We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
600, 000 jobs cut in the public sector = 700, 000 job cuts in the private sector
Comments
-
What are you on about, my idea of the term non-job and that of councils basically are jobs that are non-Statutory as they are services they do not need to provide.edit, this is not to say all non-statutory jobs are non-jobs, but non-jobs generally fall under non-statutory.
(Any one could argue any job has a use if the person is doing something.)
That is why they (councils) are cutting those first.
It is the councils that deem them useful as that will be reflected in their budget cuts, but I dare say the toothbrush adviser post could be decided as less useful than a bin collector.
If all jobs are equally important on a local level why are councils cutting non-statutory now not april? They have the funds to run them until then.
what am i on about. you've just contradicted yourself in your own post. so not all non-stat jobs are non-jobs. and not all non-jobs are non-stat......hmmm. councils don't have much choice but to cut non-stat jobs first. it doesn't mean they weren't useful. if you are talking about non-stat (jobs insisted on by central govenment) why not just call them that rather use the rather emotional loaded term non-job?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »my council recently sent me a magazine. first, it was trash and not a good read. second, they have paid people - out of my taxes to write this trash. Third, they probably pay people at the council to work full time to work on the magazine. Fourth, they probably pay printers to print the magazine.
Fifth - it is trash, a waste of time and money and NOT NECESSARY in any shape way or form. These are NON-JOBS. jobs for the sake of jobs. Get rid of all this nonsense now.
i quite like my local council magazine. admittedly it could be done online but that would hinder those without internet access (still quite a significant number - especially in certain demographic groups). i think it's important to have news about your local area and services - particularly in a city where it's easy to lose a sense of community.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
The one I get seems to be just a propaganda sheet listing all the great things the council has spent my money on. They fail to mention things such as giving the previous CO a £200,000 pay off as he had found a better paying job closer to where he lives (200 miles away).0
-
The one I get seems to be just a propaganda sheet listing all the great things the council has spent my money on. They fail to mention things such as giving the previous CO a £200,000 pay off as he had found a better paying job closer to where he lives (200 miles away).
You can !!!!! as much as you like, but in the private sector directors receive far bigger payouts, yet I fail to detect any outrage about these situations. Hypocrite.0 -
No it is not, but some departments and jobs are non-statutory. So just as it is not my decision to call them non jobs (and I never said it was) but someone made these positions in boom times.
Non jobs overall are non statutory council jobs, basically services they do not need to provide from central guidence.
Why do you think it is not fair to ease the tax payer burden in a bust. Do you really think the public sector should not cut one job?
On my wifes office you could not make it up, they are cutting 30% of the officers, but making one additional management job.:rotfl:
1 Director + 4 managers now to mange what will be 12 people. No they don't waste money honest, cut the front line whilst bolstering the generals.
Of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't cut any of these jobs, but I simply object to the offensive term 'non-jobs'. For people who actually do these jobs, they are a livelihood to allow them to maintain their families. I would prefer using the term 'non-essential' jobs instead.0 -
I most cases, if I disagree with their employment terms I can chose not to buy their products or services.
I agree that the state sector is different but reserve the right to comment about it because I am being FORCED to help pay these people.
You must live on the moon! Of course you are forced to contribute, because you use (or have the freedom to use) public services such as refuse collection, police, fire brigade, schools, etc. You can't pick and choose and pay only for what you want. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to vote for another party in your local elections. You can't have it any other way, there is no country on the planet that uses a different system (infact many don't even allow you the freedom to vote).0 -
Except the countries nearest to the financial Libertarian ideal such as Hong Kong and Singapore are also the wealthiest (outside of the tax haven of Luxembourg with a splattering of small well run oil countries such as Qatar, Brunei and Norway). Every major government in the world used to support slavery and believe the world was flat, "everyone else does it" is not valid reasoning imho..
What works for Hong Kong Singapore does not necessarily work for us. These countries have a much different culture and social structure to that of the UK. In many ways, they are 'experimental' countries. The Chinese government would not dare to Hong Kong-ise the rest of China.I'm not an anarchist - protecting property rights, provision of funding for education, a&e, emergency funds for hardship. I don't have a problem with any of these. You talk of traditional services provided by the state but I'd hazard a guess most of this is post-WWII "tradition". Pre-WWI government, the last time we had a classically liberal party in power and the last time we had world-beating economic growth, Britain would spend around 10% of GDP on governance. That'd be £140bn today, compared to the £698bn we're due to spend this year. There is a lot of slack that need not be provided by the state.
