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

Gumbo · 15-01-2011 06:31PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

PS pension is not as simplistic as what you get less the OAP i.e 7k. You get 19k as your pension

I totally agree they may be alot more comes than I make them out to be but my PS pension is only 7k per year. Whether I get a promotion or not over the next 30 years, I don't know but I'm bottom of the list, last one in so I am.

If you removed PS pensions altogether I am still entitled to my state pension of 12k so that leaves me free to save my pension contributions myself and use then in retirement or as I see fit.

I could get a similar return for my PS entitlements by either saving the money or opening a PRSA or similar private sector pension fund.
My PRSA from my previous job is doing farther well tbh, think it's up approx 15% on what I paid in and I opened that in 2002. Obviously stopped paying it now as I have my PS pension to contribute to.

Welease · 15-01-2011 06:43PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ok so can you disprove what they are saying?

Yes... and have done so numerous times.

In this thread, I have linked to the auditor general reports which show a colossal defecit.. I have also linked to Finfacts graph which shows that extended out to 2050.. Its is not a potential liability, it is a current liability.. as all report show.. they also show that the current funding levels are inadequate, so the defecit continues to grow out to 2050..

In regards to Kciere.. They refuse to respond to the question of which salary they used in their calculation... They continue to avoid the question while responding to others, so i think it's fair to conclude that they know their figures are wrong, but lack the decency to admit so..

Before someone starts the usual PS begrudger bit.. also notice I commented on Head The Wall's figures where I felt that the PSRI contributions should be counted in favour of PS employees, as that was missing from his numbers..

cursai · 15-01-2011 06:44PM

Very rude behaviour lads...not a help to anyone!

RobbieTheRobber · 15-01-2011 06:58PM

Welease wrote: »

In regards to Kciere.. They refuse to respond to the question of which salary they used in their calculation... They continue to avoid the question while responding to others, so i think it's fair to conclude that they know their figures are wrong, but lack the decency to admit so..

In regards to salaries i believe kciere has stated it was their current salary.

Also if you are expecting people to post salary details on a public forum i would suggest that is an OTT suggestion. I know i would not be comfortable publishing my own salary on this forum for fear of abuse.

Welease · 15-01-2011 06:58PM

kceire wrote: »

I could get a similar return for my PS entitlements by either saving the money or opening a PRSA or similar private sector pension fund.

Care to show your figures for that? (don't worry.. again, I'm not holding my breath)

Moloney & Whelan's report on pension insecurity in Ireland, put the cost of a PS pension at about 30% of the salary of that employee..
(http://www.ssisi.ie/Moloney&Whelan2009.pdf)

I think it's fair to assume you wouldn't be putting 30% of your salary into a pension.

Welease · 15-01-2011 07:00PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

In regards to salaries i believe kciere has stated it was their current salary.

Also if you are expecting people to post salary details on a public forum i would suggest that is an OTT suggestion. I know i would not be comfortable publishing my own salary on this forum for fear of abuse.

I am not suggesting they should put in their salaries (but if it is their current salary, then they have already done so)

So the pension amounts Kceire has been quoting over and over in various threads.. are in fact wrong (and has been pointed out to them...)...

Would you agree?

Gumbo · 15-01-2011 07:03PM

Welease wrote: »

Care to show your figures for that? (don't worry.. again, I'm not holding my breath)

see post number 970 and then amended by me in post number 985.
Also www.pensionsboard.ie lists a higher pension but I ignore that as it relies on possible growth etc etc

http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Advanced_Pension_Calculator/

Can't multi quote sorry as posting on my phone.

Welease · 15-01-2011 07:20PM

kceire wrote: »

see post number 970 and then amended by me in post number 985.
Also www.pensionsboard.ie lists a higher pension but I ignore that as it relies on possible growth etc etc

http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Advanced_Pension_Calculator/

Can't multi quote sorry as posting on my phone.

/sigh... and you are still trying to quote your current salary as your pensionable salary.. it is not.. so again, you either do not understand pensions, or you are deliberately posting false figures...

Gumbo · 15-01-2011 07:29PM

Welease wrote: »

/sigh... and you are still trying to quote your current salary as your pensionable salary.. it is not.. so again, you either do not understand pensions, or you are deliberately posting false figures...

I quoting based on current salary, have never said anything different.
I started in the PS in 2009. I am on a salary with no increments and currently promotions are frozen.

I am the newest member of staff in my section of 11 staff. I will never see a management position and we have one team leader. There are 9 people ahead of me for that role so it will be a long long time before I will get a chance to upgrade my position as such.

IMO I will be in my current salary for a long long time assuming it's not cut of course.

Welease · 15-01-2011 07:33PM

kceire wrote: »

I quoting based on current salary, have never said anything different.
I started in the PS in 2009. I am on a salary with no increments and currently promotions are frozen.

I am the newest member of staff in my section of 11 staff. I will never see a management position and we have one team leader. There are 9 people ahead of medoe that role so it will be a long long time before I will get a chance to upgrade my position as such.

So all your (many) posts about the PS pensions, are based on the assumption of 0 pay increases for the next 38 years....

Gumbo · 15-01-2011 07:39PM

Welease wrote: »

So all your (many) posts about the PS pensions, are based on the assumption of 0 pay increases for the next 38 years....

All my many posts are based on MY contributions. That's why I think PS pensions should be optional and have an opt out clause for the staff. There are a lot of pay grades that benefit greatly from the DB scheme but I'm I a cost neutral position IMO and there's many like me.

Welease · 15-01-2011 07:44PM

kceire wrote: »

All my many posts are based on MY contributions. That's why I think PS pensions should be optional and have an opt out clause for the staff. There are a lot of pay grades that benefit greatly from the DB scheme but I'm I a cost neutral position IMO and there's many like me.

I'll ask...

Do you believe over the next 38 years, there will be 0 increases in your salary?

Basic inflation would make your salary multiples of what it currently is now btw..

Gumbo · 15-01-2011 07:48PM

Welease wrote: »

I'll ask...

Do you believe over the next 38 years, there will be 0 increases in your salary?

Basic inflation would make your salary multiples of what it currently is now btw..

I hope I'm wrong to be honest.
I will never have full service btw, I'm too old

Welease · 15-01-2011 08:00PM

kceire wrote: »

I hope I'm wrong to be honest.
I will never have full service btw, I'm too old

This is getting boring so lets cuts to the chase..

The figures you post on here don't even stand up to the quickest of checks..

The simple facts are..

Your pension calculations are
- Based on your current salary which is incorrect as PS pension is based on final salary which is 30+ years away..
- Based on 40 years service, which you now say you cant attain
- Based on the assumption that for the next 38 years the Public Sector gets no pay increases, and you get no personal increments through promotions etc., which is utter ..........

So why continue to post those figures on numerous threads?
They are at best factually incorrect, and at worst a calculated distortion of the truth...

amacca · 15-01-2011 10:44PM

Welease wrote: »

Basic inflation would make your salary multiples of what it currently is now btw..

As an aside to the main issue you are pursuing, would basic inflation not make the goods and services the poster is availing of also multiples of their current cost ...rendering this a moot point...its not how much you are earning but what you can buy with it

(assuming of course no other increases in salary which I agree seems overly pessimistic/unlikely over next 20/30 yrs)

Welease · 15-01-2011 10:53PM

amacca wrote: »

As an aside to the main issue you are pursuing, would basic inflation not make the goods and services the poster is availing of also multiples of their current cost ...rendering this a moot point...its not how much you are earning but what you can buy with it

(assuming of course no other increases in salary which I agree seems overly pessimistic/unlikely over next 20/30 yrs)

It would of course.. Which is why their wages will rise.. Which is why the figures they have dumped out on numerous threads are completely incorrect.. and yet they continually refuse to acknowledge this...

There is 0 chance of someone who joined the public sector 2 years ago being on exactly the same wage 38 years from now (per their calculations).

Do you know anyone who worked for 38 years and stayed on the same wage?

(Edit - i Should add, I am not posting on the "main issue you are pursuing"

I think the original thread is rubbish and a misuse of stats (and posted that ages ago

).. but I am sick of posters posting false information on pensions to backup ludicrous claims)..

amacca · 16-01-2011 12:23AM

Welease wrote: »

There is 0 chance of someone who joined the public sector 2 years ago being on exactly the same wage 38 years from now (per their calculations).

But there is a chance of them being able to purchase much less in the way of goods and services with their nominally larger wages in 38 years time

and there is a chance of them being paid a wage then which allows them purchase roughly the same level of goods and services in 38 years time as they do now

and a chance they will be able to purchase more etc

so the inflation thing to me is only a sideshow vs wheter the poster will experience any above inflation payrises over the coming years or increase in paygrades due to promotion etc which I agree could/should very well happen

the inflation thing doesn't help your argument/point as I see it

Welease · 16-01-2011 12:30AM

amacca wrote: »

But there is a chance of them being able to purchase much less in the way of goods and services with their nominally larger wages in 38 years time

and there is a chance of them being paid a wage then which allows them purchase roughly the same level of goods and services in 38 years time as they do now

and a chance they will be able to purchase more etc

so the inflation thing to me is only a sideshow vs wheter the poster will experience any above inflation payrises over the coming years or increase in paygrades due to promotion etc which I agree could/should very well happen

the inflation thing doesn't help your argument/point as I see it

So do you believe that a pension statement based on current salary 2 years into a potential (as per the calculation) 40 year career where the true pension is based on final salary is a correct calculation of the true value of that pension?

amacca · 16-01-2011 12:55AM

Welease wrote: »

So do you believe that a pension statement based on current salary 2 years into a potential (as per the calculation) 40 year career where the true pension is based on final salary is a correct calculation of the true value of that pension?

