The Lemon Fool

Some interesting stuff in the latest release.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... bruary2021

Or a summary for those that prefer less detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56165929

Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

The BoE is expecting the unemployment rate to rise significantly from here, but this will be determined by how the vaccination programme allows the economy to re-open, in combination with how that same thing will affect support measures such as the furlough scheme.

dealtn wrote:Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

The large variation in the average wage, up and down, certainly wouldn't have been considered possible when that policy was constructed. Economically suspension makes sense. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

dealtn wrote:

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

The large variation in the average wage, up and down, certainly wouldn't have been considered possible when that policy was constructed. Economically suspension makes sense. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

The maximum weekly state pension is £141 in the UK, £507 in Germany, £304 in France, and £513 in Spain.
The figures for the UK, Spain and France are in the right ballpark
(https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/)

The triple lock perhaps goes some way towards rectifying the great European pension divide.

Nimrod103 wrote:

dealtn wrote:

SteMiS wrote:Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

The large variation in the average wage, up and down, certainly wouldn't have been considered possible when that policy was constructed. Economically suspension makes sense. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

The maximum weekly state pension is £141 in the UK, £507 in Germany, £304 in France, and £513 in Spain.
The figures for the UK, Spain and France are in the right ballpark
(https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/)

The triple lock perhaps goes some way towards rectifying the great European pension divide.

Good that you quote from "fullfacts", so in fairness it is probably best to add the full facts you miss, which is that the UK also makes additional non-state pension benefits to pensioners not done so by many European countries. In the part headed "A Fairer Comparison" the article uses OECD figures and concludes "So in this respect, UK pensioners can expect slightly more money from the government than their European counterparts".

I suspect for those looking to make political points, which should be done elsewhere, it would be the minimum, and not maximum, pension entitlement that would be of most importance too.

It is difficult to do an "apples to apples" comparison between countries, and unrealistic to expect the UK to radically change the way it makes pension provision to its retired citizens to make it more like those on the continent, or vice versa.

The triple lock is nothing to do with rectifying anything, let alone a "great European pension divide", it is merely a mechanism for how the increase in state pensions are calculated.

SteMiS wrote:Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

Not in the slightest. Rather it, and the events of the last year, suggests that we should be lowering the pension age - which would increase the demand for younger people.

dealtn wrote:

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

The large variation in the average wage, up and down, certainly wouldn't have been considered possible when that policy was constructed. Economically suspension makes sense. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

The triple lock has always been political. Due to their increased numbers and propensity to actually vote, the over 65s have become the key voter demographic, which both parties have increasingly sought to bribe. As we see from the unemployment figures, the young have once again ended as the main economic casualty (as they have with house prices, pensions, student finance).

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:

SteMiS wrote:Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

The large variation in the average wage, up and down, certainly wouldn't have been considered possible when that policy was constructed. Economically suspension makes sense. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

The triple lock has always been political. Due to their increased numbers and propensity to actually vote, the over 65s have become the key voter demographic, which both parties have increasingly sought to bribe. As we see from the unemployment figures, the young have once again ended as the main economic casualty (as they have with house prices, pensions, student finance).

Depends who you mean by young.
Almost everyone retiring under the new (so called) flat rate pension will have a better state pension compared with those who retired under the old scheme. And that includes all those who are 'young' today.
And those who have retired during the last 20 years of falling interest rates, and have bought (maybe had to buy) annuities, have had seriously smaller pensions than those who retired more than 20 years ago.
AIUI (please correct me if I am wrong) the triple lock only applies to a certain limited part of the state pension. Those who have S2P/Serps do not benefit from the triple lock.

Nimrod103 wrote:

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:
The large variation in the average wage, up and down, certainly wouldn't have been considered possible when that policy was constructed. Economically suspension makes sense. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

The triple lock has always been political. Due to their increased numbers and propensity to actually vote, the over 65s have become the key voter demographic, which both parties have increasingly sought to bribe. As we see from the unemployment figures, the young have once again ended as the main economic casualty (as they have with house prices, pensions, student finance).

Depends who you mean by young.
Almost everyone retiring under the new (so called) flat rate pension will have a better state pension compared with those who retired under the old scheme. And that includes all those who are 'young' today.

Winners and losers under the new state pension

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35928308

Who will be the long-term losers?

Over the long-term, younger people will lose out. Many will get less under the new system than they notionally would have received under the old system. This is because they will pay standard NICs, yet they won't qualify for the second state pension, which is being abolished. The Pensions Policy Institute has calculated that three quarters of those now in their 20s will lose a notional £19,000 over the course of their retirement.

