Up to 2,000 jobs going at Birmingham City Council

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

What about all the professional qualifications that are more pertinent to the private sector ie solicitors, accountants, engineers,

From the same document the Public Sector has a touch over twice the proportion of "Professional Occupations"

Andy_L

Pennywise wrote: »

When I last recruited someone to work for me in an accounts office, I chose someone with an A level in accounting as opposed to someone with a degree in history. That person is now a qualified accountant - so they won't appear in your quoted figures but the chartered accountancy qualifiaction stands higher than a degree.

That table is degrees & equivilant so they would be included

Kohoutek

This whole discussion is irrelevant because the public sector does not generate wealth, the taxes from public sector workers are recycled private sector taxes.

We simply cannot afford a public sector as large as the current one, regardless of how many talented people there are.

It doesn't help that the pensions system allows many public sector workers to retire as early as late 40s, early 50s (e.g. policemen) with more generous pensions that the majority of private sector workers.

The social democratic dream is over. Time to transition to reality.

vaporate

And yet according to some people on here, there are so many jobs going LMAO.

lemonjelly

Kohoutek wrote: »

This whole discussion is irrelevant because the public sector does not generate wealth, the taxes from public sector workers are recycled private sector taxes.

We simply cannot afford a public sector as large as the current one, regardless of how many talented people there are.

It doesn't help that the pensions system allows many public sector workers to retire as early as late 40s, early 50s (e.g. policemen) with more generous pensions that the majority of private sector workers.

The social democratic dream is over. Time to transition to reality.

Perhaps. But a lot of public sector work is involved in preventing increased costs.

Consider highways & road building. That indirectly creates wealth, or contributes.

the police - involved in protecting wealth & assets.

Nurses/health don't create wealth therefore we should do away with them?

A serious question. Is the only purpose of a job to create wealth?

Old_Slaphead

Andy_L wrote: »

From the same document the Public Sector has a touch over twice the proportion of "Professional Occupations"

If you add the Skilled Trades into the figures which IMO are as much a professional occupation requiring qualifications as white collar ones (a 5 year apprenticed plumber/tradesman is just a well qualified and probably much more use to society than a CS CO with a non-relevant degree) the numbers are about the same

Kohoutek

lemonjelly wrote: »

Perhaps. But a lot of public sector work is involved in preventing increased costs.

Consider highways & road building. That indirectly creates wealth, or contributes.

the police - involved in protecting wealth & assets.

Nurses/health don't create wealth therefore we should do away with them?

A serious question. Is the only purpose of a job to create wealth?

I'm not suggesting that the services the public sector produces are worthless, indeed as you say some contribute to maintaining our economy such as the highways agency.

But if look at hard facts - the deficit, the government's unfunded liabilities, the realistic prospects for economic growth, an ageing population (fewer taxpayers, more dependents), the inevitable huge rises in the cost of energy (google peak oil), then as a nation we're going to have to get used to a much smaller public sector and fewer government services.

Gordon Brown's politics are based an economy that keeps growing forever, where we can afford ever growing public services, where future problems such as energy as ignored. Gordon Brown didn't abolish boom and bust, and there are many huge problems on the horizon that will emerge regardless of the fact Labour has ignored them.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

This whole discussion is irrelevant because the public sector does not generate wealth,

your perception of wealth needs to change - life isn't about cash, bank accounts, credit cards and property.

the public sector invests in schools, hospitals and much more - these things are investments in wealth that are more valuable than any monetary wealth that you'd ever aspire to.

Old_Slaphead

lemonjelly wrote: »

Perhaps. But a lot of public sector work is involved in preventing increased costs.
Consider highways & road building. That indirectly creates wealth, or contributes.
the police - involved in protecting wealth & assets.
Nurses/health don't create wealth therefore we should do away with them?
A serious question. Is the only purpose of a job to create wealth?

Nobody's objecting to front line staff - it's the legions of back office workers, bureaucrats, layers of middle management, HR mob who's existance is justified by endless meetings, health and safety squad, pointless quangocrats, non-jobs, consultants, advisers, government spin doctors, target setters & monitorers ya-de-ya-de-ya

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

the public sector invests in schools, hospitals and much more - these things are investments in wealth that are more valuable than any monetary wealth that you'd ever aspire to.

When the government invests in public services without paying for them out of taxation, such as the 3% deficit Labour have run since c. 2002 or the 'off balance sheet' liabilities in PFI deals, then they are simply using the future to pay for the present.

Now we're in the future, it's obvious these things aren't affordable. I don't deny that investing in schools is worthwhile, but we cannot maintain the current £90 billion structural deficit forever. We need to face up to fiscal reality.