Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

carolt

bendix wrote: »

By the way, if you want to see what the leading law firms are paying their new lawyers, check this out.

http://www.rollonfriday.co.uk/InsideInfo/CityFirms/tabid/68/Default.aspx

Read it and weep, carolt.

Why would I weep?

You've just made my point.

The figures I quoted are corrrect.

Am I supposed to weep because they're paid more? If that bothered me, I would have become a lawyer. Still could, easily - let's just say I have connections such that I could very easily get a top legal job, aside from any intrinsic qualities I may or may not possess.

I don't wish to. That's why I didn't. I think law is extraordinarily dull. Sorry.

I can see the argument that lawyers should be well recompensed to make up for their exceedingly dull job. But then, by the same token, so should shelf-stackers and factory workers.

As a socialist, I'm all in favour of that, actually.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

carolt

Pennywise wrote: »

Note it refers to newly qualified lawyers in top City firms! You'll find that newly qualified lawyers in the sticks start out at closer to average salary which is below the pay of a newly qualified teacher.

It's no use comparing private sector salaries in the City - most teachers are working all over the UK, so they need to compare against the local employment market which in many areas is far less. In our area, for example, average incomes are well below national average, so our teachers, nurses, etc are far better paid than the average private sector worker in the same area.

I think that's a very fair point. I'm comparing people working in either London or Manchester. In London, certainly the public sector salaries are very low by comparison.

But it's undeniably true that out in the sticks somewhere, a teacher or policemen may be earning really good money compared to the average.

Personally, I'm in favour of greater regional variation in public sector salaries, though the unions aren't. It's silly that 2 people doing the same job, one in Sheffield, say, and one in London, can be very well off in one place yet very poor in another. On the same salary. I know London Weighting exists, but it makes only a small dent into the cost of living in the city.

carolt

bendix wrote: »

It's almost sad to see carolt making generalisations about the legal profession based on 'work experience' in a solicitors office. Good grief.

Why not let some perceptions gained from working in what sounds like some dodgy little provincial office shape views of one of the most challenge and rewarding careers around?

You really have no idea, do you?

Final point. Lawyers earn more than teachers for a simple reason. It's called marketforces. Only a few people have the drive and skills to become successful city lawyers; many more can become teachers, irrespective of how well qualified they are.

For the record, the quality of degree is virtually irrelevant in modern law firms. It helps of course, but we have several partners here who have relatively poor degrees from some crappy polytechnics. Similarly, waving a 2.1 or a first from Cambridge or Oxford - with us at least - is absolutely no guarantee of a job here.

Is Slaughter & May "some dodgy little provincial office"? Or is it big City enough for you?

You don't need any great "drive and skills" to be a big City lawyer; you just need a lack of sense of humour, to be driven entirely by money, and a liking for office politics and late nights in the office.

Dull, dull, dull.

Have you ever tried teaching a class of teenagers, I wonder?

That requires real, real-life skills.

Try it, before you criticise others for talking without knowing what they're talking about.

carolt

donaldtramp wrote: »

Well Carol I've clearly explained my thoughts
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=24604855&postcount=135

and the best response you come up with is "diddums":rolleyes:
Then you attempt to have a little snidey go about me being turned down from a public sector job and suggest my salary is not "paying enough".
:rotfl::rotfl:

Trust me, I am more than happy with my income.;)

What is unbelievable is that I still don't think you get it:rolleyes:

I DON'T want a job in the public sector. I am sick of PAYING for it.
My point is, Britain is sick of paying through the nose for the public sector.

Got it???

No, Britain's economy is sick because we've spent hundreds of billions on bailing out the banking sector.

Private sector - supposedly. When the times are good. But magically first in line for a handout when the going gets tough.

Public sector pensions are a drop in the ocean compared to that.

This pathetic nonsense that private sector = good, all hardworking, deserving; but public sector = bad, all lazy, unnecessary, is just pants. Lazy thinking of the worst, dogmatic type

Get it? :rolleyes:

bendix

carolt wrote: »

Is Slaughter & May "some dodgy little provincial office"? Or is it big City enough for you?

I think i've heard of them. Second tier, minor league outfit, right?

Nahhhh. . tell, you what. You keep your delusions about top contacts meaning you could walk right into any top legal job you wanted. That's kind of funny, seeing as how your sole experience is - by your own admission - work experience. Isn't that what students do to fill the gaps on their cvs?

Now, I'm off home. It's 5.17. I'm usually home by 6.30pm but I feel like an early night tonight.

donaldtramp

carolt wrote: »

No, Britain's economy is sick because we've spent hundreds of billions on bailing out the banking sector.

Private sector - supposedly. When the times are good. But magically first in line for a handout when the going gets tough.

Public sector pensions are a drop in the ocean compared to that.

This pathetic nonsense that private sector = good, all hardworking, deserving; but public sector = bad, all lazy, unnecessary, is just pants. Lazy thinking of the worst, dogmatic type

Get it? :rolleyes:

CAROLT No, Britain's economy is sick because we've spent hundreds of billions on bailing out the banking sector.

