Better off here than in UK - Cannan.

[Derek Flint]

On 12/18/2019 at 11:38 PM, P.K. said:

In other words totally clueless so-called management not valuing their staff which is absolutely endemic in public service.

A life-long friend of mine, who has a senior position in the HoC, puts this down to senior management imagining their staff are like they were in that position ie useless. Hence the very rare good ones are simply not valued for how good they are...

I tried to get a couple of staff upgraded in my time. People look at you as if you are daft. Yet they were clearly doing more than their pay grade determined.

[Derek Flint]

Interesting read, this thread. It made me wonder whether the Isle of Man is what you might call a “sub-optimal jurisdiction”

there must be a fairly narrow sweet spot where everything works. The mix of HNW,  Mid earners, low earners, health service requirements, infrastructure, education, transport, national safety and all the other things you nominally require to operate a ‘nation’. 

Then factor in the sources of income outside taxation: 

• The growth in eGaming during the year has meant that it continues to be the largest sector within the economy during 2017/18, with a sector share of 21.1%, followed by Insurance (17.6%), ICT (9.1%) and Other Financial and Business Services (8%).

- well over 50% of the economy being industries that simply need a better incentive elsewhere to relocate. From this there must be a magic formula where it all works, with a ‘perfect storm’ of make up of all the various sectors and demographics. All within a population window of maybe 80-90,000. 

The problem is, it’s very easy to see a Jenga effect with all this. Start pulling out blocks (a sector of income declines, can’t get people here, too many of one sort here in proportion to the rest etc.) and it could get very wobbly, very quickly.

Outside of the likes of Monaco, who have had it right for the last 100 years maybe, is there a sustainability in micro-nations?

[Rog]

On 12/18/2019 at 11:38 PM, P.K. said:

In other words totally clueless so-called management not valuing their staff which is absolutely endemic in public service.

A life-long friend of mine, who has a senior position in the HoC, puts this down to senior management imagining their staff are like they were in that position ie useless. Hence the very rare good ones are simply not valued for how good they are...

Thing is that when you employ someone the additional costs usually far exceed the wage paid.  It is called the Loaded Labour Rate and the benefit that the employee brings must exceed the LLR before they have any benefit to the employer.  Moreover an employee is a resource to be used and therefore must be viewed in a very similar way to any other resource the only difference between (say) a cement mixer and a shop assistant is that the latter has a higher maintenance cost in that there are human factors to be taken into account.

If someone is very good at their job then why must be considered before improving their T's and C's I the increase of their input to a business plus the often overlooked cost --- Look "PK", without any intended dig I get the impression that your understanding of what is involved in running a successful business is a bit limited.

[P.K.]

On 12/20/2019 at 9:22 AM, Rog said:

Thing is that when you employ someone the additional costs usually far exceed the wage paid.  It is called the Loaded Labour Rate and the benefit that the employee brings must exceed the LLR before they have any benefit to the employer.  Moreover an employee is a resource to be used and therefore must be viewed in a very similar way to any other resource the only difference between (say) a cement mixer and a shop assistant is that the latter has a higher maintenance cost in that there are human factors to be taken into account.

If someone is very good at their job then why must be considered before improving their T's and C's I the increase of their input to a business plus the often overlooked cost --- Look "PK", without any intended dig I get the impression that your understanding of what is involved in running a successful business is a bit limited.

We were talking about the public sector.

I have never known it to be called the "Loaded Labour Rate" in the US multinational I worked in it was called a "Fully Loaded Head" calculation. It included just about everything apart from just the wage. The pension is the obvious one but when you factor in the bennies like health insurance, car, gym, training, relocation, R&R, office space with facilities management etc etc you can take the salary and multiply it by three and sometimes four.

The massive difference is in advancement in the private sector compared to the public sector. Where I worked promotions were only given if it was obvious you were going to add far more to the bottom line than the cost of your moving forward. Which naturally was costed out at three or four times more than the salary increase. Because you would almost certainly be getting better company wheels etc

What a difference to the public sector....

As an aside it is amazing how sales people judge their worth on items like the company car. I was at a Year Start meeting where a salesman was complaining that the IBM reps drive around in a four door whatever and he only had a two door. Why was that?

The MD replied "Because they don't make a one door. Next question...."