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.
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?
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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.
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 )
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?
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments
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
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.
"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 )
https://nation.cymru/news/drakeford-speech-marred-by-silent-protest-over-womens-safety/
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.
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
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
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/