Discussion
Average earnings forecast to rise by 8% due to the distorting effects of lockdown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57734805
This will cost the government £3bn per year more than previously expected (which was based on growth of 4.6%)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57734805
This will cost the government £3bn per year more than previously expected (which was based on growth of 4.6%)
NRS said:
So basically the people who struggled through lockdown are paying for a huge pay rise for pensioners it seems, even though the pensioners didn't get the wage losses but due to the triple lock get the big bounce back resulting in a 8% pay rise.
Yep that just about sums it up. The impact will be the deficit will be too great before too long and the future state pension age will rise to 75.leef44 said:
NRS said:
So basically the people who struggled through lockdown are paying for a huge pay rise for pensioners it seems, even though the pensioners didn't get the wage losses but due to the triple lock get the big bounce back resulting in a 8% pay rise.
Yep that just about sums it up. The impact will be the deficit will be too great before too long and the future state pension age will rise to 75.JagLover said:
Average earnings forecast to rise by 8% due to the distorting effects of lockdown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57734805
This will cost the government £3bn per year more than previously expected (which was based on growth of 4.6%)
.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57734805
This will cost the government £3bn per year more than previously expected (which was based on growth of 4.6%)
But if pensions rise because earnings go up 8% does that not mean the govt will rake in more tax from workers earning more so offsetting the extra pension spend,,?
irc said:
JagLover said:
Average earnings forecast to rise by 8% due to the distorting effects of lockdown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57734805
This will cost the government £3bn per year more than previously expected (which was based on growth of 4.6%)
.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57734805
This will cost the government £3bn per year more than previously expected (which was based on growth of 4.6%)
But if pensions rise because earnings go up 8% does that not mean the govt will rake in more tax from workers earning more so offsetting the extra pension spend,,?
NRS said:
In reality the wages are probably close to pre-COVID. It’s just the job losses and cuts to hours resulted in a big fall previously, which now has gone back up. The pensions didn’t drop in that fall like the salaries, but they do go up now with the wage growth. So they likely have around 8% real salary increase on their pension, while the workers have around 0.
Ah. I see. A bit if googling reveals this article which seems to explain it. Average wages up because it was mainly low paid jobs lost during Covid.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/23/t...
NRS said:
In reality the wages are probably close to pre-COVID. It’s just the job losses and cuts to hours resulted in a big fall previously, which now has gone back up. The pensions didn’t drop in that fall like the salaries, but they do go up now with the wage growth. So they likely have around 8% real salary increase on their pension, while the workers have around 0.
It is an artificial "rise" driven by lockdown. The government should have capped the increase as it wasn't a "real" rise in earnings. They look like they won't due to their familiar problem with political cowardice. JagLover said:
It is an artificial "rise" driven by lockdown. The government should have capped the increase as it wasn't a "real" rise in earnings. They look like they won't due to their familiar problem with political cowardice.
I would imagine they cannot due to the way the triple lock is written and implemented. Certainly not without writing a new act and getting it through Parliament. With everything else they have on their plate at present I imagine they're not keen.Triple lock is and always has been an absolute joke. If retired people want "pay" rises like the working population, then un-retire and go and work.
Rises in line with the cost of living are all that the state should be providing. If pensions were felt to have fallen behind then that could have been dealt with much more cleanly with a one off rise to get them back on track.
Murph7355 said:
If retired people want "pay" rises like the working population, then un-retire and go and work.
Rises in line with the cost of living are all that the state should be providing.
For a lot of the working population, rises in line with cost of living - never mind the amount the pension increases by - are an utter fantasy.Rises in line with the cost of living are all that the state should be providing.
InitialDave said:
For a lot of the working population, rises in line with cost of living - never mind the amount the pension increases by - are an utter fantasy.
How very true.https://fullfact.org/economy/employment-since-2010...
Murph7355 said:
JagLover said:
It is an artificial "rise" driven by lockdown. The government should have capped the increase as it wasn't a "real" rise in earnings. They look like they won't due to their familiar problem with political cowardice.
I would imagine they cannot due to the way the triple lock is written and implemented. Certainly not without writing a new act and getting it through Parliament. With everything else they have on their plate at present I imagine they're not keen.Triple lock is and always has been an absolute joke. If retired people want "pay" rises like the working population, then un-retire and go and work.
Rises in line with the cost of living are all that the state should be providing. If pensions were felt to have fallen behind then that could have been dealt with much more cleanly with a one off rise to get them back on track.
I agree with the point regarding wages being kept low by the use of zero hours contracts, the use of bully tactics by employers and an over supply of cheap labour also suppressing wages. Without the triple pension lock all of these employment problems are reflected upon those that are retired.
In effect further dividing Society into financial have and have not.
Government need firmer grip on employee manipulation and exploitation by the giant Corporations of the lower wage spectrum.
Average earnings have not increased.
We've seen people getting back to work, coming off furlough and finding new jobs after being sacked due to Covid.
To suggest that wages have increased by 8% simply isn't true.
Somebody said the pension increase is enshrined in law. So are/ were lots of things but Covid suspended much of the usual processes and checks and balances.
There should be no 8% increase based on an increase in average earnings if those figures are, in reality, skewed. Which they are.
We've seen people getting back to work, coming off furlough and finding new jobs after being sacked due to Covid.
To suggest that wages have increased by 8% simply isn't true.
Somebody said the pension increase is enshrined in law. So are/ were lots of things but Covid suspended much of the usual processes and checks and balances.
There should be no 8% increase based on an increase in average earnings if those figures are, in reality, skewed. Which they are.
Maximus Decimus Meridius said:
Average earnings have not increased.
We've seen people getting back to work, coming off furlough and finding new jobs after being sacked due to Covid.
To suggest that wages have increased by 8% simply isn't true.
Somebody said the pension increase is enshrined in law. So are/ were lots of things but Covid suspended much of the usual processes and checks and balances.
There should be no 8% increase based on an increase in average earnings if those figures are, in reality, skewed. Which they are.
Indeed,We've seen people getting back to work, coming off furlough and finding new jobs after being sacked due to Covid.
To suggest that wages have increased by 8% simply isn't true.
Somebody said the pension increase is enshrined in law. So are/ were lots of things but Covid suspended much of the usual processes and checks and balances.
There should be no 8% increase based on an increase in average earnings if those figures are, in reality, skewed. Which they are.
In my industry it was common for people to be expected to take a twenty percent pay cut over last summer. No doubt when full pay was finally reinstated (with no subsequent wage review for the year) this also fed into the eight percent.
Maximus Decimus Meridius said:
Average earnings have not increased.
We've seen people getting back to work, coming off furlough and finding new jobs after being sacked due to Covid.
To suggest that wages have increased by 8% simply isn't true.
Somebody said the pension increase is enshrined in law. So are/ were lots of things but Covid suspended much of the usual processes and checks and balances.
There should be no 8% increase based on an increase in average earnings if those figures are, in reality, skewed. Which they are.
Even as someone of 56 years I agree. I'd love to see a straightforward explanation of how wages have increased by 8%. And even if they have, I don't think pensions should go up proportionately. We've seen people getting back to work, coming off furlough and finding new jobs after being sacked due to Covid.
To suggest that wages have increased by 8% simply isn't true.
Somebody said the pension increase is enshrined in law. So are/ were lots of things but Covid suspended much of the usual processes and checks and balances.
There should be no 8% increase based on an increase in average earnings if those figures are, in reality, skewed. Which they are.
L_G said:
Indeed,
In my industry it was common for people to be expected to take a twenty percent pay cut over last summer. No doubt when full pay was finally reinstated (with no subsequent wage review for the year) this also fed into the eight percent.
But those individuals could have used up to 4 annual leave days to bump that 20% pay cut to no pay cut. In my industry it was common for people to be expected to take a twenty percent pay cut over last summer. No doubt when full pay was finally reinstated (with no subsequent wage review for the year) this also fed into the eight percent.
Welshbeef said:
But those individuals could have used up to 4 annual leave days to bump that 20% pay cut to no pay cut.
No, the base salary was cut so taking annual leave would not have helped at all.There accompanying announcements talked about people being able to 'flex' their working hours accordingly but in practice this proved difficult
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff