Half of new jobs are created by the state

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Blogg, Jan 31, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Now this really is depressing although many suspected as much.

    Effectively the great Labour spending spree resulted in a position where

    57% of new jobs created during the period 1997-2007 were state or “para-state” — dependent on government spending .

    In the West Midlands these jobs accounted for all of the rise in employment, with no new private sector jobs generated overall.

    In the northeast, 79% of new jobs were state-dependent, compared with 41% in London and the southeast.

    Britain’s business model before the financial crisis in 2007 was “undisclosed and unsustainable"


    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article7009695.ece
     
  2. Explains why we mere mortals not in the public sector are a bit skint these days doesn't it?
     

  3. The South doesn't vote Labour, the North does…

    Simples!
     
  4. After the election when the "efficiency savings" come into force unemployment will rise.
    The private sector has been squeezed and the pips are squeaking.
    The "state" is too big and most of these "new" jobs are non-jobs.
    Chickens and roosting spring to mind.

    Cyclops' ego is writting cheques his body can't cash, the proverbial cupboard is empty, we've screwed the pooch.

    Basically we're fukced.
     
  5. I'm struggling with seeing a down side to job's being created, even though they are public sector?
    Someone is going to have to explain this to me. If someone has a job they aren't a burden to the welfare system pay taxes and become consumers therefore prop up the rest of the economy.
    Granted manufacturing jobs are the holy grail of wealth creators, however since the 70's they are becoming harder to find. But still someone who has a job is better than someone who hasn't.
     
  6. I'll spell it out for you then.
    All public sector workers are paid for by the non public sector taxpayers.
    Increasing the public sector by the million or so Labour has simply increases the cost burden on the non public sector taxpayer. The entire public sector is paid for out of the tax take.
    In short, the private sector cannot afford to foot the bill. That make sense to you?
    The public sector aren't creating welath, they are simply absorbing it from the rest of us.
    Some parts of the public sector are essential (like the Police, Armed Forces etc) but a lot of it is an exensive luxury we can no longer pay for.
     
  7. Oh FFS Llech.

    In simple terms - a made up job for a public sector worker still costs the taxpayer money. It doesn't matter that it is not in welfare payments - it still comes from the same pot. Said public sector worker only pays back about 25% in tax so it is hardly self-funding. It is probably not cheaper for them to be on benefits because of the way the system is skewed in favour of the welfare class.

    The overall number of people in jobs is falling meaning fewer and fewer people are paying for public sector paybill and the ever-growing welfare bill. The only option left for government is to increase borrowing or tax the earners even more. Eventually the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down because the income generation under-pinning it collapses.

    Edited to add - apologies but pretty much what jagman said
     
  8. Public sector jobs are still paid from the public purse, but that's ok if the job is worthwhile. The problem is both "non-jobs" and the total public sector pensions liability, the latter haunting us for many years. But I agree that it's generally better for the nation's well-being to have people in work rather than on welfare. The affordability issue will remain.
     
  9. Not really, the money all comes from the same source, they either get the cash via the benefit system or a public sector job. This is just moving money around, it's not wealth creation. Every penny involved was tax.

    To claim they aren't a burden on the welfare system is disingenuous, they are a burden on the public purse whether employed or on benefits.

    It's true to some extent that junior public employees cost no more than it would to have them on the dole, but frankly anyone who has outreach or diversity in their job title should be worried.
     
  10. The problem is this, and its true of any nation; Public sector jobs are paid for out of taxation on the private sector, the same as any person on the dole, so the more people in the public sector means a government must either place more burden on the private sector to pay for this, or borrow, which costs money in interest payments.
    Either way, the government, by increasing its presence in the economy, must reduce its medium and long term income stream because the people it employs are not creating wealth and paying taxes .
    Everything must be paid for, and the money must come from somewhere.
     
  11. Like i said before it's not as good as manufacturing jobs but what would you prefer, do you remember the 80's. Paying someone to work/pay mortgage/raise a family is better than stamping your feet and moaning that he/she is an unemployed waster.
     
  12. The problem is both are a drain on the private sector.
    Doleite gets the benefits etc but pays no tax.
    "Non-job public sector" works and pays 30% tax inc.NI, therefore gets 100% but only returns 30% = 70% down on revenues, the pot has to run dry at some point, it just runs dryer more slowly.

    Either way the pooch is screwed.

    C_G
     
  13. Bottom line is that as long as you have a good cost/benefit calculation of the job, there isn't a downside, even if you take someone like a 'five a day coordinators'. If he/she can prevent in the in the long-run 3 heart-bypass operations a year, they've already paid for themselves as a heart bypass will cost about £10k on the NHS on average.

    The problem is that there is a rather nodding-dog attitude to state employment as it is payed for out of tax and so must have nothing to do with wealth creation. This of course neatly forgets that taxation is in many ways just another form of consumer spending. If all council services were privatised and I paid a corporation, I'd still be paying, and whatever wealth had been 'created' would be little different to that which 'wasn't created' before because it was paid for via the state. The NHS depends on me as a private sector worker to pay and so allow them to keep going, the pub down the road depends on me as a private sector worker to pay and so allow them to keep going. It's the consumer spending economy.
     
  14. Nonsense, weath creation is exactly that, creation. You are talking about moving money around the economy, important but it's not creation.
     
  15. No - that is the whole point the NHS does not depend on you as a private sector employee paying. The number of people in private and public sector employment has been falling. In the private sector there has also been reductions in pay and moves to part or reduced time working. At the same time spending on the NHS keeps growing. The pub down the road on the other hand is probably struggling to stay in business if it hasn't closed down allready.