Many of the strikes are for reasons not really related to inflation. For example, the legal strikes have been brewing for years .
Many of the strikes are for reasons not really related to inflation. For example, the legal strikes have been brewing for years .
STRONG.
AND.
STABLE.
Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian
You're one of the fortunate people that have put towards a private pension for 20 years. Gloating about it while demonstrating massive macro-economic ignorance is a weird flex but go on.The private pensions that your employer now has to pay in to from your monthly pay.What pensions and savings? You might want to have a look at how thoroughly the middle classes have been hollowed out over the past couple of decades if you remove the asset values of housing.
I'm one of those crazy people that have put in towards a private pension for 20 years as I don't expect much of a state pension in the future.
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
Oh, OK, because the market is organized so that grain traders fuck both grain producers and customers, this doesn't count as profiteering.Grain _traders_ not producers, when the goods get more expensive the middle men that take X percent on the top are pretty much guaranteed record profits.Record profits for grain firmsDo you have any statistics supporting this link between corporate profits and say, food prices? I work with some big growers and they have all made a loss the last 3 years, primarily due to wage and energy inflation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-windfall-tax
You are also so quick to make claims that profits are natural and inevitable. If the grain trading market was actually competitive, traders wouldn't be able to make a fixed X percent as prices rise. It isn't actually harder to trade something that costs USD600/tonne that to trade something that costs USD300/tonne.
So many people have internalized this neoliberal construction that governments should never try to influence prices or restrain corporate profits.
Last edited by duckduck; August 24 2022 at 10:40:03 AM.
You've fallen for the trick of accepting that costs and wages need to be restrained, while ignoring even the possibility that prices and profits be capped. In the case of the railways, the government is explicitly allowing the train companies to put up prices by the full amount of inflation and, at the same time, pressuring train companies to give significantly below inflationary pay rises.
Old marxist analysis is useful here. It is a clear struggle between capital, wanting to protect their profit margins, and workers wanting to protect their income. No surprise the Conservative party are firmly on the side of capital. The more disappointing part is that many people cannot even see the option of reducing profits.
All profits and shareholder payouts during a cost of living crisis are wage theft.
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
That old meme: "Newsflash prices are going up anyway!"
If this is a cold winter then its going to be fucking brutal for a lot of people. I feel very fortunate that the house i just bought has very modern standards of insulation. I could probably survive with no heating turned on. But the house I was renting, no fucking way. Id probably be seriously ill after a while. No amount of extra blankets and PJs are gonna help. And my old rental was definitely middle of the road when it came to insulation. ALmost as if those insulate britain guys had a point?
"get back to work, i want to be able to spend my money" - mashie
Depending on the area of the country, between 50-75% of the population will be in fuel poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of your disposable income on heating and electricity costs) by October.
That is not a sustainable situation.
It's not down to individuals to come up with the solution, it's down to major employers and the government.
'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'
I wasn't gloating, anyone that has been in employment during the past 4-5 years (and have earned over £10k a year) have a private pension through their workplace now. I just jumped the gun and maxed out the benefits offered ahead of time. I wasn't planning to start a pension saving in my mid 20's but when the company would put in 8% if I put in 2% it was a no brainer. Free money, shame to not take it. From then on I have always joined the pension schemes at each company as they all will match the contributions one way or another.You're one of the fortunate people that have put towards a private pension for 20 years. Gloating about it while demonstrating massive macro-economic ignorance is a weird flex but go on.The private pensions that your employer now has to pay in to from your monthly pay.What pensions and savings? You might want to have a look at how thoroughly the middle classes have been hollowed out over the past couple of decades if you remove the asset values of housing.
I'm one of those crazy people that have put in towards a private pension for 20 years as I don't expect much of a state pension in the future.
This is the problem with the energy prices going up, everything suddenly cost more for no gain (besides the profits for the energy producers). Windfall tax should be used to its fullest extent but can only recover some of that profit unfortunately. Products imported from abroad will have fed other energy companies, same with imported gas, the profits have been collected before crossing the UK borders.You've fallen for the trick of accepting that costs and wages need to be restrained, while ignoring even the possibility that prices and profits be capped. In the case of the railways, the government is explicitly allowing the train companies to put up prices by the full amount of inflation and, at the same time, pressuring train companies to give significantly below inflationary pay rises.
Old marxist analysis is useful here. It is a clear struggle between capital, wanting to protect their profit margins, and workers wanting to protect their income. No surprise the Conservative party are firmly on the side of capital. The more disappointing part is that many people cannot even see the option of reducing profits.
I would have loved to get a pay rise equivalent of inflation but we got 3%, next year we get 2%, both of which are pretty much in line with what we had had on average the previous years (2.1%-2.4%).
Shell Energy is already making sure that won't happen.
Speaking of energy, it would be a good start if the government could sort out the silly way wholesale electricity pricing is set every 30 minutes. It is locked to the gas prices regardless how much is coming in from renewable sources which is nuts.
Also the suggestion by quite a few of the energy companies to freeze the current cap for 2 years and set up a fund to sort out the financing of that would greatly help all households.
I know, I'm one of those 50-75%. Increased pay isn't the fix, reducing the energy cost is.Depending on the area of the country, between 50-75% of the population will be in fuel poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of your disposable income on heating and electricity costs) by October.
That is not a sustainable situation.
It's not down to individuals to come up with the solution, it's down to major employers and the government.
The legal strikes are EXPRESSLY because the legal aid brief fee has been frozen in nominal terms (and thus deflating in real terms) for 10 years. The reason it is coming to a head now is because inflation is now so huge.
To be fair, most working people will have been contributing to a private pension for between 7-10 years now (when auto-enrolment kicked in for small and large employers respectively)You're one of the fortunate people that have put towards a private pension for 20 years. Gloating about it while demonstrating massive macro-economic ignorance is a weird flex but go on.The private pensions that your employer now has to pay in to from your monthly pay.What pensions and savings? You might want to have a look at how thoroughly the middle classes have been hollowed out over the past couple of decades if you remove the asset values of housing.
I'm one of those crazy people that have put in towards a private pension for 20 years as I don't expect much of a state pension in the future.
You've ignored my post that grain trading by those entities isnt relevant to the UK (which this thread is about) I see.Oh, OK, because the market is organized so that grain traders fuck both grain producers and customers, this doesn't count as profiteering.Grain _traders_ not producers, when the goods get more expensive the middle men that take X percent on the top are pretty much guaranteed record profits.Record profits for grain firmsDo you have any statistics supporting this link between corporate profits and say, food prices? I work with some big growers and they have all made a loss the last 3 years, primarily due to wage and energy inflation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-windfall-tax
You are also so quick to make claims that profits are natural and inevitable. If the grain trading market was actually competitive, traders wouldn't be able to make a fixed X percent as prices rise. It isn't actually harder to trade something that costs USD600/tonne that to trade something that costs USD300/tonne.
So many people have internalized this neoliberal construction that governments should never try to influence prices or restrain corporate profits.
Why not bothI know, I'm one of those 50-75%. Increased pay isn't the fix, reducing the energy cost is.Depending on the area of the country, between 50-75% of the population will be in fuel poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of your disposable income on heating and electricity costs) by October.
That is not a sustainable situation.
It's not down to individuals to come up with the solution, it's down to major employers and the government.
I suppose the argument would be that increasing pay is inflationary. But I think it's credibly established that the energy cost is the primary culprit behind inflationary pressures (supply chain bottlenecks seem to be slowly clearing since CPI inflation in the US is reducing slightly) so I don't see why doing both wouldn't reduce inflation and more importantly head off an even worse cost of living crisis than we already have.Why not bothI know, I'm one of those 50-75%. Increased pay isn't the fix, reducing the energy cost is.Depending on the area of the country, between 50-75% of the population will be in fuel poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of your disposable income on heating and electricity costs) by October.
That is not a sustainable situation.
It's not down to individuals to come up with the solution, it's down to major employers and the government.
This is a boring and anodyne point that has been described to death thousands of times.
But unfortunately we have to live in a world where tory economic policy reigns. What would it take for the likes of Truss and Sunak to intervene like this?
Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it
OTOH, increased pay stays, lower energy prices might rise again.I know, I'm one of those 50-75%. Increased pay isn't the fix, reducing the energy cost is.Depending on the area of the country, between 50-75% of the population will be in fuel poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of your disposable income on heating and electricity costs) by October.
That is not a sustainable situation.
It's not down to individuals to come up with the solution, it's down to major employers and the government.
Also that people investing capital are looking for certain profit for the investment, no matter where it is put, if one can't invest into the grain market and deal with the futures etc for a given margin the money goes elsewhere. Bigger costs for the stuff for a full ship mean you have way more capital tied into the venture and have more risk if the ship sinks.You've ignored my post that grain trading by those entities isnt relevant to the UK (which this thread is about) I see.Oh, OK, because the market is organized so that grain traders fuck both grain producers and customers, this doesn't count as profiteering.Grain _traders_ not producers, when the goods get more expensive the middle men that take X percent on the top are pretty much guaranteed record profits.Record profits for grain firmsDo you have any statistics supporting this link between corporate profits and say, food prices? I work with some big growers and they have all made a loss the last 3 years, primarily due to wage and energy inflation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-windfall-tax
You are also so quick to make claims that profits are natural and inevitable. If the grain trading market was actually competitive, traders wouldn't be able to make a fixed X percent as prices rise. It isn't actually harder to trade something that costs USD600/tonne that to trade something that costs USD300/tonne.
So many people have internalized this neoliberal construction that governments should never try to influence prices or restrain corporate profits.
And no, the traders aren't even the people shipping the stuff, they are the ones buying the future production and then when the day comes trying to get that sold for profit, ie. people sitting at computers and placing phone calls.
Last edited by depili; August 24 2022 at 01:30:52 PM.
I mean I kinda feel like the energy prices are the straw on the camel of everything else going up in cost. Housing, food, everything we need is spiralling up in cost BEFORE most employees have seen a payrise.I know, I'm one of those 50-75%. Increased pay isn't the fix, reducing the energy cost is.Depending on the area of the country, between 50-75% of the population will be in fuel poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of your disposable income on heating and electricity costs) by October.
That is not a sustainable situation.
It's not down to individuals to come up with the solution, it's down to major employers and the government.
'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'
There's much more to it than that. Various cuts across the system were leading to huge backlogs, which, when combined with the deterioration of memories that comes with time, made for unreliable witnesses and a lack of justice. The buildings are a crumbling mess because cuts have meant little to no building maintenance and a large contributor to the backlog has been due to fewer court sessions caused by cuts.
The pay settlement put forward by the government was only for new cases as of September. Seeing as the backlog is counted in years now, that's a huge problem.
Finally, the legal teams had already been in a soft strike for several months already. So whilst you're sort of correct, this would have come to a head now with or without the huge inflation spike.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks