Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
A very good article from City AM, well reasoned and explaining far better than I have done, why cutting the public sector is good for jobs growth and economic growth.....
http://www.cityam.com/article/why-cutting-public-sector-jobs-doesn-t-cause-unemployment-skyrocketGuest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
More tripe.
" Last week the Office for National Statistics showed that private sector employment grew by 708,000 between March 2012 and March 2013, more than doubly offsetting the 308,000 fall in public sector employment."
708,000 what? 'Jobs'? or might these things be measured in Hours? [Oops, that's me having my little joke.]
"A new IMF Working Paper by Alberto Behar and Junghwan Mok tests the left wing idea directly."
Only it does not, otherwise...
the article authors words, "Symmetrically, cutting the number of public sector employees would, for most countries, increase private sector employment. " would have been quoted from AB & JM.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
it all comes down to what constitutes a job, the article doesn't state how many are part time and also how many previously full time are now part time.
we could have everyone on 15 hours a week and claim full employment.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#4
We could start by cutting MPs numbers and the lords
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#5
An East Kent Council would help East Kent.......................
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
#6
Ah but Howard, if they only work less than 16 hours a week they will be able to claim benefits!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
I did produce some ONS figures a while back that demonstrated that the hours being worked are increasing and that there are a lot more full time jobs as well. Yes, part time work is also increasing but if you want those to be turned into full time work then much more needs to be done on supply-side reform and reducing the burden on businesses.
All the changes needed are changes that statists like Tom and Reg would hate.
Common sense and experience also shows why this is important and why the public sector need some serious trimming in its functions including its staffing levels..
Essentially all state spending that is inefficient or not contributing towards a healthy economy is parasitical depending entirely upon the private sector without contributing much back.
A healthy economy needs, for instance, communication infrastructure, good education, a decent health system and a framework of law and security with the means to enforce the law to be efficient.
To be a civilised society we do also need to look after the elderly, the ill and disabled while offering a safety net to those temporarily fallen on hard times. All this though contributes little or nothing to the economic health of the country and is entirely dependent upon the success of businesses generating profits and employment that ultimately pays for it.
The more resources sucked up by the state that is spent inefficiently or in areas that do not add to our economic needs represents a burden that reduces our ability to compete in the world and create a more prosperous society.
Right now our government spends far too much money, taxes us far too much and interferes, adding to our costs with far too much red tape. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are employed by the state whose jobs do not enhance our economic success and represents no more than a parasitical burden. Reduce that burden and you will generate more economic activity, economic growth and more jobs.
Simple really.
The problem is that there are far too many politicians convinced they know better than all of us how we should behave and spend our money.
KeithB - there is some truth in what you say but far better to cut out a wholly useless level of government - the EU - than fiddle around the edges with peanuts. Reg - I do not disagree that reform of local government is necessary as well, they are also part of our over-governed, over-regulated, over-burdened society.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#8
Quite a lot here, and of course barryw will always go one way reg the other
Of course small beer we could look at a unitary council, made up of far less cllrs abolishing at least 2 of the present councils.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
I made a typo Keith as I ended up having to finish that in a hurry - I meant to say in the last para, to Reg, that I do agree that reform is necessary, a 'not' got in there..... unusual for me to agree with Reg!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
that's good then
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS