Incensed again

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Annual pay rises Andy?

I work for a Midlands SME which is a member of a local business forum. Hardly any have given any sort of annual pay increase for several years now. Like pension schemes - rises are pretty much a thing of the past if you want to keep your job.

Fair point, so for "annual" read "future". It was/is a long term thing for the antipodeans. Probably why it won't happen here despite the benifits: neither employers, employees or politicians are noted for taking the long view

Bigsmak

afc80 wrote: »

Be Honest mate.

You made that post up.

Total Jackanory :rotfl:


As for the love in for that mad witch Thatcher, she decimated the manufacturing base of the UK and sowed the seeds for the deregualted mess that got the UK into the !!!!!!. Take a lesson from Germany as to how to run an economy, and Oh the mad witch funded all her tax cuts from raping Scottish oil fields.

That is going to be stopping soon as well, You English will most definitely not be able to afford pensions of any sort when we say bye bye to the UK



These public sector pensions are fantastic and will still be good if and when they are changed. That is why the unions are fighting to keep them as unchanged as possible.

And this weak Govt. will make further concessions.

You can hardly blame the unions for fighting to keep such good pensions. If I is was a union member if would expect nothing less.

I didn't make it up.. Thanks for asking

I can understand why the unions would want to keep things the same. I would if I was in their position. But the needs of the many outway the wants of a few (few as in millions) so it will have to change.

dshart

Moby wrote: »

So what's the answer.....spitefully reduce our pensions or campaign for an improvement in private pensions?

Why do you feel it is spite? There is nothing spiteful about it, the basic fact is that the public sector pensions are unaffordable and they are one small part of the national debt that requires addressing.

A point was made about a percentage of private sector workers being better off than public sector workers and when I asked the person responded that it was 10%. But this means that 90% of private sector workers are most probably worse off than public sector workers and the reason we want equality is that the deficit in public sector pensions is being paid for with taxpayers money (and yes I do understand that public sector workers also pay tax).

In the private sector now in most pension schemes the employers and employees make contributions into what is effectively a private pension, that money is invested to generate a pension pot which is used to buy an annuity upon retirement. If upon retirement the pension pot is small or annuity rates are poor there is nothing the private sector worker can do apart from work longer. But in the case of the public sector workers the employers and employees make contributions (although the employer contributions are more generous than most private employers) but the pensions are fixed based on final salaries so if the contributions are not enough to fund it the balance is made up from additional government funds. It is this call on additional funds that is unfair and needs to be stopped, it is nothing to do with spite.

StevieJ

bilbo51 wrote: »

It's impossible for it to be any other way because the wealth of the country is produced by the private sector, and the public sector is entirely funded from this wealth and current borrowing. Let me know if this isn't clear, and I'll explain further if necessary.
.

So how did Russia create weath when they were Commie? I know it wasn't very efficient but there was still wealth creation especially early doors under Stalin's 5 year plans.

bilbo51

StevieJ wrote: »

So how did Russia create weath when they were Commie? I know it wasn't very efficient but there was still wealth creation especially early doors under Stalin's 5 year plans.

I'm not qualified to discuss Russia. I was writing about how the UK economy works. Even within a closed economy such as the USSR following Lenin's death, wealth is created by productive industry (digging stuff up and making other stuff with it) rather than public services.

However, look at the link below.

If you read the second paragraph, I don't think you'd want to go there... I know I wouldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Linton

bilbo51 wrote: »

It's impossible for it to be any other way because the wealth of the country is produced by the private sector, and the public sector is entirely funded from this wealth and current borrowing. Let me know if this isn't clear, and I'll explain further if necessary.

Yes please. A doctor working for BUPA is a productive worker creating wealth. However if she moves over to the NHS, doing exactly the same job, she suddenly becomes a parasite sucking the life juices from the hard working private sector.

A dog beautician in the private sector is creating wealth? A university scientist who creates a new drug isnt?

Really?

Surely both sides need each other. The private sector would be hard pushed to operate if the public sector didnt police the laws, hadnt educated its workers etc etc. Looked at from that point of view the private sector is making profits from the output of the public sector for which it is not charged. Sounds a bit parasitic to me.

Linton

bilbo51 wrote: »

I'm not qualified to discuss Russia. I was writing about how the UK economy works. Even within a closed economy such as the USSR following Lenin's death, wealth is created by productive industry (digging stuff up and making other stuff with it) rather than public services.

Sounds like you are advocating Karl Marx's labour theory of value. It's a plausible approach but I am not convinced.

But when you come to deciding which job is productive ("making things") and which is just a service the difference starts to become difficult to justify. Is ARM productive? It doesnt make stuff - yet has earned millions from designing most mobile phone processors.

bilbo51

Linton wrote: »

Yes please. A doctor working for BUPA is a productive worker creating wealth. However if she moves over to the NHS, doing exactly the same job, she suddenly becomes a parasite sucking the life juices from the hard working private sector.

A dog beautician in the private sector is creating wealth? A university scientist who creates a new drug isnt?

Really?

Surely both sides need each other. The private sector would be hard pushed to operate if the public sector didnt police the laws, hadnt educated its workers etc etc. Looked at from that point of view the private sector is making profits from the output of the public sector for which it is not charged. Sounds a bit parasitic to me.

Of course both sectors need each other! And yes, there are occupations in the private sector which do not generate much wealth.

But to repeat, all the money that pays public and private sector employees is generated in the private sector by making and selling stuff. And yes public services are necessary to support the entire community. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Look, if anything, I'm on the left of this public-private sector nonsense and you won't find me bashing public sector workers the majority of whom I believe work hard for their money just like their counterparts in the private sector.

The point I was making - if you care to go back and read it - was that both private and public sector pensions are de facto paid for from money generated in the private sector. Show me how that is not the case if you think I'm wrong. Public expense is financed either through government borrowing (is anyone here advocating increasing that today?) or through taxation which is collected from the private sector. Any taxation which comes from the public sector is simply a recycling of money originally collected from the private sector.

By the way I think you'll find that university research doesn't get much in the way of public funding these days, but that's a different story. I could be wrong, but their pension doesn't come from the public purse either, I believe.

bilbo51

Linton wrote: »

Sounds like you are advocating Karl Marx's labour theory of value. It's a plausible approach but I am not convinced.

Well, three things:

I did say I'm not qualified to discuss Russia,
and thankfully I don't have to convince you,
and I wasn't advocating anything.

Linton wrote: »

But when you come to deciding which job is productive ("making things") and which is just a service the difference starts to become difficult to justify. Is ARM productive? It doesnt make stuff - yet has earned millions from designing most mobile phone processors.

I take your point. Maybe I should revise my 'definition' of productive in this context to mean 'something that positively affects the balance of payments.'

real1314

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I think a great many feel the same way as cyclonbri - do you have 20 million vacancies for us?

If we all joined the public sector where would the money come from to pay the pensions ? Oh yes, I'd forgotten - the standard Labour/Union answer, keep adding to the national debt and let our kids pay.

There have been plenty of opportunities for you to join the public sector; why didn't you go for it?
If you really are old, you must have either failed on loads of applications or not had the gumption to apply. So, you made a choice / failed. Tough luck, that's how the winner/loser thing the private sector loves works out.
:cool: