Nope, It still stands.

I suppose it may increase the supply of economics lecturers slightly – however, given the difference in skills between the private and public sector, it may also lead to an increase in demand for economics degrees – which will increase demand for your services and drive up your wage!

“Since you have been thoroughly dressed down for this comment on the standard, care to retract it here?”

From what I could see the people at the Standard only said the same thing we have here – namely that it isn’t directly funded by the taxpayer. However, MikeE’s point that the PSA has a intrinsic incentive to back parties that will increase government spending does hold.

Since you have been thoroughly dressed down for this comment on the standard, care to retract it here?

I kid though.

Just because their marginal product is currently zero I have no doubt some of these people could make fine macro-economists – it isn’t that hard after all 😛

Furthermore, there marginal product is negative not because their individual production is negative – no that is probably positive. it is the negative impact a worker has on the marginal product of other workers that makes the marginal product negative.

That would imply that their labour input is substitutable for yours, something I highly doubt!

I guess it depends on how you want to view its intention. It isn’t directly tax payer funded, so you can’t say “our funds are being wasted on it”.

However, the PSA definitely has an incentive to maximise government spending.

“Jeez, the way you have it painted had me more scared rather than less!”

Really? From what I hear there are some government departments where the marginal product of a new employee is negative – if anything I thought that removing those analysts would not provide any trade-off (except in terms of the welfare of the analyst I guess 🙂 ).

It would have me more worried – an influx of policy analysts onto the Wellington labour market would definitely put downward pressure on my wage 😛