If the public sector asked you to stay in all day to wait for repairmen and parcels, there would be outrage.
As I recall when the telephones were indeed in the public sector it was necessary to stay in all month awaiting connection…..
But instead, public managers are told – against the evidence – that private managers are more dynamic and efficient.
The private sector is indeed more efficient: most notably for the reason that it abandons, sacrifices, those things which are not working faster.
Public jobs are tough. Running a local authority, or a beacon comprehensive or teaching hospital in a hard-pressed borough, takes more managerial talent than running any company.
Seriously? Running a protected monopoly is more difficult than running an organisation where competition comes at you from all sides?
Anyway, all of this proves that there should be a pay commission. Ho Hum.
But what surprised them was that education and skill could only account for less than half the difference in pay. The IFS confessed with \”some humility\” that there was simply no explanation for over half the rise in pay differences.
I\’ll clearly have to read that report but I can provide an explanation: globalisation. We\’ve increased the size of he market so that those who win in said market gain disproportionately.
Oooh, I\’d missed this. Polly says:
91% of wealth belongs to the top half of the population, most to the top 10%,
In the link to the IFS report which Polly herself provides we have:
The top 10% of wealth-holders have more than 44% of all wealth
Half of 91 is 45.5….and the top 10% have 44%. So the top 10% get a minority, not a majority or \”most\”.