Public tansport :(

[Zword]

It makes me so sick....

I walked to the bus this morning ........I had like 15 minutes to get there and it was only a 10 minute walk. When I was 15 meters away from my busstop I saw the f*cking bus pass by ffs. It was 4 freaking minutes early......and now it would not stop and wait 4 minutes.

I hate public transport..............

[SilverSmoke]

those morons driving those buses always archieve to be OR 5 minutes too early OR 10 minutes too late at the place I get on the bus.


One day, I promise, I will strangle one of them with my bare hands

[djbass]

Do you name your bus drivers like we do here?

Example would be one we've named 'Peg-Leg Pete' for obvious reasons.

=[DJ Bass]=

[Dante Hicks]

Being a bus driver (in London at least) must be one of the worst jobs going.

Firstly, you've got the stress of traffic, etc - as well as responsibility of if you make a mistake you'd kill a fair number of people.

Second, you've got the low pay. (Not much to add here)

Finally, you've got the passengers. This might range from people shouting at you because the previous bus didn't stop, the fact you're late (because clearly you control the flow of traffic using your Jedi powers). Or finally, it might involve people threatening you for no good reason, or kids refusing to pay/vandalising the bus/assaulting other people.

(And +10 Obvious Points for anyone says "Well, they don't HAVE to do it" when the moan like a bitch when there's a poor bus service due to lack of drivers)

[Woof]

Public transport is a great example of why England is siht

[ChubbyChecker]

Because of its proximity to the other thread I thought the thread title was pubic transport!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ehem...

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Second, you've got the low pay. (Not much to add here)

Still more than what the teachers get.

[Zh|l]

At least we have it.

Thats my look upon public transport.

[roadrunner_0]

certain council estates in my area keep having their public transport withdrawn, due to throwing bricks through the bus windows
its actually scary being on a bus going through one of these areas

[roadrunner_0]

every day, i am grateful that i dont have to live in london, it would do my head in fs

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Still more than what the teachers get.

Which teahcers? Which bus drivers?

"Newly qualified teachers now have a starting salary of £17,595."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/teac...790371,00.html

"Basic facts and figures: Bus drivers in London earn on average £16,000 a year compared to £29, 000 for Tube drivers."

http://www.tgwu.org.uk/newsrelease/2002/pr0382.htm

They're both a disgrace, obviously.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Sorry, I'm working on figures that are a couple of years old.

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
They're both a disgrace, obviously.

Well, yes, but then all public sector workers are paid a pittance, and it's going to stay that way unless Britain suddenly gets a lot richer. The only exceptions seem to be elected people and the armed forces.

P.S. The Chief of the Defence Staff is paid £178,000 a year.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Don't forget Doctors.

The doctors here are paid much more than they are on the continent.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Proteus
Well, yes, but then all public sector workers are paid a pittance, and it's going to stay that way unless Britain suddenly gets a lot richer. The only exceptions seem to be elected people and the armed forces.

The Armed Forces as a whole aren't well paid. The higher ranks are well paid, but Army Privates get under £14k basic pay, unless something has changed recently.

And things won't change until people actually do something about it (i.e. strike).

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The Armed Forces as a whole aren't well paid. The higher ranks are well paid, but Army Privates get under £14k basic pay, unless something has changed recently.

And things won't change until people actually do something about it (i.e. strike).

Starting pay for enlisted people is £10,778, rising to a possible £37,022. Sergeants get about £25,000.

Starting pay for officers is £13,476, rising to a maximum of £178,000. Colonels get about £65,000. Generals get about £120,000.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Don't forget Doctors.

Or Judges.

Or consultants to Mr Blair. Or head of state companies.

Etc.

[MrL_JaKiri]

There are more MD's though.

It's hardly an uncommon calling.

[Freakozoid]

Tube drivers pay is ****ing ridiculous!

It doesn't look amazingly hard to move forward and then stop.
Yet they get payed £29k per year? and there pay is rising huge amounts, since whenever they strike they seem to get a pay rise =/

Tube's are ok, well some lines are.

I get the piccadilly line which is probably one of the best alongside the re opened central line.

London isn't too bad for transport you can get most places quickly and easy.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Two words.

'Strong union'.

Without the tubes, London would literally stop, which gives them quite a bit of leverage.

[Freakozoid]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Two words.

'Strong union'.

