And another one....

rick_chasey

Why, does it make you hungry?

suzyb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, does it make you hungry?

It makes me think decent money for not a lot of work. Just my kind of job.

(I have inferred from what you said btw)

rick_chasey

suzyb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, does it make you hungry?

It makes me think decent money for not a lot of work. Just my kind of job.

(I have inferred from what you said btw)

(no, this is the kind of inane office banter we have).

DOES IT MAKE YOU HUNGRY?

suzyb

Rick Chasey wrote:

suzyb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why, does it make you hungry?

It makes me think decent money for not a lot of work. Just my kind of job.

(I have inferred from what you said btw)

(no, this is the kind of inane office banter we have).

DOES IT MAKE YOU HUNGRY?

Ah...

YES IT DOES!!

rick_chasey

You have a lot to learn..

Not sure how much I should say about my office. Let's just say, some lawyers have been involved reasonably regularly and money exchanges hands.

Waaaaay off topic.

rick_chasey

I might stop posting in this thread.

Totally de-railing it, probably writing stuff I shouldn't be, and when I do try and comment it's pretty poor anyway.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

It's a bit of both. Part of the issue is that financial advisers - who are often the ones who sell mortgages - are presented as professionals who are advising their clients on what is best for them, rather than just salesmen (this may not actually be the case in some instances, but this is how they are presented - "would like to talk to our mortgage advisor?"). There is also the issue that some of those selling the mortgages knew full well that some of the customers couldn't afford the loans, but thought that they had worked out a way to pass that problem on to someone else. That said, if someone says to you "don't worry, we don't need to see the last six months' bank statements, I'll work something out..." then you should smell a rat. When we bought our first flat, the first financial adviser we spoke to suggested that we could afford X - didn't show us a specific deal, but lots of reassuring noises, so off we went looking at properties for X. In the process of expressing an interest in a flat, we got talking to another financial adviser, who couldn't make our figures work. I think his words were something along the lines of "if he can actually get you a specific mortgage offer for that amount bite his hands off, because I can't get anywhere near." This was a reputable with reputable high street lenders, in 2002, so you can guess how mad it was by 2007.

Skipping over Rick Chasey's willy-waving, I agree, I tried to buy a flat in 2007, when I was riding high on a stupid salary for a 24-year-old, working for a hedge fund. Everything looked peachy, I was just about to get another insane bonus, and I was offered the moon on a stick by the mortgage companies. I had a look at the proposed figures, shopped around, and quickly divined that if I was out of work, or for some reason unable to remortgage after the 2 year introductory period was up, I'd be up the proverbial without a proverbial. I didn't buy the flat.

If I can work that out aged 24, even your average prole ought to. It's not hard, as I said I really, strongly believe it relates to a sense of huge entitlement in our current society, which is causing massive problems. Look at how the interest rates benefit the intelligent souls with savings... Oh yeah. Right.

walkingbootweather

W1 wrote:

If there were a competition for most incorrectly used word of 2011 then I think "fair" is a clear winner.

What do you mean by "fair"? Do you mean affordable? Reflective of contributions? Reflective of the cost and length of care?

What do I mean by fair? Well in accordance to promises made I guess. The affordability argument is a red herring. If you are going on a journey it sounds fair to me to agree the ticket price as you get on the bus, it doesn’t sound fair to me that you should get chucked off the bus before your destination, or charged more on arrival because the bus has needed to make a detour, or because fewer that anticipated number of passengers made the journey.

W1 wrote:

There are numerous reports of public sector workers receiving very far from a "modest" salary when compared to the public sector, so I think the idea that the public sector get paid less is a bit of a myth (in general).

I suspect that remuneration in the private sector responds much quicker to local economic factors, so in good times rewards can be greater, when times are harder then public sector salaries look better.

W1 wrote:

It is completely absurd to compare the public and private sector efficiencies.

Here I can agree with you. For one thing the private sector can choose just to offer services to those able to pay for them at a level where a profit will be made, whereas in general the public sector are obliged to offer services to all, and that brings with it huge costs so that those who are blind, or deaf, or for whom English is not their first language, or those that cannot make transactions electronically, are not disadvantaged. Huge costs savings would be possible if our society withdrew support from the needy, and of us with jobs would be much better off. Not a world I’d like to live in though.

walkingbootweather

SimonAH, - Let’s assume for a moment you are completely right on this.
• A significant proportion of public sector staff are “total dross”
• The nation cannot afford pensions and need to reduce costs

So how might we tackle this? Well the Government’s approach is to increase pension contributions, make public servants work longer and pay them less.

What might the effect if this be? Will the ‘dross’ be driven out? Of course not; young ambitious talented staff will be the first to leave, making things worse not better.

notsoblue

lost_in_thought wrote:

If I can work that out aged 24, even your average prole ought to. It's not hard, as I said I really, strongly believe it relates to a sense of huge entitlement in our current society, which is causing massive problems. Look at how the interest rates benefit the intelligent souls with savings... Oh yeah. Right.

I see what you're saying, but quite honestly, I think you give credit the general population with far too much financial nous. Just to veer off topic towards the issue of personal responsibility... Many people don't cope well when left to look after their own interests. Full (well, partial) disclosure, I work for a third sector company whose business it is to help pick up the pieces after people have made terrible life decisions. The statistics of what we work with are pretty shocking, there are estimates of ~1 million children in England living in families where one or both of the parents are alcoholics, and ~300,000 children affected by parental drug use. This is the extreme end of the "Personal Responsibility" spectrum, but it to me it illustrates just how many people are dependant on state intervention to help them and their family survive, let alone make an informed decision about mortgage interest rates or credit card APR. If you ask random people on the street to work out percentages, I think you'd be surprised at how badly they cope with the question. The fact is that if the government *didn't* regulate and intervene with things like food standards, trading standards and financial services, then it would be chaos. E-Coli outbreaks, ponzi schemes and loan sharks would be the norm. Its all very well saying that we should all take responsibility for our actions, but this is clearly never going to happen. It is incredibly irritating when people who can't afford to do so have lots of kids and buy huge TVs on credit, but to not protect them from exploitation by people who consider them an economic niche to exploit is to accept that millions of lives will be ruined.

walkingbootweather

meanredspider wrote:

we're all experiencing some of this pain.

Ah, but we’re not are we?

As it happens my wife is a senior Hospital Worker who incidentally is not striking because she cares for extremely poorly patients. Now she has had no wage rises in 2 years (and expects none for the foreseeable future). With inflation etc. this equates to a significant real-time wage cut. With proposed changes to pensions she will have to contribute more, work longer and receive less. At the same time staff numbers have been cut and at times the staff to patient ratio is dangerously low. When is it appropriate for someone like this to protest? What form should that protest take?

How do you suppose Wayne Rooney for instance is experiencing the pain of the economic downturn?

Neither will we all be experiencing an equal amount of inconvenience through the disruptions. It is unfortunately that you will be affected, but some people with probably not even notice the strikes. Should we judge this action on how it affects us individually, or on its own merits?

veronese68

Getting back to the idea this is about pensions. My gripe is that private pensions have lost a huge chunk of their value, tough titty get over it. For a whole host of reasons the pubic sector pensions promised are unsustainable but we can't be having that can we. Bugs me a little.
Now to derail even more than this thread watch this twunt completely miss the point, beware lots of swearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0SPio6RE-s&feature=share
His rant removes any sympathy I may have had. Among other reasons he's striking for the people in the Horn of Africa? What's that got to do with pensions?

walkingbootweather

Veronese68 wrote:

Getting back to the idea this is about pensions. My gripe is that private pensions have lost a huge chunk of their value, tough titty get over it. For a whole host of reasons the pubic sector pensions promised are unsustainable but we can't be having that can we. Bugs me a little.
Now to derail even more than this thread watch this twunt completely miss the point, beware lots of swearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0SPio6RE-s&feature=share
His rant removes any sympathy I may have had. Among other reasons he's striking for the people in the Horn of Africa? What's that got to do with pensions?

