I don't understand this...

oldvicar

wymondham wrote: »

......

Is it correct that if you're paid by Government to work (ie a teacher etc) then your pay rises will be capped to 1%, but if you are unemployed then you'll get an inflation increase many times this amount? .....


Maybe I'm missing something...

I heard him mention the automatic increases by going up pay scales, and 1% increases in pay bills, all in the same breath.

I interpreted this to mean that there will be NO increase in pay levels generally. The 1% on pay bills will all be consumed by those automatic rises, and for the majority of public sector workers the pay freeze will continue

dlk

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Teachers like staff in the NHS. Move up grading scale points over time. So are able to earn reasonable salaries even without high inflationary increases. Far better than those in the private sector.

The grading scale is only relevant to the first 6 years of a teachers career so most will now find there wages stagnating for a few years. As far as comparing their pay to the private sector, the top of the pay grade for a teacher (without going into management roles) is just under £31000 which for a professional career that needs 4 years studying for a degree and teacher qualification I don't think is particularly excessive. Most graduate level jobs in the private sector would also pay similar or often more.

Going4TheDream

Mrs_Bones wrote: »

I'm doubtful about this plan to build up the infrastructure which is relying on the pension funds stumping up private investment cash, I just can't see them doing so in the amounts required.

I agree

Not only that who is going to actually pay to use the 'private' roads in the levels that will be needed to actually make a big enough return?
The M6 toll is greatly underused and the cost keeps rising

Just another 'tax' albeit wrapped up in the guise of supplying a 'service'

The Dartford crossing was planned that once they had paid for the bridge and accrued enough for ongoing maintenance that it would no longer be a chargeable crossing....and that never happened

We are just going down the road further of a two tier society, and things like roads that effectively we already pay road tax etc for, seems to mean people who can afford to will pay twice whilst those who cant will be no better off but still pay anyway

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

Does building roads really help the economy that much?? I know it employs people to do the work, and the suppliers etc, but surely this is a very small number of people??

Infrastructure spending, if done right, can be an investment that repays more than the cost of producing the infrastructure. For example, while you're sitting at Waterloo approach on a red signal playing Angry Birds or Grumpy Ladies or whatever the latest app of choice is you could instead be overseeing widget production at United Thingummies and adding to UK output (aka GDP).

If done badly, like the Bridge to Nowhere, then it is a waste of money and should be stopped or better still not started.

IronWolf

Funny how all the Keynesians have gone quiet on this infrastructure announcement

ChiefGrasscutter

Part of the international aid budget comes back to the UK as work for the UK
So in practice rather than being truly 'aid' it is actually legalised government bribery.......the "we will give you some aid if you will give us an order for some high tech air traffic control equipment" sort of thing.

CLAPTON

It's very difficult to determine whether the spending is new money so it hard to see if it's 'Keynian' boost or not

However widening the M25 and the A14 and the Manchester rail link to Sheffield certainly need doing. However they aren't likely to even start for a considerable time.
Certainly the government spending 10bn over 10 years isn't going to solve our problems: the pension fund spending seems all very on the hoof and very unclear; probably turn out to be PFI by another name

kabayiri

Are the state backing the right sort of winners ?

On newsnight on Monday evening Paul Mason 'showcased' a thriving bio-engineering company in Merseyside. They were doing well, employing 120 people. When pressed, the company spokesperson said that capital funding had been erratic and problematic over their decade of growth.

Tellingly, the parting comment was that this company is now owned by an AMERICAN parent.

Why do we do this ?

I'm not the biggest fan of state owned industry, but companies like Jaguar Land Rover and Cadburys have world class products and brand. Longer term, their foreign owners do not have to show commitment to maintaining their labour force here.

Is there a point where this stops ? Would we happily sit back and watch a foreign buyer purchase Rolls Royce, for example ?

People talk about an open market, but it is anything but. You talk to Google about pushing their warez into China. It has been faced with state obstruction there.

grizzly1911

kabayiri wrote: »

Are the state backing the right sort of winners ?

On newsnight on Monday evening Paul Mason 'showcased' a thriving bio-engineering company in Merseyside. They were doing well, employing 120 people. When pressed, the company spokesperson said that capital funding had been erratic and problematic over their decade of growth.

Tellingly, the parting comment was that this company is now owned by an AMERICAN parent.

Why do we do this ?

I'm not the biggest fan of state owned industry, but companies like Jaguar Land Rover and Cadburys have world class products and brand. Longer term, their foreign owners do not have to show commitment to maintaining their labour force here.

Is there a point where this stops ? Would we happily sit back and watch a foreign buyer purchase Rolls Royce, for example ?

People talk about an open market, but it is anything but. You talk to Google about pushing their warez into China. It has been faced with state obstruction there.

That is a large part of the reason we are where are we only retail in this country now and bit of high end R&D. What little money comes into the country goes straight back out again.

Yep Rolls Royce would go to the highest bidder.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

Infrastructure spending, if done right, can be an investment that repays more than the cost of producing the infrastructure. For example, while you're sitting at Waterloo approach on a red signal playing Angry Birds or Grumpy Ladies or whatever the latest app of choice is you could instead be overseeing widget production at United Thingummies and adding to UK output (aka GDP).

If done badly, like the Bridge to Nowhere, then it is a waste of money and should be stopped or better still not started.

All depends if there is a United Thingummies to go too.

No doubt charging via satellite monitoring will provide a return....