The fact that you're even asking this question is embarrassing.

The differences shouldn't need explaining. Including but not limited to the levels of funding, the profile of students, the number of students per class and per teacher, the availability of appropriate kit at home, the availability and practicality of parental support.

Having gone through the private and seen the state sector these are two utterly separate worlds. It's mind blowing that you don't know that.

Once again you want to push your agenda - the reason is simple - a desire to ensure kids get educated. In the public schools if they don't perform they lose pupils - sadly there were no real desire in the state sector. No teacher in the state sector is going to either lose pay or jobs regardless of whether kids get educated guarantee if they were things would have been different.

The technology used in both cases was the same so the glacial pace of the state sector was a disgrace. Using Zoom/Teams was free and they could have used the BBC if they had actually got their act together. The unions were more interested in keeping schools closed than educating the kids.

It suits your agenda all things public all good - all things private bad.

Now is your chance to show us - no doubt Politico will have a playbook you can use?

Are you saying the minimum wage only applies to private sector or that the vast majority of public sector staff aren't impacted because their wages are well above the minimum.

20% of all workers are employed in retail - how many of them do you think are earning much above the minimum wage? Of the 5.3m workers in the public sector how many of them are on minimum wage?

Quote: The Ghost of '99 "I agree, it shouldn't. So the repeated discrepancies in public vs private pay rises (public being repeatedly lower for the avoidance of doubt) since 2010 should be addressed rather than perpetuated.'" https://moneyweek-com.cdn.ampproject.or ... -gets-more Hope this helps

Quote: The Ghost of '99 "I agree, it shouldn't. So the repeated discrepancies in public vs private pay rises (public being repeatedly lower for the avoidance of doubt) since 2010 should be addressed rather than perpetuated.'" https://moneyweek-com.cdn.ampproject.or ... -gets-more Hope this helps

Quote: wotsupcas "https://moneyweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/moneyweek.com/economy/uk-economy/602141/private-vs-public-sector-pay-who-really-gets-more?amp_js_v It is an interesting analysis. This what the article refers back to: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... nings/2019 And it draws in turn from this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... nings/2019 A couple of points that jumped out for me are the differences between lower and higher skilled workers across the sectors. Which is probably unsurprising and reflects my own experience. This is also reflected in the mean and median proportions of public sector pay that private sector workers receive. V.similar mean but lower median, reflecting more variety in the private sector. To the point that lumping in Amazon delivery drivers and bond traders feels overly arbitrary.

Quote: wotsupcas "https://moneyweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/moneyweek.com/economy/uk-economy/602141/private-vs-public-sector-pay-who-really-gets-more?amp_js_v It is an interesting analysis. This what the article refers back to: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... nings/2019 And it draws in turn from this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... nings/2019 A couple of points that jumped out for me are the differences between lower and higher skilled workers across the sectors. Which is probably unsurprising and reflects my own experience. This is also reflected in the mean and median proportions of public sector pay that private sector workers receive. V.similar mean but lower median, reflecting more variety in the private sector. To the point that lumping in Amazon delivery drivers and bond traders feels overly arbitrary.

As you say, absolutely impossible to make a simple or direct comparison.
Traditionally, working in the public sector wasn't just as well paid but, it was always seen as the safer option - less risk of redundancy and not exposed to the same pressures as the private sector
and I would say that by and large this is still the case.
You can earn more outside the public sector but, the risks are greater.

As for pay settlements, the same probably applies.
Public sector gives a level of protection against redundancies and pay settlements will usually be below the average, which means doing better than some but, not as well as others.

With regard to NHS settlements, it's all a little bit ugly.
Due to the huge numbers working in the NHS ANY pay increase costs a huge amount of cash overall but, it always will and it's crazy to say that an extra 1% will cost "X" billion
It can and never will be any different and the reality is that if we need to have public sector services, we should be prepared to pay for them - end of story.

Absolutely, and progressive taxation can be used to ensure that those least well remunerated in the private sector who also often face the most problems with job insecurity and poor working conditions aren’t asked to bear an unrealistic share of the burden.

A very good post - but the idea that private sector is way ahead of the public sector simply doesn't ring true - is a simple admin job any better paid in the private sector in fact its probably the opposite. Are their head's of council's that earn what a CEO of huge private business no but as the poster mentioned the private sector risks are huge,

LOL

What you really mean is the Multi year rolling contracts and Golden Handshakes for repeated abject failure are Huge.

I'd say public sector workers on the lower end of the pay structure will earn more than their private sector counterparts as most local authorities adopt the recommended national living wage (£9.50) as their minimum wage, as opposed to the national minimum wage, so cleaners, building attendants, mail room workers etc, probably are paid better than private sector counter parts. However, teachers, nurses, engineers, solicitors, and directors/CEOs, i.e. jobs that require years of higher education and training are most certainly paid more in the private sector. So looking at the overall average isn't necessarily going to give you the full picture.

You must have missed this:

"You can earn more outside the public sector but, the risks are greater."

Local government was always reasonably paid but, never the best but, back in the day, the pensions were among the best available.
The non contributory final salary schemes were unbelievable by todays standards, not to mention the early retirement in the Police, Fire service etc.
These benefits are not open to the average working man/woman in the private sector, unless of course, it's your business.

Your last comment assumes those with degree's actually end up in a job which makes use of them.
In itself, degree is no guarantee of higher pay, you still need to land a position where the reward takes account of your qualification and then be able to actually do the job.

A third of Labour supporters feel that Starmer is doing an awful job. Let that sink in. A third. That is embarassing!