Triple Lock Becomes Double Lock For 1 Year

itwasntme001

Deleted_User said:

Perhaps disposable real income per capita gets us closer to what we are debating about?

I am too lazy to google but it won’t be pretty. Long periods of declining disposable incomes. Stagflation is nasty. We don’t actually want it. We already have the low growth part of the equation. Adding high inflation would be devastating. Particularly to retirees. Money printing has got to stop. 

Are you sure?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8414447/How-UK-incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html

Looks like the 1970s were generally a period of rising real disposable income.  Looks like a fairly rapid rise compared to most other periods.

Stagflation is nasty for some.  In the 1970s, it was the owners of capital.  Businesses suffered as their margins were squeezed.  Asset prices fell.  But workers were gaining bargaining power that enabled them to raise their living standards.

I hope you can now understand your errors in generalizing too much.

[Deleted User]

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

Perhaps disposable real income per capita gets us closer to what we are debating about?

I am too lazy to google but it won’t be pretty. Long periods of declining disposable incomes. Stagflation is nasty. We don’t actually want it. We already have the low growth part of the equation. Adding high inflation would be devastating. Particularly to retirees. Money printing has got to stop. 

Are you sure?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8414447/How-UK-incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html

Looks like the 1970s were generally a period of rising real disposable income.  Looks like a fairly rapid rise compared to most other periods.

Stagflation is nasty for some.  In the 1970s, it was the owners of capital.  Businesses suffered as their margins were squeezed.  Asset prices fell.  But workers were gaining bargaining power that enabled them to raise their living standards.

I hope you can now understand your errors in generalizing too much.

I do understand the error of my ways but I do not have a Telegraph subscription. 

Are they saying something completely different from this article? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ons-household-incomes-1970s-gdp-investment-services-a7815981.html

Incidentally, workers lose out when businesses get squeezed. Its not a zero sum game. Lots of mechanisms. The resulting drop in investment causes unemployment and ultimately lower salaries. Workers who own shares as part of their pension provision become poorer. 

The theory that stagflation is awesome for workers is interesting but I have not seen the evidence. 

itwasntme001

Deleted_User said:

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

Perhaps disposable real income per capita gets us closer to what we are debating about?

I am too lazy to google but it won’t be pretty. Long periods of declining disposable incomes. Stagflation is nasty. We don’t actually want it. We already have the low growth part of the equation. Adding high inflation would be devastating. Particularly to retirees. Money printing has got to stop. 

Are you sure?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8414447/How-UK-incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html

Looks like the 1970s were generally a period of rising real disposable income.  Looks like a fairly rapid rise compared to most other periods.

Stagflation is nasty for some.  In the 1970s, it was the owners of capital.  Businesses suffered as their margins were squeezed.  Asset prices fell.  But workers were gaining bargaining power that enabled them to raise their living standards.

I hope you can now understand your errors in generalizing too much.

I do understand the error of my ways but I do not have a Telegraph subscription. 

Are they saying something completely different from this article? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ons-household-incomes-1970s-gdp-investment-services-a7815981.html

Incidentally, workers lose out when businesses get squeezed. Its not a zero sum game. Lots of mechanisms. The resulting drop in investment causes unemployment and ultimately lower salaries. Workers who own shares as part of their pension provision become poorer. 

The theory that stagflation is awesome for workers is interesting but I have not seen the evidence. 

I don't have a subscription either but I managed to view it.  Just hit refresh and quickly hit cancel just before the subscription box appears.  A bit fiddly and may take a number of attempts, but certainly you will be able to see the chart in all its glory.

As for your link, you will notice that there were a few quarters of back to back drops in real disposable income.  But generally, using quarterly or monthly data like that can be incredibly noisy as you can see for the other decades as well.  So if you are looking at the 70s generally, as we so far are in our discussion, then my chart in my link shows clearly that the 70s were a period of rising real disposable income, albeit with some volatility in the quarterly data, not too dissimilar to other decades.

I don't recall me ever saying stagflation being awesome for workers.  You also seem to be generalizing again.  Given the data I have presented, it appears the 70s were not at all bad for workers, in fact, overall, this period seems to be one of fairly rapid rise in living standards as measured by disposable income.

[Deleted User]

Given the data I have presented, it appears the 70s were not at all bad for workers, in fact, overall, this period seems to be one of fairly rapid rise in living standards as measured by disposable income.

I am seeing the exact opposite but lets agree to disagree. 

itwasntme001

Deleted_User said:

Given the data I have presented, it appears the 70s were not at all bad for workers, in fact, overall, this period seems to be one of fairly rapid rise in living standards as measured by disposable income.

I am seeing the exact opposite but lets agree to disagree. 

In other words you can't back your claim.

michaels

Torry_Quine said:

michaels said:

Torry_Quine said:

Thrugelmir said:

Torry_Quine said:

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

jamesd said:

Deleted_User said:

Setting the wonderful 1970s as the golden standard is smart. Britain was doing so well, who wouldn’t want to try that again? 

"the truth is that most ordinary families in 1970s Britain were better off than ever"

That's in spite of organised labour driving Labour out of government and getting us Thatcher and more riots, including a few hundred meters from where I was living in London at the time.

Nice try at distraction.

