Public Sector workers laughing all the way to the bank

kriss_boy

The_White_Horse wrote: »

as a horse, i findi have a much clearer perspective on life. most real people that actually contribute and pay for everything are beginning to get a lot irritated by their useless, wasteful and costly public sector counterparts. Only today I went to a local authority building, to ask a question at 4.45pm and guess what? closed. Yet, it is suppossed to be open until 5.00pm.

Yawn.

So shops and businesses never close early? Whats your point?

Are you one of these people who blames their local council for everything? I was getting my hair cut the other month and the barber went on a massive rant about how community services leave all their grass cuttings and are too lazy to remove them when mowing the lawns.

Er... so... we pay thousands of pounds more to collect and store/dispose of the cuttings when in actual fact they are of benefit to the verges.

the_ash_and_the_oak

asset owners and borrowers should applaud all wage inflation imo

sammyjammy

So White Horse you suggested we have no public sector workers, who will collect the taxes? Who will govern the country? Who will pass legislation?

Please enlighten me, I'm intrigued.

treliac

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I envisage large 'super orphanages' staffed by unemployed bankers.

Not an inspiring thought by any means but a better prospect than these poor children have had ..... it's heartrending:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8362815.stm

.... she was a 22-year-old with four young children by three different fathers who had found her life "extremely difficult and distressful".

SGE1

macaque wrote: »

I agree that lots of single parents do a fantastic job. If however, you take 1000 single parents and 1000 married couples, the children from the married parents will, as a group, do better in lots of ways. That is just a fact.

Of course I blame the government. They had done much to undermine the institution of marriage and family life. In doing so, they have put ideology above the interests of children.

Good friends have divorced and I don't judge them (these things happen). If you ask me whether the children would be better off if the parents had found a way of patching things up, I'm afraid there is only one answer. The government should do everything in its power to support the institution of marriage. It is good for children and what is good for children is good for society.

The hostility in your response makes me suspect that your views on this subject might be influenced by guilt or doubt.

Guilt or doubt? I'm in my early twenties, I don't have any kids to worry about!

You're confusing the cause and the symptom. Yes, a kid with a single parent will be less well off (financially and emotionally) on average, but that's because of the fact that the single parent is often - but not always, and that's the key distinction - the symptom of a bigger problem, which could be, say lack of commitment, lack of interest on the parent's behalf, etc. It's not inherently because having a single parent is bad. Similarly, a kid is on average better off with two married parents, because a successful marriage is a symptom of parents who are more likely to want a kid, and therefore take better care of it.

If you encourage people to stay together for financial reasons, you're not creating the root cause (love, or something to that effect), which actually increases the child's chances. You're just reproducing a superficial context which has nothing to do with it. It's a subtle but crucial difference which makes all Govt attempts to encourage a certain familial set up totally pointless. So I would completely disagree that it's the Government's fault.

treliac

SGE1 wrote: »

If you encourage people to stay together for financial reasons, you're not creating the root cause (love, or something to that effect), which actually increases the child's chances. You're just reproducing a superficial context which has nothing to do with it. It's a subtle but crucial difference which makes all Govt attempts to encourage a certain familial set up totally pointless. So I would completely disagree that it's the Government's fault.

Conversely, it can be argued, the superficial context is one in which the production of children automatically facilitates a home and an income. Thus, for some, children become reduced to the role of commodities.

It's disingenuous to argue that Government doesn't set the scene by its social and economic policy.

lostinrates

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Because those are all massive, glaring signs that that child is being neglected.

It is possible to be a parent on benefits and be a good parent. Unfortunately some poor people in the UK see having children as a financial choice. This isnt unusual as poor people all over the world share this view.

However, whereas a poor parent from Asia will want to have a dozen kids and educate them all as much as possible so that they can provide for them in old age, their British counterpart may be mire likely to see them as an extra sum added onto their giro and a step up the housing priority list.

This cycle of benefits dependency has to stop.

Edit : if people have a right to have children, and guaranteeing housing and money to parents is basically saying they do (which I agree with) then they must take on the responsibility for raising them.

Society more than money must play a part in this. I base this on the failures of children starting at independant schools with my nieces. ''Neglect'' I perhaps wouldn't argue with, but why..if its not money?

Old_Slaphead

sammyjammy wrote: »

So White Horse you suggested we have no public sector workers, who will collect the taxes?

Massive costs could be saved by outsourcing great chunks of it to callcentres & backoffices in India.

tek-monkey

I work for a college, is that public sector? Cos our wages are **** poor compared to people doing my job in the private sector (programmer, mainly web based databases).

Andy_L

Then why don't you leave?