Two-thirds of those now in their 30s will lose £17,000. However the remainder will gain an average of £10,000 in both cases. Others with less than 35 years of NICs will also lose, as previously they would have qualified for a full state pension with just 30 years of contributions....

People born before 1980 can, on average, expect to do better out of the new system. People born after that date are likely to fare worse.

Anyone born after 1980 is 40 or younger. I'd say that encompasses what most people would consider 'the young'. That's even without allowing for the fact that they will all have to wait longer to retire. For anybody born after 1980 that's another 3 years.

Nimrod103 wrote:And those who have retired during the last 20 years of falling interest rates, and have bought (maybe had to buy) annuities, have had seriously smaller pensions than those who retired more than 20 years ago.

In any generalisation there'll still be winner and losers. However I wouldn't have thought many people would argue that private pension provision has improved over the last 25-30 years.

Nimrod103 wrote:AIUI (please correct me if I am wrong) the triple lock only applies to a certain limited part of the state pension. Those who have S2P/Serps do not benefit from the triple lock.

I don't know about SERPS but the triple lock certainly doesn't apply to the pension credit.

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

I think what it illustrates is, as I've been saying for ages, that the statistics need to be seen as 'wrong, but the best we have'. And at the moment, they are very wrong. Underlying growth of 3% is obviously very wrong.

Another example in the news lately, there were estimated to be 3m EU citizens in the UK. So far, and the deadline is not till end of June, over 5m have applied for Settled Status. Adding in those that haven't applied yet, those that took citizenship and those that left we can see that there must have been closer to 6 or 7 million, maybe more. So even previous estimates of the total UK population must have been massively wrong, and any other estimates based on that.

We really can't base policy on this stuff, never mind go into conniptions about small variances. Only clear, long-term trends should matter. But of course, that doesn't sell papers.

SteMiS wrote:Winners and losers under the new state pension

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35928308

Who will be the long-term losers?

Over the long-term, younger people will lose out. Many will get less under the new system than they notionally would have received under the old system. This is because they will pay standard NICs, yet they won't qualify for the second state pension, which is being abolished. The Pensions Policy Institute has calculated that three quarters of those now in their 20s will lose a notional £19,000 over the course of their retirement.

Two-thirds of those now in their 30s will lose £17,000. However the remainder will gain an average of £10,000 in both cases. Others with less than 35 years of NICs will also lose, as previously they would have qualified for a full state pension with just 30 years of contributions....

People born before 1980 can, on average, expect to do better out of the new system. People born after that date are likely to fare worse.

Slightly off topic, but this is a misleading use of statistics by the BBC. It assumes that the then pertaining arrangements for S2P would have continued unchanged. Yet the history of SERPS/S2P has been almost continuous erosion of benefits since its inception, through the removal of spouse benefits, and steady reduction of the accrual rate. Such erosion would be expected to continue, and the BBC should have factored it in to their calculations. Likewise they also complain about changing the minimum contribution from 30 to 35 years, without mentioning that the 30 rule was only in operation for a few years, and for most 45 years (i think) had applied. So going from 45 down to 35 was a major improvement for many young people.

dealtn wrote:Some interesting stuff in the latest release.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... bruary2021

Or a summary for those that prefer less detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56165929

Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

The BoE is expecting the unemployment rate to rise significantly from here, but this will be determined by how the vaccination programme allows the economy to re-open, in combination with how that same thing will affect support measures such as the furlough scheme.

Also if cabbage pickers have temporally restricted access to the UK e.g. to harvest season, then they won't be expanding low end service in other periods eg being available to be another barista.

JamesMuenchen wrote:

SteMiS wrote:

dealtn wrote:Includes a large rise in average pay, well above inflation, but partially caused mathematically by the disproportionate hit to unemployment in the low paid sectors, and younger workers.

Without stumbling into a political discussion, this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock.

I think what it illustrates is, as I've been saying for ages, that the statistics need to be seen as 'wrong, but the best we have'. And at the moment, they are very wrong. Underlying growth of 3% is obviously very wrong.

Another example in the news lately, there were estimated to be 3m EU citizens in the UK. So far, and the deadline is not till end of June, over 5m have applied for Settled Status. Adding in those that haven't applied yet, those that took citizenship and those that left we can see that there must have been closer to 6 or 7 million, maybe more. So even previous estimates of the total UK population must have been massively wrong, and any other estimates based on that.

We really can't base policy on this stuff, never mind go into conniptions about small variances. Only clear, long-term trends should matter. But of course, that doesn't sell papers.

