Bleeding Public Sector Workers!!!

[doodab]

So if they are taking a hit due to the UK deficit problem, so can public sector workers whose cost (thanks to Gordon) is a significant factor in that problem.

Indeed, but it's hypocritical in the extreme coming from the institute of massive payrises and gold plated pensions. Not to mention it's these people who are responsible for the fact that private sector wages are kept low and pensions are tulipe. Perhaps they should consider making some sacrifices themselves before telling everybody else what is and isn't "reasonable".

[Support Monkey]

A full stop isn't generally considered optional, you know.

HTH.

(oh and I UK because a lot and sterling)

its the public sector cuts, they won't buy any full stops,,,,, and if they did it would have to go out to tender first or the job would have to be outsourced

[Arturo Bassick]

In years gone by everybody knew that public sector jobs were tulip and repetitive and dull, but the came with terrific perks like short hours and gold plated pensions with early retirement options.

The unions in the public sector have spent years pushing for equality with the private sector. They have been so successful that now a huge amount of public sector jobs pay better than equivalent private sector jobs.
At the same time those same unions have kept very quiet about the perks.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it.

The private sector simply can not afford the public sector anymore thanks to the Golden Clown.

[doodab]

if we lose banking what have we got to fall back on nothing

Well, we have about 30 million people of working age, and supposedly lots of "top talent" so we ought to be able to think of something to fill the gap. It might actually be beneficial to have some of that "top talent" doing something else. And lets face it, those public sector workers who are no longer needed aren't going to move into financial services are they, so we're going to have to think of something for them to do anyway.

Give to those that produce or deserve and take it from those that don't

I think you'll find that UKUNCUT are advocating the same thing. "Deserve" is rather subjective like that.

[EternalOptimist]

Banking is both central and crucial to civilisation, and should be our No1 priority. Having said that, I do like to go for bronzeworking early on, for the axe units, and then for the wheel

[Support Monkey]

Well, we have about 30 million people of working age, and supposedly lots of "top talent" so we ought to be able to think of something to fill the gap. It might actually be beneficial to have some of that "top talent" doing something else. And lets face it, those public sector workers who are no longer needed aren't going to move into financial services are they, so we're going to have to think of something for them to do anyway.



I think you'll find that UKUNCUT are advocating the same thing. "Deserve" is rather subjective like that.

Go for it, what do you think we can do without banking ummmmm!!!! ummmm!!!!! leave that one with you

[doodab]

Go for it, what do you think we can do without banking ummmmm!!!! ummmm!!!!! leave that one with you

This is exactly the sort of scaremongering that's obscuring many of the often sensible arguments the banking community have in their favour. It seems a lot of the less thoughtful city drones have absorbed this line of argument without subjecting it to any criticism whatsover. We're never going to "lose banking" in that sense, even if the whole industry were to move overseas (which isn't going to happen) banking services would still be available to the wider economy, and a reduction in the size of the banking sector relative to the rest of the economy would have a lot of benefits like not being overly reliant on a single sector, a wider variety of interesting and well paid careers for a better educated population, and less overcrowding on the bank branch of the northern line.

It seems to me that if there were that much "top talent" working in the financial services sector then, being "top talent" it would by definition be able to turn it's hand to something else. Unless of course it turns out that this "talent" consists primarily of vapid hair gelled wide boys who's only talent is persuading stupid people to get into vast amounts of debt and old ladies to hand over their life savings for useless investments. Now, I know that it isn't the case because many of my friends work in banks and most of them are bald, so I think the UK is well placed to turn away from banking as the backbone of it's economy, and it's probably no bad thing if it does.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes but as i have pointed out before, the uk is a nation of bankers, its the Uk's biggest industry taking in the biggest amount of cash so although they have dropped us in the tulip we still need to pay for top talent cos if we don't some other country will, and if we lose banking what have we got to fall back on nothing, on the other hand the public sector is a large bloated organisation full of dead wood that should have been cleared out along time ago and whilst alot of them do a stirling job many of them are taking the P***

Give to those that produce or deserve and take it from those that don't

I am not complaining about people who are rewarded for doing a good job, or who are attracted into a job by good remuneration; I agree that good salaries and bonusses are a part of how you hire talented people.

I do object however, to failure bonusses, and to the hubris of those who consider themselves so vastly superior that they threaten to move the HQ of a business they do not own, not for the good of that business, but for their own ego or bank account.

[Support Monkey]

This is exactly the sort of scaremongering that's obscuring many of the often sensible arguments the banking community have in their favour. It seems a lot of the less thoughtful city drones have absorbed this line of argument without subjecting it to any criticism whatsover. We're never going to "lose banking" in that sense, even if the whole industry were to move overseas (which isn't going to happen) banking services would still be available to the wider economy, and a reduction in the size of the banking sector relative to the rest of the economy would have a lot of benefits like not being overly reliant on a single sector, a wider variety of interesting and well paid careers for a better educated population, and less overcrowding on the bank branch of the northern line.

It seems to me that if there were that much "top talent" working in the financial services sector then, being "top talent" it would by definition be able to turn it's hand to something else. Unless of course it turns out that this "talent" consists primarily of vapid hair gelled wide boys who's only talent is persuading stupid people to get into vast amounts of debt and old ladies to hand over their life savings for useless investments. Now, I know that it isn't the case because many of my friends work in banks and most of them are bald, so I think the UK is well placed to turn away from banking as the backbone of it's economy, and it's probably no bad thing if it does.

yes so what are we going to do? i am with you on the argument for not relying on one large industry but the reality is we are and will be reliant on banking for the forseeable future and there is no other industry in a position to replace this anytime soon, and of course we are never going to lose banking but the fact of the matter is it unless we create another industry that compares we cannot let it deteriorate, thats the reason they bailed them out in the first place

Back to the origional question the public sector was a bloated monster well before banking and whilst we may have bailed a few banks out the public sector costs considerably more to support and produces far less.

And any deteioration in the private sector means less people employed to pay the taxes to keep the public sectors gold plated pensions afloat

[shaunbhoy]

this is a forum FOR contractors.

Well spotted. Thankfully, most of them have some sort of grip of world realities outwith the Contractor community. Unlike you obviously.

Not to mention, the number of households with children and 2 working parents is, well let's keep it simple for you, a big number.

IIRC, you don't actually HAVE any children. So your take on this is about as valid as your beliefs in your imaginary deities. Best take a step back from your ill-informed speculation, before you make yourself look even more stupid than you customarily do with such predictable regularity.