Yep. Stagflation (including 30% inflation) and lowering of the level of life is what we should aim at.  Bound to help retirees make ends meet.  If the Beeb says that The Sick Men of Europe had it best then it must be true.   

jamesd is correct.  Living standards were pretty good in the 1970s for ordinary, working class people.  You had 30% inflation for like a year or so.  But you miss the fact that incomes rose also - such that real incomes were growing for nearly all years in the 1970s (and quite a bit more than they have done for the last 20 years).

This was also at a time when housing was cheap. ......

Not all working class families did well
 My family certainly struggled through every decade. This is why I don't like sweeping statements. 

Standard of living has generally improved across the board. Struggle is a relative term. 

I can remember my mother crying over bills, my father having no money for himself etc. Our standard of living was low. 

I cry over the credit card bill every month as DW has continued to spend well in excess of our means.  I assume she is hoping the stress will finish me off and she will be able to claim on the life insurance

Not remotely comparable.  If someone overspends on a credit card that's very different from not having money for necessities. 

Please don't joke about life insurance it's not funny.

 

MY wife overspends on the credit card, I can't find the money to pay the mortgage and other bills which gives me stress, sending my blood pressure sky high and affecting my sleep - thank you for judging my suffering and finding it inadequate.

Torry_Quine

michaels said:

Torry_Quine said:

michaels said:

Torry_Quine said:

Thrugelmir said:

Torry_Quine said:

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

jamesd said:

Deleted_User said:

Setting the wonderful 1970s as the golden standard is smart. Britain was doing so well, who wouldn’t want to try that again? 

"the truth is that most ordinary families in 1970s Britain were better off than ever"

That's in spite of organised labour driving Labour out of government and getting us Thatcher and more riots, including a few hundred meters from where I was living in London at the time.

Nice try at distraction.

Yep. Stagflation (including 30% inflation) and lowering of the level of life is what we should aim at.  Bound to help retirees make ends meet.  If the Beeb says that The Sick Men of Europe had it best then it must be true.   

jamesd is correct.  Living standards were pretty good in the 1970s for ordinary, working class people.  You had 30% inflation for like a year or so.  But you miss the fact that incomes rose also - such that real incomes were growing for nearly all years in the 1970s (and quite a bit more than they have done for the last 20 years).

This was also at a time when housing was cheap. ......

Not all working class families did well
 My family certainly struggled through every decade. This is why I don't like sweeping statements. 

Standard of living has generally improved across the board. Struggle is a relative term. 

I can remember my mother crying over bills, my father having no money for himself etc. Our standard of living was low. 

I cry over the credit card bill every month as DW has continued to spend well in excess of our means.  I assume she is hoping the stress will finish me off and she will be able to claim on the life insurance

Not remotely comparable.  If someone overspends on a credit card that's very different from not having money for necessities. 

Please don't joke about life insurance it's not funny.

 

MY wife overspends on the credit card, I can't find the money to pay the mortgage and other bills which gives me stress, sending my blood pressure sky high and affecting my sleep - thank you for judging my suffering and finding it inadequate.

Sorry if I appeared to be judging your situation. It wasn't meant that way. She must realise she's overspending.

 I can't imagine my husband would ever have spent money we couldn't afford. 
We discussed money and yes didn't always agree, came to a united position.
My apologies again and I hope that your situation improves. 

[Deleted User]

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

Given the data I have presented, it appears the 70s were not at all bad for workers, in fact, overall, this period seems to be one of fairly rapid rise in living standards as measured by disposable income.

I am seeing the exact opposite but lets agree to disagree. 

In other words you can't back your claim.

Alright, let's play.  As you can see from the plot below there was an increase in disposable income if you take the totality of 1970s but at a slower rate than since 1980.  And between circa 1972 and 1977 there was no increase with extended periods of drops in disposable income.  

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/disposable-personal-income#:~:text=Disposable Personal Income in the United Kingdom averaged 195250.86 GBP,the first quarter of 1955.

GunJack

michaels said: 

MY wife overspends on the credit card, I can't find the money to pay the mortgage and other bills which gives me stress, sending my blood pressure sky high and affecting my sleep - thank you for judging my suffering and finding it inadequate.

Maybe it's time to stop salsac-ing your pay down to around min. wage levels and have some more disposable income, or did you do that already? 

jamesd

itwasntme001 said:

We are talking about the standard of living for just the UK population during the 70s, and as measured by real GDP per capita, these standards did go up in the 70s.

Well, we were talking about Mordko trying a distraction argument but Mordko seems to have forgotten that the point of distraction isn't to reinforce what you're trying to disagree with:

Deleted_User said:

jamesd said:

Deleted_User said:

It only makes sense politically because older people vote a lot. If it was non-political, it would be linked to inflation. 

Linking it to inflation only was a political decision to cut it made during the Thatcher administration. Previously it had been linked to wages, which increase at about inflation plus one percent. The point of the triple lock is to slowly restore it to the late 1970s proportion of median wages that it's lost over the years of just inflation increases.

Given that relative poverty is set at 60% of median wages, trying to get things back to the 70s level from the lower level when the policy was introduced seems like a credible policy choice.

Setting the wonderful 1970s as the golden standard is smart. Britain was doing so well, who wouldn’t want to try that again? 

Mordko seems to think that the 70s weren't good so there doesn't seem much room left to argue that getting the state pension back to only the 1970s level relative to wages is excessive.