Many are saying we now have a ‘German-style’ short-time working scheme. But I think there are at least four key differences to the German 'Kurzarbeit' scheme: (1/5)
Key difference 1: With Kurzarbeit there is no employer contribution for hours not worked. In the UK this contribution is 33%. So in the German system it is less costly for firms to retain workers. (2/5)
Key difference 2: In Germany, for hours not worked, the employer does not pay social security contributions. In the UK, as far as I can see, the employer pays the full NIC and pension contributions – both for hours worked and not worked. (3/5)
Key difference 3: For people that are on the scheme for longer, the German subsidy increases (if they have lost at least half of their income). From 60% to 70% after 4 months, to 80% after 7 months. And up to 87% for people with children. In the UK it’s 66% flat. (4/5)
Key difference 4: people can be on Kurzarbeit for 24 months. (5/5)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: The debate about jobs vs automation is old. But breakthroughs in generative AI are new, and are set to transform knowledge work.
In our report, we show even existing AI could soon cause big disruptions in parts of the labour market. We need to prepare for this now. (1/9)
Currently most employers are still experimenting with the technology. But soon, in the first phase of deployment, 11% of work could be exposed to 'here and now' AI.
In the second wave, if AI gets integrated more deeply in organisations, 59% of work could be exposed. (2/9)
This time is different from past waves of automation. Back office jobs are likely to be affected first by AI - incl personal assistants and customer service professionals. Women are more likely to be in such jobs. And entry level jobs are more exposed than senior ones. (3/9)
(2) While it's not my job to defend Labour’s specific plans, your tax calculation seems off. Can can you share how it was done? For one, public investment brings financial returns which don't seem to be factored in. That’s why so many economists think investment should be boosted
Eg Ramey (2020) highlights significant GDP returns to investment. Citizens Advice finds a £951 per year saving per household from energy efficiency measures. Even the OBR says “continued dependence on gas could be as expensive fiscally as completing the transition to net zero”.
NEW: There is a lot of confusion in the debate around profits and inflation. On the one hand, senior officials at the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank stated that "profits have recently been a key contributor to total domestic inflation". (1/8)
On the other hand, many commentators decry that firms' excess profits can't possibly have driven inflation, pointing to supply-demand mismatches instead. The resolution of this conundrum likely is that rather than causing inflation, firms with market power *amplified* it. (2/8)
Looking at firm level data of listed businesses in the US, Germany, the UK, Brazil and South Africa, we find that nominal profits were up by at least 30 per cent between pre and post pandemic. In the UK, they rose more than twice the rate of inflation over the same period. (3/8)
Spending cuts are not inevitable. Here's a table showing how 'fiscal hole' estimates hugely depend growth and interest rate assumptions in 3 years' time. I think often-cited estimates rest on either (A) quite low growth or (B) unrealistically high interest rate assumptions. (1/9)
Some implications: First, given the importance of this, people should state very clearly what their assumptions are. Where are they on this table and or where are their assumptions different? We need a transparent debate about this - not black box claims! (2/9)
Second, the above table shows that, even a scenario of below market growth forecasts, the fiscal hole is smaller than often stated / even positive. Still, I think tax increases in the of £20 bn could add a decent fiscal buffer (and help hit the current balance rule). (3/9)
NEW: It would be wrong for @RishiSunak to make spending cuts. In a cost of living crisis, the government should continue to support households & businesses and bolster public services. Our new report shows that we can do more, while balancing risks to the economy. (1/10)
What is constraining government spending? We argue that (1) in the short-term it is inflation risks, which was a key driver behind the mini-budget market turmoil; and (2) in the medium term it is the design of the government's fiscal rules.
But we can manage these... (2/10)
In 2023, the government should boost support households & businesses and public services. Our modelled package of existing & new policies would inject about £130 billion in the economy. We argue £40bn of taxes should be raised, to tackle inflation risk arising from this. (3/10)
NEW REPORT: Inflation is mainly driven by global factors. But many corporations have increased their profit rates while people's wages are not keeping up. @chrishayes and I find that UK aggregate profits were up 34% at the end of 2021. Covered in @thetimes this morning. (1/6)
The bulk of the rise in profits is driven by small number of companies. 25 companies accounted for 90% of the increase in profits - mostly basic materials (incl. mining and commodities) and energy firms. (2/6)
Most of the increases in commodities profits seem to not be reinvested but paid out to shareholders. We suggest countries consider a global windfall tax on commodities profits, via the OECD. The receipts could be used to boost global supply chains and support households. (3/6)