This is just a sad, attention-seeking individual who has posted 768 deliberately inflammatory, and often contradictory videos. He has nothing to add to the discussion. Don’t encourage him by watching.

neiltb

walkingbootweather wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Getting back to the idea this is about pensions. My gripe is that private pensions have lost a huge chunk of their value, tough titty get over it. For a whole host of reasons the pubic sector pensions promised are unsustainable but we can't be having that can we. Bugs me a little.
Now to derail even more than this thread watch this twunt completely miss the point, beware lots of swearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0SPio6RE-s&feature=share
His rant removes any sympathy I may have had. Among other reasons he's striking for the people in the Horn of Africa? What's that got to do with pensions?

This is just a sad, attention-seeking individual who has posted 768 deliberately inflammatory, and often contradictory videos. He has nothing to add to the discussion. Don’t encourage him by watching.

ctikey,

I hope he doesn't kiss his kids with that mouth :shock:

meanredspider

walkingbootweather wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

we're all experiencing some of this pain.

Ah, but we’re not are we?

As it happens my wife is a senior Hospital Worker who incidentally is not striking because she cares for extremely poorly patients. Now she has had no wage rises in 2 years (and expects none for the foreseeable future). With inflation etc. this equates to a significant real-time wage cut. With proposed changes to pensions she will have to contribute more, work longer and receive less. At the same time staff numbers have been cut and at times the staff to patient ratio is dangerously low. When is it appropriate for someone like this to protest? What form should that protest take?

How do you suppose Wayne Rooney for instance is experiencing the pain of the economic downturn?

Neither will we all be experiencing an equal amount of inconvenience through the disruptions. It is unfortunately that you will be affected, but some people with probably not even notice the strikes. Should we judge this action on how it affects us individually, or on its own merits?

C'mon though - don't please use Wayne Rooney as an example any more than I will use whatever death(s) might or might not be caused by Wednesday's action (though I'm sure gate receipts and shirt sales will be down for MU). The point is that many/most private sector workers will have had pension and pay impacts by the current crisis and many will have lost their jobs and/or gone out of business. In exactly the same way that the business I work for has had to lay people off and cut pension benefits because it's not taking in as much money as it was, so has the country had to make cuts because we can't afford them. Tell the parents of the kids who won't be at school on Tuesday that they won't notice or the myriad of other people that I'll be affected. My wife, remember, is a state school teacher - I do understand the stakes - I just don't see how striking is going to help matters - in fact, I just see it making matters worse.

mickbrown

Average prole.......?

I do hope that was typed with tongue firmly in cheek.

dhope

mickbrown wrote:

Average prole.......?

I do hope that was typed with tongue firmly in cheek.

I know LiT doesn't post much but you could probably find an example or two to realise it was.

MaxwellBygraves

Divide and rule, at it's very best.

SimonAH

walkingbootweather wrote:

SimonAH, - Let’s assume for a moment you are completely right on this.
• A significant proportion of public sector staff are “total dross”
• The nation cannot afford pensions and need to reduce costs

So how might we tackle this? Well the Government’s approach is to increase pension contributions, make public servants work longer and pay them less.

What might the effect if this be? Will the ‘dross’ be driven out? Of course not; young ambitious talented staff will be the first to leave, making things worse not better.

Believe it or not I am not a baby eating fascist, in fact I am firmly behind a state that protects it's vulnerable.

I don't have a solution to clean up the PubS featherbedding, but I stand by the "we can't afford the status quo" position. The ratios were calculated when life expectancy was dramatically lower. And worse, the last decade of a statistically large slice of the population is in a state of very expensive high dependency.

It's a viciously nasty place we find ourselves. Short of sending the elderly off into the blizzard we are going to have to collectively lower our standard of living to pay for our parents. That's just it. Genuinely an inconvenient truth.

Cake may be had or eaten. Both is a tall order.

mickbrown

dhope wrote:

mickbrown wrote:

Average prole.......?

I do hope that was typed with tongue firmly in cheek.

I know LiT doesn't post much but you could probably find an example or two to realise it was.

I could, but I'm a lazy public sector worker and the loafer in me realised it was much easy to ask the question.

flimflam_machine

SimonAH wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

SimonAH, - Let’s assume for a moment you are completely right on this.
• A significant proportion of public sector staff are “total dross”
• The nation cannot afford pensions and need to reduce costs

So how might we tackle this? Well the Government’s approach is to increase pension contributions, make public servants work longer and pay them less.

