Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To defend I/S, I don't disagree with you on the substantive point but I tend to give even the best bloggers a subject or person they're allowed to get irrationally cranky about. But just one. :)
i've always had respect for i/s, but that one crankiness really does say, "i'm on the dole/underpaid". :)
-
I suppose so. I've never been comfortable with being part of this "The Left" thing that Chris Trotter et al talk about.
i think the correct verb is "bang on about". it's an unhelpful simplification of world-view designed for slightly stupid minds.
witness the "socialist" bullshit over on kiwiblog.
otoh though, NRT constantly framing everything related to key through a "him and his rich mates" lens is as stultifying.
-
absolutely. bed after 10, out before 7. i can sleep when i'm old! it's also why i read right past something rb said...
rb, are you suggesting that the herald is not running a column of keith's that might shed light on one of key's statements?
that's a little far-fetched isn't it?
-
@rb. heh. i just enjoyed the exercise.
-
OK, so i've done some back-of-envelope-type-figures (hopefully someone has some accurate information). mostly because i'm intensely curious.
this pdf from the OECD has some interesting figures on numbers of public sector employees. p.52 has a graph.
in this case "public sector" employees seems to include *anyone* employed by government. in new zealand, according to the SSC, we had 324,086 public sector types in june 2007.
but, we only had 42,000 in the "core" public service (meaning all the ministries and departments). i.e. 'bureaucrats' and not "front-line" workers.
according to Dept of Stats in the december quarter there were 2,173,000 employed.
my shonky math and lightning fast research gives us about 15% of the workforce in the "public sector", meaning teachers, nurses, firemen etc. that number appears about average for the oecd
but only 2% of the workforce are "bureaucrats". that's less than the unemployment rate.
<disclaimer> keith ng could do a better job with these stats!</disclaimer>
-
These are the people who go to gigs and plays and support the galleries. Drive them out of central Wellington, and you'd be left with a very different -- and much less interesting -- place.
it does make us sound like we're overpaid party-goers. :)
that said though, the life is wellington is probably more the product of a high density of youngish people living and working in the same space. you'd get the same effect in any city with reasonable density.
and density is probably why auckland lacks it! (not that i'm wanting to restart that old argument).
but on topic! does anyone know what nzl's proportion of public servants to working age population is? i'm not sure that it's out of line with other oecd countries.
-
Spending on core services has increased substantially since the 90s, even controlling for special ed type things.
ahhh... i see. thanks 100.
do you know if the spending increase is particular to salaried positions, or does it also encompass plant and "infrastructure" like flashy computer systems?
-
Does John Key actually want to get any votes in Wellington?
it's a safe labour seat! he has nothing to fear.
he personally lined up Wellington Hospital management and went Rambo on their arse. I don't think that place is so much dysfunctional as something out of the more frightening corners of grindhouse cinema.
did i mention that i had to self-diagnose to get accurate information to the surgeon who was going to perform my a heart operation? (it's about four paragraphs down.)
-
scott said:
I'm one of those faceless 'crats myself (not at the IRD) and it actually appals me to hear the level of service that some people have received.
same.
and i was at the ird. one of the type of people craig encountered was my primary motivation to taking my skills to another department...
-
the Government has brought Special Education back into the core public service, as opposed to having them as external contractors.
i thought it was common knowledge that although the "bureacracy" shrank in the 1990s, all the work was shifted to contractors?
working as a researcher, i can tell you that there are considerable efficiencies in cost and knowledge-retention resulting from having this function in-house.