[Closed] Shropshire council to sack all staff then remploy them next day on less pay,

Do people on here realise how much of the private sector is subsidised by the public sector?

Get your heads out of the sand!

Didn't state spending increase while GDP was increasing?

State spending (as % of GDP)under Labour was consistently lower than the previous Conservative government.

"I applied for this job thinking I was doing one thing (well several really) and now the goal posts have changed umpteen times since and now I am doing lots of different demanding roles which is quite common across the council. Quite a stressful environment here at Shirehall."

Welcome to the real world. In the private sector most if not all of us do exactly this, chipping in to get done whatever needs doing, because if the company does poorly, it goes under, and we all lose.

My Mother worked in the public sector, my partner has just started, both have many horror stories to tell of the unending red tape, gross inefficiency, and under performing (yet tolerated) staff.

State spending (as % of GDP)under Labour was consistently lower than the previous Conservative government.

You haven't answered my question. Did the actual amount of state spending go up or down?

My Mother worked in the public sector, my partner has just started, both have many horror stories to tell of the unending red tape, gross inefficiency, and under performing (yet tolerated) staff.

Guess what, I could tell you lots of similar tales about private sector companies too. But keep buying the Tory tabloid propaganda, there's a good boy.

erm no, private sector is generally cash generator, public sectors cannot/do not create any 'new' money,

Well the NHS section I work in generates cash, so your wrong there.

mrs tts had this happen 18 months ago shes still the pharmacist but with a new title and over 36 months her 'reward' is adjusted to the lower level ... and no one every bats an eyelid

Aye, but she's on a fair chunk more than if she worked in the NHS, and if I may be so bold, doing fair less difficult work.

Guess what, I could tell you lots of similar tales about private sector companies too.

Aye, but its not public money, nor public money at risk (unless it's a bank ... 🙄 )

You haven't answered my question. Did the actual amount of state spending go up or down?

Oh, we spend far more than we used to. To pay for fripperies such as schools, roads, pensions, hospitals and so on.

Clearly, most sensible people would look at how much we spend as a percentage of our total wealth. It was lower under labour than the previous tory government.

Well the NHS section I work in generates cash, so your wrong there.

Whilst we're on the subject: how much of the private sector actually generates wealth? As opposed to shifting it from one part of the economy to another.

to generate wealth is to value add. i.e. take an input, apply knowledge and skill to it and receive payment for it in excess of the costs of production. Whether it be crossrail trains or hairdressing.

Whilst we're on the subject: how much of the private sector actually generates wealth? As opposed to shifting it from one part of the economy to another.

Depends on your definition as the economy is basically moving money. To Generate real wealth from outside the UK I would suggesting banking for one.

Guess what, [b]I could tell you lots of similar tales about private sector companies too[/b]. But keep buying the Tory tabloid propaganda, there's a good boy.

o generate wealth is to value add. i.e. take an input, apply knowledge and skill to it and receive payment for it in excess of the costs of production. Whether it be crossrail trains or hairdressing.

That generates wealth for a company, but not necessarily the economy. Think of this example: through cunning advertising, I am persuaded to buy a can of coke instead of a can of pepsi. How does that benefit the economy as a whole?

Aye, but its not public money, nor public money at risk (unless it's a bank ... )

Well some of the worst tales I know of relate to private rail network contractors - so they do receive public money, and the massive wastage/non-jobs/people taking a slice for doing eff all is part of the reason the trains cost so much.

In the private sector jobs are lost and companies go down.

Your faith in market forces is touching. However lots of shit companies somehow manage to stay in business, at least for a while until they go bust and start up again under a new name. Much better than the evil bloated public sector obviously.

Oh, we spend far more than we used to. To pay for fripperies such as schools, roads, pensions, hospitals and so on.

Clearly, most sensible people would look at how much we spend as a percentage of our total wealth. It was lower under labour than the previous tory government.

Condescending, lovely. Rather than as a % of GDP, it would be better to look at whether or not it had increased in real terms, i.e against inflation, Shirley?

if the marketing pursuaded you to buy a can in the first place then it increases economic activity. as long the activity is value adding, then the economy has grown. Substitution decicions arent necessarily wealth generating unless the subsituted good adds greater value in the process.

sobreiety - spending as a function of GDP are both stated in nominal terms so as a ratio it is correct in real terms. (if the numerator and divisor are both nominal in the same time period the ratio being compared over time is real)

you might adjust the nominal value of one or the other to be able to compare them individually over time, but assuming the value of money for both is the same at any given point in time their ratios are consistent.

In the public sector..... If it's anything like here in Sunderland, they've done away with 'proper' contracts for a high percentage of the 'coal-face' staff (attendants, receptionists etc.) I've worked for about six years on a (very) part time basis at a local council run ski slope. Four years ago, most of the P/T staff were told that no guaranteed hours contracts were being renewed - from now on, we'd all be on PVH contracts (as and when required).

So when stafing hours need to be cut back, everyone just gets one shift a week (good week), no redundancies required, no bad press due to job-losses - the only people suffering are those who depend on getting shifts to live. I'm fortunate in that I have another income but there are plenty suffering out there....

if the marketing pursuaded you to buy a can in the first place then it increases economic activity. as long the activity is value adding, then the economy has grown. [b]Substitution decicions arent necessarily wealth generating[/b] unless the subsituted good adds greater value in the process.

That was my point - to challenge the assumption that the private sector is automatically wealth generating. It isn't, and in any case, it relies on the public sector to generate the conditions in which it wishes to operate. Those organisations who disagree are free to move to DR Congo...

I've worked for about six years on a (very) part time basis at a local council run ski slope.

Ahhh....the lovely silksworth! Ive been into hospital twice after accidents there, once a broken thumb and once slicing my hand open!

Edit: Wundred!

It isn't, and in any case, it relies on the public sector to generate the conditions in which it wishes to operate

the assumption that the private sector is automatically wealth generating

Its isnt. For a number of reasons. un-profitable activity is one. But marketing isnt one. Choosing between equal products might not be wealth creating, but paying for marketing is. Its cost is sunk in the cost of production of the can of drink for sure, but the service of marketing costs less than price paid for it (usually) thereby adding value.

People too often forget that service is every bit as viable component of an economy as manufacturing. So long as you could sell sufficient services overseas to fund the purchase of imported goods you could theoretically have a 100% service industry economy on a national level.

@crispo - there's a fair-to-middlin' chance it would have been me who patched you up - I'm a first aider there...

How so?

Education. Transport. Health care. Police.

Education. Transport. Health care. Police.

😉

Its isnt. For a number of reasons. un-profitable activity is one. But marketing isnt one. Choosing between equal products might not be wealth creating, but paying for marketing is. Its cost is sunk in the cost of production of the can of drink for sure, but the service of marketing costs less than price paid for it (usually) thereby adding value.

I take your point, but if person B is persuaded by Pepsi's marketing to buy their product instead, we're all square.

I also take your point that the service industry plays its part. But it seems to me that the lowest common denominator always prevails in the end, and so it would be unwise to rely on it as a strategy for long-term wealth creation at a national level.

Private schools. Toll roads. BUPA. Security Guards

If companies want to move to countries without publicly-provided infrastructure, there's nothing stopping them.

The fact that as a rule they don't, is instructive.

to generate wealth is to value add. i.e. take an input, apply knowledge and skill to it and receive payment for it in excess of the costs of production. Whether it be crossrail trains or hairdressing

A hairdresser exchanges their time and skill for money, but unless that money actually comes from outside the UK, is it actually generating any wealth for the economy/country rather than just for me as a hairdresser? If I buy imported hairspray and scissors made in China, am I actually a net exporter of wealth?

I dont think even the most vociferous free marketeer really believes in a zero sized state. Im a free marketeer but have alwways said that there's places where the market cant deliver for public good and doesnt allocate resources efficiently (old age care for example).

BUT that isnt to say that a certain size of state is the right size. I favour something closer to 30% of GDP personally. Some US economists would go lower. The scandanavians have much higher state spending.

None are "right" in that much of it is opinion and subjective.

In these arguments though there's always those that argue at the extremes and try and drag marginal "facts" into generalisations. It also ends up with a lot of people being rude about other peoples points of view. On both sides.

@ user-removed - could well have been, were you ever around for the Kings Ski races? The other time was at the British champs and I just thought it was bruised at the time.

The scandanavians have much higher state spending.

And some of the highest living/education/health standards in the world.

mike - national boundaries are a bit of a distraction. Someone somewhere has to make widgets just as much as someone somewhere has to pool and insure risk. Both manufacture and service take place somewhere in the world and that's all that matters in this context. If you draw an arbitrary economic boundary though (like country) you have to add the caveat that whatever the internal economy looks like, the import and export economy of goods and services must be equivalent and balanced in the long run too.

BUT that isnt to say that a certain size of state is the right size. I favour something closer to 30% of GDP personally. Some US economists would go lower. The scandanavians have much higher state spending.

None are "right" in that much of it is opinion and subjective.

In these arguments though there's always those that argue at the extremes and try and drag marginal "facts" into generalisations. It also ends up with a lot of people being rude about other peoples points of view. On both sides.

P
Stoner is right very few really debates state v private. We just debate the size and role of each.

And some of the highest living/education/health standards in the world.

Yep, the Scandanavian model has always seemed pretty good to me. High taxes, yes, but you get a lot back.

and in other news:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14028848 ]Gap between public and private sector pay grows even wider[/url]

Throw in different terms in pensions, extra annual leave, higher rates of sickness absense etc. and substantial parts of the public sector are now being paid 30-40% more per hour than peers in similar roles working in the private sector.

The corollory of high taxes is lower discretionary spending.

There's many who dont value that freedom of discretion and thats fine. There are others that do. On the US healthcare thread there was a very telling post about how freedom from state intervention and greater discretion is part of the US psyche. Much more so than historically more social democratic countries. It's just how they are.

There's a rather perjorative quote about it that goes:
[i]“Roughly speaking, social democracy may be defined as an arrangement under which we all largely cease to be responsible for our own behaviour and in return become responsible for everyone else’s.”
[/i]

From the tone of your posts I guess you're not going to agree with it. That's fine. But it doesnt automatically make you right either 😉

did you read that linkl you psoted to prove your point?

Public sector employees were paid 7.8% more on average than private sector staff in April 2010, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.

This was a bigger gap than the 5.3% difference in 2007, the figures show.

Over the past 10 years, the trend for low-skilled jobs to be outsourced to the private sector has continued, pushing up the average wage among public sector workers.

The public sector also employed a larger proportion of older workers, whose pay has increased over time.

In 2010, some 38% of workers had a degree or equivalent qualification in the public sector, compared with 23% in the private sector.

Comparing the pay of these graduates flips the pay gap around, with public sector workers earning 5.7% less than those in the private sector.

Dont let the facts in the article get in the way of your hyperbole Farmer

Farmer John - where is the 30-40% more per hour figure from?

Also:

"What the figures show is that the public sector is fairer than the private sector," said TUC general secretary Brendan Barber.

"Public sector high-flyers are paid 6% less than those at the top of the private sector, while those in less skilled jobs on lower pay earn 6% more in the public sector."

From the tone of your posts I guess you're not going to agree with it. That's fine. But its doesnt automatically make you right either

What matters is what happens. I look at functioning democracies with a high standard of living, good welfare, education, healthcare, and a relatively small gap between rich and poor. I would say that Scandinavia is much more successful than the US at achieving these outcomes.

Regarding healthcare in the US. One of the main arguments against it appears to be that it's socialism. Yet they provide state education...

Roughly speaking, social democracy may be defined as an arrangement under which we all largely cease to be responsible for our own welfare and in return become responsible for everyone else’s.

Intersting you view this as pejorative i could say it with pride 😯

ransos - all you are doing there is marking where on the line of social function [i]you[/i] think a society should lie. The line could go all the way up to collectivism. Would you follow the line all the way along? There's many in the US who would happily see the "right" position being all the way across to feral anarchism.

Thats differing opinions, not correct answers.

ransos - all you are doing there is marking where on the line of social function you think a society should lie.

Based on fairly universal criteria of what constitutes a successful society though.

ransos - all you are doing there is marking where on the line of social function you think a society should lie.

That's a wilful misreading of my post. I gave you some outcomes that many people would wish to see. Having agreed on some outcomes, we can then work back and look at the most successful methodologies for achieving them.

JY - without the change is more important. The key thing is behaviour, not welfare.

Welfare is outcome, behaviour is freedom of action.

As I said earlier, the corollory of increases in social democracy is reduction in indivdualism (selfishness, if you like). we differ on where that trade-off is acceptably balanced perhaps.

If we go along with your change though, then again you're just marking the point on the line where you think collective responsibility reaches. Im comfortable at the point on the line being familial and friends, with the occasional extension into charity to strangers and a bit of national tax distribution. But if you're happy for it to go deeper nationally, why not internationally/globally? i.e. complete redistribution accross the globe?

But if you're happy for it to go deeper nationally, why not internationally/globally? i.e. complete redistribution accross the globe?

Ok then.

crispo - think I've worked every Kings race so far. They're a bit sanitised now they don't let everyone get minging drunk on the premises before racing...

Ok then.

fine. that's your politics.

mine arent.

i think we've gone round and round long enough we're probably back where we started now 🙂

i think we've gone round and round long enough we're probably back where we started now

Was it fun ? I completely missed the bit in the middle - I was left somewhere near the beginning.

Oh it was a gay dance.

And I was worried today was going to be very boring 🙂

Anyway, I can get back to boring everyone about my solar panels tomorrow.

ernie_lynch
I completely missed the bit in the middle - I was left

TandemJeremy - Member

😕

Well to be perfectly frank, I'm rather happy that I was left behind.

According to Stoner it was a bit like this :

[img] [/img]

I was going for:
[img] [/img]

but dont let that stop your mind taking you where it wants to GG....

I think you will find your perception of Sweden is out-of-date. They have steadily been reducing taxes there in recent years.