Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
travel is dangerous said:
Johnfm.
nobody is striking because they think the contribution rate is too low. People are striking because they believe their pension will be too low.
Demonstrating a massive lack of understanding of demographics and economics.nobody is striking because they think the contribution rate is too low. People are striking because they believe their pension will be too low.
travel is dangerous said:
In my case the proposed changes will result in a pension worth much less - by about 10 years salary. ]
I remember your calculation and some massive contradictions:1) that the current contribution was much more than required to fund the existing benefits (even though you admit yourself that you expect your salary to increase much faster than assumed in the scheme valuation, failing to acknowledge the deficit that already exists.
2) investing the ‘employer’ contribution (alongside your own contributions) into assets returning 5% pa would produce a massive shortfall.
Hmmm indeed...
travel is dangerous said:
The changes for me amount to about a 25 % pay cut over my lifetime, if I include my pension as part of my pay/remuneration (I do).
Funny how you fail to recognise how the cost of providing your pension has increased massively over the previous decade, giving you a large (but unrecognised) pay rise historically.travelisdangerous said:
I think even the most reasonable of employee would begin to get outraged at being asked to perform the same job but take 25 % less pay.
You are clearly oblivious to what happened with DB schemes in the private sector 10-20 years ago.Unfortunately, in the private sector economics has to be taken into account.
travel is dangerous said:
I'm sorry, but it's quite clear. Universities are legally established independent bodies that are not run by the government. I don't understand what you can't grasp here.
I don’t understand why you can’t grasp who funds them, and hence your pensions. Never mind.sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
I'm sorry, but it's quite clear. Universities are legally established independent bodies that are not run by the government. I don't understand what you can't grasp here.
I don’t understand why you can’t grasp who funds them, and hence your pensions. Never mind.Regarding all the funding stuff, I don't really care, if it costs more to remunerate me at the current level, then universities will have to find the cash and do it. It's not like the value of my, or my colleagues, work has decreased. We shouldn't face a massive pay cut just because it costs more than it used to to provide compensation.
Over the past several years, for what it's worth, Universities income has risen by about 14 % and their staff costs by about 3 %.
travel is dangerous said:
The question wasn't who funds them - the matter under question was who administers them.
Regarding all the funding stuff, I don't really care, if it costs more to remunerate me at the current level, then universities will have to find the cash and do it. It's not like the value of my, or my colleagues, work has decreased. We shouldn't face a massive pay cut just because it costs more than it used to to provide compensation.
Point missed, as expected.Regarding all the funding stuff, I don't really care, if it costs more to remunerate me at the current level, then universities will have to find the cash and do it. It's not like the value of my, or my colleagues, work has decreased. We shouldn't face a massive pay cut just because it costs more than it used to to provide compensation.
travel is dangerous said:
Over the past several years, for what it's worth, Universities income has risen by about 14 % and their staff costs by about 3 %.
Except that’s not true. And pension costs have risen significantly, sonething you seem oblivious to. Never mind.
travel is dangerous said:
Were you guys bullied by university lecturers or something? Jealous of our fancy hats and robes? Is it that you never get any questions right on University Challenge?
Ah, the 'are you jealous' argument. Not sure what this has to do with pointing out the obvious facts that:(1) Uni lecturers are on strike because their previously unaffordable, overly generous DB pension schemes are being replaced;
(2) the replacement DC scheme with 18% (or now 19.3%) taxpayer contribution is still unaffordable;
(3) some uni lecturers seem so dim that they cannot understand that their benefits are made up of pay and generous pension, so the "I've not had a payrise in years" is nonsense
Joey Ramone said:
johnfm said:
Cheers - but my oil&gas exploration industry pension is pretty decent. And I get to spend my day with intelligent people talking about interesting things.
When you're not on Pistonheads whining like a kicked puppy, obviously.Edited by Joey Ramone on Tuesday 13th March 15:42
I was surprise to find the layabouts were still on strike. Merely pointing out that a small section of tax payer funded employees seem to be unwilling to smell the flowers and incapable of understanding that their actions won't ultimately save their 'profession'. Unless you do decent research, your role will be redundant in a couple of decades.
johnfm said:
Ah, the 'are you jealous' argument. Not sure what this has to do with pointing out the obvious facts that:
(1) Uni lecturers are on strike because their previously unaffordable, overly generous DB pension schemes are being replaced;
(2) the replacement DC scheme with 18% (or now 19.3%) taxpayer contribution is still unaffordable;
(3) some uni lecturers seem so dim that they cannot understand that their benefits are made up of pay and generous pension, so the "I've not had a payrise in years" is nonsense
I would dispute that this is the case - this would be extremely attractive, compared to the majority of pensions in the private sector, but is at least capped at that level, rather than the uncapped DB approach, which leaves the taxpayer with significant demographic and economic risk.(1) Uni lecturers are on strike because their previously unaffordable, overly generous DB pension schemes are being replaced;
(2) the replacement DC scheme with 18% (or now 19.3%) taxpayer contribution is still unaffordable;
(3) some uni lecturers seem so dim that they cannot understand that their benefits are made up of pay and generous pension, so the "I've not had a payrise in years" is nonsense
A 19% DC contribution is extremely generous, but it is hard to argue that it is unaffordable.
johnfm said:
travel is dangerous said:
Were you guys bullied by university lecturers or something? Jealous of our fancy hats and robes? Is it that you never get any questions right on University Challenge?
Ah, the 'are you jealous' argument. Not sure what this has to do with pointing out the obvious facts that:(1) Uni lecturers are on strike because their previously unaffordable, overly generous DB pension schemes are being replaced;
(2) the replacement DC scheme with 18% (or now 19.3%) taxpayer contribution is still unaffordable;
(3) some uni lecturers seem so dim that they cannot understand that their benefits are made up of pay and generous pension, so the "I've not had a payrise in years" is nonsense
2) If it's unaffordable why are the universities proposing it? Why is it unaffordable? What you mean 'I do not value this as much as universities do'. Fair enough, but that is opinion.
3) it's not nonsense, especially when your pay has been decreasing in real terms for 5+ years.
travel is dangerous said:
1) the scheme was affordable until employers dropped their contributions from 18 % to 12 % for 8 years "because of strong investment returns:"
That’s nothing to do with future affordability. Economics change, you have to adjust to that.travel is dangerous said:
2) If it's unaffordable why are the universities proposing it? Why is it unaffordable? What you mean 'I do not value this as much as universities do'. Fair enough, but that is opinion.
As I explained above, it is generous, but affordable.travel is dangerous said:
3) it's not nonsense, especially when your pay has been decreasing in real terms for 5+ years.
Conveniently ignoring the increasing cost of your pension. Again.travel is dangerous said:
as I said, the cost is the employer's issue, not mine, I care about the value of it.
So you think the cost and value are independent?This is just another example of public sector workers feeling that they should be immune to the impact of economics and demographics that affects the rest of the population.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 13th March 16:26
Where did I say I think the cost of something is independent from its value? That would be a foolish conclusion, I didn't make it, you assumed it and intimated that I did.
As I said before, universities operate in an international labour market for the best talent, and pay and conditions in the UK are already worse than our main competitors (US, Canada, Germany). If you want UK universities to stay strong - and they are one of the largest export 'industries' that the UK has, as well as the engine of innovation in the UK (private sector investment in R&D is low in the UK compared to our G7 competitors), then you need to make sure that they can recruit the best staff. These changes won't help that. The UK has a productivity problem, universities are a major part of the solution to that problem, and we need to make sure they are able to do a good job. Having the best staff is part of that.
