The Bank of England may have to cut rates to combat low inflation

Yes, because private sector pay has surged in the last year.....

[Kursk]

The report is over a year old; the information compiled within it is even older.

The data is up to March 2014, and the report is October 2014.

I provided evidence - perhaps you could provide some to back up your assertion....

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I provided evidence - perhaps you could provide some to back up your assertion....

Evidence of what? It refers to pay differentials, NOT pay levels or increases. It even says that public sector pay is HIGHER. Do the massaged figures have a valid comparison with all areas of the private sector or just things like cleaners.

The poster stated

Public sector pay is way behind the private sector, on current figures.

I disagreed, using the latest figures I could find to support what I stated - I was just asking him to do the same for his assertion that Public Sector pay was way behind Private Sector pay.

The report also discusses average pay levels, as well as differentials - including Section 2.4 in page 15

In this chapter, we have sought to understand the differences in the average pay levels of public and private sector workers, and how these differences have changed over time. In raw terms, hourly pay is higher in the public sector. This partly reflects the fact that the public sector workforce includes a greater proportion of highly educated workers. After controlling for differences in education and other factors, the differences in the hourly pay of public and private sector workers are much smaller, on average, and larger for women than for men.

So what does this means for those of us with savings?

If you're lucky, you get 2% on a 3 year cash ISA....

[Pierre]

Cut rates? From what to what?

Not really that much room for manoeuvre.

I'll be happy for rates to stay where they are for the next few years, I'm really making a dent in the mortgage.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If you're lucky, you get 2% on a 3 year cash ISA....

Not exactly an inducement for people to save for a rainy day which is what we're told HMG wants us all to be doing...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

Not exactly an inducement for people to save for a rainy day which is what we're told HMG wants us all to be doing...

Only the retired get taxpayer subsidised savings for right now.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The data is up to March 2014, and the report is October 2014.

I provided evidence - perhaps you could provide some to back up your assertion....

Your source of 'evidence' is old. Its content is the personal view of its 3 authors and whose personal view is no more relevant than mine.

It was indirectly funded by a Government seeking to reduce its wage bill but it is no doubt impartial if irrelevant to current figures.

Since its compilation circumstances have imho changed.

Originally Posted by Kursk

Your source of 'evidence' is old. Its content is the personal view of its 3 authors and whose personal view is no more relevant than mine.

It was indirectly funded by a Government seeking to reduce its wage bill but it is no doubt impartial if irrelevant to current figures.

Since its compilation circumstances have imho changed.

Your attempt to create equivalence between your opinion and that of the report's authors is faulty. There is no automatic equivalence between opinions. Everyone has a right to be heard, but they do not have the right to be equally correct. The views in the report linked by Hugh are backed by rigorous research and use of evidence. The contrary view, which you seem to hold, is backed by ... What?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your attempt to create equivalence between your opinion and that of the report's authors is faulty. There is no automatic equivalence between opinions. Everyone has a right to be heard, but they do not have the right to be equally correct. The views in the report linked by Hugh are backed by rigorous research and use of evidence. The contrary view, which you seem to hold, is backed by ... What?

I did not say there was equivalence. I said there was difference and holding a different view is a democratic right.

A layman does not have the resources or Government funding to definitively validate a view but it doesn't make that view wrong, especially when it hasn't been disproved.

The 'rigorous' research offered as 'evidence' is nothing more than a personally held opinion (as is mine) dressed up in a fancy report with implied association to the IFS; it is out-of-date and arguably tainted with deference to its paymaster.

The figures it presents have ceased to be relevant to the current position; in my view of course.

It seems neither opinion is backed by anything substantive nor can it be until an official, government-prepared or funded report is available and that will be unbiased too...

Erm, no - people don't have to disprove views, otherwise anyone could make up any old crap and say 'but you can't prove me wrong'.

Informed, intelligent discussion is based on facts - saying you don't have any facts, but that your opinion is as equally valid as those who base their opinions on evidence, is a viewpoint also shared by creationists, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 Truthers, and UFOologists.

Nice try in calling extensive research compiled and presented by Britain’s leading independent microeconomic research institute as a personally held opinion just like yours.....

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is a not for profit institution, a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. The aims of the Institute are to "advance education for the benefit of the public by promoting on a non-political basis the study and discussion of and the exchange and dissemination of information and knowledge concerning the economic and social effects and influences of existing taxes, proposed changes in fiscal systems and other aspects of public policy, in each case whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world".

The Institute employs directly some sixty staff based at its offices in London. Research staff are divided into sectors and a small core of administrative and secretarial staff provides support facilities. In addition, around twenty senior academic staff are seconded by the Institute from UK universities on a part-time basis. Other academics from both UK and overseas institutions work with the staff as Research Fellows and Research Associates on an ad-hoc collaborative basis.

Originally Posted by Kursk

The 'rigorous' research offered as 'evidence' is nothing more than a personally held opinion (as is mine)

This is the central point of contention. The evidence-based conclusions in the report are *not* merely a personal opinion. Re-phrase it as much as you like, your personal opinion does not weigh the same as evidence-based conclusions.

You may exercise your democratic right to be heard, however you have no democratic right to have your personal opinions taken seriously. That must be earned.