Remember, "It wouldn't be happening without the Liberal Democrats"

The two strongest periods of growth for three years, 0.7% followed by 0.8% and the Tories and Lib Dems hangers-on are jubilant. Chief among the examples of this heady growth jubilation is Financial Secretary to HM Treasury Danny Alexander, who wrote in the Telegraph:

"Britain is on its way back. We need to stick to our plans to make sure this is a recovery that is built to last. That is the only way to improve living standards.

"Our economy is growing because of the hard work of people and businesses throughout Britain. But the coalition's economic plan is the rock on which our recovery is being built - so it wouldn't be happening without the Liberal Democrats."

On almost every count, he is wrong. This 'recovery' is doing nothing for living standards, which continue to fall. Wages are rising at just 0.7%, while inflation is four times that at 3.2% (RPI, 2.7% CPI).

For people on out of work benefits (and indeed those on low pay whose incomes are topped up by tax credits) benefit increases were capped by this government at 1%.

Put that alongside rents rising way above wage increases, energy prices rising at 8-9%, and the forthcoming 6% rail fare increase in January - and you can see the problem isn't being resolved soon. Figures show that workers have collectively lost £50 billion a year in real terms cuts in pay.

For many of the lowest paid - and those on out of work benefits - the impact has been devastating:

• an extra million people are, by the government's own figures, living in poverty since the coalition was elected;
• half a million people have had to use food banks in the last year;
• homelessness is rising, and the number of families housed in B&B accommodation now stands at a ten year high, and the number of households in rent arrears is increasing sharply;
• unemployment remains stubbornly high at around 2.5 million - with long-term unemployment and youth unemployment unaffected by failing privatised government schemes

So when Danny Alexander says that this 'recovery' is the only way to improve living standards, it is an evidence-free assertion, a delusion and, since he probably knows this, a flat-out lie. Of course living standards are improving for some people: the 1000 richest Britons increased their wealth by £35 billion last year (if you wanted to know where your missing pay rise ended up).

So where has the recovery come from? Mostly, debt. Consumer and mortgage debt to be precise. Yes, exactly what caused the crash, an unsustainable credit bubble. George Osborne (Danny Alexander's boss at HM Treasury) is huffing and puffing into that bubble with his Help to Buy scheme - re-introducing 95% mortgages at a time of rising house prices and falling wages ... what could possibly go wrong?

The "rock on which our recovery [sic] is being built" is that least rock-like of entities, a bubble. The question for the government is whether that bubble will burst before or after the 2015 election ... they may hope after, but the longer it inflates, the worse it will burst.

Alexander is right about one thing: "it wouldn't be happening without the Liberal Democrats", it's just that the "it" he refers to is rising poverty, homelessness, inequality, and a credit bubble that could spell further disaster for the UK economy and his government.

Remember, "it wouldn't be happening without the Liberal Democrats."

Nine million more struggle to pay bills

by Luke James

Austerity-Addicted Chancellor George Osborne has left nine million more people in financial difficulty compared with seven years ago, Money Advice Service revealed today.

The independent body found that 26 million people across Britain are now living on the brink of financial ruin - a massive 35 per cent rise since their last survey in 2006.

Failing Tory economic policies have sent hourly income plumetting by 6 per cent and sparked a "live for now" attitude to cash among the population.

For example, more than one in five of the 5,000 people surveyed would rather have £200 immediately than £400 in four months' times.

A Treasury spokesman claimed the government had helped households meet the rising cost of living by raising the personal tax allowance and freezing fuel duty.

He said: "We recognise that times are still tough for families, but Britain is holding its nerve, we are sticking to our plan and the British economy is on the mend."

But Labour shadow Treasury minister Catherine McKinnell said the figures bust George Osborne's "out of touch claims that people are better off."

She said: "This government's failed economic policies mean prices are rising much faster than wages. And their unfair choices have seen hard-working people hit hard while millionaires get a huge tax cut."

Ms McKinnell said Labour would help families "with a lower 10p starting rate of tax, paid for by a mansion tax, and take action to tackle soaring rail fares and energy prices."

TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady added that only "strong growth underpinned by decent jobs and higher pay" would end the "longest real wage squeeze since Victorian Times."

Separate figures showed there had been a 3 per cent rise in the number of people being force to declare themselves bankrupt over the last three months.

And the Left Economic Advisory Panel's Andrew Fisher warned: "As personal debt starts rising again it is clear that the squeeze on living standards also creates a huge economic risk if loan and mortgage defaults rise, threatening the banking sector again."

This article first appeared in the Morning Star

The National Minimum Wage: when an increase is a cut

Today it was announced that the minimum wage would increase by 1.9% from £6.19 per hour to £6.31 from October 2013. However with the headline inflation rate at 3.2%, this is real terms cut in living standards. In reality, as our previous post shows, the personal inflation rate of the poorest households is likely to be higher than the headline rate.

Someone working full-time (37 hours per week) on the minimum wage will be receiving £11,909.56 per year. That will rise by £230 next year (or £4.40 a week) as a result of today's real terms cut.

