Finally, the moment we’ve all been waiting for has arrived:

The UK jobs market is expected to face a difficult first quarter of the year as a growing private sector, freed from recession, fails to compensate for shrinking employment in the public sector.

Anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the word “economics” will know that “jobs” in the public sector are only of direct economic benefit to the people who perform them. For everybody else, they’re a cost, resulting in increased taxes, more regulation to justify the increased public sector workers and an exponentially increased desire for more state from its beneficiaries.

So while unemployment may be going up, it’s actually helping us all, even though those being made redundant may not feel quite so optimistic about it. And it’s not a moment before time, too:

But the report was far from gushing about the prospects for a recovered private sector, identifying the outsourcing of jobs abroad as a serious concern for UK employment prospects in the medium-term.

Hm, yes, imagine that: businesses on the ropes and looking to cut costs are outsourcing jobs. Well, I suppose that unlike the public sector, they don’t have a money tree that they can just harvest funds from. Although I believe that even that particular money tree is looking pretty barren at the moment. Anyway, here come the vested interests to complain:

As John Philpott, Chief Economic Adviser, CIPD, mentions: “With many private sector companies looking to move jobs abroad […] the jobs market needs all the continued support and protection it is getting from the government.”

And the more people that remain employed by the public sector, the more CIPD-qualified HR droids we will need to make sure that every form is completed in triplicate.

The health of the public sector, though, gave the most cause for alarm. “It is now only a matter of time before we are faced with the deepest and most prolonged cuts in public expenditure that anyone can remember” says Alan Downey, Head of Public Sector, KPMG.

And the fewer people that the public sector employs, the fewer the pointless and expensive projects that consulting companies can “implement”.

Such talk was treated with consternation by the public sector union Unite which contends that “cutting public sector jobs would hinder, rather than help, Britain’s economic recovery.”

Of course, those union dues might not come flowing in with such regularity, eh? And now, brace yourself for the meta-irony of a union official:

Gail Cartmail, Assistant General Secretary for the public sector, Unite, continues: “in cities such as Newcastle, where two thirds of the economically active are employed in the public sector, the impact of such cuts would be devastating to the local economy – reduced taxation, reduced spending and, ironically greater reliance, on public services such as Job Centres and increased government expenditure on supporting the unemployed and their families.”

Could you actually make up such an incredible statement if challenged to do so? If it was cheaper to employ someone than put them on benefits, then the government would have done away with benefits and just put all the unemployed on a salary years ago. The loss of “taxation” goes hand in hand with a massive fall in costs that need to be met by said taxation. And anyway, taxing a government employee is like you moving money from your cheque account to your savings account and then describing it as income.

No, it’s long past time that the bloated, grasping state was cut down in size. Long may it continue to shrink.

1
miss mink February 21, 2010 at 10:32

Well, just as long as it’s the un-neccissary pen pushing jobs that are cut, not nurses, police, teachers, social workers . . . . .
The NHS is bad enough, but with cuts in budgets and staff it’s going to be so much worse, if we think its bad now . . .

2
Paul February 21, 2010 at 10:34

“Could you actually make up such an incredible statement if challenged to do so? If it was cheaper to employ someone than put them on benefits, then the government would have done away with benefits and just put all the unemployed on a salary years ago. The loss of “taxation” goes hand in hand with a massive fall in costs that need to be met by said taxation. And anyway, taxing a government employee is like you moving money from your cheque account to your savings account and then describing it as income.”

To those of us who can count beyond about 5, this kind of idea is insane rubbish. However, I quite often debate with teachers on this sort of topic, and I can tell you they really are this stupid. I’ve come across this “economically beneficial to pay salaries whatever” argument on several occasions – and it is quite genuinely believed.

3
Blink February 21, 2010 at 10:41

Thaddeus

I can think of one lumpen waste of space in the public sector that could do with removing. Can I borrow that pistol …… ?

4
Dave H. February 21, 2010 at 11:04

Re. the photo. Will people never learn to execute Viet Cong off-camera? It avoids widespread negative publicity.

5
Jess The Dog February 21, 2010 at 11:23

Some public sector functions are necessary. We’re always going to need bins emptied and illnesses treated, and the many other functions that allow the cogs of society to turn.

Of these, some are natural monopolies and others offer scope for competition. For natural monopolies – where there is a clear economy of scale or fixed infrastructure – it is more costly to the economy to privatise these. Look at rail travel, an absolute disaster, over-priced, un-co-ordinated, under-performing with a clear negative effect on productivity in the key sectors of the economy. In other cases, it makes sense to privatise and offload the overheand and operational costs, risk and rewards, to the private sector. The leisure sector is perhaps an example of this…although regulation is always a feature, in the interest of “social equity”.

Some public sector functions are arguably unnecessary. But some of these have indirect economic benefits, whereas others have no economic benefit at all. Transport, economic development and land use policymakers all have the capacity to add value…if employed correctly. Wielding an axe in the planning department, for example, is counter-productive and slows down development even further.

However, there is an army of unproductive staff with internal regulatory and support responsibilities. I’ve worked in the public and private sectors, and these staff end up constituting an empire of their own….as a rule of thumb, any post or section with the word “support” in the title will do the opposite and end up making demands of productive staff to meet bureaucratic requirements imposed by ISO, Prince2, equal opportunities and anything else you can think of. In addition there is an over-complex hierarchy, too many managers and leaders, a ridiculous cult of leadership and management with the inherent contradiciton of top-notch salaries to attract ‘high-fliers’ and a huge range of training courses to train ‘teamwork’, ‘leadership’ and ‘management.’ Often these bosses and empires end up fighting each other, rather than working together. This is where the axe needs to fall, and ruthlessly.

6
Gloria Smudd February 21, 2010 at 12:42

When I worked in the NHS my manager went to meeting after meeting after meeting, said ‘Can do” at all of them, then did precisely nothing. No one even cared.

7
miss mink February 21, 2010 at 12:49

Manager, thats a weird title in the public sector/civil service.
Because they aren’t allowed to ‘manage’, people or change.
They have to ask permission from some one else before they do anything, what’s their reason for being ?

8
Gloria Smudd February 21, 2010 at 12:55

The NHS is riddled with management, riddled with it.

9
Demetrius February 21, 2010 at 13:11

Astonishing, but Darius Guppy in today’s Telegraph, Comment, Personal View, on “Our World Balances On A Sea Of Debt” has a rational explanation of the essential problems. It is a long read at 3000+ words but well worth it. He is neither a politician nor an academic economist, which may explain a lot.

10
Chuckles February 21, 2010 at 13:52

“And anyway, taxing a government employee is like you moving money from your cheque account to your savings account and then describing it as income”

Unfortunately, I think that you mean the reverse, “moving money from your savings account to your cheque account”?

11
Thaddeus J. Wilson February 21, 2010 at 14:03

Jess The Dog, it may come as a huge surprise to you, but most countries deliver health care without government involvement. Indeed, I have visited third-world countries where the health care is both more effective and cheaper than British health care, precisely because the government is not involved. Health care is NOT a natural public sector activity.

12
Saul February 21, 2010 at 14:41

Where can you get cheaper than free?

13
Thaddeus J. Wilson February 21, 2010 at 14:44

It’s not free, Saul. You pay heavily for it whether you use it or not. And because you’re not paying for it at the point of delivery, you aren’t the customer, the government is – which is why NHS doctors don’t really care about whether they cure the patient or not.

14
Saul February 21, 2010 at 15:08

Surely that is the whole point, the receipt of health care shouldn’t be based on an ability to pay. Whether it is in the UK or a third world country it has to be funded. The fact that people don’t have to worry about paying if they are unfortunate enough to fall ill is a good thing. I don’t doubt that there is wastage in the NHS, but the alternative is to privatise it and I don’t think we should go down that route.

15
Anna Raccoon February 21, 2010 at 15:14

I agree Saul, but I don’t think we should vilify private health care either. There was a BBC piece the other day condemning the NHS in Wales for sending four employees for private treatment. ‘Disgraceful’ ’shouldn’t be allowed’, ‘other people wait months’ – all true, but the sooner those employees are back at work, the less time other people will have to wait.
I can’t see what is wonderful about a surgeon being off sick for six months rather than take private medicine and get back to replacing hips…….

16
Saul February 21, 2010 at 15:31

I’m not vilifying private health care. People who can afford it, or are fortunate to have private health schemes provided by their employers will always use it. Just as those who can afford private edeucation send their children to schools of their choice. We have a moral duty to provide health care for all.

17
Saul February 21, 2010 at 15:33

They can probably spell education as well…

18
chefdave February 21, 2010 at 16:19

The public and private sectors are so out of kilter that G.Brown and his merry band of psycho’s actually believe that its their duty to bail the private sector rather than vice versa.

We often hear about the need to keep public spending high, but what about private spending? Are individuals supposed to sacrifice their material desires and hand over an ever increasing portion of their income to the state to satisfy the ‘national interest’?

We need a national debate surrounding taxation and difference between private and public property, because the way they’re going they’re going to take it all.

19
Shug Niggurath February 21, 2010 at 22:25

Economics is the real voodoo science. Whenever I read anything where the writer or source is called an economist I glaze over. Economics is everything that is wrong with the reach of social sciences.

Economics is all about attempting to control a market by prediction, and I believe that markets should be free from external intervention.

20
Thaddeus J. Wilson February 21, 2010 at 23:12

Saul, as someone who has experienced health care on three continents, I feel comfortable with my opinion that British health care offers the very worst of all worlds: post code lotteries, bureaucracy and appalling customer care. And it’s no cheaper than “private” care – just worse.

21
Saul February 22, 2010 at 01:39

Thaddeus, as someone who has spent the last 31 years working in many countries around the world, I am equally comfortable in my opinion that British health care offers excellent service to all. Not just to those who can pay for it. Perhaps we should just beg to differ.

22
Thaddeus J. Wilson February 22, 2010 at 09:07

Perhaps that would be for the best, Saul.

23
David Boycott March 6, 2010 at 12:05

“I am equally comfortable in my opinion that British health care offers excellent service to all. ”

A comfortable opinion that is entirely unsupported by any of the international comparative tables of health outcomes.