What is "low paid"?

pietromas

Everybody else seems to know because they are always talking about the "low paid" workers. I want to know so I can join in the conversation. Is it different in the public and private sectors?

sceptre

There's no formal definition.

Some organisations define "low paid" as being below a level they regard as an adequate living wage. At least in the UK, that's the definition the trade unions generally use and they set that figure themselves.

More organisations define "low paid" as being gross hourly earnings of less than 60% of gross hourly median full-time earnings (shortly put: take the figure at which half the working population is above or below and multiply it by 60%). While this figure is generally lower than the "adequate living wage" definition, it's more generally accepted, as well as being less arbitrary. Economic institutes and other such organisations use this figure.

As for what people here generally mean, well, erm, probably one of the above two or a vague figure they made up. I like the second definition above.

Eliot Rosewater

(My post deals with the phrase in the way its more likely to be used on Boards.ie)

"Low paid" is a subjective phrase that is usually defined by a person so as to suit their political outlook. The trade unions, for example, will typically claim their workers are "low paid" because it will suit their demands for higher wages. Employers, on the other hand, will say their workers aren't lower paid so that they can keep the current wage levels. The term then starts to lose any objective meaning. This is the same process by which words like "fairness" and "equality" have become close to meaningless in a political context.

baalthor

A union leader (CPSU I think) stated on RTE today that the government now officially recognises low pay as being less than €35k per year :eek:

Crazy Taxi

What is low paid?

Me for a start:(:(:(

If the govt is saying below 35k is low paid I must qualify as poverty stricken.

danman

So according to the CSO, the average wage in Ireland in 2009 was €36,318.36.

So 60% of that is €21,791.016.

Would that be right?
That seems very low.
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH

cson

Still €400 odd quid a month after the small bit of tax if any and PRSI you'll pay. You'd live handy enough off that sans mortgage and family to support. There are people on training contracts who'd love to be on that. It's all relative to your circumstances imo.

Edit: As an aside, there is nothing wrong with low paid jobs per se. The Unions and Media seemed to have hammered home the point that low paid = bad. Not necessarily; some jobs are so rudimentary and basic that they should be in that bracket.

sceptre

danman wrote: »

So according to the CSO, the average wage in Ireland in 2009 was €36,318.36.

So 60% of that is €21,791.016.

Would that be right?
That seems very low.
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH

Well, that's the mean, not the median. The two figures probably aren't far apart though (I don't have the median figures unfortunately but thanks for the mean one (no pun intended:))

View

It depends on if you are public sector or not.

It is perfectly possible to be "low paid" by public sector worker standards yet be "well paid" by the standards of private sector workers (or former private sector workers).

The explanation for this is that the average public sector worker earns more than the average private sector worker. This discrepancy is most pronounced at lower wage levels but persists through all levels.

WalterMitty

View wrote: »

It depends on if you are public sector or not.

It is perfectly possible to be "low paid" by public sector worker standards yet be "well paid" by the standards of private sector workers (or former private sector workers).

The explanation for this is that the average public sector worker earns more than the average private sector worker. This discrepancy is most pronounced at lower wage levels but persists through all levels.

True, also the PS union types include people doing part time jobs who might be on a good hourly wage but only work around 20 hrs a week as "low paid" .

nesf

danman wrote: »

So according to the CSO, the average wage in Ireland in 2009 was €36,318.36.

So 60% of that is €21,791.016.

Would that be right?
That seems very low.
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH

That sounds about right tbh. I think most people would agree that 21K a year would be fairly low pay. Versus the crazy union definitions of 35K and other silliness.

dan_d

This is a question that I keep asking and never seem to get even an indication of what this is.

I know that there is no actual scale or definition of it.....but if you have a union like the CPSU representing "lower paid public servants" then surely it follows that they have some sort of definition of exactly what a lower paid PS gets.

And how does it compare to what "lower paid" private workers get? Personally, I'm on about 38K. I have my suspicions I'd be at the higher end of the lower paid scale in the PS. But I'd be interested to know!