Without the tubes, London would literally stop, which gives them quite a bit of leverage.

yes but surely the if teachers all went on strike it would disrupt EVERYTHING.

apart from being irresponsible it would surely get them a pay rise or Gordon Brown would call them Nazi's
it'd be worth it tho'

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
If I bring up executive pay in another thread will the same people complaining about Tube drivers leap to the executives defenc epointing out Michael Eisner deserves a $500 million pay cheque?

No. The only person who deserves that much money is me.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
If I bring up executive pay in another thread will the same people complaining about Tube drivers leap to the executives defence explaining why Michael Eisner deserves a $500 million pay cheque?

He 'deserves' it because the free market system always has winners.

In fact, any market system based on pseudorandom market changes, be it stock market or otherwise, is guaranteed mathematically to produce a superelite sooner or later.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Or Judges.

Or consultants to Mr Blair. Or head of state companies.

Etc.

Im sure most bus drivers could do these jobs easily.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
He 'deserves' it because he generated it

fixed

[Proteus]

I really do think that comparing public sector workers to executives is very silly.

Fine, compare bus drivers to tube drivers, or firemen to soldiers.

But executives aren't paid by the government, and attempting to justify high pay for public sector workers by saying that executives are paid a lot is just nonsense.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
fixed

How does one generate wealth? Is it kinda like a mana thing which you generate over time?

Disney make their money via state enforced monopolies and indirect subsidies via IP laws.

p.s. I'm sure elderly judges couldn't do a fireman's job either...what's your point?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Proteus
But executives aren't paid by the government, and attempting to justify high pay for public sector workers by saying that executives are paid a lot is just nonsense.

Bus drivers aren't public sector workers. At least not in London.

The people, for instance, who drive the buses which go outside my home are employed by Arriva, a wholly private company.

The bus industry is highly regulated/subsised, etc but they are not public sector workers.

[queball]

British public transport is doomed. The British public is too damn ugly.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Furthermore, ultimately there is a social cost to high executive pay as it redistributes money from the poor to the rich. You talk about vested interest with the Unions influencing the government but at least the unions represent a large number of ordinary people, Chief executives seem to be a very infuential group (who regularly gain an audience with the PM) considering they represent a relatively small number of people.

As I stated previously, mathematical modelling has shown that the money ALWAYS gets concentrated with the rich.

[edit]

Don't forget that the minimum wage (for tis the only state controlled method of raising the wages of said people) is kept low for a reason; too high and it will drive many businesses out of, well, business.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
British public transport is doomed. The British public is too damn ugly.

I dunno, I've seen some pretty ladies from time to time on the Underground / train.

Of course, getting the bus in most of Lambeth/Southwark....shudder....

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
As I stated previously, mathematical modelling has shown that the money ALWAYS gets concentrated with the rich.

[edit]

Don't forget that the minimum wage (for tis the only state controlled method of raising the wages of said people) is kept low for a reason; too high and it will drive many businesses out of, well, business.

I'm not sure how mathematical modelling has shown that, unless you are specifying "under system x".

The Government can easily raise the wages of most people mentioned in this thread by (a) directly increasing their wages, (b) awarding contracts to companies which pay higher wages. Since the government controls 40% of the national GDP (approx) it has a hell of a lot of economic control. Not only this, but if the public sector increased wages then the private sector (in competetion for labour) would generally need to increase theres. Who'd go work in a private office if they could earn double the amount as a civil servant?

[Tobe]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not sure how mathematical modelling has shown that, unless you are specifying "under system x".

The Government can easily raise the wages of most people mentioned in this thread by (a) directly increasing their wages, (b) awarding contracts to companies which pay higher wages. Since the government controls 40% of the national GDP (approx) it has a hell of a lot of economic control. Not only this, but if the public sector increased wages then the private sector (in competetion for labour) would generally need to increase theres. Who'd go work in a private office if they could earn double the amount as a civil servant?

actually bongo boy the easiest way to increase wages is decreasing taxation

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Disney make their money via state enforced monopolies and indirect subsidies via IP laws.

Well, Disney are kind of an exception since they are pretty evil, but the general principle still stands.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm sure elderly judges couldn't do a fireman's job either...what's your point?

On the offchance youre serious, individual cases dont really count much. There are a lot more people who are able/willing to invest the effort in learning to be a bus driver, than there are those learning to be a good judge/doctor/CEO. Therefore, judges are going to be in far higher demand than bus drivers, and as thus will generally have higher salaries.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Bus drivers aren't public sector workers. At least not in London.

The people, for instance, who drive the buses which go outside my home are employed by Arriva, a wholly private company.

The bus industry is highly regulated/subsised, etc but they are not public sector workers.

This does not count as 'private sector'. You could make up some new category if you wanted to I suppose. What about "state-protected quango-workers"?

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not sure how mathematical modelling has shown that, unless you are specifying "under system x".

The Government can easily raise the wages of most people mentioned in this thread by (a) directly increasing their wages, (b) awarding contracts to companies which pay higher wages. Since the government controls 40% of the national GDP (approx) it has a hell of a lot of economic control. Not only this, but if the public sector increased wages then the private sector (in competetion for labour) would generally need to increase theres. Who'd go work in a private office if they could earn double the amount as a civil servant?

Im sure your masterplan would do wonders for Britain's already vibrant economy, and wouldnt result in foreign exodus followed by mass unemployment.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Who's comparing? my point is that it always seem to be the same people who will begrudge lower paid workers a few extra quid, but when someone is earning ludicrous amounts of money, that's OK, because those people are allegedly special.

Perhaps because they are the ones that are being forced to pay the "few extra quid" against their will, while the salaries of executives are earned through voluntary trade?

You cannot compare public sector and private sector salaries in any meaningful way. Stop trying to do it.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Furthermore, ultimately there is a social cost to high executive pay as it redistributes money from the poor to the rich.

What does this even mean? The salaries of executives are generated by consumers paying for the products their company is producing. If poor people buy the products, then yes, their money would go to the people selling them. I dont see what youre getting at though...

Your argument seems to be akin to that which claims footballers are being overpaid when they are earning X million pounds a year, while convienently forgetting that the value they are generating for the football club employing them is often greater than 10 times that figure.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

You talk about vested interest with the Unions influencing the government but at least the unions represent a large number of ordinary people, Chief executives seem to be a very infuential group (who regularly gain an audience with the PM) considering they represent a relatively small number of people.

Well that's the fault of people like you, so again, I dont see what youre getting at.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not sure how mathematical modelling has shown that, unless you are specifying "under system x".

Under all systems with a pseudorandom monetary interchange, as I said earlier.

It doesn't say anything about the working man living in poverty, just that you will have a superelite in monetary terms.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tobe
actually bongo boy the easiest way to increase wages is decreasing taxation

All figures in this thread are gross of taxation, so I'm not sure how a bus drivers gross salary of 16k would be increased by decreasing taxation...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Well, Disney are kind of an exception since they are pretty evil, but the general principle still stands.

I'm still not sure how Eisner generates wealth. He would have been appointed to manage things by a board (themselves presumably elected from shareholders). He didn't build Disney up from nothing, and as far as I know, he didn't invent any IP which Disney make money from. I mean, I'm sure he's great and all, but it's like saying Tony Blair should get £10m per year because Britain's "revenue" last year was a trillion pounds. I can see where you are coming from with entrepreneurs, but I don't know how that applies with managers.

Ultimately under "a capitalist like system", it's shareholders money and they can do what they want with it - but I don't see how we cna use terms like "deserving" in a serious fashion in this example.

On the offchance youre serious, individual cases dont really count much. There are a lot more people who are able/willing to invest the effort in learning to be a bus driver, than there are those learning to be a good judge/doctor/CEO. Therefore, judges are going to be in far higher demand than bus drivers, and as thus will generally have higher salaries.

Well, I don't know about that. Judges are public sector employees, and are defended by vast amounts of state protection. Lawyers are ten a penny (with ever increasing numbers) and almost all lawyers would kill to be a judge (yes, there's a certain experience level you would need to get, but it's not brain surgery). Bus drivers on the other hand have their wages unfairly crippled since bus fare prices are kept artificially low by state intervention. Outcome : There is a massive excess of people who want to be judges, and very few who want to be bus drivers.

This does not count as 'private sector'. You could make up some new category if you wanted to I suppose. What about "state-protected quango-workers"?

Agreed, although I'd apply this term to a hell of a lot of companies. State intervention (in most nations) hinders or assists a hell of a lot of companies. You'd need to say almost anyone involved in agriculture in Europe (or America) are non-private sector for instance. Or defence, for that matter.

Im sure your masterplan would do wonders for Britain's already vibrant economy, and wouldnt result in foreign exodus followed by mass unemployment.

I wouldn't implement any of the policies I suggested. I was merely responding to someone who said the government could only increase wages via minimum wage increases which is clearly nonsense. I don't support "capitalist like systems" so how the government handles wages now is of only academic interest.