not2old

Given the BOE governor statement today, could it be his work alone or that of the coalition government that is starting to turn things around?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26153122

Could this just be for the 2015 re-election, or is it Carney simply band-aiding in his short tenure to make it look better than it really is?

chris955

It had to happen really, the economy is growing and improving much faster than anyone had predicted so he has had to move his timescale back.

Bud the Wiser

Must be booming. Councils have loads of money to spend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...nt-garden.html

Editha

I don't think it has much to do with Carney, though appointing him was a brilliant thing to do. I think it is the government. My opinion of George Osborne has gone up by about 200% since 2010.

chris955

Yes it has much more to do with the Government than Carney, he has been lucky that the Governmen has done such a good job of turning things around and that has reflected well on the BoE.

roaringmouse

Such a good job that real earnings have dropped every year from 2008-2013. The real value of average weekly earnings in the UK is back to the level of 2002.

chris955

Blah blah blah

chris955

This is very interesting about the growth of manufacturing in the UK and specifically the Midlands.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26366794

Lorac05

No offence Chris but it really is a fact that many peoples wages are worth less today than it was several years ago. Many have either had no pay rise or rises that are below the rate of inflation and that impacts what their standard of living. I know that according to the stock markets we have moved out of recession but that has yet to be reflected in the overall economy and until it does the government has not yet succeeded in turning the economy around.

dunroving

Just out of interest, I downloaded an ONS spreadsheet of CPI data, and ran the annual figures for the 5 years 2009-2013 (using the annual CPI for each calendar year).

Total inflation over that period was 16.5%, as follows: 2.9%, 3.7%, 4.2%, 2.7%, 2.0% (I compounded over the 5 years).

Anyone who had no pay raises over those 5 years would therefore be looking at essentially a 14% drop in income (because their salary, still at 2009 levels, would be worth only 86% of what it was worth back in 2009).

Hope that makes sense.

I have had two pay rises during the same period, of (I believe) 1% and 0.5%. So, I'm looking at a 13% drop in salary, which is about what the union is currently saying (hence we have been on strike and have further industrial action planned)

Pistolpete2

I'll put my handkerchief away for a second to say that the cost to the taxpayer for its service cost relating to each year's addition to a final salary public sector worker pension must be just colossal in a UK where defined contribution pension conts followed by annuities at retirement for the average private sector worker buys you zilch in actual annual payouts.

Surely this is a factor now from the Government side of the bargaining table.

In addition, one of the reasons that the intended cuts in large areas of the public sector simply haven't taken place is the monumental cost relating to letting people go, which wasn't foreseen at the planning/plotting stage. Not an issue at all in the private sector, these days.

It may be wishful thinking but one wants to think that the Government recognise these disparities these days between public and private sectors along with the dangers in letting them get too much out of kilter, again.

dunroving

They already are trying to adjust for the disparities, while trying to minimize the likelihood of a revolution among public sector workers:

Change from final salary to average career salary pensions
Delay of pension age for public sector pensions

I can't believe teachers still retire on full pension at 60 ...

You can put your hanky away, I wasn't looking for sympathy (although I can assure you I certainly don't fall into the category of a fat cat final salary pensioned worker).

roaringmouse

So according to those figures, there will be people who have had a 14% drop in their income 2009-2013, with cost of living increasing dramatically. At the end of 2013 alone there were increases in gas & electricity of between 8 and 11% by big utility companies (one example) on top of previous changes in their rates. It's just crazy!

Bud the Wiser

I watched a documentary the other week about the growth in UK manufacturing, attributed in no small part by the 'reshoring' of UK firms that had previously moved abroad for financial reasons, mainly labour costs. There's also an article in todays' Telegraph on the same subject.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...back-home.html

Using the off quoted 'glass half full' analogy, I wonder if this is good news because of the creation of new jobs or bad news because UK wages are now comparable to what are often described as 'cheap labour nations'.

Footnote: Also read that emerging nations such as China are concerned about corporations moving their business to cheaper labour cost nations as their (Chinas ) economy grows and wage demands rise.

C'est la vie. What goes around comes around.

Pistolpete2

Indeed, there's an article also in the Guardian on the subject of the re-shoring from low labour cost alternatives such as China. It seems obvious that there is still no comparison in terms of pure labour costs but the overall package of logistics, technology and declining difference on labour costs means that one in five companies are now re-shoring.

Let's face it, the reality is that if the wages and benefits packages remained uncompetitive in the UK there would be no jobs just as competitiveness is at the root of the dire situation in Southern Europe. The big question is whether the new jobs provide a standard of living that is sustainable and that is questionable in a generally high-cost UK.

We've probably most seen the shenanigans in recent weeks relating to the site for production of the Boeing 777X and the vote on membership of the UAW at VW in Chattanooga. You either toe the line on perceived opportunities that present themselves long-term along with the muffled threats or you go without.

The true true irony is that at VW, the employers would actually prefer the staff are organised, and working to the German model with a works council, which is overall far more productive a workforce than anywhere else, admittedly given the German work ethic. The argument was simply about COST at Boeing.

It's exactly as my example of (High-cost) Bermuda earlier (on Immigration) laid out and is a big reason cheaper imported labour can often sustain itself in the short-run to finance a better life later back home AND employers want it that way and can have it that way while the locals typically turn down the graft stuff and the UK is a member of the EU. No level playing field there!

KEY is the development of industries where the UK has a niche, such as in the high tech areas of aero engines and racing-standard cars. Key also is providing home-grown job candidates in those tech areas and there is no real sign of that, even on the horizon and that with restrictions on immigration for skilled workers who might need to come from outside the EU is holding some UK industry back, further reducing other opportunities for those home-growns in those held-back businesses.