Pay freeze for millions until 2020?

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://gu.com/p/35v22

The future's not looking so good,if this is accurate.Neither bright nor orange,more like Leonard Cohen's "murder".

"I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore."

 

[Pubey]

I've invented a game, it's called the BarnaBlue thread-maker.

1. Go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/most-viewed/politics and copy the title for the Number 1 article.

e.g. "English voters grow resentful of Scotland's 'special privileges"

2. Take the first noun from the title and add it to "{noun} left wing song" in the search box of google.

e.g. "English left wing song"

3. Pick a song from a wiki result at the top of the results.

e.g. This is England - The Clash

4. Go to www.lyricsdepot.com and search for the song

5. Quote the opening two lines

e.g.
"I hear a gang fire on a human factory farm
Are they howling out or doing somebody harm"

Voilà! Your own BarnaBlue thead generation algorithm

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Now young pubey your game is all well and good and works fine but how will you factor in the :winking: and how will you take account of the famous barma :winking:eness,but that aside a jooly good gamme to be had.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I've invented a game, it's called the BarnaBlue thread-maker.

1. Go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/most-viewed/politics and copy the title for the Number 1 article.

e.g. "English voters grow resentful of Scotland's 'special privileges"

2. Take the first noun from the title and add it to "{noun} left wing song" in the search box of google.

e.g. "English left wing song"

3. Pick a song from a wiki result at the top of the results.

e.g. This is England - The Clash

4. Go to www.lyricsdepot.com and search for the song

5. Quote the opening two lines

e.g.
"I hear a gang fire on a human factory farm
Are they howling out or doing somebody harm"

Voilà! Your own BarnaBlue thead generation algorithm

Amusing but inaccurate on all counts.
Must do better!:winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

I've invented a game, it's called the BarnaBlue thread-maker.

1. Go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/most-viewed/politics and copy the title for the Number 1 article.

e.g. "English voters grow resentful of Scotland's 'special privileges"

2. Take the first noun from the title and add it to "{noun} left wing song" in the search box of google.

e.g. "English left wing song"

3. Pick a song from a wiki result at the top of the results.

e.g. This is England - The Clash

4. Go to www.lyricsdepot.com and search for the song

5. Quote the opening two lines

e.g.
"I hear a gang fire on a human factory farm
Are they howling out or doing somebody harm"

Voilà! Your own BarnaBlue thead generation algorithm

If you convert this to a board game bagsy the top hat. :smile:

 

[Neil_F]

This is fairly obvious though, isn't it?

Those in the middle will largely stand still as the lack of growth and migration put downward pressure on wages. Increased tax burdens on employers are also incident on workers as well.

Those at the top are, in theory, those with the greatest skills and thus in demand. Today's globalised labour market means they can command a wage premium.

A better question is whether this is a cyclical effect (i.e. due to the current economic conditions) or a structural problem? The Guardian references a Treasury paper that reported falling real incomes since 2004. That doesn't surprise me much either as it was when the immigration really picked up and the global labour market came to the fore.

What to do about it though? Any one got any suggestions?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

If you convert this to a board game bagsy the top hat. :smile:

all the rest of the players will have flat caps

 

[southend4ever]

I hope Monopoly money becomes usable in all good stores one day. I have about 3 versions of Monopoly that I rarely play any more, but given my success at the game it would be justice if I was able to use it in the same way we use pound sterling!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

This is fairly obvious though, isn't it?

Those in the middle will largely stand still as the lack of growth and migration put downward pressure on wages. Increased tax burdens on employers are also incident on workers as well.

Those at the top are, in theory, those with the greatest skills and thus in demand. Today's globalised labour market means they can command a wage premium.

A better question is whether this is a cyclical effect (i.e. due to the current economic conditions) or a structural problem? The Guardian references a Treasury paper that reported falling real incomes since 2004. That doesn't surprise me much either as it was when the immigration really picked up and the global labour market came to the fore.

What to do about it though? Any one got any suggestions?

First,thank you for taking the time to read and comment on the article.Second,the only suggestion that I have to offer is that we(and that goes for the rest of Europe too)urgently need a policy for growth.Otherwise the squeezed middle will just continue to get bigger in the future,as the article suggests.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I find it interesting (not to say significant)that this Tory lead coalition can agree on a cap for benefits but not for bankers bonuses.Same old caring Tory party then.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I find it interesting not to say significant)that this Tory lead coalition can agree on a cap for benefits but not for bankers bonuses.Same old caring Tory party then.

Oh they care alright...about themselves and their rich friends and everyone else can go hang.

 

[Neil_F]

I find it interesting not to say significant)that this Tory lead coalition can agree on a cap for benefits but not for bankers bonuses.Same old caring Tory party then.

What is the problem with capping benefits? I don't see how it can possibly fair that a family is better off by not working.

On bonuses, what exactly do you want the government to do? The government can't get involved in the remuneration policies of private enterprises or break contractual agreements. They can set tax policy obviously, and you would be on sounder ground there.

For the state owned banks, the government has a problem in that if it exercises management and control it has to assume the liabilities of the bank on its balance sheet. That would have serious consequences for our credit rating and ability to borrow money to fund the deficit.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What is the problem with capping benefits? I don't see how it can possibly fair that a family is better off by not working.

On bonuses, what exactly do you want the government to do? The government can't get involved in the remuneration policies of private enterprises or break contractual agreements. They can set tax policy obviously, and you would be on sounder ground there.

For the state owned banks, the government has a problem in that if it exercises management and control it has to assume the liabilities of the bank on its balance sheet. That would have serious consequences for our credit rating and ability to borrow money to fund the deficit.

The British public own RBS.That would be a good place for the Government to start with a cap on bankers bonuses-if they're at all serious about doing anything of course.

 

[Neil_F]

The British public own RBS.That would be a good place for the Government to start with a cap on bankers bonuses-if they're at all serious about doing anything of course.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote about exercising management and control. The government claim they are limiting cash bonuses in RBS to £2k, though I doubt whether they will actually be able to deliver it. The government (via a holding company) may be the majority shareholder but what action can they take on remuneration policy other than to beg?

Sometimes it is worth recognising that the world can be quite complicated, especially quickly arranged multi-billion pound bailouts.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What is the problem with capping benefits? I don't see how it can possibly fair that a family is better off by not working.

On bonuses, what exactly do you want the government to do? The government can't get involved in the remuneration policies of private enterprises or break contractual agreements. They can set tax policy obviously, and you would be on sounder ground there.

For the state owned banks, the government has a problem in that if it exercises management and control it has to assume the liabilities of the bank on its balance sheet. That would have serious consequences for our credit rating and ability to borrow money to fund the deficit.

Personally speaking I don't have any particular problem with capping benefits as long as large families are not unduly negatively affected.
If, however, it transpires in the next three years that there is a large increase in the number of families with young children being made homeless as a result of this new legislation, then I would expect an incoming Labour Government in 2015 to abolish the cap.

 

[Neil_F]

Personally speaking I don't have any particular problem with capping benefits as long as large families are not unduly negatively affected.
.

Why should I subsidise two parents who don't work to have loads of kids?

I live in an area of London that will be affected by the cap. I live in a two bedroom flat with my girlfriend (jointly owned with mortgage) but we do not have any children. We could stay where we are with one, but the property is too small for two children. We would face a choice at that point: don't have a second child or move somewhere else out of town where we could afford a suitable property.

Why should two parents who don't work be protected from the economic reality above? How is it fair that I would have to move out but those on benefits would get moved to a bigger house in the borough? I just don't get how that is fair.

The moral of the story: don't have kids you can't afford to pay for.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote about exercising management and control. The government claim they are limiting cash bonuses in RBS to £2k, though I doubt whether they will actually be able to deliver it. The government (via a holding company) may be the majority shareholder but what action can they take on remuneration policy other than to beg?

Sometimes it is worth recognising that the world can be quite complicated, especially quickly arranged multi-billion pound bailouts.

I read it all right but you didn't make it as clear, as you do here, as to what limits the Government are hoping to impose by voluntary restraint.
I take your point about the world being a complicated place but surely, if "we're all in it together", as Cameron and others have claimed, there is a moral case for the Government to impose a limit on bankers bonuses?
This could be done eg by restricting bonuses to a certain number of times the average salary of a particular company ie a cap.
I'm hopeful that François Holland's French Presidential election campaign will throw up some other useful ideas to make capitalism fairer in the coming months.

 

[osymandus]

Why should I subsidise two parents who don't work to have loads of kids?

I live in an area of London that will be affected by the cap. I live in a two bedroom flat with my girlfriend (jointly owned with mortgage) but we do not have any children. We could stay where we are with one, but the property is too small for two children. We would face a choice at that point: don't have a second child or move somewhere else out of town where we could afford a suitable property.

Why should two parents who don't work be protected from the economic reality above? How is it fair that I would have to move out but those on benefits would get moved to a bigger house in the borough? I just don't get how that is fair.

The moral of the story: don't have kids you can't afford to pay for.

What's their circumstance where by they have come on to benefits ? Our issue here is not the cap , but as ever the generalised manner in which we go about it . The figures that were used to get to the £26000 were used from London house prices ... driven by the housing market which was over inflated over the last few years . 1 contributing factor , many more of which if we employed or kept on civil servants we can individually test and assess rather then one solution fits all.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why should I subsidise two parents who don't work to have loads of kids?

Why should innocent young children have to pay for the "thoughtlessness" of their parents in having a large family or the sheer bad luck of their parents losing their jobs,or indeed not having jobs, in a time of economic recession and not being able to continue to pay their mortgage or rent and thus being made homeless?

 

[Neil_F]

there is a moral case for the Government to impose a limit on bankers bonuses?
This could be done eg by restricting bonuses to a certain number of times the average salary of a particular company ie a cap.

I agree that there is a moral case for restricting bonuses. It just can't be practically delivered. I'd never have bailed the banks out, probably the most effective way of restircting bonuses (!), but we are where we are.

The problem with income policies in a globalised world is it is so easy to avoid. What is the territorial limitation of such a law? The UK could apply it to every UK registered company and even every UK tax resident, but companies would simply move offshore or senior executives would move office. How could it ever be applied without damaging the UK economy and reducing tax revenue?

This is before we even get into the issue of what is a "bonus". I'm not dissenting from your moral point, and I suspect the government wouldn't either, but how can it be achieved?