Public sector wellcome to the real world

jonandfun

martinthebandit wrote: »

So much bitterness and envy, how the rich must love it when the poor fall out amongst themselves

Yes, there is no sweeter music to the 5% that own 85% than the plebs falling out amongst themselves over the scraps from their table.
There is a very nasty streak in people who want to ensure that everyone else should suffer as much if not more than them.I spent half my working life in private industry and half in public.I think most with this experience will say that they worked far harder in public and for less reward.
Don't be such fools as to fall for the gov and Daily Mail hype. Ask yourself who has seen the greatest increase in wealth over the last 20 years, check the actual figures over our debts. The US, France,Italy, Ireland,Germany and Japan all owe far more of their GDP in debt than we do. Example: Germany with a growth rate far higher than ours owes 78% of its GDP, we owe 58%. Ireland that country Osborne said had "much to teach us about how to run a post industrial society" owes 94%
Get the figures and consider the facts before spouting "beggar my neighbour" views or doesn't the truth suit?

jonandfun

NAR wrote: »

And of course public sector workers contribute nothing? Right! :huh:

Yes, a unemployed public sector worker will still have their salary (not) to spend in the private sector providing jobs and trade and they will still be contributors (not) and not claim unemployment pay. Maybe they will take one of the millions of job vacancies there are.

Some of the idiots on here just don't think things through and merely believe Daily Mail speak, the economics of the schoolyard and the politics of the bully.

News folks, a. it is not simple,if it was someone would have fixed it years ago, b. everything is interrelated, without a healthy public sector there is no private sector and vice versa, c. if Osborne is right why is Germany doing so much better than us when it owes 78% of its GDP and we owe 58%?

dtsazza

edinburgher wrote: »

Because they were powerless to act for fear of losing their jobs (and risk their families starving).

I'd recommend reading parts of 'The Road to Wigan Pier'.

Looks like a very interesting book, I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer (and I didn't know that Orwell had strong political views until now!).

Zelazny

jonandfun wrote: »

Don't be such fools as to fall for the gov and Daily Mail hype. Ask yourself who has seen the greatest increase in wealth over the last 20 years, check the actual figures over our debts. The US, France,Italy, Ireland,Germany and Japan all owe far more of their GDP in debt than we do. Example: Germany with a growth rate far higher than ours owes 78% of its GDP, we owe 58%. Ireland that country Osborne said had "much to teach us about how to run a post industrial society" owes 94%

Thing is, the 58% you quote doesn't include "financial interventions" (and is a little out of date - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206 says 61.9% at end of June 2011). When these interventions are taken into account, it's 149.3% of GDP (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/instantfigures.asp). Furthermore, that still doesn't include things like the PFI payments that we're contracted to pay and the unfunded public sector pension liabilities, which analysts reckon put the actual figure nearer 560% of GDP (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2010/10/new-tpa-research-the-real-national-debt-a-decade-of-reckless-growth.html).

So actually, Germay's 78% looks reasonably good in comparison.

dtsazza

Moby wrote: »

Remember the fundamental truth....private business is purely motivated by the pursuance of wealth/money. You don't open a shop or start a company for the benefit of your fellow human being.....you do it to make dosh!

True, but the only way you can get that dosh is if you give someone something they need at a price that they're willing to pay for it. If you're making money, then you're either providing something that otherwise people would have gone without; paid more for; or had to obtain in a more arduous fashion (travel further/wait longer for delivery/etc.).

From that perspective you can only make money by improving the living standards of other people.

The greatest threat to that dosh making.... are the wages of your employees. Accepting that....it is in your interests to pay them as little as possible. A good employer would look to good working relationships and a stable workforce as a relevant factor as well.

Well of course. But the greatest threat to your income as an employee, is the level of your wages, and it's in your interest to be paid as much as possible.

Hence we have a bipartisan negotiation, and the result is a level of pay that is acceptable to both parties (otherwise one or the other would refuse the contract). If the employer thinks you're asking too much for your skills, he can try and employ other equally-skilled people for less (and he'll succeed if he was right that you were overpricing yourself, or he'll fail and have to pay your rates if you were asking for an appropriate wage).

Likewise, if you think an employer is low-balling you with an offer, you can take your skills to other employers and invite them to pay you more. Again, if you were right that the first employer was offering too little, you'll find someone that is prepared to pay you more. But if you think your skills are worth £30,000, but you can only find companies prepared to pay you £25,000, then the first company was right to offer that amount all along.

And this is why I don't see the place for union-driven negotiations in this process; I don't see how they would make it more effective (in fact it's almost certain that the result would be distorted).

You'll see that in places more advanced than here eg Germany, Holland. Here this crass Government is attempting to erode the rights of employees. This will inevitably lead to increased industrial strife with the attendant consequences for the economy.....not to mention the human casualties re. that terrible scourge unemployment:(

It seems to have become the default expectation of people these days that they are entitled to a job, and that it's somehow the government's job to give them one (if not directly, then to "set the scene" so that a private company will hoover them up).

When actually the default state of economic existence is one of self-employment (you use your skills and abilities to provide the necessary resources for yourself and your family). Employment is a special case of this, but by no means the only one, and I feel it would be better if society came to realise that.

What I'm driving at is that if you have useful skills, that people are prepared to pay you money for, it shouldn't really matter if a company
takes you on as an employee or not. You can offer companies/people to translate a letter/design a logo/develop a website/compose a jingle/deliver lunch to desks/host an evening event/have a health & safety review/consult on management strategy/deliver a market research report/tax service for employees/etc. Whatever it is you're good at.

I know this is an underdeveloped delivery of the concept, and there are technical obstructions in real life - but as a principle to base rules and development around, I think it's much more useful than aiming for full traditional employment.

dtsazza

jonandfun wrote: »

News folks, a. it is not simple,if it was someone would have fixed it years ago, b. everything is interrelated, without a healthy public sector there is no private sector and vice versa

I realise (and agree) that it's not simple. However I'm curious as to why you think there couldn't be a private sector without a public sector? The other way around makes sense, but it seems to me that a private sector could exist just fine even with absolutely zero public sector. What's your rationale for suggesting otherwise, if you don't mind me asking?

jonandfun

dtsazza wrote: »

I realise (and agree) that it's not simple. However I'm curious as to why you think there couldn't be a private sector without a public sector? The other way around makes sense, but it seems to me that a private sector could exist just fine even with absolutely zero public sector. What's your rationale for suggesting otherwise, if you don't mind me asking?

No problem. Roads,schools, hospitals, railways (apart from the bits sold off and what a success they have been) Armed forces, Police Force, courts, the list is endless and all are so called public sector.
Even that bastion of private enterprise the USA can't manage these in the private sector. Incidentally look at their premature death rates, their infant mortality rates and the percentage living in poverty to see how well they do there.

Take education for just one example, can we as a country afford that only those who have money get higher education? Don't we desperately need the best brains to be best educated in either sector regardless of their families income?

cyclonebri1

roysterer wrote: »

What is happening today regarding Public Sector Pensions and contributions is what has already happened in the Private Sector.
Final salary Pensions are now gone forever!!!!!!! as much as we all dislike it.

2 years ago I went from a 5% Contribution 1/60th Final Salary scheme to a 10% Contribution 1/60th Career Average Pension.
This was non negotiable take it or leave it. So I guess the proposals put forward today are not so bad after all.

The feeble argument that Public Sector workers sacraficed higher earning potential by working in the Public Sector for greater Pension benefit is complete Bulls*** . If that's the case then wellcome to the private sector for those of you who think you can command far higher salaries, I think you will get a nasty surprise?

My contribution has doubled for less benefit. I am not prepared to pay higher income tax to subsidise public sector pensions as well.

I can guarantee that you will not receive any support if you choose to strike from the vast majority of private sector workers and private sector Trade Unionist.

Give it another few years and Career average will be taken away from us all, only for Defined Contribution rip off Annuity type Pensions to be left on the table.

I guess we have all been shafted by incompetent past and present governments. I feel sorry for the young people coming out of University in 4 years time with £50 - £60,000 of debt, they have got no chance of getting any good pension provision. Did the Public Sector Unionist consider them?
Answer:- a big fat NO. The Public Sector Metropolitan Police were hell bent on dealing with them as we all witnessed.

This topic has been diced and sliced, ambushed by many but I'd like to put it back in focus by bringing back the 1st post as above

The highlighted bits are'nt a jab at the public sector or their value, but you guys need to realise that we have all been "devalued"

Andy_L

dtsazza wrote: »

And this is why I don't see the place for union-driven negotiations in this process; I don't see how they would make it more effective (in fact it's almost certain that the result would be distorted).

I'd of thought that, eg, the NHS negotiating 1.2million individual pay rises each year might well be less efficient (for both sides) than collective barganing

Andy_L

dtsazza wrote: »

I realise (and agree) that it's not simple. However I'm curious as to why you think there couldn't be a private sector without a public sector? The other way around makes sense, but it seems to me that a private sector could exist just fine even with absolutely zero public sector. What's your rationale for suggesting otherwise, if you don't mind me asking?

Ultimatly, the weaker party in any contract would be unable to enforce penalties for breaching that contract.