Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
crankedup said:
It’s a case of identifying priorities, just like in most things in life, not simply shrugging the shoulders saying we can’t afford it. Do we value education. I certainly do and this may come as no surprise to you, imo we should fully fund it alongside the NHS.
As for the Chinese example. it’s only an example to bolster my earlier posts. Academics know that it’s a big World.
Yes I intimated that he is earning a decent salary and doesn’t go to China for tea tasting. Also, if you read my posts on the matter, you will note that I also mentioned that I did not know about his pension arrangements.
Chinese food, you ask if he likes it, I can enlighten you, he loves Chinese food and really enjoys the life style on offer over there.
It's a pointless example unless you compare everything. Not like you to throw pointless anecdotes into the debate though...As for the Chinese example. it’s only an example to bolster my earlier posts. Academics know that it’s a big World.
Yes I intimated that he is earning a decent salary and doesn’t go to China for tea tasting. Also, if you read my posts on the matter, you will note that I also mentioned that I did not know about his pension arrangements.
Chinese food, you ask if he likes it, I can enlighten you, he loves Chinese food and really enjoys the life style on offer over there.
You are aware that we are running a still sizeable deficit and haven't been in a position to pay off a penny of our national debt for over 20yrs? A debt whose interest payments will end up dwarfing all other expense areas if we aren't careful. (Already 60% of what we spend on Education, and only going one way).
"Fully funding" something is only possible if you have the funds in the first place. So what are you going to cut first to get us into a surplus and start meaningfully paying down the debt so that we can stop paying stupid sums in interest (rather than services) in our childrens' lifetimes (let's be ambitious)?
Once you've cut that, how much do you think is required to "fully fund" education and the NHS? (Bearing in mind the latter is a black hole that could suck in any amount of money!). Once you have those two numbers, what else are you going to cut to accommodate them?
Sorry crankedup, it's bulls
t rhetoric. I too want to fully fund education and the NHS. I never want anyone to die and I want them all to live high quality lives. I want everyone to be able to afford all the things they dream about. And I want everyone to be forced to own a Ferrari.Piece of piss to trot these things out. Solutions on getting to that point are quite a lot harder. Especially as this country is chock full of self interest groups that refuse to accept they must accept lesser service (everyone else will pay), and over 50% of the population are in receipt of state handouts (if not totally dependent on them).
crankedup said:
Sorry murf, my sense of humour is on bypass at the moment. 
Said from the outset it’s a question of choice and priorities, no need for dramatics.
I guess we could always "fully fund" the NHS and have nothing else whatsoever Said from the outset it’s a question of choice and priorities, no need for dramatics.
Edited by crankedup on Friday 23 February 20:29
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
It’s a case of identifying priorities, just like in most things in life, not simply shrugging the shoulders saying we can’t afford it. Do we value education. I certainly do and this may come as no surprise to you, imo we should fully fund it alongside the NHS.
Where “fully fund” means ignore demographics and economics and retain massive pensions for employees subsidised by the taxpayer, at the expense of actually delivering services?crankedup said:
As for the Chinese example. it’s only an example to bolster my earlier posts. Academics know that it’s a big World.
Yes I intimated that he is earning a decent salary and doesn’t go to China for tea tasting. Also, if you read my posts on the matter, you will note that I also mentioned that I did not know about his pension arrangements.
Chinese food, you ask if he likes it, I can enlighten you, he loves Chinese food and really enjoys the life style on offer over there.
In summary, “if we don’t provide DB pensions to well-paid academics then (on the basis of 1 friend) they might go to China, where they may or may not be paid well and where they don’t have a DB pension either.”Yes I intimated that he is earning a decent salary and doesn’t go to China for tea tasting. Also, if you read my posts on the matter, you will note that I also mentioned that I did not know about his pension arrangements.
Chinese food, you ask if he likes it, I can enlighten you, he loves Chinese food and really enjoys the life style on offer over there.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 23 February 16:13
In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
crankedup said:
So the argument regarding CEO must be paid high salaries on the basis of being salary competitive applies only to them. Why wouldn’t academics move abroad for better recognition and reward? my considerations are not just based upon 1 friend moving to China.
In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
Do you think that all academics currently earn the same ? In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
crankedup said:
So the argument regarding CEO must be paid high salaries on the basis of being salary competitive applies only to them. Why wouldn’t academics move abroad for better recognition and reward? my considerations are not just based upon 1 friend moving to China.
In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
Except of course you've not even been able to show that they can get equal benefits elsewhere, let alone more attractive ones.In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
liner33 said:
crankedup said:
So the argument regarding CEO must be paid high salaries on the basis of being salary competitive applies only to them. Why wouldn’t academics move abroad for better recognition and reward? my considerations are not just based upon 1 friend moving to China.
In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
Do you think that all academics currently earn the same ? In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
crankedup said:
Wheat on earth has that to do with anything?
Quote" if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them"That already happens , some lecturers get paid more than others based on what they deliver to the faculty
They will already move if another faculty offers them a more attractive package
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
So the argument regarding CEO must be paid high salaries on the basis of being salary competitive applies only to them. Why wouldn’t academics move abroad for better recognition and reward? my considerations are not just based upon 1 friend moving to China.
In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
Except of course you've not even been able to show that they can get equal benefits elsewhere, let alone more attractive ones.In summary if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them.
I align this with the reward elements of academics.
crankedup said:
Correct, your reply is based upon the here and now, my scenario is based upon longer term developments. We only remain competitive in any industry by beating the opposition in terms of quality, cost, affordability and several other factors of course. If any of these factors change, or not develop in a positive projection, expect to be losing a competitive edge.
I align this with the reward elements of academics.
You seem to be unaware that DB pensions were nearly all removed in the private sector 10-20 years ago.I align this with the reward elements of academics.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Because shareholders want larger dividends...?
Dividends aren't larger.sidicks said:
The massive cost of DB pensions was threatening the viability of many firms.
Wasn't this taken into account when DB schemes were first offered to Employees?Countdown said:
So firms haven't increased the dividend when their DB scheme deficits have increased?
I don't believe so.Countdown said:
Wasn't this taken into account when DB schemes were first offered to Employees?
When DB schemes were originally created, people worked 40 years and then survived 5-10 years in retirement. In addition, interest rates and hence growth rates were much higher, meaning increased investment return and much cheaper to fund pensions in payment. Finally, unlike public sector schemes, most private sector schemes did not have pensions that automatically increased in retirement with inflation, increases were discretionary.The typical cost of a scheme was c. 10%, split between employer and employee. Those same schemes are now costing 40%+.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
So firms haven't increased the dividend when their DB scheme deficits have increased?
I don't believe so.sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Wasn't this taken into account when DB schemes were first offered to Employees?
When DB schemes were originally created, people worked 40 years and then survived 5-10 years in retirement. In addition, interest rates and hence growth rates were much higher, meaning increased investment return and much cheaper to fund pensions in payment. Finally, unlike public sector schemes, most private sector schemes did not have pensions that automatically increased in retirement with inflation, increases were discretionary.The typical cost of a scheme was c. 10%, split between employer and employee. Those same schemes are now costing 40%+.
I could be wrong here but wasn't there a time in the past where lots of DB schemes were in surplus and Employers took pension contribution holidays....? What happened to the money they saved?
Countdown said:
Didn't Carillion increase the dividend whilst their DB scheme deficit increase?
You're confusing fluctuations in deterioration in a scheme's solvency position due to market movements, with a fundamental shift in the affordability of DB pension schemes due to significant changes in economics and demographics.Countdown said:
If only there were a group of people who were paid to forecast things like life expectancies, interest rates, bond yields etc.... we could call them Actuaries or somesuch...
No, actuaries are paid to project things like life expectancies, interest rates, bond yields etc. That's quite different. Economists are paid to predict the key economic factors.Countdown said:
I could be wrong here but wasn't there a time in the past where lots of DB schemes were in surplus and Employers took pension contribution holidays....? What happened to the money they saved?
You mean 20+ years ago before interest rates collapsed, before equity markets collapsed, before demographic effects had fully taken effect, when HMRC sought to prevent companies from contributing to DB pensions thereby mitigating corporation tax?Before Gordon Brown removed the tax benefit on equity dividends you mean?
liner33 said:
crankedup said:
Wheat on earth has that to do with anything?
Quote" if we dilute the reward paid to academics we risk losing the best of these people to those who can and will offer more attractive T&C to them"That already happens , some lecturers get paid more than others based on what they deliver to the faculty
They will already move if another faculty offers them a more attractive package
Agreed and I am attempting to convince others posting in here that the dilution of reward simply reduces the competitiveness of the supplier. It will encourage academics to consider alternative providers offering a more competitive package.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Correct, your reply is based upon the here and now, my scenario is based upon longer term developments. We only remain competitive in any industry by beating the opposition in terms of quality, cost, affordability and several other factors of course. If any of these factors change, or not develop in a positive projection, expect to be losing a competitive edge.
I align this with the reward elements of academics.
You seem to be unaware that DB pensions were nearly all removed in the private sector 10-20 years ago.I align this with the reward elements of academics.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff