Public - Private Pay Gap - Public Is £80 Per Week More

[South Lorne]

......Labour trash any logic to Economics ...

Public-private pay gap doubles to £80 a week under Labour

Hard worker: Private sector workers take home on average £80 per week less than their public sector counterparts

The pay gap between state workers and the private sector doubled to a record £80 a week while Labour was in power.

Official figures show that the average public sector worker now earns around £4,200 more every year than the typical employee in the private sector.

The ‘pay apartheid’ between the two types of workers has ballooned since 1997, when the gap was just £40 a week.

To make matters worse for the private sector, state workers enjoy generous pensions which experts say are worth up to 50 per cent on top of their salary.

A recent report called for changes to their pension schemes, described by one expert as downgrading them from ‘diamond-encrusted’ to ‘gold-plated’.

By comparison, the majority of workers in the private sector do not get a company pension.

The situation has been getting worse as the private sector is hit by pay cuts and pay freezes.

State workers got an average pay rise of 3 per cent last year, compared with 2 per cent in the private sector.

A separate report, commissioned by the Government from the Left-wing economist Will Hutton, found that 20,000 public servants earn more than £117,000 a year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366640/Public-private-pay-gap-doubles-80-week-Labour.html#ixzz1GmJl7ADO'>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366640/Public-private-pay-gap-doubles-80-week-Labour.html#ixzz1GmJl7ADO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366640/Public-private-pay-gap-doubles-80-week-Labour.html

[exiges]

Public-private pay gap doubles to £80 a week under Labour

Don't worry, Private sector has better pensions... er..

[bendy]

while i think the public sector needs trimming in terms of numbers, getting the whole world into a private sector low-wage, no pension position isn't really progress, other than for the elites.

presspin usual, get the proles to blame each other (also see benefit scroungers/baby boomers etc.).

[leicestersq]

while i think the public sector needs trimming in terms of numbers, getting the whole world into a private sector low-wage, no pension position isn't really progress, other than for the elites.

presspin usual, get the proles to blame each other (also see benefit scroungers/baby boomers etc.).

I am not sure you understand how things work.

If wages were lowered in the public sector vis-a-vis the private sector, then you would get more people opting to work in the private sector, and probably quite a lot of cleverer people too. The total output of the private sector is related to the number of people that work in it. There might be diminishing returns in the short term, but over the longer term, the inflationary growth (in real terms) requires a rising number of people in that private sector.

Given that most of the real output of the economy comes from the private sector, a movement of people from the public to the private sector increases overall output. As the population wont change if we assume other things stay equal, you get more output per head of population, which by definition must make people better off overall. So it might seem that people are moving to lower paid McJobs, but as output has to increase, what you can buy with your private sector wage should start going a lot further.

Now it is possible that at the same time as you get a move into the private sector, you get an increase in income inequality, meaning that a few are able to appropriate all of the increase in wealth. That could happen, but it is unlikely. With an enlightened Government that seeks to break up the monopoly powers that allow the rich few to do so well at everyone else's expense, you might even be able to reduce income inequalities, making people even better off at 'lower wage' levels than through the increase in total output alone.

Edited March 16, 2011 by leicestersq

[Bloo Loo]

I am not sure you understand how things work.

If wages were lowered in the public sector vis-a-vis the private sector, then you would get more people opting to work in the private sector, and probably quite a lot of cleverer people too. The total output of the private sector is related to the number of people that work in it. There might be diminishing returns in the short term, but over the longer term, the inflationary growth (in real terms) requires a rising number of people in that private sector.

Given that most of the real output of the economy comes from the private sector, a movement of people from the public to the private sector increases overall output. As the population wont change if we assume other things stay equal, you get more output per head of population, which by definition must make people better off overall. So it might seem that people are moving to lower paid McJobs, but as output has to increase, what you can buy with your private sector wage should start going a lot further.

