Entitlement Culture killing the will to work in Ireland

clairefontaine

Idbatterim wrote: »

I take it you are referring to the bank debt? I wont disagree that it is immoral. What happens though if we call their bluff and the government arent prepared to follow though? The problem was, that those with the money had the power, which meant they could call the shots. One of the reasons I'm sure they were very reluctant to, is that if you give Ireland an exception, you will have the rest of the PIGS knocking on the door.

Put it this way as apathetic as we are, say the same situation arose again in 5 years, the exact same one, purely hypothetical I know, I highly doubt that with the wisdom of hindsight, the government of the day or the Irish electorate, would even entertain the notion of non systemic banks being bailed out, blanket guarantees etc... Id say then you could potentially see the riots...

The paradox in this thread is that it starts out talking about entitlement culture and social welfare, and with that it's hard for me not to also think of the corporate welfare state too,where you now have this impossible line between the banks and the government, and not being able to identiify whether the banks are the government now, or vice versa.

Behind the scenes has this not possibly created an entitlement culture within the banking system itself? I can only speculate as I am not a banker,but it's worthwhile considering.

I posted up an article in another thread from the Atlantic, and it posits the reason you have not seen the riots in Ireland as you have in Greece is that reposessions haven't really taken hold, so there is no incentive to pay your mortgage, and that once that incentive actually gets going [when reposessions really kick in] and people are paying their mortgages [which means less disposable cash all around], that is when Ireland is really going to feel it, and that is the only reason things are not as bad in Ireland [riots] as they are in Greece.

The USC charge and the other stealth taxes are paying for two social welfare states as far as I can see, the one for the banks and the one for the people.

The jobsbridge programs are letting employers off the hook, and the family courts are also partially accountable for the stagnation of the economy. But no one ever really tackles that or over all judicial accountability [that's another debate but not disconnected from this one.

golfwallah

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Appealing as it may sound to some, the age of our politicians has no relationship to the ability to think ahead and provide leadership. This is simply a non sequitur (illogical conclusion based on two unrelated incidents).

There are plenty of examples throughout history, where younger men screwed up (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler) and where older men succeeded (Blücher, Roosvelt, Churchill) ..... and vice versa.

Moreover, Cameron and Osborne in the UK would not be of the same mindset as their Labour opponent, Milliband, or even their Lib Dem coalition partner, Clegg.

No, when it comes to leadership there is no for substitute identifying the issues that matter most to people and then having the courage to do the right thing about them in the country’s long term interests.

I don’t think anyone expects perfection, but we would like to see a bit more action on stopping the rot / building the future than the current government has displayed by just continuing to implement the terms of the MOU agreed with the Troika when FF were still in power.

Scofflaw

clairefontaine wrote: »

I largely agree with you but there is one very important card Ireland was holding. The EU is a project that Germany, IMO irrationally, does not want to see fail. It can't fail, it has such a psychological investment in the EU, that Ireland held the key to. If Ireland folded and did not cave to the deal they were cattle prodded Ito, the whole house of cards would have fallen.

The crowd of school teachers leading the way, had ZERO negotiating skills, and if they were a bit tougher Ireland could have held her own and come out swinging.

I can't help but note that Enda Kenny has now been criticised both for being a career politician since age 24, and a school teacher. Not, mind you, that his was the government engaged in the original negotiations anyway, but I guess one government looks much like another.

The funny thing is that the Irish have a reputation for being very good negotiators - it's generally expected that the Irish EU Presidency will result in the breaking of at least one major EU deadlock. This time it was the multi-annual financial framework, last time it was the EU Constitution. NI is a situation historically at least as intractable as Israel-Palestine, yet successive Irish governments have hung in there and negotiated outcome after outcome.

So the idea that they have zero negotiating skills is obviously plain wrong, which makes one wonder why we didn't get the great deal many people believe was just waiting to fall into our laps as a result of the various cards we had in our hand. The simplest explanation is that we weren't in fact holding those cards. Ireland held the key to nothing. We'd screwed up our banks and other people's, tried to pull off a state rescue we didn't have the firepower for, and needed bailing out lest we go under. All the government got negotiated out of was holding up the process of our own rescue in order to grandstand a little longer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

clairefontaine

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't help but note that Enda Kenny has now been criticised both for being a career politician since age 24, and a school teacher.

The funny thing is that the Irish have a reputation for being very good negotiators - it's generally expected that the Irish EU Presidency will result in the breaking of at least one major EU deadlock. This time it was the multi-annual financial framework, last time it was the EU Constitution. NI is a situation historically at least as intractable as Israel-Palestine, yet successive Irish governments have hung in there and negotiated outcome after outcome.

So the idea that they have zero negotiating skills is obviously plain wrong, which makes one wonder why we didn't get the great deal many people believe was just waiting to fall into our laps as a result of the various cards we had in our hand. The simplest explanation is that we weren't in fact holding those cards. Ireland held the key to nothing. We'd screwed up our banks and other people's, tried to pull off a state rescue we didn't have the firepower for, and needed bailing out lest we go under. All the government got negotiated out of was holding up the process of our own rescue in order to grandstand a little longer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw,

I don't agree the Irish are great negotiators, hagglers or masters at resolving problems. Masters at politics, ill give you that. Negotiating? No and particularly this bunch of people.

Seriously, what's that joke? Three Irish men in a room to make a political party and the first question is 'when is the split?" There is something to that. look at the north, it took Clinton and and an American senator to get anywhere with that. It would have never happenned without third parties brokering the middle. And I'm sure we all have several cousins or siblings who haven't spoken for thirty years and no one can even remember what the argument was.

So no, it is not plain wrong. It is plainly evident.

maninasia

clairefontaine wrote: »

I largely agree with you but there is one very important card Ireland was holding. The EU is a project that Germany, IMO irrationally, does not want to see fail. It can't fail, it has such a psychological investment in the EU, that Ireland held the key to. If Ireland folded and did not cave to the deal they were cattle prodded Ito, the whole house of cards would have fallen.

The crowd of school teachers leading the way, had ZERO negotiating skills, and if they were a bit tougher Ireland could have held her own and come out swinging.

If you mean FG and Labour, what were they to negotiate? They were handed the bailout when they came into government with the consquences of the bank guarantee. The public are at fault because there was hardly a squeak against the bank guarantee for the first year or two, they didn't educate themselves to know what that means and there were almost zero protests. Many were simply hoping for the best and going for the ride. There were a few checkpoints where the bank guarantee could have been cancelled and bondholders burned, but the government didn't take them, because the public was effectively asleep at the time.

Besides that, FG and Labour would be cutting off their nose to spite their face by not accepting the bail-out, because then they would have had to immediately implement massive job cuts in the public service and cuts in social welfare spending. They are not going to do that, especially labour, as mentioned already they are almost all from public and civil service backgrounds.

To be fair to FG, they did manage to get better payment terms on a large wodge of the ECB debt, putting it off far into the future and therefore using inflation to erode the pain (as this didn't involve any actual cuts of the nominal debt it was politically easier to achieve). I would also say Irish are poor negotiators, because they tend to seek consensus and look for approval too early in the game. They might be good at helping facilitate talks for other countries, but not at playing hardball with the big guys for our interests. Nobody negotiates softball-softball and expects to get a good deal. You should negotiate hardball first, if your bluff is called you've just got to go back to softball, which is all you really had in the first place. But you don't let the other side know that at the start!

In reality there hasn't been that much austerity applied in Ireland, instead they mostly went for increasing tax loading. They call that austerity, but I'm not sure if it should be called that. Look at the increase in the national debt annually and the amount that is destined to service that debt.

