Although I don't know if the numbers you're quoting are correct, I'd say that the reason private education is more expensive is simply because it's better. The class sizes are smaller, the facilities are kept up to date. The teachers don't encessarily get paid more, but the better working conditions attract the more talented, dedicates and hard-working individuals.
So far as the NHS goes, there's a huge economy of scale. With a £100+++Bn a year budget they can buy cheaper than a private organisation can, and also have lower overheads per patient or per operation.
Average day school independent fees are around £10,000 - state schools get about £3,350 per pupil. Independent schools are better because of their intake of pupils. It is absolute nonsense to say that teachers in private schools are more dedicated etc.
But if the private sector is so much more efficient why cannot it provide at least as good an education (with its supposed better teachers) for less money than the state sector?
I'm watching this now .... and wondering when the Daily Mail got its own TV channel
While the programme is making some interesting (if glib and simplstic) points, it hasn't addressed some basic truths.
To start with, they rightly say that the government doesn't have any money of its own and is spanding OUR money. But they forget that WE gave them the franchise to do that. So really by blaming governments, of any colour or leaning, we should really be blaming OURSELVES for telling them that's what we wanted.
Second. While they regret the passing of industrialised britain and rightly say that we need to MAKE STUFF and we can't get out of recessions simply by training more hairdressers. They have however forgotten that if we are to compete on the global manufacturing market, we'd have to pay people tha same rates as they get in China, Indonesia and all the other "sweat-shop" countries that we willingly support by buying thier stuff - in preference to locally produced, but more expensive alternatives. Citing the past glories of the 19th and early 20th centuries conveniently forgets about globaisation. In those days british workers lived in (comparative) poverty, with terrible conditions and we, as a people, decided we weren't going to accept that. That was all very well when there weren't any alternatives (for example alternatives to buying british cars, or TVs) but when it so cheap to import them from low-wage countries the whole game changed. The people who would be the manufacturing workers of today now have to take jobs as the councilling consultants the programme is mocking. Even though these service jobs don't create anything, they do at least stop an otherwise unemployable sector of the population from being completely unemployed.
Very good points. You are probably quite right that the modern British worker wouldn't work for the lower wages of his foreign counterparts (or even his ancestors) which would help Britain compete in a global market. And therein lies the rub, because one day, he will have to.
The next generation will be lucky to have jobs at all and will be lucky to receive anything from the benefits system, because both will have broken down. As money is printed without State wealth to back it, so the £ sterling will devalue, and we may even have to take wheelbarrow-loads of worthless pounds to buy a loaf of bread. And this will be happening even as people are actually forced to earn less.
...but is anyone going to suggest the army of public sector pen pushers that has been created in the last 30-40 years serves any real purpose?
Well yeah. It's a corollary of Parkinson's law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for it By giving government and local government all this money - or more precisely, not being sufficiently outraged when they mug us for it, we've allowed them to create all these non-jobs.
However, if the people who do sit at desks in council offices weren't doing that, what else could they possibly do? None of the skills they have are any use in industry, or research, or even for digging up the road. They'd just be sitting around on the dole instead.
Hong Kong certainly has plenty of poor people, especially the elderly and those in rural areas. Not everyone has benefitted from its economic success, though it's true many have a very good income nowadays. However, money may not buy everything a person wants because some things, property for instance, are extremely expensive.
Average day school independent fees are around £10,000 - state schools get about £3,350 per pupil. Independent schools are better because of their intake of pupils. It is absolute nonsense to say that teachers in private schools are more dedicated etc.
But if the private sector is so much more efficient why cannot it provide at least as good an education (with its supposed better teachers) for less money than the state sector?
Because the state sector is heavily subsidised by your taxes while the private sector is not.
Hong Kong is very small and densely populated, hence the property prices.
Yes, but the point is that as wealth has increased so has property prices and at a galloping rate. So even if someone is earning a hefty salary they may still not be able to afford a flat or house. It didn't used to be like that, even when there were many people living in that very small space. For instance, my friend's family owned their own home even though they weren't wealthy; luckily it still remains in their family, because there is no way they could afford a house like theirs now.
Don't get me wrong; I admire the way Hong Kong went from being a poor country to a rich one, but wealth can create problems of its own. Plus, of course, the poor are still there too and not getting any richer in many cases.
Yes, let's have unrestrained capalism. We won't be £5tr in debt, we'll be £20tr after the markets crash again and again. We need more regulation - even the Conservatives agree with that.
Some people have no idea how dangerous free unrestrained unregulated capalism is. How do you think we go to £5tr debt ? Capitalism brought us here.
When was the point made to have unrestrained and unregulated capitalism? It wasn't as far as I could tell. What it did say was the people should take more responsibility for themselves and perhaps be helped by approaching taxation and the provision of services in a different way.
However, if the people who do sit at desks in council offices weren't doing that, what else could they possibly do? None of the skills they have are any use in industry, or research, or even for digging up the road. They'd just be sitting around on the dole instead.
They'd be working in private companies as they'd never be in the public sector playing with their pens in the first instance of course!
Because the state sector is heavily subsidised by your taxes while the private sector is not.
Er, the state sector is not subsidised by our taxes, it is wholly paid for by them. A year's education in a state secondary school for an average pupil costs the taxpayer around £3,350 in total. A year's education for an average pupil in a private school costs around £10,000. If private is so much more efficient than public why does it cost three times as much?
When was the point made to have unrestrained and unregulated capitalism? It wasn't as far as I could tell. What it did say was the people should take more responsibility for themselves and perhaps be helped by approaching taxation and the provision of services in a different way.
Those familiar with all the facets of the idiology know full well, from history, and from arguments put forward now, that the ultimate goal is to have unrestrained, very lightly regulated, private enterprise.
Er, the state sector is not subsidised by our taxes, it is wholly paid for by them. A year's education in a state secondary school for an average pupil costs the taxpayer around £3,350 in total. A year's education for an average pupil in a private school costs around £10,000. If private is so much more efficient than public why does it cost three times as much?
Private schools have to make a profit in order to re-invest in the school, to buy books, minibuses, computers, do building repairs and cover other costs, perhaps even pay rent..
State schools don't have to make a profit and much of what they use is subsidised for them to purchase more cheaply, or even free, such as the property on which the school stands.
Private schools have to make a profit in order to re-invest in the school, to buy books, minibuses, computers, do building repairs and cover other costs, perhaps even pay rent..
State schools don't have to make a profit and much of what they use is subsidised for them to purchase more cheaply, or even free, such as the property on which the school stands.
I agree with all that - except for the use of the word "subsidised" - it is an explanation of why the public sector is more efficient than the private sector.
If the private sector were more efficient private companies would be able to sell their services to the state and educate children more cheaply than the state can. Whenever we have private sector involvement in state education, as in some of the academy schools, it is always a lot more expensive than the ordinary schools, requiring far higher expenditure from the taxpayer.
If the private sector is more efficient then why has water privatisation resulted in a doubling of water charges (taking into account inflation) yet there is more water lost in leaks and less security of supply than before. The same story applies in electricity, gas, railways, buses etc.
Private schools have to make a profit in order to re-invest in the school, to buy books, minibuses, computers, do building repairs and cover other costs, perhaps even pay rent..
State schools don't have to make a profit and much of what they use is subsidised for them to purchase more cheaply, or even free, such as the property on which the school stands.
Whatever the reasons why private schools are more expensive, they ARE more expensive and no better than equivalent state schools.
I can see why you liked this programme if you think tax-funded state schools are "subsidised".
"Property on which the school stands"?
These types of programmes are a public service since they expose the basic stupidity of the ideas put forward.
Most peoples experience with the private sector is poor, the only people who have a good time of it are the very rich who have access to the very little "crem de la crem" that is available in the private sector.
The public sector actually has more "cream" and it's more fairly spread out so that everyone has a chance of getting a very good service.
And the public sector is cheaper too.
It's weird what people will believe, almost like a religion to them. But look at the reality of the private sector in this country, not the theory.
The reality is that the private sector (for service) is mostly appalling/mostly expensive for most people. Only manufacturing excels.
