The headline says "
Which is essentially factually correct, but is spinning an fairly economically pessimistic position into something that sounds positive and the BBC should be ashamed of this sort of reporting.
Lets look at Pay Growth.
It is true that is average earning have risen by 1.3% and inflation is 1.2% then pay growth is higher than inflation by 0.1%.
But this is hardly the economic good news story that the headline might suggest. These pay deals will have been agreed some time ago when inflation was expected to be much higher - probably 1.5%.
And I wonder what the Average Earnings increase will be if only the first 90 percentiles (i.e. not the richest 10%) were considered.
The big and obvious problem with the graphic above is that there area between the lines is the reduction of wages below inflation and this is why people are not feeling this much heralded recovery - if it exists it simply isn't trickling down.
Mark Carney has accepted that inflation will get to 1% or below (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30020565 ) , although he does not seem to be putting this down to a slowing economy but to cheaper food and fuel. They also say that "
the Bank said it expected average salaries to be growing by 2% by the end of 2015." but against a backdrop of 1% inflation and dropping, higher wages goes against most economic theory - who exactly will be paying this above inflation wages - the government ?
Anyway, even with these rose tinted glasses there appears to be no explanation of how base rates can rise without them actually retarding economic growth. The Council of Mortgage Lenders have themselves said that low interest rates are the reason that there have not been more Mortgage defaults and repossessions - so look out the low paid home owners you will be feeling the brunt of the economic recovery with a form of 'Austerity Plus' courtesy of the Tory government.
Looking at the Jobless Total
"The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance was 931,700 in October, 20,400 down on September, and the 24th consecutive monthly cut."
Maybe these figures should not be permitted to be trotted out without also showing the figures for people claiming income support, and also the number of people on zero hours contracts.
Having 2 people both doing 20 hours a week minimum wage on a zero hours contract make take them off of the jobless total, but they are still unable to support themselves, and the Tax Payer is therefore subsidising the staff business costs of these employers.
Allowing employers to abuse zero hours contracts is costing us, the Tax Payer, money and allowing the government to be less than honest about the employment figures and quality of the employment created.
I am disappointed that the BBC appears to have taken this information from a press statement and have challenged none of the figures or ideas presented. It can be no coincidence that this story does not allow you to 'Have Your Say', although the BBC have thoughtfully allowed us to comment on the Comet Lander and Ed Miliband's suitability as a Prime Minister.
So lets come back to this in a year.
If Mark Carney is correct, wage increases will be running at 3%, inflation be be rising towards its target of 2%, interest rates will be on the bring of rising, the economy will be expanding and all will be well in the UK.
Alternatively, well lets just say it would be better to prepare for a pessimistic outcome and enjoy anything better than a worse case scenario, but we appear to be careering blindly towards another economic bump in the road.
I don't suppose such a problem will unduly trouble Carney, Cameron, Clegg or Miliband, they will still enjoy the trappings of their wealth well cushioned from any economic hardship the country may be plunged into.
Maybe poor, or at least poorer, people who stand to lose substantially and personally if the economy goes belly up should be running the government and these institutions and not the traditional political elite.
