Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

Head The Wall · 13-01-2011 09:15PM

kceire wrote: »

PS pay bill reduced in 2009 in relation to 2008.

17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

PS Pensions Bill

1.656 Bn in 2008
2.007 Bn in 2009
2.235 Bn in 2010

Typical govt type spin - pay bill is going down and we are reducing numbers etc and in the meantime the pension bill is going up. Pay bill has increased by 10.8% from 2005-2010 but the pension bill has increased by 65% in the same time frame.

The pension bill is going to keep going up, make no mistake about that. You only have to read about all the politicians not going for re election this year.

kceire wrote: »

thats the same document i was linking to 5 pages back

plus my figures are for the PS pay bill, which incase you forgot is the title of the thread :

no mention of pensions in there is there now :rolleyes:

Like you said before, stop blurring the lines or being deliberately facetious.

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

What we spend on pensions are relevant to this discussion as it is still remuneration that is paid out from the govt so no muddying the water. The govt seems to be succeeding in fooling the likes of yourself into thinking that they are reducing expenditure, the reality is they are just shifting it around.

RichardAnd · 13-01-2011 09:51PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

PS Pensions Bill

1.656 Bn in 2008
2.007 Bn in 2009
2.235 Bn in 2010

Typical govt type spin - pay bill is going down and we are reducing numbers etc and in the meantime the pension bill is going up. Pay bill has increased by 10.8% from 2005-2010 but the pension bill has increased by 65% in the same time frame.

The pension bill is going to keep going up, make no mistake about that. You only have to read about all the politicians not going for re election this year.

What we spend on pensions are relevant to this discussion as it is still remuneration that is paid out from the govt so no muddying the water. The govt seems to be succeeding in fooling the likes of yourself into thinking that they are reducing expenditure, the reality is they are just shifting it around.

Whilst this is a good point, I would just point out that PS worker on a pension will be getting less than he/she was in his PS job. So 10 retired civil servants ARE costing the state less than 10 active civil servants.

But the issue of pensions not adding up isn't a uniquely Irish issue. Rather, a pension crisis is a looming prospect for many nations across the world. People these days live too long compared to their working life and, eventually, this elephant in the room will have to be tackled.

avoidspammers · 14-01-2011 12:14AM

noodler wrote: »

Public Sector Pay has only been cut once if you don't include the the levy.

What kind of totally nonsensical statement is that?? If my aunty had b***s she'd be my uncle!

It is a "levy" by name and a pay cut by nature. This has been discussed previously.

AS

Head The Wall · 14-01-2011 01:12AM

When you take into account the 18 month tax free lump sum and the 50% pension they get when they retire it ends up being two whole years before the govt starts to make a saving on them.

This is why I am cynical about the whole natural wastage way of cutting the pay bill, to me it just doesn't save as much as making people redundant would and the wrong people are leaving.

kaiser sauze · 14-01-2011 01:29AM

kceire wrote: »

thats the same document i was linking to 5 pages back

plus my figures are for the PS pay bill, which incase you forgot is the title of the thread :

I used the term "PS pay and pensions", if you are unwilling, or unable, to debate with me on that basis stop wasting my time.

kceire wrote: »

no mention of pensions in there is there now :rolleyes:

No, however, as has been pointed out to you earlier, it is relevant as the overall public pay bill takes into account those who merely move from a job to retirement, it is all paid from the same purse.

kceire wrote: »

Like you said before, stop blurring the lines or being deliberately facetious.

This just goes to show how insipid you are, you distort things, entrench yourself when your figures are questioned and wear people down by reducing the argument to your exceptionally low level.

kceire wrote: »

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

The time I need help from you is the time the world explodes.

kceire wrote: »

PS pay bill reduced by 2.005Bn between Dec 2008 and Dec 2010.
and we will see another decrease by Dec 2011.

To reiterate the point, this is untrue if you include PS pensions until 2010 and blurring the lines and leaving pensions out is unacceptable.

kaiser sauze · 14-01-2011 01:45AM

macannrb wrote: »

Will it decrease as much as the increase in interest costs forecast by the DOF?

......................vvvvvvvvvvv........................

kceire wrote: »

I'm afraid not even you can answer that yet can you?
I'll tell you in January 2012.

Oh...my...:(

The forecast figures are there, it is not a trick question. If you could be bothered dealing with figures you would be able to give an answer to the question.

Gumbo · 14-01-2011 09:34AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The time I need help from you is the time the world explodes.

no problem, your welcome.
judging by the anger in your posts you should release some of that pressure from your head before that explodes.

just because the figures dont please your personal vendetta you attack me, the mind boggles :rolleyes:

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The forecast figures are there, it is not a trick question. If you could be bothered dealing with figures you would be able to give an answer to the question.

the forecast says it will reduce, i have stated that in many many many posts but ye ignore it.
i dont know the exact/proper figure it will reduce by, and either do you!
we can all quote the forecast but the true figures will be released in Jan 2012.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I used the term "PS pay and pensions", if you are unwilling, or unable, to debate with me on that basis stop wasting my time.

wasting your time LOL
your time has been wasted since the moment you posted your personal vendetta against certain peoples opinions....... so please stop wasting my time.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

This just goes to show how insipid you are, you distort things, entrench yourself when your figures are questioned and wear people down by reducing the argument to your exceptionally low level.

i copied/pasted your exact post, so were obviously both at the same level....

macannrb · 14-01-2011 10:44AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Oh...my...:(

The forecast figures are there, it is not a trick question. If you could be bothered dealing with figures you would be able to give an answer to the question.

Hi Kaiser,

Kceire is a one trick pony. All he can say is PS pay costs have done down x in the last y years. he repeats this z amount of times in response to anyone's attempts to engage in a debate of PS pay cost. Further attempts to engage in expanding the debates away from "pay costs have gone done..." result in "ps begrugder" "throwing toys out of prams" etc and he must defend his one trick patch. These tricks won't get him very far in the real world but I’m sure in the PS they have been fine.

The problem that Kceire has, is that on any sinking ship, the common sense thing to do is to follow the rats. The government is a sinking ship and default is only a matter of time. And the rats are jumping ship, Dermot Ahern, Noel Dempsey, Mary Wallace, Jimmy Devin etc and more that dont want to announced their flight intentions just yet. these guys will be just fine as their party will put them on quango boards, or their 6m pensions will keep them warm at night. However Kceire only has one trick and in the real world he will find it difficult to adapt.

Kaizer, I also think Kceire shoots himself in the foot showing his lack of intelligence with his one trick antics, in a sense giving us a first class example why those in the education system in Ireland are ineffective at their jobs. One might suggest overpaid, or lack or routing out the bad eggs in the profession.

But Kaizer, you should also know that not all in the PS lack intelligence as Kceire does. My parents are both receive very modest paychecks from the government and both agree that the country is heading towards ruin unless major changes happen. Both parents hate unions, and would be patriotic enough to accept across the board paycuts as they don’t take their paychecks for granted. But they know there is an element in the PS which would object wholesale as many have far too large mortgages, large credit card bills, and in general wont accept that the problems of the country will eventually effect their lifestyle as they have leveraged their furture wages on houses and other things. But there is hope, even if there is an element such as kceire. It reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it".

Gumbo · 14-01-2011 11:06AM

macannrb wrote: »

Hi Kaiser,

Kceire is a one trick pony. All he can say is PS pay costs have done down x in the last y years. he repeats this z amount of times in response to anyone's attempts to engage in a debate of PS pay cost. Further attempts to engage in expanding the debates away from "pay costs have gone done..." result in "ps begrugder" "throwing toys out of prams" etc and he must defend his one trick patch. These tricks won't get him very far in the real world but I’m sure in the PS they have been fine.

and all the PS begrudgers mouth off is "we want pay cuts", when in fact the pay bill is being reduced. if youve been around these forums you will understand why i post the same stuff as the PS begrudgers simply copy/paste the same argument from post to post also.

