State workers still enjoy advantage over private employees

paulmapp8306

Hmm71 wrote: »

Could you provide some figures of how many public sector workers there were back then compared to now? Just to back up your assertion if you wouldn't mind.

I think well find, that there are a lot less private sector workers now than there was in the 70s/80s.

Loughton_Monkey

Hmm71 wrote: »

Could you provide some figures of how many public sector workers there were back then compared to now? Just to back up your assertion if you wouldn't mind.

1966: Average Wage = £1,220
1966 UK Population = 54.35 million
1966 Government Spending = £14.1 billion

2010: Average Wage = £25,000
2010 UK Population = 67.2 million

Hence 'equivalent' Government spending required to maintain similar ratio with earnings = (25000/1220)*(67.2/54.35)*14.1 billion = £357.2 billion.

Actual 2010 Government Spending? £660.8 billion

... think it's gone up a bit. Don't you?

paulmapp8306

And that show how many workers there were does it ?? Cant see it.

paulmapp8306

Oh - and it doesnt take into account things like the COST of stationary, the cost of more technologically advanced hardware (computers, medical equipment) or the cost of software etc.

Its not just wages you know.

chewmylegoff

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Plenty of them are very hard working (probably nearer 70%). But as in any working environment, there will be many who do as little as possible.

for someone who likes to just dismiss other people's posts by highlighting bits of it and saying that they are wrong on the basis of either no evidence at all, or occassionaly on the basis of one of your mates who is a fireman, this is an interesting statement.


i would say it's nearer 10% who are genuinely "hard working" but then what does that really even mean these days. everyone with a job and at least one relative is a "hard working family" according to the govt. "hard working" just appears to mean "working" really. as long as you don't spend 5 hours a day on facebook, or MSE for that matter, you meet the "hard working" criteria.

i doubt that the number of people who are "hard working" in the private sector is significantly different to the 10% above, mind you. i reckon in both areas about 10% of people are working hard, about 30-40% of people are working normally, and the rest are messing about most of the time.

Hmm71

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

1966: Average Wage = £1,220
1966 UK Population = 54.35 million
1966 Government Spending = £14.1 billion

2010: Average Wage = £25,000
2010 UK Population = 67.2 million

Hence 'equivalent' Government spending required to maintain similar ratio with earnings = (25000/1220)*(67.2/54.35)*14.1 billion = £357.2 billion.

Actual 2010 Government Spending? £660.8 billion

... think it's gone up a bit. Don't you?

Yes but it still doesn't tell me how many public sector workers there were back then compared to now. That's just about Government spending not what the money was being spent on. I'm not saying you're wrong about there being far fewer public sector workers years ago, I'd just be interested in seeing the actual amount then and now, especially taking into account all the work that has been contracted out to private companies.

grizzly1911

Hmm71 wrote: »

I'd just be interested in seeing the actual amount then and now, especially taking into account all the work that has been contracted out to private companies.

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Oh - and it doesnt take into account things like the COST of more technologically advanced hardware (computers, medical equipment) or the cost of software etc.

Its not just wages you know.

Those are very real reasons for the figures being distorted. The public purse doesn't get real savings from privatisation in the long run, short term (if the contract is correctly specified and watertight) maybe.

The other key factor is that we provide more as a state partly to subsidise the private sector and make it competitive through top up benefits and tax credits. It is not necessarily the individual rates of tax are wrong just that we don't generate the volumes of it.

Oh and fight wars that are nothing to do with us, spend on overseas aid and contribute hand over fist to the USSEU directly and through passive immigration.

Somebody posted here a while ago showing how the controllable expense of state, such as wages for the government workforce, versus the welfare costs were very small.

Jamie_Carter

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

There not bought - there leased. We can change them whenever we wish - between desktops, unsecured and secured laptops. we can change the location of the terminals. Each change costs a set figure, but we all use different devices.

The contract was to supply, maintain, move etc the complete systems hardware and software.

Ultimately, most people have desktops. We have laptops because initially they were needed, as we did work at different sites. Post the NI peace process though, most admin work is only done in the office - so we no longer neee the laptops.

I we exchanged the laptops, if would have cost us £700 (+ Vat) but we would only be paying £120/month contract for hardware. As it is we are paying £1440/month for the laptops.

The "contract" is paid for from a central fund. The "hardware changes" are paid for by the fund to the site.

to me its simple maths - to the budget holders its not - its about how it affects HIS budget only, not the whol picture.

Neither myself or you would know the exact details of the lease contract. However these contracts are normally for a set number of laptops, PC's, or whatever. And the contract for each will run for a set time. So if you stop using a laptop, then the MOD will still have to pay the lease for the remainder of the term. And this would still apply if the laptop was destroyed (ex MOD computers can't be sold on, and must be destroyed).

So by changing to a PC, unless another department wants your old laptop, then you will cost the MOD more.

Jamie_Carter

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Pay peanuts get monkeys (not you - the MOD), which in fact they do. It may seem like a lot - but the wages are not actually as good as private equivilant, hence the monkeys.

Thing is when they leave after doing the job for a while - they think there comptant - and quite clearly (not least from your experience) there not.

And that is often the problem. Regardless of what some people on here seem to think, the public sector don't pay anywhere near as much as the private sector for the equivalent jobs. So they will never recruit the best people to do this type of job.

Jamie_Carter

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

I think well find, that there are a lot less private sector workers now than there was in the 70s/80s.

I don't know the actual figures. But I should think that when you take into account the number of cut backs, as well as the number of jobs that are now done by private contractors, that there will be far less public sector workers today.