how are all these final salary pensions going to be funded?

Sir_Humphrey

Pennywise wrote: »

But where are those jobs? Unless the number of vacancies increased, market forces would result in a reduction of the remuneration package as the employers would have far more people applying for each vacancy. They'd also have the pick of the bunch and would continue to engage the best person for the job, but which would probably mean the people who've got the most relevant work experience, i.e. those already in the private sector.

All we ever hear are the public sector comparing themselves to "the best" of the private sector workers/jobs. That's unrealistic. For every public sector "plodder" there are an equivalent or greater number of private sector "plodders" on the same or worse remuneration. In the public sector, only the cream get the top jobs - that leaves the masses who are still experienced and educated but far lower down the food chain. In reality, very few, in fact only the exceptional, public sector staff would get better jobs in the private sector - there's just not enough of the "top" jobs in the private sector. It's like the way teachers compare their own wage to the top salaries offered by the top private schools - the average teacher wouldn't have a hope in hell's chance of a job in such a top school - just not comparing like for like at all.

All the time I am talking about the wage comparative to the private sector. An increase in unemployment as the result of cuts would force down private sector wages too.

You also make too many assumptions about the calibre of private sector staff - in the public and private sector they are about the same overall (I have worked in both sectors).

People here should be careful what they wish for. Are you Pennywise but Poundfoolish?

Old_Slaphead

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

You also make too many assumptions about the calibre of private sector staff - in the public and private sector they are about the same overall (I have worked in both sectors).

Presumably you knew them all?

Based on your observation that the calibre of staff is about the same overall and, on average, salaries & wages are higher in the public sector, then there's no justification as to why the other employee benefits should be excessively better and maybe it's time that they were standardised to the average available across the whole workforce.

Sir_Humphrey

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Presumably you knew them all?

Based on your observation that the calibre of staff is about the same overall and, on average, salaries & wages are higher in the public sector, then there's no justification as to why the other employee benefits should be excessively better and maybe it's time that they were standardised to the average available across the whole workforce.

It has been said before that comparing averages is meaningless because low-skilled work virtually no longer exists in the public sector because of outsourcing. Your binman is a private sector employee because of compulsory competitive tendering.

If you are going to carry on this argument at least inform yourself of the facts and learn some elementary statistics.

Just think of the implications of the state defaulting on its obligations for one second will you?

Old_Slaphead

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It has been said before that comparing averages is meaningless because low-skilled work virtually no longer exists in the public sector because of outsourcing. Your binman is a private sector employee because of compulsory competitive tendering.

Can you quantify the effect that outsourcing has had or is that again the usual rhetoric churned out (ie we're not really as well off as the figures appear to indicate) to justify an even larger slice of the cake after a decade of government largess? The statistical effect on private sector averages probably only compensates for the recent times upward distortion caused by whopping bankers bonuses (who knows?)

Using your rationale that most of the bottom-end jobs have been outsourced and therefore that public sector is now no longer predomimently low-skilled and low paid work, how can the 'perks package' continue to be justified as compensation for "underpaid" public service when it is now subsidised by workers on even lower payscales and reduced efficiency?

Sir_Humphrey

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Can you quantify the effect that outsourcing has had or is that again the usual rhetoric churned out (ie we're not really as well off as the figures appear to indicate) to justify an even larger slice of the cake after a decade of government largess? The statistical effect on private sector averages probably only compensates for the recent times upward distortion caused by whopping bankers bonuses (who knows?)

The scale of outsourcing is obvious. The deviation from mean for the private sector is another reason why it makes more sense to compare like-with-like rather than look at means from a statistical point of view. I should have thought that there are so few bankers as a % of population that the overall effect would be minimal.

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Using your rationale that most of the bottom-end jobs have been outsourced and therefore that public sector is now no longer predomimently low-skilled and low paid work, how can the 'perks package' continue to be justified as compensation for "underpaid" public service when it is now subsidised by workers on even lower payscales and reduced efficiency?

The workers who are outsourced should have their pay and conditions upgraded to a decent level, rather than have a race to the bottom.

Old_Slaphead

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The scale of outsourcing is obvious.

Not to me it isn't - would you enlighten me? Given that public sector employment has increased from 5.2m to 6m over the last decade whatever would it have looked like without outsourcing ???

The deviation from mean for the private sector is another reason why it makes more sense to compare like-with-like rather than look at means from a statistical point of view. I should have thought that there are so few bankers as a % of population that the overall effect would be minimal.

The numbers of beneficiaries may have been few but the amounts involved have been colossal (billions). I would have thought it would have added at least a few hundreds of pounds to the private sector average wage.

The workers who are outsourced should have their pay and conditions upgraded to a decent level, rather than have a race to the bottom.

What is "decent" and where does the money come from prithee? Unlike the public sector, we do not have a virtually bottomless pit of funding. Costs have to be passed on and, before the collapse in sterling, the consumer (when had had a fully loaded credit card) had a penchant for cheaper imported goods. Competition has ensured that costs have to be kept under control.

dktreesea

CLAPTON wrote: »

No wonder so many immigrate

Emigrate. Emigration for leaving Britain, immigration for inwards migration, i.e. those flooding to our shores in droves, eager to get in on the benefits, not to mention unearned state pension, pot.

dktreesea

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Wrong again.

dktreesea: You're a cheerful chappie. What you suggested will never happen, and if it did you would find yourself having to pay "tips" to staff if you wanted any sort of public service. Like in Kenya.

What you surely mean is you hope it will never happen? We can't afford the public sector that we've got, not the volumes of people and certainly not the amount they get paid. And yet we continue to import people in their droves, not to mention breed like rabbits (whoever thought Britain would have one of the highest birth rates in the EU!) This suggests a push of resources into schools and hospitals to an even greater extent than happens now. Something's got to "give". And my bet is on "back room staff" and the final salary pension scheme.