Survey reveals a 44% pay gap between public and private sector

robtri

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I posted it as a suggestion along with all the other stupid ones posted in this thread,

yes the suggestions to cut PS wages is stupid...

so robbie where do you think we should get the 18bn needed to pay the wages this year and next and the year after and the year after....

Good loser

robtri wrote: »

yes the suggestions to cut PS wages is stupid...

so robbie where do you think we should get the 18bn needed to pay the wages this year and next and the year after and the year after....

Fliball asked him the same question and he has not returned.

He musn't be one of those hard working public servants though - he knocked off at 16.49. Wonder did he 'beat the traffic'?

The stresses of life in the ps are awesome!

ParkRunner

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance

An interesting public sector pay comparison across Europe. Despite suggestions that Irish public servants are the highest paid in Europe, the Total columns show that Ireland is not even in the top 3 anymore at the higher end and is much further down the line at lower levels of pay.

It seems the same debate is going on in the UK

As for how public servants are to be paid their wages given the exchequer deficit, yes it is going to have to come from borrowing thanks to the mismanagement of this economy by the previous government. The public sector pay bill will either fall through the CPA or there will be cuts. Other sectors of the economy are going to have to make a contribution also as it is impossible to just adjust expenditure on public sector pay and close the gap.

The public sector pay bill is falling and will continue to fall. If it doesn't happen fast enough there will be pay cuts. In the meantime threads like this are about as productive as watching paint dry so i'll leave it at that.

OMD

EF wrote: »

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance

An interesting public sector pay comparison across Europe. Despite suggestions that Irish public servants are the highest paid in Europe, the Total columns show that Ireland is not even in the top 3 anymore at the higher end and is much further down the line at lower levels of pay.

It seems the same debate is going on in the UK
The public sector pay bill is falling and will continue to fall. If it doesn't happen fast enough there will be pay cuts. In the meantime threads like this are about as productive as watching paint dry so i'll leave it at that.

I love the line that Ireland is no longer in the top 3! It would seem reasonable that given our massive debt we should not have public servants pay in the top 10.

The second point that public sector pay will reduce through CPA is true to a certain extent. It will reduce the overall bill which is important but the figures you give are per person pay. That will not change. Average pay per head is rising about 1% a year. At that rate (or even if you believe pay is not going up at all) you are relying on pay in other countries rising faster to get us down that list.

We need a combination of CPA type cost reductions but also wage cuts and cuts to number employed.

Just to add here the figures you quote seem to refer mainly to Civil Service rather than public service. If I am reading it correctly it excludes sectors where Irish workers earn well above average e.g. Doctors, nurses, teachers, gardai. If these were included I think you would find us even higher up those pay scales than the current 4th

ParkRunner

OMD wrote: »

I love the line that Ireland is no longer in the top 3! It would seem reasonable that given our massive debt we should not have public servants pay in the top 10.

The second point that public sector pay will reduce through CPA is true to a certain extent. It will reduce the overall bill which is important but the figures you give are per person pay. That will not change. Average pay per head is rising about 1% a year. At that rate (or even if you believe pay is not going up at all) you are relying on pay in other countries rising faster to get us down that list.

We need a combination of CPA type cost reductions but also wage cuts and cuts to number employed.

My point was that Irish public servants are portrayed as the highest paid fat cat public servants in Europe.

I have no problem with cutting public sector pay, however I can only see savings made being put into the zombie banking system. At least money spent on the public sector is circulating throughout the economy. If this money is redirected to the banking system and hoarded there the domestic economy will shrink further.

The alternative is to pick a date say January 1st and saying public expenditure will not exceed tax receipts from that date. The scenario is possible but the result would be anarchy I imagine.

OMD

EF wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

I love the line that Ireland is no longer in the top 3! It would seem reasonable that given our massive debt we should not have public servants pay in the top 10.

The second point that public sector pay will reduce through CPA is true to a certain extent. It will reduce the overall bill which is important but the figures you give are per person pay. That will not change. Average pay per head is rising about 1% a year. At that rate (or even if you believe pay is not going up at all) you are relying on pay in other countries rising faster to get us down that list.

We need a combination of CPA type cost reductions but also wage cuts and cuts to number employed.

My point was that Irish public servants are portrayed as the highest paid fat cat public servants in Europe.

I have no problem with cutting public sector pay, however I can only see savings made being put into the zombie banking system. At least money spent on the public sector is circulating throughout the economy. If this money is redirected to the banking system and hoarded there the domestic economy will shrink further.

The alternative is to pick a date say January 1st and saying public expenditure will not exceed tax receipts from that date. The scenario is possible but the result would be anarchy I imagine.

