Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Cogs

Members
  • Posts

    5,197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cogs

  1. Either you are lying to us or he is lying to you. "Senior management"? He wouldn't even be off probation after 2 years Schools can't "offer pay rises" or "move them forward" either unless its a 100% private school and even then.... Utter tripe. Interesting how gullible some people are wrt these little stories. This simply isn't how the much maligned system works, you are talking about things vastly beyond the ability of a school or even an LEA to implement. Next we'll hear they bought him a spaceship and sent on a paid holiday to the moon!
  2. This simply isn't true, its pure "TINA" rhetoric. Lets have a look at the most profitable company in the country shall we; Vodafone. Who wound up their final salary pension scheme as "unsustainable". They could ensure a final salary pension for all employees for several generations out of simply rounding down Q3 2009 (ie. not a great time period) profits three places after the decimal point. Apparently Vodafone employees are worthless which is a strange judgement for the management of such a profitable company to come to but there we are. Furthermore, a FS (or at least AFS) pension is affordable, you just have to pay slightly more in as an employee. You certainly don't need to have a Ponzi scheme, you have that wrong, Ponzi only applies when the money was never actually saved or transferred. My dad has a FS pension scheme that this year paid: A Christmas bonus (200%), decided to make widow's benefits 100% of the pension, and has all remaining members on a permanent contribution holiday. Summer and Easter bonuses are also being mooted. Private sector scheme, well invested, still in vast surplus to the extent the trustees are actually forced to try and get some money out of it as the projections show it holding significant funds well after all its members are dead which is illegal. Still, if it helps you sleep at night to tell yourself this fairy stories about why you'll be facing an unpleasant retirement, OK.
  3. How about at some time in the preceding years when there wasn't an election on? How about not agreeing to Labour's spending plans before the Cabinet itself did? How about not pledging to "share the proceeds of growth"? I could go on... You're giving them a free pass they don't deserve.
  4. I get confused with Larouche, his irrational hatreds are hard to track. When he says English/British, does he mean the English/British, or is it related to "Anglo-Dutch Banking Interests" (ie. his codeword for THE JEWS)? I share your enjoyment of the notion we a nation of all-powerful Bond villain types! If only...
  5. How can anyone justify earning more than 60k a year? Fair enough if you own the company, you can steal from lots of people you call employees, but whose time is worth that? I don't understand it. I mean, I understand it happens, most of my students are paid more than me and rise to that kind of sum very quickly, but I still don't really understand it at a basic level, or dare I say, moral level.
  6. Indeed, we speak English today because the price of gold collapsed.
  7. Apparently not though, they don't last. Teacher recruitment has been in crisis since the 80s, they've solved the problem of a leaking bucket by turning the taps on full blast. Perhaps they should fix the bucket...dear liza, dear liza.
  8. I dunno, some people would say its necessary to facilitate free movement of labour in Europe. Depends on your other views doesn't it.
  9. No, its 13k in salary, not pension. And they need to work for 25 years, not less than 25 years, that is how you qualify to go early and face the appropriate actuarial reduction. This in itself seems to be seen as a bad thing, but I think its fair enough as a prorata kind of thing and it frees up employment for cheaper younger people. http://www.cipfa.org...e_the_facts.pdf Shite 2004! So it could be a bit higher after all. Then again, we're talking about present pensioners not people who are going to retire in 2030.
  10. Well work it out yourself then, the average LG salary in 2009 was 13k a year (source CIPFA). If you retire at 60 instead of 65, ie. after 25 years re: Rule 85, you lose 33%. That puts us in the range I specified. In doing comparisons you also need to remember 75% of LG employees are women. The sort of comparison you seem to want is unrepresentative of the organisations you are talking about, so I'm not really sure where it gets you. 25 years of unbroken full-time service is very uncommon. By the same token, I wouldn't really think it was sensible to demand to see figures for footballer's pensions after 30 years of playing in the Premiership...Teddy Sheringham has actually quit now hasn't he? As an aside, when you talk about the public sector at large, you are mostly talking about women. I think its going to be very interesting what sort of gender dynamics a million women losing their jobs will have. And of course they are the biggest users of the services that will be taken away as well (it is sexist yet not inaccurate to think things pertaining to children are mostly a female concern, single mothers alone constitute enough numbers to make it work out like that). Perhaps we'll roll back the clock to the 1930s? Then again, as a group, women have been very good at organising themselves as a group in a way the working class today lack. In the 80s the battlelines were geography based which amounted to class. This time round they could be gender based. I can imagine "SamCam" becoming a Marie Antoinette hate figure. Her "stationary business" already has a certain Hameau de la reine vibe about it.
