L00b Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/econo/temidi/td13/td907_13/en_td907/en_tema_907.pdf here you go... Well, well, well... In this paper we evaluated the public-private wage differential in ten euro-area countries in the period 2004-2007. The results indicate that on average public sector employees earned more than private sector employees. The public-private wage gap, measured by the dierence in log wages of male employees, ranged between 6 and 16 per cent in Belgium, France, Austria and Germany; it was around 30 per cent in Italy, Ireland and Slovenia, and above 35 per cent in Greece, Portugal and Spain. Now then, a quick look at how these have been doing lately shows... ...the unsurprising outcome of Gvts profligate with their turkeys...voters...employees, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 That is not evidence that is an article from a right-leaning think tank published in a right-leaning newspaper aimed at trying to shape public opinion against public services to make the proposed cuts easier for the public to accept. That means Divide and Conquer to you. If we consider what the think tank is actually arguing for it's different pay for different regions, kind of a peg to private sector pay on a per region basis. I'm struggling to understand what they think would be gained by doing that. Perhaps a headline cut in government spending. But what is saved may have to be paid out elsewhere - Many Job centre staff are tax credits claimants for example. Cut their wages and the payout on tax credits increases. At a local level the impact could be devastating. On a macroeconomic level too. These differentials exist because no particular sector is uniformally spread across the country. There never will be a uniform spread so while London is top heavy with banking and finance other regions will have imbalances too, perhaps skewed towards public services or maybe manufacturing or maybe services or maybe oil/gas like in north east Scotland. Like you say the article is just an opinion shaper: public sector bad, private sector good. Ideologically driven claptrap that seems to work pretty well on quite a few people. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 10:33 ---------- Where is the left leaning think tank to counteract this study? I doubt there'll be one. It looks like evidence to me. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 09:44 ---------- I don't think posters here are denigrating people for working in the public sector - it is the sensible choice for people wanting better pay/pensions/hours/holidays in Sheffield. But it shouldn't be. Those of us in the private sector actually have to earn our money and pay taxes to support the public sector. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 09:56 ---------- http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/econo/temidi/td13/td907_13/en_td907/en_tema_907.pdf here you go... Very interesting. Thanks for posting. It probably shows that the 6% pay differential in the UK is not that unhealthy. Obviously it still needs to be managed as part of a wider drive to get value for money from public spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Well, well, well... Now then, a quick look at how these have been doing lately shows... ...the unsurprising outcome of Gvts profligate with their turkeys...voters...employees, sorry. Happy someone read it! It is a little turgid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Happy someone read it! It is a little turgid I confess: after speed-reading the intro and the data background, I skipped to the interim conclusions No doubt many (detractors) will object to the doc on the basis of the data timespan (2004-2007). As it corresponds to the last few golden years before the global crisis, on the contrary I'd hold it as particularly relevant to the issue. And I can certainly vouch, from living there and interacting with a fair few public bodies at the time, about the stratospheric wages and perks of Irish public sector employees at that time. They've taken a 25% (!) salary haircut since, across the board: that percentage tells you all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I'm struggling to understand what they think would be gained by doing that. Perhaps a headline cut in government spending. But what is saved may have to be paid out elsewhere - Many Job centre staff are tax credits claimants for example. Cut their wages and the payout on tax credits increases. At a local level the impact could be devastating. On a macroeconomic level too. The battle for public opinion and that's all that matters. Public opinion means votes. As for problems, they are easier to manage when broken down into stages i.e. Divide and Conquer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The battle for public opinion and that's all that matters. Public opinion means votes. As for problems, they are easier to manage when broken down into stages i.e. Divide and Conquer In a nutshell that's the problem with the 50% tax rate - populist and good for votes, bad for the economy and for the hard-working/clever/and occasionally lucky people who have earned it. ---------- Post added 29-01-2014 at 12:34 ---------- I confess: after speed-reading the intro and the data background, I skipped to the interim conclusions No doubt many (detractors) will object to the doc on the basis of the data timespan (2004-2007). As it corresponds to the last few golden years before the global crisis, on the contrary I'd hold it as particularly relevant to the issue. And I can certainly vouch, from living there and interacting with a fair few public bodies at the time, about the stratospheric wages and perks of Irish public sector employees at that time. They've taken a 25% (!) salary haircut since, across the board: that percentage tells you all you need to know. "like" button pressed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 In a nutshell that's the problem with the 50% tax rate - populist and good for votes, bad for the economy and for the hard-working/clever/and occasionally lucky people who have earned it. That's right, but there's an issued around the term, "Earned it." Is that basically saying nobody else puts in a hard day's graft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 That's right, but there's an issued around the term, "Earned it." Is that basically saying nobody else puts in a hard day's graft? Absolutely not! I am not saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 That's right, but there's an issued around the term, "Earned it." Is that basically saying nobody else puts in a hard day's graft? Where did he say that, you seem to like twisting everyone's words into this opinion. Do you believe it but want someone else to say it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 That's right, but there's an issued around the term, "Earned it." Is that basically saying nobody else puts in a hard day's graft? Now who's practicing divide and conquor tactics..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.