No...of course I don't.

neither do I believe that stating one will get payrises as a result of inflation makes the argument that calculating pension on the basis of current wages is misleading very well

if one was to get payrises in line with inflation and nothing else then one simply would have a wage with the exact same purchasing power at the end of ones career as when they started...so bringing this into the mix doesnt help your argument that you find it hard to believe that the poster wont get any payrises between now and the end of their working lives..(which btw I agree with as you should clearly be able to see...hopefully)

the inflation linked ones (assuming 1 to 1 linkage - which is unlikely) only keep them at their current position and thus the value of their pension at its current position - its the other ones that bolster your argument about the calculation of pension on the basis of current wages being disingenuous etc

do you see what I am getting at? anyway as I said its an aside, not an attempt to derail even though I have hard time swallowing some of the anti Public Service tripe posted by some.

Welease · 16-01-2011 01:06AM

amacca wrote: »

No...of course I don't.

neither do I believe that stating one will get payrises as a result of inflation makes the argument that calculating pension on the basis of current wages is misleading very well

if one was to get payrises in line with inflation and nothing else then one simply would have a wage with the exact same purchasing power at the end of ones career as when they started...so bringing this into the mix doesnt help your argument that you find it hard to believe that the poster wont get any payrises between now and the end of their working lives..(which btw I agree with as you should clearly be able to see...hopefully)

the inflation linked ones (assuming 1 to 1 linkage - which is unlikely) only keep them at their current position and thus the value of their pension at its current position - its the other ones that bolster your argument about the calculation of pension on the basis of current wages being disingenuous etc

do you see what I am getting at? anyway as I said its an aside, not an attempt to derail even though I have hard time swallowing some of the anti Public Service tripe posted by some.

I see what you are getting at.. But I never said they would get pay rises at inflation levels.. I was merely pointing out to Kcerie that suggesting that their pension in 38 years was the same as they would receive now... is a complete distortion of facts... as you yourself agree.

Sorry, but this forum never ceases to amaze me.. you have a problem with me stating that his figures are incorrect and pointing out why (and you agree). This is anti PS tripe?... but you have don't comment on his figures which are factually incorrect from the start?

amacca · 16-01-2011 01:55AM

Welease wrote: »

I see what you are getting at.. But I never said they would get pay rises at inflation levels.. I was merely pointing out to Kcerie that suggesting that their pension in 38 years was the same as they would receive now... is a complete distortion of facts... as you yourself agree.

but by bringing in the inflation argument it did not help you as payrises linked solely to inflation would ensure that whatever pension they are entitled to now (based on their current wage levels/purchasing power) would be the same (in terms of purchasing power) as the pension they get then...your argument was that their pension could not be calculated on the basis of today's wages because they would be earning more when retirement comes around..true more than likely but not on account of any inflation linked payrises

Welease wrote: »

Sorry, but this forum never ceases to amaze me.. you have a problem with me stating that his figures are incorrect and pointing out why (and you agree). This is anti PS tripe?... but you have don't comment on his figures which are factually incorrect from the start?

And the sensitivity of some posters to the slightest questioning of their points or imagined slights never ceases to amaze me

I never said your points in their entirety were tripe or you personally were posting anti ps tripe...why would I agree with tripe knowingly?

I only had a problem (if you can call it that - I did say it was just an aside to your line of questioning/main point) with the assumption that inflation linked payrises somehow helped your argument - reason why explained in previous post

you were already questioning the validity of the posters argument - I have said I agree with the majority of what you said in that matter but I think the inflation point does not help your argument....

did you simply want me to agree with what you said in its entirety and not make a point I thought was important...do you think I am being one sided?

fair enough maybe I am a bit biased but I'm hardly being blinkered, it seems like a valid enough point to me...should I have taken issue with what the other poster posted simply because they appear to be more incorrect than you - or should I make my point? I mean you already pointed out the flaw in the other posters argument why do I need to jump on the bandwagon - why not add to the flow rather than stop the thing dead in its tracks with no further development.

wouldn't be much of a debate if everyone agreed with you 100% or any other poster for that matter.

Welease · 16-01-2011 10:22AM

amacca wrote: »

but by bringing in the inflation argument it did not help you as payrises linked solely to inflation would ensure that whatever pension they are entitled to now (based on their current wage levels/purchasing power) would be the same (in terms of purchasing power) as the pension they get then...your argument was that their pension could not be calculated on the basis of today's wages because they would be earning more when retirement comes around..true more than likely but not on account of any inflation linked payrises

I see your point.. but the point i was making was not based on inflation linked payrises.. It was a minor sidenote to demonstrate how defining his end pension sum using figures 2 years into a 40 year career was rediculous. His final salary projections are not based on the buying power of a Euro in 2049 (so not linked to inflation).. But either way, I think we both get the point.

amacca wrote: »

And the sensitivity of some posters to the slightest questioning of their points or imagined slights never ceases to amaze me

Not sensitive, just continually amazed

Kceire can dump out obviously false figures again and again, and you are the 3rd person to jump in with diversions on my correction of them, but because (and maybe I assume incorrectly) your are PS you don't see fit to correct his original false statement previously.
In fairness to you, you have confirmed that you believe his figures are incorrect, but it just struck me as somewhat par for the course in here that the correct data seems somewhat irrelevant when there is a position to protect. You do however seem more evenhanded than some of the other posters, so I gladly apologise.

amacca wrote: »

I never said your points in their entirety were tripe or you personally were posting anti ps tripe...why would I agree with tripe knowingly?

I only had a problem (if you can call it that - I did say it was just an aside to your line of questioning/main point) with the assumption that inflation linked payrises somehow helped your argument - reason why explained in previous post

you were already questioning the validity of the posters argument - I have said I agree with the majority of what you said in that matter but I think the inflation point does not help your argument....

did you simply want me to agree with what you said in its entirety and not make a point I thought was important...do you think I am being one sided?

fair enough maybe I am a bit biased but I'm hardly being blinkered, it seems like a valid enough point to me...should I have taken issue with what the other poster posted simply because they appear to be more incorrect than you - or should I make my point? I mean you already pointed out the flaw in the other posters argument why do I need to jump on the bandwagon - why not add to the flow rather than stop the thing dead in its tracks with no further development.

wouldn't be much of a debate if everyone agreed with you 100% or any other poster for that matter.

And it was that bias, I was commenting on... (maybe unfairly). I'm not looking for 100% agreement, but as I said I was somewhat surprised that cetain posters were happy for Kceire to continually post false information, but spring into action when anyone challenges those misrepresentations...

Anyway ..

macannrb · 16-01-2011 10:36AM

The problem with the current DB scheme is that it is based on final salary, and all the contributions made are based on lower salaries which the employee has had during the 30-40 years service (10 for cabinet ministers...) means that for employees who stay the full length of service the contributions are tiny in comparison (if you were to assume people have been paying pension levies for their entire careers).

People like Kceire who go in to the sector after years of private sector experience are at a huge disadvantage and many rational people decide that there is no point in going in to the PS as they wont get the years to get a full pension. this leads to a problem, that the PS has people who have only been in the PS. This means that there isn't a broad range of thinking, group think, as what happened with the banks. Everyone believed the same thing, and as a result, no one questioned some of the base assumptions. This is something that needs to be address, particularly in the dept of finance.

Welease wrote: »

Not sensitive, just continually amazed Kceire can dump out obviously false figures again and again, and you are the 3rd person to jump in with diversions on my correction of them, but because (and maybe I assume incorrectly) your are PS you don't see fit to correct his original false statement previously.
In fairness to you, you have confirmed that you believe his figures are incorrect, but it just struck me as somewhat par for the course in here that the correct data seems somewhat irrelevant when there is a position to protect. You do however seem more evenhanded than some of the other posters, so I gladly apologise.

+1

MagicSean · 16-01-2011 11:18AM

I've yet to see cso figures that are justly comparable. The reason the average is so different has a lot to do with the excess of middle management and overpaid upper management. If you compare entry level wages there isn't much difference in the two sectors. So if the wage bill is to be reduced it has to be by reducing the number of unnecessary manager positions and lowering the wage of those at the top.

amacca · 16-01-2011 11:27AM

Welease wrote: »

.. But either way, I think we both get the point.

thats fair enough so..that was the point so to speak

Welease wrote: »

Not sensitive, just continually amazed, Kceire can dump out obviously false figures again and again, and you are the 3rd person to jump in with diversions on my correction of them, but because (and maybe I assume incorrectly) your are PS you don't see fit to correct his original false statement previously.
In fairness to you, you have confirmed that you believe his figures are incorrect, but it just struck me as somewhat par for the course in here that the correct data seems somewhat irrelevant when there is a position to protect. You do however seem more evenhanded than some of the other posters, so I gladly apologise.

no problems... one reason this happened was because I dip in and out of the thread and you had already seemed to make the point effectively so no point repeating it...agreeing with it and expanding/questioning seemed more of a development than a diversion to me... other reason freely admitted below.

Welease wrote: »

And it was that bias, I was commenting on... (maybe unfairly). I'm not looking for 100% agreement, but as I said I was somewhat surprised that cetain posters were happy for Kceire to continually post false information, but spring into action when anyone challenges those misrepresentations...

Anyway ..

probably not unfairly in the case of certain posters, maybe not in my own case either as I used to be a public servant but it is my opinion that there are more seemingly anti ps extremists posting (I'm not calling you one btw) as there are seemingly intransigent ps workers posting so yes I may operate with a bias as do the anti ps side - this imo is just a natural facet of any debate.

what never ceases to amaze me however is how long this bickering can go on with neither side being able to engage with the other in any meaningful way

from my own point of view over the past couple of years I have seen anti-ps posters post the need for reductions of 60%+ in ps wages across the board, call all public sector workers arrogant/lazy etc in so many words with no posters from their side challenging them.....maybe not agreeing with them but definitely not pointing out any bias in their posts (some state their preference for wage cuts vs layoffs but very few seem to take on the poster or question what they say or their assumptions), so in an environment like that maybe its completely natural that both sides of the debate will stick closer together and resort to point scoring with no middle ground developing.

macannrb · 16-01-2011 11:50AM

amacca wrote: »

what never ceases to amaze me however is how long this bickering can go on with neither side being able to engage with the other in any meaningful way

from my own point of view over the past couple of years I have seen anti-ps posters post the need for reductions of 60%+ in ps wages across the board, call all public sector workers arrogant/lazy etc in so many words with no posters from their side challenging them.....maybe not agreeing with them but definitely not pointing out any bias in their posts (some state their preference for wage cuts vs layoffs but very few seem to take on the poster or question what they say or their assumptions), so in an environment like that maybe its completely natural that both sides of the debate will stick closer together and resort to point scoring with no middle ground developing.

I agree that bickering should be put aside, but as the governments ability to pay for services is not likely to increase, shouldn't the government reduce the all public expenditure to that of the governments income. And surely that must entail cuts or layoffs at some point.

As Kmac pointed out, there is a general feeling that the reason PS average pay is higher is because of more middle management. And this should also be eliminated as we have to be careful about what little money we have

amacca · 16-01-2011 12:26PM

macannrb wrote: »

I agree that bickering should be put aside, but as the governments ability to pay for services is not likely to increase, shouldn't the government reduce the all public expenditure to that of the governments income. And surely that must entail cuts or layoffs at some point.

As Kmac pointed out, there is a general feeling that the reason PS average pay is higher is because of more middle management. And this should also be eliminated as we have to be careful about what little money we have

It probably should, but where does it end?

If the deficit is on a par with the total wage bill, what is an appropriate percentage to cut?

on numbers to lay off..how do you choose who gets the chop....last in first out..poorest performing (even if they meet the standard) etc

Obviously cuts would help but by reading some posters opinions you would swear they think the issue is as simple as if the government cant afford to pay they simply don't pay anything at all full stop or drastically reduced rates....its just not that cut and dried....as much as we might like to think of the government as a business it is not simply just a business alone....whether it operates efficiently or in our case inefficiently

what I mean to say is some people are suggesting what to me appear to be huge cuts and their only justification for this is the fact that the government cant afford to pay.....of course its not sustainable long term...deficit will have to be reigned in...but chopping wholesale over the short term would imo be a poor choice

some posters don't appear to be considering the wider consequences of such cuts for the private sector in the country as well......

So what percentage is appropriate given that we will be borrowing to pay any wages as money continues to be pumped into our banks?

what should people be paid for their work?

Should their years of service, educational qualifications (and opportunity cost of getting them) and the fact that they have a contract be considered when deciding these cuts...should the fact that they spend money on goods and services be considered...how exactly do some posters come up with 60/50/40/30/20% paycuts across the board and then fall back on deficit figures alone to justify large scale cuts...theres more to it imo, much more.

no argument on clipboard warriors/red tape and pencil pushing btw...hard to tackle though I think you'll agree

macannrb · 16-01-2011 01:08PM

amacca wrote: »

It probably should, but where does it end?

If the deficit is on a par with the total wage bill, what is an appropriate percentage to cut?

My opinion would be if total gov expenditure has to come down by a 1/3 say, then the total pay bill should come down by a similar amount. To be fair to kceire, who is on about 38k, a 1/3 hit would be very harsh, leaving him with 25kish. So I mentioned before, have thresholds of cuts, so that the lower earners, say under 40k, would be cut say 5-10%. amounts above 40k cut at 35%, and amounts over 100k cut by 60%. I read somewhere that there was 66 PS earners who were on over 500k before tax (37 of them judges), in 2009). These are the people we should be focusing on.

on numbers to lay off..how do you choose who gets the chop....last in first out..poorest performing (even if they meet the standard) etc

Yep, very difficult. But I think there should be easier ways to fire existing staff without union involvement so that under performers can be taken out as an when needed.

Maybe cuts shouldnt be done straight away, or maybe cut services or lines of services that we dont need anymore so we can keep the servcies we really do need.

what I mean to say is some people are suggesting what to me appear to be huge cuts and their only justification for this is the fact that the government cant afford to pay.....of course its not sustainable long term...deficit will have to be reigned in...but chopping wholesale over the short term would imo be a poor choice

Chopping wholesale departments is a poor choice definitely especially if we don't take a long term view. But as you agree the deficit has to be reigned in and current government forecasts are that the deficit will be the same this year as last.

some posters don't appear to be considering the wider consequences of such cuts for the private sector in the country as well......

As buffet says, when the tide goes out, we find out who has been swiming without swimsuits. What he means is, when a recession hits, we find out what business models hold up. Those reliant on indirect government spending, maybe are not sustainable, and resisting government cuts is not a good argument for keeping business which have poor business models.

So what percentage is appropriate given that we will be borrowing to pay any wages as money continues to be pumped into our banks?

We need to get the government books in such as way that we are not spending more then we are earning. The banks are a huge problem, but even if they weren't there we would eventually end up in the same problem, as we can't continue to borrow money for current expenditure. And we also need to make sure we have a working banking system, as house prices would collapse to cash prices (as morgan kelly has predicted). Propping up the banks in the current way is completely wrong, but this does not remove the need to reform the public sector and reduce spending to levels of income.

what should people be paid for their work?

What the market is willing to pay for their services. the government employees 300k people and another 100k people through quangos so they are the biggest player in the employer market. If the biggest player in a market is paying way more then everyone else, then everyone else has to increase their wage bill as the price of labour goes up.

[/QUOTE]Should their years of service, educational qualifications (and opportunity cost of getting them) and the fact that they have a contract be considered when deciding these cuts[/QUOTE] years of service didnt apply when my company gave out cuts. Just what wage you were on.

[/QUOTE]...should the fact that they spend money on goods and services be considered...[/QUOTE] I know the effect of the multiplier, but I'm not sure what you mean. If anything people on less then 40k will be more likely to spend all their money in the country, then padraig mcmanus who earns 30k a month. As there is a run on the country, he is more likely to be putting his money offshore.

[/QUOTE]how exactly do some posters come up with 60/50/40/30/20% paycuts across the board and then fall back on deficit figures alone to justify large scale cuts...theres more to it imo, much more.[/QUOTE]There is much more, but the first priority should be cutting the deficit and then cutting the national debt.

Our downgrade in credit rating has effected multinationals corps view of Ireland. These are the business that will be leading the country out of a recession/depression. Intel announced that they would be investing 500m in more fabs. This need to be the focus of the government. creating conditions where these types of companies are willing to invest here. Small service companies will spring up to support them giving more jobs. But with a mountain of national debt, companies have to factor in the likelihood of higher taxes in the future to pay for the high interest costs of national debt.

[/QUOTE]no argument on clipboard warriors/red tape and pencil pushing btw...hard to tackle though I think you'll agree[/QUOTE] Totally agreed. But if we had a more flexible PS workforce it would be easier to do this.

amacca · 16-01-2011 02:06PM

macannrb wrote: »

My opinion would be if total gov expenditure has to come down by a 1/3 say, then the total pay bill should come down by a similar amount.

That is where we differ I would say...I don't think its that cut and dried

macannrb wrote: »

To be fair to kceire, who is on about 38k, a 1/3 hit would be very harsh, leaving him with 25kish. So I mentioned before, have thresholds of cuts, so that the lower earners, say under 40k, would be cut say 5-10%. amounts above 40k cut at 35%, and amounts over 100k cut by 60%. I read somewhere that there was 66 PS earners who were on over 500k before tax (37 of them judges), in 2009). These are the people we should be focusing on.

in agreement in a sense.....but any amount above 40k -> 35% cuts..yikes, can you not see very very serious implications for the country if this happened never mind the worker directly experiencing the cuts.....I can but maybe I am wrong

Interest rates are not going to come down..in fact they will go up

while wage rates may drive the cost of goods and services to some extent...cutting amounts above 40k (without seeing the cost of living really reduce) by such a large percentage would be disastrous imo

those on 500k before tax => say approx 300k after tax, yeah thats more than enough (too much) for someone to live on and consider themselves well rewarded for what ever skills they have/workload etc...yes more sever reductions for this wage level but presumably they have achieved much more than those below them and carry out a more demanding job so how much of a premium should they have? how do you decide

is their job as demanding/important as a ceo on millions before tax...probably....can the private sector and public sector be compared here?....if not, why compare it at lower wage levels?

macannrb wrote: »

Yep, very difficult. But I think there should be easier ways to fire existing staff without union involvement so that under performers can be taken out as an when needed.

Maybe cuts shouldnt be done straight away, or maybe cut services or lines of services that we dont need anymore so we can keep the servcies we really do need.

Hard one to legislate for....no matter what you do, someone somewhere gets shafted so you cant blame people for arguing their case I suppose

macannrb wrote: »

Chopping wholesale departments is a poor choice definitely especially if we don't take a long term view. But as you agree the deficit has to be reigned in

yep, I agree.....but I dont agree with by how much or over what timescale

which sounds worryingly like a politicians answer:D

macannrb wrote: »

As buffet says, when the tide goes out, we find out who has been swiming without swimsuits. What he means is, when a recession hits, we find out what business models hold up. Those reliant on indirect government spending, maybe are not sustainable, and resisting government cuts is not a good argument for keeping business which have poor business models.

its surprising just how many businesses are reliant on indirect government spending...if the country was operating sensibly in the past, not all the businesses folding up now would be doing so

I believe there are viable businesses already closing up because of ps workers reigning in their personal spending

I think if the cuts were to be as severe as you advocate - long term viable businesses will go to the wall short term...unnecessarily...the trend would get much much worse

macannrb wrote: »

We need to get the government books in such as way that we are not spending more then we are earning. The banks are a huge problem, but even if they weren't there we would eventually end up in the same problem, as we can't continue to borrow money for current expenditure. And we also need to make sure we have a working banking system, as house prices would collapse to cash prices (as morgan kelly has predicted). Propping up the banks in the current way is completely wrong, but this does not remove the need to reform the public sector and reduce spending to levels of income.

agreed but all governments borrow to a certain extent.....you will never arrive at a situation where a government spends exactly what it can afford and no more ... a minor point perhaps but still relevant

macannrb wrote: »

What the market is willing to pay for their services. the government employees 300k people and another 100k people through quangos so they are the biggest player in the employer market. If the biggest player in a market is paying way more then everyone else, then everyone else has to increase their wage bill as the price of labour goes up.

the market is frequently wrong - in fact the philosophy that the market is always correct and will sort out the true value of everything is part of the reason we are in this mess....Buffet and his Idol Benjamin Graham made their fortunes by exploiting this, really all the market decides is price at a given moment

there has to be some form of control on the market and insulation from its vagaries imo

but ill go with you on this as long as when wage comparisons are made between sectors...every worker in each sector is included (ceos/consultants etc) and I would be even more impressed if you were to argue for statutory wage restraints to be put on upper levels in the private sector companies as well so that a select few don't run off with the booty so that the private sector worker does not end up unfairly disadvantaged due to this problem as well.....its not all about the public service getting too much, its also about a lot of the private sector getting too little due to very unequal distribution of profits/earnings.

macannrb wrote: »

years of service didnt apply when my company gave out cuts. Just what wage you were on.

yes but presumably the longer you worked in your company the higher percentage chance you were on a higher wage due to promotion/pay rise etc

eg: for most people in the three companies I worked with, the longer you worked there....the more you got paid

although this is starting to go out the window as companies continue the trend of placing no value on their workers or their loyalty to a certain extent.....doesn't mean this is a correct state of affairs longterm though

macannrb wrote: »

I know the effect of the multiplier, but I'm not sure what you mean. If anything people on less then 40k will be more likely to spend all their money in the country, then padraig mcmanus who earns 30k a month. As there is a run on the country, he is more likely to be putting his money offshore.

not if they have a high level of debt .... cutting all levels will have an effect on spending especially those already stretched or about to be....similar to consumers being price sensitive about certain products...workers are going to get very spend sensitive to the point of excessive caution if there is no end in sight

well most...I do see what you are saying about the padraig mcmanuses of this world

macannrb wrote: »

Our downgrade in credit rating has effected multinationals corps view of Ireland. These are the business that will be leading the country out of a recession/depression. Intel announced that they would be investing 500m in more fabs. This need to be the focus of the government. creating conditions where these types of companies are willing to invest here. Small service companies will spring up to support them giving more jobs. But with a mountain of national debt, companies have to factor in the likelihood of higher taxes in the future to pay for the high interest costs of national debt.

they are not going to create ideal conditions for this either by cutting to the degree many suggest...imo

macannrb wrote: »

Totally agreed. But if we had a more flexible PS workforce it would be easier to do this.

fair enough, but given the vitriol spewed by some its not surprising for a sector to fight tooth and nail to protect themselves

if there was complete acceptance without a fight, they would get ridden bareback if the opinions expressed by many were to be enacted

you have to fight for yourself in this world...no one is going to do it for you

You feel if you give an inch it wont be long until you end up giving a mile given the attitudes of some.

macannrb · 17-01-2011 10:06AM

amacca wrote: »

That is where we differ I would say...I don't think its that cut and dried

It isn't some things can't be cut, like interest payments on the debt, long term contracts which can't be exited, etc

therefore you would need to cut more from in each of the sectors which can be reduced, but i take your overall point.

in agreement in a sense.....but any amount above 40k -> 35% cuts..yikes, can you not see very very serious implications for the country if this happened never mind the worker directly experiencing the cuts.....I can but maybe I am wrong

I think your dead right, and part of the effect would be that those who can leave the PS will.

