FTSE100 doing well... considering double dip on way?

Emy1501

the_cat wrote: »

My OH was required to sign a new contract to agree to the new t and c's. Failure to do so would have been considered as making himself voluntarily redundant. Unethical? Perhaps but apparently within the letter of the law. There is no union. There are no other jobs. The idea of a few people in a private company striking is laughable

His choices? Put up with it or leave. You have no idea how lucky you are to even be able to contemplate a strike

I don't work in the public sector. It seems to me that because your husband got raw deal so should everyone else. So what happens when these reforms go through you don't think your husbands employers will look to reduce his pension again due course? You also think that they won't look at minimal pay rises going forward and think we can do that or worse also?

The government have got to find billions of more cuts and as they don't seem to be interested in finding from the well off it will be the ordinary person they find it from.

Plus as the private sector look to hoard money i suspect private sector works will be affected just as much as the public worker in the coming years

sabretoothtigger

I missed this thread but there is more UK business in the FTSE 250 then the 100 which is an index with alot of global and commodity companies in it.
UK mostly imports commodities so shares do not equal UK economy really


Russia will be listing a couple more giant companies in London soon which is good because we get to collect stamp duty on them

dtsazza

kabayiri wrote: »

The talk amongst my pensioner father and others is about the planned removal of the subsidised bus pass come 2012. We can't even provide them mobility any more.

Race to the bottom sounds about right.

It's an interesting point - I said in a different thread that race to the bottom in terms of salary (i.e. £0/annum) is massively destructive, but a race to the bottom in terms fo pension (i.e. contributions of £0/annum) is nowhere near as bad, and I stand by that.

Obviously it's great if your company contributes to your pension, but ultimately what you're doing with pension contributions is accruing enough money that you'll be able to live the rest of your life in the fashion that you want. Once your pension pot hits that figure, you retire.

Of course if your company pays you less then it takes you longer to reach the magic number, but my point was that the "bottom" in this case is zero pension contributions - which is by no means a detriment, but it's not critical. People can still reach their savings target, it'll merely take them longer. Ultimately the loss of e.g. a 5% company pension contribution is equivalent to a 5% pay cut (assuming someone was making full use of it) - it's bad, but it's manageable.

Compared with a wage of £0/year, it seems inappropriate to use the term "race to the bottom" for both - many people right now get zero pension contribution, and I'm sure that no-one who depends on their job as a source of income gets £0 p.a. salary.