its an argument that can never be won on here as everybody has their own agenda and you never really know wether the poster is posting from real experience or is a wind up

macannrb wrote: »

But Kaizer, you should also know that not all in the PS lack intelligence as Kceire does. My parents are both receive very modest paychecks from the government and both agree that the country is heading towards ruin unless major changes happen. Both parents hate unions, and would be patriotic enough to accept across the board paycuts as they don’t take their paychecks for granted. But they know there is an element in the PS which would object wholesale as many have far too large mortgages, large credit card bills, and in general wont accept that the problems of the country will eventually effect their lifestyle as they have leveraged their furture wages on houses and other things. But there is hope, even if there is an element such as kceire. It reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it".

for all you know i could be a Dunnes Stores check out assistant!
you have no way of judging me based on my wind ups agianst one poster that goes out of their way to attack me.

to think that im a result of the PS education system is a joke

im in here nearly 2 years. speant all my working life in the private sector so your arguments are non existant here im afraid.

i could bet your "low paid" parents are on the same money as me, so no , i am not overpaid, i earn a modest pay that just covers my bills at present and am very very lucky to be in full employement and never, never take that for granted, it is you that has used those words not me.

also, im not in any union either..........

noodler · 14-01-2011 12:56PM

kceire wrote: »

and all the PS begrudgers mouth off is "we want pay cuts", when in fact the pay bill is being reduced.

Please don't label people who want the pay and pensions bill (and indeed PS costs as a whole) reduced as "begrudgers". It implies that a normal, sane person free of direct interest in the issue could disagree with you - this is clearly note the case.

kceire wrote: »

its an argument that can never be won on here as everybody has their own agenda and you never really know wether the poster is posting from real experience or is a wind up

Again, not true. Unless stability in our public finances is an agenda. It certainly couldn't be classed a personal agenda.

kceire wrote: »

you have no way of judging me based on my wind ups agianst one poster that goes out of their way to attack me.

Who attacked you?

kceire wrote: »

i am not overpaid, i earn a modest pay that just covers my bills at present and am very very lucky to be in full employement and never, never take that for granted,

Couldn't agree more.

Gumbo · 14-01-2011 01:34PM

noodler wrote: »

Please don't label people who want the pay and pensions bill (and indeed PS costs as a whole) reduced as "begrudgers". It implies that a normal, sane person free of direct interest in the issue could disagree with you - this is clearly note the case.

it happens here everyday noodler, people label PS wokers with the same brush and generalizing comments.

noodler wrote: »

Again, not true. Unless stability in our public finances is an agenda. It certainly couldn't be classed a personal agenda.

i agree, we need stability, but the constant moan about PS wages is annoying, if we zeroed PS pay tomorrow, we would still have a deficit. everything nees to come down in line with each other. the Ps pay bill is being reduced, some might argue not quick enough and thats fair enough, everybody has their own opinion, but you cant just come along and slash 300,000 peoples wages by 25% overnight as there would be widespread default on loans/mortgages etc IMO.

Ps wages are decreasing but Private services are ever increasing, car insurance, home insurance, health insurance (although i cant really argue this case as i have none to begin with), UPC, groceries, fuels, GP's etc etc

noodler wrote: »

Who attacked you?

not you, dont worry

noodler wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

and as i say, im delighted to be working, delighted to get a pay cheque every 2 weeks as i have friends out of work but i also have friends in the financial sectore that have got bonus, and increased wages in 2010 and ive friends on socail welfare that get various expences and allowances that leave them with more free cash in thir pocket than me at the end of the week.

macannrb · 14-01-2011 03:16PM

kceire wrote: »

i agree, we need stability, but the constant moan about PS wages is annoying, if we zeroed PS pay tomorrow, we would still have a deficit.

Not as much of a deficit, and also there would be knock on effects as people cost more then just their wage.

kceire wrote: »

everything nees to come down in line with each other.

I couldn't agree more, but general economic theory says the government has a leading role in the economy so if they spend a lot less money on wages (directly and indirectly), which would lead to dramatically lower prices, (look at supply and demand economic theory)

kceire wrote: »

the Ps pay bill is being reduced, some might argue not quick enough and thats fair enough, everybody has their own opinion, but you cant just come along and slash 300,000 peoples wages by 25% overnight as there would be widespread default on loans/mortgages etc IMO.

There is already widespread defaults, and you can't honestly expect the government to keep paying people high wages, as the title suggests, just so they can say in their homes.

Ps wages are decreasing but Private services are ever increasing, car insurance, home insurance, health insurance (although i cant really argue this case as i have none to begin with), UPC, groceries, fuels, GP's etc etc

Many of these are artifically held up by the government. Rent for example is being proped up by rent allowance. The government needs to take a leading role in reducing prices, both by lowering the wages and other payments that are proping up prices.

But you still have ignored the fact, which is we are borrowing medium to long term for short term expenditure.

It has been pointed out time and time again, which is that the government can't afford any sort of gradual decline in wages and other expenditure, it must happen fast. We are borrowing medium and long term debt, to finance short term expenditure. This is a recipe for disaster. Ireland will be going bankrupt, never mind a few people who have taken out big mortgages, assuming their PS wages would never come down.

Gumbo · 14-01-2011 03:22PM

macannrb wrote: »

never mind a few people who have taken out big mortgages, assuming their PS wages would never come down.

I'm sure there are many in the private sector in the same boat.
I took out my mortgage in 2006 while earning in the private sector.

The_Honeybadger · 14-01-2011 03:27PM

macannrb wrote: »

But they know there is an element in the PS which would object wholesale as many have far too large mortgages, large credit card bills, and in general wont accept that the problems of the country will eventually effect their lifestyle as they have leveraged their furture wages on houses and other things. But there is hope, even if there is an element such as kceire. It reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it".

This is very true, the problem for many is not that their wages would be too small if they took another hit, it is that their debts are too large and they will fight tooth and nail to defend their still generous salaries, to be honest if I was in the same situation I'd do the same, it's human nature. I have a sister in law in the PS and had to listen to her rant for an hour last week about the extra taxes when she got her first paycheck of 2011 before she stormed off to ring a colleague and have another moan, despite the fact she is still taking home nearly 700 a week and had nearly a month off for xmas (I'm not trying to say the whole PS has a month off at xmas). When I tried to explain the dire finances of the country the response was "well thats hardly my fault is it?". Some people are still very much in denial about our problems, and yes every aspect of our expenses has to shrink, PS pay, Health costs and SW mainly.

noodler · 14-01-2011 03:32PM

kceire wrote: »

it happens here everyday noodler, people label PS wokers with the same brush and generalizing comments.

Despite our arguments (debates), I have never gone populist with my arguments. It has always been about the overall Pay / Pensions bill, usually in proportion to the Taxation Revenues.

kceire wrote: »

i agree, we need stability, but the constant moan about PS wages is annoying, if we zeroed PS pay tomorrow, we would still have a deficit. everything nees to come down in line with each other. the Ps pay bill is being reduced, some might argue not quick enough and thats fair enough, everybody has their own opinion, but you cant just come along and slash 300,000 peoples wages by 25% overnight as there would be widespread default on loans/mortgages etc IMO.

No, nothing that drastic (at least across the board - I am sure there are some people in the higher pay scales who should have their pay cut by 25%). I don't really agree completely with the suggestion the pay bill has come down in the same proportion as everything else when you consider the adjustment so far has been approx €20+bn.

kceire wrote: »

Ps wages are decreasing but Private services are ever increasing, car insurance, home insurance, health insurance (although i cant really argue this case as i have none to begin with), UPC, groceries, fuels, GP's etc etc

You will never will that argument when its 330,000 public service workers against 1.8bn private sector workers and another 300,000 unemployed.

I just don't agree with the reasoning in the argument either. Didn't the CPI decrease by 4.5% last year and due to do so by nother 0.75% this year? I appreciate this is a very wide measure.

On the otherhand, what about the unemployed and social welfare decreasing? Got to be worse for them, eh?

I hate getting into the social argument side of things btw.

kceire wrote: »

not you, dont worry

Good.

kceire wrote: »

and as i say, im delighted to be working, delighted to get a pay cheque every 2 weeks as i have friends out of work but i also have friends in the financial sectore that have got bonus, and increased wages in 2010 and ive friends on socail welfare that get various expences and allowances that leave them with more free cash in thir pocket than me at the end of the week.

All I can see is such people who earned the big money and or bonuses earnt it because the company could afford it.

RobbieTheRobber · 14-01-2011 03:34PM

macannrb wrote: »

Not as much of a deficit, and also there would be knock on effects as people cost more then just their wage.

Are you suggesting a 100% cut to the PS?

I couldn't agree more, but general economic theory says the government has a leading role in the economy so if they spend a lot less money on wages (directly and indirectly), which would lead to dramatically lower prices, (look at supply and demand economic theory)

Which General economic theory? ( I didnt know there was a general economic theory i knew there was a general theory of relativity but not for economics)
Can you outline more of this general theory?
Which countries follow this general theory?

There is already widespread defaults, and you can't honestly expect the government to keep paying people high wages, as the title suggests, just so they can say in their homes.

Huh, what?
There was me thinkign the main purpose of a government was to serve its people to ensure the best quality of life for its people. so surely ensuring people are not removed from their homes would be a function of government.

Also the thread title is a lie a made up statistic that has little or no basis in fact, or if you disbelieve that I challange you to prove it!

Many of these are artifically held up by the government. Rent for example is being proped up by rent allowance. The government needs to take a leading role in reducing prices, both by lowering the wages and other payments that are proping up prices.

Property prices are also being propped up Nama's reluctance to dump property.
Wages are being artifically propped up by the minimum wage. (this also affect our competiveness in international terms. Is the minimum wage to high?
Booze prices are being artifically propped up by the vinters association.
Whats your point?

But you still have ignored the fact, which is we are borrowing medium to long term for short term expenditure.

Indeed the government is borrowing, that borrowing could be reigned in over a 5 year period lessening the damage sudden changes would have on the economy . Also it is very commonh for governments to run deficits. The USa for example and closest tradng partner Britain as another.

It has been pointed out time and time again, which is that the government can't afford any sort of gradual decline in wages and other expenditure, it must happen fast. We are borrowing medium and long term debt, to finance short term expenditure. This is a recipe for disaster. Ireland will be going bankrupt, never mind a few people who have taken out big mortgages, assuming their PS wages would never come down.

Ask yourself why cant the government afford a gradual decline, is this because of PS wages or because the cost borrowing is now priced so high for this country because of the issues in our financial sector?

noodler · 14-01-2011 04:30PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Which General economic theory? ( I didnt know there was a general economic theory i knew there was a general theory of relativity but not for economics)
Can you outline more of this general theory?
Which countries follow this general theory?

Theres an undeniable relationship.

Y = C+G+T etc

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Huh, what?
There was me thinkign the main purpose of a government was to serve its people to ensure the best quality of life for its people. so surely ensuring people are not removed from their homes would be a function of government.

Also the thread title is a lie a made up statistic that has little or no basis in fact, or if you disbelieve that I challange you to prove it!

Property prices are also being propped up Nama's reluctance to dump property.
Wages are being artifically propped up by the minimum wage. (this also affect our competiveness in international terms. Is the minimum wage to high?
Booze prices are being artifically propped up by the vinters association.
Whats your point?

Indeed the government is borrowing, that borrowing could be reigned in over a 5 year period lessening the damage sudden changes would have on the economy . Also it is very commonh for governments to run deficits. The USa for example and closest tradng partner Britain as another.

Ask yourself why cant the government afford a gradual decline, is this because of PS wages or because the cost borrowing is now priced so high for this country because of the issues in our financial sector?

Jesus, where to begin. Can you reign your points in a bit more so they make sense? Please?

macannrb · 14-01-2011 04:31PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you suggesting a 100% cut to the PS?

no, where did I say that? I was responding to Kceire's suggestion of a 100% cut. Please read carefully.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Which General economic theory? ( I didnt know there was a general economic theory i knew there was a general theory of relativity but not for economics)
Can you outline more of this general theory?

Net National Income
NNI = C + I + G + (NX) + net foreign factor income - indirect taxes
Reduce the Net national income, and the ability to purchase goods reduces, and therefore the demand for the goods drop, brining about a drop in prices. Its a general economic theory, as its not linked to any school of thought, and is one of the first macro economic theories thought is school.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Huh, what?
There was me thinkign the main purpose of a government was to serve its people to ensure the best quality of life for its people. so surely ensuring people are not removed from their homes would be a function of government.

The government roles does not include borrowing money so that they can pay civil servants handsomely, and then give them a generous pension, just so they dont default on their mortgage. If people pay too much for something, its their fault. Nobody forced anyone to go out and buy a big house with a huge mortgage. But since they did, it is their responibility to pay it back, but its not the government's responsibility to keep them in a job. Maybe in a communist country...

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Also the thread title is a lie a made up statistic that has little or no basis in fact, or if you disbelieve that I challange you to prove it!

Your opinion, which you are entitled to, as am I

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Property prices are also being propped up Nama's reluctance to dump property.
Wages are being artifically propped up by the minimum wage. (this also affect our competiveness in international terms. Is the minimum wage to high?
Booze prices are being artifically propped up by the vinters association.
Whats your point?

the sooner the government lets market forces dictate the prices, good will fall, which includes keeping PS rates far higher then public sector.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Indeed the government is borrowing, that borrowing could be reigned in over a 5 year period lessening the damage sudden changes would have on the economy . Also it is very commonh for governments to run deficits. The USa for example and closest tradng partner Britain as another.

Both examples can print money to solve their problems of over borrowing. We can't. My opinion would be that further borrowing which can't be devalued like the UK and US, will hurt us far more then a sharp correction in government expenditure.

My opinion, which I am entitled to, as are you

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ask yourself why cant the government afford a gradual decline

I have, and the answer I believe is that we have far to much debt as it is, and over the four year plan we will incur even more debt, and eventually default as the interest repayments mean we could never repay the amounts, the markets would realise this, and stop funding us, leaving us without money, borrowed or otherwise.

Now ask yourself the question, why has this government not made more cuts to PS pay, to PS pensions, to OAP allowances? Is it electionering? with 300k voters in the ranks of the PS, another 100k in the Quangos, I dont know maybe a million OAPs. It is politics not economics, FF have left the cuts to the next party so they are remembered as the ones to "have cut my pay".

mickeyk wrote: »

Some people are still very much in denial about our problems

I think your post represents very much reality, and this part in particular is very true. But the problem is ones who are running the country are the last ones who should be in denial

RobbieTheRobber · 14-01-2011 04:37PM

noodler wrote: »

Jesus, where to begin. Can you reign your points in a bit more so they make sense? Please?

:rolleyes: That is all

mari2222 · 14-01-2011 04:37PM

Vacancies in the public sector are at publicjobs.ie
Might interest those who wish to go into public service.

RobbieTheRobber · 14-01-2011 04:52PM

macannrb wrote: »

no, where did I say that? I was responding to Kceire's suggestion of a 100% cut. Please read carefully.

Indeed, ok so.
Do you propose a 100% cut?
If not what percentage cut do you propose?

Net National Income
NNI = C + I + G + (NX) + net foreign factor income - indirect taxes
Reduce the Net national income, and the ability to purchase goods reduces, and therefore the demand for the goods drop, brining about a drop in prices. Its a general economic theory, as its not linked to any school of thought, and is one of the first macro economic theories thought is school.

So apply that theory to ireland for me please and how its application could eb expected to be seen by the citizens of this nation?

The government roles does not include borrowing money so that they can pay civil servants handsomely, and then give them a generous pension, just so they dont default on their mortgage. If people pay too much for something, its their fault. Nobody forced anyone to go out and buy a big house with a huge mortgage. But since they did, it is their responibility to pay it back, but its not the government's responsibility to keep them in a job. Maybe in a communist country...

Hansome generous, very descriptive not very useful. What is a fair pension for a PS staff member who may be employed by the state fo as many as 50years?

Your opinion, which you are entitled to, as am I

While it is my opinion it is also fact my wages are not 49% higher than the private sector so how is this title true?

the sooner the government lets market forces dictate the prices, good will fall, which includes keeping PS rates far higher then public sector.

In your esteemed opinion does this also include removing the minimum wage.
Which is undoubtedly a barrier to a competitive workforce in international terms?

Both examples can print money to solve their problems of over borrowing. We can't. My opinion would be that further borrowing which can't be devalued like the UK and US, will hurt us far more then a sharp correction in government expenditure.

Indeed they can, so are you suggesting then that EU is major part of our ecomomic situation by not allowing us to set interest rates or to "print money"?
Also how does printing money help with national debt, surely by printing more money you devalue your currency and but leave your level of debt intact?
Im open to being proven wrong on this I dont understand international economics.

I have, and the answer I believe is that we have far to much debt as it is, and over the four year plan we will incur even more debt, and eventually default as the interest repayments mean we could never repay the amounts, the markets would realise this, and stop funding us, leaving us without money, borrowed or otherwise.

Is all this debt as a result of PS wages?

Now ask yourself the question, why has this government not made more cuts to PS pay, to PS pensions, to OAP allowances? Is it electionering? with 300k voters in the ranks of the PS, another 100k in the Quangos, I dont know maybe a million OAPs. It is politics not economics, FF have left the cuts to the next party so they are remembered as the ones to "have cut my pay".

I cant really answer im not privy to government intentions!

Jaysoose · 14-01-2011 05:01PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

In your esteemed opinion does this also include removing the minimum wage.
Which is undoubtedly a barrier to a competitive workforce in international terms?

Your leaving out Commercial rents, local authority rates, high energy prices and any number of other factors as to why businesses are deemed uncompetitive.

But then you obviously are starting to believe the tripe you have been posting for some time in this and other threads.

RobbieTheRobber · 14-01-2011 05:13PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

Your leaving out Commercial rents, local authority rates, high energy prices and any number of other factors as to why businesses are deemed uncompetitive.

But then you obviously are starting to believe the tripe you have been posting for some time in this and other threads.

Indeed i left them out becasue i was asking a specific question, is that not acceptable?

Did I at any point state these were not issues?

Would you like to answer the specific question i posed for macannrb in response to replies he posted to me or would you like to just post baseless taunts like a child in a playground!
Oh and :rolleyes:

If i post incorrect facts you are also allowed to refute them, whcih i notice you havent done in your post instead you have resorted to the lowest form of reply which is to insult the poster. Good work!

noodler · 14-01-2011 05:15PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Oh and :rolleyes:

When its all you have...

RobbieTheRobber · 14-01-2011 05:20PM

noodler wrote: »

When its all you have...

I know you are but what am i :rolleyes:

Excellent show on improving on my response with your own 5 words, also well done on the selective editing, becasue it wasnt all that was in my post was it now noodler?

Jaysoose · 14-01-2011 05:22PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Indeed i left them out becasue i was asking a specific question, is that not acceptable?

Did I at any point state these were not issues?

Would you like to answer the specific question i posed for macannrb in response to replies he posted to me or would you like to just post baseless taunts like a child in a playground!
Oh and :rolleyes:

If i post incorrect facts you are also allowed to refute them, whcih i notice you havent done in your post instead you have resorted to the lowest form of reply which is to insult the poster. Good work!

I didnt insult you i simply pointed out that your continual bleating on with the same badly formed points does make them true but in fact you must be starting to believe your own bs.

RobbieTheRobber · 14-01-2011 05:24PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

I dint insult you i simply pointed out that your continual bleating on with the same badly formed points does make them true.

So refute my point, dont discuss how wrong I am, prove it!

cursai · 14-01-2011 05:28PM

Hi.

My name is Eamon

I'm a public Servant, id just like to take this opportunity to apologise for the easy and well funded lifestyle i have lived the last few years. i have thrown money around with a carefree disregard, as i know i will always have employment.
I have watched as my noble, patriotic and selfless private sector friends have scrounged by on a few bob and have been living in squalor whilst i have lived in opulence.
Over the years as i have built my empire, i have thrown a few crumbs, but only to make myself feel better.
Recently i have been witness to the horrible conditions that a close friend of mine has had to endure. Living in a four bedroom house with a three year old car, i was appalled at the inequality!
But i think now as i have walked through the Third World that it is time i gave something back. I can no longer live like a king whilst my private sector peers whom i now realise are also made up of flesh and blood suffer.
From this day forward i will return half of my ridiculous €488.00 a week cheque, to you, the private sector.
For you have built the nation alone.
For no one has suffered like you have.
No one has sacrificed as much as you.
You my fellow man, are a martyr and inspiration.

noodler · 14-01-2011 05:31PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I know you are but what am i :rolleyes:

Excellent show on improving on my response with your own 5 words, also well done on the selective editing, becasue it wasnt all that was in my post was it now noodler?

Okay

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So refute my point, dont discuss how wrong I am, prove it!

How many more times do you want to be refuted?

cursai wrote: »

Hi.

My name is Eamon

I'm a public Servant, id just like to take this opportunity to apologise for the easy and well funded lifestyle i have lived the last few years. i have thrown money around with a carefree disregard, as i know i will always have employment.
I have watched as my noble, patriotic and selfless private sector friends have scrounged by on a few bob and have been living in squalor whilst i have lived in opulence.
Over the years as i have built my empire, i have thrown a few crumbs, but only to make myself feel better.
Recently i have been witness to the horrible conditions that a close friend of mine has had to endure. Living in a four bedroom house with a three year old car, i was appalled at the inequality!
But i think now as i have walked through the Third World that it is time i gave something back. I can no longer live like a king whilst my private sector peers whom i now realise are also made up of flesh and blood suffer.
From this day forward i will return half of my ridiculous €488.00 a week cheque, to you, the private sector.
For you have built the nation alone.
For no one has suffered like you have.
No one has sacrificed as much as you.
You my fellow man, are a martyr and inspiration.

Eamon, read the thread and understand the difference between wanting to hit all PS workers with an identical % pay cut and reducing the pay/pensions bill overall.

Is the €488 a week net? May I ask which profession.

EDIT: Scrathc that, if Eamon is your real name - I guess you'd rather not give your profession as well.

Jaysoose · 14-01-2011 05:39PM

cursai wrote: »

Hi.

My name is Eamon

I'm a public Servant, id just like to take this opportunity to apologise for the easy and well funded lifestyle i have lived the last few years. i have thrown money around with a carefree disregard, as i know i will always have employment.
I have watched as my noble, patriotic and selfless private sector friends have scrounged by on a few bob and have been living in squalor whilst i have lived in opulence.
Over the years as i have built my empire, i have thrown a few crumbs, but only to make myself feel better.
Recently i have been witness to the horrible conditions that a close friend of mine has had to endure. Living in a four bedroom house with a three year old car, i was appalled at the inequality!
But i think now as i have walked through the Third World that it is time i gave something back. I can no longer live like a king whilst my private sector peers whom i now realise are also made up of flesh and blood suffer.
From this day forward i will return half of my ridiculous €488.00 a week cheque, to you, the private sector.
For you have built the nation alone.
For no one has suffered like you have.
No one has sacrificed as much as you.
You my fellow man, are a martyr and inspiration.

Thanks Eamonn, maybe your boss can let you away half an hour ealy every friday to facilitate your extra transaction in the bank after you cash your cheque.

Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

Comments