Before WW1 Britain owned 35-40% of the world's surface and the poor were sent to slave in workhouses. It was a much different world and Britain was the welathiest country on the planet, dominating global trade. Advocating a return to this economic regime would be a hugely retrograde step in every sense; Britain no longer has an empire and access to free or very cheap raw materials.I'm talking more generally about the labour market over the past decade. The government outbid the private sector for many below average wage earners purposely. For example: there was an addition of 250,000 "teaching assistants" between 1997 and 2009. The government can only do this by outbidding whatever job these "teaching assistants" would get in the private sector - a job in retail, cleaning, agriculture for example where there was a shortage (ergo the need to import labour from Eastern Europe).
I'm still puzzled. If there are jobs that needed to be filled, of course the government had to recruit from the outside job market - how else would the jobs be filled? Or are you suggesting that teaching assistants should be recruited solely from Eastern Europe? I'm not with you. And what's this nonsense about 'outbidding'? Teaching assistants are hardly paid megabucks!Because we don't need food to live?! Health provision is fundamentally no different to food provision , if anything food is far more important (most will still be alive after a month without healthcare). Folk seem to forget the private sector miracles in healthcare. Paracetamol costs a penny a tablet in supermarkets, how much would it cost if the NHS controlled its supply?!
Food and drugs have nothing in common. The reason medicines are expensive has nothing to do with the NHS. The drug companies keep prices deliberately high so that money raised is pumped into research. In a way, they have some justification, as drug research is a very costly investment, and without research you will never have better and more effective medicines. If you want cheap medicines, you can still buy them online from dodgy offshore pharmacies, but don't come complaining when you get ill. You can't 'go cheap' on drugs - sorry.Sweden's free schools or American chartered schools are not run by the public sector and are considered best practice by our current government. Health is often run by private organisations, 80% of Japanese hospitals are privately run for example and it was ranked the no.1 country for healthcare provision in the highly controversial WHO report that ranked the US lowly, talking of which most US private hospitals are non-profit. Singapore has perhaps the most efficient health service in the world and that they use a system of medical savings accounts.
Some interesting ideas here, but as I said before, what works for other countries may not be effective here. The devil is in the detail. I'm not opposed to independent schools, as long as they don't remain the preserve of the wealthy. I would like to see more affordable independent schools which are part-parent funded, part funded by government grants and charities, and part-funded by private sector investment.I don't understand the need to bold "all", we should be looking at cherry-picking best practices not modelling how Britain does things based on any one other country that we wish to emulate.
Not convinced that cherry picking can work. A lot of what you suggest is extreme and unrealistic. My concern is affordability, especially for those on low or average incomes.Which services can only be provided for by the state? I'd love to know! There seems to be an inherent ugliness in this assertion if you're talking about, say mental health care, that individuals are so greedy and selfish that they will not pay charities to provide for the less well off.
You've lost me here. Do you expect welfare to be the sole preserve of charities? This is going back to Victorian times. Without a forced contribution (i.e. tax) there is now way that there would be enough cash to look after the poor in society. I'm all in favour of reforming the welfare state, but I don't agree with its demolition.0 -
You can !!!!! as much as you like, but in the private sector directors receive far bigger payouts, yet I fail to detect any outrage about these situations. Hypocrite.
As said before, in the private sector I am not forced to contribute. The public sector have a duty to taxpayers not to waste their money.0 -
Of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't cut any of these jobs, but I simply object to the offensive term 'non-jobs'. For people who actually do these jobs, they are a livelihood to allow them to maintain their families. I would prefer using the term 'non-essential' jobs instead.
I agree, I never brought it up, someone just wanted examples of what the press mean when using the term.0 -
what am i on about. you've just contradicted yourself in your own post. so not all non-stat jobs are non-jobs. and not all non-jobs are non-stat......hmmm. councils don't have much choice but to cut non-stat jobs first. it doesn't mean they weren't useful. if you are talking about non-stat (jobs insisted on by central govenment) why not just call them that rather use the rather emotional loaded term non-job?
Non statutory jobs are not insisted on by central government. they are parts councils do discressionary as a value add. They are services that councils do not have to provide.
I never brought up non jobs you asked what some would be I gave you examples,
Why is it contadictory saying nearly all non jobs fall in the non statutory category at councils? and that not all non statutory jobs are non jobs.
That is not a contradiction, it is a fact some non statutory positions are more worth while than others. EG regeneration would be higher up the list than tooth brush adviser.
My wife is in a non statutory job at a council, it is classed as non essential services. She understands and so do I, even if you don't.
She is employed in a service the council are not obliged to provide, thus the most risk when the poo hits the fan.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards