The years of discontent, 2022/23

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

9 hours ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

When were you last earning £25K and bringing up a family, paying a mortgage, running a car, etc?

It was a fair struggle for him until the porn scripts started rolling in.

What an utter fantasist.

[Empty It]

My missus and I fall in at that circa £25k P/A bracket, rent a top floor in a 1up/down, run a car, look after a dog, pay council tax, professional licensing costs, pet insurance, food for ourselves, electricity, and our own personal debts/bills. My old man passed away a month and a bit ago now with no will, nothing really in terms of assets and I’m having to foot solicitor/half funeral costs, what am I supposed to cut out to cover unexpected costs like that? Could apply for help, but would probably be told since me and my partner earn “around” 25k we won’t be eligible. 25k a year isn’t all that comfortable anymore, even more so with fuel prices and inflation. Not a lot of jobs going in my line of work as well, and that’s with a masters level education.

And that's both of you on £25k, Oaksoft is claiming you can provide for a family and cover living costs on a single £25k wage, absolute fantasy stuff from the resident gammon.

[Self-raising Lazarus]

10 hours ago, Deanburn Dave said:

I read a book by leftwinger Owen Jones called "The Establishment and how they get away with it." Made it clear to me we have different rules for them and us. The taxation/financial pages were mind blowing.

You need to read this book, build barricades and start fighting them.

Yanis varoufakis and Noam chomsky show likewise, would recommend the adults in the room.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

 

This seems like really good news. Less avocado toast all round and this'll be sorted imo

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 hour ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

 

This seems like really good news. Less avocado toast all round and this'll be sorted imo

Let's not forget cancelling that all important Netflix subscription. 

[vikingTON]

12 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

A salary of £25k equates to roughly £1700 take home a month, assuming nothing is taken for student loans.

I've never had to raise a family, but would imagine it would be tight on that salary.

Of course it would. But most people who raise a family actually have two incomes coming into the household rather than one. So the benchmark is not £25k but rather £40-50k in the largest category of cases. 

Quote

Anyone on that hoping to save for their own home will never actually get to own said home. The money needed for a deposit etc is so far out of the reach of so many people, let alone those earning £25k, let alone those earning £25k and having to raise/fees a family too.

Trying to save enough money to buy a home while raising a family is only as ridiculous a financial strategy now as it has always been.

If you didn't get those ducks in a row then you've got nobody else to blame for that. 

[scottsdad]

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I am not suggesting otherwise.

This is simply a discussion about who should be getting government help directed at them.

The thread is about more than that - we have strikes, a cost of living crisis, employees needing significant wage hikes to keep up with inflation and companies not always able to afford these (the joy of stagflation), energy price rises, a cumulative amount of damage caused by austerity, Brexit and Covid all coming to a head all at once. 

Folk on the very lowest incomes need help, no doubt, and the help offered by the government is still not enough to ensure that people stay above the breadline. Folk who were on a barely comfortable income now find that they are no longer in the same boat. When energy costs jump by 50% for household bills and 30% for fuel, that's money that has to come from somewhere else in the household budget. 

At a fundamental level, encouraging "cutting back on luxuries" is also a message that you work, you eat, you sleep and no more. Forget entertainment, holidays, new clothes and cars and so on and all of these things that make life worth living.  When all people do is work to barely cover the bills and no more - and it is sometimes still not enough - then discontent really is here. 

[hk blues]

7 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Folk who were on a barely comfortable income now find that they are no longer in the same boat. When energy costs jump by 50% for household bills and 30% for fuel, that's money that has to come from somewhere else in the household budget. 

I'm out of the loop now, but if folk were barely managing before they simply cannot afford these increases so what exactly are they doing to get by? There is only so much you can cut back on, surely?  

Where I am now, poverty is a way of life and I have no idea how they get by on nothing - my wife's one of 6 kids and only 1 of them is currently working to maintain the family - no state benefits here either.  And, we are facing the same cost of living increases (more or less).

F*** knows how they all get by.

[scottsdad]

2 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I'm out of the loop now, but if folk were barely managing before they simply cannot afford these increases so what exactly are they doing to get by? There is only so much you can cut back on, surely?  

Where I am now, poverty is a way of life and I have no idea how they get by on nothing - my wife's one of 6 kids and only 1 of them is currently working to maintain the family - no state benefits here either.  And, we are facing the same cost of living increases (more or less).

F*** knows how they all get by.

As per @Genuine Hibs Fan post earlier on, many families are taking on debt to make ends meet. And that is by no means a permanent solution; if anything it is storing up trouble for the future. 

 

[G51]

Just an absolutely brutal situation when a large number of people are having to take on debt to pay for basic necessities.

The commodification of the essentials that we all need for human life is extremely cruel.

[hk blues]

Just now, scottsdad said:

As per @Genuine Hibs Fan post earlier on, many families are taking on debt to make ends meet. And that is by no means a permanent solution; if anything it is storing up trouble for the future. 

 

Right.  Again, where I am the informal debt system is very common and it's very much a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul and catches up with folk eventually.  My neighbour opposite is involved in lending but as per my wife's feedback she rarely gets the full amount back albeit she's still quids in as the interest rate is high.  

That said, they are so used to living off dust here so they'll all find a way to get by as they always do.

 

[vikingTON]

32 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

As per @Genuine Hibs Fan post earlier on, many families are taking on debt to make ends meet. And that is by no means a permanent solution; if anything it is storing up trouble for the future. 

Savings increased massively in the UK during lockdown/furlough and household debt was paid off at a much higher rate than usual too. This actually leaves many in a position to draw on some of those savings now.

And while adding costly household debt like credit cards can never be viewed as a great idea, establishing cheap credit lines such as arranged overdrafts or renegotiating mortgage deals to ride out a short-term price shock is a better version of the same strategy. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by vikingTON

[scottsdad]

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

All I can say is that IMO, giving blanket 9% pay-rises to everyone sounds like the right thing to do but it is going to make things worse. Much, much worse.

 

You're right to point to the 70s as an example. But the situation we have now is in some ways a little worse. In the early 70s, growth was a factor, and we ended up in the growth/inflation cycle that didn't really end until the mid-80s. Now we have rapid inflation with no growth. How can a small business give staff a decent pay rise whilst their own income has not grown and their own costs have risen? 

Giving pay rises of 9% will on one level allow employees to maintain their standard of living and avoid a real terms pay cut, but it will put businesses under pressure and will fuel the next cycle of inflation. And unlike the 70s the powers that the government have are very limited. 

I suspect (but am no economist so am just talking out of my hat) that we will end up with a middle ground. People will get pay rises in the region of 3-6% which will enable companies to stay afloat but will also be a real terms pay cut. With less spending power and interest rate hikes inflation should slow down. And if we get a game changer (end of the Russia-Ukraine war which has impacted on food prices; or a big increase in oil production dropping the prices) then things might ease a bit quicker. 

[G51]

23 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

In that instance I was talking about the specific conversation I was having with Sainty.

As for your general point about what some people are going to do? No idea.

The standard of living today compared to the 70s is in a completely different league. We've not faced this sort of crisis since then. Most people are not used to the sort of hardship we're facing at the moment. It could well be that we're entering a sustained new phase where our standard of living starts to drop sharply and people are going to have to white-knuckle it. Some people will certainly go under. Of that I have no doubts whatsoever. Winter is going to be a shitstorm. All I can say is that IMO, giving blanket 9% pay-rises to everyone sounds like the right thing to do but it is going to make things worse. Much, much worse.

 

We've been in various states of crisis since the Great Recession in 2008. I think people who are going to suffer are fairly well used to hardship by now.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

On 28/06/2022 at 13:02, Michael W said:

The police not being allowed to go on strike might by why wages often look comparitably bad. 

On that note, what would happen if they just said f**k it and decided to go on strike? What are the Government going to do about it - sack them? 

They wont go on strike but will take action to make things difficult, the service has been cut to the bones and essentially the rank and file doing more than they are supposed to has made it work, like answering calls to come out and work rest days, taking pda devices home to respond to emails and victims to keep them updated, starting shifts early to reduce overtime claims etc. The actual pay claim requested was imo entirely reasonable. A 3.4% rise in pay coupled with a reduction in working week from 40-35 hours in line with other public sector work places. 

On 28/06/2022 at 13:32, 101 said:

As it is just now, it might be changed so that junior ranks can go out on strike, not sure how it would work in principle but its increasingly being brought up by the union. I saw as far back as 2008 86% of members wanted full union rights, I guess if they make a better offer then that might go away.

Full industrial right should be a universal right. 

19 hours ago, Lofarl said:

Gonna be easier to bribe the odd copper now.

In England as you can imagine a starting wage of 19k and working in the greater London area has led to some using foodbanks etc, that actually is an issue in terms of bribery etc. 

[Aufc]

Savings increased massively in the UK during lockdown/furlough and household debt was paid off at a much higher rate than usual too. This actually leaves many in a position to draw on some of those savings now.
And while adding costly household debt like credit cards can never be viewed as a great idea, establishing cheap credit lines such as arranged overdrafts or renegotiating mortgage deals to ride out a short-term price shock is a better version of the same strategy. 

This is only true for the well off/rich people. Think about it. The less well off spend most of their money on essentials (rent, food, electricity etc). Most of them lost their income during covid which was replaced by furlough. However, they still needed to spend the same money on the same essentials. Actually, a lot of them only got 80% of their normal income in line with furlough.

The well off are able to spend their money on holidays etc. However, during furlough, they were unable to go on these holidays so were able to accumulate this extra cash in their pocket.

It is the main reason why houses prices were crazy during lockdown as the well off were using the additional cash they accumulated to then accumulate more assets.

So most people won’t have been able to save massively. The savings increased because it was the rich getting richer.

[Left Back]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

They wont go on strike but will take action to make things difficult, the service has been cut to the bones and essentially the rank and file doing more than they are supposed to has made it work, like answering calls to come out and work rest days, taking pda devices home to respond to emails and victims to keep them updated, starting shifts early to reduce overtime claims etc. The actual pay claim requested was imo entirely reasonable. A 3.4% rise in pay coupled with a reduction in working week from 40-35 hours in line with other public sector work places. 

Full industrial right should be a universal right. 

In England as you can imagine a starting wage of 19k and working in the greater London area has led to some using foodbanks etc, that actually is an issue in terms of bribery etc. 

So has anyone involved in the negotiations spun this yet as actually being a higher than 3.4% rise because of the reduction in working hours.

What's the reasons for refusal?

[Ross.]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

All I can say is that IMO, giving blanket 9% pay-rises to everyone sounds like the right thing to do but it is going to make things worse. Much, much worse.

Again, can you provide evidence that wage push inflation is actually a major contributor to inflation in general?

[DA Baracus]

In the case of many employers, it absolutely is their fault. Too many punt increasingly large pay and bonuses etc to a select few whilst demanding more and more from staff and giving them less, all against a backdrop of record profits each year.

[DA Baracus]

So people can't have wage increases because it would mean the cost of things has to rise (why incidentally? To ensure record profits yet again?) and therefore less people would buy things and cause some sort of loop.

Yet how are folk able to afford things, and prevent the above, when their pay is lagging way behind and they won't be getting any sort of significant wage rise?