(I should add that I think 38k is quite a good wage by most people's standards - though maybe not when taken in conjunction with the hours I work and what I do. But that's my choice - and it would be interesting to see the public service view of it)

ParkRunner

dan_d wrote: »

(I should add that I think 38k is quite a good wage by most people's standards - though maybe not when taken in conjunction with the hours I work and what I do. But that's my choice - and it would be interesting to see the public service view of it)

Having started out on the lowest Clerical Officer pay myself, at the time it paid ok because I was living at home with the parents. It is all relative though. Buying a place or renting anywhere half decent was out of the question so I had to share a house with 3 others in the end to move out. I got a battered old opel corsa too but the insurance cost more than the car!

On another point the disposable income for a person on the lowest CO pay will be about 14% less than their private sector counterpart. It is going into a decent pension but when you are starting off in your 20's, pensions are not really a priority.

It depends what you want out of life I suppose. If you are happy to share an apartment (rent), have a bike to get around, don't go away on holidays, not have health insurance and have a quiet social life you could get by on low CO pay. Whereas if you want to own a house, a car and go on a few holidays every year and have a very active social life those things alone would be out of reach without needing to take on a second job.

ei.sdraob

EF wrote: »

Having started out on the lowest Clerical Officer pay myself, at the time it paid ok because I was living at home with the parents. It is all relative though. Buying a place or renting anywhere half decent was out of the question so I had to share a house with 3 others in the end to move out. I got a battered old opel corsa too but the insurance cost more than the car!

On another point the disposable income for a person on the lowest CO pay will be about 14% less than their private sector counterpart. It is going into a decent pension but when you are starting off in your 20's, pensions are not really a priority.

It depends what you want out of life I suppose. If you are happy to share an apartment (rent), have a bike to get around, don't go away on holidays, not have health insurance and have a quiet social life you could get by on low CO pay. Whereas if you want to own a house, a car and go on a few holidays every year and have a very active social life those things alone would be out of reach without needing to take on a second job.

you see in the real world people have to work harder and gain more skills to get these, not sitback and point a gun to the citizens of this country and/or get "benchmarked" for no productivity gains

also you have not mentioned the job security factor, that's a huge variable which is highly important and can provide stability

OMD

EF wrote: »

Having started out on the lowest Clerical Officer pay myself, at the time it paid ok because I was living at home with the parents. It is all relative though. Buying a place or renting anywhere half decent was out of the question so I had to share a house with 3 others in the end to move out. I got a battered old opel corsa too but the insurance cost more than the car!

But how old were you at this stage? I went to college and then obviously started working at the bottom. I was over 30 before I could afford not to house share and I was 29 when I bought my first car, a second hand one obviously. I don't think I am unusual. A "low paid " clerical officer aged 30 with 11 years service and no promotion earns €35,000. This is a hell of a lot more than I was earning aged 30 and is just about average wage.

I should add I would never have considered myself low paid

ParkRunner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you see in the real world people have to work harder and gain more skills to get these, not sitback and point a gun to the citizens of this country and/or get "benchmarked" for no productivity gains

also you have not mentioned the job security factor, that's a huge variable which is highly important and can provide stability

Not necessarily. I worked in retail too for five years and by working the night shift when it was available I was effectively taking home about 45,000 a year. I was doing the same job but just doing it at night.

Since I started in the civil service I have studied on a full time basis, while working full time, and have gone on many training courses. I think it is impossible to work for a few years in public or private sector in any case without acquiring new skills and increasing productivity through experience, unless you are totally lazy and unwilling to apply yourself and learn new skills.

Job security I agree holds more value now than it did before but those who worked hard and gained skills in the last few years will have a much better chance of holding onto their job or getting a new job if they are made redundant, compared to those who "satback and pointed a gun to the citizens of this country" charging extraordinary prices for their services, while not seeking to diversify their skills

ParkRunner

OMD wrote: »

But how old were you at this stage? I went to college and then obviously started working at the bottom. I was over 30 before I could afford not to house share and I was 29 when I bought my first car, a second hand one obviously. I don't think I am unusual. A "low paid " clerical officer aged 30 with 11 years service and no promotion earns €35,000. This is a hell of a lot more than I was earning aged 30 and is just about average wage.

I should add I would never have considered myself low paid

I was 24 when I started, with a degree and postgrad diploma under my belt. I had applied for a lot of jobs and sat the public service exams at the time just because they were on. I passed them and passed the interview so the opportunity was there for the taking. I was nearly 28 before I could afford not to houseshare so it is not that much different to yourself, but that includes being promoted.

