Public sector monster needs to be tamed

beingjdc

macaque wrote: »

Tripe! 0.4 in 100,000 is 0.0004%. It is an absolute value and it is not calculated against any 'theoretical maximums'. It amounts to 240 deaths in a population of over 60 million people. Australia who are 7th from top had the equivalent of 180 extra deaths. These are very small numbers even with countries near the top of the list. Compare these numbers to mortality rates for the under 5s in the UK which are around 400,000. Your are talking utter nonsense.

You are completely mad. Absolute zero is about -300 celsius, but if the temperature falls from -3 to -6, people say it's got twice as cold, not that it's got 1% colder. Of course we're (thankfully) dealing in very small numbers. That's partly why percentages are calculated in relative terms. If 3 kids (out of a million) died this month, and 6 die next month, what will the newspapers say, that twice as many died, or that the death rate increased by 0.0003%?

chewmylegoff

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

At risk of repeating previous posts - very, very, very few private companies can offer schemes as generous as the public sector ones.

tell that to fred goodwin.

macaque_2

beingjdc wrote: »

You are completely mad. Absolute zero is about -300 celsius, but if the temperature falls from -3 to -6, people say it's got twice as cold, not that it's got 1% colder. Of course we're (thankfully) dealing in very small numbers. That's partly why percentages are calculated in relative terms. If 3 kids (out of a million) died this month, and 6 die next month, what will the newspapers say, that twice as many died, or that the death rate increased by 0.0003%?

You said before:

far fewer people succeed in killing their kids in England than in most other developed countries

Now you are saying:

Of course we're (thankfully) dealing in very small numbers.

Good! We now agree these are small numbers (and miniscule by comparison to other mortality statistics). You also have to accept that your reference to 'statistical abuse' was incorrect. You can chew the carpet but your post is there for the record:

Not it isn't, it's about 500%. You have forgotten how to do percentages, you don't do them as a percentage of some theoretical maximum. If my house is worth £100,000 and your house is worth £200,000, your house is worth 100% more than mine.
What you have done is equivalent to saying that there are houses in Kensington worth £10 million, therefore the difference between a £100,000 house and a £200,000 house is 1%.
Statistics abuse.

Having cleared that up, we can now get back to the substance of the debate. What you wrote was:

Meanwhile, under media pressure the Government will continue weird tinkering with a system which overall works relatively well (far fewer people succeed in killing their kids in England than in most other developed countries), creating turmoil and confusion among staff, unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved among the public, and a load of extra cost and red tape.

This is fatuous nonsense. You are giving credit to child welfare departments without a shred of evidence to show they are responsible for good (or bad) results. Your reference to far fewer was a gross exaggeration (as we now seem to have agreed). Added to this you are also assuming that the performance of child welfare departments is be solely judged on mortality statistics. You have ignored the fact that they are wasting huge sums of money and the management found to be disfunctional. Personally I think it is the height of arrogance to assume that social workers can micro manage peoples lives to prevent such incidents. The key to improving these numbers is to help marriages stay together and cut taxes so that people can get proper jobs.

beingjdc

I give up. Of course 4 in a million is a small number, and 22 in a million is also quite a small number, but there are 12 million children in the UK. I regard 48 as a "far smaller" number than 264. I regard 264 as a 450% bigger number than 48, not a 0.0018% bigger number. The performance of all child welfare departments across the world is brilliant by your logic, so surely they should all get a huge bonus. Even the very worst succeeded in protecting 99.9978% of children.

Lots of people who are married and have stable jobs kill their kids, giving a psycopath a wife and a job doesn't make them a non-psychopath.

Teachertim

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't what point this is arguing?:o
...surely that indicates something like it was a way better job than they realised and retirement is full of disappointment? I don't get it:o

The point i am making is that some do nto live very long after retitrement and therefore do not take advantage of their pension. Therefore, it goes back into the pot. Dead teachers = no pension paid out = less of a drain on public resources.

Old_Slaphead

chewmylegoff wrote: »

tell that to fred goodwin.

Fred Goodwin's pension scheme is hardly representitive of the private sector - if the Labour Government had done their job properly they could easily have prevented it's payment.

However, it would not have been in their own interests would it?

After all if they had used ruining the economy as an excuse for not paying a pension - most of the cabinet would have found their own funds were being withheld!

Old_Slaphead

Teachertim wrote: »

Teaching has the highest rate of death within two years of retirement than any other profession

I find this difficult to believe (given the number of retired teachers I know - many of who retired at 50 and have gone back to supply teaching with a pension & salary).

Can you provide some evidence for your assertion?

mrstinchcombe

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I find this difficult to believe (given the number of retired teachers I know - many of who retired at 50 and have gone back to supply teaching with a pension & salary).

Can you provide some evidence for your assertion?

Surely we aren't starting a "I'm going to die before you" debate?

Sir_Humphrey

Bloody hell, is this thread STILL chugging along!

mrstinchcombe

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Bloody hell, is this thread STILL chugging along!

Yeah I think there are a few chips on quite a few shoulders when it comes to the public sector.