So the bail out costs of the banking sector are the problem are they?
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47085,news,uk-faces-jump-in-bail-out-costs-imf-warns

FIRST POSTED APRIL 22, 2009
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) raised its estimate of the total cost of the credit crunch to $4.1tr yesterday and warned that the cost to the UK of financial rescue could amount to almost 13.4 per cent of GDP. The amount would be the most of any advanced country, except Ireland, and would mean a total spend of £200bn, £3,000 for every UK citizen.

£200 Billion is a big number and so is 13.4% of GDP. I'll grant you that. £3000 per person liability.

CAROLT Public sector pensions are a drop in the ocean compared to that.

Lets have a closer look at your sweeping statement will we?
Beginning with:
http://www.bnac.org/files/BNAC%20Release%20on%20public%20sector%20pension.pdf

UK PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION LIABILITIES NOW 85% OF GDP,
HUGELY EXCEEDING THOSE OF US AND CANADA
Valued at £20,000 per person in the UK Governments in all three countries are understating the true cost of public sector pensions: study calls for transparency as first step in addressing the cost falling on present and future generations of taxpayers LONDON 29 JUNE 2009 – The Governments of the UK, US and Canada are understating significantly the true cost of their employees’ pension costs in terms of both the liabilities already incurred and the annual cost of running their public sector schemes. In the UK, where unfunded schemes predominate, public sector pension liabilities are £1,177 billion, about £20,000 for every person in the UK, equivalent to 85% of GDP, a percentage three times as high as in North America. These findings are in a study The need for transparency in public sector pensions, published today by the influential British-North American Committee (BNAC)1.

Public Sector Pension liabilities (at the moment) are nearly £1.2 TRILLION. 85% of GDP and a liability of £20,000 per person. That's before an ageing population and the ongoing costs of the massive increase in our already bloated state employment.

and
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13983688

when private- and public-sector pay rates are compared. In Britain the mean private-sector salary in 2008 was £27,408, against £23,943 in public service. But the mean is inflated by the high wages of investment bankers and so forth. The median public-sector employee is better paid. Once you allow for pension rights, he is even further ahead.
A further disparity is that public-sector workers tend to retire young. It stands in stark contrast to private-sector workers with DC plans, who will now probably end up working longer than they had anticipated.

Hmm:rolleyes: which figures are bigger?
Have a look and let me know.....

£1.2 TRILLION or £200 Billion?
£20,000 per person or £3000 per person?
85% of GDP or 13.4% of GDP?

This is before the banks abilities to re-coup and make money is taken into account, public pensions are just a lead weight round our necks....

CAROLT

Lazy thinking of the worst, dogmatic type

Yup, I've certainly shown your socialist thinking to be EXACTLY that:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Think I have "got it"

donaldtramp

Bendix, I think we could all continue to run rings round Carol all week and still she'd go on.

I get the impression she could cause an argument in an empty house:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

By the way, if you want to see what the leading law firms are paying their new lawyers, check this out.

http://www.rollonfriday.co.uk/InsideInfo/CityFirms/tabid/68/Default.aspx

Read it and weep, carolt.

The top payers aren't on that list, either. I know of US firms paying NQs more.

mewbie_2

donaldtramp wrote: »

Hmm:rolleyes: which figures are bigger?
Have a look and let me know.....

£1.2 TRILLION or £200 Billion?
£20,000 per person or £3000 per person?
85% of GDP or 13.4% of GDP?

Is a trillion bigger than a billion? tbh they're both very very big - that's good enough for me. So let's call them the same.
I know the second question - 20k is bigger than 3k - that's easy.
But the third one - I'm not very good with percentages - or is it net value after discount? Could be a trick question.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Is Slaughter & May "some dodgy little provincial office"? Or is it big City enough for you?

You don't need any great "drive and skills" to be a big City lawyer; you just need a lack of sense of humour, to be driven entirely by money, and a liking for office politics and late nights in the office.
Rubbish. DH is funny, and althugh salary was of great iportance its for the lifestyle we want, very different to most monied lifestyles. He does however work ridiculous hours, that require great drive, and significant skills! Any office has politics, but this yearis the first ytime DH has felt close to that: and he certainly does not like it.

Dull, dull, dull.
Very far from it, varied interests (his interview for this firm concentrated mainly on his non academic skills, and DH said they talked about his previous career extensively..) some really interesting people hare in top law, peoplewho also have other interests and careers (e.g. novelists, acedamia, sports at high levels)

Have you ever tried teaching a class of teenagers, I wonder?Yes, DH's firm like many top tiers, does pro bono work including not insignificant hours of class room time with in inner city schools. The ones many teachers avoid!

That requires real, real-life skills.
And lawyers, have them, plus other skills.
Try it, before you criticise others for talking without knowing what they're talking about.

Carol, as you see DH has tried it, and still does. The fact of the matter is people make their choices. Some prioritise pleasure: some ideology; money...and various degress of all three. There is no question that money, and stability was the motivator in DH entering the legal profossion, and their is also little doubt that money was a deciding factor on the area of law, the pro bono time, the hugely varied and celebrated interests and dynamics of his colleagues is what made his firm his first choice firm. I could present the smae case for a number of magic circle solitor or the equivalent barristers. Just as I know teachers who have interests in things outside the classroom.