Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

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.

This has been old news for over three years now. As for the cushy pensions, well they'll get phased out with disincentive measures (as per your above example).

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

No I don't either, I'm with you on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

None

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

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

Its easy to script for a script.

Now answer the question...do you think 50K is an area where "we are all in it together" is a good place to start the wage cuts? rather than the 25K average wage that over half the population receive less than?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its easy to script for a script.

Now answer the question...do you think 50K is an area where "we are all in it together" is a good place to start the wage cuts? rather than the 25K average wage that over half the population receive less than?

Given that £50k is where most middle/senior management level pay bands resides or starts then yes.

Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of public sector workers also earn less than £25k. Feel free to disprove this.

How may I ask did you derive this £25k threshold? Did it involve apples and oranges? Thin air? Or is this what you're on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that £50k is where most middle/senior management level pay bands resides or starts then yes.

Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of public sector workers also earn less than £25k. Feel free to disprove this.

How may I ask did you derive this £25k threshold? Did it involve apples and oranges? Thin air? Or is this what you're on?

I know the vast majority earn less than 25K..I also know its the national average.

thats why i chose the figure.

I dont care about middle management or senior management pay...all I know, its just too high, there are too many of them, and they are best able to afford the cuts.

We are all in this together...arent we?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the vast majority earn less than 25K..I also know its the national average.

thats why i chose the figure.

and that's why the middle earners would get disproportionately more wacked then the higher earners.

I’d of thought most would prefer it the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and that's why the middle earners would get disproportionately more wacked then the higher earners.

I'd of thought most would prefer it the other way round.

I see adding up is not your strong point. nor is multiplication...taking away you find offensive, but.... division...you are aiming to be a master.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see adding up is not your strong point. nor is multiplication...taking away you find offensive, but.... division...you are aiming to be a master.

:lol:

I'll have some of what you're smoking.

Yeah alright boss, whatever turns you on. Only next time you orTahmoa decide to rifle through my bins, be sports and tidy up after yourselves.

Edited by PopGun
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

+1

Cleaners, binmen, etc the lowest paid of what were public sector workers have now got outcontracted and become some of the lowest paid private sector workers. But their cost isn't off the national payroll, it's still tax money that finances the "pribic" sector

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Cleaners, binmen, etc the lowest paid of what were public sector workers have now got outcontracted and become some of the lowest paid private sector workers. But their cost isn't off the national payroll, it's still tax money that finances the "pribic" sector

I don't get it.

So you are saying they are private sector and this agrees that public sector are paid more than private just like the article says.

Public sector = better pay, better pensions - both now been proven

Time to trim the fat from the public sector and make it at least align with the private sector. Can't keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it.

So you are saying they are private sector and this agrees that public sector are paid more than private just like the article says.

Public sector = better pay, better pensions - both now been proven

Time to trim the fat from the public sector and make it at least align with the private sector. Can't keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Thats a fair, point, but many of these subbies rake in fortunes for their directors and shareholders...the Public Sector STILL hasnt been as effective as they could by BUYING these services better. Then again, they insist that contractors are stuffed full of Diversity Co-ordinators...that is POLICY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of public sector workers also earn less than £25k. Feel free to disprove this.

Since you make the assertion perhaps you could provide the evidence to prove it.

That notwithstanding, I think you'll find a lot of the sub £25k workers are part timers.

It's very similar to the pension arguements. The leftist brigade are happy to trot out claims that the average PS pension is only about £4,000 whilst happily ignoring the fact that this includes a lot of individuals who only worked there for a year or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the local paper and eight council workers were paid between £100k and £150k per year, one of them even paid themselves or someone they knew paid them a 8.4% pay rise......as a council tax payer I want them to justify that money and extras they are earning....What do they do for that money?...please can someone explain, because with the cut backs and loss of valuable front line workers jobs and the amount of waste I see, they should be getting a pay cut NOT a rise. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

O

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.

Dear Mr MP,

Could you please hold back the tides of globalization? Here in the UK, we are worth more than Indians doing the same thing! Our place in the world is to have a better standard of living, because we are entitled to it. Kindly stop free trade and movement of capital, as we want to keep ourselves rich and the developing world poor.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Entitlement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that public sector wages are that high. Barely being able to pay for basic housing, transportation, food and clothing for a family is hardly excessive for both in a couple working full time in public sector jobs.

Its that the private sector has been smashed down to neo-slave wages.

Private businessmen argue they just can't pay a living wage anymore. And if that is true I would argue the state should seize their business and run it. Because even in communist East European nations with 1970's technology people were able to have homes and enough food for a family, cars, health care, education, public recreation centers, vacation time.

If the free market can no longer provide that for the average person, then its not a system the average person should support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent posting I recall seeing was for a job to teach people how to ride a bike.

What's wrong with that?

Riding a bike safely and considerately on the road is a pretty sophisticated skill. Some aspects of it are easier than driving a car, granted, but others are tougher due to the much higher vulnerabilty you have as a cyclist.

And I would say that someone who has that skill and the teaching skills to pass it on is a valuable person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would say that someone who has that skill and the teaching skills to pass it on is a valuable person.

Walking is also a valuable skill. Quick, buy some orange cones and visibility bibs then offer your walking training services to local government.

Ker-ching.

Edit: I don't have a problem with outrageous, worthy stupidity; it's just when it gets to influence where my money goes that I get peeved.

Edited by tahoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that public sector wages are that high. Barely being able to pay for basic housing, transportation, food and clothing for a family is hardly excessive for both in a couple working full time in public sector jobs.

Its that the private sector has been smashed down to neo-slave wages.

Private businessmen argue they just can't pay a living wage anymore. And if that is true I would argue the state should seize their business and run it. Because even in communist East European nations with 1970's technology people were able to have homes and enough food for a family, cars, health care, education, public recreation centers, vacation time.

If the free market can no longer provide that for the average person, then its not a system the average person should support.

Note to AA3:...East Europe didnt suffer from a clever, dynamic, high calibre, thieving barstard banking system where ponzi lending priced ordinary people out of homes.

Your argument is like saying people should be able to have a lolipop and because a theif comes and steals it, the taxpayer should provide a fresh one. I would suggest the government should have carried out its DUTY and PURPOSE and should have halted the activities of the thief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to AA3:...East Europe didnt suffer from a clever, dynamic, high calibre, thieving barstard banking system where ponzi lending priced ordinary people out of homes.

Your argument is like saying people should be able to have a lolipop and because a theif comes and steals it, the taxpayer should provide a fresh one. I would suggest the government should have carried out its DUTY and PURPOSE and should have halted the activities of the thief.

Good point. Communism is actually a step up from having a criminal conspiracy of bankers and their fractional reserve system driving the price of everything up and up, and them profiting the whole way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that public sector wages are that high. Barely being able to pay for basic housing, transportation, food and clothing for a family is hardly excessive for both in a couple working full time in public sector jobs.

Its that the private sector has been smashed down to neo-slave wages.

Private businessmen argue they just can't pay a living wage anymore. And if that is true I would argue the state should seize their business and run it. Because even in communist East European nations with 1970's technology people were able to have homes and enough food for a family, cars, health care, education, public recreation centers, vacation time.

If the free market can no longer provide that for the average person, then its not a system the average person should support.

Wages in the UK are way above the global average. There is no way you can say that wages aren't high enough in the UK. What you can say, is that the cost of living is very high in the UK.

Competition is global now. You can't take your ball home, now that the other teams are starting to compete well. The only way the problems of poverty will be solved in the UK is by:

1. Reducing the cost of living.

2. Weathering the reduction in wages, while the developing world catches up.

You can't secure high wages* by legislation and attempts to do so will push out business to cheaper locations, speeding up the very decline in wealth which you propose to solve. If the jobs can't be outsourced, they will seek additional mechanisation (which will become more cost effective, relative to higher wage demands) and some businesses will just become too uneconomical to remain in business at all (with further loss of jobs).

What you can do is start clamping down on the rental drain** throughout our economy. We already have near zero rates, reducing the rent sought on money. With falling property prices (substantial in some areas of the UK) and pressure on wages, there is pressure on property rental rates too - to sustain this path, I would like to see a land value tax of some sort, but at least it is heading in the right direction.

