Reply to: State of the Market

[SussexSeagull]

Any ideas who the client was? There's a few companies I can name which have offices in those three countries (typically also in NL) and I'm guessing this is why they wanted someone "local".

One of the Danish pharmaceutical firms.

It's up to the client who they get in, but I have a real problem wasting my time on contracts I am never going to get no matter how well I do.

[dsc]

This was a bit unusual in that they were only considering people from Denmark, Germany or Poland. Which, as I said elsewhere, I would have thought broke EU Freedom to Work rules but obviously not applicable to me.

Any ideas who the client was? There's a few companies I can name which have offices in those three countries (typically also in NL) and I'm guessing this is why they wanted someone "local".

[SussexSeagull]

EU companies often don't even want to deal with the UK at all, even when it's doable and workable, they just want less faff. A few years ago I worked for a Scandi client and this was after Brexit, the agency arranged stuff only because the rate was high, the skillset was niche and they couldn't find anyone else. They told me later that I was the last person they signed with in the UK, after that a ban went in and they stopped all dealings with the UK.

This was a bit unusual in that they were only considering people from Denmark, Germany or Poland. Which, as I said elsewhere, I would have thought broke EU Freedom to Work rules but obviously not applicable to me.

[SussexSeagull]

Annoying that they only tell you that after succesfully recruiting you, perhaps those Europeans are not so competent after all!

Seen a great contract I really want, doing some prototyping work. Smaller agency advertising it, and an agent that does not have a phone number. Frustrating, that kind of work is something I am really good at, and I just want to get the agent on the phone and have an opportunity to make my pitch. I did manage to get one of said agents colleagues on the phone though, and now torn between hassling them again to pass my number on and ask to set up a call with the agent I am chasing after.

I do sometimes wonder if smaller agencies put out fake ads to gather CVs and there is no actual job behind it?

I was only in the process but had dropped everything to have a Teams call and twiddled my thumbs for a couple of hours waiting for an e-mail.

[SussexSeagull]

So why did they interview from outside?

I have previously had the same.

Contract was offered in the interview for the agent to then allow enough time for a competitor to interview and secure the job. This happened twice, in 4 weeks for the same client and agent.

First time, I let him off, the second time I let him know how much of an incompetent idiot he was.

First thing this morning they seemed happy to get in a contractor from the UK working remotely. I had a Teams call with him and we agreed I was to write something resembling a covering letter for the end vendor ASAP.

Bearing in mind his urgency I got a bit nervous that he hadn't been in touch for a couple of hours but it turns out he had a meeting with the Vendor who only wanted to consider people from Denmark, Germany and Poland, not the rest of the EU (which I think is probably against EU freedom to work rules but obviously no help to me anymore). There ws no mention of language being a pre-requisite and the meeting was in English.

I really think the IT Industry has stopped attempting to be competent with regards to recruitment anymore.

[dsc]

[...] Anyway, had an initial conversation about a remote opportunity from a European company today so hopefully the rest of the world has retained some level of competency.

[...] Apparently the end vendor only wanted someone from a list of European countries.

EU companies often don't even want to deal with the UK at all, even when it's doable and workable, they just want less faff. A few years ago I worked for a Scandi client and this was after Brexit, the agency arranged stuff only because the rate was high, the skillset was niche and they couldn't find anyone else. They told me later that I was the last person they signed with in the UK, after that a ban went in and they stopped all dealings with the UK.

[dsc]

How about taxing LESS? Or at least less in certain sectors to stimulate activity. Its worth remembering that the tax burden when the industrial revolution kicked off in the north east was only around 5%. I think taxing more is just going to crush the economy more and more.

Taxing the super rich is ideology, I'm not against it, but I also think it may not really move the needle. It never happens anyway, since the super rich always enveigle themselves with the government of the day. Always the middle that gets squeezed. For comparison, you don't get into higher tax band in the USA until you earn something like $250K, but our higher rate threshold is £43K and planned increases to it keep getting abandoned.

I think its ok to allow people to have... money.. and that is something that Labour seem ideologically opposed to. After all money in the bank or shares or used to buy a house, it all still exists and cycles back into the economy. Its not like a dragon sitting on a pile of gold that just sits there and does nothing.

