Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

cogito

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

You do yourself a disservice by linking to the Express, I mean come on surely at the very least the mail or telegraph have reported the story. If they haven't then the entire story is likely made up.

I honestly don't know the details of the story, but as a matter of principle I would agree someone losing their job should be compensated. I also think the EU would be in their right minds to pass that bill to the UK with a note of "you broke it, you bought it", since we're the ones forcing an unreasonable move on those employees. Presumably you would consider this an acceptable price of regaining that sovereignty we never lost but it kind of felt to some people like we had?

Lay the bait, reel them in. How predictable that you should suggest that the story is made up just because it was in the Express.

Would politico suit you better?

http://www.politico.eu/article/police-center-moved-from-uk-to-budapest-hungary-lessons-for-ema-eba-after-brexit

Good of you to agree that someone losing their job should be compensated. We were bound to agree about something.

As for the UK footing the bill for relocating these agencies, you have got to be joking. No one is making them move; they are choosing to leave.

Rinoa

economic wrote: »

these graphs are as expected. the older you are, the more valuable your experience/skills are and so you can demand more. i imagine the income numbers also include investment income too?

and as i said wage rises are just a small indicator of wealth in this country. how about all the other things i mentioned.

What? Amazon, Uber Taxis and home supermarket deliveries?

Oh yeah. The richness of modern living. How did we ever manage without them.

cogito

ilovehouses wrote: »

It's seven people. Some extrapolation to get to your final conclusion.

So these people are of no importance? The ECJ whose brief under two different articles of the Lisbon Treaty is to support the EU, trample on their rights and you think it's OK. You wouldn't if the evil Tories had done it.

It's now established case law so God help any of the 1000 or so who are faced with the same situation try to sue. How much of am extrapolation do you want?

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

There is nothing shocking. EU agencies will not stay on a non-EU country.
Period.

(The change is circumstances has nothing to do with the EU, perhaps the UK should compensate these employees given that the UK decided to leave.)

You didn't bother to read the article did you? CEPOL relocated in 2014 when the referendum was a mere gleam in Cameron's eye.

Rinoa

Common sense from his Lordship

economic

Linton wrote: »

Perhaps, but why this is effect more pronounced now than previously?

Alternatively more people are retiring with good pensions. Many of those who retired 10 years ago or more may well have had a smaller employer's pension, especially women.

Or perhaps its something to do with the goverment's policy of preferentially benefitting those you receive income from investments rather than earnings.

previous to what? its rebased at year 2007. yes the difference is getting bigger but that should be a sign the people approaching retirement have good income growth to set them well once they stop earning.

all other age groups are rising except for 22-30. this is hardly surprising:
- we have had large influx of young migrants increasing supply of low skill labour
- people studying for longer, taking gap years sometimes multi gap years, generally starting careers later in life

note that the graph tells us nothing about how much wealthier the country is getting and each person is getting too. only the wage growth by age group over a 10 year period. how do you know the 22-30yr olds werent being paid a lot relatively speaking prior to 2007?

people look at these graphs from crappy places like the FT, and come to certain conclusions that shoulnt be made at all. its ridiculous.

Rusty_Shackleton

cogito wrote: »

Lay the bait, reel them in. How predictable that you should suggest that the story is made up just because it was in the Express.

Would politico suit you better?

http://www.politico.eu/article/police-center-moved-from-uk-to-budapest-hungary-lessons-for-ema-eba-after-brexit

Good of you to agree that someone losing their job should be compensated. We were bound to agree about something.

As for the UK footing the bill for relocating these agencies, you have got to be joking. No one is making them move; they are choosing to leave.

It genuinely is, thank you, interesting read. I can't stand reading the trash that is the express (and I'm happy to read the daily mail regularly to see the other sides view!).

How can you say they're choosing to move?! (referring to those moving due to Brexit here, not an agency that moved years ago, since it appears these things need stating)

Lets put it another way: The DVLA HQ is in Swansea. If Wales became independent and would soon be a foreign country, would you be happy that the DVLA for rUK was to be based there? I'm going to assume not, now who would you say had made that choice? Would you say the rUK government? Honestly?

economic

Rinoa wrote: »

What? Amazon, Uber Taxis and home supermarket deliveries?

Oh yeah. The richness of modern living. How did we ever manage without them.

so what do you expect everyone should be living like? all living like kings/queens in their own castles?

Rinoa

economic wrote: »

so what do you expect everyone should be living like? all living like kings/queens in their own castles?

You appeared to suggest Amazon, Uber taxis and home deliveries were sufficient compensation for low wages.

I guess we just value things differently.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

We've heard so much about the ECJ affording better protection to citizens than UK law but it seems that it isn't true after all, at least when it comes to their own employees.

Shocking.

You'd need to read the details behind the case before coming to a broad brush consensus. The fact that they kept on appealing suggests that there's was something contractual in their employment relationship.