Public Sector Cuts V Tax Rises For Those Of Us That Pay Their Wages

[Verbal]

I notice other clubs Trusts are still running. Reading even have their own portacabin. What went wrong?

 

You've now gone through THREE avatars in the last five minutes. Assuming, as you claim, that you earn a salary, who the hell is paying your wages? And do they know you do sweet FA?

[um pahars]

What went wrong?

 

Is this one of my three questions?

[dune]

You've now gone through THREE avatars in the last five minutes. Assuming, as you claim, that you earn a salary, who the hell is paying your wages? And do they know you do sweet FA?

 

Why do you hide your online status? It's like an innernet version of wheres wally,

[Dig Dig]

Public sector cuts or private sector tax rises? I'd rather we had a government with the balls to target those who created the crash of the economy instead of going all out to protect them. Until the government properly regulate the banks and countered the billion pound bonus culture as well as ensuring that corporation tax dodgers are held accountable, any impact to the average man on the street will hold no credibility.

[Verbal]

Why do you hide your online status? It's like an innernet version of wheres wally,

 

It's because I'm busy. Unlike you. So how did you get someone to pay you a salary, given that you do no work?

[pap]

Those at the lower end in the public sector get paid more than their private sector counterparts; those at the higher end get paid considerably less than their private sector counterparts. Public sector workers in London and SE get rawer deal than those oop north because of union opposition to regional pay. These are all FACTS.

 

The poor salary was why I left the public sector. Got a 6K pay-rise just by joining the private sector. Plus, my salary increases were negotiated between myself and my review manager, taking performance into consideration. Public sector wage increases are decided nationally. Oddly enough, my old firm gives considerably more than 1% to people with average performance.

 

Public sector workers have sacrificed enough, I feel.

 

The one thing I will pull you up on is the plight of public sector workers in the South East. Their money doesn't go as far because people believe their houses are worth a lot more than in the North. Everyone else believes it too. Rent/mortgage is based on the perceived value of the property, and it's the biggest outgoing expense for anyone still ploughing through it. Not sure we should be paying southern public sector workers more just so we can perpetuate that belief.

[pap]

It's because I'm busy. Unlike you. So how did you get someone to pay you a salary, given that you do no work?

 

Or alternatively, doesn't want people to know how much time he spends on here.

 

At least, that's why I'm invisible.

[dune]

It's because I'm busy. Unlike you. So how did you get someone to pay you a salary, given that you do no work?

 

How can being busy mean you have to be a hidden lurker? You remind me of a dirty old man in a mac hiding in the bushes.

[Minty]

This thread is getting boring now. Come on dune, you started it, sort it out.

[pap]

How can being busy mean you have to be a hidden lurker? You remind me of a dirty old man in a mac hiding in the bushes.

 

Plenty of memories to draw on, dune?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Those at the lower end in the public sector get paid more than their private sector counterparts; those at the higher end get paid considerably less than their private sector counterparts. Public sector workers in London and SE get rawer deal than those oop north because of union opposition to regional pay. Services provided by the public sector tend to be higher quality but are more expensive; the same services provided by the private sector tend to be lower quality but cheaper and more efficiently delivered. These are all more or less FACTS.

 

I'm pretty sure that is opinion actually.

[um pahars]

I'm pretty sure that is opinion actually.

 

Let's not let thsi ridiculous thread descend in to any serious exchange of opinion.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I love dunce's new avatar; I think 'Maude' sums him up nicely.

[dune]

I love dunce's new avatar; I think 'Maude' sums him up nicely.

 

Cheers. He's becoming a bit of a hero to me.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Cheers. He's becoming a bit of a hero to me.

 

Just when you think Dune couldn't look more stupid.....

[bridge too far]

Those at the lower end in the public sector get paid more than their private sector counterparts; those at the higher end get paid considerably less than their private sector counterparts. Public sector workers in London and SE get rawer deal than those oop north because of union opposition to regional pay. Services provided by the public sector tend to be higher quality but are more expensive; the same services provided by the private sector tend to be lower quality but cheaper and more efficiently delivered. These are all more or less FACTS.

 

Couple of misleading statements there IMO.

 

1. Not long ago the lowest paid in the health sector, for example, were cleaners, cooks and porters. Then these services were 'market tested' and given over to private companies to operate. As soon as the TUPE period had expired, these now private sector workers had their pay and conditions reduced. It's disingenuous to therefore compare apples and pears. These days, the lowest paid in the health sector are clerical staff and, by the very nature of their work, they will be paid more than those who used to be public sector employees but have now been moved into the private sector.

 

2. There is regional variation in pay - it's called London Weighting and is worth around £2K a year IIRC, although it may be more now.

 

You should also consider, when thinking about average pay in the health sector for example, that there are a lot of high end earners such as consultants and GPs. This skews the averages.

[shurlock]

Couple of misleading statements there IMO.

 

1. Not long ago the lowest paid in the health sector, for example, were cleaners, cooks and porters. Then these services were 'market tested' and given over to private companies to operate. As soon as the TUPE period had expired, these now private sector workers had their pay and conditions reduced. It's disingenuous to therefore compare apples and pears. These days, the lowest paid in the health sector are clerical staff and, by the very nature of their work, they will be paid more than those who used to be public sector employees but have now been moved into the private sector.

 

2. There is regional variation in pay - it's called London Weighting and is worth around £2K a year IIRC, although it may be more now.

 

You should also consider, when thinking about average pay in the health sector for example, that there are a lot of high end earners such as consultants and GPs. This skews the averages.

 

Not sure what you mean by your first point- I think we agree insofar as jobs at the lower end that have been outsourced to the private sector see pay fall. Note, I'm simply discussing jobs which are comparable across sectors which are admittedly hard to find but they exist i.e. prison services.

 

Nonetheless, the distinction between higher paying jobs in the public sector at the lower end but higher paying jobs in the private sector the further up you go -once you've controlled for skill levels/job content/responsibility- is well-known.

 

London weighting makes a difference; but it doesn't fully address the distortions caused by national pay systems - see work that suggests death rates from heart attacks are higher in the south because hospitals cant pay nurses more in light of national agreements. Having spent a bit of time in the Treasury, I've been in many a room with union leaders who know what's at stake politically if they lose control of their ability to bargain nationally -and I agree total deregulation would create more problems than it solves; but some loosening is necessary.

Edited 2 December, 2011 by shurlock

[Jonnyboy]

I have a low paid private sector job. I want to see the top 1% pay their way for a change.

[Saintandy666]

I was led to believe that the Royal Wedding (and other such events) had a net positive effect on the UK economy (not just on the day but over a period of time)? I don't have the stats to hand so can't substantiate that (feel free to correct me via provision of said stats).

 

To compare something that is also an income generator with something that is purely destructive (in economical terms) is "comparing apples with oranges" terriotory.

 

Just an opinion mind you.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8155625/Royal-wedding-marriage-will-cost-economy-5bn.html

 

Allegedly loss of productivity was estimated to be £6bn while gain in extra stuff was £1bn so net loss of £5bn.

 

Our GDP is currently $2.25tn. Change £5n into dollars at current exchange rate is $7.747bn or 0.334% of our GDP!!!! That's a lot of cost.

 

But anyways, I reckon that retail must have done pretty well today as well. I'm working at Primark at the moment, and this morning the amount of parents and kids coming in shopping was a lot. We were a bit busier than we would have been otherwise, but yes... both are destructive in the main economically, but I think pensions are more important than being able to watch some marriage.