That's a rather cherry picked graph there Tyler. The ONS data goes back to 1990 and shows the private sector started off lagging behind the public sector during the early 90s recession, the private sector moving into the lead in the boom years and now the public sector catching up again in another recession.
The reasons for this is that public sector pay deals tend to track the inflation rate rather than profits and that the public sector make more use of multi year pay deals which lag the actual recession. Hence the private sector pay in 1993 and 1994 is very depressed when the private sector is back out of recession and paying normal pay rises.
The average pay figure of private vs public does not hold up to scrutiny as both Labour and Conservative governments have carried on a policy of outsourcing the support staff in health and local government who tend to be the lowest paid. If you move a big chunk of the lowest quartile of public sector pay into the private sector then that will bring down the private average and push up the public average without any actual change in pay.
I don't understand it - when I advertise for IT staff why do none of these underpaid public sector workers ever apply?
And I do mean ever. I cannot recall a single application from a public sector worker in the last few years.
I think the graph explains quite a lot. Notice only less than 1% of public sector workers are in sales or customer service. No wonder that I get such a lousy experience when I am a customer of public services.
DM Andy,
I'm afraid that your argument really doesn't hold water. For example, the vast majority of GPs are counted as being in the private sector although they are, in fact, paid entirely from the public purse. Just transferring their pay across to the public sector moves the public sector pay up noticeably and private sector pay down. Similarly, much outsourced public sector work in recent years has been outsourced because it requires significant investment and/or a critical mass of skills which are not cost effective to maintain within individual public sector bodies.
Quite simply, it works both ways.
As to Pol's point about higher skills in the public sector, this really depends on whether you think that a 'degree' in social work or nursing is equivalent to the 'hard skills' degrees like maths, physics and engineering. Personally, I say not.
Not really HJ because GPs have always been in the private sector so cannot be an element in the "growth" of public sector pay compared to private sector pay.
I note that my friends in the private sector are worried about their pension prospects deteriorating, and those in the public sector just want to retire and be drawing their gold plated pensions. This is of course not an observation by statistically valid sampling methods (I also note that those in the public sector drink their pints faster than the rest of us).
whether you think that a 'degree' in social work or nursing is equivalent to the 'hard skills' degrees
I trained as a "fast-track" nurse - i.e. I already had a degree. Mine was in boring old Anthropology (Oxon), but many of my contemporaries had first/upper second class degrees in chemistry, biochem., biology (plus the odd physicist), etc. Many of 'em now work in Critical Care - and believe me - they call upon some pretty 'hard skills', every day. That's not to say that our training was especially tough (or even very good), but I'd warrant that a BSc helps just a little bit with the blood gases.
But suit yourself. You always do. 
Question:
How do teachers, doctors and nurses
"create" wealth?
If "wealth creation" is to be the yardstick, then lets sack all said teachers, doctors and nurses.
Then where would be be?
+++++
Sadly, as so often with their cynical red top headline grabbing approach, the TPA knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
John
wishy washy liberal
I used to know a wishy washy liberal myself once - rather a good chap.
Anyway, "the price of everything and the value of nothing". Yes, indeed.
Actually, I'm not too sure where Pol got her quote about "We cannot pay these enormous bills for people who are not creating wealth."
She says it was "in the comments", but I couldn't find it.
As you probably know, that's not the kind of broad generalisation the TPA normally goes in for.
DM Andy-
"That's a rather cherry picked graph there Tyler. The ONS data goes back to 1990 and shows the private sector started off lagging behind the public sector during the early 90s recession, the private sector moving into the lead in the boom years and now the public sector catching up again in another recession."
Actually, I took 1999-2009 because the Head of the Audit Commission himself talked about a decade.
But point taken - I'll dig out the full dataset and do another post on that.
Errm, as for teachers, nurses and Doctors being merely a cost and not producing anything - the argument is moot. Their value is intrinsic in the health and education of the next generation. There's no liberal or left wing approach here. To support people requires money, for those individuals money should be given freely. Where it should be removed is from half the money for your child's education being wasted on an idiot council worker telling the school what to spend it on.
Give schools their own money. Just pay them from central government. Let them decide what to spend the £4000 per pupil on instead of being told to spend the £2500 that remains after the dolts waste it on paperwork.
That's where money is saved. Getting rid of the waste. Not just in employment but in every organisation that provides nothing and costs everything.
A simple solution would be to shred the civil service. I remember when the local council here went on strike. It was easier than ever to get into work.
Sadly the conservatives will not make the necessary changes. They do not have the political will to reverse hundreds of labour laws, benefit payments (please tell me why a smoking, pregnant teenage girl should get a free home?) and implement some sensible tax laws to give families with children their own money back AT SOURCE in the form of tax relief. That way if you have children you pay less tax. If you're a single parent then you pay even less, almost to none at all.
Tax is theft made legal. Nothing else. At the moment the criminals are running the prison.
Teachers, Doctors, Nurses all create wealth in so much as they provide a service which the person receiving has paid for (through taxes).
The problem is that:
1. there is no market to determine the price those services should cost and so pay is based on estimates.
2. Benefits such as gold plated pensions, holidays and job security are excluded from the calculation.
3. A significant proportion of those using the service couldnt afford the service if it was paid at the point of use. This means demand is more than it would be so justifying more jobs and higher salaries.
Economically the Govt seriously distorts the economy and consumes capital which would otherwise be invested by individuals resulting in higher standards of living.
Take your choice, consume now or invest for later. The bitch is watching others consume what you have earned and you have no choice about it.
Nick,
Even better LEND parents the money for their own childrens education.
Polly's comment of how the public sector is more "professional" than the private sector is unadulterated champaign socialist snobbery.
Like, the private sector employs more manual labourers. Poly is a snob. Poly is an upper class bitch.
BTW I am an electronic engineer (as in someone who designs electronic systems, not that I am an electronic robot).
I have met the likes of Polly; she looks down her nose at the likes of me. That's why I left the UK - effing snobs putting on the airs of socialist revolutionaries..
Polly Toynbee is another over-promoted champagne socialist, who has achieved her position by knowing the "right" people. Imagine a working class kid getting into Oxford with one GCE A-level. Polly did, with all the right connections, and no ability.
She is an intellectual Barbie doll- "math is hard"- studied history, no mention if she completed the degree.
So it is no surprise that she considers facts difficult or impossible to understand, like most (I would argue all)
"educated" socialists she falls back on her feelings, which is the easy way. Lets be kind to everybody with other peoples money, and not have any regard for those beastly statistics. Listen to Brown and Balls and its the same crap - "when we get the economy right, we can afford......" fill in the blank.
Well they have not got the economy right for many years, so they cannot afford their spending plans, but they "feel" it is the right thing to keep pouring money into schemes that have not produced a return in a decade.
And Polly and her cohort meet over lunch in Islington (paid from expenses) they all agree that they feel it is the right thing to do in times of shortage to continue rich schemes to pay the feckless and lazy. I'm talking about the Kinnock's!
In case I left any doubt, I hate socialists, but particularly the class of socialists that Polly represents.
DM Andy,
You miss the point. We are talking about relative levels of public sector pay vs private sector pay, not how rates of growth of each compare.
The surprising thing is that if you look at the official ONS statistics, then public sector pay has only grown very slightly faster in the public sector than in the private sector (although their figures are slightly out of date and don't reflect the recent downturn in private sector pay) since 1997. Both mean and median public sector pay was already higher than in the private sector when NuLabour came to power.
lost-nurse,
Unfortunately, your story is anecdotal and not representative. The vast majority of nurses, for example don't have science degrees (or, indeed any degree).
I took a 'quick' 'O' level in Human Biology in the sixth form at school. Out of 9 candidates, I got an 'A' (no A*s in those days) and none of the others got higher than a C. Every one of the others then left school to go to nurse training.
The simple fact is that, in proportion to the workforce, there is a far higher proportion of workers with 'hard' degrees in the private sector.
The other issue is that the public sector is much more likely to define its workers as being 'professionals'. I have worked with (but not for) both sectors and it's immediately obvious that public sector workers are far more likely to have fancy (though often meaningless) job titles.
Polly's assertion that the public sector is more 'professional' than the private ignores the tendency the public sector has to cherish paper qualifications for jobs that in the private sector get done by unqualified people.
I was modded out of the Graun comments for pointing out that Pol herself, thanks to her inability to hack a university degree course, is 'unskilled labour' in the private sector.
HJ, it takes balls to dismiss another person's comment as "anecdotal and not representative" and then followup with an anecdote to support your position.
By the way, can you give a citation to your "simple fact" that there is a far higher proportion of workers with 'hard' degrees in the private sector? Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it would be nice to see the data.
DM Andy,
You miss the point entirely. I was pointing out that lost-nurse's anecdote could be directly contradicted by my own anecdotal experience. I was not claiming that mine was more valid, just that it contradicted his.
In this case, the figures are definitely in my favour anyway - fewer than 10% of nurses have degrees. Just look at the level of qualifications required to start nursing training - just 5 A-C GCSEs.
As for 'hard' degrees, then we would need to define 'hard' in order to derive official figures. However, you can hardly doubt that the private sector employs a far higher proportion of engineers, scientists, etc.. You only have to look at public sector vs private sector recruitment to see the stark difference.
For example, my local council is currently advertising for a social work "senior practitioner" which, despite the title, is the second lowest level of social worker. Qualification required: Diploma in SW, plus "some experience'. Salary £36,681. I work with technology companies helping them develop their businesses and am currently helping them recruit engineering staff. We have no shortage of candidates for positions which require 5-10 years experience and an MEng/MSC or PhD for £35-40k
HJ, I'm not trying to claim equivalence between a Nursing Diploma and Physics at Imperial... but I'm very interested in your supposition that no "higher skills" are called upon by my profession. Fair enough, it might not be the case for (prelim.) nurse training as a whole - but there's enough hard science employed by, say, ITU nurses to keep even you happy. And whilst I have (ongoing) issues with nurse education in the UK, I note the steady intake of science graduates on PostGrad. Dip. courses - are you suggesting that their prior experience/knowledge suddenly becomes null and void, simply because they pick up a bedpan?
lost_nurse,
What supposition that no "higher skills" are called on by your profession would that be? I don't recall any such supposition.
I don't lack respect for ITU nurses but please don't call it "hard science". Very highly skilled technician (and nothing wrong with that) but it's not advanced calculus or quantum mechanics, is it?
"but it's not advanced calculus or quantum mechanics, is it?"
Is the Engineering sector composed entirely of people pushing the boundaries of theoretical physics?
Fair enough - although I think there's several slightly different discussions going on here, all at once...
lost-nurse,
You don't have to be pushing the boundaries of theoretical physics to use advanced calculus and quantum mechanics. These are basic tools of the job in the semiconductor industry, for example.
The point is that most engineers and scientists are trying to create new designs or developments using these and other tools. It's not the same as being a technician (however skilled) carrying out a predetermined task repeatedly.
carrying out a predetermined task repeatedly
Stabilising a deteriorating patient can be a pretty complex affair, characterised by all kinds of subtle detail. Still, I suppose the TV makes it look easy. That and machines which go "ping".
lost-nurse,
The point is this. Could the average ITU nurse ever design complex equipment or can they just use it? The people who design it could be trained to use it, but the reverse is not generally true.
The machines that go 'ping' are designed by scientists and engineers.
The machines that go 'ping' are designed by scientists and engineers.
With hefty input from the shopfloor, mind. I'm not disputing the technical genius of those who design fancy monitoring toys and all the rest... but, equally, those who use 'em are not simply task-based autobots. As is often growled by old hands, the most complex and valuable piece of kit in critical care is a pair of Mark 1 eyeballs.
I understand what you're saying, although this ("people who design it could be trained to use it, but the reverse is not generally true") might come as a surprise to some of my colleagues. Given their previous jobs, that is...
Commenting by HaloScan