I must have edited my post while you were posting but your figures seem to refer to mainly civil service rather than public sector as a whole which would be higher overall pay.

The money saved is not going to the banks. This is constantly said but is not true.

donalg1

Good loser wrote: »

robtri wrote: »

yes the suggestions to cut PS wages is stupid...

so robbie where do you think we should get the 18bn needed to pay the wages this year and next and the year after and the year after....

Fliball asked him the same question and he has not returned.

He musn't be one of those hard working public servants though - he knocked off at 16.49. Wonder did he 'beat the traffic'?

The stresses of life in the ps are awesome!

And the stresses in the private sector are awesome too then? Standing in a shop opening and closing a till, standing around dunnes drapery department chatting to the other staff super stressful indeed

waster81

OMD wrote: »

I must have edited my post while you were posting but your figures seem to refer to mainly civil service rather than public sector as a whole which would be higher overall pay.

The money saved is not going to the banks. This is constantly said but is not true.

If you cant get your head around the fact that this was a financial crisis, started by the private sector banks, hedge funds etc

Im sure your delighted that the private debt was socialised, that the private financial industry hasnt had to reform, they have pretty much a status quo

Where are all the threads screaming for reform of the financial industry, none because people dont understand it or people are too lazy to try and understand it

Much easier to wait on the independent to put the usual headlines like FAS with their perk coming up to retirement

Where were the headlines lambasting the payoffs received by bank employees an extra 3 weeks pay per year compared to the HSE, never mind it was coming from the same pool of resources

Yet they have screamed about reform of the government public services

OMD

waster81 wrote: »

If you cant get your head around the fact that this was a financial crisis, started by the private sector banks, hedge funds etc

We are spending far more than we take in. That is a fact. Banking crisis or no banking crisis that fact remains. We have to reduce our spending to a reasonable level with regards our income. Current expenditure should not be more than income and borrowing should be for capital expenditure. That is the case with or without the banking crisis.

waster81

OMD wrote: »

We are spending far more than we take in. That is a fact. Banking crisis or no banking crisis that fact remains. We have to reduce our spending to a reasonable level with regards our income. Current expenditure should not be more than income and borrowing should be for capital expenditure. That is the case with or without the banking crisis.

We are spending more than we are taking in precisley because of the financial industry


It is not the case but sure id be only wasting my time trying to explain it.

Answer we one thing what major reform has the financial industry undertaken since they managed to get governments to socialize private debt

OMD

waster81 wrote: »

We are spending more than we are taking in precisley because of the financial industry


It is not the case but sure id be only wasting my time trying to explain it.

What is not the case?

Also, ignore any money given to the banks (or any interest on that money). Now how much are we taking in and how much are we spending?

ParkRunner

OMD wrote: »

What is not the case?

Also, ignore any money given to the banks (or any interest on that money). Now how much are we taking in and how much are we spending?

The problem is that we cannot leave the banking crisis aside:

Overall, there was an Exchequer deficit of €18.9 billion for the first seven months of 2011, up from €10.2 billion in the same period last year. But more than €10 billion of this was due to money injected into the banks, with €7.5 billion going into the main banks to help them meet financial targets by the end of July. Excluding these payments, the Exchequer deficit was down almost €2 billion from a year earlier.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0803/exchequer-business.html

tails_naf

waster81 wrote: »

If you cant get your head around the fact that this was a financial crisis, started by the private sector banks, hedge funds etc

Im sure your delighted that the private debt was socialised, that the private financial industry hasnt had to reform, they have pretty much a status quo

Where are all the threads screaming for reform of the financial industry, none because people dont understand it or people are too lazy to try and understand it

Much easier to wait on the independent to put the usual headlines like FAS with their perk coming up to retirement

Where were the headlines lambasting the payoffs received by bank employees an extra 3 weeks pay per year compared to the HSE, never mind it was coming from the same pool of resources

Yet they have screamed about reform of the government public services

I think you really don't understand the situation, or the meaning of a deficit.

The banks did a lot of damage sure - 50-70 billion that we have to pay back is not to be taken lightly.

However, we have a deficit due to over-spending. 18-20 billion a year, in just 3 years would be about 60 billion. So without the banks problem at all, we would be where we are in just 3-4 years time anyway.

Bailing out the banks only brought us to this point faster, because we can't borrow - but we were on this road for the last decade with our reckless spending, it was inevitable.

OMD

EF wrote: »

The problem is that we cannot leave the banking crisis aside:

Overall, there was an Exchequer deficit of €18.9 billion for the first seven months of 2011, up from €10.2 billion in the same period last year. But more than €10 billion of this was due to money injected into the banks, with €7.5 billion going into the main banks to help them meet financial targets by the end of July. Excluding these payments, the Exchequer deficit was down almost €2 billion from a year earlier.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0803/exchequer-business.html

That is the point I was making. Even ignoring the banks we are still overspending massively. 9 billion in 7 months. however the implication before was that money saved from public sector cuts is going to the banks. It is not. It just means we borrow less. Even ignoring the banks we cannot run a current defecit of 17 billion or so over a 12 month period.

waster81

tails_naf wrote: »

I think you really don't understand the situation, or the meaning of a deficit.

The banks did a lot of damage sure - 50-70 billion that we have to pay back is not to be taken lightly.

However, we have a deficit due to over-spending. 18-20 billion a year, in just 3 years would be about 60 billion. So without the banks problem at all, we would be where we are in just 3-4 years time anyway.

Bailing out the banks only brought us to this point faster, because we can't borrow - but we were on this road for the last decade with our reckless spending, it was inevitable.

Lol and what lead to the deficit , the financial crisis came before the soverign debt crisis

Our bond yields went up in so small part to the financial crisis because we had socialized private debt

The financial markets have dumped all their debt on the middle and poorer classes who have been ordered to expect less in services and accept less pay for more simple aim so that the likes of glodmans etc can make a simple easy buck

No where have they been forced to reform the status quo remains in existence

OMD

waster81 wrote: »

Lol and what lead to the deficit , the financial crisis came before the soverign debt crisis

Our bond yields went up in so small part to the financial crisis because we had socialized private debt

The financial markets have dumped all their debt on the middle and poorer classes who have been ordered to expect less in services and accept less pay for more simple aim so that the likes of glodmans etc can make a simple easy buck

No where have they been forced to reform the status quo remains in existence

Our problems are not caused by the price of borrowing. That is simply an extra problem.

tails_naf

waster81 wrote: »

Lol and what lead to the deficit , the financial crisis came before the soverign debt crisis

Our bond yields went up in so small part to the financial crisis because we had socialized private debt

The financial markets have dumped all their debt on the middle and poorer classes who have been ordered to expect less in services and accept less pay for more simple aim so that the likes of glodmans etc can make a simple easy buck

No where have they been forced to reform the status quo remains in existence

The reason we can't borrow is because the markets felt our debt to GDP ratio was too high, to the point it was not manageable, so lending to us was a big risk for them.

The markets don't really care WHY or HOW our debt was so high, just that it is high and increasing year on year - makes us look like a risk (and we are).

In fact, if if our debt was entirely made up of bank related debt, and we were NOT running a deficit, I think the markets would prefer that, as it would be one time thing, and we would not be so risky.

However, because our debt is increasing at such a rapid rate due to deficit, and we are not really reducing the deficit, the markets see that as a huge risk.

So again, we would have reached this point without the banks.

waster81

OMD wrote: »

Our problems are not caused by the price of borrowing. That is simply an extra problem.

You dont want to accept that the whole crisis arose from a private sector financial crisis

OMD

waster81 wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Our problems are not caused by the price of borrowing. That is simply an extra problem.

You dont want to accept that the whole crisis arose from a private sector financial crisis

Of course not. Don't be totally ridiculous

ParkRunner

OMD wrote: »

That is the point I was making. Even ignoring the banks we are still overspending massively. 9 billion in 7 months. however the implication before was that money saved from public sector cuts is going to the banks. It is not. It just means we borrow less. Even ignoring the banks we cannot run a current defecit of 17 billion or so over a 12 month period.

Yes we are overspending but the deficit would be falling at a respectable pace if it was not for the banking crisis.

True we cannot run a deficit of €17bn every year but as long as expenditure is falling, which it is except for the money being put into the banks, and tax receipts are rising, which they are, we are on the right track.

If that €10bn which is being put into the banks was put into job creation initiatives instead this country would be well on the way to recovery and balancing the books.

tails_naf

waster81 wrote: »

You dont want to accept that the whole crisis arose from a private sector financial crisis

That's because it didn't. The whole problem didn't arise from one source.

What we have now is partly to blame from the bank debt, and partly the over-spending.

The over-spending came from a combination of financially illiterate government, bowing to pressure from unions to increase pay, recruitment and pensions at an incredible rate. People warned of this result well over 5 years ago.

And the over-spending continued because these same players didn't correct their actions when even they couldn't deny the situation was dire (about 3 years ago).

And the over-spending will continue, as this thread shows, many many people can't (or won't) grasp the situation that the deficit we're running will sink us - and even if the bank problems never existed, it would STILL have sunk us.

If we did not have the over-spending, we would not have this depth of a crisis in Ireland now now, financial crisis or not. proof: The world economy was all hit by the 'financial crisis', but not every country is in the same boat as Ireland - only the ones that didn't control their spending are.

Drumpot

waster81 wrote: »

You dont want to accept that the whole crisis arose from a private sector financial crisis

Stop . . Please just stop this ridiculous "well its not my fault" BS . . What is wrong with you?

Both sections of society contributed to this crisis. Banking industry for obvious reasons and public service for not doing its job in regulation or having a long term sustainable strategy in running the country (like not relying on consumption taxes etc).

And a big part of the reason we have a deficit is because the cost of the public service sky rocketed when they wanted to be part of the boom but are so militant against being apart of the recession.

That aside, it doesnt matter whose fault it is, we are in a hole and a deficit has to be filled.

waster81

tails_naf wrote: »

That's because it didn't. The whole problem didn't arise from one source.

What we have now is partly to blame from the bank debt, and partly the over-spending.

The over-spending came from a combination of financially illiterate government, bowing to pressure from unions to increase pay, recruitment and pensions at an incredible rate. People warned of this result well over 5 years ago.

And the over-spending continued because these same players didn't correct their actions when even they couldn't deny the situation was dire (about 3 years ago).

And the over-spending will continue, as this thread shows, many many people can't (or won't) grasp the situation that the deficit we're running will sink us - and even if the bank problems never existed, it would STILL have sunk us.

If we did not have the over-spending, we would not have this depth of a crisis in Ireland now now, financial crisis or not. proof: The world economy was all hit by the 'financial crisis', but not every country is in the same boat as Ireland - only the ones that didn't control their spending are.

When you look into what the financial industry concocoted with CDO's, CDO2's etc its clear to anyone who has done some research that the financial industry was taking huge risks, nobody even knew what they were investing in

The financial industry didnt look after itself and sort out its own problem, it came crawling to governments to bail them out, without fully disclosing their problems.

They managed to get governments to take on their debt

ParkRunner

Drumpot wrote: »

the cost of the public service sky rocketed when they wanted to be part of the boom but are so militant against being apart of the recession.
.

Where is the militancy? An inconvenient work to rule and one day stoppage (despite weekly biased headline criticism by the media) is hardly militancy. Despite reforms and cuts so far the media is continuing with its agenda

waster81

Drumpot wrote: »

Stop . . Please just stop this ridiculous "well its not my fault" BS . . What is wrong with you?

Both sections of society contributed to this crisis. Banking industry for obvious reasons and public service for not doing its job in regulation or having a long term sustainable strategy in running the country (like not relying on consumption taxes etc).

And a big part of the reason we have a deficit is because the cost of the public service sky rocketed when they wanted to be part of the boom but are so militant against being apart of the recession.

That aside, it doesnt matter whose fault it is, we are in a hole and a deficit has to be filled.

Well i have seen a public service banking industry

Private sector contributed also, they were putting in a government who cut those taxes you mention, they focused on increasing their wages much of which was based on short term bonus structures

And I dont see where they public sector have been militant

It does matter because the financial industry isnt taking their share of the deficit

tails_naf

waster81 wrote: »

When you look into what the financial industry concocoted with CDO's, CDO2's etc its clear to anyone who has done some research that the financial industry was taking huge risks, nobody even knew what they were investing in

The financial industry didnt look after itself and sort out its own problem, it came crawling to governments to bail them out, without fully disclosing their problems.

They managed to get governments to take on their debt

There's none as blind as those who will not see.

The bank related debt is on par with the deficit related debt. Neither can be absolved of responsibility.

The financial industry messed up world-wide, but not every country is as bad as we are. Explain that, if you will.

waster81

Explain why financial experts invested in CDOs, CDO2's etc with knowing what they were investing in

Now run off and find out what a CDO is good lad

OMD

waster81 wrote: »

Explain why financial experts invested in CDOs, CDO2's etc with knowing what they were investing in

Now run off and find out what a CDO is good lad

Sounds like you discovered something new recently

tails_naf

waster81 wrote: »

Explain why financial experts invested in CDOs, CDO2's etc with knowing what they were investing in

Now run off and find out what a CDO is good lad

Did you forget to add the prefix 'time' to your user-name?

All this dodging the question, focusing on minutia, when you have been repeatedly and clearly told that WITHOUT the bank bailout, the way the govt/unions were carrying on would have led us to this point anyway.

You might do well to look up cognitive dissonance 'like a good lad'.

waster81

OMD wrote: »

Sounds like you discovered something new recently

And it seems unfortunately you havent discovered anything new at all