One way our government can get money fairly, is by selling gilts. If the interest rate is attractive, people with money to invest will buy them. If the interest is high, our government will have to choose wisely and spend the money sensibly and not fritter it away on daft things like usual. If interest rates are tight, people won't be able to borrow massive amounts and inflate up the housing market to badly that no-one can afford one any more.

Overall, 5% is a pretty good rate. Just a shame there were no adults in the room for the last 15 years to put a stop to the massive borrowing that took place at super low rates.

Loads of Covid money went to the super rich whilst the gov went into super debt:

https://www.ft.com/content/747a76dd-...3-4069bf2f5a93

What is happening now is the effect of this, gov lost billions and they never got it back, they are now borrowing more and guess who's at the other end laughing their asses off?

The issue is there's no way anyone is going to tax the super rich (and I'm not talking people with millions in their bank accounts / assets, I'm talking billionaires), as you say the lobby is too heavy and they are intertwined in politics one way or another. Can't tax ordinary people as a) Labour said they wouldn't do this b) Labour is already unpopular, so best of luck if they start raising taxes for the ordinary people. So that idea is out the window, but financial markets still want the gov to cut deficit and this will happen via further cuts to...no idea what as everything has been cut to the bare bone in the last 15-20yrs and there's no place to go. This is why this gov is doomed whatever they do, they will loose in the next election and be blamed for the whole mess, when in fact this tulip has been brewing for years.

Meanwhile think how this will affect investment, if you are dealing with a gov that can't even get their books in order whilst everything around is crumbling. I really cannot see this working out well for anyone here which is why sadly (I really like British people, even the weather isn't soo bad, shame about the health service and tulip housing + how expensive it is) I'll be packing away and moving my whole family elsewhere.

[willendure]

Apparently the end vendor only wanted someone from a list of European countries. Comforting to see it isn't just the UK that has stopped knowing what it is doing

Annoying that they only tell you that after succesfully recruiting you, perhaps those Europeans are not so competent after all!

Seen a great contract I really want, doing some prototyping work. Smaller agency advertising it, and an agent that does not have a phone number. Frustrating, that kind of work is something I am really good at, and I just want to get the agent on the phone and have an opportunity to make my pitch. I did manage to get one of said agents colleagues on the phone though, and now torn between hassling them again to pass my number on and ask to set up a call with the agent I am chasing after.

I do sometimes wonder if smaller agencies put out fake ads to gather CVs and there is no actual job behind it?

[SchumiStars]

Apparently the end vendor only wanted someone from a list of European countries. Comforting to see it isn't just the UK that has stopped knowing what it is doing

So why did they interview from outside?

I have previously had the same.

Contract was offered in the interview for the agent to then allow enough time for a competitor to interview and secure the job. This happened twice, in 4 weeks for the same client and agent.

First time, I let him off, the second time I let him know how much of an incompetent idiot he was.

[SussexSeagull]

Anyway, had an initial conversation about a remote opportunity from a European company today so hopefully the rest of the world has retained some level of competency.

Apparently the end vendor only wanted someone from a list of European countries. Comforting to see it isn't just the UK that has stopped knowing what it is doing

[SussexSeagull]

Just had an interview for a very good rate.

No idea if I will get it and wouldn't start until the new year regardless but goes to prove you should keep going during December.

So having mooted a January 6th start date, meaning the consultants and I had to meet two days before Christmas and them communicating between Christmas and New Year, the end client 'paused' the role without any explanation.

I don't even get angry about these things anymore.

Anyway, had an initial conversation about a remote opportunity from a European company today so hopefully the rest of the world has retained some level of competency.

[SussexSeagull]

And instead we get US levels of public service and Scandinavian levels of taxation! That about sums up the great incompetence of this nation.

Yes, the issue of pensions is critical as is health care for the elderly. We have non-discretionary costs such as these, plus defense and interest on the debt, and when our total non-discretionary spend becomes larger than the tax receipts we are in fiscal dominance and a dangerous slide. I don't know the figures on how close we are to that (will try to find out), but its not terribly far away.

I for one am saving heavily for a private pension. The age of retirement will also be pushed up and by the time my generation, X, gets there we will not have the same political weight as the boomers. The boomers are a big generation, so their vote really matters, hence why no govt will break the pension triple lock. I am not so sure about my generation, although in the UK at least, the younger generations are even smaller so perhaps...

Sweden's personal tax rate id 52.3% and Americans have medical insurance to worry about on top of any tax they pay.

If younger people turned up and voted I absolutely guarantee you they would get a bigger slice of the pie than they do but Boomers do, historically for the Conservatives, hence they get the Triple Lock and got the shock of their lives when the Winter Fuel Allowance got restricted.

Bigger brains than me will need to come up with a solution for Social Care but it has been talked about since the 90s and avoided by politicians, apart from Theresa May in 2017 and it cost her a majority.

[willendure]

The challenge for any Government in the UK is people want Scandinavian standards of public services with American levels of taxation. We can't go on spending more or day to day expenses than we are taking in (long term investment on infrastructure and the like is different). Whenever the current government have tried to make savings the outcry has been huge because a lot of the population aren't used to the government doing it to them anymore.

To give an example, it would have cost £10.5 billion to compensate the WASPI women. Now Labour politicians were wring to say they were going to do it in opposition and I can't take the Conservatives complaining as they did nothing about it, but if they did payout that money it would have had to come through cuts elsewhere, more taxation or borrowing.

With an ageing population it is difficult to see the tax base not going up in the UK and out Western Countries in the next few years as we have an increasing amount of pensioners and a reduced birth rate.

And instead we get US levels of public service and Scandinavian levels of taxation! That about sums up the great incompetence of this nation.

Yes, the issue of pensions is critical as is health care for the elderly. We have non-discretionary costs such as these, plus defense and interest on the debt, and when our total non-discretionary spend becomes larger than the tax receipts we are in fiscal dominance and a dangerous slide. I don't know the figures on how close we are to that (will try to find out), but its not terribly far away.

I for one am saving heavily for a private pension. The age of retirement will also be pushed up and by the time my generation, X, gets there we will not have the same political weight as the boomers. The boomers are a big generation, so their vote really matters, hence why no govt will break the pension triple lock. I am not so sure about my generation, although in the UK at least, the younger generations are even smaller so perhaps...

[SussexSeagull]

The challenge for any Government in the UK is people want Scandinavian standards of public services with American levels of taxation. We can't go on spending more or day to day expenses than we are taking in (long term investment on infrastructure and the like is different). Whenever the current government have tried to make savings the outcry has been huge because a lot of the population aren't used to the government doing it to them anymore.

To give an example, it would have cost £10.5 billion to compensate the WASPI women. Now Labour politicians were wring to say they were going to do it in opposition and I can't take the Conservatives complaining as they did nothing about it, but if they did payout that money it would have had to come through cuts elsewhere, more taxation or borrowing.

With an ageing population it is difficult to see the tax base not going up in the UK and out Western Countries in the next few years as we have an increasing amount of pensioners and a reduced birth rate.

[willendure]

Yeah best of luck bringing in investment considering the financial world isn't so sure the UK gov can even payback the money it owes. The gilt situation shows how the UK is between a rock and a hard place, they either tax more or cut more, both far from ideal (well you could tax the super rich more, but I don't it's anything the gov is even thinking about and there's nothing to cut anymore). Austerity here we come again.

How about taxing LESS? Or at least less in certain sectors to stimulate activity. Its worth remembering that the tax burden when the industrial revolution kicked off in the north east was only around 5%. I think taxing more is just going to crush the economy more and more.

Taxing the super rich is ideology, I'm not against it, but I also think it may not really move the needle. It never happens anyway, since the super rich always enveigle themselves with the government of the day. Always the middle that gets squeezed. For comparison, you don't get into higher tax band in the USA until you earn something like $250K, but our higher rate threshold is £43K and planned increases to it keep getting abandoned.

I think its ok to allow people to have... money.. and that is something that Labour seem ideologically opposed to. After all money in the bank or shares or used to buy a house, it all still exists and cycles back into the economy. Its not like a dragon sitting on a pile of gold that just sits there and does nothing.

One way our government can get money fairly, is by selling gilts. If the interest rate is attractive, people with money to invest will buy them. If the interest is high, our government will have to choose wisely and spend the money sensibly and not fritter it away on daft things like usual. If interest rates are tight, people won't be able to borrow massive amounts and inflate up the housing market to badly that no-one can afford one any more.

Overall, 5% is a pretty good rate. Just a shame there were no adults in the room for the last 15 years to put a stop to the massive borrowing that took place at super low rates.