Is pay going up or down? Both, or neither, depending on the measure you use. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Pay set is to go up, or down, or stay the same – it all depends on how you measure it

We are heading into a so-called “living standards election” – without accurate data on living standards. Different sides will be able to tell whatever story they want.

We can expect to hear an awful lot about the closing gap between pay and inflation over the next few months as, inevitably and thankfully, on some measure we close in on a “cross-over point” where wages overtake price rises.  

But this poses the question: which measure of inflation and, indeed, which measure of pay?

Confusion abounds on this – and this provides the space for different political parties to choose numbers which stand up the story they want to tell about the recovery and living standards. Get ready for a war of competing statistics.

When it comes to pay, average wages (that is, mean pay across the economy or, more accurately, across employees) regularly get reported as if they relate to the experience of a typical worker in the economy. They don’t – they are skewed by whatever is going on at the top of the distribution. For this reason we need to look at median pay – that of the typical worker. While the period since the financial crisis have been marked by relatively even movements in pay across the earnings distribution, the typical experience in recent decades has been for the mean to significantly outpace the median, reflecting growing wage inequality. No one knows for sure how this will pan out during economic recovery, but few would be surprised if the historic relationship resumes.

The trickier issue is the measure of inflation that should be used to deflate trends in wages. And here there is a bit of disarray. This debate may sound nerdy – indeed, it is quite nerdy – but it matters and we are going to hear a lot about all this, so it’s worth reflecting on.

The Retail Price Index (RPI), introduced after WWII,  was traditionally considered the best measure for gauging what was happening to living standards, covering a wider suite of prices (and generally being higher) than the CPI which was introduced in the 1990s to meet the need for international harmonisation. Recently RPI has fallen out of favour. The formula it uses for aggregating prices (the Carli index, if you are into this sort of thing) has been fairly widely criticised and is thought to overstate inflation, leading the ONS to deem that it no longer qualifies as a National Statistic (though that hasn’t stopped the government from continuing to use it in relation to index-linked gilts and bonds).

This has left CPI as the main reported measure for inflation and it is used for uprating benefits, tax credits, pensions and tax thresholds (the government switched from RPI to CPI for uprating benefits from April 2011 and in doing so made a massive saving). But unlike RPI, CPI takes no account of a range of housing costs, such as mortgage interest payments. Arguably, it tells us quite a lot less about living standards.

The controversy about how to measure inflation is such that the UK Statistics Authority has established two reviews including one by the IFS’s Paul Johnson looking specifically at the arguments for using ‘cost of living’ or ‘cost of goods’ concepts in defining inflation. The former concept is likely to have more relevance for households and for the purposes of deflating pay and incomes; the latter is likely to be more useful from a macroeconomic perspective. As things stand, the various measures used in the UK tend to fall somewhere between these two camps.

Just to complicate matters further, two new measures have been already introduced: CPI-H (which adds an owner occupied housing element to CPI) and RPI-J (which maintains the RPI coverage but uses a more reliable formula similar to CPI). But neither of these measures is used by the government in policy formulation so when it comes to official wage projections we are left with the traditional choice between CPI and RPI.

To see how important – and politically relevant – these different measures can be consider this chart.

Source: OBR, Economic and Fiscal Outllook; and Resolution Foundation modelling

The CPI-deflated mean (average) wage projection is taken directly from the OBR’s latest Economic and Fiscal Outlook. It looks pretty rosy in the years ahead – at least compared to the recent past – and has caught the eye of many economic commentators. But it only tells part of the story.

If we want to get a sense of what this might mean for median pay we can adjust the average (assuming, as discussed above, that the relationship between the mean and median over the next few years is the same as that in the decade prior to the financial crisis).

What the chart shows is that if we then adjust this median wage figure for RPI inflation then pay looks set to fall in the years ahead. But if we use CPI it’s set to rise. And if we try and find some middle ground that avoids the narrowness of CPI or the unreliability of RPI, then we could use an imputed projection for RPI-J. (This assumes – imperfectly, but defensibly – that past relationships hold: holding constant the ratio between annual growth in the RPI and RPI-J in the years ahead, reflecting the relative stability of this ratio over the course of the history of the RPI-J). And under this RPI-J measure, pay is set to flat-line. So according to which measure of inflation you use wages are set to rise. Or flat-line. Or fall. Take your pick.

For now, at least, this leaves us in no man’s land. We are heading into a so-called ‘living standards election’ in which different sides will be able to tell whatever story they want about the prospects for wages depending on the measures used (with no official ‘best measure’). Add to this the fact that when it comes to what is happening to household incomes – a far superior measure of living standards – the only accurate data will be more than two years out of date by polling day. Given that some of our key economic measures are misleading and others are out of date, the electorate should stand ready to be bamboozled. Is this really the best we can do?

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle