What should be done about Public Sector pay?

Is it a race to the bottom? To bring the private sector down to the level of the public sector - or vice versa depending on your point of view? Surely nobody really believes pay should go down to make things more equal?

Primroses

I assume your What! is a response to our responses to this:

Those working in the public sector probably do deserve a pay cut then. It's looking like those 'low wage' LA jobs are actually representative salaries and teachers/nurses are raking it in.

"Since 2008, just one in every forty jobs created is full-time. By 2014, this was the equivalent loss of nearly 700,000 full-time jobs.

In 2013, there were more working families living in poverty in the UK than non-working families for the first time since the birth of the welfare state. In fact, in that year (2013) alone there were 500,000 more families added to this over-stretched group.

According to an article in The Independent quoting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, out of 26,400,000 UK households there were “6.7 million families with adults in employment who meet the worrying criteria of living in poverty compared with a combined 6.3 million of retired and unemployed families living in poverty.” "

Appalling statistics. Why are some people so complacent about poverty?

What? Read the thread before jumping to conclusions!

I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Primrose meant, but we'll have to wait for her to come back to explain.

All those teachers and nurses raking it in -really? All those midwives working 13 hour shifts, all those firefighters running into burning buildings ? I can't believe I'm reading this. There is such inequality in this country. No one has mentioned professionals in the private sector- corporate lawyers, bankers, finance directors. Paid shedloads+ company cars+bonuses +index linked pensions. Sorry, the people driving round in Porsches in my neck of the woods aren't teachers or nurses.

What, the first and steerage discussion?
I must say that I only ever got a steerage passage when I had to go to meetings

There's something very Victorian about this discussion..

I think the theory behind travelling first class (on the railways anyway) newnanny was that someone could do quite a lot of work which is not always possible if travelling 2nd class and possibly not even getting a seat.
Whether it is cost-effective or not I don't know.
These days it could be cheaper to fly if a large distance is involved.

Those working in the public sector probably do deserve a pay cut then. It's looking like those 'low wage' LA jobs are actually representative salaries and teachers/nurses are raking it in.

You can't be serious, Primrose.

Are you really suggesting that £12,872 is 'raking it in'? And that pay levels should be decided on a race to the bottom?

campaign.goingtowork.org.uk/petitions/theresa-may-get-out-of-the-way-and-let-public-servants-have-a-pay-rise

gg you can check the proportions of public sector workers yourself on the IFS report - it is small.
The base number was from full-time work - that's how the ONS report it.
Here's the original article
truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/truth-poverty-britain-much-worse-think/
Here's the link to the infographic they took the number from
www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/Income%20Inequality%20UK.pdf

If there's any truth in those figures and a more 'common income' for full-time work is £12,872 (and I cannot sort of believe that) it supports my view that public sector workers are overpaid.

That's how I got to that point.

That's what makes me think those numbers are wrong.

To include the top one or ten per cent in any group of averages when dealing with pay obviously skews the average, as does excluding them.
It depends on what you want to demonstrate. What matters is that you tell people what you are doing and why.
All collectors of statistics will show different amounts, as they do not start from the same base. What matters is that you know what you are comparing.

I agree with that gillybob. My DH is civil servant accountant and he grumbles that admin are paid well above what private sector pay lowest paid admin in his office about £20k for a bit of filing, photocopying, shredding and answering phone etc. but skilled staff e.g. accountants and engineers are paid below private sector. All staff do get contributions towards pensions though which is supposed to make up for lower salary. They used to get fantastic redundancy package but that is all gone, now it is miserly. They used to travel 1st class but now all but very highest grades must travel 2nd class; So cutbacks have definitely been made in public sector. Personally I don't see why it hurts them to travel 2nd class most other people do. It just shows how much money used to be wasted and some cutbacks were badly needed.

3 different types of averages, mean, median and mode.
For the mean, you add them all up, then divide by the number of numbers.
For the median, you put them in order, then take the middle one in the order.
For the mode, you look at which numbers are the same and the mode is the number which appears most often in the group.

They are all called averages.
Hope you can understand that.

I can't see the logic of this meaning that therefore PS workers deserve a pay cut. How do you get to that point? I imagine quite a large proportion of PS workers are in this group. I notice he does not say as you do, that this is full-time; it is the weekly income and I think the reason it has gone to this level for so many is that they cannot get full-time work.

So 23% of people pay no tax because their income is below £11,500.
But a representative 'common income' for full-time workers is £12,872.

Those working in the public sector probably do deserve a pay cut then. It's looking like those 'low wage' LA jobs are actually representative salaries and teachers/nurses are raking it in.

It is! I didn't think you were being snarky(?) I was getting very confused.

However, what the person seemed to be trying to do was find a mid-point in the incomes of the bottom 90% of workers. It didn't seem, in this instance to make a significant difference - £97 wasn't it - although I can see that it might in some circumstances. I felt that as long as he/she was comparing like with like it was interesting.

If my memory serves me right median does (basically) mean mid-point when you put your figures (for incomes) in order.

If there is any truth in these figures and a more 'common income' is half the one we are being currently told (and I can sort of believe that) it would put our views of how people are managing in a very different light.

I wonder who would know?

I mean, the average person isn't on a median salary right?

Neither is the 'average' salary the median salary...

Sorry, GG, I wasn't trying to be snarky about your post, just the term 'median average' which is actually meaningless..

If I'm recalling the terms correctly median just means the midpoint of a range, but isn't at all related to the number of people above or below that mid point (perhaps Primrose will put me right...)

gg if you trace the article back to the source - it's all there in the links - you'll see where the median is used as the average etc. I think that's why they call it the 'average median'?

I mean, the average person isn't on a median salary right?

I'm not sure you are agreeing with me, Primrose

It was the meaningless term I was querying, really.

In my limited experience of statistics 'median' is usually a greater amount than 'mean'

The statistic I find alarming is that 23% of people in work (that is almost a quarter) are not earning sufficient to pay income tax. It was discussed on here a few months ago and, as I recall, the Gnet consensus was that it would not be enough to live on.

They used the median in both Mazie I understand why this would be the preferred calculation and they used it. I understand the calculation and don't need a lesson in research methods. I also don't see the problem you both appear to have with even looking at these figures.

More to the point, I thought it would be interesting to know if the top 10% of incomes is giving a figure that had little relationship to peoples lived experience. I was hoping someone could add to this and knew of other research done in this area. If you don't you don't. No reason why you should.

I hadn't put it on to defend the figures but to see if more could be found to clarify just what the average person is actually likely to be living on. I thought it might give some idea why the politicians don't seem to grasp what is happening.

In secondary schools they may be left to supervise classes overseen by the head of year.

It was more than just 'supervision' in the sec I worked in. HLTAs were expected to have some teaching hours; doing their own planning and preparation. I deliberately chose not to go into teaching with my late degree because being a TA was absolutely different from being a teacher. I only managed to avoid whole class teaching as an HLTA because I was running a whole school intervention.

gg I have to agree with Maizie here.
The median is used in the first place to avoid skewing the data, so they've just skewed it to the low end by stripping out 10%.
It's just playing with numbers and it's not representative of anything, other than a lack of understanding of basic maths.