Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

sharper · 13-05-2013 02:13PM

creedp wrote: »

OK so is it representative or not!

It's representative if someone can make a case for why a set of numbers apply to a particular situation, it's not depending on the case for the opposite.

The construction sector has seen such enormous change in employment that it severely limits the usefulness of the average wage. You have used the average wage in the following manner:

1. Concluded that a drop of 11% means those that didn't lose their jobs on average took a reduction of that amount.

2. Argued that job security has essentially zero economic value i.e. if 90% of the construction industry lose their jobs and the remaining workers take a cut of 11% then public sector workers should only take a cut of 11% and none to account for the value of their job security.

We have figures elsewhere which tell us construction industry wages have collapsed. Overtime alone likely would account for more than 11% in a boom to bust scenario.

You need to argue your case on its merits, not demand people wholesale accept any use you might put CSO numbers to are either valid or not. Even if the 11% number were correct the premise of your argument is still not valid unless job security has zero value.

vinylbomb · 13-05-2013 02:32PM

creedp wrote: »

To put that in context the CSO reported in today's Independent that not surprisingly construction workers took the biggest hit in pay over the course of the last 4 years with an average 11.1% decrease. However, it is reporting that some construction workers saw their pay regain some ground with an increase of 5.8% between end 2011 and 2012.

This was posted on 24-02-2013, 01.11 which was a Sunday.
I'm going to assume that the article you refer to was printed on Saturday.
I've searched the Independent archives ad nauseam but cannot find the article to which you refer.
Would it be possible to post a link to the article or aforementioned CSO figures?

I'm sure you appreciate that the figures could appear anecdotal without proper verification.

Also, could you please clarify - The wording of the quote does not refer to any reduction of wages relative to other sectors. It simply states the reduction of wages to be 11%.

I have previously linked to a CSO study which states the reduction in wage rate to be in excess of 50% to the end of 2011.
If you post a link to your supporting articles I would very much like to read them.

creedp · 13-05-2013 02:54PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

This was posted on 24-02-2013, 01.11 which was a Sunday.
I'm going to assume that the article you refer to was printed on Saturday.
I've searched the Independent archives ad nauseam but cannot find the article to which you refer.
Would it be possible to post a link to the article or aforementioned CSO figures?

I'm sure you appreciate that the figures could appear anecdotal without proper verification.

Of course I appreciate that the figure I quoted could appear anecdotal but I was operating off old an fashioned medium on that day, i.e. an actual newspaper - so no I haven't got a link. There's no need to worry about it though - as you say yourself if its anecdotal then you would only be wasting your time.

Also, could you please clarify - The wording of the quote does not refer to any reduction of wages relative to other sectors. It simply states the reduction of wages to be 11%.

Apologies for the confusion - I should have been more careful - the original quote related to an average reduction of 11% in construction wages over a period of 4 years.

noodler · 13-05-2013 02:56PM

creedp wrote: »

Are you speaking on behalf of the people who have a job or don't have a job? .

What a load of nonsense!

creedp · 13-05-2013 03:15PM

noodler wrote: »

What a load of nonsense!

As per always - you are entitled to your opinion and are most certainly welcome to express it!

creedp · 13-05-2013 03:29PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

This was posted on 24-02-2013, 01.11 which was a Sunday.
I'm going to assume that the article you refer to was printed on Saturday.
I've searched the Independent archives ad nauseam but cannot find the article to which you refer.
Would it be possible to post a link to the article or aforementioned CSO figures?

I'm sure you appreciate that the figures could appear anecdotal without proper verification.

Also, could you please clarify - The wording of the quote does not refer to any reduction of wages relative to other sectors. It simply states the reduction of wages to be 11%.

I have previously linked to a CSO study which states the reduction in wage rate to be in excess of 50% to the end of 2011.
If you post a link to your supporting articles I would very much like to read them.

Thanks for that document Vinylbomb - I had a quick scan through it andthe following quote is of interest to me -

This focus on reductions in the volume of work appears plausible as employers reacted to reduced demand for their goods and services, in some case very severe such as in the case of construction. In such a scenario retaining workers but lowering wage rates would not make sense unless there was an expectation of increases in demand which would not have been likely for the majority of contracting businesses in Ireland in recent years. In the specific case of anticipated pay cuts in the private sector following the public sector pay cut, there may well have been instances of such cuts taking place but they would not appear to have been very widespread or to have had a substantial impact on average earnings.

Will have to read it in more detail later.

Edit- liked this one as well -

As discussed by Lane (2009, 2010) it is generally accepted that shocks of the nature experienced in Ireland are expected to
lead to temporary shifts in wages, prices and employment levels. However as discussed extensively in economic literature,
even in recession, nominal wage rigidity is often seen and recently observed to have occurred in Ireland given the relative
lack of change in aggregate earnings indicators (Krugman, 2012).

beeno67 · 13-05-2013 05:24PM

creedp wrote: »

Slight amendment there as the employed person will be entitled to their €12,000 contributory pension from the State irrespective of what they receive from their employer.

What's your point? The PS worker will still receive a pension lump sum of 100K and a pension of over 20K a year for a contribution of 6.5% of salary over 40 years. That would require a pension fund of about €500,000. 6.5% doesn't come close to covering it.

tayto lover · 13-05-2013 05:51PM

beeno67 wrote: »

What's your point? The PS worker will still receive a pension lump sum of 100K and a pension of over 20K a year for a contribution of 6.5% of salary over 40 years. That would require a pension fund of about €500,000. 6.5% doesn't come close to covering it.

Have you factored in the OAP pension they would have been entitled to anyway?

beeno67 · 13-05-2013 06:00PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you factored in the OAP pension they would have been entitled to anyway?

Yes

Godge · 13-05-2013 06:29PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

But that is the whole point. 150,000 were made redundant from the construction sector between 2006 and 2012 (http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/).

So you need to price in the stability that your employer brings you.

Your figure of 11% fall in construction sector wages is far short of the reality also.
This CSO paper approximates the fall to be closer to 50% up to the end of 2011.
http://www.ssisi.ie/wage_bill_change_ssisi_kw_9feb_v5.pdf

Very first footnote states:

"The author would like to acknowledge the very helpful comments from colleagues in the CSO. The views expressed are those of the author and the data presented are not official CSO data unless otherwise stated"

Not very encouraging.That being said there are some interesting conclusions:

"Average hourly earnings were the least frequently cut component and indeed a greater proportion of enterprises had increased average hourly earnings over the year rather than decreasing them."

Wow, that means by at least one measure private sector wage rates increased during the 2008/09 period. Clearly, the every man for himself principle applied. As they waved their redundant colleagues out the door the remaining workers looked for pay increases for themselves. Incredible.

It gets better:

"On the opposite side of the scale it can be noted that wage bill increases continued to be recorded for reasonably substantial proportions of enterprises across both periods. Specifically 31% of enterprises recorded increases of more than two percent between 2009 and 2010, rising to 42% in the following year"

Lots of increases out there.

"Notwithstanding this it continued to be the case that wage bill reductions were more prevalent in the public sector than the private sector (49% compared with 41%) and wage bill increases were more prevalent in the matched private sector enterprises (44% compared with 21% in the public sector). The net effect of these varied changes was the overall wage bill reduction of 2% for the public sector while the changes in the private sector enterprises cancelled each
other out leaving the total wage bill unchanged "

Well, well, well, if only the CSO had endorsed this, it would be the last word on the debate - it is clear the public sector has taken a bigger hit. And remember, none of this allows for the pension levy.

Thanks Vinylbomb for that piece of research which shows the public sector took a bigger hit than the private sector.

P.S. where is the 50% cut for the construction sector?

vinylbomb · 13-05-2013 07:02PM

Godge wrote: »

P.S. where is the 50% cut for the construction sector?

