Let's talk about the true cost of ageing

[ivanava]

Load of rubbish, try to remember the public sector includes the NHS, police, armed forces, fire services, various specialist workers including tax and accountancy, so on and so on. I've heard of and seen many move from the public sector to the private sector for more money and better treatment but I don't particularly recall anybody ever moving the other way, especially if they're some kind of specialist.

 

I have fist hand experience and this article appears to agree with me.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8501369/Workers-in-the-public-sector-are-more-than-40pc-better-off.html

Workers in the public sector are more than 40pc better off

Public sector workers receive more than 40 per cent extra in pay and pensions than their counterparts in private companies as state wages spiral, a report has found.

 

The six million state employees have increased their advantage over workers in the private sector since the start of the recession.

 

In every region of Britain, except Yorkshire, the gap in pay between public and private employees widened between 2008 and 2010, with the largest gulf in Wales and the North West, according to the study from Policy Exchange, a think–tank.

 

When calculated on an hourly basis, the typical state employee earns up to 35 per cent more than his counterpart in the private sector, the report finds. But when the more generous pensions for state employees are taken into account, the advantage rises to 43 per cent.

 

Only at the very top of the scale, where the highest earners include bankers, footballers and television stars, do private sector salaries outstrip those in the state professions.

[tzijlstra]

Nope. Public sector workers are often paid less than their private sector counterparts, especially since much of what the public sector does is pretty specialist requiring specialist personnel. The pay is effectively topped up with pension contributions which public sector workers also contribute to out of their pay packet. Just having less public sector workers doesn't remove the need for the work they do. It just means that work has to be done by the private sector, who typically cost more if you genuinely purchase the same service. Private sector staff don't jump to it because you whined to your MP, they say 'we can do anything you want if you pay us for it'. Where it doesn't cost more you see situations like the problems we have in care homes. Also the more services go private the less say you will have through your elected representatives.

 

If you don't want public services then go ahead and push for it, but be careful what you wish for. Many that have called for the abolition of the public sector have found themselves going back to the state eventually because they fell on hard times.

 

Outside of the conviction whether a big state is good or bad, the problem is that the state will have less, and less, and less money available to fund public services, we need to make some radical decisions about where to take things as a society and public services are and will remain under scrutiny whilst the state is trying to come to terms with rising debt-levels and increasing welfare costs.

 

Where the state grows in welfare (like you point out in a follow up post, NHS and so on) it will have to shrink in other areas, but where?

[Fogey]

I have fist hand experience and this article appears to agree with me.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8501369/Workers-in-the-public-sector-are-more-than-40pc-better-off.html

Workers in the public sector are more than 40pc better off

Public sector workers receive more than 40 per cent extra in pay and pensions than their counterparts in private companies as state wages spiral, a report has found.

 

The six million state employees have increased their advantage over workers in the private sector since the start of the recession.

 

In every region of Britain, except Yorkshire, the gap in pay between public and private employees widened between 2008 and 2010, with the largest gulf in Wales and the North West, according to the study from Policy Exchange, a think–tank.

 

When calculated on an hourly basis, the typical state employee earns up to 35 per cent more than his counterpart in the private sector, the report finds. But when the more generous pensions for state employees are taken into account, the advantage rises to 43 per cent.

 

Only at the very top of the scale, where the highest earners include bankers, footballers and television stars, do private sector salaries outstrip those in the state professions.

 

Ah yes, the problem with think tanks is they are usually paid to put across an argument that suits one parties views as I found when the I studied the labour parties proposals on reforming Town Halls to improve the view of local democracy. When this governments own independent investigation into public sector pay and value for money reported back I believe it reported that the state got excellent value for money from the public sector and that workers should see pay rises and bonuses for good work. Funny how they buried that and decided not to implement the recommendations. Almost all public sector workers have seen pay freezes for much of this parliament and while the government may not have cut pay directly the cuts handed down through the budgets has seen many other public sector bodies implement pay cuts and reduced terms and conditions themselves.

 

I also have first hand experience working both public and private sector.

[ivanava]

Ah yes, the problem with think tanks is they are usually paid to put across an argument that suits one parties views as I found when the I studied the labour parties proposals on reforming Town Halls to improve the view of local democracy. When this governments own independent investigation into public sector pay and value for money reported back I believe it reported that the state got excellent value for money from the public sector and that workers should see pay rises and bonuses for good work. Funny how they buried that and decided not to implement the recommendations. Almost all public sector workers have seen pay freezes for much of this parliament and while the government may not have cut pay directly the cuts handed down through the budgets has seen many other public sector bodies implement pay cuts and reduced terms and conditions themselves.

 

I also have first hand experience working both public and private sector.

 

In this case they agree with my experience of working in the public sector and the experience of everyone I know that works in the public sector. Prior to the crash there were too many, doing too little, for too much, some of that as been corrected but they haven't gone far enough yet.

[Gormenghast]

That is a good question that is hard to answer, I know I wouldn't oppose immigration as it is currently the only way to boost the working population of the country.

 

I wouldn't oppose immigration, but it's not the only way - encouraging people to work (however you decide to do that) and ensuring that the increasing older population get equal opportunities in the job market are other ways. The number of age discrimination in employment cases is increasing

 

On top of that there will have to be a growing awareness that pensions are no longer a given right from a certain age. I think we should (and probably will) move to a situation where a pension equals a disability compensation, where disability is re-defined as: not fit to work.

 

Wouldn't that mean reducing NI contributions to compensate for no pension, thus reducing the amount of money the government has to spend?

 

I also think the state needs to take private pension reform far more serious than it is doing and make saving up for your own pension a lot more attractive. The current system, frankly, is pathetic. If private pensions become more feasible than people can plan their own retirement without having to rely on a state pension that is increasingly unaffordable.

 

That would mean tax incentives or matched contributions, another drain on the governments finances.

 

Final point, I am afraid, is that the budget and method of working with the elderly for the NHS has to be radically reviewed, we might well have to accept a form of insurance to ensure we can afford the care.

 

As above, wouldn't it need a reduction in NI to compensate for the cost of the insurance?

 

In the medium term though, we need to take drastic steps to ensure we achieve fiscal sustainability despite this bubble we are experiencing

 

I agree totally, but no party will ever do it as it's a vote loser.....

[tzijlstra]

Original replies in black, Gormenghast's in blue and my further replies in skyblue.

 

 

That is a good question that is hard to answer, I know I wouldn't oppose immigration as it is currently the only way to boost the working population of the country.

 

I wouldn't oppose immigration, but it's not the only way - encouraging people to work (however you decide to do that) and ensuring that the increasing older population get equal opportunities in the job market are other ways. The number of age discrimination in employment cases is increasing

 

Equal opportunities for those of certain ages has to be a top-priority, it is changing (no longer can someone be forced to retire against their will, at least not in Universities, not sure whether that is national law?), but it is changing too slowly, we need to start finding it normal that the elderly work, Britain is already light-years ahead compared to the continent by the way, which is a bonus.

 

On top of that there will have to be a growing awareness that pensions are no longer a given right from a certain age. I think we should (and probably will) move to a situation where a pension equals a disability compensation, where disability is re-defined as: not fit to work.

 

Wouldn't that mean reducing NI contributions to compensate for no pension, thus reducing the amount of money the government has to spend?

 

The abolition of state-pension is indeed going to cost money in the transition period, you are right that people might expect a reduction in NI. But for me the 'solution' component would be that people don't expect a state-pension as a given any more and hopefully will be encouraged to carry on working, or, preferable, to save up for their own pensions. Very much political blue-sky thinking, but if planned to be introduced in the future I believe it is achievable and could see a real reduction in cost.

 

I also think the state needs to take private pension reform far more serious than it is doing and make saving up for your own pension a lot more attractive. The current system, frankly, is pathetic. If private pensions become more feasible than people can plan their own retirement without having to rely on a state pension that is increasingly unaffordable.

 

That would mean tax incentives or matched contributions, another drain on the governments finances.

 

Re. Private pensions, I disagree that this has to cost the state, it will however take the state to take this issue by the horns and sort it out properly. There is enormous waste in the current private pension system (thus profit for banks). Recently an expert on the radio discussed how the British system differed from other countries and how it ranked lower on performance than almost all of them. I will see if I can find a source for that claim.

 

Final point, I am afraid, is that the budget and method of working with the elderly for the NHS has to be radically reviewed, we might well have to accept a form of insurance to ensure we can afford the care.

 

As above, wouldn't it need a reduction in NI to compensate for the cost of the insurance?

 

Re. the insurance, you raise the NI point again, which is valid and indicates that it is perhaps time to change the idea of NI. Of course it is also possible to raise the NI to cover for the increased costs, another political headache, but something will have to be done.

 

In the medium term though, we need to take drastic steps to ensure we achieve fiscal sustainability despite this bubble we are experiencing

 

I agree totally, but no party will ever do it as it's a vote loser.....

 

Yes, parties will run away from this, and are doing. Like many other thorny issues they aren't even prepared to put it into the public spotlight, which is one of the reasons I wanted to start this post.

[Tipex]

More people are finding work but with the advent of zero hours contracts and employed tradesmen being made to go self employed, especially in the building sector, the future for employees is looking less rosy than it has done for years.

In the quest to destroy the unions since the eighties the pendulum seems to have swung totally to the right and employers now have the whip hand.

 

We seem to have returned to the "I'm alright Jack" era and unless some middle ground is found i fear that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer much quicker than ever before.

 

Zero hour contracts are good for some like myself. I still got the work, plus studied and got qualifications for something else I was more interested in. Now I have money from both available. If I would've had my old 50hrs a week contract I wouldn't have had the opportunity.

[tzijlstra]

Zero hour contracts are good for some like myself. I still got the work, plus studied and got qualifications for something else I was more interested in. Now I have money from both available. If I would've had my old 50hrs a week contract I wouldn't have had the opportunity.

 

As you have been starting lots of new posts today, could you start one on zero-hour contracts as well? There are a lot of misgivings about them, this thread shouldn't derail on that line, cheers

[Tipex]

As you have been starting lots of new posts today, could you start one on zero-hour contracts as well? There are a lot of misgivings about them, this thread shouldn't derail on that line, cheers

 

I'm not going to start anymore. I'm becoming a forum addict. I shall stay clear

[Gormenghast]

Equal opportunities for those of certain ages has to be a top-priority, it is changing (no longer can someone be forced to retire against their will, at least not in Universities, not sure whether that is national law?), but it is changing too slowly, we need to start finding it normal that the elderly work, Britain is already light-years ahead compared to the continent by the way, which is a bonus.

 

Yes, it is national law after introduction of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, and Equality Act 2010.

 

I agree with most of what you say, but can't see that any party has, or ever will have, the political will to do anything about it. They would become unelectable (if they aren't already )