty but if we tell ourselves it is more complex - and it is - we can sit back a do nothing in all good conscience can't we?

The problem is that the "far, far more to it than poverty" is really saying that we are talking about complex poverties - all stemming at some point from the poverty of money. Sufficient income is always the key to unlocking these poverties. So we go back to having to take on board the poverty of those around us and what we are doing about it - not shrugging it off and putting it in the "too difficult" box.

From the Economist (in italics) April 20th 2019.

"Perhaps no other factor better explains why so many Britons want radical changed, from voting for Brexit to backing Jeremy Corbyn's far-left Labour Party. Since the financial crisis o 2008-09 Britain's wage growth has been dreadful. Adjusting or inflation, wages fell from 2007 to 2017, a worse performance than in any other OECD country except Mexico or Greece. At last, however, the tables are turning. Data released on April 16th show that nominal pay if growing about 3.5% a year or 1/5% a year in real terms. Can this growth continue to accelerate?"

The article goes on to attribute the growth to a change in the job mix and some small rise in productivity. It then goes on to ask if it will accelerate further, saying:

"Yet few economists believe Britain will soon resume the healthy productivity of the post-war period, which was consistent with real-terms pay rises of some 3% a year. Most economic forecasts have productivity growing at an annual rate of about 1% this year and next."

It talks about firms struggling to afford modest pay settlements and some having to accept lower profits to absorb costs while other are passing them on to the customer.

"Yet the difficult truth is that Britain's current rate of wage growth, modest by historical standards, is about as high as it can go without pushing inflation about target. It will be some time before Britons' pay squeeze is truly over."

For all those who see us as so much stronger than other nations - so strong we should go it alone - this evidence seems to dispute that. Under the Conservative government and its ideology led "austerity" we seem to have done far, far worse than others, coming in just behind Mexico and Greece. Not something to be proud of. The cuts, cuts and more cuts have stifled our economy with the only people doing well out of it are the disaster capitalists, who come out ahead while the rest of us bear the shock the economy has taken under them. These are the same people who drove Brexit forward and will do just the same again; no thought for the country only for their off shore bank accounts.

In my opinion the Tories and austerity were never about eliminating the deficit.
It is all about as small a state as they can get away with.

No - just ideology and a willingness to do anything to others in order to get richer, Whitewave. If it was what we needed we should be doing better than others by now - not worse.

It was never going to work. It doesn’t take much intelligence to work out that cutting government spending will lower demand and slow the economy. When the Tories came into power the U.K. economic growth has jumped from -4% in 2009 to 1.7% in 2010.

Growth has not risen much since then because of the brake Osborne put onto the economy. The biggest losers are the lower end of the salary spectrum, as we have already established.

The problem is this issue emanates from the payrises of the 80s and 90s. I used to challenge the salaries offered to recruit (often) junior level management only to be told that these salaries had to be offered to attract the best talent and so the cycle started and the differential between worker and manager widened. Add to that %age payrises, an increase of 5% for someone on £15,000pa bears no resemblence to the same 5% for someone on £50,000pa. This again widens the deficit. Rather than graduate payrises the % still prevails and rather than curb executive pay many companies started creating jobs which were often similar to previous ones but offered at lower wages. Instead of tackling this problem the then Labour Government brought in the income support benefit which effectively meant that the taxpayer was supporting executive pay by supplementing the low paid operatives in their firms. And, as a result of this the Government has had to borrow to pay for these benefits whilst still not tackling the root cause. Whether it is fear of 'talent' drain or relocation of companies that has prevented salaries being addressed is a puzzle. Another outrageous puzzle for me is the salaries paid to University Chancellors.

No, Joelsnan the problem is the completely c* economics. You can try and shift the blame as much as you like with your personal stories but you do not starve a crashed economy.

GracesGranMK3
Think what you want however,. I suggest you do a little research.
I am no conservative and have no intention of shifting blame. These are the realities like it or not. I agree austerity was wrong, but so was the implementation of income support. companies should have been made to pay workers a decent wage then rather than taxpayers supporting the rich to get richer.

Joel you are wrong in what you post about ‘income support benefit’. I think you are trying to make the point about benefits supplementing low wages. The first one of these was Family Income Supplement brought in in 1970 by Heath and remodelled in 1988 by Thatcher as Family Credit. This basic principle of supplementing low wages was then further extended with the tax credit system brought in by Blair. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988 and is nothing to do with supplementing low wages. It really is helpful if you are going to criticise the benefit system to actually know what you are talking about and to use the correct nomenclature.

What is it you are actually esposing JN?

maryeliza
If you care to read my post again you will note that in no way am I criticising the benefit system, only the way it has been implemented and the detrimental effect it has had on the lower paid and indeed taxpayers whether wealthy or
poor.
The current system has encouraged companys to slash their full time decently paid employees and resulted in a massive surge in part time jobs with hours just below the income tax payable level and just enough to enable the employee to receive housing, council tax and other benefits. The IMF also attributes sluggish wage growth to the rise in part time work.
My point is the governments (whatever colour) have enabled this and rather than company's employing full time staff which in the main used to be the norm, paying them a decent wage from which they could pay rent, mortgage, council tax, prescriptions etc, company's now pay minimal wage in many cases for 15hours per week resulting in a wage of £123.50. This is probably under the PAYE level and would result in minimal NI deduction. Additionally employer would not pay employer tax and minimal employer NI contributions amounts into the treasury subsequently depleated, this resulting in raises in direct or indirect taxes to make up the shortfall.
Of course these payments are needed by the poor paid minimal hour employees. But this should not be the case. The tax payer should not be letting employers off the hook by supplementing their employees salaries and allowing them to be fat cats.
Tax credits is another issue.

I don't actually disagree that it should be employers claiming benefits to ensure employees are well paid. They would then have to show they need it and cannot pay otherwise. However, I do not think this is what caused the issues I highlighted in may post 17:45:48

Gracesgran
My post: Sat 20-Apr-19 19:11:36
Was intended to highlight how, in part, the massive difference between many managerial positions and workers arose, and again it was not benefits bashing...far from it.

I am just so cross that people like Osbourne and those who share his ideologies who have done so much damage to so many people but I shouldn't have jumped down your throat - sorry Joelsnan.

Latest figures just out from the Trussell Trust.

1600000, food parcels given out last year.

Up by 19% on previous year.

We, as a uniquely privileged generation, have let down our children and grandchildren by not doing enough to stop the forces of evil which could blight their futures.

Most of us are not bad people but bad people have had far too much influence over our country. It is time to stop the madness while we still can.

Well said varian

I agree varian but what do we do now? I feel despondent, an unusual place for me to be. I agree that Gordon Brown's attempt to ensure people weren't worse off working than on benefits meant that employers were able to get away with paying minimum wages, which were topped up by us the tax payer rather than by the multi nationals who make a fortune and avoid taxes.
GB meant well and I know a number of young women, single parents, who were enabled to continue to work their 16 hour week yet support their children as a result of Brown's initiative. I can't condemn it out of hand because for these young women, their mental health benefited from being able to continue to work whilst still having (almost) enough energy and money to care for their children.

So - what do we do? We have a PM whose own party want her out but their processes mean she is safe, for now. We have a LP leader who is hugely popular amongst some people, much less imo, with the majority of the electorate. WE need a labour government today. It's no secret I'd prefer a different Labour leader but that matters much less than the country's need for a government with compassion and policies for 'the many not the few'. I'm not scared by the accusations that Jeremy is a Marxist. some of my best friends and relations are Marxists, they aren't scary at all. they're intelligent, sensitive, caring and compassionate people with a good knowledge of history and politics.

Sorry went off on one there. I still ask - what do we do?

I think we must first stop this brexit nonsense, then we must set up a Royal Commision to examine our democracy and make radical recommendations for change. Their remit should be wide ranging to include relocating parliament and having a different more democratic PR voting system.

So 90% have adequate space and are not overcrowded and 70 % of their homes are in good condition. I am sure those figures are much better than the beginning of the century

It is, however, of concern that 8.5 million are impoverished by high rents. This can best be dealt with by more LA homes at affordable rents.

That quote, cut and pasted from the Economist, is a grammatical and error strewn disgrace.

This is the forum you need, GG54

www.gransnet.com/forums/pedants_corner

varian Fri 26-Apr-19 18:29:17

Good post!

Reading Varian's post and Iam's that led from it I keep coming back the Basic Income.