LOL, Seriously have a word with yourself. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary you still persist in your deluded quest, and despite your most fanciful extrapolations you come nowhere near your initial ventured claims. Honestly I think you actually have lost it here. Let me say if I took a similar approach I could dream up stuff that would decrease their wage, but I don't, because it is plainly not reasonable.
You arbitrarily declared that you are stupid? or you arbitrarily declared that I called you stupid? the latter is patently untrue, the former is your decision, not mine.
Forgive me, but you are not making too much sense at the moment.
As for the figures, they are what they are, agree or disagree.
I see, in that case you are offering your opinion as authoritative, it is not a judgement, it is an observation.
So, you are in your late 40s early 50s?
As for the latter, again you are being adversarial for no reason. It isn't all a conspiracy against you btw, so there is no need to take it as such.
Its an observation demonstrated by your responses to those who you do not agree with (dampdog for example), not an allegation.
Are you some type of loony-tune who feels it necessary to take issue or argue with every single post in a thread?
My reply wasn't even directed at you in any way, I don't thing I've even commented on any of numerous & verbose posts. Neither do I find it necessary to pick over every single word in a post and take issue or look for "traps"
My information was simply anecdotal from years back (My neighbour used to be a miner) so I had a little look for some info to see if it was even in the ball-park in view of the various figures being bandied about. The £200-£300 I mentioned originally may well not be to the nearest decimal point to satisfy your need to quibble or feel aggrieved. But certainly £200+ is not unrealistic and believable of the day.
Personally I don't "get-off" on picking arguments with every other poster in the thread. I don't see other posters as opponents to be beaten or be offended by as you appear to. If they disagree they disagree. I find other peoples views interesting even if they are not the same as my own.
Just get over yourself, your opinion is no more valid than the next poster. And I don't she them doing the drama queen, hissy-fit bit.
It's about being balanced, impartial and carrying out the will of the license fee payers.
I saw those figures on the Hansard website. There is a lot of information there, but unfortunately the search engine is not brilliant.
In the google preview of a book I linked to yesterday it was saying that early 80's wages were circa £170, and mid 80's circa £190. I find the increase in pay for such a short period of time pretty high, considering miners were already earning more than most. If the mid 80's wage is accurate at £190 then asking for over and above a 25% increase in pay is ludicrous especially given:
and
So 125% more than the average wage of a male worker in manufacturing by 1983.
Or at least that is how I am reading those figures. And the NUM on behalf of its members were asking in excess of another 25%.(and lets not forget that is the "average" wage. Bonuses and OT were not mentioned so I will assume they are excluded.)
The evidence is starting to show that being a coal miner was quite lucrative in comparison to the manufacturing industry at least.
?
I disagree with the decision that the tax payer should pay for her funeral.
And I'm also saying that I have nothing against her.
She, herself, didn't decide the tax payer should pay for her funeral expenses now did she. lol
What is so hard to understand about such a simple statement? I can conclude that your "What?" is the start of a pointless troll argument, which you are very well known for doing, therefore you will receive no further explanation from me.![]()
I saw those figures on the Hansard website. There is a lot of information there, but unfortunately the search engine is not brilliant.
In the google preview of a book I linked to yesterday it was saying that early 80's wages were circa £170, and mid 80's circa £190. I find the increase in pay for such a short period of time pretty high, considering miners were already earning more than most. If the mid 80's wage is accurate at £190 then asking for over and above a 25% increase in pay is ludicrous especially given:
and
So 125% more than the average wage of a male worker in manufacturing by 1983.
Or at least that is how I am reading those figures. And the NUM on behalf of its members were asking in excess of another 25%.(and lets not forget that is the "average" wage. Bonuses and OT were not mentioned so I will assume they are excluded.)
The evidence is starting to show that being a coal miner was quite lucrative in comparison to the manufacturing industry at least.
Stereo tv lol.
And he was a miner, with 100pc disposable income @ the equivalent of one grundig telly a week?
Is it going to chart or will it actually reach number 1?
Out of interest have they ever not played a charting record in the past?
Did they ban Frankie goes to Hollywood back in the day, and refuse to play it, or did they actually play it when it charted, but just not add it to their playlist?
The ding dong song campaign may be tasteless, but this act is totally ludicrous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hem-aiming-to-rival-witch-song-in-charts.html
Stereo tv lol.
And he was a miner, with 100pc disposable income @ the equivalent of one grundig telly a week?
You are now querying ridiculously trivial things, you must know this. This after you declared you were going to stop posting, oh but I mentioned your moniker and you claim that is why you made your grand entrance again. Odd that your declaration didn't offer this rider.
Do you have a link for that info....the Hansard site as well if possible.
It certainly supports the notion that Miners were paid substantially more than the average earner in Industry and why some like Dimple had the perception they did.
Also if they are average wages, what of the Notts miners who were earning four times the bonuses and double and triple time overtime...it is not that difficult to extrapolate significant earnings for some, especially if you factor in the NCB paid large bonuses quite regularly to forestall or end strike threats and actions, and also to increase or decrease production, holiday working etc....
You are right, it certainly seems to have been a very lucrative business to be in, it is no wonder they were so protective over their industry. I would be as well.
And he does it again, a complete failure to read words.
He was told by his wife to use NEXT WEEKS WAGES WHICH DOES NOT EQUAL A DISPOSABLE INCOME OF £500+ EVERY WEEK.
Oh you are a silly billy.
Dimple said:When I clarified the point he said he could buy it with one weeks wages
And what's funny about having a stereo TV in 1983, it was top of the range and went perfect with my Ferguson 3V32?
I thought you too weren't going to post again?, anyway Dimple says he was earning £75 a week fyi, doesn't look quite so good now then eh?
I thought you too weren't going to post again?, anyway Dimple says he was earning £75 a week fyi, doesn't look quite so good now then eh?
Also, maths is not my strong point, so I am still trying to understand whether the table puts miners wages at 125% above that of manufacturing (IE over double the gross pay) or whether the 125% figure suggests they were 25% above manufacturing wages.
Just the word 'stereo', you know, being a bit younger than you and all that it's like my gran going on about the transistor radio..![]()
Dimple was not a miner though, so your point is?
Are you disputing the figures that have been given by buffetslayer and dampdog?, they are afterall what you have been requesting...average weekly wages for UK Miners, and they are substantiated by external sources.