Or to put another way, in 2003 1 in every 11.6 people in the UK registered themselves as foreign born. In 2019 it was 1 in 7 people e.g. as sought by Minette "Chip" Batters, Pres of the National Farmers Union, for cheap labour-- but the worry of course is what happens to natives here and their quality of life with an extra 1 in 7 competitors for every resource + job and of course the ability of a state to afford a recession.

2001 modal wage £12500
2017 " " £13200

Mean wage inflation 0.34% pa from 2001 to 17.
RPI 3.1%pa across the same period.
Thanks to Labour + Cons collusion.

daducky wrote:Or to put another way, in 2003 1 in every 11.6 people in the UK registered themselves as foreign born. In 2019 it was 1 in 7 people e.g. as sought by Minette "Chip" Batters, Pres of the National Farmers Union, for cheap labour-- but the worry of course is what happens to natives here and their quality of life with an extra 1 in 7 competitors for every resource + job and of course the ability of a state to afford a recession.

2001 modal wage £12500
2017 " " £13200

Mean wage inflation 0.34% pa from 2001 to 17.
RPI 3.1%pa across the same period.
Thanks to Labour + Cons collusion.

It is another form of QE

dealtn wrote:...this does illustrate the need to at least 'suspend' the pension triple lock. Politically however I guess it must be less simple.

As a beneficiary of the triple lock, I fully agree that it should be suspended. For two years, say.

And it would go some way towards paying for the unfunded 'temporary' increase in Universal Credit that the govt will not have the courage to withdraw.

V8

daducky wrote:Mean wage inflation 0.34% pa from 2001 to 17.
RPI 3.1%pa across the same period.

Inflation is another one where they should be embarassed at the figures they put out.

Currently UK inflation is (Hattip to Andrew Sentance):
CPI: 0.4%
CPIH: 0.7%
PPI (output): 0.9%
RPI: 1.4%
RPIX: 1.6%
CPIY: 2.0%
PPI (input): 2.6%
GDP deflator: 6.1%
GVA deflator: 8.0%

Absolute nonsense.

JamesMuenchen wrote:

daducky wrote:Mean wage inflation 0.34% pa from 2001 to 17.
RPI 3.1%pa across the same period.

Inflation is another one where they should be embarassed at the figures they put out.

Currently UK inflation is (Hattip to Andrew Sentance):
CPI: 0.4%
CPIH: 0.7%
PPI (output): 0.9%
RPI: 1.4%
RPIX: 1.6%
CPIY: 2.0%
PPI (input): 2.6%
GDP deflator: 6.1%
GVA deflator: 8.0%

Absolute nonsense.

Why?

the sheer number of different measures? The fact the measurement is so different to each other? Something else?

dealtn wrote:

JamesMuenchen wrote:

daducky wrote:Mean wage inflation 0.34% pa from 2001 to 17.
RPI 3.1%pa across the same period.

Inflation is another one where they should be embarassed at the figures they put out.

Currently UK inflation is (Hattip to Andrew Sentance):
CPI: 0.4%
CPIH: 0.7%
PPI (output): 0.9%
RPI: 1.4%
RPIX: 1.6%
CPIY: 2.0%
PPI (input): 2.6%
GDP deflator: 6.1%
GVA deflator: 8.0%

Absolute nonsense.

Why?

the sheer number of different measures? The fact the measurement is so different to each other? Something else?

---
CPI hides the inflationary consequence, with the exception of mean salary, of successive Gov policy increasing the inorganic population by 15%.
People must live somewhere. Accordingly the Gov's linking of payments to the populace e.g. welfare based on CPI rather than RPI is either or both perverse and disingenuous.
Coupled with the ongoing QE devaluation of the worth of each note...

Hence we're all here.

daducky wrote:

dealtn wrote:

JamesMuenchen wrote:Inflation is another one where they should be embarassed at the figures they put out.

Currently UK inflation is (Hattip to Andrew Sentance):
CPI: 0.4%
CPIH: 0.7%
PPI (output): 0.9%
RPI: 1.4%
RPIX: 1.6%
CPIY: 2.0%
PPI (input): 2.6%
GDP deflator: 6.1%
GVA deflator: 8.0%

Absolute nonsense.

Why?

the sheer number of different measures? The fact the measurement is so different to each other? Something else?

---
CPI hides the inflationary consequence, with the exception of mean salary, of successive Gov policy increasing the inorganic population by 15%.
People must live somewhere. Accordingly the Gov's linking of payments to the populace e.g. welfare based on CPI rather than RPI is either or both perverse and disingenuous.
Coupled with the ongoing QE devaluation of the worth of each note...

Hence we're all here.

What are the "inorganic population" - is it the number of robots in the UK ?