The Sunday Times today says most public sector workers are getting pay increases

Dan:_4

I think the White Horse is a tad envious - I would bet he would jump at the chance for employment in the Public Sector!

The_White_Horse

Dan: wrote: »

I think the White Horse is a tad envious - I would bet he would jump at the chance for employment in the Public Sector!

you have to be a certain type to work in the public sector. I am not that type.

IronWolf

The_White_Horse wrote: »

a friend of mine is an IT contractor at a govt dept. He is now in his 8th year and has just bought himself a brand new aston martin. that is the public sector for you. this guy should be on a yearly salary of 35k. instead, god only knows what they are paying him. and he admits that he doesn't even do much. whilst technically he is "private sector" anyone person or company who derives their income solely from the public sector is public sector in my eyes. the govt needs to look into this MASSIVE waste. this is one person. it must be going on with at least tens of thousands.

sickening. if the govt had to account for this spending, do you think it would continue in this manner??? of course not. they get rewarded for the big spend with a bigger budget next year.

You really are a complete idiot aren't you.

Firstly, departmental spending on procurement does come out of a departments budget. The more it wastes on it, the less it has to spend on other things. And last years budget has no affect on next years.

Secondly, you complain about the public sector and say it should be cut back dramatically, then you go on to complain about procurement. You do realise that if you reduce the public sector so drastically then you will INCREASE the need for procurement, which means more money spent on private companies to do the jobs that public sector workers could do at a fraction of the price.

Most of the waste in government is not spent on its staff, its spent on procurement in the PRIVATE sector, procuring vital services rather than just hiring the staff to do it in house.

The fraction of government spending actually spent on salaries to it's staff is small, about £120bn out of £700bn. Yet you seem under the delusion that cutting salaries by 50% is going to save a fortune. Well I'm afraid you are just stupid to think this. Over 20% of the country is public sector and a 50% pay cut would almost certainly plunge the country into recession with mass strikes. tax revenues would dive so it wouldn't do anything to solve the deficit.

What a clueless moron.

Dan:_4

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you have to be a certain type to work in the public sector. I am not that type.

What type are you?

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you have to be a certain type to work in the public sector. I am not that type.

What are the type that have worked half their career for public and half for private companies? That's me.

FTBFun

pqrdef wrote: »

"I mean, what has the public sector ever done for us?"

"Roads?"

"Well, yeah, there's roads, obviously. But apart from that..."

etc etc etc

Aren't these built by private companies?

geneer

Looks like those real falls in house price are "real" enough then.

chewmylegoff

Cleaver wrote: »

What are the type that have worked half their career for public and half for private companies? That's me.

they're centaurs.

The_White_Horse

IronWolf wrote: »

You really are a complete idiot aren't you.

Firstly, departmental spending on procurement does come out of a departments budget. The more it wastes on it, the less it has to spend on other things. And last years budget has no affect on next years.

Secondly, you complain about the public sector and say it should be cut back dramatically, then you go on to complain about procurement. You do realise that if you reduce the public sector so drastically then you will INCREASE the need for procurement, which means more money spent on private companies to do the jobs that public sector workers could do at a fraction of the price.

Most of the waste in government is not spent on its staff, its spent on procurement in the PRIVATE sector, procuring vital services rather than just hiring the staff to do it in house.

The fraction of government spending actually spent on salaries to it's staff is small, about £120bn out of £700bn. Yet you seem under the delusion that cutting salaries by 50% is going to save a fortune. Well I'm afraid you are just stupid to think this. Over 20% of the country is public sector and a 50% pay cut would almost certainly plunge the country into recession with mass strikes. tax revenues would dive so it wouldn't do anything to solve the deficit.

What a clueless moron.

the public sector is too large and does too much. no need to procure things out - just don't do them at all.

120bn - cut the staff by 50% is 60bn saved. then cut salaries by 50% - that is 30bn saved. so 90bn saved overnight.

then cut pensions by 50%. that will be more billions saved.

the public sector does too much rubbish. it needs to do the basics and nothing else for a while.

chewmylegoff

The_White_Horse wrote: »

120bn - cut the staff by 50% is 60bn saved. then cut salaries by 50% - that is 30bn saved. so 90bn saved overnight.

i should think that such action would be more likely to increase costs by 90bn overnight, as you would have to pay redundancy to everyone, and also deal with some very expensive constructive dismissal claims from all of the staff whose salaries you halved, then either (i) hire a load of more expensive temps to do all of their work; or (ii) adsorb the consequential costs of whatever work they were doing not being done (i know the whole point of your silly on-line persona is to claim that no one in the public sector does anything, but as you well know that isn't actually true).