Carney: No rate rises until wages rise

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The key point of most of the posts is to have a go at another individual. Almost always completely out of nowhere.

Whether those posts make sense, totally contradict each other, or are completely and utterly made up on the spot is of little relevance!

Like what you're doing here? A shocking lack of self awareness and double standards! :rotfl:

chucky

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Perhaps he doesn't want a wave of repossessions, unlike yourself.

It's the nasty and bitter individuals on this board that want suffering and despair for others just to get what they want.

Cringeworthy that they want repossessions just so they can buy a house.

[Deleted User]

wotsthat wrote: »

Isn't he slightly off message?

Wage growth could match inflation anytime soon. It certainly has the feeling of near term rather than the long long time Carney has implied so far.

He's setting us for a number of shrill threads reminding us about this promise. Less significantly it may influence people's behaviour in ways the BoE doesn't want to encourage i.e. sitting on cash and waiting for the good times.

Certainly not in the public sector, just been awarded what is effectively another 5 year pay freeze

Time to consider private sector again...

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've heard that the NHS is likely to see a 2.1% pay rise over 3 years (as in 0.7% a year).

However, they will also see a pension contribution increase. So their real wage increase is likely to be around 0.2% a year for 3 years.

Is that on top of the incremental pay rises?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10468332/Stealth-pay-rises-for-NHS-staff-costing-1bn-a-year.html

The NHS is spending almost £1 billion a year on a “stealth” system of automatic pay rises, which have seen some workers’ earnings rise by up to a third in five years, an investigation discloses today.
Hundreds of thousands of staff receive automatic pay rises over and above nationally negotiated increases as long as they fulfil a basic level of performance.
The system means the cost of employing 1.3 million NHS workers is constantly increasing above inflation.

Not complaining - our household has been on the receiving end of a couple of career framework rises.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Is that on top of the incremental pay rises?

Yes - for those who get them.

But the incremental rises should not be seen as a wage rise.

The reason the incremental structure was bought in was to start people on a lower wage and work up to the normal wage. When you are at the normal wage for the job, you stop getting incremental increases.

When Agenda for Change came in, the salary a certain job attracted didn't go up, rather new people started at a lower rate.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes - for those who get them.

But the incremental rises should not be seen as a wage rise.

The reason the incremental structure was bought in was to start people on a lower wage and work up to the normal wage. When you are at the normal wage for the job, you stop getting incremental increases.

The definition of a wage rise is ..err..an increase in wages and it appears that more people in the NHS have been keeping up with inflation than is commonly thought.

Is there a normal wage for a job? I thought the NHS operated on bands and ranges within the bands.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The reason the incremental structure was bought in was to start people on a lower wage and work up to the normal wage. When you are at the normal wage for the job, you stop getting incremental increases.

You can't buy experience in some professions.......

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The definition of a wage rise is ..err..an increase in wages and it appears that more people in the NHS have been keeping up with inflation than is commonly thought.

Again, it's not a wage rise.

Pay bands have pay increments. Within that pay band there are two "gateway increments" too, whereby your input is looked at before you move to the next pay increment. You may not be able to move up to the next increment, as an example, should you not have passed the required courses.

It's not a wage rise. Just as a bonus for a worker in John Lewis isn't a wage rise.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, it's not a wage rise.

Pay bands have pay increments. Within that pay band there are two "gateway increments" too, whereby your input is looked at before you move to the next pay increment. You may not be able to move up to the next increment, as an example, should you not have passed the required courses.

So the increase in pay is linked to increased skills, experience and efficiency like any other job?

You just have a fancier name for a pay rise.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes - for those who get them.

But the incremental rises should not be seen as a wage rise.

Why not!? A pay rise is a pay rise.

Either you don't think they should be seen as pay rises because you don't understand basic economics or because you want to turn yet another thread into a Graham Devon thread.