We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Carney: No rate rises until wages rise
Comments
-
Whether you call it a payrise or not it still has the same effect on the economy. So, it doesn't really matter.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
On the basis there are only 5/6 increments per scale and most roles have pretty broad based pyramids I wonder how many in the NHS are and have been at the top of a grade for sometime?
Same goes for many other sizeable employers. Many do have bonus schemes to recognise target achievement not sure these are available in middle ranking NHS roles."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Whether you call it a payrise or not it still has the same effect on the economy. So, it doesn't really matter.
what is that effect on the economy?
on the basis that at the high end people retire and leave
and they are replaced by people at the bottom of the pay scales
then the overall payroll is unchanged0 -
I see renters are denied any comfort as usual, in favour of the richest parts of society.0
-
what is that effect on the economy?
on the basis that at the high end people retire and leave
and they are replaced by people at the bottom of the pay scales
then the overall payroll is unchanged
Potentially an overall reduction, in payroll, as there are less to top rate jobs, pay scales are being ratcheted down, pension provision is reducing take home pay for consumption today."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Potentially an overall reduction, in payroll, as there are less to top rate jobs, pay scales are being ratcheted down, pension provision is reducing take home pay for consumption today.
maybe
as always there are many factors
but the maths of progressive pay scales for otherwise unvarying T&Cs and general circumstances, numbers etc. mean constant overall payroll costs0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »On the basis there are only 5/6 increments per scale and most roles have pretty broad based pyramids I wonder how many in the NHS are and have been at the top of a grade for sometime?
The Telegraph report reckons that 45% of NHS staff got an incremental pay rise on top of the national pay deals in 2012 at a cost of £1bn.
That would suggest it's unlikely that most of the NHS are sat at the top of their pay scales getting only 1% pay rises.0 -
jeepjunkie wrote: »Certainly not in the public sector, just been awarded what is effectively another 5 year pay freeze
5 years? Says who.0 -
The Telegraph report reckons that 45% of NHS staff got an incremental pay rise on top of the national pay deals in 2012 at a cost of £1bn.
Yes, but what the article doesn't do is take into account the fact that if you removed this system, the costs for the NHS would be fair higher.
As instead of people starting on say 20k and working up to 24k. They would simply start on 24k.
The whole point of this system was to reduce costs. It's OK highlighting the fact that it cost £1bn in pay increments, but how much does it save by starting everyone on a much lower level? £8,9,10bn per year?
It's an extremely one sided article which doesn't take account of any of the savings to the public purse in starting people off on lower levels of pay.
It makes it look like there is an extra £1bn cost, when actually what this system does is deliver a huge, multi billion pound saving.
Just put the comments on your article in order of "best rating" and you will see tens of other people pointing out this highly relevant inaccuracy or "oversight" too.
Considering all this.....Most people recognise poor journalism whatever view is expressed. Why assume everyone suffers from confirmation bias to quite the same extent as you?Just shows people need to be careful about allowing journalists to help form opinion.
...I would have thought you would have known better
The only way to save that £1bn would be to reduce all nurses pay for instance (for at least new staters) to £21k. This would then be standard pay for therature nurses, GP nurses, mental health nurses etc. You'd also have to freeze everyone on their current level.
Then, maybe, the same jouranlist could moan about the lack of care he got when using the NHS as fewer and fewer sign up to nursing for such low pay.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Yes, but what the article doesn't do is take into account the fact that if you removed this system, the costs for the NHS would be fair higher.
As instead of people starting on say 20k and working up to 24k. They would simply start on 24k.
The whole point of this system was to reduce costs. It's OK highlighting the fact that it cost £1bn in pay increments, but how much does it save by starting everyone on a much lower level? £8,9,10bn per year?
It's an extremely one sided article which doesn't take account of any of the savings to the public purse in starting people off on lower levels of pay.
It makes it look like there is an extra £1bn cost, when actually what this system does is deliver a huge, multi billion pound saving.
Just put the comments on your article in order of "best rating" and you will see tens of other people pointing out this highly relevant inaccuracy or "oversight" too.
Increments are designed to provide an incentive to meet higher standards. It's nonsense to suggest that without an increment system the pay scales would have to be designed to a single tier where the previous maximum became the new normal.
Don't have a problem with them at all other than the silliness of pretending they're somehow different to pay rises.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards