Public sector, where where you when we needed help??

zagfles

real1314 wrote: »

You do know that the cost of public sector pensions as a percentage of GDP is falling don't you? That over the next 50 years it will fall?

That's if these reforms go ahead as planned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/13974542

So, how will the falling cost of public sector pensions cause the country to become bankrupt?

They won't. If the reforms go ahead.

On the other hand, if public sctor pensions are cut, what do you think will happen to those who have private sector schemes? Do you think they might get cut further? :cool:

Why would they? They are already worse than what's proposed for the public sector, and pay is worse too.

Old_Slaphead

howee wrote: »

Peoples life expectancy increasing. Over borrowing by the public and the government creating jobs for the sake of it. You didn't ask me but thats the answer.

Not to mention the public's prediliction for cheap & tacky imports rather than supporting British industrial workers on a fabulous £5.94ph.

So much for public sector workers fighting for decent pensions for all!

Old_Slaphead

real1314 wrote: »

You do know that the cost of public sector pensions as a percentage of GDP is falling don't you? That over the next 50 years it will fall?

I think what you mean is that the cost, having risen dramatically over the last decade, is going to take 50 years (assuming that the GDP figures are right and anecdotal evidence suggests that they're nearly always overestimated) to get back to year 2000 level.

If year 2000 level is considered the norm - than that's 60 years of overspend.

On the other hand, if public sctor pensions are cut, what do you think will happen to those who have private sector schemes? Do you think they might get cut further? :cool:

Pension scheme DON'T EXIST in vast swathes of the private sector. They're too expensive. If you want a pension you have to save for it yourself - very few employers pay in more than 5% max.

ses6jwg

I worked in the public sector for 12 months and the amount of waste and dead wood I witnessed has to be seen to be believed.

The council had spent thousands of pounds of taxpayer money changing peoples job titles and the whole process had dragged on for years and years costing even more money to the taxpayer because of ridiculous union demands.

There were however still plenty of passionate and caring people but also lots of dead wood and "job for life" type characters.

real1314

zagfles wrote: »

That's if these reforms go ahead as planned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/13974542



They won't. If the reforms go ahead.



Why would they? They are already worse than what's proposed for the public sector, and pay is worse too.

There's no point linking to websites that you clearly cannot comprehend. You have linked to something that concurs with my point and does not concur with yours. The reduction from 1.9 down to 1.4% of GDP is regardless of any changes.

Perhaps you need to increase your knowledge before commenting? :cool:

real1314

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I think what you mean is that the cost, having risen dramatically over the last decade, is going to take 50 years (assuming that the GDP figures are right and anecdotal evidence suggests that they're nearly always overestimated) to get back to year 2000 level.

If year 2000 level is considered the norm - than that's 60 years of overspend.



Pension scheme DON'T EXIST in vast swathes of the private sector. They're too expensive. If you want a pension you have to save for it yourself - very few employers pay in more than 5% max.

1. They haven't really risen dramatically - how much did wages rise over the same period?

2. Well, if we wipe out everyone's pensions, we can all live in squalid retirement. What a wonderful plan.

Just because YOU did not fight for your pensions, pay and conditions, do not expect those that do fight to listen to your bemoaning.

Ask yourself this:-

How have private sector Chief Exec and Senior Managers pay, pensions and conditions changed over the past 10 years? (Clue - they've all gone up a hell of a lot)
How did they achieve the change/ (Clue - you lost money, they gained it).

You got stiffed. And now, rather than deal with why you got stiffed or trying to reverse your situation, you want to see others get stiffed too. Amazing. :cool:

Bin_Boy

I do like a good old ill informed bum fight. This whole thread is a classic example of:

1. People who have never worked in the public sector commenting on their work, benefits, pay etc. on the basis of anecdotal evidence and assumptions; and
2. The opposite.

The fact is that people in both sectors generally work very hard and were attracted to their jobs by different criteria ranging from pay, benefits, social environment, ethics and sense of satisfaction from their jobs. I know many people in both sectors and can tell you that there the same mix of people working their !!!!!! off and those who coast in both.

At the end of the day there are some very talented, hard working and committed people in the public sector who may have been attracted to their jobs by the benefits including pensions.

The bottom line is if the government really wants to create efficiencies in the public sector they need to retain (and attract) the talented hard working people and there is a very real possibility that these people may move to the private sector (or not consider the public sector) if pensions are lowered and there isn't some form of incentive to stay.

With the exception of possibly a desire to make some form of positive contribution to the environment or community there is really very little to keep talented people in the public sector at the moment and losing the talented and committed people will ultimately make things worse and more expensive for everyone.

Do I think strikes are the answer? Not really they simply enhance the view many people already have of the public sector. If the unions really want to make any difference what they should really be doing is trying to actually get the message out there about how hard people in the public sector work, how much abuse many of them get on a daily basis and how they generally really are trying to contribute and help.

Will they do this? No, because the majority of the people leading in the unions are stuck in the past and have no idea how to communicate effectively in the modern world.

RANT OVER...

atush

real1314 wrote: »

You do know that the cost of public sector pensions as a percentage of GDP is falling don't you? That over the next 50 years it will fall?

So, how will the falling cost of public sector pensions cause the country to become bankrupt?

On the other hand, if public sctor pensions are cut, what do you think will happen to those who have private sector schemes? Do you think they might get cut further? :cool:

God I hope the cost is falling, but don't beleive it is. I believe if the unions get theoir way- we are Greece. In the Sh*t.

If PS pensions are cut, the economy may stay afloat and we may not sentence our children to paying for your one gold plated, now Silver plated pensions. Dont' foregt eht baby boom. There are now twice as many of you coming up to your pensions as before.

No, Private Schemes are based on the ecomomy.

If you continue to bankrupt us, they may fall. If we get a grip at least we will hold (but not improve).

I am beginning to think that very few PS workers actually went to university and had a broad based education. When it was free. Now their children won't be able to afford it.

Go ahead, stick your heads in the sand. Drag your heels. Ruin your children's chances at life with the burden you are heaping on them.


But please, we are not stupid so don't expect Public support when you are making sure that parents can't take their children on holiday as they have to stay home when you strike. Watch our children and parents die because you aren't in hospital.


ps, I have worked both private and PS. So ther goes your last argumetn.

Old_Slaphead

real1314 wrote: »

1. They haven't really risen dramatically - how much did wages rise over the same period?

Just because YOU did not fight for your pensions, pay and conditions, do not expect those that do fight to listen to your bemoaning.

Public pensions as % of GDP 2000 1.4% 2009 1.9% - that's a pretty big increase - see graph in Hutton. Then 50 years to get back to 1.4%.

No point in me fighting for a pension - my background over last 20 years is textiles, toys, plastic mouldings. Many firms in those sectors have gone out of business because they've been forced to compete with Far East pay rates of 10p/hour.

We don't have the bottomless purse that is the ever impoverished taxpayer to constantly fall back on. It's a never ending challenge to improve efficiency & competitiveness that we rely on to pay our wages not a bloated bureacracy that is much of the public sector.

hugheskevi

God I hope the cost is falling, but don't beleive it is. I believe if the unions get theoir way- we are Greece.

Total expenditure on unfunded public service pensions is £27.4bn (source: OBR)

Total employee contributions is £7.4bn

I think employer contributions should be ignored - they are just accounting contrivances moving money around the system rather than 'real' contributions.

So about £20bn shortfall between payments out and receipts. Pretty big. And on top of that you have to add in the funded Local Govt. Scheme.

But total benefit expenditure (much of which is State Pension) is £157bn.

Which all says nothing whatsoever about fairness, equity, whether pensions are affordable/justied, etc.

But it does say that this isn't at the level of being a Greek-style decision.