Ignorant fucking stupidity from the TUC.

The TUC has a new paper out.

Here\’s Brendan Barber on it.

But this wages squeeze was a prime – or should we say sub-prime – cause of the crash. Excess profits and bonuses went into the finance system rather than new investment. Workers deprived of proper pay borrowed to make up the difference. And when bankers stopped considering risk before lending, we had started the inevitable slide to the global crash.

This is so ignorant that it veers from ignorant fucking stupidity to outright lying.

Here are the various income shares charted out for you.

Did the labour share of income fall? Why, yes it did. Did the profits share of income rise? Why, no, it didn\’t. What did rise then? The incomes of the self-employed and VAT.

Idiot, idiot, fuckwits. Unless they\’re lying of course.

6 comments on “Ignorant fucking stupidity from the TUC.

  1. Utterly ludicrous. A couple of points:

    Wages increase as a proportion of GDP in 1974, 1990 and 2008. Perhaps the TUC should applaud such recessions…?

    The path of Actual earnings to Wishful earnings was pretty consistent during the Thatcher years. Perhaps the TUC should bring back Maggie…?

  2. What the TUC calls the “Wage share of GDP” is more accurately the “Gross employee compensation share of GDP”. What it calls “wages for the average worder” is I think the median full-time wage.

    Most of the gap it identifies – “The Wages Grab” – results from increasing inequality of income, not a falling share of GDP paid in compensation.

  3. Paul

    That chart of wages a share of national income is useless when it comes to measuring wage inequality. If big bossman screws his workers down and takes the spoils himself then that graph is entirely neutral on the issue. Money flooding into banker bonuses, rather than to dividends or taxes (different folk would have them going to different places) would actually have an upwards pressure on the wage share.

    There are lots of things out there to show growing wage inequality, but that particular thing isn’t one of them.. so if it’s used in that context (and I’ve not read the source, so I don’t know if the TUC are being misrepresented here) then it’s either dumb or disingenuous.

  4. TTG: I’m looking at the graph with lines of (what looks to me like) (rescaled) per capita real GDP and median wage. The graph shows the median wage falling behind.

  5. Pingback: UK GDP by Income, Revisited « uneconomical

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.