What might the effect if this be? Will the ‘dross’ be driven out? Of course not; young ambitious talented staff will be the first to leave, making things worse not better.

Believe it or not I am not a baby eating fascist, in fact I am firmly behind a state that protects it's vulnerable.

That doesn't really answer the (extremely good) question. PubS workers are striking not only because they will lose some of their pension, but also because they believe that their industries will be damaged by the proposed changes.

I don't have a solution to clean up the PubS featherbedding, but I stand by the "we can't afford the status quo" position. The ratios were calculated when life expectancy was dramatically lower. And worse, the last decade of a statistically large slice of the population is in a state of very expensive high dependency.

I don't think that anyone has a solution to the problem of affordability but many PubS workers can't see why taking a chunk out of their pensions is a sensible or ethical way to solve it (the notion of PubS featherbedding appears to be largely your own). The fear is that the financial crisis is being used as an excuse to cut PubS pensions to save money that could be saved elsewhere without damaging valuable services. Many government spokespeople started off wailing about the increasing cost of PubS pensions, until it was pointed out that the real cost of PubS pensions has fallen. As has been mentioned the economy goes up and down, if PubS pensions were unaffordable in the long term it seems strange that nobody has spotted this until now. In a few years time the economy will be back on track and the private sector will be happily saving for their retirement, while the public sector will remain on slashed pensions with all the problems of staffing and quality that this implies.

Additionally, as a PubS worker, I'd second the points already raised about this being a reversal of the tacit understanding that in the PubS you don't really have the chance to make a stellar salary, but that you are guaranteed a decent pension. My understanding is also that PubS pensions have generally been well managed, which makes it quite distasteful that people are suggesting that they should be dragged down to the same level as private sector pensions which suffered more because of their riskier investment profiles.

walkingbootweather

I must compliment fellow posters on (mostly) mature debate on all sides,

@MRS - I agree that strike action is unlikely to help anyone, but as I explained in my first post on page 2 that Government only made concessions once it was clear that the Unions were serious, by which time, because of legislation designed to make striking more difficult, unions have bizarrely little option but to go ahead with the strike.

I take back comparisons with millionaire footballer Wayne Rooney. A much better example would be Robbie Savage. I remember a recent 5 live phone-in when he spent the first half of the programme criticising the performance of certain referees and junior coaching before being invited by a caller to volunteer to put something back into the game by coaching kids or training to be a referee himself. I was willing to accept his mumbled excuses about wanting to spend more time with his family until his lucrative appearance on Strictly...

What's my point? There are some people who are willing to make a contribution, and others more focused on themselves. It is far too simplistic, not to mention plain wrong, to suggest these types can be divided down lines of private v public sector, however I do believe their are some public sector workers who could earn more in the private sector but genuinely want a job where they can try to make the world a better place. I hope that when I'm old and infirm that I'm cared for by someone with a genuine vocation, and that this person receives a living wage and pension.

dhope

mickbrown wrote:

public sector worker, can't read

SimonAH

Flimflam, some good points. Where do we find this cash however? Rummaging around behind the nations sofa cushions is not going to come up with it.

We could go neutral and wind down the war machine (which would be good) but would give us an unemployed army to add to the mix.

We could scrap the welfare state (or at least be draconian about abuses of it). Ah, but the culprits have a vote ergo hmmm.

We could.... I'm running short of ideas.

Hey, I know what, let's go after big, global, mobile business and tax the sh1t out of them to pay for it all. Ah, forgot the mobile aspect I guess.

Sometimes fair and ethical have to take understudy to practical. I don't like it any more than you do.

Rolls Royce are rapidly moving their MROH business overseas. The equipment is in the UK, the knowledge is in the UK and the established sites are in the UK. Why are they moving? Because the worker mindset is nationalised industry UK and they have no choice if competitiveness is a factor. Which it is.

W1

flimflam_machine wrote:

I don't think that anyone has a solution to the problem of affordability but many PubS workers can't see why taking a chunk out of their pensions is a sensible or ethical way to solve it (the notion of PubS featherbedding appears to be largely your own). The fear is that the financial crisis is being used as an excuse to cut PubS pensions to save money that could be saved elsewhere without damaging valuable services. Many government spokespeople started off wailing about the increasing cost of PubS pensions, until it was pointed out that the real cost of PubS pensions has fallen. As has been mentioned the economy goes up and down, if PubS pensions were unaffordable in the long term it seems strange that nobody has spotted this until now. In a few years time the economy will be back on track and the private sector will be happily saving for their retirement, while the public sector will remain on slashed pensions with all the problems of staffing and quality that this implies.

When would you seek to make necessary reforms to pensions if not during times of economic downturn?

This problem has been known about for ages - it's simply that labour (in their wisdom) were not prepared to deal with it whilst they were splurging money during the good times. It's not that no-one noticed - it's that no-one had the balls to deal with it.

Do you think the private sector isn't equally affected by increased longevity and cost of care? Of course it is. There is no reason - at all - why the private sector should be funding it's own pensions (that have decreased markedly and been raided by the previous government) whilst also being expected to maintain and pay for the significantly better public sector pensions, when the issues affect both equally. The simple fact remains, that unless public sector workers reverse the trend of living longer then they need to pay more for their retirement. I see that as wholly fair.

"Slashed pensions" is completely misleading - they will still be significantly better than what the private sector offers. If anyone's retirement is in real jeopardy it's the private sector - but I didn't see them striking when they didn't have their demands met - did you?

flimflam_machine wrote:

Additionally, as a PubS worker, I'd second the points already raised about this being a reversal of the tacit understanding that in the PubS you don't really have the chance to make a stellar salary, but that you are guaranteed a decent pension. My understanding is also that PubS pensions have generally been well managed, which makes it quite distasteful that people are suggesting that they should be dragged down to the same level as private sector pensions which suffered more because of their riskier investment profiles.

Again, there is plenty of evidence that public sector workers earn more than private sector workers - so let's stop pedalling this notion that working in the public sector is some kind of "public service" sacrifice. That may be true for some, but I seriously doubt it's true for the gravy-trainers.

Private sector pensions suffered more because of changes to the tax regime. Was that "fair" to those who'd be paying in?

mickbrown

dhope wrote:

mickbrown wrote:

public sector worker, can't read

You may have a point - after reading my last post it is apparent I can't spell.

walkingbootweather

W1 wrote:

Again, there is plenty of evidence that public sector workers earn more than private sector workers - so let's stop pedalling this notion that working in the public sector is some kind of "public service" sacrifice. That may be true for some, but I seriously doubt it's true for the gravy-trainers.

Sorry W1 I just don't buy this. The range of salaries in the private sector is undeniable greater with senior managers earning £millions per year, and there are companies where staff are exploited and paid less than the minimum wage. Few top public servants earn more than about £200,000, with an average salary nearer £20,000. The fact that those nearer the bottom earn a living wage, and the fact that the differential between top and bottom in the public sector is much lower than the private sector are in my view something to be applauded.

rick_chasey

walkingbootweather wrote:

W1 wrote:

Again, there is plenty of evidence that public sector workers earn more than private sector workers - so let's stop pedalling this notion that working in the public sector is some kind of "public service" sacrifice. That may be true for some, but I seriously doubt it's true for the gravy-trainers.

Sorry W1 I just don't buy this. The range of salaries in the private sector is undeniable greater with senior managers earning £millions per year, and there are companies where staff are exploited and paid less than the minimum wage. Few top public servants earn more than about £200,000, with an average salary nearer £20,000. The fact that those nearer the bottom earn a living wage, and the fact that the differential between top and bottom in the public sector is much lower than the private sector are in my view something to be applauded.

Think W1 has a point on this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14028848

The gap in average pay between workers in the public sector and those in the private sector has widened.

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.

I think plenty of people forget (me included) that there are an awful lot of minimum wage private sector jobs.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think plenty of people forget (me included) that there are an awful lot of minimum wage private sector jobs.

Also, from that article:

The ONS added that many lower skilled jobs had been outsourced to the private sector.

rick_chasey

Having said that,

Other benefits such as bonuses and pensions could alter the gap. The ONS added that many lower skilled jobs had been outsourced to the private sector.

Other factors that could account for commanding higher pay were the average age of public sector workers, and their qualifications.

and

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.

So, surprise surprise, it's not that straightforward.