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

barneystinson · 13-05-2013 07:04PM

beeno67 wrote: »

Yes

And have you factored in employer's contributions? I'd have thought these are a fairly standard feature of most large organisations' occupational pension schemes..?

beeno67 · 13-05-2013 07:08PM

barneystinson wrote: »

And have you factored in employer's contributions? I'd have thought these are a fairly standard feature of most large organisations' occupational pension schemes..?

It still doesn't come close

13-05-2013 07:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well well, it looks like game on.........

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0512/391784-croke-park/

It would seem (from that story) that the government has tempered its demands somewhat.

Ah well, no-one on this thread seems to give a ****e about the Croke Park II talks.

greenoverred · 13-05-2013 07:19PM

beeno67 wrote: »

It still doesn't come close

Go on tell us. How close is it. Lets say I take the 6.5% contribution and the employers contribution and put it into an account that paid 4% over the 40 years. How close would I be to your €500,000 figure. And dont forget I get this money from the bank in a lump sum and dont have to hope that I live to 85 to get it back

vinylbomb · 13-05-2013 07:24PM

Godge wrote: »

"Average hourly earnings were the least frequently cut component and indeed a greater proportion of enterprises had increased average hourly earnings over the year rather than decreasing them."

Wow, that means by at least one measure private sector wage rates increased during the 2008/09 period. Clearly, the every man for himself principle applied. As they waved their redundant colleagues out the door the remaining workers looked for pay increases for themselves. Incredible.

Nice sarky comment there. I'm sure you'd be happy to take a P45 ahead of someone else. Your solidarity is commendable, but sadly misplaced.

This analysis is across all sectors. While there may be jobs lost in one, another sector may be profitable and entitled to do whatever they choose with their profit.

Godge wrote: »

"On the opposite side of the scale it can be noted that wage bill increases continued to be recorded for reasonably substantial proportions of enterprises across both periods. Specifically 31% of enterprises recorded increases of more than two percent between 2009 and 2010, rising to 42% in the following year"

Lots of increases out there.

Lets think about this for a second. We'll run with 40%.
So - 40% got increases of 2%.
Across 100% of the workforce that amounts to a 0.8% increase.
Massive, shocking scale of sheer gluttony there.

Godge wrote: »

"Notwithstanding this it continued to be the case that wage bill reductions were more prevalent in the public sector than the private sector (49% compared with 41%) and wage bill increases were more prevalent in the matched private sector enterprises (44% compared with 21% in the public sector). The net effect of these varied changes was the overall wage bill reduction of 2% for the public sector while the changes in the private sector enterprises cancelled each
other out leaving the total wage bill unchanged "

Well, well, well, if only the CSO had endorsed this, it would be the last word on the debate - it is clear the public sector has taken a bigger hit. And remember, none of this allows for the pension levy.

So you've taken a paycut of 2% across the public sector basically.

Again you are not pricing in job stability.

However, while the change in the subsectors of the public sector was within a relatively narrow range (-1% to -6%) a wider range was recorded in the private sector. Not surprisingly the greatest reduction in the private sector was recorded in construction (-21%) followed by professional scientific and technical.

Besides, I quoted those papers for the purpose of employment figures, in an attempt to devine where the aforementioned 11% came from.
And actually back up an argument with figures regarding employment, and not anecdotes.

In the private sector, you get paid when the company is profitable.
You accept the risk, and run with the wolves.
And when your employer is broke you either make yourself valuable or are shown the door.

The country is broke.

barneystinson · 13-05-2013 07:26PM

beeno67 wrote: »

It still doesn't come close

How far short is it? I.e. what level of employers contribution is required on top of 6.5% from the employee over 40years to provide 1.5years lump sum and a 50% pension (minus the state pension)..? You might also specify what other assumptions you make about effect of inflation relative to nominal wages etc... that impact on the result.

I presume you've run the numbers, or you wouldn't be making such definitive statements..?

vinylbomb · 13-05-2013 07:29PM

creedp wrote: »

Apologies for the confusion - I should have been more careful - the original quote related to an average reduction of 11% in construction wages over a period of 4 years.

OK, well the numbers that I have evidence for suggest you're way off the mark.

And your numbers.......well, they are anecdotal so....y'know....and stuff.

PhilMcGee · 13-05-2013 08:05PM

greenoverred wrote: »

Go on tell us. How close is it. Lets say I take the 6.5% contribution and the employers contribution and put it into an account that paid 4% over the 40 years. How close would I be to your €500,000 figure. And dont forget I get this money from the bank in a lump sum and dont have to hope that I live to 85 to get it back

Do the public sector get the contributory state pension?
Private sector do. At least I can add that to my own private pension. Can the public sector?

hmmm · 13-05-2013 08:21PM

Comrades! Don't bicker and argue. We've seen what we can do when we all come together, workers, union leaders and Labour party ministers. We are on the verge of one of the greatest achievements in the history of organised workers in Ireland - the elimination of cuts for our colleagues on 90,000 euro a year! We have taken to the streets, we have organised, we are on the verge of winning. We will roll back this tide of austerity by increasing tax on the self-employed, cutting health spending and raiding private sector pensions. Stand together comrades, your colleagues on 90,000 euro a year are depending on you to help them in their hour of need. Arise ye workers from your slumber.

beeno67 · 13-05-2013 08:37PM

greenoverred wrote: »

Go on tell us. How close is it. Lets say I take the 6.5% contribution and the employers contribution and put it into an account that paid 4% over the 40 years. How close would I be to your €500,000 figure. And dont forget I get this money from the bank in a lump sum and dont have to hope that I live to 85 to get it back

6.5% of what? Not the current 65k but 6.5% of the pay 40 years ago. How much was that? 4% a year wouldn't even keep up with inflation over last 40 years.

So you are asking, if I invest money over 40 years, with a return less than the rate if inflation would it cover my pension? The answer is no it wouldn't.

By the way workers retiring now, with 40 years setvice don't get the PRSI related pension

woodoo · 13-05-2013 08:49PM

greenoverred wrote: »

Go on tell us. How close is it. Lets say I take the 6.5% contribution and the employers contribution and put it into an account that paid 4% over the 40 years. How close would I be to your €500,000 figure. And dont forget I get this money from the bank in a lump sum and dont have to hope that I live to 85 to get it back

Its more like 8 or 9% these days with the pension levy.

beeno67 · 13-05-2013 09:01PM

woodoo wrote: »

Its more like 8 or 9% these days with the pension levy.

But we have already established the pension levy was a payout so it is not a contribution to pension.

creedp · 13-05-2013 11:31PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

OK, well the numbers that I have evidence for suggest you're way off the mark.

And your numbers.......well, they are anecdotal so....y'know....and stuff.

Jees that's such a mature intelligent retort ... y'know and stuff .. you're a legend boy!

When you're done all that fruitless researching you spoke about earlier .. maybe you're a little tired at this point ... have a look at the article titled "Average wage for IT workers rises to €1,000 a week" by Allison Bray in the Irish Independent (page 23) on Saturday 23rd Feb 2013 for the reference to my anecdotal quote ... y'know and stuff.

creedp · 13-05-2013 11:33PM

beeno67 wrote: »

But we have already established the pension levy was a payout so it is not a contribution to pension.

Wow, at least now there is an acceptance that PS pay was cut by an average of 7% in 2009 .. we're getting places

barneystinson · 14-05-2013 12:42AM

beeno67 wrote: »

It still doesn't come close

Doesn't it though? Just for the craic I want to look at an example, in the bracket you've been talking about:

If I'm recruited as an Assistant Principal in the Civil Service tomorrow the starting salary is 65k (paying full A1 class PRSI).
I work for 40 years and retire at the top of the AP scale (€80.5k).
The scale doesn't increase in real terms over the duration (i.e. it rises only in line with inflation).
I pay 6.5% p.a. in pension contributions.

Applying a 2% "real" rate of return (i.e. in excess of inflation) on the contributions over 40 years, that equates to a pot of nearly 305k, based on my contributions. If the employer matches the employee's contributions, that equates to €610k in total.

I get a €120k lump sum on retirement - that leaves €490k in the pot.

The state pension, which I've paid 40 years of A1 PRSI to earn, is €12k p.a., and my total pension is €40k p.a. - so that's a pension to be paid out of my pension pot of the difference, €28k p.a., out of a pot of €490k. I make it 23 years I'd have to live after retirement to exhaust that pot of money (490k x 102% - 28k etc...).

Now obviously the figures are dictated by the long term real rate of return, but at 2% it seems to me that the employer just about needs to match the employee contribution.

A bit rough and ready, but that's my guesstimate - feel free to straighten me out.

Godge · 14-05-2013 12:55AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

Nice sarky comment there. I'm sure you'd be happy to take a P45 ahead of someone else. Your solidarity is commendable, but sadly misplaced.

This analysis is across all sectors. While there may be jobs lost in one, another sector may be profitable and entitled to do whatever they choose with their profit.

Lets think about this for a second. We'll run with 40%.
So - 40% got increases of 2%.
Across 100% of the workforce that amounts to a 0.8% increase.
Massive, shocking scale of sheer gluttony there.

So you've taken a paycut of 2% across the public sector basically.

Again you are not pricing in job stability.

However, while the change in the subsectors of the public sector was within a relatively narrow range (-1% to -6%) a wider range was recorded in the private sector. Not surprisingly the greatest reduction in the private sector was recorded in construction (-21%) followed by professional scientific and technical.

Besides, I quoted those papers for the purpose of employment figures, in an attempt to devine where the aforementioned 11% came from.
And actually back up an argument with figures regarding employment, and not anecdotes.

In the private sector, you get paid when the company is profitable.
You accept the risk, and run with the wolves.
And when your employer is broke you either make yourself valuable or are shown the door.

The country is broke.

You don't understand your own figures.

The conclusions are quite clear. There was a huge bubble in wages and employment in the construction sector. It burst. People lost jobs and had their wages cut in that sector. Elsewhere in the private sector, things continued as normal and people got wage increases. Now there are people getting jobs as well.

The only collateral damage was in the public sector because over 10 years the incredibly cretinous FF government had eroded the tax base and built public services on the back of one-off stamp duty and VAT receipts from the construction sector. So taxes collapsed.

Now, if we had maintained a normal European taxation system, the public sector would have avoided pay cuts.

sarumite · 14-05-2013 08:31AM

Godge wrote: »

Now, if we had maintained a normal European taxation system, the public sector would have avoided pay cuts.

Had there been no pay cuts etc, where would our public sector pay rates be in the context of European pay rates?

vinylbomb · 14-05-2013 08:43AM

creedp wrote: »

Jees that's such a mature intelligent retort ... y'know and stuff .. you're a legend boy!

When you're done all that fruitless researching you spoke about earlier .. maybe you're a little tired at this point ... have a look at the article titled "Average wage for IT workers rises to €1,000 a week" by Allison Bray in the Irish Independent (page 23) on Saturday 23rd Feb 2013 for the reference to my anecdotal quote ... y'know and stuff.

And here's a quote from the article in relation to your figures

Due to the small statistical size of the sample studied – just over 100 respondents – the figures don't point to any actual trend, according to a spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation.

Woooooowwwwweeeeee.

And stuff.

creedp · 14-05-2013 09:17AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

And here's a quote from the article in relation to your figures

Due to the small statistical size of the sample studied – just over 100 respondents – the figures don't point to any actual trend, according to a spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation.

Woooooowwwwweeeeee.

And stuff.

And again when the figures don't suit ... throw a tantrum .. time to put the rattler back in the pram

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments