Appalling economic record of government exposed: median wages fallen 10% since 2008

purch

cepheus wrote: »

There was little difference between the last Labour administration and the Tories over the past few decades.

I guess that was the Tories fault as well :eek:

antrobus

[

Generali wrote: »

Well if we use the Eurostat figures which all comparison across countries, the UK's median income fell in 2008, 9 & 10 and then it increased in the years 2011-14:

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do;jsessionid=hMSdVlWHwrElorN5kF_Wc-9dQ78vfb5OOS_mWlTYHHC2YwatU1B_!-2089530269

Between 2010 and 2014 by this measure incomes rose quite substantially.

Ah, so basically you're saying that when the OP speaks of the "Appalling economic record of government exposed" he's actually taking about the apalling economic record of the Brown government.

I suppose it's nice of him to take the time and trouble to remind us of that fact.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, so basically you're saying that when the OP speaks of the "Appalling economic record of government exposed" he's actually taking about the apalling economic record of the Brown government.

I suppose it's nice of him to take the time and trouble to remind us of that fact.

TBH it shows a refreshing balance from a poster that I normally perceive to be quite strongly biased against the Tories.

kabayiri

Why do we never look at the other side of the equation?

- promote the idea of rising productivity as a means to increasing personal wealth
- redirect more money into R&D
- promote enterprise zones even more when they lead to export growth
- leverage the fact that we are growing when Eurozone is not; by aggressively targetting the skilled Euro migrants

chewmylegoff

purch wrote: »

I guess that was the Tories fault as well :eek:

Not just the Tories in general - I have it on good authority that it was specifically Maggie Thatcher's fault as she was really making the Blair / Brown governments' decisions.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Why do we never look at the other side of the equation?

- promote the idea of rising productivity as a means to increasing personal wealth
- redirect more money into R&D
- promote enterprise zones even more when they lead to export growth
- leverage the fact that we are growing when Eurozone is not; by aggressively targetting the skilled Euro migrants

Why prioritise export growth? Surely British people being able to afford the great things being made in the UK is better than them being sent abroad.

It's a myth that exports are a good thing per se. If you look at the 2 big net exporting nations, Germany and China, they are in that position because they don't pay their workers enough to be able to buy the goods they produce.

How many Foxconn workers can afford an iPhone or Mercedes employees a Merc?

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

However, by dropping their austerity programme recovery would have been faster and wages for real people (rather than the rich which distorts the mean average) would have risen rather than dropped. I wonder how many 'hard working people' fully realise this?

Spend, spend, spend..........

Is not the answer.

The UK has a debt addiction. Real wages grow on the back of hard work. Not on the Government of the day handing out welfare benefits that are paid for with borrowed money.

Look at Japan after all these decades. Secular stagnation may be here for a while.

mystic_trev

cepheus wrote: »

The reason there is so much vitriol against Milliband (and in particular the possibility of a pact with Sturgeon who unlike Labour is left of centre) is because he's attempting to move Labour back nearer its roots, although I admit there's a long way to go.

I guess you weren't around during the 70's? If you want to go back to Labour 'roots' you've got to be completely barking!

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Why prioritise export growth? Surely British people being able to afford the great things being made in the UK is better than them being sent abroad.

It's a myth that exports are a good thing per se. If you look at the 2 big net exporting nations, Germany and China, they are in that position because they don't pay their workers enough to be able to buy the goods they produce.

How many Foxconn workers can afford an iPhone or Mercedes employees a Merc?

I guess it's a perspective issue.

I don't begrudge Mercedes or BMW for wanting to dominate the luxury sector of the car market. I think it shows true ambition.

FoxConn is an odd one though. They are a subcontractor and have learnt the hard way that Apple can shift manufacturing focus for its products to a number of suppliers.

We also have companies here where the employees can't afford the product they produce. JLR would be one. I'm not sure if it helps matters.

Is the 10% income drop a reflection of increased competition in labour or efficiency challenges? We are now seeing the outsourcing of traditionally middle tier jobs, like lower level solicitor work. Could this be biasing the figures?

cepheus

mystic_trev wrote: »

I guess you weren't around during the 70's? If you want to go back to Labour 'roots' you've got to be completely barking!

Yes, I was around, so there's no use painting a false picture. Yes, there were problems with certain Unions who held the country to ransom as do sectors in the financial industry today. Unfortunately we haven't dealt with the latter yet. No one sector should be too strong.

The Unions did represent a wide body of people and forced up wages for the majority of working people. Also economic growth was higher in the 60s and 70s so I'm not convinced they did the economy much harm overall.