
London suffers deepest fall in wages of nearly all UK cities
Wages in the city have nosedived since the financial crisis, with the average worker making 5.6pc less once accounting for inflation, according to the latest figures for 2023.
The plunge is more pronounced than in almost every major city, despite London generating more than a fifth of the UK's economic growth.
Only in Nottingham have workers experienced a steeper fall in earnings, with wages falling by 8.6pc between 2008 and 2023.
Paul Swinney, of the Centre for Cities think tank, said the drop in real wages in London highlights the impact on high earners since the financial crash.
Mr Swinney said: 'Those people who are doing higher paid jobs are the ones where the real wage decline has really hit, which tallies with the fact that it is the cutting edge of the economy that's not doing very well.'
Meanwhile, rapid rises in the minimum wage have helped boost pay across cities with a greater share of lower-paid workers.
Experts are still unsure why the capital's wages have struggled to grow but it points to the wider challenges gripping Britain's sluggish economy.
Mr Swinney said: 'It is the million dollar question. The main reason is because productivity has flatlined in London. We have had a huge boom in jobs available in the capital but productivity has totally stopped growing.'
The blow to pay packets is a symptom of industries like banking, life sciences and tech struggling with productivity, he said, which has impacted wage growth.
The bleak trajectory for London's wages means it is likely losing out in the competition for top talent, Mr Swinney warned, including to the likes of the US.
He said: 'What we have seen is that London hasn't done very well on the wage side. The cost of living has got worse from a housing perspective in particular over the last 15 or so years. So it really squeezes those benefits of being in London.'
He added: 'The data seems to suggest that there'd been a real slackening off of people coming from skilled countries in particular, which then you would think will be having an impact on the performance of London's economy.'
It suggests that top talent are to a greater extent looking to cities like New York or Paris rather than London.
It comes amid complaints from the City over the widening gulf in salaries for FTSE 100 bosses compared with their US peers.
David Schwimmer, the head of the London Stock Exchange Group, last year warned Britain's largest companies that they must pay chief executives more if they are to compete for talent.
The capital's decline in wages should be a red flag for Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer if they are to grow the economy, Mr Swinney said.
He said: 'The challenge for the Government is not only how do you get other parts of the country firing, but how do you get London firing again.'
Wages in Newcastle and Liverpool were also lower at the end of 2023 than in 2008, taking hits of respectively 1.6pc and 1.1pc. In Leeds, they flatlined.
By contrast, Glasgow experienced by far the strongest growth at 9.1pc. Workers in Sheffield also saw a 3pc boost, but remain the second-worst paid compared with other larger cities.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
FTSE pay hits fresh record as bosses push for US-style deals
In recent years, boards have sought to address the imbalance by awarding more lucrative deals to chief executives. However, investors have baulked at high pay in some cases. Nearly half of voting investors rejected proposals to pay the boss of FTSE 100 medical device maker Smith & Nephew $11.8m (£9.5m) last year. David Schwimmer, the boss of the London Stock Exchange Group, also faced a revolt over plans to raise his pay from £5.1m to £7.8m, with almost a third of investors rejecting the plans. Peter Dilnot, the chief executive of Melrose Industries, was the highest-paid FTSE 100 boss last year, with a pay packet worth £45.4m. Omar Abbosh, the chief executive of Pearson, was the second-highest-paid executive after he was handed a £13m 'golden hello' when he took over from his predecessor, Andy Bird. Sir Pascal Soriot, the chief executive of AstraZeneca, was the third-highest-paid FTSE 100 chief, with a total package worth almost £15m in 2024-25. AstraZeneca was also hit by a rebellion over executive pay last year after proxy advisers, including Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, recommended shareholders reject Mr Soriot's 'excessive' remuneration package. Sir Pascal has in the past been the highest-paid executive on the FTSE 100 and has earned around £150m since taking charge of AstraZeneca in 2012. He is said to have privately contemplated shifting the company to the US amid frustrations with Britain. Luke Hildyard, director of the High Pay Centre, said: 'The contrast between the multi-million-pound pay awards for the chief executives of Britain's biggest corporations and the wider economic uncertainty and social division across the country is really stark. 'These figures will feed a growing sense that low and middle-earners don't get a fair share of the wealth that their work helps to create, while those at the top take much more than they merit or need.'


