I read the news today oh boy! Page 159

Public sector employees work nine years less than their private sector counterparts but are paid 30 per cent more, a bombshell report reveals today.

Extraordinary research tells a tale of two Britains - a state sector awash with taxpayers' cash while the rest of the economy struggles to stay afloat.

Public sector workers enjoy better pay than those in the private sector, as well as better pensions, shorter hours, and earlier retirement.

Over their lifetimes, those in the private sector work 23 per cent longer - equivalent to an extra nine years and ten weeks - than public sector employees. This is thanks to a combination of shorter hours, more time off and earlier retirement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html

Quote: DaButt @ June 21 2010, 5:26 AM BST

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html

View original

Bogus to the point of idiocy figures. They combine professionals with 1st and second degrees with unqualified basic workers in none governmental post (note they use teaching professional, not teacher).

And how about suggesting that the private sector should improve, rather than the public sector should get worse?

And as for pensions...the gold plated pension is about 4-6k PA not a fortune and one the government worker pays for. Is it really so useful to have another few million impoverished pensioners.

The Daily Mail so poor it's read by right wing Americans.

http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153831620

Ireland you disgust me.

Quote: sootyj @ June 21 2010, 7:46 AM BST

And how about suggesting that the private sector should improve, rather than the public sector should get worse?

View original

Because the private sector exists in a reality-based world where salaries are based upon economics and supply/demand while the government has the unique opportunity to create more jobs and award salary increases by the stroke of a pen and borrowing billions of dollars that come out of the pockets of the people in the private sector. And out of the pockets of their children and grandchildren ...

Here's a graph of public vs. private sector pay in the United States. There's obviously something wrong and the taxpayers aren't taking it lightly. Watch this fall as the November elections throw out the established insiders and elect men and women who promise to cut the size and cost of the government.

Quote: DaButt @ June 21 2010, 3:25 PM BST

Because the private sector exists in a reality-based world where salaries are based upon economics and supply/demand while the government has the unique opportunity to create more jobs and award salary increases by the stroke of a pen and borrowing billions of dollars that come out of the pockets of the people in the private sector. And out of the pockets of their children and grandchildren ... Here's a graph of public vs. private sector pay in the United States. There's obviously something wrong and the taxpayers aren't taking it lightly. Watch this fall as the November elections throw out the established insiders and elect men and women who promise to cut the size and cost of the government.

View original

They can promise all they like, they never do. And often are hypocrites since they mean cut the bits of government they don't like and increase the bits they do like.

Sigh I work in public and private sector in the same industry and the diference is negligable. The stats the Daily Mail uses like it's politics are notoriously skewed. They jumble qualified and unskilled posts, miss out well paid managers in the private sector.

And governmental contracts come from taxes that everyone pays. Frankly I want my council, my police force and my social services department run by a highly skilled professional. And if that means they get paid competatively, so what?

The idea that there is some wonderous world of private business is better. Is well shit.

Check out PFI, metronet etc etc for every sorrowful example of private business doing a worse job than the public sector.

Highlighting Metronet (and Tube privatisation as a whole) is wholly disingenuous and you know it. That shambolic arrangement was constructed and conducted by the state. It's no example of private business.

According to everyone on Twitter, Frank Sidebottom just died.

Didn't he only find out he was ill very recently?

Merely giving an example of private companies filling in for the state.

In the case of metronet it was the classic case of a company well run by civil servants. Who resign start up a company to take advantage of privatisation give themselves 500% pay rises and run the industry into the ground.

See British Rail, British Gas, British Steel etc etc.(At least metronet didn't need billions of Thatcherire sweetners).

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/premium-pay-corporate-compensation-in-americas-hmos.html

So upto 125 million a year salaries? The very highest UK civil servant makes 300 grand. Might explain why sun burn in the US can prevent you getting your cancer treatment.

Dave Cameron's ability to make the poor_in_denial hate themselves and anyone who isn't rich is pretty total.

More to the point there's a lot of things that only really governments can do and never really can be done by private business. Prisons, courts, schools, roads, affordable public transport, armys, major space programs.
Private business can produce these services but only when funded by a government.

Quote: sootyj @ June 21 2010, 6:04 PM BST

More to the point there's a lot of things that only really governments can do and never really can be done by private business. Prisons, courts, schools, roads, affordable public transport, armys, major space programs.

View original

The problem is that the government wants to grow outside the services they should provide (security, a legal/justice system, etc.) and stick its nose into everything. Layers and layers of bureaucracy and "I can't do that because it's not my job" employees. People who are promoted despite poor performance. Wasteful spending - those are all hallmarks of government jobs and they wouldn't exist for long in the private sector because the private sector can't borrow billions of dollars to bail itself out in an ever-increasing orgy of spending.

Hallmarks of any business.

And these layers represent what we want our governments to do. Want no more child abuse? Then you have to pay someone to investigate it, some one to help the family, perhaps if beyond help to help the children be adopted.

Besides you worked for one of the worlds largest best funded government agencies DaButt. Did you feel hugely overpaid and untouchable?

Yes there is waste in government. But less I suspect than the Daily Mail thinks.

I wait with interest to see what Dave and Nick cut. Some goodies already like the ISA and middle class tax credits. But they're also going to cut prison placements for sentences under 6 months (inlcuding a lot of serious assaults, burglaries etc).

Quote: sootyj @ June 21 2010, 6:27 PM BST

Besides you worked for one of the worlds largest best funded government agencies DaButt. Did you feel hugely overpaid and untouchable?

View original

You make it sound like they're just any-old organisation but with a massive budget, rather than a massive budget to match the hugely complex stuff they try to do.

Quote: sootyj @ June 21 2010, 6:27 PM BST

Want no more child abuse?

View original

Might as well ask if I'd like world peace and an Atlantic Ocean filled with beer. Anyone who thinks that throwing more laws and government bean counters at a fundamental human behavior flaw will result in the eradication of said flaw is living in a (government-funded) fantasy world.

Besides you worked for one of the worlds largest best funded government agencies DaButt. Did you feel hugely overpaid and untouchable?

The size of the U.S. Army is roughly half of what it was when I served in the 1980s, yet the number of government jobs has exploded. You can't just mention the military and child protection services and expect them to be proof that all government spending is beneficial and necessary. I'm complaining about state and federal governments that are spending beyond their means in complete defiance of common sense. Blowing money on questionable programs while times are good and then heading for our wallets when things take a turn for the worst, lest some of those government employees lose their ballooning pensions and do-nothing jobs.

I have many friends who work in the government sector and every one of them who isn't a soldier will tell you that he is paid too much for doing too little work. Their stories make me want to cover my ears with one hand and my wallet with the other.

As opposed to whom? Governments fund and organise the really, really big stuff. Or supervise it.

I live in a state that is in relatively good shape economically. It's not because we're awash with cash but rather our elected officials spent wisely. Our taxes are far less than in California, yet we are in much better shape. Californians spend more money per student, yet their kids score worse on standardized tests. Our unemployment rate is better. Home prices are cheaper. Just about everything is cheaper here than in California.

This state doesn't have a state income tax and the sales tax is less than California's, but we are in better shape. How can that be? Why are people flocking to Texas from California and the other states with severe cases of tax-n-spend-itis?

Generally government agencies organise the big and complex stuff. There are a few exceptions like the US health system (great if you're not ill or you're rich, pretty sucky in most other cases). And the Heathrow Expess (world's most expensive raiway).