As I said before, universities operate in an international labour market for the best talent, and pay and conditions in the UK are already worse than our main competitors (US, Canada, Germany). If you want UK universities to stay strong - and they are one of the largest export 'industries' that the UK has, as well as the engine of innovation in the UK (private sector investment in R&D is low in the UK compared to our G7 competitors), then you need to make sure that they can recruit the best staff. These changes won't help that. The UK has a productivity problem, universities are a major part of the solution to that problem, and we need to make sure they are able to do a good job. Having the best staff is part of that.
travel is dangerous said:
Where did I say I think the cost of something is independent from its value? That would be a foolish conclusion, I didn't make it, you assumed it and intimated that I did.
Perhaps you can explain this:travel is dangerous said:
as I said, the cost is the employer's issue, not mine, I care about the value of it.
travel is dangerous said:
As I said before, universities operate in an international labour market for the best talent, and pay and conditions in the UK are already worse than our main competitors (US, Canada, Germany). If you want UK universities to stay strong - and they are one of the largest export 'industries' that the UK has, as well as the engine of innovation in the UK (private sector investment in R&D is low in the UK compared to our G7 competitors), then you need to make sure that they can recruit the best staff. These changes won't help that. The UK has a productivity problem, universities are a major part of the solution to that problem, and we need to make sure they are able to do a good job. Having the best staff is part of that.
Which is quite a different argument than much of what you’ve claimed above...1) it does not logically follow that because I care only about the value of something, I do not also recognise that there is a link between value and cost.
2) we've through this before, but it is possible that there can be more than one argument for a course of action or a certain viewpoint. i.e. multiple lines of reasoning can be used to justify one's position on any matter. e.g. I want mashed potato for dinner because it is a) cheap and b) tasty. The two arguments are not mutually exclusive. Neither are the arguments that 1) expensive pensions for lecturers are good value and 2) expensive pensions for lecturers are not as expensive as the employers are maintaining they are.
2) we've through this before, but it is possible that there can be more than one argument for a course of action or a certain viewpoint. i.e. multiple lines of reasoning can be used to justify one's position on any matter. e.g. I want mashed potato for dinner because it is a) cheap and b) tasty. The two arguments are not mutually exclusive. Neither are the arguments that 1) expensive pensions for lecturers are good value and 2) expensive pensions for lecturers are not as expensive as the employers are maintaining they are.
travel is dangerous said:
Were you guys bullied by university lecturers or something? Jealous of our fancy hats and robes? Is it that you never get any questions right on University Challenge?
Get off your arse - invent something of value and contribute to making society wealthier - which may then be able to afford your DB pensions.The adage 'if you can't DO then TEACH' is a truism.
Ali G said:
Get off your arse - invent something of value and contribute to making society wealthier - which may then be able to afford your DB pensions.
The adage 'if you can't DO then TEACH' is a truism.
Do you think that all that lecturers do is teach? I actually only do 10 hrs of lectures a year. The adage 'if you can't DO then TEACH' is a truism.
what I spend most of my time doing is discovering/creating new knowledge, and training people to do the same. I'm not really interested in whether its of 'value' to society - all new knowledge about the universe is inherently valuable, if some of it turns out to commercially valuable or useful or improves quality of life, then great, but... shrug.
travel is dangerous said:
1) it does not logically follow that because I care only about the value of something, I do not also recognise that there is a link between value and cost.
Ok, but the taxpayer does have to care about the costs.Travel is dangerous said:
2) we've through this before, but it is possible that there can be more than one argument for a course of action or a certain viewpoint. i.e. multiple lines of reasoning can be used to justify one's position on any matter. e.g. I want mashed potato for dinner because it is a) cheap and b) tasty. The two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
One of your arguments is invalid.travel is dangerous said:
Neither are the arguments that 1) expensive pensions for lecturers are good value
Good value for who?!travel is dangerous said:
and 2) expensive pensions for lecturers are not as expensive as the employers are maintaining they are.
And yet you are also claiming that if the employer gives you that cash for you to invest, you won’t be able to produce the same pension...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff