STRIKE - Scab bastards

[Myshkin]

If you think the private sector is so good, and pays more, then you must be retarded not to work in it.

So by extension, if mugging grannies pays better than what you're doing then you must be 'retarded' (do people still bandy that word about?) for not dispensing with your moral map and changing your career path accordingly?

When they go around creating bills, someone else has to work in a job with zero job satisfaction until the grave to pay for it.

So the public sector exists solely to 'create bills' while there's 'zero job satisfaction' across the board in the private sector?

I think your ideology is distorting your perception of reality just a little.

 

[benson7]

Yea I agree with much of Smokes Blunts post, plus it's also worth adding that in like for like roles public sectors workers now receive higher wages than their private sector counterparts.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

So by extension, if mugging grannies pays better than what you're doing then you must be 'retarded' (do people still bandy that word about?) for not changing your career path accordingly?



So the public sector exists solely to 'create bills' while there's 'zero job satisfaction' across the board in the private sector?

I think your ideology is distorting your perception of reality just a little.

Your analogy of robbing grannies is false, unless of course taking up your equivalent job in the private sector is tantamount to doing something most would agree is morally wrong of course... Personally, I think private sector workers must be a little dense to not be climbing over each other to get into the public sector. I've worked in both and the public sector was brilliant. I don't believe it is impossible to get job satisfaction in the private sector, but I would imagine that the majority of private sector workers work out of necessity, compared to the majority of public sector workers who still work out of neccessity but get to go home feeling good because they saved a life or taught a child.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Yea I agree with much of Smokes Blunts post, plus it's also worth adding that in like for like roles public sectors workers now receive higher wages than their private sector counterparts.

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

 

[parttime crackhead]

MSB - I work in the public sector out of necessity & I don't go home feeling good because I saved a life or taught a child. I go home with a feeling of absolute hatred for people in general.


Cosmiccars - Aye, sorry man, that post was a bit harsh. Just felt like you were saying the public sector was pointless other than nurses etc.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

MSB - I work in the public sector out of necessity & I don't go home feeling good because I saved a life or taught a child. I go home with a feeling of absolute hatred for people in general.


Cosmiccars - Aye, sorry man, that post was a bit harsh. Just felt like you were saying the public sector was pointless other than nurses etc.

O don't get me wrong, I know that a lot of public sector workers won't be going home with greater job satisfaction, I just believe the majority probably get a lot more from their work than private sector workers.

 

[Myshkin]

Your analogy of robbing grannies is false

No, it's the logical conclusion of your argument that public sector workers are 'retarded' for staying in their jobs when the private sector pays better. Many people in the public sector actually (get this) believe in what they're doing and thus tolerate their often-meagre salaries.

I would imagine that the majority of private sector workers work out of necessity, compared to the majority of public sector workers who still work out of neccessity but get to go home feeling good because they saved a life or taught a child.

Erm... I think nearly everybody works out of necessity, save for volunteers and the like. As for the second part, that's just bizarre. If you envy the public sector worker's sense of job satisfaction through altruism then why not either get a job in the public sector or volunteer at your local soup kitchen? It's as simple as that. I would've thought that somebody so hasty to label others as 'retarded' or 'dense' would've reached that conclusion fairly rapidly.

 

[Jabberwocky]

MSB- thanks for stepping forward and putting in a reasoned opposition and highlighting some of the practical complexities of the issue. i still do not agree that one person not having something shouldn't be a reason for someone else to not have something, but you are right that every public sector job is paid for effectively by the private sector, and it is unfair that people in the private sector suffer for the good of those in the public sector. however, as someone else pointed out, this creates a race to the bottom, and that would benefit no one. to me, you're putting forward a brilliant argument to pressure private sector employers to make better pension provisions. though yes, i know this will deter multinationals from employing people in this country, and it would seem to unfairly penalise smaller businesses, so how in practise you'd do that, i do not know.

Even the basic state pension is a pyramid scheme, whereby we need an ever growing population to support our ever burgeoning 65+ population.

i'm less worried about the ageing population, cos isn't life expectancy forecast to go down our generation cos we're all eating/smoking/drinking ourselves to death? i might avoid the whole issue by creating some sort of self destruct mechanism to go off when i hit 60 if i make it til there.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

No, it's the logical conclusion of your argument that public sector workers are 'retarded' for staying in their jobs. Many people in the public sector actually (get this) believe in what they're doing and thus tolerate their often-meagre salaries.



Erm... I think nearly everybody works out of necessity, save for volunteers and the like. As for the second part, that's just bizarre. If you envy the public sector worker's sense of job satisfaction through altruism then why not either get a job in the public sector or volunteer at your local soup kitchen? It's as simple as that...

I accidently went and ruined your argument by posting this thing called 'evidence' above. Dunno if you've ever based an opinion you hold on it, you should give it a try some time . It is not the logical conclusion because you are taking it to a stupid extreme which doesn't fit the situation - we are talking about choosing between two equally moral jobs, neither of which actually harm people. I already said the majority of people work out of necessity in both cases, so I don't know what you are going on about. I don't get much satisfaction from acting altruistically, my satisfaction comes from the fact that I work over half of my week to pay taxs for others who wish to.

 

[Myshkin]

I accidently went and ruined your argument by posting this thing called 'evidence' above.

Evidence of what exactly? You never stated what.

Post as much 'evidence' as you like; your post still reads like an ideologically-driven, disjointed Tory rant. Which is no surprise.

Though I suppose you're too busy getting off on paying taxes and financing the public sector. Fine. Each to their own. I prefer altruism to jacking off over my P60 but then again I've always been an oddball...

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

MSB- thanks for stepping forward and putting in a reasoned opposition and highlighting some of the practical complexities of the issue. i still do not agree that one person not having something shouldn't be a reason for someone else to not have something, but you are right that every public sector job is paid for effectively by the private sector, and it is unfair that people in the private sector suffer for the good of those in the public sector. however, as someone else pointed out, this creates a race to the bottom, and that would benefit no one. to me, you're putting forward a brilliant argument to pressure private sector employers to make better pension provisions. though yes, i know this will deter multinationals from employing people in this country, and it would seem to unfairly penalise smaller businesses, so how in practise you'd do that, i do not know.



i'm less worried about the ageing population, cos isn't life expectancy forecast to go down our generation cos we're all eating/smoking/drinking ourselves to death? i might avoid the whole issue by creating some sort of self destruct mechanism to go off when i hit 60 if i make it til there.

Thank you for not taking my arguments personally, I am for the most part just trying to play devils advocate because I enjoy challenging entrenched views. I come from a family of public sector workers and union lovers who would have an aneurysm if I so much as suggested that i'd vote conservative. I do not believe in a race to the bottom by any stretch of the imagination, and that the private sector should drag the public sector down. What we are essentially talking about here is raising contributions for pensions by 3.2% - they are still getting an absolutely amazing deal. On average to get this pension public sector workers will be contributing around 10% of their pay - for the equivalent a private sector worker would have to contribute over a third of their pay before tax.

The problem of private sector workers not getting a pension is nothing to do with multinationals. Multinationals do for the most part provide the best private sector contribution pension schemes. It's small businesses (last time I checked around 80-90% of people in private sector employment work for these companies) that simply cannot afford to contribute into the pension pots of their employees to that extent - it would after all mean raising their workers salaries by 30-50%, which would totally wipe out all their profit.

 

[Myshkin]

Thank you for not taking my arguments personally

Who's taking it personally? Not me. I'm just questioning the arguments in your initial post and the holes therein. It's you with the emotive tone ('I fucking hate unions' being an example).

Oh - I work in the private sector FYI.

 

[Jabberwocky]

What we are essentially talking about here is raising contributions for pensions by 3.2% - they are still getting an absolutely amazing deal. On average to get this pension public sector workers will be contributing around 10% of their pay - for the equivalent a private sector worker would have to contribute over a third of their pay before tax.

The problem of private sector workers not getting a pension is nothing to do with multinationals. Multinationals do for the most part provide the best private sector contribution pension schemes. It's small businesses (last time I checked around 80-90% of people in private sector employment work for these companies) that simply cannot afford to contribute into the pension pots of their employees to that extent - it would after all mean raising their workers salaries by 30-50%, which would totally wipe out all their profit.

Yes, when you put it like that, they are getting a v good deal.

i mentioned multinationals as the governments reason to not do a lot of things seems to be related to needing their business (well actually i'm mainly thinking of the robin hood tax), which we do need.

so yeah, the difficulty is with small businesses. i know MDs who have stopped drawing a salary to keep their employees employed, they're already at the limit and any more would result in no employees and hence no pensions.

i worked doing pensions illustrations for a summer and at 22 calculated i'd need to pay £500 a month til 65 for a 20k pension. totally fucked.

 

[Myshkin]

It's small businesses (last time I checked around 80-90% of people in private sector employment work for these companies)

If we're talking SMEs then it's actually 58.8% at the last estimate, a tiny minority of which is accounted for by the 'four employees or less' category you mentioned earlier. Maybe time to check again.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/statistics/docs/b/business-population-estimates-2011_statistical-release.pdf

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Evidence of what exactly? You never stated what.

Post as much 'evidence' as you like; your post still reads like an ideologically-driven, disjointed Tory rant. Which is no surprise.

Though I suppose you're too busy getting off on paying taxes and financing the public sector. Fine. Each to their own. I prefer altruism to jacking off over my P60 but then again I've always been an oddball...

I provided evidence which thoroughly disproved your notion that public sector workers are mini Mother Teresa's running around doing jobs for everyone at the expense of themselves, because they are afterall paid on average 7%+ more than public sector workers. My posts are equally, if not less, ideologically driven than yours. They just so happen to not be in line with yours, so as usual you are behaving like your usual butt hurt self. Notice how once again you have reduced yourself to being a whiney little bitch who feels the need to paint naysayers as evil, instead of engaging in a grown up debate. You could do with taking a leaf out of chinups book; We fundamentally disagree on a whole plethora of issues but there is nothing personal about it, we just disagree.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Yes, when you put it like that, they are getting a v good deal.

i mentioned multinationals as the governments reason to not do a lot of things seems to be related to needing their business (well actually i'm mainly thinking of the robin hood tax), which we do need.

so yeah, the difficulty is with small businesses. i know MDs who have stopped drawing a salary to keep their employees employed, they're already at the limit and any more would result in no employees and hence no pensions.

i worked doing pensions illustrations for a summer and at 22 calculated i'd need to pay £500 a month til 65 for a 20k pension. totally fucked.

I have little to no faith in private pension plans. I do not understand giving my money to some yuppy bastard to manage, and eventually lose, when I could just as easily take out a mortgage on a second property and plough it into that (for instance).

 

[Myshkin]

I provided evidence which thoroughly disproved your notion that public sector workers are mini Mother Teresa's running around doing jobs for everyone at the expense of themselves,

When did I say that? I only brought up altruism as you seemed so fixated on public sector workers and their 'extra job satisfaction'.

I don't care if we disagree, I disagree on many points with my friends and work colleagues and we get along fine. If there's a point you make that I wish to question, our ideological differences don't come into it. Nor do petty personal insults such as 'whiney bitch'. Ever considered you may just need to grow up yourself?

Anyway, you've ignored the figures I've just posted a link to. I'll ask again: just where did your '80-90%' come from?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

If we're talking SMEs then it's actually 58.8% at the last estimate, a tiny minority of which is accounted for by the 'four employees or less' category you mentioned earlier. Maybe time to check again.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/statistics/docs/b/business-population-estimates-2011_statistical-release.pdf

I am not sure where I read it, but I will go along with your stats. I am pretty sure that the majority of problems in this recession were created because of the rapid rate of closure of SME businesses due to their business drying up, or a lack of funding, and that 2008 levels were in fact much higher. Either way, an SME (a business with less than 50 employees) can in no way afford to give its workers amazing pensions. It's a fantasy. Presumably you accept that your notion that public sector workers are whipping boys for everyone else is a total myth?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

When did I say that? I only brought up altruism as you seemed so fixated on public sector workers and their 'extra job satisfaction'.

I don't care if we disagree, I disagree on many points with my friends and work colleagues and we get along fine. If there's a point you make that I wish to question, our ideological differences don't come into it. Nor do petty personal insults such as 'whiney bitch'. Ever considered you may just need to grow up yourself?

Anyway, you've ignored the figures I've just posted a link to. I'll ask again: just where did your '80-90%' come from?

It's snidey little things like insinuating that I get off on paying the over heads of the public sector, when all I was saying is that I am content with keeping the lights on because somebody has to. I didn't start by insulting anyone, but every time I voice an opinion that is contary to yours you start behaving like i've broken into your house and pissed on your kids at Christmas or something. Combine this with the fact that I have to try and use newspeak if I want to say anything within virtual earshot of you, and you can see why it might get a little bit annoying.

 

[Myshkin]

Presumably you accept that your notion that public sector workers are whipping boys for everyone else is a total myth?

That's not 'my' notion though! It's your own strawcraft based on your perception of my politics. Just because I question part of your post doesn't give you the licence to put words in my mouth.

It's snidey little things like insinuating that I get off on paying the over heads of the public sector

Did you not say 'my satisfaction comes from paying taxes' or words to that effect? Hang on:

I don't get much satisfaction from acting altruistically, my satisfaction comes from the fact that I work over half of my week to pay taxs for others who wish to.

I can only go off what you say.