What an elegant argument

So, this one that Caroline Lucas (the original calcs done by you know who) has come out with. That sacking 490,000 civil servants will cost more than employing them. For the benefits that have to be paid will be higher than the wages.

In any case, surely this cannot be right, if you consider the implied microeconomic situation. For if the government saves net salary but loses unemployment benefit and the total is negative, then the employee\’s calculation is identical but with a minus sign attached: in other words, the employee would be better off being sacked and going onto benefits. Of course, in the famed 490,000 there may be some for whom this is not true; but if Lucas is right, then there must be a great number for whom it most certainly does hold. But then, what to make of the fact that we do not see masses of public servants spontaneously deciding that they would be better off out of work?

Pisses all over Ritchie\’s chips, doesn\’t it?

1 thought on “What an elegant argument”

  1. Erm, didn’t someone point out that natural wasteage in the civil service is currently running at about 400,000 per annum?

    If that’s true, what’s all this “sacking” business?The buggers are going to retire, resign or drop dead without any help from ministers and prsumably without cost to us. All the state has to do is stop sending job adverts to the Guardian – thereby saving even more money. Indeed, about the only jobs in danger are those of Polly, Georges and Sir Michael White.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *