Private sector pay 'to trail inflation' in 2011

Source - BBC News - 6th Jan 2011

 

Private sector pay could rise by more this year than in 2010, but is still likely to trail inflation, research by Incomes Data Services has suggested.

 

Pay awards were running at 2.2% in November, up from the 2% rises seen in most of the past year, and IDS predicts pay rises may average 3% this year.

 

However, this is less than half the rate of retail price inflation (RPI).

 

The public sector in the UK faces pay freezes in most areas as a result of the government's spending cuts.

 

While the number of explicit pay freezes has been dropping sharply, IDS expects public sector pay rises to fall from a typical 0.75% increase in 2010.

 

The latest official figures suggest that RPI inflation - which includes mortgage interest payments and is often used by employers when negotiating pay deals - rose to 4.7% in November from 4.5% the month before.

 

Many analysts expect RPI to remain above 4% this year.

 

'Triple whammy'

 

The BBC's business editor Robert Peston said that the pressure on pay expected this year followed pay squeezes in the previous two years.

 

"We are talking for many people about a few years of declining take-home pay in real terms," he said.

 

Ken Mulkearn, editor of the pay report from IDS, said the picture was particularly bleak for public sector workers.

 

They could face a "triple whammy of low pay rises or pay freezes, compared to high inflation and increased contributions to pension schemes", he told the BBC.

 

Earlier research from IDS showed that for the year to October the total earnings of FTSE 100 directors rose by 55%, although Mr Mulkearn pointed out that this included bonuses, share options and other long-term incentives in addition to salary.

 

"It's quite a contrast between largesse on the one hand and a squeeze on living standards on the other," Mr Mulkearn said.

 

Such large rises in earnings for senior executives are both damaging and divisive, said Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC.

 

"What we've seen, over quite a long period now, is levels of increases being secured by the top corporate leaders that are simply not justified in any way by performance - and are out of all proportion to what's been happening to the rest of the workforce," he said.

 

"And that is a recipe for desperately low morale, when ordinary workers see themselves being held back so severely while the leaders of their organisations are rewarding themselves so handsomely."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As if we really needed anymore proof, but this really just nails it to the wall good and proper... Let's be under no ambiguity here, a pay "rise" which doesn't cover the RPI of Inflation is a de-facto pay CUT in real, money terms, because spending power is decreased regardless... For example, last year you buy something that cost a pound, this year, it costs £1.04 (actually, probably more when you take into account VAT rises as well...), and your pay only goes up by 2p in the £, it doesn't take an economics guru like Robert Peston to figure out your worse off...

 

So, RPI of Infation is over 4%, VAT is up by 2.5%, fuel prices are up too....

 

Still, "We're all in this together", eh.....?

As if we needed any more evidence. Ed Miliband needs six months to grow into the job of Leader of the Opposition but by the time he has, the Coalition could well be unravelling before him.

And here's a chart showing just to what extent hard-working families are going to be hit by the ConDemolition's cuts... it shows that they will FAR outweigh the effects that Labour's (misguided) scrapping of the 10p tax rate had, and that the "lifting the poor out of tax altogether!!!!111" that Clegg and other Lib Dems keep pathetically clinging onto is an absolutely pathetic compensatory factor which doesn't come close to cancelling out the revenue those people will lose through other means:

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5341978079_f9e3ddff8b.jpg

 

Meanwhile, against this backdrop, George Osborne is saying the "progressive" VAT rise is here to stay but that he wants to cut the 50p tax rate on the highest earners in society as quickly as possible, while it also seems the bankers will be allowed to claim their bonuses in full as Labour's bonus tax, which brought in £4bn will not be resurrected - because, according to Cameron, that would be "scapegoating" the bankers (for the recession that they caused). :rolleyes:

As if we needed any more evidence. Ed Miliband needs six months to grow into the job of Leader of the Opposition but by the time he has, the Coalition could well be unravelling before him.

 

 

In my opinion Ed will never grow in to the job of Opposition Leader. His hour with Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 on Friday had him well and truly put on the spot by listeners and Vine laid in to him for not being married yet. One listener said "all the public knows about you is that you shafted your brother" :o He's another IDS and will be replaced by brother David before the next election imo.

Edited January 10, 201114 yr by Common Sense

In my opinion Ed will never grow in to the job of Opposition Leader. His hour with Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 on Friday had him well and truly put on the spot by listeners and Vine laid in to him for not being married yet. One listener said "all the public knows about you is that you shafted your brother" :o He's another IDS and will be replaced by brother David before the next election imo.

 

Guess you missed the fact that Labour are ahead in the polls already despite Ed's supposedly disastrous leadership.

 

I'm not going to claim Ed is wildly popular among the public, because right now, he clearly isn't. But the fact that Labour are ahead despite the public's muted reaction shows that Ed is at worst a neutral factor for floating voters, which is much better than being an outright negative factor like Hague was by the end of his 100 days (the baseball cap stunt had already happened), and, indeed, like Brown proved to be. Not to mention it shows how wildly unpopular the ConDemalition are, considering people are already flocking to Labour despite being unconvinced by Ed.

 

As for David, I really believe he'd be doing worse than Ed. I don't know WHERE this myth in the media has come from that David was a charismatic communicator - during the leadership contest, pretty much all commentators agreed Ed had outperformed him in hustings. And, believe me, I'd be very doubtful of Labour rank-and-file members electing David even if Ed were to be ousted - there's a hell of a lot of antipathy towards David among my friends in Labour, due to the impression (rightly or wrongly) that he was only in it for power and that he doesn't actually care for the Party itself, as shown by the fact he couldn't bear to serve in the shadow cabinet once he'd been beaten.

 

Imo, the only one of the leadership candidates who might be doing better than Ed right now is Andy Burnham (who I might've voted for had he not stuck to the New Labour line on Iraq and civil liberties).

Guess you missed the fact that Labour are ahead in the polls already despite Ed's supposedly disastrous leadership.

 

I'm not going to claim Ed is wildly popular among the public, because right now, he clearly isn't. But the fact that Labour are ahead despite the public's muted reaction shows that Ed is at worst a neutral factor for floating voters, which is much better than being an outright negative factor like Hague was by the end of his 100 days (the baseball cap stunt had already happened), and, indeed, like Brown proved to be. Not to mention it shows how wildly unpopular the ConDemalition are, considering people are already flocking to Labour despite being unconvinced by Ed.

 

As for David, I really believe he'd be doing worse than Ed. I don't know WHERE this myth in the media has come from that David was a charismatic communicator - during the leadership contest, pretty much all commentators agreed Ed had outperformed him in hustings. And, believe me, I'd be very doubtful of Labour rank-and-file members electing David even if Ed were to be ousted - there's a hell of a lot of antipathy towards David among my friends in Labour, due to the impression (rightly or wrongly) that he was only in it for power and that he doesn't actually care for the Party itself, as shown by the fact he couldn't bear to serve in the shadow cabinet once he'd been beaten.

 

Imo, the only one of the leadership candidates who might be doing better than Ed right now is Andy Burnham (who I might've voted for had he not stuck to the New Labour line on Iraq and civil liberties).

The press have already succeeded in helping to topple Iain Duncan Smith and Ming Campbell before they've had a chance to fight an election and want to be able to complete the set.

In my opinion Ed will never grow in to the job of Opposition Leader. His hour with Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 on Friday had him well and truly put on the spot by listeners and Vine laid in to him for not being married yet. One listener said "all the public knows about you is that you shafted your brother" :o He's another IDS and will be replaced by brother David before the next election imo.

 

How exactly is not being married relevant at all?

How exactly is not being married relevant at all?

 

 

It's not but Vine seized upon it to have a go at him and Radio 2 have since had complaints apparently.

How exactly is not being married relevant at all?

 

You've saved me a question. Just shows you how everything has been 'dumbed down' ... even supposedly serious political journalists.

 

Kath

 

*Sorry forgot ... didn't Vine once do the Horse of the Year Show? He must have been demoted.