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Train passengers face ‘outrageous' fare hike
A potential 5.5 per cent rise in England's train fares next year has been described by public transport groups as 'outrageous'. July's Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation – which is often used to determine increases in the cost of train travel – will be announced on Wednesday. The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6 per cent hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024. Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5 per cent, which means fares could jump by 5.5 per cent. Bruce Williamson, spokesman for pressure group Railfuture, said 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much. He added: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and onto our congested road network, which is in no-one's interest.' Mr Williamson said he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares. He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. 'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.' Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. 'Our survey found that 71 per cent of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper. 'Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise, so as the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways (GBR), it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable.' GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation. About 45 per cent of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments. They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities. The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments. A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'


Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
How Scotland's affordable homes budget is bankrolled by buyers
David J Alexander says LBTT figures show the private sector is effectively funding a huge chunk of Scottish housing policy Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Homebuyers, landlords, property investors, and second homeowners should give themselves a round of applause. The latest figures show that these are the people paying property taxes which are now equivalent to the entire affordable housing budget allocated by the Scottish Government. These people – from the first-time buyer to the million-pound property owner – have supplied £714.2m through land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT) over the latest year from August 2024 to July 2025. This total is £110m higher than the previous 12-month period, when £604.2m was raised. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Whether revenue from LBTT is directly transferred to affordable housing is unknown but private buyers are now effectively funding a huge chunk of Scottish housing policy. The land and buildings transaction tax has raised £714.2m over the last 12 months (Picture: John Devlin) Last month recorded the highest ever figure for LBTT of £80.3m: the highest ever monthly charge from the additional dwelling supplement (ADS) paid by landlords, property investors and second home buyers at £28m; as well as the highest ever contribution from ordinary homebuyers with £52.3m. Almost all the residential taxes raised came from properties sold for more than £325,001. The 19,560 transactions above this threshold collected £388.8m, which is 78.9 per cent of the total £493m raised in LBTT (this is the figure for residential sales with the ADS figures removed). This means that the average tax levied per transaction was £19,877. Does anyone really believe that someone buying a property worth £325,001 is 'rich' and able to subsidise the rest of the Scottish economy? Are these really the people in Scotland with the broadest shoulders? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Meanwhile, landlords and property investors, while often vilified by politicians and others as the cause of the current housing emergency, paid £221.3m, which was almost a third of the LBTT total for the last year. This is a clear indication of just how crucial this group is in providing homes and substantial tax funding. David J Alexander is CEO of DJ Alexander Scotland Ltd (Picture: Laurence Winram) But it is questionable whether this is a sustainable, or even sensible, means of raising revenue. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) specifically criticised the policy this year stating that: 'Scotland's increase in the surcharge in land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT) on the purchase of second and rental homes, from 6 per cent to 8 per cent… continued a trend of increases in this 'additional dwelling supplement'', and 'the move makes an already highly economically damaging tax even worse'. It continued: 'It is not yet clear what the Scottish Government's vision for tax policy is – but increases to LBTT are not consistent with any economically sensible strategy.' The IFS, and many private investors, understands that the current LBTT policy is simply political posturing which makes little or no economic sense but plays up to the idea that punishing 'the rich' is the way forward. While these figures indicate just how resilient and lively the Scottish property market remains there needs to be a level playing field with our UK counterparts. We need – as the IFS and others point out – a proper tax strategy in which there is a reasonable explanation of why these taxes are so high and what benefits accrue from them. Regardless of the current market buoyancy there is little doubt that continued higher property and income taxes will start to deter individuals and companies from future investments in Scotland if this situation is not addressed.