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

OMD

EF wrote: »

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

The problem is even if you are not very good at your job and put in no more than the minimum required you still get this rate of pay.

I don't really have a problem with the amount earned but it means if you put in 40 years at the lowest level in Civil service your pay will on average be above national average pay. Yet this group is consistently referred to as low paid.

Tim Robbins

Low range is minimum wage.
However even if you earn a decent wage if you have a celtic tiger mortgage you a very low disposable income.

e.g. say you earn 2,700 after tax and your mortgage is 1,300.
That's say 1,400 to live on for the month which ain't much. Similarly if you have to support kids and partner on that as well it's even less.

murphaph

EF wrote: »

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

The bit in bold is crucial, and it is wrong to apply it in a blanket fashion.

If you are a binman or streetsweeper or night watchman (absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is), should your salary just creep up to €35k because you have been a good worker, never sick etc? I don't think so.

If you are working in an area with a limited set of responsibilities (and I would include basic clerical work in there), then your starting wage should go up with inflation but not be increased "because you have more experience" because it only takes a certain (short) amount of time to learn these responsibilities.

If you are working in a dynamic environment and each project you do contributes to your ability to do the next project, then experience counts (a doctor, nurse or an architect, engineer etc. even Gardai would probably see a noticable increase in their usefulness just by experience).

If we are to argue that a CO who knows a particular government deptartment's protocols really well should get increases based on experience, then shouldn't they have reductions when systems are completely overhauled and they have to start learning again?

In short, one's salary should NOT just increment because you've managed to hang around a job long enough. The job should require that experience counts before it should have a bearing on pay increases.

donkey balls

this is what i call low paid so called professional truck driver 70e a day(and expect to work upto 15hrs for it).
:rolleyes:

dan_d

Ok, so what we're very roughly saying is that "low paid" would start around minimum wage, and runs to approximately between 35 and 40k in the civil services. That's not taking into account length of time worked.

From the conversations here, it would appear that in the public service, 35k is considered low because you'd have to work about 15 years to get to that. In the private service, this consideration seems not to be taken into account....probably due to the fact that you get out of a job what you put into it.

I'm not criticising. I am simply trying to get a better picture of the background against which the phrase "lower paid" is used. Obviously it's all relative to what's going on in the workplace around you. But, as the OP said, we keep hearing about the "lower paid". To me, lower paid would be min wage to maybe 28/30k...and that's assuming someone has absolutely no other financial commitments at all. While you may consider yourself lower paid on 40k, because you're struggling to meet your commitments, it should probably be taken into account that most people enter into financial commitments on the basis of their "lower paid" salary. Most people start getting the salary, then taking out the loans, as opposed to taking out the loans and then getting the salary. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation in some ways.

The problem unions have developed in the last number of years, is that, as murphaph points out, lower paid jobs crept up in salary on the basis of years worked and inflation. While the celtic tiger lasted, there was a basis for this in some ways. However we now have a situation where say, as mentioned before, binmen and street sweepers, labourers and block layers (not criticising those careers) are "entitled" to X amount of pay, so much so that they frequently outstrip the pay of those who are in charge/supervising them, and so carrying more responsibility. At the risk of sounding like a complete snob, education is always touted as a way to get further in life and make more of yourself. Yet we created a situation in recent years where you were often financially better off NOT getting an education. We've also created a culture where people feel entitled to "rights", but are totally unwilling to accept any extra responsibility that might come with those rights.

Again, I am not criticising. I am trying to look at the facts and figures surrounding the different ideas for pay as dispassionately as possible. As someone who is currently looking for a job aswell, I find it very difficult to know what level to pitch my salary expectations at. I know my current salary (after a paycut), I know my experience (nearly 5 years), I know my degree, I know my outgoings, and how much I could theoretically exist on with them. What I don't know is how low/high I should pitch myself in current market conditions, and as with the OP, what exactly would class as "lower paid".

danman

donkey balls wrote: »

this is what i call low paid so called professional truck driver 70e a day(and expect to work upto 15hrs for it).
:rolleyes:

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

shoegirl

sceptre wrote: »

More organisations define "low paid" as being gross hourly earnings of less than 60% of gross hourly median full-time earnings (shortly put: take the figure at which half the working population is above or below and multiply it by 60%). While this figure is generally lower than the "adequate living wage" definition, it's more generally accepted, as well as being less arbitrary. Economic institutes and other such organisations use this figure.

