Wealth makers and takers

b r – Member

Northwind – you’ll find that is ‘income, and includes pensioners – actual is almost £30k and if you take out p/t then there are a far greater than 15% on higher rate tax,

Er, no. That’s the median gross earnings of full time employees. It doesn’t include pensioners or part time.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults

So why are they not?

Because the UK has a culture of science and especially engineering being careers for the working classes. A lot of British companies on the whole, do not recognise the value of their engineers and scientists – those that do are usually start ups in Oxfordshire/Cambridge that get bought out by the yanks. I once travelled back from London to Oxford and heard two professors denigrating Chamberlain (I think) for being an engineer, not the fact that he actually never graduated from technical college. We (more specifically the landed upper classes) built our wealth on trade and empire. The US built its wealth on being better engineers and scientists than us, and those that did so were often from much more austere backgrounds than the industrialists within the United Kingdom.

When you look at the population Europe vs the USA, the yanks hit way way above their weight in terms of science and engineering. Biotech is strong, they have the best universities, they have Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Grumman, General Electric, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google etc etc ad nauseum. Europe, a population of 700 odd million people can’t even collectively get together and get an outdated aircraft (Eurofighter Typhoon) to market on time.

Because the UK has a culture of science and especially engineering being careers for the working classes. A lot of British companies on the whole, do not recognise the value of their engineers and scientists – those that do are usually start ups that get bought out by the yanks. I once travelled back from London to Oxford to here two professors denigrating Chamberlain (I think) for being an engineer, not the fact that he actually never graduated from technical college. We built our wealth on trade and empire. The US built its wealth on being better engineers and scientists than us.

I have to say I think you’re wrong, mostly because in all that prose you never really make a point beyond “because they value them better”.

I work(ed) for an engineering consultants, so at the sharp end both technically and in terms of renumeration. It’s a competitive industry, the pay is as much as you can ask for, or as little as your employer thinks they can get away with.

Before I say the next bit, immigration is great. But the reason my job is worth £100k+ in the USA but less than half that in the UK is because at least a third of the people in my office aren’t born in the UK. And that’s at the end of a horrible decade for oil and gas engineering (oil price was low in ’05, fianancial crash in ’08 then another price crash) so most people have gone home again.

Even if I could get a green card to live the USA I couldn’t work there because although being a chartered engineer is recognised worldwide, they have a professional engineer qualification which is another (expensive) set of exams similar to the bar exams for lawyers.

The Americans import people from all over the world, and I’d argue their immigration system is even easier to get through than UK’s. Some professions are harder to walk into than others in the US such as law, but a few former colleagues of mine in biotech went from 30k in the UK to $100k in the USA, through an internal move.

I really do think that there is an element of British engineers and scientists historically being used to being the lower class oiks and deferring to their upper class overlords – and thus accepting shit pay.

Interesting comment I read a while back

I worked for 15 years in various engineering roles in the UK, and never once had a CEO or General Manager who was an engineer. They were either lawyers, or accountants.

I’ve now worked for 8 years in various engineering roles in the US, and never once have had a CEO or General Manager who wasn’t an engineer.

Leaders in engineering companies in the US recognize that without the engineers, they are nothing, and pay accordingly. In the UK, they don’t get it.

The sad thing is that even engineering companies that are run by engineers in the UK have become accustomed to not having to pay much. James Dyson (the man who has made billions out of re-marketing the same vacuum cleaner with minor tweaks for years) constantly complains that he can’t get enough engineers in the UK and it’s the governments fault that more people don’t train to be engineers.

No. If people like him paid engineers what they are worth, and actually tried to compete with financial services companies for the best grads in maths based subjects, there wouldn’t be a lack of engineers.

I really do think that there is an element of British engineers and scientists historically being used to being the lower class oiks and deferring to their upper class overlords – and thus accepting shit pay.

How odd, if true (not sure about that) then they only have themselves to blame

The country favours money over happiness so ambitious types go into banking.

Tom

You seem to have this rose tinted view of the US, for ordinary folk it’s a tough life than here, and the hidden costs can be quite high (eg healthcare).

Less so these days

thisisnotaspoon

For the most part if you are in oil and gas you don’t need to be a professional engineer in the USA. I say this as probably only around 10% of the people I work with in an engineering department of around 500 are…

The salaries are probably twice that of the UK but once you add in all the costs of insurances, less holiday and the fact they can mostly sack you with no reason or notice the salary difference is reduced… Mind you where I am you should be able to pick up a 3000sq ft house in a nice area for £140,000…

That being said I am not sure how much value to place on not being afraid to go to a doctor, or that if I am in a car accident I may end up with debt for life, or not getting shot by random people/police…

How odd, if true (not sure about that) then they only have themselves to blame

You are unsure if the statement is true however then state that they only have themselves to blame (if true but you are unsure but thought you would say it anyway)

Engineers and the value of engineering excellence is grossly undervalued in the UK its a fact, thats why the proper apprenticeship system was allowed to almost wither away into insignificance, thats why we dont have proper dedicated technical schools directing young folk into the trades, why is there is so very few workshops in schools anymore ?

