I didn't mean that the pension was not one of the attractions of public sector employment, rather that the rest of us can still be concerned about whether the system is affordable, and given that we pay for it are quite entitled to be, without necessarily feeling at the same time that it is such a great perk that we'd like to work in the public sector ourselves. They're separate points.

I accept that pay and benefits must be sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain staff but am also aware that recent studies have suggested that average salaries in the public sector are now higher than in the private sector. I concede that there are considerations of mean versus median and distortions caused by the extremes at either end of the private sector scale, but on the other hand I would contend that performance expectations are often lower, working hours shorter and leave entitlements often greater in the public sector too.

Nevermodern, I think there is something in your perception but a lot of it comes down to the actuaries' hard maths. People are living longer, the stock market went through a period of sustained poor performance that hit funds hard and finally Gordon Buffoon put the nail in the coffin by removing tax relief on dividends. The cumulative effect of this means that an employer needs to contribute 15-22% of salary to meet the 'defined benefits' of 40/60 pay on retirement.

However, with most public sector schemes there is no pension fund - just an open-ended commitment, a blank cheque that the rest of us have to meet through taxation. And given that under Buffoon, the proportion of the workforce in the public sector, doing little for GDP, has rocketed - leading to those of us in the private sector effectively contributing as much or more to our counterparts' pensions that we can often afford to contribute to our own.

So yes, some concern is understandable.