Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
seenoevil

Public Sector Bashing

Recommended Posts

Ive noticed some real negativity toward public sector workers during my brief time on this board.

Some 'wild' incredible statements.

I see reflections and almost references made in the way that the financial sector was shamed and blamed.

Plus points- They work, they earn money, arguably put into the system.

Negative points- They take out the system, are a heavy burden, we can no longer support such a large sector.

But, should we direct blame at the workers themselves? As private sector jobs are lost, is it really the fault of the public sector workers? I think you must ask, are they 'directly' responsible for the nations public finances? Part of the problem? For sure. However.....

The state makes promises and charters it can never hope to meet, increasing migration, sinking revenues.

Its a no brainer in my book. But as always, why shoot the messenger?

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive noticed some real negativity toward public sector workers during my brief time on this board.

Some 'wild' incredible statements.

I see reflections and almost references made in the way that the financial sector was shamed and blamed.

Plus points- They work, they earn money, arguably put into the system.

Negative points- They take out the system, are a heavy burden, we can no longer support such a large sector.

But, should we direct blame at the workers themselves? As private sector jobs are lost, is it really the fault of the public sector workers? I think you must ask, are they 'directly' responsible for the nations public finances? Part of the problem? For sure. However.....

The state makes promises and charters it can never hope to meet, increasing migration, sinking revenues.

Its a no brainer in my book. But as always, why shoot the messenger?

Thoughts?

they shouldnt do the non jobs on principal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recession is the one time that a public sector job (good pension, fairly secure) seems to be a better bet than a private sector job (higher pay, bonuses etc in the boom years) so the marooned privateers bleat like stabbed farts when the sh*t hits the fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
A recession is the one time that a public sector job (good pension, fairly secure) seems to be a better bet than a private sector job (higher pay, bonuses etc in the boom years) so the marooned privateers bleat like stabbed farts when the sh*t hits the fan.

It all boils down to jealousy, especially over the perceived "gold plated" pensions (which in reality aren't really THAT good).

The private sector workers weren't bleating between 1997 and 2007. No. That's because things in the private sector were fine.

Now that the private sector is in the doodoo (lower salaries, poorer working conditions) they want everyone else to be in the doodoo as well.

The same is true of private sector pensions. During the boom years they weren't bothered about their pensions too much because they were getting "inflation busting" pay rises (while the public sector were getting about 2.5%). They even let the bosses steal from the funds!

Now it's all turned sour they want everyone else to have crappy pensions/wages/conditions too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
no, they'd just like the state sector to stop wrecking the economy.

Like they were wrecking it in 1997-2007 but nobody moaned then?

Strange, that....

Also, who wrecked the economy?

Ah yes. The private sector banking institutions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If public spending is not reigned in, they will take the economy down...might be too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
If public spending is not reigned in, they will take the economy down...might be too late.

See my last comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See my last comment.

Im sorry, the banks are just as much a leach as non services.

Its like a family employs a maid. helps mum go to work, but mum is so tired at the end of the day, the family employs a cook.

Dads tired too, so they employ a chauffuer, and now they have three staff, they need a house manager, who needs to go on a course and an assistant and then the cook is pregnant and now they need a jobshare.

now mum is out of work, the income has halved, the staff demand their rights so dad borrows and borrows but then is bankrupted, they all lose their jobs.

nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like they were wrecking it in 1997-2007 but nobody moaned then?

what are you talking about

Also, who wrecked the economy?

Ah yes. The private sector banking institutions....

the economy wasn't all that bad until the state started stealing trillions from the population to give to their cronies in the state chartered banking cartel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public sector of the economy is much bigger than many people suspect - for instance, a good 60% + of the values transacted in the real estate market are in reality public sector or tax-like transactions.

This is why the conservatives never really deal with the costs in society properly and so secure continuous control by the benefits this would create; their favorite little baby (real estate) is a big part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive noticed some real negativity toward public sector workers during my brief time on this board.

Some 'wild' incredible statements.

I see reflections and almost references made in the way that the financial sector was shamed and blamed.

Plus points- They work, they earn money, arguably put into the system.

Negative points- They take out the system, are a heavy burden, we can no longer support such a large sector.

But, should we direct blame at the workers themselves? As private sector jobs are lost, is it really the fault of the public sector workers? I think you must ask, are they 'directly' responsible for the nations public finances? Part of the problem? For sure. However.....

The state makes promises and charters it can never hope to meet, increasing migration, sinking revenues.

Its a no brainer in my book. But as always, why shoot the messenger?

Thoughts?

The publci secot exists because those in it threaten me with jail, which includes the strong possibility of a beating, the possibility of being raped by other inmates, the ruination of my economic abilities going forward and all the rest of it.

It's completely evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like they were wrecking it in 1997-2007 but nobody moaned then?

Strange, that....

Also, who wrecked the economy?

Ah yes. The private sector banking institutions....

Doesn't their permission to issue liabilities backed by the State (the taxpayer) put them in the public sector category?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to 'bash' the staff directly unless the job is so unbelievably pointless that the person doing it should know they're wasting time - for example there was a guy on here a few weeks back who was paid to 're-brand' a council I believe.

As for the whole 'it's not fair, it's the private sectors fault' - that is totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is I can no longer afford to pay enough in taxes to fund the services we currently receive. There are tens of millions like me. We can choose to cut the Sky bill and receive a lesser service. We can choose to drive smaller cars. We can choose to drop insurances, buy value range foods, go on less holidays etc. The one thing we can't choose to pay less for in order to receive a lesser service is public services. The fact is the country can't afford the level of service we receive today - when you can't afford something you cut it. Simple as that - fairness doesn't come into it. Private excess is required to fund public excess. When the private sector collapses, regardless of fault, there's no money to pay for the public sector. Why does the public sector seem to think it's immune to basic economics? They seem hell bent on punishing the very people they claim to be serving by forcing them to pay punitive taxes to fund services the 'customer' can no longer afford and would rather do without.

Yes - this unfortunately means that some former public servants will end up on the dole. I can guarantee the dole bill is less than their former salary, and most will choose to get another job anyway.

Edited by impatient_mug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that whenever we taxpayers have to interact with a Public sector employee it is now just a disaster zone. Try your local council see what they care, go to your doctors and all they ask is the Nu Labour targets and then when they have done that they say time up book another appointment for what you wanted to talk about. MP's we pay thier salaries as well, great example they set. Police they may turn up when they can be bothered. It is a real pleasure when the Heatlh and Safety Nazis turn up at the work premises, Inland revenue now have the mantra of "You are guilty until you prove you are innocent."

Need I say more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Im sorry, the banks are just as much a leach as non services.

Its like a family employs a maid. helps mum go to work, but mum is so tired at the end of the day, the family employs a cook.

Dads tired too, so they employ a chauffuer, and now they have three staff, they need a house manager, who needs to go on a course and an assistant and then the cook is pregnant and now they need a jobshare.

now mum is out of work, the income has halved, the staff demand their rights so dad borrows and borrows but then is bankrupted, they all lose their jobs.

nice.

You do have a point.

I agree that the public sector needs a fairly hefty trimming back and all the non-jobs removing.

Front line services should be supported.

What I'm sick of is the constant sniping and the mentality that everyone in the public sector either can't hack it in the "real world" or is a lazy scumbag whilst everyone in the private sector is salt of the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the way labour has used the public sector to create jobs in the absence of a productive econony. The public sector should be a support and maintainace service for the productive economy, not a big chunk of THE economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do have a point.

I agree that the public sector needs a fairly hefty trimming back and all the non-jobs removing.

Front line services should be supported.

What I'm sick of is the constant sniping and the mentality that everyone in the public sector either can't hack it in the "real world" or is a lazy scumbag whilst everyone in the private sector is salt of the Earth.

And whoo betide them if they were vegatarians as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do have a point.

I agree that the public sector needs a fairly hefty trimming back and all the non-jobs removing.

Front line services should be supported.

What I'm sick of is the constant sniping and the mentality that everyone in the public sector either can't hack it in the "real world" or is a lazy scumbag whilst everyone in the private sector is salt of the Earth.

sick days in public sector vs sick days in private sector

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article12860.html

So how can one PROVE that big government does not work? The first evidence is the following observation: If big government is what you want, you got it! Look around you! The U.S. federal budget is way up in the multi-$trillions now. The federal registry contains so many laws and regulations that it takes an entire building to house all the hard paper copies. If you plotted government growth over the last 50 years on a graph, it would draw an upward-curving line that is now vertical.

And it's not just the federal government. Out-of-control government growth is happening everywhere – it's happening in all 50 states, in every county, every city. And it's not just the U.S. either – it's a global phenomena.

So clearly: if you are an advocate for Big Government, you won. Hands down, with flying colors. Those of us who tried to resist it never had a chance. You left us in your dust.

But here's the real mind-boggler: the bigger government gets, the more people scream for bigger government. It's like some kind of addictive narcotic. This leads me to ask all you big-government advocates a basic question: where are you going with this? Will government ever reach a size where you will say: "OK, government is big enough now, we've won all our battles, we can sit back and enjoy the fruits of our efforts." Based on historical trends, I would have to say the answer to that question is: No, I don't think that day will ever come.

And the reason that the big-government advocates will never cease their efforts is: despite their belief that big government was supposed to solve all problems, it simply has not happened. Problems still occur. The perfect world that should have been attained by now has, in fact, not happened.

Which brings us to the next item of evidence to prove that big government doesn't work: history. Throughout human history, there is a clear, irrefutable relationship between limited government and prosperity. The ash heap of history is littered with tyrants and dictators that tried to mandate happiness and prosperity via big government and failed again: the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or pick your favorite Middle Eastern monarchy, or African or Central American banana republic du jour.

For the closest thing to a "controlled test," consider East and West Germany, or North and South Korea. Here you have pairs of nations with the same history, same culture, same language, and the same natural resources, yet one was poor, one was relatively wealthy. Why? One had big government, one had small government. Go figure.

The next evidence is based on an industry-by-industry comparison. Consider these industries: Transportation. Energy. Health care. Education. Insurance & financial services. These are some of THE most highly regulated industries in our society. And all of them are plagued with horrendous performance and sky-high prices. When the banking and mortgaged industries melted down in 2008, the knee-jerkers all said, "Well, the free market failed again! Time to let the Government run things." These people never stopped to realize that those industries are hardly a bastion of free enterprise.

At the other extreme, consider these industries: Clothing & apparel. Shoes. Electronics. Prescription eyewear. Entertainment. Beverages. All these industries have ever-falling prices and ever-growing innovation and quality products – and relatively little government meddling. The contact lenses I wear in my eyes are awesome, and cost so little I throw them away after 3 weeks. If free enterprise works for eyewear, why would it not work for banking?

The next piece of evidence comes from the Bible. If you asked God what his opinion was of government, what would he say? This passage is a paraphrase from the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel, chapter 8:

"Give us a government!" the people demanded.

"You don't want a government" God replied.

"Yes we do!" the people said.

"Look, if I give you a government, here's what will happen: It will turn your sons into cannon fodder, force your daughters to work in sweatshops, steal your land, your homes, your animals, and your paycheck, take away your kids, and generally make your lives miserable until you scream in agony."

The people replied, "And your point is?"

God sighed. "Very well then, here's your government. But don't say I didn't warn you!"

Clearly, the Big Man Himself even thought government was a bummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.