Additionally, with the value of Sterling falling, we are becoming more competitive without wage cuts even being needed. It may make resources more expensive, but they are still comparatively cheap compared to said costs to those in the developed world (not many big, flash cars there).

The global economy is showing signs of starting to rebalance. China recently reported a trade deficit over a period (month, I think). Sections of the UK economy are starting to benefit from cheaper (due to fall in Sterling) exports. As the UK (and the developed world in general) is saturated in debt, there really is no choice in this - if China et al resist, the developed world will print more. It won't end well for the developing world if that route is continued down (they have a pile of promises and we have a pile of goods - which is best?).

As the gap between the developed and developing world decreases, the real wages in the former will decrease and the latter will increase. The smaller the imbalance gets, the more sustainable it will be and fewer jobs will leave developed shores for cheaper labour.

It seems that some people want to some how stop the tide going out (after the credit waves came in). It won't work and I'm surprised that people even suggest it is worth trying. However, the losses of the cash rich will help fund the rebalancing and ultimately, business and therefore employees, will benefit from being able to compete better in the global economy.

* Without easy credit and increased benefits, I doubt NMW would have been seen as a success. Implementing a 'living wage' seems like another attempt to legislate wealth, which will also fail and result in more unemployment. It won't stop well meaning socialists from suggesting it though.

** If there were ever an angle for a political party 'for the people', it would be one based around Georgism - free market foundations, with attempts by the rich to extract rent minimised. The Tory base is too wealthy (with plenty of land/property owners) to want the latter, with Labour too obsessed with socialist meddling to consider the former. There is a third way though, which would help our young and our economy in general, should any party embrace it and be able to communicate it.

Edited by Traktion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, but a lot of what is considered private enterprise in Britain is actually rentierism. Like the banks who graciously let us use their money for exchange at a heavy annual interest rate. Like the large landowners. Like commercial property owners. Like the very wealthy who bid against each other for capital, then build in to the cost of the service the return on investment. Like so many BTL empire owners/Tory supporters

Its not that easy to seperate out rentier behaviour from open free markets. Politically it is extremely hard to roll back to, because the rentiers get the most money and use that money to stop change from happening.

At some point the average person would be better off if the state just seized control of all these things and cut the rentiers out of the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you make the assertion perhaps you could provide the evidence to prove it.

Not great, and only NHS but best I could find (without getting sacked) until I can be bothered to look again:

www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/.../snsg-04286.pdf

Skip to Table 1: Agenda for change – examples of typical roles (page 13). You may also find the rest of the document quite interesting/annoying though.

That notwithstanding, I think you'll find a lot of the sub £25k workers are part timers.

Ha ha dream on, we don't all live in the South East.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with that?

Riding a bike safely and considerately on the road is a pretty sophisticated skill. Some aspects of it are easier than driving a car, granted, but others are tougher due to the much higher vulnerabilty you have as a cyclist.

And I would say that someone who has that skill and the teaching skills to pass it on is a valuable person.

Give me some of what you're smoking.

No, I will pay for it as it is so damn cloud 9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it.

So you are saying they are private sector and this agrees that public sector are paid more than private just like the article says.

Public sector = better pay, better pensions - both now been proven

Time to trim the fat from the public sector and make it at least align with the private sector. Can't keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

I'm saying that a lot of the gap is due to lower paid public sector workers suddenly becoming private, rather than all the other public sector workers getting raises that outstrip the other private sector workers. Essentially it leaves the public sector with a much higher proportion of highly qualified folk such as doctors, teachers, lecturers who you'd expect to be earning more on average than a tesco shelf-stacker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

O

Dear Mr MP,

Could you please hold back the tides of globalization? Here in the UK, we are worth more than Indians doing the same thing! Our place in the world is to have a better standard of living, because we are entitled to it. Kindly stop free trade and movement of capital, as we want to keep ourselves rich and the developing world poor.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Entitlement

Or

Dear MP

If you and your cronies are intent on exposing the UK to Globalised free markets, then at least prepare Britain accordingly so we have at least a fighting chance to compete, both on an individual and entrepreneurship level. Low wages in a high living costs and high tax economy just isn’t going to cut the mustard.

Yours Mr Entitled -

(to modest shelter, income and food in a so called 1st world country developed on the back of the miracles of capitalism)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • 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.