Baroness Thatcher has died.

Status
Not open for further replies.
newbiejim said:
In my opinion you two have went to inordinate lengths in an attempt to prove me wrong, my perception is that you both are NOT acting reasonably, why oh why when the average wage is quoted as £165 can you two not simply forget it, remember we started at £800.
Click to expand...

The average wage never started at £800...that is a misrepresentation of what I actually said to Robbo.

Neither of us has bullied you, acted unreasonably, or even tried to prove you wrong. We have been substantiating our own opinions that is all.

Don't take it all so personally.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Why the attack? I was being honest about my own failings as a mathematician.

I am sure someone will be along to give more of a viable answer on whether the figures are to be seen as 125% more or 25% more.

Either way it shows miners did earn more, and if the former then substantially more.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I think based on the following "Average gross weekly earnings of full-time manual men aged 21 and over, whose pay was not affected by absence, in coalmining as a percentage of the corresponding figure for manufacturing, was as follows:" you'd have to read it that the average miners wages were 125% of the average manufacturing wages or 25% higher if you prefer e.g. if the average manufacturing wage was £10,000 then the average miners wage would be £12,500.

However that's not the question that was asked from that Hansard excerpt so it's somewhat difficult to evaluate properly. If it isn't as I read it above then that's a massive discrepancy in wage terms.
 
newbiejim said:
In my opinion you two have went to inordinate lengths in an attempt to prove me wrong, my perception is that you both are NOT acting reasonably, why oh why when the average wage is quoted as £165 can you two not simply forget it, remember we started at £800.
Click to expand...

I repeat my previous comment. If you feel I have bullied you then please report it to a moderator for their review.

Thanks.
 
newbiejim said:
my perception is that you both are NOT acting reasonably,
Click to expand...

You have been arguing for what seems months* about what was effectively a personal anecdote and you think other people are not acting reasonably? :D:D:D

*please note I am well aware it hasn't actually been months.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I think based on the following "Average gross weekly earnings of full-time manual men aged 21 and over, whose pay was not affected by absence, in coalmining as a percentage of the corresponding figure for manufacturing, was as follows:" you'd have to read it that the average miners wages were 125% of the average manufacturing wages or 25% higher if you prefer e.g. if the average manufacturing wage was £10,000 then the average miners wage would be £12,500.

However that's not the question that was asked from that Hansard excerpt so it's somewhat difficult to evaluate properly. If it isn't as I read it above then that's a massive discrepancy in wage terms.
Click to expand...

Or £100 turned into £125 if we are to keep the example related. Which isn't that far away from what I was coming in with which was sourced from the FT (only get behind pay wall at work).
 
Castiel said:
The average wage never started at £800...that is a misrepresentation of what I actually said to Robbo.

Neither of us has bullied you, acted unreasonably, or even tried to prove you wrong. We have been substantiating our own opinions that is all.

Don't take it all so personally.
Click to expand...

As you very well know, your wildest claim was £800. It is my opinion that given the obvious facts you have for the most puerile of reasons attempted still to sustain your now obviously unsustainable supposition.
 
Biohazard said:
Guys seriously knock this on the head, it's balls and serves no real purpose now.
Click to expand...

Indeed.


Biohazard said:
Yes, but it's entirely subjective isn't it. It seems to work on the premise that working class people aren't allowed to be 'greedy / earn more than average' or be subsidised by the state; now we have a system where a minority are 'greedy /earn more than average' and have unequivocal state sponsorship and support?

We seem to be arguing one side, or the other, without trying to discuss the 'flip'.
Click to expand...

It was interesting to find out while searching for corroboration, that both Germany and France subsidised their Coal Industry by up to five times the amount that the British did....which is partially why the coal markets were so low in comparison to British Coal.

I do not think that France or Germany had the same issue with militancy in their Coal Fields however.

For me, the biggest problem with the pit closures was the lack of investment in the coal regions to support such a huge loss of jobs and culture...perhaps it was a response to the strikes, but those regions should never have been left to decay and stagnate as they did...that is a serious and far-reaching mistake by the Government, and subsequent ones for that matter....people are still feeling the consequences 30 years later, despite efforts at regeneration in recent years.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I think based on the following "Average gross weekly earnings of full-time manual men aged 21 and over, whose pay was not affected by absence, in coalmining as a percentage of the corresponding figure for manufacturing, was as follows:" you'd have to read it that the average miners wages were 125% of the average manufacturing wages or 25% higher if you prefer e.g. if the average manufacturing wage was £10,000 then the average miners wage would be £12,500.

However that's not the question that was asked from that Hansard excerpt so it's somewhat difficult to evaluate properly. If it isn't as I read it above then that's a massive discrepancy in wage terms.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I am leaning towards the 25% figure by virtue of the way the figures are presented. It is so hard to find definitive evidence of wages in context though. We need some miners to scan their pay slips! :D
 
semi-pro waster said:
I think based on the following "Average gross weekly earnings of full-time manual men aged 21 and over, whose pay was not affected by absence, in coalmining as a percentage of the corresponding figure for manufacturing, was as follows:" you'd have to read it that the average miners wages were 125% of the average manufacturing wages or 25% higher if you prefer e.g. if the average manufacturing wage was £10,000 then the average miners wage would be £12,500.

However that's not the question that was asked from that Hansard excerpt so it's somewhat difficult to evaluate properly. If it isn't as I read it above then that's a massive discrepancy in wage terms.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems to be the way the reply is expressed, but the question is expressed differently...it is ambiguous at best.

Mind you what can we expect from Parliament. ;)
 
Castiel said:
Indeed.




It was interesting to find out while searching for corroboration, that both Germany and France subsidised their Coal Industry by up to five times the amount that the British did....which is partially why the coal markets were so low in comparison to British Coal.

I do not think that France or Germany had the same issue with militancy in their Coal Fields however.

For me, the biggest problem with the pit closures was the lack of investment in the coal regions to support such a huge loss of jobs and culture...perhaps it was a response to the strikes, but those regions should never have been left to decay and stagnate as they did...that is a serious and far-reaching mistake by the Government, and subsequent ones for that matter....people are still feeling the consequences 30 years later, despite efforts at regeneration in recent years.
Click to expand...

I personally dont think it should have even esculated into a national strike. From my readings (and I openly admit they are limited somewhat) it does appear that the government announced possible closures under the "plan for coal" scheme that would be moderated as agreed back in the 70's. But the NUM refused to consider any closure of pits for any other reason than coal exhaustion. I have difficulty sympathising with the NUM's stance on this. But as I said, my readings thus far are limited, and perhaps do not offer a complete picture.

(EDIT - I should note that the plan for coal agreement stated unprofitable mines as a possible reason for closure, so the NUM's stance was in contravention to that agreement)

But I agree, things ending how they did was a woeful page in our history.

(EDIT2 - The heavy subsidy/investment of our european counterparts is part of the reason we had to take action. We could not afford to match their subsidy and of course eventually we would lose the exports we did have because their coal was a lot cheaper. It seems the logical decision was to cut costs. Something which the NUM appear to have vehemently opposed)
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Hmm, as you wish....now move on.
Click to expand...

lol, I see what you did there.

It seems that when it is apparent that miners weren't in fact THAT well paid we just whistle and look at the sky and walk away lol. Nothing to see here....

Fair enough, I will move on.......now, I didn't know the German and French subsidies were as high, just makes it even more sad.
 
newbiejim said:
lol, I see what you did there.

It seems that when it is apparent that miners weren't in fact THAT well paid we just whistle and look at the sky and walk away lol. Nothing to see here....
Click to expand...

God god man, give it a rest....I do not agree that the figures I gave were unrepresentative of the point made...you disagree so just leave it there...do not confuse my acquiescence to Biohazards request as a capitulation, it is not.

newbiejim said:
Fair enough, I will move on.......now, I didn't know the German and French subsidies were as high, just makes it even more sad.
Click to expand...

Given that our subsidies were equal to £1.4bn a year, the French and Germans must have been putting obscene amounts of money into there mining industry...the French do not surprise me, they still do it despite EU regulation, but the Germans do surprise me. They were probably trying to compete with Canadian and Australian Coal, which was cheaper to produce that European Coal rather than competing against the UK.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Well, for one, part of the discussion has been on whether peoples perceptions of miners being 'greedy' had any validity. So it is pertinent to that.

Secondly part of the discussion had been on whether it was realistic for a miner to be taking home substantially more than other industries, but most had trouble finding any figures.

I managed to find some so added them to the discussion.
Click to expand...

The miners weren't greedy, just stupid paying towards a union who thought they were more powerful than the government and let it go to their heads.
 
Dimple said:
That is interesting - have you got a proper sauce I can read?

(tomato maybe)
Click to expand...


Some Parliament guy that was on the BBC was talking about it, I thought it was strange when he come out with it.

Only one I could find. "The funeral details are understood to have been mapped out in talks with government officials more than five years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sday-April-17-St-Pauls-Queen-WILL-attend.html

I know he said on the bbc it was a lot longer then 5 years.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
God god man, give it a rest....I do not agree that the figures I gave were unrepresentative of the point made...you disagree so just leave it there...do not confuse my acquiescence to Biohazards request as a capitulation, it is not.



Given that our subsidies were equal to £1.4bn a year, the French and Germans must have been putting obscene amounts of money into there mining industry...the French do not surprise me, they still do it despite EU regulation, but the Germans do surprise me. They were probably trying to compete with Canadian and Australian Coal, which was cheaper to produce
that European Coal rather than competing against the UK.
Click to expand...

Why cant you give it a rest then?, after all its you who was wildly wrong let's not forget. Why would you see it as capitulation?, don't take it so personally. ;)
Your figures were indeed outrageous, you DO realise that your £800 a week claim almost exactly matches the Prime Minister's wage in 1983? LINK .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom