Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Did Rishi Sunak just save the Union? – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,793
    dixiedean said:



    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension

    Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution
    vs
    private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution

    But it isn't.
    Because it just isn't true.
    Especially at a lower level.
    If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't.
    That isn't because they don't understand.
    It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison.
    Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.

    It is however true though as shown by foi requests to counsels etc, the average employer contributions for public sector jobs is about 20%, private sector jobs the average pension contribution is 5 to 6%. Pensions are deferred pay as the public sector bods keep telling us

    so 10k public sector wage is 12k
    and private sector 10k is 10.5 to 10.6k

    Stop saying it isn't true because it is

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901
    Pagan2 said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
    Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying a
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    The other side of the coin is at the bottom end.
    It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
    These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
    Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?


    As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
    Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so.
    Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
    What do you think I am arguing?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,510
    Nigelb said:

    Government making the possession of Nitrous Oxide an offence

    They're having a laugh

    There goes DuraAce’s chance of cracking 250mph on a public road.
    Yes, I am sure if he wanted nitrous he would obey the new rules as he would the laws of the road...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,334
    Recent interview with David Davis on the Triggernometry channel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DymaPqswpPw
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901
    edited March 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:



    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension

    Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution
    vs
    private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution

    But it isn't.
    Because it just isn't true.
    Especially at a lower level.
    If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't.
    That isn't because they don't understand.
    It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison.
    Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.
    It is however true though as shown by foi requests to counsels etc, the average employer contributions for public sector jobs is about 20%, private sector jobs the average pension contribution is 5 to 6%. Pensions are deferred pay as the public sector bods keep telling us

    so 10k public sector wage is 12k
    and private sector 10k is 10.5 to 10.6k

    Stop saying it isn't true because it is



    So why are folk leaving the Public Sector for the Private?
    Personally I'm trying to survive week by week. So are all of my colleagues. Wr are all dreading the 2 week unpaid Easter break. We can't get through a broken car or tooth. The idea that we may consider a pension at all is the height of privilege.
    We don't expect to get there.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,793
    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
    Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying a
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    The other side of the coin is at the bottom end.
    It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
    These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
    Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?


    As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
    Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so.
    Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
    What do you think I am arguing?
    That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.

    If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.

    My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"

    As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,038
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Government making the possession of Nitrous Oxide an offence

    They're having a laugh

    There goes DuraAce’s chance of cracking 250mph on a public road.
    Yes, I am sure if he wanted nitrous he would obey the new rules as he would the laws of the road...
    Shhhhh.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,038
    Israeli media reports indicate Netanyahu will announce shortly the government will halt the judicial overhaul legislation until May to allow path for dialogue after losing total control of the situation.

    Unclear if this will satisfy the protesters at this point.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1640102206757130246

    Eventful day over there.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901
    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
    Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying a
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    The other side of the coin is at the bottom end.
    It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
    These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
    Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?


    As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
    Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so.
    Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
    What do you think I am arguing?
    That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.

    If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.

    My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"

    As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
    Well.
    We've had 50 years of a labour surplus. We've tried a low wage low cost economy. It doesn't work.
    Switzerland and Canada are high wage high cost economies. They seem to be a bit happier societies.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,155
    Nigelb said:

    Israeli media reports indicate Netanyahu will announce shortly the government will halt the judicial overhaul legislation until May to allow path for dialogue after losing total control of the situation.

    Unclear if this will satisfy the protesters at this point.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1640102206757130246

    Eventful day over there.

    Does anyone have a recommendation for a book on Modern Israel? Inevitably, it would have to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict - how could it not? - but is there one which is about the Israeli state itself primarily?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,793
    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
    Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying a
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    The other side of the coin is at the bottom end.
    It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
    These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
    Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?


    As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
    Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so.
    Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
    What do you think I am arguing?
    That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.

    If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.

    My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"

    As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
    Well.
    We've had 50 years of a labour surplus. We've tried a low wage low cost economy. It doesn't work.
    Switzerland and Canada are high wage high cost economies. They seem to be a bit happier societies.
    And I have argued here that having labour shortages here is a good thing for those on low wages as they will finally get people competing with either pay or conditions improving to get workers to come to them.

    You I believe are a remainer and therefore believe in FoM which means an infinite labour pool meaning people don't need to compete so much for workers because there are always more willing to come in
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901
    edited March 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
    Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying a
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    The other side of the coin is at the bottom end.
    It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
    These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
    Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?


    As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
    Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so.
    Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
    What do you think I am arguing?
    That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.

    If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.

    My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"

    As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
    Well.
    We've had 50 years of a labour surplus. We've tried a low wage low cost economy. It doesn't work.
    Switzerland and Canada are high wage high cost economies. They seem to be a bit happier societies.
    And I have argued here that having labour shortages here is a good thing for those on low wages as they will finally get people competing with either pay or conditions improving to get workers to come to them.

    You I believe are a remainer and therefore believe in FoM which means an infinite labour pool meaning people don't need to compete so much for workers because there are always more willing to come in
    That isn't relevant.
    I'm not talking about unskilled labour.
    I'm talking about skilled labour which the government refuses to pay the market rate for.
    Even though another branch of government tops up our wages.
    Frankly . A pay rise for the low paid was one of the few benefits of Brexit I could see.
    This government is determined to prevent them.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,452
    I can't recommend a book on Israel, but I did learn some interesting facts from a recent Henry Olsen column:
    "Israel started out dominated by secular, Ashkenazi Jews who emigrated from Western Europe. They were largely left-leaning, so for decades after gaining its independence in 1948, the country was ruled by the social democratic Labor Party in coalition with other, smaller leftist parties."

    Immigration changed that, and demography is likely to push Israel even further to the right:
    "High birth rates among ultra-Orthodox Jews are sealing the religious right’s political power. Secular Jewish women now have an average of about two children, only slightly higher than fertility rates in the United States. But religious Jewish women have four children on average, and ultra-Orthodox Haredi women have more than six. This explains why the Haredi population makes up only 13 percent of Israel today, while Haredi children compose 24 percent of the population younger than 4."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/israel-netanyahu-biden-getting-testy/

    (Olsen is not kidding about those parties being "left-leaning". Take a look, for example, at the symbol for the Mapai, the predecessor to the Israeli Labor party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapai )
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    WillG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Hardly any of them are white men.
    The taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per doctor to train them to work in pther countries.
    London is full of adverts from Australia encouraging doctors to emigrate there.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,035
    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
    Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
    Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains

    if you can often see public sector jobs paying a
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Bunch of snowflakes
    Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.

    Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
    The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
    The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?

    One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.

    The other side of the coin is at the bottom end.
    It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
    These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
    Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?


    As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
    Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so.
    Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
    What do you think I am arguing?
    That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.

    If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.

    My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"

    As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
    Well.
    We've had 50 years of a labour surplus. We've tried a low wage low cost economy. It doesn't work.
    Switzerland and Canada are high wage high cost economies. They seem to be a bit happier societies.
    And I have argued here that having labour shortages here is a good thing for those on low wages as they will finally get people competing with either pay or conditions improving to get workers to come to them.

    You I believe are a remainer and therefore believe in FoM which means an infinite labour pool meaning people don't need to compete so much for workers because there are always more willing to come in
    That isn't relevant.
    I'm not talking about unskilled labour.
    I'm talking about skilled labour which the government refuses to pay the market rate for.
    Even though another branch of government tops up our wages.
    Frankly . A pay rise for the low paid was one of the few benefits of Brexit I could see.
    This government is determined to prevent them.
    Part of the problem is that public sector employers often have no skills or ability to increase productivity.

    This is a management issue.

    This means that when confronted with an increase in the cost of labour, their response is not to invest in automation and other productivity increasing tools.

    Instead they react like 1950s bosses at British Leyland.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    the #SNP leadership election result is in :

    1st Preference:

    Forbes 27,843
    Yousaf 4,078
    Regan 25,928

    and after redistribution

    2nd Preference

    Yousaf 176,484
    Forbes 27,842

    #Scotland today 😃 democracy at work


    https://twitter.com/roketronnie/status/1640038148779458560?s=20

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,155
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think.
    If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/26/nhs-england-staff-shortages-could-exceed-570000-by-2036-study-finds

    This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.


    Hardly any of them are white men.
    The taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per doctor to train them to work in pther countries.
    London is full of adverts from Australia encouraging doctors to emigrate there.
    I wonder what the domestic debate in Australia is like - why are they not producing enough doctors? Are they happy with the situation?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Thread:

    After all of the chaos, protests, reservists quitting, and Galant being axed, reports that finally Netanyahu is considering pausing things until late April. Important to understand what this and what it isn't.

    https://twitter.com/mkoplow/status/1640141318142697472?s=20
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,938
    Reuters reports on a nailbiting election in Cuba:

    Cubans headed to the polls on Sunday to vote for the 470 lawmakers who will represent them in the country´s National Assembly in a closely watched election seen as a referendum on the communist-run government at a time of deep economic crisis.

    Voting centers in the capital Havana opened at 7 a.m. ET and bustled with activity through mid-day as citizens arrived to cast ballots at the city's share of more than 23,000 official ballot sites throughout the country.

    [...]

    The 470 candidates on Sunday´s paper ballot are vying for 470 open seats. There are no opposition candidates.


    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cubans-head-polls-all-eyes-voter-turnout-2023-03-26/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    NEW THREAD
This discussion has been closed.