Friday, March 30, 2012
A new sort of senior moment
Readers may know that I own three pair of spectacles: short range, long range and dark. Most of the time this means that I need to switch between short and long either to go outside or to tune into Poirot. Now for some time I have been switching twice, the brain not seeming to be able to grasp that one needs to switch an odd number of times to achieve the desired effect. More recently, I have come close on several occasions to putting the desirable pair of spectacles on top of the undesirable pair, but stopping myself well before anybody was likely to notice. But today I actually managed it, to try and jam the desirable pair on top of the undesirable pair. Good thing that they are made out of plastic with soft edges.
Having finally got the right pair on, got down to perusing what 'The Times' had to say about the threatened strike of petrol tanker drivers. Most of the several pages of coverage was given over to chaos on forecourts, bizarre behaviour by motorists and to explaining what a terrible fist the government was making of the whole business. Which I found rather irritating: as far as I can recall, the last time this happened there was a lot of inconvenience. A small number of tanker drivers really can bring the country to its knees in fairly short order, despite the best efforts of the army and others. Short of declaring something close to martial law (the sort of thing they do near if not east of Suez) what on earth does 'The Times' want the government to do? There could easily have been and might still be a serious problem.
Amongst all this drivel, I did find a small number of factlets. First, the drivers earn around £45,000 a year, which a few seconds with Google and National Statistics say is a lot more than the median earnings of around £25,000 a year. Second, the drivers voted quite heavily to strike. Third, about seven haulage companies do most of the business. Clearly a case for getting some more. Fourth, forecourt capacity is not what is was. But no figures on either what it was or what it is or what the daily consumption is. And no analysis at all that I could find of why the drivers are striking. Are we to assume that all this talk of H&S is just a smokescreen covering the fact that they have got us over a barrel and want more money out of us? The drivers are just a tad jealous of all the big banker numbers being bandied around? Or is it just a stunt by their union to make trouble, the actual or claimed grievances of the drivers being more or less beside the point?
I do not see a right answer on pay. No easy answer to the person who says why does a junior nurse get £25,000 a year and a junior banker £250,000 a year. But it would be a lot easier if the ratio was nearer 1:2 than 1:10.
I wonder if economists build models which explain why, in a world of highly competitive free markets, the spread of earnings will spread? And be tolerated. The US seems to have got away for a long time with a huge spread - and with the guys at the bottom of the heap still voting Republican in droves. Is there linkage with their huge amount of crime & incarceration? Does the example of top of the range footballers tell us anything?
Having finally got the right pair on, got down to perusing what 'The Times' had to say about the threatened strike of petrol tanker drivers. Most of the several pages of coverage was given over to chaos on forecourts, bizarre behaviour by motorists and to explaining what a terrible fist the government was making of the whole business. Which I found rather irritating: as far as I can recall, the last time this happened there was a lot of inconvenience. A small number of tanker drivers really can bring the country to its knees in fairly short order, despite the best efforts of the army and others. Short of declaring something close to martial law (the sort of thing they do near if not east of Suez) what on earth does 'The Times' want the government to do? There could easily have been and might still be a serious problem.
Amongst all this drivel, I did find a small number of factlets. First, the drivers earn around £45,000 a year, which a few seconds with Google and National Statistics say is a lot more than the median earnings of around £25,000 a year. Second, the drivers voted quite heavily to strike. Third, about seven haulage companies do most of the business. Clearly a case for getting some more. Fourth, forecourt capacity is not what is was. But no figures on either what it was or what it is or what the daily consumption is. And no analysis at all that I could find of why the drivers are striking. Are we to assume that all this talk of H&S is just a smokescreen covering the fact that they have got us over a barrel and want more money out of us? The drivers are just a tad jealous of all the big banker numbers being bandied around? Or is it just a stunt by their union to make trouble, the actual or claimed grievances of the drivers being more or less beside the point?
I do not see a right answer on pay. No easy answer to the person who says why does a junior nurse get £25,000 a year and a junior banker £250,000 a year. But it would be a lot easier if the ratio was nearer 1:2 than 1:10.
I wonder if economists build models which explain why, in a world of highly competitive free markets, the spread of earnings will spread? And be tolerated. The US seems to have got away for a long time with a huge spread - and with the guys at the bottom of the heap still voting Republican in droves. Is there linkage with their huge amount of crime & incarceration? Does the example of top of the range footballers tell us anything?
# posted by Jim @ 9:45 AM 
