Average earnings growth goes negative.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

True but as I said with total employment up strongly, is it nearly 3% in the last 12 months, total renumeration must be up 3.5% so 3.5% more money is available to buy goods, services and housing.

There's no correlation. More people are now working in some capacity than previously claimed long term sickness benefit. So their spend is the same. Only difference is that it's no longer with borrowed money.

Likewise public sector is slowly cutting through the cosy ranks of the middle grade job for life brigade. These people are earning less as a remuneration package in the private sector.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Likewise public sector is slowly cutting through the cosy ranks of the middle grade job for life brigade. These people are earning less as a remuneration package in the private sector.

I have a feeling the organised destruction of the time served public servant will be seen fairly soon as the mother of all false economies. In my area of the MoJ it is absolute chaos, recruitment and retention on new and cheaper t & c' s is pathetic and staff who have recently left because they were too expensive are now being begged to come back and get them out of the Sh*t.There is now talk of super enhanced overtime rates being offered because exhausted staff are rejecting the current rates out of hand. There are similar tales across other public services, I'm not sure organising public sector rationalisation to suit a five year spending round was ever going to work.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

I have a feeling the organised destruction of the time served public servant will be seen fairly soon as the mother of all false economies. In my area of the MoJ it is absolute chaos, recruitment and retention on new and cheaper t & c' s is pathetic and staff who have recently left because they were too expensive are now being begged to come back and get them out of the Sh*t.There is now talk of super enhanced overtime rates being offered because exhausted staff are rejecting the current rates out of hand. There are similar tales across other public services, I'm not sure organising public sector rationalisation to suit a five year spending round was ever going to work.

My experience of the public sector is fairly limited. However in overall terms it's past it's sell by date. What's been noticable to me is the productivity improvements that have been driven through, while head count is being reduced. Yet there's no noticable impact on services. What's really required is more fresh blood with a commercial/private sector background.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My experience of the public sector is fairly limited. However in overall terms it's past it's sell by date. What's been noticable to me is the productivity improvements that have been driven through, while head count is being reduced. Yet there's no noticable impact on services. What's really required is more fresh blood with a commercial/private sector background.

Can public services ever be past their sell by date, the State always to do stuff on our behalf surely?
It obviously depends on what branch of the public services you personally access when we talk about the impact of the ongoing rationalisation process. Prisons, probation and passports have all been in the news recently as public services that are performing less than efficiently, prisons especially in England and Wales are in chaos.That may not bother or effect you personally but there ramifications politically if ministers are presiding over a disaster. My entire career in public service has seen the gradual adoption of a private sector philosophy, I have to tell you it doesn't work. Quality public services cost.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My experience of the public sector is fairly limited. However in overall terms it's past it's sell by date. What's been noticable to me is the productivity improvements that have been driven through, while head count is being reduced. Yet there's no noticable impact on services. What's really required is more fresh blood with a commercial/private sector background.

As a public servant I would have to suggest the statistics around productivity might be slightly "off". The measurements are constantly altered, resulting in prettier figures. My work involves performance management.

BillJones

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It seems wages are now falling, not growing.

Unemployment contiues to fall. So we have increased employment, but reducing earnings.

I do hope that you are just stirring here, as otherwise it is an appalling lack of understanding being shown.

The only wages that dipped were those including bonuses, and they only shifted because people like me had their pay shifted around to take advantage of tax changes.

Base pay, excluding bonuses, is up.

Generali

BillJones wrote: »

I do hope that you are just stirring here, as otherwise it is an appalling lack of understanding being shown.

Probably the latter.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BillJones wrote: »

Base pay, excluding bonuses, is up.

Not that you'd have known that from the thread title.

I wonder why?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not neccesarily.

These people won't have had no money (assuming they were out of school and unemployed). They will have received some form of benefits.

Getting a job doesn't always mean your income rises as much as the job pays. It just means your income comes from somewhere else.

If we just lumped everyone together (employed and unemployed) 'wage' growth would be higher - can't imagine hundreds of thousands of people giving up a life of leisure for a couple of percent pay rise.

If your point is that the unemployed already have an income of more than £0 then, yes, that's true of course.

Graham_Devon

BillJones wrote: »

The only wages that dipped were those including bonuses, and they only shifted because people like me had their pay shifted around to take advantage of tax changes.

Did you miss this in the opening thread?

The ONS suggest it's linked to bonuses as companies took advantage of tax custs in April 2013. But still, even taking that into account, wage growth would still be falling.

Though apparently, if it's not in the title, it's too difficult for some to comprehend?