Is it just me that can't understand

[maxpower]

the benefit of cutting average and low paid public sector jobs, when all we'll then have to do is pay them benefits, council tax, housing allowance etc and incur increased healthcare costs when people start suffering from increased stress and depression etc? Is this really saving money?

At least if you're paying wages, the people have money to put back into the economy.

Having said that, I do think that higher paid public sector employees should be realistic in facing the fact that they might have to take pay cuts or freezes at the very least.

I think it probably is saving money tbh.
Benefits are usually quite a bit less than a living wage.

It's true that where you are paying wages people have money to put back into the economy, but unfortunately if you continue to grow your public sector by raising taxes that means that rapidly people will stop putting money back into the economy anyway. If I am being taxed to death I am hardly likely to refurbish my bathroom, for example.

I think that probably the savings could be marginal where public sector workers are very low paid, though. But I guess those jobs would have to go to some extent to keep a workable balance between staff at different levels.
It's all going to be rather shit for some people, unfortunately.

But is that really the case? If you consider the lowest paid employees who always seem to be targeted first for job cuts, would the costs to the welfare state really outweigh the benefit of 'saving money' by putting them out of work? I genuinely think that in many cases, it would cost the taxpayer more to support people out of work than to allow them to continue in their jobs.

I have wondered that at atimes as well, perhaps the wage/jsa comparison makes it more economic sense to get rid of them.......but is it still less money once you factor in housing benefit (or mortgage interest relief), council tax benefit, free school meals, child tax credit (if they have children) etc?

Not all of the people who are in jobs that are cut are going to go straight on benefits. They might have a partner who could support them short term whilst they look for a new job etc.

They might be a young single man who lives at home with parents. They might be from somewhere else in Europe and move home if they can't get a job or not be entitled to recourse to public funds if on a visa. It's not as simple as cut public sector job = plus one on full benefits.

why don't they stop using private consultants to advise the public sector that would save some money. They could also save some money by saying no bonuses in the public sector at all for a year..this is what has already happened in many private sector firms. I hope they won't target those on the lowest wages for cuts.

Maxpower. The Government has probably worked it out, that it is cheaper to have them on the dole than at work. Of course it does not take into account the social/moral impact of bieng jobless, but when has any government cared about the people?

snowlady- "why don't they stop using private consultants to advise the public sector that would save some money"

This a myth which is often bandied around - that consultants and/or contractors are expensive. Of course there are likely to be consultants advising the public sector whose worth we can all debate (am thinking fresh-faced 20-somethings from McKinsey here.. ) but in my experience many consultants and contractors offer better value for money and are much more flexible than a full-time employee doing the same job.
People see headline figures like £400 per day and think 'wow' that's a lot of money, but the reality is that they may be cheaper than an employee earning £35k a year once you factor in salary, holiday, sickness, NI, benefits, pension & potential redundancy costs etc.

In difficult economic times you need to reduce your employee costs and keep things as flexible as possible, and that's where consultants and contractors come in.

Norma - taking an area like education why do you need consultants at all? These people appear to go round schools advising them how to run themselves. If private schools don't need consultants why do state schools need them? I wish they would spend the money on the teachers, head teachers and TAs, cut the paperwork and let the professional teachers get on with their jobs. I do not work in education by the way.

It's simplistic to say 'why do we need consultants' and this often extends to 'why do we need managers?' as well.

My GP appointed a manager to help run his multi-doctor practice. He and his fellow doctors are extremely good at medicine but - he would admit - lousy at bookkeeping, staff management, budgeting, procurement, IT etc. Since employing the manager he says he has save £££s, over and above the manager's salary.

I didn't say that chil. You have put words into my mouth.

A manager is not the same as a consultant.

I can't see a problem with having a manager at a doctors practice. Assume it is the equivalent to having a bursar in a school. Neither of these are consultants are they.

Head-teachers are very good at running their own school but there may be opportunities to take good practice/savings/innovation elsewhere and apply it across the board. Since head-teachers are very busy people and can't afford to take a few months out to run around coordinating it all, occasionally you need outsiders to do it as a finite short-term project.

'why don't they stop using private consultants to advise the public sector'... still too simplistic.

I take it you are a consultant Chill.

You have not answered my question. If private schools don't need to employ consultants why does the state sector need them?

Heads have bursars to sort out the financial side of running a school. Employ a competent bursar and they can read up on all the grants to apply for etc.

The comment you always hear is that there is too much unecessary paperwork for heads these days. My primary school headmaster had time to teach a class as well as be head you could never imagine that happening now.

LOL at bonuses in the public sector. I've never heard of one!

Re consultants, I can see that there are a place for them, but in the organistaion I work for, I know for a fact that they paid for a consultant post - at least twice what the CEO was being paid - for about 2 years. They've now appointed someone into the post on a lot less money.

You need consultants to tell you what you already know so that people give you the money to do the things you wanted to do anyway.

"If private schools don't need to employ consultants why does the state sector need them?"

Private schools tend to be an entity of one and they can make up any shortfall in their budget requirements by simply charging higher fees. Public sector schools are one of many and have strict financial constraints to adhere to. There are economies to be made if efficiencies are replicated across the many rather than each doing their own thing (however well that may be). Not saying that consultants are a compulsory requirement but they can often bring something useful to the party. No, I'm not a consultant