No matter which way the cookie crumbled, Ireland was in for a world of hurt because the cake was already baked (forgive this sentence ).

maninasia

clairefontaine wrote: »

The paradox in this thread is that it starts out talking about entitlement culture and social welfare, and with that it's hard for me not to also think of the corporate welfare state too,where you now have this impossible line between the banks and the government, and not being able to identiify whether the banks are the government now, or vice versa.

Behind the scenes has this not possibly created an entitlement culture within the banking system itself? I can only speculate as I am not a banker,but it's worthwhile considering.

I posted up an article in another thread from the Atlantic, and it posits the reason you have not seen the riots in Ireland as you have in Greece is that reposessions haven't really taken hold, so there is no incentive to pay your mortgage, and that once that incentive actually gets going [when reposessions really kick in] and people are paying their mortgages [which means less disposable cash all around], that is when Ireland is really going to feel it, and that is the only reason things are not as bad in Ireland [riots] as they are in Greece.

The USC charge and the other stealth taxes are paying for two social welfare states as far as I can see, the one for the banks and the one for the people.

The jobsbridge programs are letting employers off the hook, and the family courts are also partially accountable for the stagnation of the economy. But no one ever really tackles that or over all judicial accountability [that's another debate but not disconnected from this one.

Ireland is VERY good at kicking the ball down the road. Backdating debt, borrowing money, delaying reforms, putting off deadlines, we are really good at that stuff. I'm not saying this is a good thing in general, for instance we've built up a very large national debt because of it and young people have had to emigrate in mass and continue to do so for quite some time.

NAMA is a classic example, and NAMA has worked to a degree, fortunately for NAMA and the banks Dublin is going to bounce back strongly and take a lot of the pain away. There will still be a hole due to poor economic performance in the rest of the country, but the banks will muddle through with the Dublin part boosting their asset base and their large reserves that they have in back-up. It will just take many many years.

I think that's the game plan and they will survive because, unlike Greece and Athens, Dublin has a lot of cards to play. The banks won't push repossessions en-masse even if they do increase the number somewhat, it's politically very difficult and the banks are controlled by the government now, so they are choosing this muddle through method, and the people who are in arrears know the chance of them getting away with not paying full whack for their mortgage is pretty good. I doubt anything will happen to severely break this consensus.

Scofflaw

clairefontaine wrote: »

Scofflaw,

I don't agree the Irish are great negotiators, hagglers or masters at resolving problems. Masters at politics, ill give you that. Negotiating? No and particularly this bunch of people.

Seriously, what's that joke? Three Irish men in a room to make a political party and the first question is 'when is the split?" There is something to that. look at the north, it took Clinton and and an American senator to get anywhere with that. It would have never happenned without third parties brokering the middle. And I'm sure we all have several cousins or siblings who haven't spoken for thirty years and no one can even remember what the argument was.

So no, it is not plain wrong. It is plainly evident.

Politics is negotiation. When it's self-interested, it forms your definition of 'politics', but it's always about negotiation and compromise. As to who negotiated in NI, you should talk to the people who were involved in the negotiations. It wasn't Clinton or a US senator who made the progress.

Your criticism of the current government, who did not negotiate the bailout or the programme, seems to be that they didn't negotiate the bailout or the programme to your satisfaction. That's an odd criticism, frankly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

clairefontaine wrote: »

The EU is a project that Germany, IMO irrationally, does not want to see fail.

This is a very poor understanding of Germany. It based on its analysis believes it will benefit from a successful EU.

And - surprise, surprise - we, based on our analysis, believe this to be the case for Ireland.

clairefontaine wrote: »

It can't fail, it has such a psychological investment in the EU, that Ireland held the key to. If Ireland folded and did not cave to the deal they were cattle prodded Ito, the whole house of cards would have fallen.

No one had any legal obligation to help Ireland. Nor would their electorates have been upset if their offer had been rejected by us in a mistaken belief we could blackmail them.

The other political leaders took political flak for doing a deal with the bailout member states. Life would have been easier for them if they had not done so.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

This is a very poor understanding of Germany. It based on its analysis believes it will benefit from a successful EU.

And - surprise, surprise - we, based on our analysis, believe this to be the case for Ireland.



No one had any legal obligation to help Ireland. Nor would their electorates have been upset if their offer had been rejected by us in a mistaken belief we could blackmail them.

The other political leaders took political flak for doing a deal with the bailout member states. Life would have been easier for them if they had not done so.

Funny, really, there's a whole meta level of the thread's point in this - the search for magic bullet solutions to be provided by other countries because we're somehow entitled to be given such solutions, instead of having the will to work through our lost competitiveness the hard way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

creedp

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't help but note that Enda Kenny has now been criticised both for being a career politician since age 24, and a school teacher. Not, mind you, that his was the government engaged in the original negotiations anyway, but I guess one government looks much like another.

I think the former is a very valid criticism of Kenny. I tried to say this on another thread but for some reason it didn't register .. must have made a mess of submitting it.

I can't understand how Kenny, elected at 24 years of age, could continue to block a teachers job for himself. Presumably he continued to be paid his full salary including those infamous increments and summer holiday pay while paying a subbie to do the work for him at a lower rate and possibly having to sign on for the summer. No wonder the jobbridge initiative appealed to him. I wonder did he retitre from teaching and what pension he was entitled to? How many pensions will that be in total? Easy for him to be telling lads to take the hard decisions .. serious entitlement culture ... serious lack of credibility.

Scofflaw

creedp wrote: »

I think the former is a very valid criticism of Kenny. I tried to say this on another thread but for some reason it didn't register .. must have made a mess of submitting it.

I can't understand how Kenny, elected at 24 years of age, could continue to block a teachers job for himself. Presumably he continued to be paid his full salary including those infamous increments and summer holiday pay while paying a subbie to do the work for him at a lower rate and possibly having to sign on for the summer. No wonder the jobbridge initiative appealed to him. I wonder did he retitre from teaching and what pension he was entitled to? How many pensions will that be in total? Easy for him to be telling lads to take the hard decisions .. serious entitlement culture ... serious lack of credibility.

And a serious lack of facts, which a couple of minutes with Google would have sorted out. He resigned years ago, making his permanent position available, and so obviously doesn't draw the salary. He has claimed he doesn't draw from the pension:

During his speech today (21-02-2011), Mr Kenny turned directly to the topic saying: 'I have not drawn one cent from my teaching position in over two decades.' He said he had resigned from his post many years ago and it had been filled by a 'full-time' teacher.

Entertainingly, I see that Michael Martin actually did still hold his position as a teacher at the time he was attacking Kenny for holding his:

On Newstalk this morning (21-02-2011), MM said he would resign his teaching post at the end of the school year. The person 'subbing' for him will lose their job, but a vacancy for a permanent position arises.

Both points are from the GE campaign in 2011.

cordially,
Scofflaw

clairefontaine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Politics is negotiation. When it's self-interested, it forms your definition of 'politics', but it's always about negotiation and compromise. As to who negotiated in NI, you should talk to the people who were involved in the negotiations. It wasn't Clinton or a US senator who made the progress.

Your criticism of the current government, who did not negotiate the bailout or the programme, seems to be that they didn't negotiate the bailout or the programme to your satisfaction. That's an odd criticism, frankly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No progress was made for years until Kennedy Smith was the ambassador and made things happen.

It would have continued forever.

Without Mitchell, no bridges would have been built.

golfwallah

clairefontaine wrote: »

No progress was made for years until Kennedy Smith was the ambassador and made things happen.

It would have continued forever.

Without Mitchell, no bridges would have been built.

We’re drifting a bit off topic here, but I’d agree that negotiation is a key ingredient in politics. I’d also take the view that a lot of people (from Ireland North & South, USA and UK), and not just those from the USA, played important negotiation roles on the road to getting us to where we are on the Northern Ireland.

However, that is not really the point.

Politics is not just about negotiation – it requires the courage to clearly identify the critical issues & choices, to make the right long term choices, communicate them to the public, get majority support and implement them.

We simply can’t negotiate our way out of our current economic problems, particularly when the deficit is being increased day by day through unaffordable current spending that requires more and more borrowing. Nor can we unravel decisions made in the past.

The issue is clear to me. As a country, government is spending way beyond what we can afford and the banking system is not providing enough investment to new ventures that will generate future wealth and improved living standards.

Unfortunately, FG in government is hamstrung by Labour, whose driving force is protection of the status quo, i.e. PS pay & conditions and social welfare, while hoping somehow that growth will happen and gradually take care of the deficit.

I’d much prefer to see clear leadership and positive action than the current policy of “muddle along”, re-negotiate a few loans but, whatever you do, don’t touch the Labour sacred cows of welfare and PS pay.

ardmacha

PS pay has been cut 3 times, while private pay is increasing. Yet some posters here manage to imply that PS pay is untouched, although they know otherwise.

Scofflaw

golfwallah wrote: »

We’re drifting a bit off topic here, but I’d agree that negotiation is a key ingredient in politics. I’d also take the view that a lot of people (from Ireland North & South, USA and UK), and not just those from the USA, played important negotiation roles on the road to getting us to where we are on the Northern Ireland.

However, that is not really the point.

Politics is not just about negotiation – it requires the courage to clearly identify the critical issues & choices, to make the right long term choices, communicate them to the public, get majority support and implement them.

We simply can’t negotiate our way out of our current economic problems, particularly when the deficit is being increased day by day through unaffordable current spending that requires more and more borrowing. Nor can we unravel decisions made in the past.

I'd agree - and it's when faced with non-negotiable problems that Irish governments are at their weakest. Issues that you can't talk your way out of, or around, require a whole different skillset, and one which is largely lacking in an Irish political landscape dominated by lawyers and other talkers.

golfwallah wrote: »

The issue is clear to me. As a country, government is spending way beyond what we can afford and the banking system is not providing enough investment to new ventures that will generate future wealth and improved living standards.

Unfortunately, FG in government is hamstrung by Labour, whose driving force is protection of the status quo, i.e. PS pay & conditions and social welfare, while hoping somehow that growth will happen and gradually take care of the deficit.

I’d much prefer to see clear leadership and positive action than the current policy of “muddle along”, re-negotiate a few loans but, whatever you do, don’t touch the Labour sacred cows of welfare and PS pay.

To be fair, they're not just Labour sacred cows - they tend to be sacred cows everywhere. However, I don't think one can avoid noting that the cuts to PS pay largely took place under the previous Fianna Fáil/Green government rather than the current Fine Gael/Labour one, and it's hard to see Fine Gael as behind that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

golfwallah

ardmacha wrote: »

PS pay has been cut 3 times, while private pay is increasing. Yet some posters here manage to imply that PS pay is untouched, although they know otherwise.

The one big difference is that private sector pay increases are happening in those individual businesses that are profitable (i.e. where income exceeds expenditure).

Employees in private firms that make losses generally do not receive pay increases, because this would require employers to borrow money they don't have or fund the increases from reserves (i.e. prior year profits). These employees are also at grave risk of losing their jobs and suffering reduced pensions, if the losses continue beyond a point where cash flow becomes a problem.

PS pay, on the other hand, does not have to be cut in line with government deficits because the government is able to borrow on the strength of future taxation. Additionally, their jobs and pensions are safe.

And by the way, I have not inferred that PS pay is untouched.

ardmacha

If a private company has demand for their products, but are providing them in an unprofitable way, then they increase the price. PS pay cuts bear no comparison with the private sector, but are simply an extra tax on a minority levied by venal politicians trying to curry favour with a selfish electorate.

Scofflaw

golfwallah wrote: »

The one big difference is that private sector pay increases are happening in those individual businesses that are profitable (i.e. where income exceeds expenditure).

Employees in private firms that make losses generally do not receive pay increases, because this would require employers to borrow money they don't have or fund the increases from reserves (i.e. prior year profits). These employees are also at grave risk of losing their jobs and suffering reduced pensions, if the losses continue beyond a point where cash flow becomes a problem.

PS pay, on the other hand, does not have to be cut in line with government deficits because the government is able to borrow on the strength of future taxation. Additionally, their jobs and pensions are safe.

And by the way, I have not inferred that PS pay is untouched.

On the other hand, the reason that it happens that way is because while companies are intended to create profits for their owners, public services are meant to provide services to the public.

The measure of one is the amount of profit it generates, and the only reason for not delivering awful service is because it might reduce profitability. The measure of the other is how good the services it delivers to the citizens are, and the only reason for not borrowing to do so is that the cost of doing so might impact future service provision.

The question of whether better-paid public servants deliver better or worse services than worse-paid ones is not an open and shut question, and the measurable outcome for public services is the public service they provide - on top of which neither welfare nor the public service payroll are necessarily simply costs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wexie

ardmacha wrote: »

If a private company has demand for their products, but are providing them in an unprofitable way, then they increase the price or efficiency

you missed an important bit

golfwallah

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd agree - and it's when faced with non-negotiable problems that Irish governments are at their weakest. Issues that you can't talk your way out of, or around, require a whole different skillset, and one which is largely lacking in an Irish political landscape dominated by lawyers and other talkers.


To be fair, they're not just Labour sacred cows - they tend to be sacred cows everywhere. However, I don't think one can avoid noting that the cuts to PS pay largely took place under the previous Fianna Fáil/Green government rather than the current Fine Gael/Labour one, and it's hard to see Fine Gael as behind that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd agree with most of your post, except the bits about:

• tending to be sacred cows everywhere ...... Err... What about Welfare Caps in the UK?
• Hard to see FG as behind that ..... no, I think you may have misunderstood my point that Labour are behind FG's inability to tackle the sacred cows of Welfare & PS Pay costs.

golfwallah

ardmacha wrote: »

If a private company has demand for their products, but are providing them in an unprofitable way, then they increase the price. PS pay cuts bear no comparison with the private sector, but are simply an extra tax on a minority levied by venal politicians trying to curry favour with a selfish electorate.

Err ..... I don't think so ..... ever heard of competition? This prevents price rises in unprofitable firms ...... otherwise increasing prices will simply drive customers away and the unprofitable firms go out of business.

And no again to your second point, as not implementing pay cost reduction is simply an extra tax on the majority, who will use their votes to punish an ineffective government, that can see no alternative but to increase taxes and borrow to solve budget deficits.

Scofflaw

golfwallah wrote: »

I'd agree with most of your post, except the bits about:

• tending to be sacred cows everywhere ...... Err... What about Welfare Caps in the UK?

Hence "tend"!

• Hard to see FG as behind that ..... no, I think you may have misunderstood my point that Labour are behind FG's inability to tackle the sacred cows of Welfare & PS Pay costs.

Actually, it's agreeing with your point - the cuts happened largely under the previous government, and it's unlikely that in the current government it's FG dragging its feet on those issues, which leaves the likely source of the resistance as Labour.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Idbatterim

Labours support has collapsed, but in fairness, they have done pretty much as well, as can have been expected... There hasnt been any major reform, or welfare cuts and the PS havent been targeted again...

jimmycrackcorm

I think the biggest problem with addressing welfare reform is how to address it. The topic comes up more into the social spectrum of discussion slap bang in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the beginning of the state and people now clamour most for action.

Why not this level of disparagement in the hight of the Boom? Obviously no one cared then but now, with a somewhat 300k extra people on the dole, everyone seemingly wants to snipe at people who have the lowest hope of improvement at present.

I don't doubt the problems in the welfare culture at present; Scofflaw made a point about the op referring to anecdotes instead of hard facts. However, I seriously doubt that there isn't a single person who doesn't know of someone who is benefiting from welfare because of the way the system is set up.

The big problem to address it is that this is the worst possible time to do it. Instead we should recognize these problems and set a plan in place to fix them in the future. Give people time to adjust and get over this recession. Pick ten years for example; We should be saying that in ten years time, the system wont be geared to be a lifestyle choice, that the longer you are on it the less benefit you get but the more opportunity you should have to improve and work.

We're stuck in a trap because it is seen as too difficult to make any decisions other than short-term ones. While we wer enjoying the boom, we should have pushed those decisions.

johnr1

My summer employment ended in late October. I then went on hols for ten days.

I arrived home on Sat night last, went out Monday and got a job. Started Tuesday morning. It's full time, more than double the min wage, and will see me through to March again when my summer job recommences.

How does this this sit with the "BUT THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!!" crew who post this inanity in virtually every thread about people on the dole not wanting to work.

My hole there are no jobs, - no workers more like. Just parasites.

skafish

johnr1 wrote: »

My summer employment ended in late October. I then went on hols for ten days.

I arrived home on Sat night last, went out Monday and got a job. Started Tuesday morning. It's full time, more than double the min wage, and will see me through to March again when my summer job recommences.

How does this this sit with the "BUT THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!!" crew who post this inanity in virtually every thread about people on the dole not wanting to work.

My hole there are no jobs, - no workers more like. Just parasites.

Fair play for going out and finding yourself a job instead of sitting on your arse.
While I think your language is a bit emotive, I also applaud the realization that there are jobs available. I doubt there are enough to bring about an end to the unemployment situation, however.

That being said, every new job created contributes to the creation of other new jobs through increased spending in the economy.

Its a pity more people don't share your attitude

golfwallah

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, the reason that it happens that way is because while companies are intended to create profits for their owners, public services are meant to provide services to the public.

The measure of one is the amount of profit it generates, and the only reason for not delivering awful service is because it might reduce profitability. The measure of the other is how good the services it delivers to the citizens are, and the only reason for not borrowing to do so is that the cost of doing so might impact future service provision.

The question of whether better-paid public servants deliver better or worse services than worse-paid ones is not an open and shut question, and the measurable outcome for public services is the public service they provide - on top of which neither welfare nor the public service payroll are necessarily simply costs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think you may be mixing cause and effect here.

When private companies provide value to their customers (cause), they become profitable (effect). And when that value is unique (and not just another “me too” operation), they become even more profitable, or will be perceived as being likely to become so in the future. There is also the impact of competition, which requires such companies to be cost-effective, innovative and responsive to changing customer / market needs. Examples are: CRH, Kerry Group, Ryanair, DCC, Glanbia, Paddy Power, etc.

I’d agree that it is a bit more difficult to measure value for money and effect change in the Public Service .... but it isn’t impossible. The main factors behind these difficulties are the absence of a pricing mechanism and competition, the inability of management to deal effectively with trade unions and inertia brought about by government /local authority ability to put off change through tax increases and borrowing. Yes, we are seeing some changes (e.g. contracting out of bin services) but it’s all happening very slowly – and even more slowly now that the Troika are gone. And while Minister Howlin (the real Taoiseach) dithers and procrastinates, and Minister Burton fails to tackle “out of control” welfare spending, the taxpayer has to pick up the bill.

creedp

Scofflaw wrote: »

And a serious lack of facts, which a couple of minutes with Google would have sorted out. He resigned years ago, making his permanent position available, and so obviously doesn't draw the salary. He has claimed he doesn't draw from the pension:

Thanks for setting me straight .. you're right Google's your only man!

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

PS pay has been cut 3 times, while private pay is increasing. Yet some posters here manage to imply that PS pay is untouched, although they know otherwise.

Hows about 6 rounds of pay increments in the same period...?

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

Hows about 6 rounds of pay increments in the same period...?

How about zero rounds of pay increments in the same period? Your statement has about as much validity as someone arguing that every private sector workers gets an annual bonus .. hang on though maybe they do!