The destruction of the Middle Classes commences

ninky_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I'm not quite sure of the gravy train of which you speak, certainly as far as barristers are concerned.

When I was a pupil during immigration work, so not even yet fully qualified, I got £350 for an asylum appeal hearing on legal aid.

today I did a legal aid asylum hearing, now 8 years on, and got £300. Reverse gravy!

from my experience of barristers doing legal aid asylum hearings this is about 300 quid more than they deserve.

Fiddlestick

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

IT got screwed in the apres 2000 recession.

A freelance secretary today earns £50 an hour.

Top end freelance IT support earns £15-£25 (if that now & if you can get a job) in 2000 that would have been £50-£100

What?

£15-25 is bottom to middle rate for freelance IT Support.

Someone doing a complex migration project would earn far, far more than that.

Either you have been talking to the wrong people, you have been charging the wrong rate to your clients or your skillset just isn't worth paying top dollar for.

carolt

Malcolm. wrote: »

I enjoy reading julieq's summaries. They're funny.

Thank you malcolm, I must have missed the first julieq post you quoted. I'm now rather revelling in the fact that julieq imagined mewbie could be me! - almost as much of a compliment as DD's assertion a couple of days back that treliac was me!

I do enjoy julie's posts immmensely - always beautifully worded, if as full of holes as a crocheted jumper. But I can forgive her almost anyothing for the sheer effort she puts in.

carolt

Fascinating thread. Am I the only one to spot the echoes of history here?

It's hardly as if it's the first time that globalisation has threatened workers' jobs, of any class, whilst the (very) rich creamed off the profits. We've been here before. I'd like to be optimistic and say that we don't necessarily have to repeat history all the way down to revolution, communism and world wars - that we have certain major advantages they didn't have a hundred years ago - not the least of which is democracy.

A 100 years ago, the dispossessed had no non-violent means of redress; anger spilled out easily. These days, all of us have the vote and I'd like to think would use it to ensure that our economy favoured not only the wealthiest corporations/individuals.

I'd agree the recently departed Labour administration had fallen a long way from their high ideals when they were founded exactly to deal with this kind of problem, but I'd like to think the British public is not so supine as to just stand back and let those hard-won freedoms and rights be taken away from them.

Let us not forget that people have other, entirely 21st-century ways of fighting back too - the power of the internet and mass lobbying is still in its infancy I think - I would expect more participation in decision making via those means over the coming decades (eg Cameron and his referendum-via-facebook suggestions). In theory, there is no reason why we couldn't see a return to direct classical Athenian style democracy - except more gender/wealth balanced - where we all voted directly on every issue. Modern technology makes that feasible (whether it is desirable is a different matter...).

So I think amcluesent's original post is somewhat too pessimistic - we do have the means to fight back, if we have the will. In the US, where the idea of everyone potentially being able to achieve great riches/success - the American dream - is inbuilt into the national psyche, there is no will to change, as to attack 1 rich grandee is to attack that whole aspiration. But I think in the UK, we do not share that view - there is much more a natural distrust of the very rich - so I remain optimistic that the balance can be righted.

dktreesea

amcluesent wrote: »

>living standards in the West were going to drop<

And drop a very long way. But the government will decide that stealing private assets is the least worst way forward over the next 20 years. How ironic for the millions of suddenly unwaged middle-classes that far from avoiding income tax and live frugally off savings, they will now have to pay ever rising taxes on private assets (the mansion tax etc) or risk forfeiting these to the state. Plus the 'death tax' (tricky when you've no income) plus all benefits will be means tested.

FACT - anyone who now has a comfortable livestyle and is made redundant will find they will end up near destitute and homeless before any state aid comes their way. Meantime the elite fools and their political poodles will cavort in their yachts and numerous villas.

Surely the operative word is "now"? So what if you, or anyone else for that matter, has a comfortable lifestyle right now? I don't see how the current state/status/income/assets of a person guarantees their financial wellbeing even tomorrow, let alone well into the future.

It appears, if the media are to be believed, that the majority of people do not have enough of a rainy day liquid assets buffer to be able to manage their expenses more than a month out.