Now it is possible that at the same time as you get a move into the private sector, you get an increase in income inequality, meaning that a few are able to appropriate all of the increase in wealth. That could happen, but it is unlikely. With an enlightened Government that seeks to break up the monopoly powers that allow the rich few to do so well at everyone else's expense, you might even be able to reduce income inequalities, making people even better off at 'lower wage' levels than through the increase in total output alone.

shame about the globalisation bit.

pity we cant globalise the public sector..although some would suggest that IS the aim

[eejit]

this threads seems a bit overdue, or are we not having them weekly now? (I'll need to brush up on the forum rules)

Doesn't it all depend what statistics you use and how you use them?

eg offshore unskilled roustabout vs hospital porter, who gets paid more?

NHS staff nurse in ICU, salary roughly £24k, doing the same work for a private sector agency = >£50k

Or am i missing the point here?

[888]

this threads seems a bit overdue, or are we not having them weekly now? (I'll need to brush up on the forum rules)

Doesn't it all depend what statistics you use and how you use them?

eg offshore unskilled roustabout vs hospital porter, who gets paid more?

NHS staff nurse in ICU, salary roughly £24k, doing the same work for a private sector agency = >£50k

Or am i missing the point here?

LOL you must be a politician. Lets bring the NHS lowed paid staff to the picket lines again and stoke the general public.

You convientiently forget the 10,000s of no jobs that was invented in the past decade. A recent posting I recall seeing was for a job to teach people how to ride a bike.

Public sector needs to be reduced in half at least for it to be sustainable (probably end up with the same numbers prior to new labour taking office).

[Bloo Loo]

this threads seems a bit overdue, or are we not having them weekly now? (I'll need to brush up on the forum rules)

Doesn't it all depend what statistics you use and how you use them?

eg offshore unskilled roustabout vs hospital porter, who gets paid more?

NHS staff nurse in ICU, salary roughly £24k, doing the same work for a private sector agency = >£50k

Or am i missing the point here?

how about we mention the government overspend of £150bn.

[South Lorne]

this threads seems a bit overdue, or are we not having them weekly now? (I'll need to brush up on the forum rules)

...you've named yourself well....

[LJAR]

Things to consider when comparing the statistics.

1) there are no "unskilled" jobs in the public sector - those have all been farmed out to contractors, this pushes the avg public sector pay up.

2) RBS, Lloyds etc are now considered "public sector" and so have to be included in the statistics, bankers pay is notoriously high and so skews the stats.

Yes there has been wage growth, but there has also been a movement away from employing people like cleaners directly within the public sector, so compare like with like. If you look at graduate pay in the public sector it is pretty low by comparison with pay in the private economy.

[Bloo Loo]

Things to consider when comparing the statistics.

1) there are no "unskilled" jobs in the public sector - those have all been farmed out to contractors, this pushes the avg public sector pay up.

2) RBS, Lloyds etc are now considered "public sector" and so have to be included in the statistics, bankers pay is notoriously high and so skews the stats.

Yes there has been wage growth, but there has also been a movement away from employing people like cleaners directly within the public sector, so compare like with like. If you look at graduate pay in the public sector it is pretty low by comparison with pay in the private economy.

it matters not the mix...the pay is too high...period. 160bn smackers says so.

[South Lorne]

RBS, Lloyds etc are now considered "public sector" and so have to be included in the statistics, bankers pay is notoriously high and so skews the stats.

...do you have a link clarifying these Banks are included in the public sector statistics.....?.....

p.s. is your name Gordon Brown..?

Edited March 16, 2011 by South Lorne

[Jack's Creation]

how about we mention the government overspend of £150bn.

"This isn't the deficit you are looking for..."

[Bloo Loo]

"This isn't the deficit you are looking for..."

the tighter you clench, the more will just slip through your fingers.

[fadeaway]

1) there are no "unskilled" jobs in the public sector

bwahahahahahaha

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Ordinary workers, whether public or private sector, have become worse off in real terms in the last few years. All that's happened is that private sector workers have become more 'worse off' than public sector workers. And the figures are probably skewed by the fact that the public sector can't employ Romanians on £2.50 per hour!

Edited March 16, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[Steagle Colbeagle]

There was a report last year that US soldiers were being paid too much from of all people the Pentagon. The argument was that highly qualified people were going into the military and not the private sector, they were worried about who was going to pay for the tanks, aircraft carriers.etc.

[LJAR]

...do you have a link clarifying these Banks are included in the public sector statistics.....?.....

unfortunately not, the source is my aunt who works at the ONS. So look it up over there.

@ fadeaway

please note the use of quotation marks. Those jobs that were very low skilled were outsourced.

as for the deficit - well the govt does too many things and does too many of them badly it also does them with too many people - but it is pretty unlikely that it pays those people too much.

[PopGun]

Ordinary workers, whether public or private sector, have become worse off in real terms in the last few years. All that's happened is that private sector workers have become more 'worse off' than public sector workers. And the figures are probably skewed by the fact that the public sector can't employ Romanians on £2.50 per hour!

Or the public sector worker is much less exposed to global wage arbitrage. In which case private sector workers should be asking awkward questions to their MPs, not pointing fingers at bin men whinging “no fair” instead.

I moved (due to little alternative choice) from private to public about 18 months ago. For what I do, the wage benefit was negligible. IMO the biggest wage disparities seem to occur from senior management level upwards.

Wage arbitrage aside, hypothetically I can still see how a nurse can justify their 10% over three years, but can’t for the life of me work out how a Council Director/Executive can justify their 200% over five.

Edited March 17, 2011 by PopGun

[Bloo Loo]

Or the public sector worker is much less exposed to global wage arbitrage. In which case private sector workers should be asking awkward questions to their MPs, not pointing fingers at bin men whinging "no fair" instead.

I moved (due to little alternative choice) from private to public about 18 months ago. For what I do, the wage benefit was negligible. IMO the biggest wage disparities seem to occur from senior management level upwards.

Wage arbitrage aside, I can still see how a nurse can justify their 10% over three years, but can't for the life of me work out how a Council Director/Executive can justify their 200% over five.

so you would agree with my proposal...50% wage and benefits cuts for all those earning over 25K?

and Id do the same for pensioners....except, Id take the state entitlement as the baseline and cut 50% of everything above that.

[PopGun]

so you would agree with my proposal...50% wage and benefits cuts for all those earning over 25K?

and Id do the same for pensioners....except, Id take the state entitlement as the baseline and cut 50% of everything above that.

Nope.

Maybe over £50k with a £100k cap after some 'restructuring'.

[Bloo Loo]

Nope.

Maybe over £50k with a £100k cap after some 'restructuring'.

so you think someone in the top 5% of earnings couldnt chip in with a small sacrifice?

and how many managers will be needed to be recruited for "restructuring".

i see the Public sector mindset in action here...there are no brick walls to be hit when taxpayer money is at hand to cushion.

[EmmaRoid #FBPE#JC4PM#GTTO]

so you think someone in the top 5% of earnings couldnt chip in with a small sacrifice?

and how many managers will be needed to be recruited for "restructuring".

i see the Public sector mindset in action here...there are no brick walls to be hit when taxpayer money is at hand to cushion.

Where do you stand on savers taking a hair cut to help things out?

Presumably that's a game you have skin in.

[SarahBell]

Some economist on BBC recently dispelled the myth that public sector workers are low paid... She also said that to pay for their full pensions they'd need to put in 25% of their pay and not the 5-8% they currently do.

I don't get the "we have to pay the best to get the best staff" blox with any company private or public.

If all councils said: Right, child protection managers are paid £x now - then they'd all get the same wage and that'd be it.

[PopGun]

so you think someone in the top 5% of earnings couldnt chip in with a small sacrifice?

Nope, I'm not sure why so many posters on this forum deliberately fail to comprehend anything that's written in reply to them. Maybe you should just reply on my behalf and be done with it.

and how many managers will be needed to be recruited for "restructuring".

None

Again, you're splitting hairs that aren't there.

i see the Public sector mindset in action here...there are no brick walls to be hit when taxpayer money is at hand to cushion.

What? Ah now I get it, you're one of those repetitive NPCs from Grand Theft Auto games etc.

NPC behavior in computer games is usually scripted and automatic (see artificial intelligence), triggered by certain actions or dialogue with the player character(s).