Incomes to fall 7.4% over the next 3 years

Graham_Devon

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says George Osborne's economic plans will mean a sharp drop in household income.

The think tank said real household income would fall by an average of 7.4% between 2009-10 and 2012-13.

The IFS said that following yesterday's Autumn Statement by Chancellor George Osborne, the median average income was set to stagnate.

It expected it to be no higher in real terms in 2015-16 than in 2002-03.

The IFS said it was running out of words of sufficient strength to describe the current economic climate and the chancellor's plans.

Its director, Paul Johnson, said he was "running out of superlatives".

Also goes on to basically state the new coalition is no different to the outgoing labour party in terms of budgets. I.e nothings changing, nothing is getting better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15969165

"Mr Osborne's second Autumn Statement had more in common with some of Mr Brown's Budgets and pre-Budget reports than perhaps either of them would care to admit."

RenovationMan

Good job we have all found MSE so that we can make the most of our remaining income. I've reduced my monthly mortgage figures by £100 per month by making overpayments due to support from the MFW board, I have reduced my various insurances by about £50 per month and reduced my utility bills by a combination of switching and installing insulation (Thanks, Green moneysaving board!).

It's all about making the best of the situation you find yourself in. Some people are moaners and some people are do-ers.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Incomes to fall 7.4% over the next 3 years

Graham, Don't you think your thread would be more correctly articulated if it was titled "Real incomes to fall 7.4% over the next 3 years "

On the topic though, if they expect average incomes to fall in real terms over the next three years (interesting given the governments announcement on public sector pay in the next three years), then the pressure on the MPC to raise base rates will remain low

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Graham, Don't you think your thread would be more correctly articulated if it was titled "Real incomes to fall 7.4% over the next 3 years "

Make a complaint to the BBC.

Oh, and the IFS.

Road_Hog

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Graham, Don't you think your thread would be more correctly articulated if it was titled "Real incomes to fall 7.4% over the next 3 years "

Actual incomes can fall, people get redundant and new employers are paying less for the same type of job. Or people retire and the job is regraded or a lower salary offered. It's not uncommon to see jobs advertised that would have paid more 10 years ago.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Make a complaint to the BBC.

Oh, and the IFS.

Why, in your link they are stating "Real" incomes?

The think tank said real household income would fall by an average of 7.4% between 2009-10 and 2012-13.

It's your title that's vague and incorrect (why are unhappy to correct when the detail explains further?)

P.S. just checked the BBC link (previously just read your quoted text) and it looks like they have also made the headline grabbing deliberate mistake (that's journalism for you).

You are therefore just perpetuating the error.
You have the choice, believe the headline grabbing title or understand the detail a bit better

IveSeenTheLight

Road_Hog wrote: »

Actual incomes can fall, people get redundant and new employers are paying less for the same type of job. Or people retire and the job is regraded or a lower salary offered. It's not uncommon to see jobs advertised that would have paid more 10 years ago.

Quite possibly, however the article and this thread is stating real incomes to fall 7.4% between 2009-10 and 2012-13.

Presumably this also includes wage rises and inflation.

When you consider the RPI was in excess of 5% for 2011 (can't recall wat 09-10 was) then they can't be expecting much inflation in 12-13.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Graham, Don't you think your thread would be more correctly articulated if it was titled "Real incomes to fall 7.4% over the next 3 years "

Hear the roar of the pedanta-saurus. The OP is of course quite clear.

I'm sure our resident not-a-bull will find a non bearish spin on this.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

On the topic though, if they expect average incomes to fall in real terms over the next three years (interesting given the governments announcement on public sector pay in the next three years), then the pressure on the MPC to raise base rates will remain low

Shocker.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Hear the roar of the pedanta-saurus. The OP is of course quite clear.

When you check the detiail the thread title is incorrect, but of course it makes a better headline for selling news

geneer wrote: »

Shocker.

Not really shocking.
When you start to consider the contect and analysis to understand the cause and affects, then you start to think about "how will this impact me?"

Of course you can choose not to consider the details and follow the lemmings

Given were three quarters of the way through this prediction 09-10. 10-11. 11-12 & 12-13) and we know the previous general inflation / wage inflation, you wonder how newsworth this article is.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why, in your link they are stating "Real" incomes?

It's your title that's vague and incorrect (why are unhappy to correct when the detail explains further?)

P.S. just checked the BBC link (previously just read your quoted text) and it looks like they have also made the headline grabbing deliberate mistake (that's journalism for you).

You are therefore just perpetuating the error.
You have the choice, believe the headline grabbing title or understand the detail a bit better

I just used the title of the BBC article for the title to the thread. You really are getting tiring.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I just used the title of the BBC article for the title to the thread. You really are getting tiring.

I understand that and they have "marketed" the title to be better headline grabbing.

When you look at the details and consider the timeframe already lapsed, you wonder how much meat is in the article.

Ask yourself: -

What was inflation (RPI) in the years 09-10, 10-11 and 11-12(so far)?
What was wage inflation in the same years?

Then we will see what the impact is expected for 12-13 with regards to the article prediction.

Your portraying yourself as repeating the headline grabbing sheep, drawn in by the journalism instead of considering the detail and making your own mind up.