And why should "state" aid - oops, that's real people, the other taxpayers - come to anyone's aid unless they are really destitute? The current situation, where you are allowed to get full state aid once your liquid assets, including ISAs, dip below £16,000 is laughable. Anyone who has £15,999 in savings can afford to support themselves for a while, imho. It should be £2,000 max.

kabayiri

carolt wrote: »

Fascinating thread. Am I the only one to spot the echoes of history here?

It's hardly as if it's the first time that globalisation has threatened workers' jobs, of any class, whilst the (very) rich creamed off the profits. We've been here before. I'd like to be optimistic and say that we don't necessarily have to repeat history all the way down to revolution, communism and world wars - that we have certain major advantages they didn't have a hundred years ago - not the least of which is democracy.

A 100 years ago, the dispossessed had no non-violent means of redress; anger spilled out easily. These days, all of us have the vote and I'd like to think would use it to ensure that our economy favoured not only the wealthiest corporations/individuals.

I'd agree the recently departed Labour administration had fallen a long way from their high ideals when they were founded exactly to deal with this kind of problem, but I'd like to think the British public is not so supine as to just stand back and let those hard-won freedoms and rights be taken away from them.

Let us not forget that people have other, entirely 21st-century ways of fighting back too - the power of the internet and mass lobbying is still in its infancy I think - I would expect more participation in decision making via those means over the coming decades (eg Cameron and his referendum-via-facebook suggestions). In theory, there is no reason why we couldn't see a return to direct classical Athenian style democracy - except more gender/wealth balanced - where we all voted directly on every issue. Modern technology makes that feasible (whether it is desirable is a different matter...).

So I think amcluesent's original post is somewhat too pessimistic - we do have the means to fight back, if we have the will. In the US, where the idea of everyone potentially being able to achieve great riches/success - the American dream - is inbuilt into the national psyche, there is no will to change, as to attack 1 rich grandee is to attack that whole aspiration. But I think in the UK, we do not share that view - there is much more a natural distrust of the very rich - so I remain optimistic that the balance can be righted.

I'd agree with Carol that I'm not completely pessimistic on the outcome, but I do feel the above reasoning centres still on the nation state's ability to exert influence over major corporations.

That influence may have changed in recent years. Large global companies have the capability to switch wholesale individual operations from one continent to another.

How any individual government can respond to this sort of capability is open to question.

WPP moved overseas for tax reasons a couple of years ago. Do we believe that the UK government were quite happy to lose this revenue stream?

What would happen if BP were to try and do the same to secure it's future?

neverdespairgirl

ninky wrote: »

from my experience of barristers doing legal aid asylum hearings this is about 300 quid more than they deserve.

I only know what I do. What is your experience?

neverdespairgirl

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

When your job is on the immigration skills wanted list & you start seeing highly skilled jobs advertised for minimum wage it's basically to take advantage of this.

The new (2 years or so) Tier 2 has minimum wages for many types of job, though. A lot higher than the national minimum wage.

For example:

IT director or IS director

Board level function carrying responsibility for all aspects of IT infrastructure, application and operation. Primarily covers appointments in large companies with a significant investment in IT plus internet based businesses where a Chief technical officer at director level is required.

minimum PA - £83,200

QA manager (computer and video games)

Manages testers and lead testers. Responsible for handling personnel issues, equipment needs, and costs incurred by their teams.

minimum PA - £25,000

ninky_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I only know what I do. What is your experience?

asylum hearings for OH. barrister was !!!! poor. turned up late looking worst for wear and unprepared. he didn't realise my OH used to work as a bouncer in a club and saw him as a regular there getting completely lashed on week nights.

marklv

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The new (2 years or so) Tier 2 has minimum wages for many types of job, though. A lot higher than the national minimum wage.

For example:

IT director or IS director

Board level function carrying responsibility for all aspects of IT infrastructure, application and operation. Primarily covers appointments in large companies with a significant investment in IT plus internet based businesses where a Chief technical officer at director level is required.

minimum PA - £83,200

QA manager (computer and video games)

Manages testers and lead testers. Responsible for handling personnel issues, equipment needs, and costs incurred by their teams.

minimum PA - £25,000

A proper QA manager in most organisations would be on around £40-50k a year, often more in London. Presumably, a 'gaming' QA manager is someone who supervises a team of people who are paid to play games. This isn't really 'quality assurance' in the full sense of the phrase.