Thats right. As I recall the last CSO survey that actually reported on the median wage suggested it was 29k pa at that time (it is almost certainly less now).
60% of this would be 17,400pa which is very close to the minimum wage.
Technically anybody working a 40 hour week couldn't really legally be earning less unless they were under 21 or had no experience.

So much for the nonsensical notion that "low paid" (quoting the latest public sector pay negotiations here) is 35k pa - a figure which is itself above the so-called "average industrial wage" oft quoted in ERSI and CSO publications.

shoegirl

danman wrote: »

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

Thats not quite the case - a truck requires a higher level of licence than an ordinary joe soap with a B licence. There is a considerably higher level of skill for somebody with a D licence over and above a B licence that deserves some bit of a premium.

"Unskilled" job that sits at a desk - what is that? Most desk based jobs aside from merely answering a phone - require some kind of skills, though in my own arena (IT support) I do think the actual skill level required is considerably less than maybe 10 years ago and I would regard anybody who hasn't built on their skills over this time as unskilled.

ParkRunner

OMD wrote: »

The problem is even if you are not very good at your job and put in no more than the minimum required you still get this rate of pay.

I don't really have a problem with the amount earned but it means if you put in 40 years at the lowest level in Civil service your pay will on average be above national average pay. Yet this group is consistently referred to as low paid.

murphaph wrote: »

The bit in bold is crucial, and it is wrong to apply it in a blanket fashion.

If you are a binman or streetsweeper or night watchman (absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is), should your salary just creep up to €35k because you have been a good worker, never sick etc? I don't think so.

If you are working in an area with a limited set of responsibilities (and I would include basic clerical work in there), then your starting wage should go up with inflation but not be increased "because you have more experience" because it only takes a certain (short) amount of time to learn these responsibilities.

If you are working in a dynamic environment and each project you do contributes to your ability to do the next project, then experience counts (a doctor, nurse or an architect, engineer etc. even Gardai would probably see a noticable increase in their usefulness just by experience).

If we are to argue that a CO who knows a particular government deptartment's protocols really well should get increases based on experience, then shouldn't they have reductions when systems are completely overhauled and they have to start learning again?

In short, one's salary should NOT just increment because you've managed to hang around a job long enough. The job should require that experience counts before it should have a bearing on pay increases.

From these two posts the biggest problem is the performance management system in the civil service and I agree it needs to be improved so that those who put in the hard work get the rewards and those who are not willing to apply themselves, learn new skills and adapt to changing situations do not get their increments.

From my experience, experience does count for a lot in the civil service. Someone who has built up knowledge of practices, legislation, systems and people in various departments will be able to offer a lot more in terms of providing a service to the public and to management than someone who is just starting off.

cson

danman wrote: »

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

Disagree with that. Truck driving is a skilled job imo. You don't just 'have to know how to drive'. You have to get the various licences and pass the tests to get these which ain't easy and ain't cheap - you then have a skill that a lot of people don't have. It's a stressful job too I'd imagine so I'd rate it as a skilled job. To qualify this, I wouldn't rate clerical work as skilled - answering phones, typing letters and inputting data for the most part could be taught to anyone within 2-3 days in my opinion.

shoegirl

dan_d wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like a complete snob, education is always touted as a way to get further in life and make more of yourself. Yet we created a situation in recent years where you were often financially better off NOT getting an education. We've also created a culture where people feel entitled to "rights", but are totally unwilling to accept any extra responsibility that might come with those rights.

Thats a good point, but I work in a group where only 2 of us have full time 3rd level out of a group of 10. We are being laid off in a few months time and basically the only 2 of us getting calls back are myself and the other girl with 3rd level. The others are not getting callbacks full stop and we reckon their CVs are being screened out because its simply way easier to only READ the 20% or so of CVs that have 3rd level AND 5-10 years experience rather than wade through 200-300 with one or the other but not both.

In my long experience I found that having both experience and qualifications could be key to getting an interview in an extremely competitive employment market, but the lack of need for qualifications was only the case because there was such huge demand for entry level workers in many business areas. Some of my colleagues got into IT having nothing more than a leaving cert and a year or two of working in retail or security. Those that used their years of experience to study part time or gain professional qualifications are now finding themselves far better placed than those with no qualifications at all.

This of course will probably revert next time there is close to "full employment." Its cyclical and while it might seem unfair to treat a worker with considerable effort to educate themselves - especially if they did so part time during full time employment - the same as somebody who never bothered their hole and/or thought themselves so essentially superior to everybody else that they were above it - the market does sort this out quite crudely.

shoegirl

sceptre wrote: »

Well, that's the mean, not the median. The two figures probably aren't far apart though (I don't have the median figures unfortunately but thanks for the mean one (no pun intended:))

Thats right. Median last time CSO quoted it was 29k I think.

I forgot to point out also that it would also depend on where you live. 29k in Letterkenny will go much further than 35k in Dublin for example. Plus you move from the lower to upper tax band at 34k. Anything over this is taxed for single people at nearly 50%.

murphaph

EF wrote: »

From my experience, experience does count for a lot in the civil service. Someone who has built up knowledge of practices, legislation, systems and people in various departments will be able to offer a lot more in terms of providing a service to the public and to management than someone who is just starting off.

and these people I have no problem getting pay increases based on experience, but there must be a tangible benefit to the employer that has been derived from the experience alone to warrant automatic increments, and I think we are agreed on that if I'm not mistaken.

I don't want a public service that is useless. I want a motivated one, where the individuals can be rewarded based on effort (and where relevant their experience). I absolutely don't want the current system where blanket increments are applied to the fantastic staff as well as the deplorable. The wasters exist in the private sector too, but the difference seems to be that they are rapidly found out and rapidly left behind.

In any job I ever workerd in, there was a limited pot of money given to a department by higher management based on revenues. This pot would then be divided up by the various section managers etc. until finally each line manager received their allocation, to award to staff as they saw fit: useless ones got no increase. Good ones got most of the money. There is no better way, but the managers need to have set targets to meet, before they themselves get any pay increase and before their department gets an allocation. It might be difficult, but only a target linked pay structure will really motivate a large bulk of workers in either public or private sector.

The problem is that the union sub from a waster is as valuable to the union as the same sub from a top performer, so union policy tends to protect the wasters instead of rewarding the workers, as it should be. I suggest that without unions, the good workers in the PS would do better financially, as it should be.

baalthor

shoegirl wrote: »

Thats not quite the case - a truck requires a higher level of licence than an ordinary joe soap with a B licence. There is a considerably higher level of skill for somebody with a D licence over and above a B licence that deserves some bit of a premium.

On the 'learning to drive' forum someone said that having the truck license was the equivalent of having a degree - and they weren't joking ...
In a free market, incomes are ultimately determined by the supply of labour.

The_Honeybadger

I can't consider somebody on 35k to be low paid, perhaps if they have a giant mortgage and family etc, but that comes down to lifestyle choices. My own personal opinion is anything under 25k or so, even though a single person with no major financial commitments and a bit of common sense could easily survive on this. We have become accustomed to a lifestyle that we fooled ourselves into thinking we deserved because "sure isn't the country awash with money". I have a feeling there will be envious glances thrown the way of anybody earning 35k in future, new graduates will find that unemployment and other factors are driving down wages and it will become harder to get up to this figure, that is why we need to widen the tax net and get everybody paying tax. SW is also a problem in that for a family man it simply makes no sense whatsoever to come off the dole and take up a job for less than 40-50k, is there a country anywhere else in the world where a situation like this exists? It seems unbelievable.

Gurgle

Good grief, once the words 'professional' and 'truck driver' appear in a sentence together theres just no fcuking point. It may be stressful and hard work, it may even be difficult to get the license but it is not a trade, a profession or a 'skilled' job.

donkey balls

danman wrote: »

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

it is very easy for some one who has never driven a truck to say that all you do is steer the thing,i have my licence over 13 years and probely cost in old money £3000 you then have licences for carrying dangerous
goods add another 1000e.
also a truck costs about 100k and depending on the trailer upto 80k,also as a driver you plan ahead scanning your mirrors every few secs looking at the traffic ahead etc.
you also have drivers hours to contend with the roadworthy of the truck if stopped by the Gardai/RSA you could lose your licence in one go. http://www.rsa.ie/Home/upload/File/NEW_PENPOINTS_CHART_APL09.pdf

i should also piont out that the majority of goods exports/imports are moved by HGV through out ireland.

jinghong

30k should be more than enough for a family to live comfortably on. A little thought about budgeting and 'lifestlye' design should do the trick. Outside dublin far easier to achieve this.

We are planning travelling europe for 3 months in a camper and another 3 months in australia, remaining 6 months in Ireland. Total income required for 2 of us and child is 23k which will be met one of us working part time

Not so long ago I went travelling for the year, did australia (bought a car and drove 30k km around it), burma, thailand, china, india, laos, and newzealand. Total cost for 2 people living like kings: 15k

Don't have your thoughts formed by union propaganda and conventional wisdom

Starting point is this excellent budget planner in google docs https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tJgFt0-wep-cYxIwQ6SBnUQ

irishh_bob

mickeyk wrote: »

I can't consider somebody on 35k to be low paid, perhaps if they have a giant mortgage and family etc, but that comes down to lifestyle choices. My own personal opinion is anything under 25k or so, even though a single person with no major financial commitments and a bit of common sense could easily survive on this. We have become accustomed to a lifestyle that we fooled ourselves into thinking we deserved because "sure isn't the country awash with money". I have a feeling there will be envious glances thrown the way of anybody earning 35k in future, new graduates will find that unemployment and other factors are driving down wages and it will become harder to get up to this figure, that is why we need to widen the tax net and get everybody paying tax. SW is also a problem in that for a family man it simply makes no sense whatsoever to come off the dole and take up a job for less than 40-50k, is there a country anywhere else in the world where a situation like this exists? It seems unbelievable.

my sister having recently qualified as a solicitor , negotiated a salary of 31 k per year , a good deal less than what a nurse starts off on and not much more than a clerical officer

The_Honeybadger

irishh_bob wrote: »

my sister having recently qualified as a solicitor , negotiated a salary of 31 k per year , a good deal less than what a nurse starts off on and not much more than a clerical officer

From what I hear she is lucky, I know one experienced solicitor who is now on the dole for over a year. There is actually a thread about private sector wages being driven down on this forum. Starting salaries are definately lower now in many professions.

jinghong

jinghong wrote: »

30k should be more than enough for a family to live comfortably on. A little thought about budgeting and 'lifestlye' design should do the trick. Outside dublin far easier to achieve this.

We are planning travelling europe for 3 months in a camper and another 3 months in australia, remaining 6 months in Ireland. Total income required for 2 of us and child is 23k which will be met one of us working part time

Not so long ago I went travelling for the year, did australia (bought a car and drove 30k km around it), burma, thailand, china, india, laos, and newzealand. Total cost for 2 people living like kings: 15k

Don't have your thoughts formed by union propaganda and conventional wisdom

Starting point is this excellent budget planner in google docs https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tJgFt0-wep-cYxIwQ6SBnUQ

A family, lets say two adults and two children. How is €30K/annum to provide a comfortable living to them ? Mortgage or rent of €800 month and bills of €200 a month for heating, electricity, refuse charges. That leaves €1500 a month to live on, most families would require a car also. I have also omitted to pay any PRSI or tax/levee of any description. Are you for real ??

The_Honeybadger

RoverJames wrote: »

A family, lets say two adults and two children. How is €30K/annum to provide a comfortable living to them ? Mortgage or rent of €800 month and bills of €200 a month for heating, electricity, refuse charges. That leaves €1500 a month to live on, most families would require a car also. I have also omitted to pay any PRSI or tax/levee of any description. Are you for real ??

The family you quote would take home 2,272 monthly (taxcalc.eu), so take out the major expenses.

• rent / mortgage 800
• utilities 300
• food 600
• insurance 50
• Fuel 150

Total 1900
-childrens allowance 300
1600

I have left off large once off expenses like changing the car every 5 years or so. That leaves 672 euro monthly disposable income, if anybody wants to dispute the figures then ok, we all know other expenses crop up all the time, hardly comfortable, but possible to live on 30k I would say.

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

How is €30K/annum to provide a comfortable living to them ?

mickeyk wrote: »

hardly comfortable, but possible to live on 30k I would say.

Gurgle

mickeyk wrote: »

hardly comfortable, but possible to live on 30k I would say.

Possible, yes.
But its a long long way from comfortable.

Lets also assume the kids don't have birthdays, after school activities, or christmas, won't be going to college. Schools don't send a bill every 3 weeks for computers, photocopying, books, copies, paint, crayons.

Nobody ever gets sick, or goes to the dentist. Certainly a consultant is out of the question.

Holidays? No chance.

Clothes are forever, they grow with the child. Shoes are passed down through generations.

Your car doesn't need servicing, NCT or road tax.

Anyone want to work out what the same family of 4 would get on the dole, taking into account all the freebies from TV license to medical card?

ZYX

Gurgle wrote: »

Nobody ever gets sick, or goes to the dentist. Certainly a consultant is out of the question.

Slightly off the point but something that always irritates me. Attendace with a consultant is free whether you have a medical card or not.

murphaph

Gurgle wrote: »

Lets also assume the kids don't have birthdays, after school activities, or christmas, won't be going to college. Schools don't send a bill every 3 weeks for computers, photocopying, books, copies, paint, crayons.

That's what happens when the dept. of Education's budget goes on teachers' wages (77% I believe).

Gurgle wrote: »

Clothes are forever, they grow with the child. Shoes are passed down through generations.

Children grow fast. Here in berlin it is quite common for people to hand on their children's clothes and shoes, socks, underwear, everything really to a friend with a baby/child coming into that age. People tend to be less sentimantal about such things here and are in no rush to go out and buy new things for a baby they know will have outgrown it's clothes in a matter of weeks. AFAICR this is the way it used to be in Ireland before we got notions of our "wealth".

Gurgle wrote: »

Your car doesn't need servicing, NCT or road tax.

Back in the 80's, most men would be well able to service their own vehicle (I say vehicle because Honda 50's were popular and many had only shank's mare for transport)

Gurgle wrote: »

Anyone want to work out what the same family of 4 would get on the dole, taking into account all the freebies from TV license to medical card?

Comparing everything to the dole only goes to prove one thing...Social Welfare benefits are too high and have been for some time.

A certain amount of "getting back to basics" needs to happen in Ireland.

Mister men

That's half the problem with this country. People view a wage of 30k a year as a low wage. Wish i earned that much.

dvpower

EF wrote: »

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

If you're good at your job and have put in the effort, you'd have made EO in 15 years.

Gurgle

ZYX wrote: »

Slightly off the point but something that always irritates me. Attendace with a consultant is free whether you have a medical card or not.

Sure, if you're willing to wait 2 to 3 years.
Going privately, you will be lucky to see one within 6 months.
Yes, I've been there.

Gurgle

murphaph wrote: »

That's what happens when the dept. of Education's budget goes on teachers' wages (77% I believe).

Nice spin.

The rest...

Here in berlin it is quite common for people to hand on their children's clothes and shoes, socks, underwear, everything really to a friend with a baby/child coming into that age...

Back in the 80's, most men would be well able to service their own vehicle...

Comparing everything to the dole only goes to prove one thing...Social Welfare benefits are too high and have been for some time.

A certain amount of "getting back to basics" needs to happen in Ireland.

Couldn't agree more.

But there are still a lot of unavoidable costs involved in raising a family, I sincerely doubt you could do it comfortably on €30k in Berlin either.

changes

cson wrote: »

To qualify this, I wouldn't rate clerical work as skilled - answering phones, typing letters and inputting data for the most part could be taught to anyone within 2-3 days in my opinion.

There are not that many jobs in the PS that could be taught to someone in 2 or 3 days. Its funny that people think all CO's do is photocopy, stamp forms or answer phone. There are CO's in very busy offices working on software systems where errors can be very costly and wreak havoc. To say they have no responsibility is just not true.

It would be interesting to see a new CO go into the salaries dept of a busy hospital or the accounts dept and leave them to their own devices after 2 or 3 days.

Liam Byrne

Gurgle wrote: »

But there are still a lot of unavoidable costs involved in raising a family

But isn't having a family as much of a choice as having a foreign holiday or buying a new car ?

And therefore "avoidable" in itself ?

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But isn't having a family as much of a choice as having a foreign holiday or buying a new car ?

And therefore "avoidable" in itself ?

You can't accidentally find yourself skiing in the Alps or sunning yourself in the Costa del Sol. Even while taking precautions you can still end up with a child you know.

WalterMitty

nesf wrote: »

You can't accidentally find yourself skiing in the Alps or sunning yourself in the Costa del Sol. Even while taking precautions you can still end up with a child you know.

in nearly all cases it can be avoided if both partners are responsible.