while wage rates may drive the cost of goods and services to some extent...cutting amounts above 40k (without seeing the cost of living really reduce) by such a large percentage would be disastrous imo

the cost of isn't going to come down on its own, income has to come down first, and then business will lower prices or they will go out of business (very general i know, supply and demand theory suggest this)

those on 500k before tax => say approx 300k after tax, yeah thats more than enough (too much) for someone to live on and consider themselves well rewarded for what ever skills they have/workload etc...yes more sever reductions for this wage level but presumably they have achieved much more than those below them and carry out a more demanding job so how much of a premium should they have? how do you decide

a cut on one person on 500k after tax, under what I suggested, would save about 4 jobs for people at 40k. Yes people at higher rates are probably more skilled, but if you want a simple way to reduce all wages then an across the board cut is the way to do it, as answering your question about how much premium should be attached for each job would take years, years which we dont have.

Hard one to legislate for....no matter what you do, someone somewhere gets shafted so you cant blame people for arguing their case I suppose

I think there's good reason to put the country first, ahead of individuals or groups. We are literally in over our heads in debt and this is threatening our country economic survival.

its surprising just how many businesses are reliant on indirect government spending...if the country was operating sensibly in the past, not all the businesses folding up now would be doing so

90% of people were caught up in the bubble, and no that its burst there will be businesses folding. Many of these business would never have gotten off the ground without the bubble, so its only natural that they close.

I believe there are viable businesses already closing up because of ps workers reigning in their personal spending

If this is the case, which i agree, then their income forecasts of their breakeven point were too high, and they need to bring down their costs, or close.

I think if the cuts were to be as severe as you advocate - long term viable businesses will go to the wall short term...unnecessarily...the trend would get much much worse

Again I'm not sure that some of these business are viable, if they depend on indirect government support. The reality is this, our standard of living for the next decade in Ireland will be lower then that of the last decade and a half. Plenty of economists have pointed this out, and its only natural that people reign in on spending, so they can save for the bad times that are ahead of us

agreed but all governments borrow to a certain extent.....you will never arrive at a situation where a government spends exactly what it can afford and no more ... a minor point perhaps but still relevant

Still relevant sure, but Japan has borrowed too much and that in part has lead to a stagnant economy. The problem with Ireland is that most of our lenders are foreign and so the interest payments are leaving the country. In Japan, most government debt holders are their citizens and the interest is taxed, saved in the country's banks or spent.

the market is frequently wrong - in fact the philosophy that the market is always correct and will sort out the true value of everything is part of the reason we are in this mess....Buffet and his Idol Benjamin Graham made their fortunes by exploiting this, really all the market decides is price at a given moment

the market is frequently wrong, like the high prices paid for risky anglo irish shares, but then it corrects itself, like the hedgefunds betting against the anglo irish share price. the market was also wrong on irish house prices for 5 years, and people have to live with the consequences of those decisions. We overpaid for lots of things, and as a result we now need to become more competitive which means lower wages, and this will end up meaning lower cost of living, though i admit that both drops certainly wont be the same, but the status quo is not sustainable, hence us needing the IMF.

there has to be some form of control on the market and insulation from its vagaries imo

regulation on the banks yes, on lending yes, on better competition yes, but not on employer wages this seems a too controlling to me

although this is starting to go out the window as companies continue the trend of placing no value on their workers or their loyalty to a certain extent.....doesn't mean this is a correct state of affairs longterm though

When you can outsource to asian companies, getting bright young programmers for 1/3 of the cost of an irish company, then there will be consequences. It means we need to be brighter and more determined. But paying someone just because they are in a position longer or are loyal is wrong, and we will be priced out of the global markets if we do this.

not if they have a high level of debt .... cutting all levels will have an effect on spending especially those already stretched or about to be....similar to consumers being price sensitive about certain products...workers are going to get very spend sensitive to the point of excessive caution if there is no end in sight

there is no end in sight, because everyone knows the status quo is unsustainable, and that cuts are coming to PS wages, increases in taxes. But a once off large hit would mean that there would be no more cuts, if we get it right. A big if, agreed, but a once off hit gives everyone certainty that it wont get worse, instead of dragging it out with a long list of small hits.

they are not going to create ideal conditions for this either by cutting to the degree many suggest...imo

but it give certainty to the markets and individuals that the worst is over. And not lenny proimse that the worst is over...

if there was complete acceptance without a fight, they would get ridden bareback if the opinions expressed by many were to be enacted

there was a complete absence of a fight on the government guarentee, or any of the other major causes of the economic problems, so no we have to accept the consequences of those decisions.

You feel if you give an inch it wont be long until you end up giving a mile given the attitudes of some.

Our standard of living has to come down, we are not talking inches here, its far bigger units. If we leave it any longer then the standard of living will need to drop even further.

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

Comments