  11. No, it is wrong. The average is closer to 7k but its positively skewed the same as earnings themselves, the mode is probably 4k though. You have to remember the make-up of the public sector pensioner is different from the average public sector worker now (e.g., someone with a degree, nearly 70% more likely to have an advanced degree). The populations are different; a lot of cooks, tea ladies, porters, cleaners etc. in there that have since been outsourced.
  12. An excellent idea for trapping young people in the UK permanently to pay off their parent's debts.
  13. Explain yourself. I suggest you have a look at the OECD Education At A Glance report before answering btw. You could read this as well: http://royalsociety....ntific-century/ I like the way many of the headings are written in nonsense, a font problem presumably. Science, they can't even spell it!
  14. Head over the parapet time: not unfair. Expensive, too expensive, even excessive (which I'd personally disagree with) are acceptable, in need of reform, in need of reduction even but no Clegg, not "unfair". To determine whether they are unfair would require an analysis of every negotiation and dispute since 1945. In one column goes 'pension'. In the other column goes "pay", "conditions" and "terms". Still, incredibly ballsy of Clegg to attack the pensions of those currently serving in Afghanistan. Its what you signed up for? Well apparently it turns out not. Si1, re: that last, they see the problem but I'm not convinced it will add up (step 3 requiring step 6, funds will have to come from somewhere else, the issue is not the absolute sum but rather the mismatch between present and past scheme members; Osborne's cuts will make this much worse in and of itself).
  15. Its the deadcat bounce on absolute ******** volumes. I'm not at all bothered, the choreography is almost comically accurate. The budget on the 22nd will put in the OMFG leap-off-a-cliff fall, CGT sideshow permitting. Although I am a bear I don't normally post bearish things, I'm not a perma-doom and gloomist, but on this occasion I'm completely unfazed by it. Just my opinion.
  16. Why are capitalists allowed to retain profits if they are just led by the actions of bureaucrats? Things are apparently entirely deterministic, therefore people lending money shouldn't be allowed to make anything on doing what is out of their hands.
  17. There used to be people who argued quite vociferously for "freeing" the banks from the dead hand of government. What does a civil servant know about running a global business in the most competitive sector in the world? Thing is, the problem was always there by design, its not a consequence of the crash but rather the inability of the zealots to understand their own theory. If capitalism requires that some businesses should fail, and the banks were too big to fail...they shouldn't have been allowed to be run as capitalist enterprises. This has nothing to do with "light touch" or Gordon Brown or anything else, its a structural contradiction. Simple as that. Given the hefty bonuses being paid out I think its high time to seize and nationalise the lot, good and bad. People are uncomfortable with that but at this point its them or us. There will be another crisis because they've learned nothing, we will bail them out again because they have a gun to our heads. How can this be permitted to continue?
  18. Didn't you get the memo? We're pretending the lofty peak of pure financial capitalism, the poster boys for greed and the enduring victory of free market Thatcherism was either a form of communism all along or else cruelly robbed of government red-tape, interference and regulation
  19. I have some sympathy for this. I remember hearing someone in a pub saying that if interest rates went up he'd be fine, after all even a 7% increase on 1000 a month mortgage only brings it up to 1070. It would be tough but maybe he could give up takeaways! That was his margin for error, if interest rates jumped to 12% (from 5%) he was going to have to give up takeaways... And a bank had loaned him what, £200,000 based on his steely-eyed business acumen?
  20. Not true. The US system institutionalises the very abuses you complain about; TA, TF, Instructor, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Visiting Assistant Professor, these are names for PhD students and post-docs doing other people's teaching. I have comparative experience here, I used to work somewhere expensive on the East Coast. Contact time? Crash2006, they can't even call their (real) Professors by their first names. Oh for the Ivory Tower pomp of such a position.
  21. Yes but that doesn't describe a structural deficit. Hammering your credit card to buy clothes and holidays is overspending, having to pay for your car insurance and rent (etc) is structural.
  22. Can anyone explain this and can you point to any sources of information or standard practices in accounting for it? It gets bandied about a lot, and ascribed different figures, but I realise now I've never seen the working... For example, it would be important to know whether Darling's 7bn undershoot applies to it or not. Cheers.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.