So what would have happened if the minimum wage had simply kept pace with the rate of inflation (RPI)? This would of course mean no real terms increase in living standards for the poorest, no improvement, no raising of the baseline, just treading water.

The table below shows what would have happened if from October 2008 the minimum wage had increased in line with RPI inflation:

The table shows that minimum wage would be over 7% higher in October 2013 (and 6% higher today) if it had been increased by RPI inflation since 2008. If low paid workers were to receive £6.76 per hour from October they would instead be getting a £1,097 annual pay rise (or an extra £21.10 a week).

At a time when corporations and the super-rich have just received tax breaks, yet another real terms cut in the minimum wage is an insult to millions of low paid workers - who have lost thousands of pounds due to consecutive real terms cuts.

• See our comments on NMW 'increases' in 2009, 2010, and 2011

Squeezing ordinary people's finances always leads to disaster

Prem Sikka

The UK economy is flatlining, unemployment is rising and around 13.2 million people live below the poverty line. The prospects of building a sustainable economy remain distant. The common factor behind these grim statistics is that the purchasing power of ordinary people has been severely eroded and without adequate resources people cannot buy goods and services produced by businesses.

The UK gross domestic product (GDP) has increased from the 1976 figure of £621bn to around £1.5tn, but the share going to employees in the form of wages and salaries has declined. In 1976, the amount of wages and salaries paid to UK employees, expressed as a percentage of GDP, stood at 65.1%. By the end of 2011, it was around 54% (see table D of the Quarterly National Accounts). This rate of decline is unmatched in any other developed economy. With many people now facing wage freezes and loss of pension rights, the employees' share of national wealth is set to fall below 50% of GDP.

The above figures are not the whole story, because a disproportionately large slice of the shrinking cake has been taken by wealthy elites. A study by the Resolution Foundation noted that in 1977, for every £100 of GDP, employees in the bottom half of the earnings distribution received £16. But by 2010 it had fallen to £12, and after taking out bonuses their share declined to just £10. In contrast, the top 10% of earners increased their share from £12 per £100 of GDP to £14, and after taking account of bonuses, it rose to £16.

In principle, the state can boost the spending power of low and middle-income households through redistribution, but that possibility is constrained by the erosion of tax revenues. In 1981-82, tax revenues expressed as a percentage of GDP stood at 45.5%, but by 2011-12 they had declined to 37.8%.

So where has the national wealth gone? Well, it has been transferred from employees and the state to corporations and their controllers. In the mid-70s the average rate of profitability before interest and tax at current replacement cost stood at 3.9%. Now, despite one of the deepest recessions, it is still averaging around 11-12%.

The seeds of the disastrous position were primarily sown by the policies pursued in the 1980s and 90s. Mass unemployment and government-led attacks on trade unions severely eroded the ability of employees to maintain their share of national wealth. The current UK trade union density of 26.6% of employees is considerably less than 69.2% for Finland, 68.4% for Sweden, 66.6% for Denmark and 54.4% for Norway. Unlike Scandinavian countries, UK employees and unions are not permitted to elect directors and are excluded from corporate governance arrangements, therefore they have not been in a position to protect workers' share of national wealth.

The comparative demise of manufacturing has resulted in the disappearance of reasonably well-paid skilled and semi-skilled jobs. These have been replaced by less well-paid service-sector jobs. Privatisation and outsourcing of work has contributed to low wages.

Successive governments have appeased corporations and wealthy elites through tax cuts. The rate of corporation tax has declined from 52% of taxable profits in 1982 and will reach the lowest ever rate of 22% in April 2014. The top marginal rate of income tax has declined from 83%, plus a surcharge of 15% on investment income, in 1978-79, to 45%. Rather than effectively tackling organised tax avoidance, successive governments have shifted taxes to labour, consumption and savings, as evidenced by higher national insurance contributions, higher VAT and the failure of tax-free personal allowances and income tax bands to keep pace with inflation. The result is that households in the bottom 20% of income bracket pay 35.5% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes, compared to 33.7% for the top 20% of households.

The massive transfer of wealth is camouflaged by government rhetoric on the need to rebuild the economy and control inflation. Here are some reflections from Sir Alan Budd, a key economic adviser to the Thatcher administration: "My worry is … that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions … who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did, however, see that it would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes – if you like, that what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which recreated a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since."

In his analysis of the 1929 Wall Street crash and the ensuing economic depression, liberal economist JK Galbraith identified "bad distribution of income" as the biggest cause of the crisis. Yet history is repeating itself. It is hard to discern any government policies that are designed to increase the employee share of GDP.

Despite the banking crash, the government's not-so-bright idea for economic recovery is that by 2015 ordinary people will somehow increase their personal borrowing by another 50% from £1.5tn to £2.12tn. Clearly, no lessons have been learned from history.

• This article first appeared on Guardian Comment is Free
  

Corporate Britain: The wages into profits miracle

Times are tough - living standards are falling, as the IFS reported last month. Average wages are rising by around 2% while inflation is over 5%. Consumers are cutting back on spending, demand on the high street is suppressed and employers are laying people off: unemployment continues to rise.

Amid all the gloomy headlines about unemployment, pay freezes, lay-offs, the eurozone crisis and the imminent need for further bank bailouts, you might have missed this virtually unreported statistical release from the Office for National Statistics.

The release demonstrates that corporate Britain is actually doing rather well: the profitability of UK companies was 12.1% for the second quarter of 2011 - up from 11.7% in 2010 and 11.3% in 2009.

In the service sector the picture is even more rosy, with companies profit rate at 15% in Q2 2011, up from 14.7% in 2010 and 14.2% in 2009.

Now of course LEAP did point out in its March 2011 report that some UK firms were engaging in rampant profiteering. We identified banks, supermarkets and energy companies - and called for a windfall tax on each sector.

So how - when times are tough, wages are falling further behind inflation, benefits are being cut and unemployment is rising - is the corporate sector managing to increase its profits?

The answer is part of the reason why we're in this crisis: because there has been a power shift from workers to corporations ('from labour to capital' if you like it in Marxist terms). As the share of the national wealth going to wages has declined so the the proportion going to corporate profits has increased. Workers are easier to sack and harder to unionise, and we have deregulated, liberalised and privatised.

Take a couple of examples where this is true in corporate Britain today:

Newsquest, a company which owns a large number of local newspapers in the UK has frozen staff pay, slashed 800 UK jobs, and last year closed its pension scheme. Times are tough? Well, not for the shareholders: their profits went up 15% (£10.8m) to £82.5m. More on Newsquest here.

Park Cake is a company you've probably never heard of, but you have probably seen their products. Its biggest customer is Marks & Spencer, for which it makes its famous Colin the Caterpillar cake and its popular chocolate ganache birthday cake. This year Park Cake directors awarded themselves a 10.6% pay increase and the Managing Director a 15% pay rise. Their workers' pay was frozen. To compound their greed, they are also exploiting their agency staff by exploiting a loophole in the new agency workers regulations. No pay rise, no rights, let them eat cake. More on Park Cake here.

In both these cases, the workforce is unionised - which is why you've now heard of them - but the law is so stacked in employers' favour that even the best unions (and the NUJ and BFAWU are two of them) are struggling to fight back.

Of course this squeeze cannot go on forever - if wages continue to be squeezed and unemployment continue to rise then people will cut back on buying things like newspapers and caterpillar cakes. As Nouriel Roubini said, capitalism might eat itself.

The solution to this crisis is therefore to restore trade union rights, raise not cut (as Osborne is doing) taxes on big business, uprate the national minimum wage and invest to create jobs. Trade unions are saying it. They're right. Labour should say it too.

Will capitalism eat itself?

The liberal economic commentariat may have choked on its cornflakes this morning, when Professor Nouriel Roubini said "Karl Marx said it right, at some point capitalism can destroy itself because you cannot keep on shifting income from labour to capital" (see video below).



The shift from labour to capital has been a long term process, acute in the US and increasing in the UK too where, as PCS points out, the value of wages has declined from nearly 65% of GDP in the mid-1970s to 55% today. Over the same period, the rate of corporate profit has increased from 13% to 21%.







Roubini also seemingly dismissed the Keynesian solutions used in the 1930s as 'kicking the can down the road', the debt is now too great.



So is Roubini becoming a Marxist and was Marx right? Certainly there is the risk - as Roubini says - that capitalism might self-destruct. It does seem that there is no way out, because of the inherent contradictions of capitalism playing themselves out in this crisis:



1) Governments that impose austerity measures are reducing demand, squashing any chances of recovery. As Roubini says, "If you are not hiring workers there is not enough labour income, there is not enough consumer confidence, there is not enough consumption, there is not enough final demand. We had a massive reditribution of income from labour to capital from wages to profits, ineqaulity of income and wealth has increased."



2) Governments could invest in the economy to create jobs. But in the short term and on the necessary scale that would mean borrowing in the money markets, and the markets have shown their propensity to punish any government not slashing budgets - see Greece, Spain, and Italy - and perhaps even the US following the S&P downgrade. One could counterpose increasing taxes on the wealthiest and clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion - but that takes time, and no western government is even preparing for that eventuality.



So if governments can't save their way out of recession or spend their way out, could capitalism self-destruct?



Certainly some defaults are likely - Iceland effectively defaulted in 2010 and Argentina in 2001. There has been talk of Greece leaving the euro and effectively defaulting. But that would damage the euro - and bond markets would inevitably up the risk factors on any country with a large deficit (Spain, Italy, Portugal - and potentially the US and the UK). This would make it more expensive to borrow, and rule 2) out while requiring more cuts under 1).



Now you might argue that the Argentinian and Icelandic defaults did not cause contagion, but a eurozone country would be a very different proposition, as would a major global economy like the UK, let alone the world's largest economy, the US.



So the only way out seems to be to take on the markets (e.g. shutting down stock markets, nationalising the finance sector, and taking currencies out of international money markets. The only risk for any country trying this route might be US invasion - but can they afford it?



I'll write more on how this could be done soon.