Please do explain why (if true) they only have themselves to blame.

You are unsure if the statement is true however then state that they only have themselves to blame (if true but you are unsure but thought you would say it anyway)

No I do not state that – I disagree with the premise from the outset. None of the scientist or engineers I know consider themselves to be lower class oiks nor subservient to any overlords. In my experience they are very intelligent people who enjoy their jobs and in may cases lead the world in what they do.

so need to feel in any way as was described….simple really

so need to feel in any way as was described….simple really

OK I will let you off 😉

When I refer to 50% I wasn’t talking about the tax rate, but about the tax take (so tax and NI).

The tax rates are now too high, you’ve people working pretty standard jobs who’ve income that puts them into 40% tax.

To put it into perspective, my parents bought their first house in the late 60’s when only my Dad worked and they had two young children and my Dad didn’t earn enough to pay income tax (in those days you got a tax deduction for both mortgage relief and children). Impossible now.

b r – Member

Northwind – you’ll find that is ‘income, and includes pensioners – actual is almost £30k and if you take out p/t then there are a far greater than 15% on higher rate tax, and higher number in the public sector than many realise.
Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post

Both of these. I’m a junior officer in the RAF, top pay increment. I pay 40% tax. I realise this is massively selective, but looking around at friends and peers I don’t feel “rich”, though I acknowledge I’m comfortable, have lots to be thankful for, many cleverer folk earn less money etc. The 50% thing b r refers to chimes with me; if I get promoted more than half goes straight back to the Treasury, something of disincentive to putting the extra work in to get there, especially viewed alongside the other disincentives! I can make a lot more renting my spare room! I’m just one person, but viewed across the whole economy…
Trouble is, what’s the solution? We need to spend less or take more, not easy!

^^^^ This
Farming has, since the advent of subsidies, been effectively (partly) a public service industry in the same way as the NHS, teachers, the military, government, etc. Many of the population may not like the fact that their taxation goes towards supporting the industry (and I can understand that to a large degree), but the benefits in terms of food security, and more lately, environmental goods, although hard to quantify, are very real. I would argue that anyone whose wages come from the public purse is a net taker since 100% of their income is paid for out of taxation from others. At least as a farmer only a part of my income comes from taxation (as subsidy) while the rest is 100% generated by taking 2 sheep and a bit of sunshine, and making 3 sheep. That is true wealth creation at the end of the day.

I would argue that anyone whose wages come from the public purse is a net taker since 100% of their income is paid for out of taxation from others

You seem to be discounting the service that such people provide.

You can have a private police force, or a private army, or a private health service, or a private airforce, or a private refuse service, or a private prison service or a private judicial service or a private street lighting service, or a private ..whatever… but you’ll have to pay a lot more for it or accept a much, much poorer service for the same money.

As an apprentice in 1979 and ending up with a degree in mech engineering in 1997(yep lot of part time and day release) I departed Engineering in 1998 as the money was shite and went into IT security – it probably the worst balance of effort v reward

Not discounting it at all. Just pointing out that public services require wealth to be created elsewhere in the economy in order to exist.

It really begs the question of what is wealth creation. Does speculation count? Does an economy based on a pyramid scheme of debt actually constitute wealth creation? It could be argued that the only reason there is any economic growth anywhere in western societies is because the population continues to grow and thus more people borrow money. But I guess that is another discussion for another day

@crikey amd @cheeky – yes agreed

We need to do much more to support and encourage our farmers. Importing cheap low quality food is not a strategy for a happy healthy population.

Engineering has never been a respected and definitely not a well paid profession. Contrast that to Germany where the oppostite is true. We have very talented, creative and innovative engineers but we do not take advantage, a significant portion of open wheeled and high level motorsports are based in the UK but its niche rather than mainstream.

The 50% thing b r refers to chimes with me; if I get promoted more than half goes straight back to the Treasury, something of disincentive to putting the extra work in to get there, especially viewed alongside the other disincentives! I can make a lot more renting my spare room! I’m just one person, but viewed across the whole economy…

But it’s only on the money above the threshold isn’t it, the rest goes into your pocket doesn’t it. You could also pay into pensions to reduce your tax bill something people on less would struggle to do. If the tax rate is a putting you off being promoted check what it actually means and how we pay for the planes.

Ah, but you’d have cutbacks in order to reduce the requirement for so much tax. I’d start with the armed forces. How about you?

Not sure how much more we can cut, although sometimes I do wonder whether we could save money by having a single service military based on the US Marine Corps model – and have the Royal Navy cover everything, then spend some of the efficiency savings on more destroyers and a return to the sloop-of-war. But I’m not qualified to say really.

Things like the F-35 debacle wind me up, I find it utterly ridiculous that the Tiffie was never designed to be flown off a carrier deck in the first place. We have so many competing interests between the services that it strikes me that cutting all of that out would save a fair bit.