600, 000 jobs cut in the public sector = 700, 000 job cuts in the private sector

michaels

Just one example of something the coalition govt have done since coming in to office that will have already impacted upwards on the RPI would be enough to support your argument - please supply one.

marklv wrote: »

Empty waffle, hysterical rantings from a Tory fanatic.

No chance to put up inflation? Inflation is already running at 4.5% and will most likely increase further.

michaels

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a public good?

Image that the state no longer supplies a minimum level of 'law and order'. Insurance premiums would shoot up, home-owners would all be fitting security gates and burglar bars and keeping guns, communities would club together to hire security guards etc. The overall cost would be much greater than a state provided police force. (Note I am not suggesting that every function should be provided by public employees, merely that there are some 'public' goods that the market will not supply in the most efficient manner.

Similarly a recent story about the mint trying to save money by swiching coins to a cheaper alloy - saving to the mint - £8m, cost to the vending industry to recalibrate all coin operated machines - £100m :eek:

Generali wrote: »

How do you want to pay them? That is the problem.

Linton

ILW wrote: »

I would dispute that for many of them.

Really? - police,military, doctors, nurses,teachers,air traffic control,fire service, litter collectors and many many others.

It seems to me that there are many jobs in the private sector that could more reasonably be classed as "non-jobs".

marklv

michaels wrote: »

Just one example of something the coalition govt have done since coming in to office that will have already impacted upwards on the RPI would be enough to support your argument - please supply one.

Keeping interest rates rock bottom - pretty obvious really. Yes I know it's a BoE decision but don't tell me that the government doesn't influence the decision making process, I don't buy that at all.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

I would dispute that for many of them.

I would agree that there are some jobs in local government and even parts of central government that could be cut without causing mass anarchy, but I am referring to the core, essential aspects of the public sector.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

I would agree that there are some jobs in local government and even parts of central government that could be cut without causing mass anarchy, but I am referring to the core, essential aspects of the public sector.

I get the impression that the core, essentials will continue. Just the myriad of unessential and what many consider to be pointless positions will hopefully disappear. Do we need all these quango heads being paid £100k plus for 2 days a week?

ninky_2

there is a lot of talk of non-jobs in the public sector. i'm genuinely interested in what these are. can you give a specific example of a post and the person doing it and explain why it is a 'non-job'?

marklv

ILW wrote: »

I get the impression that the core, essentials will continue. Just the myriad of unessential and what many consider to be pointless positions will hopefully disappear. Do we need all these quango heads being paid £100k plus for 2 days a week?

You are talking out of your rear end. There are far more unnecessary (and more highly paid) positions in the private sector. The unnecessary posts in the public sector tend to be politically motivated ones in local government (eg. ethnic minority liaison officer, gay and lesbian community awareness manager, etc).

ILW

marklv wrote: »

You are talking out of your rear end. There are far more unnecessary (and more highly paid) positions in the private sector. The unnecessary posts in the public sector tend to be politically motivated ones in local government (eg. ethnic minority liaison officer, gay and lesbian community awareness manager, etc).

I am not disputing that there are non jobs in the private sector. The point is that I am not forced to contribute to their salaries. It is between the companies and their shareholders.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

there is a lot of talk of non-jobs in the public sector. i'm genuinely interested in what these are. can you give a specific example of a post and the person doing it and explain why it is a 'non-job'?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122296.ece

including a £23,000-a-year composting supervisor, a toothbrush adviser for infants and a ceremonial sword bearer.
trampoline coaches, skate park attendants, flower arrangers, a “befriending co-ordinator” and a £15-an-hour yoga instructor.

How any one can arge that this is not the case is beyond me.

Every council have non-statutory departments (services they do not have to provide)
It just so happens they are the first being hit also.

In reality any non-statutory service provided by councils at the moment is a non job. As it is money spent on a service they are not obliged to provide.