Originally Posted by
jon1959
Yes I read your post and it took me back to many wasted hours arguing the toss with you years back.
You have an entrenched 'ideological' view of public and private sector jobs that is often unrelated to reality.
Basically you seem to think that: private sector = good = productive = tax generating; whilst public sector = bad = unproductive = tax consuming.
Years back I asked you how this applied to a Council plumber or a hospital cleaner who one day are tax paying, public sector, productive workers (one funded by local tenant rents and the other by general taxation) and the next day are TUPE transferred to a private sector contractor. They are still productive, tax paying workers doing essential jobs. They are both funded by tenant rents or general taxation (via a contract fee to the private sector company). The only difference is that (generally) their pay and conditions will be worse - if not immediately then after a few years - and any surplus in revenues will go to private sector shareholders and not into improved service.
So the answer is no - we don't need to replace public sector jobs with private sector jobs. It would be better if insecure private sector jobs were transferred (back) into the public sector.
I did it for 23 years, and i can honestly say that prices didn't really ever increase hugely, because the people paying you are on an income based on inflation and crappy pay rises. The notion of 'supply and demand' is bullshit when you're a worker, you can earn more money when it's busy, because you end up working more hours. It's that simple. I'm a plasterer, the price of putting up a ceiling and skimming it didn't double when the economy boomed. The only way i would have earned more money is if i ripped off other trades people and paid them shit money.
Reply With Quote