Wait for until the cuts begin to bite.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Really2 wrote: »

I remember having debates on here not so long ago and people were saying the cuts have not started, Are they sure?
Job losses had not started, are they sure?
Cuts were not front loaded?

Yep... Another example of the bulls being absolutely right.

Cuts are front-loaded and 1.5 years in already, the first 2 years are the worst by far and then it gets easier from there.

No mass redundancies from the public sector, with the vast majority of losses through just a hiring freeze. So therefore no mass repossessions from redundant public sector workers.

Private sector employment growth has more than soaked up the public sector losses so far, with unemployment steadily reducing for many months now.

Interest rates likely to stay ultra-low for many years to come.

There's just nothing left to trigger the bears eternally postponed "next leg down"....:D

chewmylegoff

Really2 wrote: »

If 9 people leave and the posts are not going to be filled that is 9 posts cut Graham.

You can't spin it as 120,000 posts have not been filled.

No redeployment pool in your sisters employer then? just a thought (as anyone losing a job as the right to be redeployed in LG, it is hard to see LG having a number of posts they cant fill due to hiring freezes when they are making cut's GD)

well it's not really spin is it, it's a fact.

if X people leave of their own accord and are not replaced, that has less of an impact on those X people than if they were forcibly removed, as presumbably they're not choosing to leave a job that they cannot afford to leave. (furthermore, nothing has to be paid to them when they leave, making it all rather cheaper for the employer).

therefore it's perfectly reasonable to say that not replacing leavers is a different kettle of fish to rounds of forced redundancies. it's not like he was trying to argue that the jobs still somehow existed.

macaque_2

Meanwhile, public-sector employment has fallen by 120,000 in the past year, significantly more than the projected reduction of 77,000 per year over the next four years.”

I'm sure these numbers are correct but I don't give them much credibility. Governments have become very skilled at disguising tax funded jobs.

The money that governments borrow and recieve in taxes is primarily spent in wages (in one form or another). When taxes and public sector borrowing goes down, I know that the government is really cutting jobs. Over the past 12 months, taxes have gone up.

I'll suspect that a major factor in the rise in private sector jobs relates to government outsourcing.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You stated:

I replied.

Not twisting or spinning anything!!

As an aside. When people talk about the cuts not starting, they are usually in reference to housing on here. No tso much reference to whether some buses have been cut in North Wales. Cuts are happening, but we are normally talking in terms of housing on here. Those cuts have yet to kick in (though wondering if they ever actually will).

Councils know about the cuts they have to make to their budgets, but in general, they have not filtered through to actual cuts as of yet. Our local council was only on the news stating this the other day.

120,000 jobs have already been cut? My wife works in LG and went through applying for her own job before Christmas as did others on here.

How can the cuts not have filltered through, it states it there in black and white how many have already gone in the last year.

Really2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well it's not really spin is it, it's a fact.

It's also a fact there have been cuts. A job not replaced is a job cut. Fact. quangos have been closed etc.
My wife has gone through the process already, you can't say they have not happened they have and at a higher rate than what is required in further years.

Do you really believe they will be employing 120,000 more next year or there will be more losses, just less than the 120K but nearer 77K.

I know where my money is.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

120,000 jobs have already been cut?

It does not say that.

It states public sector employment has fallen by 120,000.

A job cut in my mind = job redundancy. People actually being laid off and cut.

A post not being advertised after somone either moves on, retires, or leaves for other purposes is not a job cut. It's not people being laid off. It's simply someone leaving and not being replaced. Budgets can, and have taken this into consideration and allowed people to leave without being replaced.

If we need to agree to disagree again, then let's do that. Isn't it simply amazing though how we can disagree on the definition of so many things?

chewmylegoff

Really2 wrote: »

It's also a fact there have been cuts. A job not replaced is a job cut. Fact. quangos have been closed etc.
My wife has gone through the process already, you can't say they have not happened they have and at a higher rate than what is required in further years.

Do you really believe they will be employing 120,000 more next year or there will be more losses, just less than the 120K but nearer 77K.

I know where my money is.

i don't think i said anything other than the point that graham made wasn't spin.

if i understand correctly, your point is that the cuts are already here, have already bitten, and there doesn't appear to be an apocalypse happening.

if anything, the fact that significant cuts are being achieved through not replacing departing staff supports what you are saying because just waiting for people to go away is not going to have the same effect as sacking them, as it would be strange if people voluntarily gave up employment knowing that they would be repossessed as a result.

i'm not convinced that this is what graham was seeking to articulate, but it's my take on the situation.

tomterm8

So, is someone taking voluntary redundancy a job cut: yes or no?
Someone taking early retirement?
Like lots of the teachers around here are being offered.

Of course, these are 'voluntary' : but people know that they are being offered a 'voluntary' choice, and if not they will get the involuntary option later.

Graham_Devon

tomterm8 wrote: »

So, is someone taking voluntary redundancy a job cut: yes or no?
Someone taking early retirement?
Like lots of the teachers around here are being offered.

Of course, these are 'voluntary' : but people know that they are being offered a 'voluntary' choice, and if not they will get the involuntary option later.

A voluntary redundancy would be a job cut, yes.

I was referring to simply not hiring as people leave, for whatever reason.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

So, is someone taking voluntary redundancy a job cut: yes or no?
Someone taking early retirement?
Like lots of the teachers around here are being offered.

Of course, these are 'voluntary' : but people know that they are being offered a 'voluntary' choice, and if not they will get the involuntary option later.

Exactly, it is a job cut, voluntary is offered, if they don;'t hit enough voluntary compulsory kicks in.