I love how the programme barely mentioned the 'free market' as a failed concept. It's capitalism that has brought this country to its knees, not sue the nurse or joe the window cleaner.
Very good points. You are probably quite right that the modern British worker wouldn't work for the lower wages of his foreign counterparts (or even his ancestors) which would help Britain compete in a global market. And therein lies the rub, because one day, he will have to.
All that tells me is that globalisation and technology will, inevitably, shatter our standard of living :mad:
The next generation will be lucky to have jobs at all and will be lucky to receive anything from the benefits system, because both will have broken down. As money is printed without State wealth to back it, so the £ sterling will devalue, and we may even have to take wheelbarrow-loads of worthless pounds to buy a loaf of bread. And this will be happening even as people are actually forced to earn less.
What an a prospect to look forward too as the 'First World', of today, becomes the 'Third World', of tomorrow
Many of us, now, in real-terms, are worse off today than we were in 1972.
I'm under no illusion as to why most major Western economies are running high public debt to GDP ratios. It's the price governments have been willing to pay to 1) maintain higher levels of employment for, and 2) sustain the living standards of, their populaces in the face of increasing competition for private investment from the roaring cheap labour economies; hence, an 'expanded' public sector
Oh, and we're living longer too but who, the way things are going, would want to :rolleyes:?
Although I don't know if the numbers you're quoting are correct, I'd say that the reason private education is more expensive is simply because it's better. The class sizes are smaller, the facilities are kept up to date. The teachers don't encessarily get paid more, but the better working conditions attract the more talented, dedicates and hard-working individuals.
So far as the NHS goes, there's a huge economy of scale. With a £100+++Bn a year budget they can buy cheaper than a private organisation can, and also have lower overheads per patient or per operation.
You have it the wrong way around. It's better (by some measures) because it is more expensive. More money is spent per pupil. Classes are smaller and the pupils who are there are more likely to come from families that value education. Being able to cherry pick is the main reason why they are better: state schools are also better when they can do this or happen to be situation within a wealthier catchment area.
It's the same with hospitals. NHS hospitals deal with far more cases and those cases are much more likely to be serious ones. They do this on smaller budgets per patient than private hospitals do.
The main difference is most cases between the private and public sector is that the private gets to choose its customers whereas the public does not. Without taking this into account you can never have a fair comparison between the two.
If the private sector is so amazing and awesome, why does it need the taxpayer to subsidize the rail companies?
Why is it the CBI has called for the government to invest in infrastructure? Surely the marvelous private sector can do that?
The truth is, Britain's private sector is so short-termist it is often left to the public sector to do all the dirty work, which the private sector then profits from.
The private sector is as unscrupulous in sponging off the taxpayer as any benefit cheat or dole scrounger.
Forgive me if I'm thick but after the awesome demonstration of how high the pile of £50 notes that we owe (£4.8 Trillion) would be if they were actually placed on top of each other (all the way into space and it was the most impressive part of the programme), he didn't actually tell us who or what we owe the money to. It's something I've not ever been able to get my head around, who the heck do we owe all this money too and what the bloody hell do they do with it?
A pile of fivers by the way might scrape the moon!
Comments
But if the private sector is so much more efficient why cannot it provide at least as good an education (with its supposed better teachers) for less money than the state sector?
you're understanding is tainted by your obvious left-wing ideology my friend.
Very good points. You are probably quite right that the modern British worker wouldn't work for the lower wages of his foreign counterparts (or even his ancestors) which would help Britain compete in a global market. And therein lies the rub, because one day, he will have to.
The next generation will be lucky to have jobs at all and will be lucky to receive anything from the benefits system, because both will have broken down. As money is printed without State wealth to back it, so the £ sterling will devalue, and we may even have to take wheelbarrow-loads of worthless pounds to buy a loaf of bread. And this will be happening even as people are actually forced to earn less.
However, if the people who do sit at desks in council offices weren't doing that, what else could they possibly do? None of the skills they have are any use in industry, or research, or even for digging up the road. They'd just be sitting around on the dole instead.
Just as it is in England.
Because the state sector is heavily subsidised by your taxes while the private sector is not.
Don't get me wrong; I admire the way Hong Kong went from being a poor country to a rich one, but wealth can create problems of its own. Plus, of course, the poor are still there too and not getting any richer in many cases.
When was the point made to have unrestrained and unregulated capitalism? It wasn't as far as I could tell. What it did say was the people should take more responsibility for themselves and perhaps be helped by approaching taxation and the provision of services in a different way.
They'd be working in private companies as they'd never be in the public sector playing with their pens in the first instance of course!
Er, the state sector is not subsidised by our taxes, it is wholly paid for by them. A year's education in a state secondary school for an average pupil costs the taxpayer around £3,350 in total. A year's education for an average pupil in a private school costs around £10,000. If private is so much more efficient than public why does it cost three times as much?
Those familiar with all the facets of the idiology know full well, from history, and from arguments put forward now, that the ultimate goal is to have unrestrained, very lightly regulated, private enterprise.
This is what those sort of people want.
http://www.adamsmith.org/
Adam Smith want this. They were featured in the film. I referred to them in my original posts.
Anyways, can't wait to visit Hong Kong again soon after Christmas! It is so clean, safe, advanced and exciting!
Private schools have to make a profit in order to re-invest in the school, to buy books, minibuses, computers, do building repairs and cover other costs, perhaps even pay rent..
State schools don't have to make a profit and much of what they use is subsidised for them to purchase more cheaply, or even free, such as the property on which the school stands.
I agree with all that - except for the use of the word "subsidised" - it is an explanation of why the public sector is more efficient than the private sector.
If the private sector were more efficient private companies would be able to sell their services to the state and educate children more cheaply than the state can. Whenever we have private sector involvement in state education, as in some of the academy schools, it is always a lot more expensive than the ordinary schools, requiring far higher expenditure from the taxpayer.
If the private sector is more efficient then why has water privatisation resulted in a doubling of water charges (taking into account inflation) yet there is more water lost in leaks and less security of supply than before. The same story applies in electricity, gas, railways, buses etc.
Whatever the reasons why private schools are more expensive, they ARE more expensive and no better than equivalent state schools.
I can see why you liked this programme if you think tax-funded state schools are "subsidised".
"Property on which the school stands"?
These types of programmes are a public service since they expose the basic stupidity of the ideas put forward.
Like listening to Scientologists.
The public sector actually has more "cream" and it's more fairly spread out so that everyone has a chance of getting a very good service.
And the public sector is cheaper too.
It's weird what people will believe, almost like a religion to them. But look at the reality of the private sector in this country, not the theory.
The reality is that the private sector (for service) is mostly appalling/mostly expensive for most people. Only manufacturing excels.
All that tells me is that globalisation and technology will, inevitably, shatter our standard of living :mad:
What an a prospect to look forward too as the 'First World', of today, becomes the 'Third World', of tomorrow
Many of us, now, in real-terms, are worse off today than we were in 1972.
I'm under no illusion as to why most major Western economies are running high public debt to GDP ratios. It's the price governments have been willing to pay to 1) maintain higher levels of employment for, and 2) sustain the living standards of, their populaces in the face of increasing competition for private investment from the roaring cheap labour economies; hence, an 'expanded' public sector
Oh, and we're living longer too
You have it the wrong way around. It's better (by some measures) because it is more expensive. More money is spent per pupil. Classes are smaller and the pupils who are there are more likely to come from families that value education. Being able to cherry pick is the main reason why they are better: state schools are also better when they can do this or happen to be situation within a wealthier catchment area.
It's the same with hospitals. NHS hospitals deal with far more cases and those cases are much more likely to be serious ones. They do this on smaller budgets per patient than private hospitals do.
The main difference is most cases between the private and public sector is that the private gets to choose its customers whereas the public does not. Without taking this into account you can never have a fair comparison between the two.
Why is it the CBI has called for the government to invest in infrastructure? Surely the marvelous private sector can do that?
The truth is, Britain's private sector is so short-termist it is often left to the public sector to do all the dirty work, which the private sector then profits from.
The private sector is as unscrupulous in sponging off the taxpayer as any benefit cheat or dole scrounger.
A pile of fivers by the way might scrape the moon!