Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Brexit actually going to happen?

Will we have a brexit?


  • Total voters
    362
That's why I pushed myself to give them a 5% increase, I want to keep them on well above the 'living wage', they are a cracking team, who have been with me for years, I don't want to see them drift off. Despite them engaged in what could be considered 'minimum wage work', the living wage went up to £7.38 ph, my team went up to £10.50 ph, and I am hoping to increase that to £11.00 ph next year.

Partly paid by increased rates to new clients, partly by increasing volume of business.

Good for you.

If only the world was full of Cupid Stunts :)
 
That's why I pushed myself to give them a 5% increase, I want to keep them on well above the 'living wage', they are a cracking team, who have been with me for years, I don't want to see them drift off. Despite them engaged in what could be considered 'minimum wage work', the living wage went up to £7.38 ph, my team went up to £10.50 ph, and I am hoping to increase that to £11.00 ph next year.

Partly paid by increased rates to new clients, partly by increasing volume of business.
That would take them to £21,200 per annum. The national average is £27k.
 
The national average is massively loaded by people in London, by high end professionals etc etc.
Cupid Stunt is paying a very fair rate for anywhere outside the M25.
 
And, yet employment is at record levels, with some impressive increases, considering uncertainty.
UK record employment increases likelihood of interest rate hike
This illustrates the problem with economics. This was exactly the same claim the Terese May (after before her Cameron/Osborne/etc) made today about why everything is a-ok. It's the argument that successive governments have used to excuse their attacks on the welfare state and increasing inequality and/or poverty. You're playing on their terms.
 
This illustrates the problem with economics. This was exactly the same claim the Terese May (after before her Cameron/Osborne/etc) made today about why everything is a-ok. It's the argument that successive governments have used to excuse their attacks on the welfare state and increasing inequality and/or poverty. You're playing on their terms.


To some extent, yes, we don't have a choice. These are the stats and we have to go with them to some extent, or provide evidence of lies, which short of commissioning our own survey it's a struggle to do.
 
This illustrates the problem with economics. This was exactly the same claim the Terese May (after before her Cameron/Osborne/etc) made today about why everything is a-ok. It's the argument that successive governments have used to excuse their attacks on the welfare state and increasing inequality and/or poverty. You're playing on their terms.

I am not playing on their terms, everything is far from OK, there's still a long way to go, in particular in respect of inequality, which seriously bugs me.
 
To some extent, yes, we don't have a choice. These are the stats and we have to go with them to some extent, or provide evidence of lies, which short of commissioning our own survey it's a struggle to do.
Again an excellent illustration of what economics actually is - there are "the stats", lovely neutral apolitical stats.
 
Again an excellent illustration of what economics actually is - there are "the stats", lovely neutral apolitical stats.
There is no such thing as neutral stats and I accept that. But they are all we have.

FWIW I've long thought the official inflation figures a bit whiffy. I'm not alleging deliberate deception, I just don't think the accurately reflect the things poorer people spend their money on.
 
I am not playing on their terms, everything is far from OK, there's still a long way to go, in particular in respect of inequality, which seriously bugs me.
I am not playing on their terms, everything is far from OK, there's still a long way to go, in particular in respect of inequality, which seriously bugs me.
You've made the same argument as May did this lunchtime
May said she wanted to correct him: almost two-thirds of the rise in employment has been from full-time work, and 70% of the rise in employment from 2010 has been from high-skilled work.
the same argument Hammond made to excuse doing anything to tackle job insecurity. By using such an argument of course you're playing on their terms.
 
That's why I pushed myself to give them a 5% increase, I want to keep them on well above the 'living wage', they are a cracking team, who have been with me for years, I don't want to see them drift off. Despite them engaged in what could be considered 'minimum wage work', the living wage went up to £7.38 ph, my team went up to £10.50 ph, and I am hoping to increase that to £11.00 ph next year.

Partly paid by increased rates to new clients, partly by increasing volume of business.
How much do you pay yourself?
 
I'm fairly sure you're a greedy capitalist pig if you pay yourself any more than the other workers in the company aren't you?

My role in the business is totally different, and requires a far higher skill set, not that it's any of your bloody business, but I earn only slightly more than I did in my last job, which was a lot easier role to fulfill.
 
My role in the business is totally different, and requires a far higher skill set, not that it's any of your bloody business, but I earn only slightly more than I did in my last job, which was a lot easier role to fulfill.
Essentially you have decided that you and your workers' pay is related to the value of your time according to the market, rather than hours of labour put in. That's fine, it's what any capitalist would do. You pay the workers slightly more than the minimum necessary for them to live off, and you pay yourself a little bit less than what you think you are worth. Naturally you don't want to divulge the actual difference in pay; I'd take a stab that it will be at least 2 or 3 times as much. But I'm confident these small gestures will keep the anti-capitalists of U75 off your back, and indeed your benevolence will be noted.
 
You're making room for those 2 million pensioners that are coming back from Europe shortly, right?

I assume we'll be bribing the EU to hang on to them. Trading a couple of million useful working age europeans for a couple of million pensioners who are shit even compared to normal British pensioners would be a very bad deal for us.
 
I assume we'll be bribing the EU to hang on to them. Trading a couple of million useful working age europeans for a couple of million pensioners who are shit even compared to normal British pensioners would be a very bad deal for us.
Yes , the final deal should definitely allow people already in the UK to stay, and UK citizens in the EU to stay also.

Ideally this should have been established even before the referendum was called.
 
I have learned that it is out of order to post links here without a summary of some kind.
This first link is to a story about how the Irish Republic Guardai wanting not only extra police for the post brexit Irish border, but automatic weapons as well with armed response units equipped with such weapons.

Border gardaí seek automatic weapons amid hard Brexit fears

The second link is about how the police service of Northern Ireland want more money and up to 500 more officers to protect the border, and there is some interesting figures about the resources actually needed pre the Belfast Agreement. (yes I know it is a Guardian link and all that that implies for some people here).

Brexit: Northern Irish police ask for more funds to protect border

The third link is about how a high up in the Guarda is complaining that his government as yet has no plan in place for policing the Irish/UK post brexit border.

No plan in place for policing a hard border, warns Garda chief

There are some on this thread who may believe the concern about the Irish border post brexit is somehow shallow and a faux concern from some posters, but the links are demonstrating that the concerns are not a pose by a mouthy few, but more widespread, and dare I say, genuine.

Part of the mood music is that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for, but that music is played on the very down low when brexiters are invited to supply a workable solution to the Irish border issue.
Perhaps those voting brexit didn't have a clue, or that their attitude to the Irish situation was one of distain.
 
I have learned that it is out of order to post links here without a summary of some kind.
This first link is to a story about how the Irish Republic Guardai wanting not only extra police for the post brexit Irish border, but automatic weapons as well with armed response units equipped with such weapons.

Border gardaí seek automatic weapons amid hard Brexit fears

The second link is about how the police service of Northern Ireland want more money and up to 500 more officers to protect the border, and there is some interesting figures about the resources actually needed pre the Belfast Agreement. (yes I know it is a Guardian link and all that that implies for some people here).

Brexit: Northern Irish police ask for more funds to protect border

The third link is about how a high up in the Guarda is complaining that his government as yet has no plan in place for policing the Irish/UK post brexit border.

No plan in place for policing a hard border, warns Garda chief

There are some on this thread who may believe the concern about the Irish border post brexit is somehow shallow and a faux concern from some posters, but the links are demonstrating that the concerns are not a pose by a mouthy few, but more widespread, and dare I say, genuine.

Part of the mood music is that those voting brexit knew what they were voting for, but that music is played on the very down low when brexiters are invited to supply a workable solution to the Irish border issue.
Perhaps those voting brexit didn't have a clue, or that their attitude to the Irish situation was one of distain.
What do you think about those links?
 
Back
Top Bottom