Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th

ymu said:
The UK has 1% of the world's population, 2% of the world's pharma market and 10% of the world's pharma manufacturing. Does it ever occur to anyone to ask why what remaining industry we have is so heavily dominated by high tech industry? Do they think employers will stay for low taxes when the supply of good graduates and publicly-funded research dries up?



Ignorance from a politician is never astonishing, but it never fails to gobsmack me when people fall for this propoganda shit so easily. What the fuck is going on?
Click to expand...
you talk about the supply of 'good graduates'.

have you given any consideration to what happens when the supply of new graduates dwindles as is predicted to happen over the next 20 years as numbers of 18 year olds decline?
 
Pickman's model said:
you talk about the supply of 'good graduates'.

have you given any consideration to what happens when the supply of new graduates dwindles as is predicted to happen over the next 20 years as numbers of 18 year olds decline?
Click to expand...

I can't see how the size of the birth cohort would affect our need to have universities which can attract high-tech industry and can turn out graduates with real degrees and not pieces of paper they were given because they were paying for it. Perhaps you could explain?
 
I knew I shouldn't have looked at the Mail's website just before heading for bed.

Public sector salary myth exploded: State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector

Yet again, however, this drivel repeats the canard that even Hutton dismissed about 'gold-plated' pensions, focuses on highly-paid staff rather than the majority, and gives no direct comparisons between comparable private- and public-sector jobs. It just deals in averages, which is deeply misleading when so many low-paid jobs formerly ion the public sector have now been outsourced.

Tempting though it is to dismiss this as yet another of the Fail's hobby horses, one wonders what they might be trying to distract attention from...
 
Roadkill said:
I knew I shouldn't have looked at the Mail's website just before heading for bed.

Public sector salary myth exploded: State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector

Yet again, however, this drivel repeats the canard that even Hutton dismissed about 'gold-plated' pensions, focuses on highly-paid staff rather than the majority, and gives no direct comparisons between comparable private- and public-sector jobs. It just deals in averages, which is deeply misleading when so many low-paid jobs formerly ion the public sector have now been outsourced.

Tempting though it is to dismiss this as yet another of the Fail's hobby horses, one wonders what they might be trying to distract attention from...
Click to expand...

Do you have any ideas?
 
ymu said:
The worst paid jobs are in the private sector, yes. Because most unskilled jobs have been outsourced, and private employers get away with exploitative practices more easily.

But it is an absolute nonsense to claim that public sector workers are paid more if you compare like-for-like. That is why we have better pensions, and why we have trouble hanging onto people once they're trained.

No more of this nonsense without some credible evidence please.
Click to expand...

As Public Employees generate no wealth, it is impossible to do like for like comparisons. However I'm happy to swap credible evidence with you - but Polly Toynbee (columnist) can never be considered as credible evidence.

How about picking a couple of Public Sector jobs we can try and agree on with a Private Sector equivalent and then we can evaluate both not just on Pay & benefits but agree on a contribution weighting for Wealth production and Social benefit?
 
sparklefish said:
What the fuck are you on about? You don't have a bloody clue. For a start, many of the people I joined my department with are graduates. Not so much the older ones as many have been in the CS from school but certainly many of those under 45.

Secondly, we are paid well below the going rate in the private sector for the equivalent job and this is the case for most public sector workers that aren't in senior grades.

The obscene wages of ex-com and our CEOs wildly skews the average wage figures.

I chose to join the civil service in the main because I didn't want to spend my working life making money for private sector fatcats. Doesn't mean I should have to earn considerably less than my counterparts in the private sector.

Believe me, times have changed a lot since you worked for the DSS.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your point about graduates, it all depends what they graduated in, where there qualifications came from, what grade they have and what use they have to their jobs?

Would you like to back your claim about being lower paid with some evidence? For example, perhaps you could tell me the role that you do and what you believe is your Private Sector counterpart?

I agree average figures are spectacularly unhelpful so let's just use advertised salaries for comparisons sake.

If you're not contributing economically to the wealth of the country - why do you think you should be paid the same or more than somebody who does?

I'm very aware of the changes that have happened since I left the DHSS, well at least in the the Civil Service, far more employees for a start, though at least Job security has diminished, "buggering the bursar" will at least get you fired.
 
Try running a business with no roads, streetlights, with uneducated and ill employees, with no police or fireservice and see how far you get.
 
ymu said:
Hang on, double the minimum wage as a starting salary? Junior doctors, yes. Teenage police constables fresh out of training, yes. Anyone else, no. Fuck's sake, it took me twenty years to get paid that much. :D

The median wage in the public sector is less than double the minimum wage. Half are earning less than £23k, so how in hell do you figure £24k is a normal starting salary? :D
Click to expand...

As the minimum wage is £5.93 per hour for an employee 21 years or over, a working week is 37 1/2 hours so an annual salary, for a private sector employee working for a year would be £11,563.5.

Starting salaries I was thinking about was Nursing (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/adult_nurse_salary.htm), Civil Service http://www.prospects.ac.uk/civil_service_administrator_salary.htm), Social Workers (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/social_worker_salary.htm) & Teachers (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/secondary_school_teacher_salary.htm).

Admittedly Traffic Wardens start on just £17,000, but that of course requires no qualifications whatsoever (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/06/military.pay)?

Perhaps you'd be good enough to share what roles you are aware of that start on the lower end of the starting salary scales?
 
So Paul, can you explain what magical qualities private sector enterprise embody that allow them to produce wealth when its public sector counterparts cannot?

Can you explain why, say, private hospitals produce wealth when NHS ones don't? Can you explain why the nationalised steel and coal industries produced no wealth whereas once privatised they somehow, probably using alchemy or something, began to produce wealth?

Or is it the case that you're assuming that since no private profit is made no wealth can possibly have been produced?

Or, alternatively, are you just an idiot who swallows what he reads in the Torygraph/Mail/Insert rag of choice here?
 
PaulAtherton said:
I'm genuinely interested in an answer to that. If there is no wealth, there are no taxes, if there are no taxes, there is no public sector and all arguments are moot.
Click to expand...

Where do you get to the logic that, therefore, only people who make a lot of money matter in society and deserve to be rewarded?
Of course, if some of these wealth generators were in public hands, your argument wouldn't make sense, again.
 
_angel_ said:
I just feel sorry for someone who can't value human worth beyond how much money they generate for the economy. Keeping people alive doesn't seem as important as making money.
Click to expand...

Angel, Bad day to pick that analogy. However that wasn't my argument. We know we put a cheap price on life. Think how much a soldier gets paid. Then how much it costs to keep a prisoner.

But if you're arguing that we shouldn't live in a consumerist, democratised system, then fair enough.

But we do, and my argument began by saying we want people in the caring professions as vocations not as jobs. This ensures that there primary core is to do good as with all public servants otherwise there would be no good reason not to privatise everything and let the market dictate salaries etc.

Without money, in our current system, nothing works. I struggle to see how asking somebody who doesn't create wealth but diminishes it, should be worried about comparative pay?
 
PaulAtherton said:
Angel, Bad day to pick that analogy. However that wasn't my argument. We know we put a cheap price on life. Think how much a soldier gets paid. Then how much it costs to keep a prisoner.

But if you're arguing that we shouldn't live in a consumerist, democratised system, then fair enough.

But we do, and my argument began by saying we want people in the caring professions as vocations not as jobs. This ensures that there primary core is to do good as with all public servants otherwise there would be no good reason not to privatise everything and let the market dictate salaries etc.

Without money, in our current system, nothing works. I struggle to see how asking somebody who doesn't create wealth but diminishes it, should be worried about comparative pay?
Click to expand...

Who diminishes wealth?
 
PaulAtherton said:
Angel, Bad day to pick that analogy. However that wasn't my argument. We know we put a cheap price on life. Think how much a soldier gets paid. Then how much it costs to keep a prisoner.

But if you're arguing that we shouldn't live in a consumerist, democratised system, then fair enough.

But we do, and my argument began by saying we want people in the caring professions as vocations not as jobs. This ensures that there primary core is to do good as with all public servants otherwise there would be no good reason not to privatise everything and let the market dictate salaries etc.

Without money, in our current system, nothing works. I struggle to see how asking somebody who doesn't create wealth but diminishes it, should be worried about comparative pay?
Click to expand...

1) explain how the private sector produces wealth, then explain why the public sector doesn't

2) public sector employees demonstrably do produce wealth - if you disagree explain why a carer, doctor, nurse, whatever, in a private hospital produces wealth whereas their counterpart in the public sector doesn't.

Then stick your fingers in a plug socket.
 
SpineyNorman said:
What? Why does that even matter? And anyway - that's demonstrably false - when, precisely, were motorways in private hands?
Click to expand...

It matters, because if we you're arguing for Public Services, there has to be good reason. I want Public Services, but if the comparison are going to be made between the Public sector and Private, why not privatise everything. I'd argue for Public Services for a variety of reasons but none to do with higher or equivalent financial remuneration for employees.

As for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land.

If something is demonstrably false then please demonstrate.
 
SpineyNorman said:
1) explain how the private sector produces wealth, then explain why the public sector doesn't

2) public sector employees demonstrably do produce wealth - if you disagree explain why a carer, doctor, nurse, whatever, in a private hospital produces wealth whereas their counterpart in the public sector doesn't.

Then stick your fingers in a plug socket.
Click to expand...

Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.

Why the name calling by the way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
  • Poll
Do you want a separate sub forum for the General Election 2024?
2 3
Replies
83
Views
4K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Elpenor
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
5K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
YouSir
Strike Funds
Replies
4
Views
499
hitmouse
hitmouse
hitmouse
A general election thread for posting literally every single tweet that you see, no matter how inane
Replies
7
Views
788
Yata
Yata
Eric Jarvis
New group to challenge Steve Reed at general election
Replies
20
Views
1K
Eric Jarvis
Eric Jarvis
Back
Top Bottom