[MagicNMedicine]

...according to the latest research from the ONS:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/p...ml#tab-Summary

However whilst that difference of 7.7% - 8.7% will probably be the headline used by a few tabloids to try and say that public sector gets a great deal compared to private sector, the paper gives it important context and explain the pay differences

- the public sector has a higher proportion of high skilled jobs
- the public sector has a higher proportion of older employees (people tend to earn more as they are older)
- the public sector has a higher proportion of graduates (40% compared to 25%)

[Quady]

And better pensions.

Man private sector workers must be really stupid not to have got higher paying jobs in the public sector. Bet they are really annoyed with themselves for not applying themselves as hard in school...

[gladders]

Pah, as a public servant myself I can tell you I earn less than my opposite numbers in the private sector. The higher echelons may pay more as a salary than in private, but bonuses are pretty measly here compared to what private sector gets. And us lower-down types get rubbish pay and no bonuses. Our pensions are one of the few incentives that make the public sector worthwhile.

[dreadnaut]

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
...according to the latest research from the ONS:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/p...ml#tab-Summary

However whilst that difference of 7.7% - 8.7% will probably be the headline used by a few tabloids to try and say that public sector gets a great deal compared to private sector, the paper gives it important context and explain the pay differences

- the public sector has a higher proportion of high skilled jobs
- the public sector has a higher proportion of older employees (people tend to earn more as they are older)
- the public sector has a higher proportion of graduates (40% compared to 25%)

I read their release and seemed to have less and less certainty in their methods the more I read.

They make these statements about the quality/skill requirement of the public sector, and they should surely control for this in their regressions, but the way its phrased is as if they didn't. If they did, is there any point describing such differences, when the variation should be soaked up by RHS controls? Its knit picking I know but I thought it was a bit odd when I saw it this morning.

One thing that comes to mind: what about people in the public sector who have no counterpart in the private sector?

If public sector jobs are doing what they should be - providing where the market can't or won't - then there isn't a comparator to measure against anyway.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by dreadnaut)
I read their release and seemed to have less and less certainty in their methods the more I read.

They make these statements about the quality/skill requirement of the public sector, and they should surely control for this in their regressions, but the way its phrased is as if they didn't. If they did, is there any point describing such differences, when the variation should be soaked up by RHS controls? Its knit picking I know but I thought it was a bit odd when I saw it this morning.

One thing that comes to mind: what about people in the public sector who have no counterpart in the private sector?

If public sector jobs are doing what they should be - providing where the market can't or won't - then there isn't a comparator to measure against anyway.

Rep time for you, from a fellow economist.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by dreadnaut)
I read their release and seemed to have less and less certainty in their methods the more I read.

They make these statements about the quality/skill requirement of the public sector, and they should surely control for this in their regressions, but the way its phrased is as if they didn't. If they did, is there any point describing such differences, when the variation should be soaked up by RHS controls? Its knit picking I know but I thought it was a bit odd when I saw it this morning.

One thing that comes to mind: what about people in the public sector who have no counterpart in the private sector?

If public sector jobs are doing what they should be - providing where the market can't or won't - then there isn't a comparator to measure against anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgEe...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXzGI0XP7M
It is simultaneously worrying and brilliant that Yes Minister remains relevant.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgEe...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXzGI0XP7M
It is simultaneously worrying and brilliant that Yes Minister remains relevant.

Yes minister has a well known bias for public choice theory,and against the public sector and corporatism. It was a mouthpiece for Thatchers campaign, I don't think that good at all since it is public money and the neutrality should be the upmost importance.

Even though I agree with pretty much everything the program commentates on, or satirises.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Yes minister has a well known bias for public choice theory,and against the public sector and corporatism. It was a mouthpiece for Thatchers campaign, I don't think that good at all since it is public money and the neutrality should be the upmost importance.

Even though I agree with pretty much everything the program commentates on, or satirises.

Actually, the BBC waited until after the election to air the pilot. So it wasn't really a mouthpiece for Thather's campaign.

[MagicNMedicine]

(Original post by dreadnaut)
They make these statements about the quality/skill requirement of the public sector, and they should surely control for this in their regressions, but the way its phrased is as if they didn't. If they did, is there any point describing such differences, when the variation should be soaked up by RHS controls? Its knit picking I know but I thought it was a bit odd when I saw it this morning.

I think its because of the nature of what they are supposed to produce as a government statistics department, rather than being an academic research centre. If an academic produced a paper to answer the specific question "does the public sector pay higher than the private sector" then he/she would control for those factors. As a government statistics department though they are more responsible for just producing raw data, and providing a bit of commentary for context, I see ONS stuff as a primary source producing data for which academics can then do further research.

I think there's a couple of people on TSR that work at the ONS so they could answer for definite, but as far as I understand it, controlling for all those factors might be beyond the remit of what an ONS paper is supposed to do.

[chefdave]

And public sector workers are 0% as productive. In fact their 'contributions' to the economy act as a drag so it's worse than 0%, overall they must be in minus figures.

I have to get me a job on the public sector gravy train, choo choo!

[Arekkusu]

Yes but when the economy starts going back up private will pay more than public.

It's still the case that private sector jobs are seen as more demanding and less of a doss than public, so anyone with half a brain will still go for private to begin with, as you can always take a step down but rarely a step up.

[gladders]

None of you people have any idea about how much work the public sector does, do you?

I can assure you we're very badly overworked!

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by chefdave)
And public sector workers are 0% as productive. In fact their 'contributions' to the economy act as a drag so it's worse than 0%, overall they must be in minus figures.

I have to get me a job on the public sector gravy train, choo choo!

Indeed. Who needs roads, transport, street lights, police, fire brigade, or an educated and healthy workforce?

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Indeed. Who needs roads, transport, street lights, police, fire brigade, or an educated and healthy workforce?

We're not saying we don't need those things, the main issue is the overbloating of the public sector. Obviously the emergency services and education are essential, but otherwise it seems excessive. The Civil Service today numbers over 500,000. Back in the times of the Empire, the entire subcontinent was administered by just 1,000. So with primitive communications and media, the Indian Civil Service managed to cater for six times as many people with five hundred times fewer manpower. Obviously the two countries aren't directly comparable, but there's no denying that the public sector just keeps getting bigger and bigger, with growth far out stripping that of the overall population. After WW2, 1 in 66 people in this country were in the public sector. Today it's just 1 in 10. It's getting out of control.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Indeed. Who needs roads, transport, street lights, police, fire brigade, or an educated and healthy workforce?

Heard this before, CBA writing because I will go all wax lyrical and can't condense my ideas into those most exemplified by say .... Bastiat

"“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on"

[gladders]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Heard this before, CBA writing because I will go all wax lyrical and can't condense my ideas into those most exemplified by say .... Bastiat

"“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on"

I think that's a dreadfully bad misunderstanding and misrepresentation of socialism.

If you object to something being done by the government, socialists wouldn't conclude you object to it being done at all. On the contrary, they'd conclude you want it done privately, and by extension, potentially only for a select few.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by gladders)
None of you people have any idea about how much work the public sector does, do you?

I can assure you we're very badly overworked!

Are you a union hack?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Yes minister has a well known bias for public choice theory,and against the public sector and corporatism. It was a mouthpiece for Thatchers campaign, I don't think that good at all since it is public money and the neutrality should be the upmost importance.

Even though I agree with pretty much everything the program commentates on, or satirises.

Yes Minister changed my life.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by gladders)
I think that's a dreadfully bad misunderstanding and misrepresentation of socialism.

If you object to something being done by the government, socialists wouldn't conclude you object to it being done at all. On the contrary, they'd conclude you want it done privately, and by extension, potentially only for a select few.

I think bastiat worded the first part badly, he should have said "socialists say" not "socialism is".

And yes, some of the smarter (still wrong) socialists would say that, but most, the socialist juniors, generally explode at you if you say something like "I think the central state has too much power and control over [insert anything]" and then they would say something like "OK then, well I guess you could do without those roads, health, education then". Which is pretty much what Kibalchich said.

What bastiat is saying is that because we oppose state education, the socialist juniors then say we oppose all education and that we can do without the governemnt, and then they real off a list of things the government does which benefit society, of varying degrees.

Yeah?

[TopHat]

In fairness, that's exactly what some of the more Rand-inspired, Galt-wannabe libertarians say themselves. I think we are forced to conclude stupidity and the failure to understand the subtleties of certain arguments are flaws belonging to both sides of the political spectrum.