Public sector pay increase

Iwasfrozen · 28-04-2015 07:28PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, you are missing the point by treating government finances like business finances. There are no 'investment gains' like in a business - there is GDP growth, which contributes to taxes and debt sustainability.

Completely different dynamics.

Any government spending funded by low interest debt, is going to increase GDP, simply by putting money into the private sector.
I agree that it's better to do this in the most efficient way possible, but even if you do it in the least efficient way possible, it still leads to GDP growth.

Agreed, but the benefit of the investment must be greater than the cost of the loan. There are different dynamics at play with government yes, but this must stay the same.

KomradeBishop · 28-04-2015 07:28PM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Say you owe 100 at 01/01/13. You have a shortfall of 10 for the year. At the end of the year 31/12/13 you owe 110. Repayments in 2013 were 10 and interest was 3. In 2014 repayments are 11 and interest is still 3. The 10 extra you borrowed is gone because you import a lot of consumer goods. Taxes went up but spending went up too. And now you owe more than at the start of the year.

It makes no sense. None at all.

Heres a fact for you recently the UK finished oaying the US some loans. For World War 2. So its future generations of Irish people who will eventually pay back lenders children money borrowed to fund shortfalls in taxes as against spending. No sense.

How am I doing?

You're treating government finances, like business finances...you're also assuming 3% interest, when our government debt interest is at it's lowest rate in over 30 years...

It's easy to make something look bad, when you're just creating a totally imaginary scenario to suit your argument, which does not represent reality in any way.

You're not doing well. Research economics. Learn about how debt sustainability works for governments - how it is completely different to personal/business finances.

KomradeBishop · 28-04-2015 07:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agreed, but the benefit of the investment must be greater than the cost of the loan. There are different dynamics at play with government yes, but this must stay the same.

Ok - and yes, if the interest rate on the loan is too high, the GDP boost may not be enough to be sustainable - reiterating again though, we have the lowest interest rates on public debt in more than 30 years, so it would actually be hard for increased spending to (no matter how inefficient) make debt less sustainable, rather than more sustainable, right now.

jcon1913 · 28-04-2015 07:39PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're treating government finances, like business finances...you're also assuming 3% interest, when our government debt interest is at it's lowest rate in over 30 years...

It's easy to make something look bad, when you're just creating a totally imaginary scenario to suit your argument, which does not represent reality in any way.

You're not doing well. Research economics. Learn about how debt sustainability works for governments - how it is completely different to personal/business finances.

Stop cutting and pasting rameis from wkipedia. Try the English language.

If you cant explain why we should borrow to spend on day to day items then admit you cant and stop posting.

Iwasfrozen · 28-04-2015 07:45PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ok - and yes, if the interest rate on the loan is too high, the GDP boost may not be enough to be sustainable - reiterating again though, we have the lowest interest rates on public debt in more than 30 years, so it would actually be hard for increased spending to (no matter how inefficient) make debt less sustainable, rather than more sustainable, right now.

This is where we disagree, on how much a boost to gdp increased spending of borrowed money would bring. I believe a boost to infrastructure spending could be useful but spending money on increased wages is throwing good money after bad.

Also you must take into consideration the increased risk borrowing brings, obviously the more money a country has borrowed the more at risk they are to market fluctuations. While interest rates are low we should be working to build up a budget surplus before they rise again.

Letree · 28-04-2015 07:58PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Look at the PS expansion from 1995, we have over 100,000 extra PS staff, these all have to be paid for.

So there was 190,000 working in the PS in 1995?

PowerToWait · 28-04-2015 08:04PM

Some crew of cribbing whiners on here! Why anyone gives a damn what the other person gets in salary and what for is beyond me. Let alone post 30 odd pages of shìte about them.

Just mind your own house and stop cribbing about next door.

Quin_Dub · 28-04-2015 08:15PM

Letree wrote: »

So there was 190,000 working in the PS in 1995?

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000

Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

blackcard · 28-04-2015 08:25PM

test3test wrote: »

And who was supposed to regulate and control the banks and the economy?

The regulator, the central bank, the dept of finance, the government....all public service.

Now people on the PS want a payrise and yet we still are borrowing many billions per year and the country owes 200 billion debt .... no way should the government award pay rises. There are lots of other areas that were decimated during the crash. The public servise is still overpaid.

It turns out the banks were lying and auditors were not doing their job as well as the regulator

twowheelsonly · 28-04-2015 08:27PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats a abuse of the statistics, many PS do third level qualifications because simply having a masters etc gets you more money , even if its not work related.

In the private sector , credentialism , while important, is less valuable then ability and experience. A factor sadly lacking from promotion decisions in the PS

No one should get more money simply because they have qualification x or Y.

In Nursing and Teaching that may (or may not) be true but certainly in my sector ability and experience are the biggest factors in promotions in most cases.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What if there are no fires to put out ? Do you keep a high volume of staff just in-case ?

No you sack them all. When Darkpagandeath crashes his car or his house goes on fire we can recruit again. You might have to wait a bit longer for them to turn up but sure as long as they're not sitting on their arses getting overpaid that's fine too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - People such as Firemen, Gardai, Prison Officers and a few more don't necessarily get paid for what they do but what they're prepared to do.

@darkpagandeath - I don't know what you work at or how much you get paid (please do feel free to tell us ) but your obsession (but lack of understanding) with PS workers and wages is mind boggling. It must be half a dozen times on this thread that you've come out and said that Irish PS workers are paid more than their equivalents in Europe. SO DO PRIVATE SECTOR. We have a higher cost of living than most of these places. They're also paid more than their equivalents in Kenya, Nepal, Uruguay and India if you want further comparisons.

Letree · 28-04-2015 08:30PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000

Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

The number now is 290,000.

BTW 3.6 million to 4.59 million in 2015 is an increase of 28%.

Increase 210,000 by 28% = 270,000

Also society has changed a lot since 1995. More services are being provided. We have more Social Workers, OT's, Physio's, Speech Therapists, Home Help workers, Teachers, Guards, Psychiatric Nurses etc etc. Society wouldn't tolerate 1995 levels of service today.

ardmacha · 28-04-2015 08:31PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000

Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

This is all very interesting, but the PS numbers have declined and the population has increased since 2008.

crusier · 28-04-2015 08:39PM

I begrudge everyone else a pay rise, I'm Irish!

Quin_Dub · 28-04-2015 08:42PM

Letree wrote: »

The number now is 290,000.

BTW 3.6 million to 4.59 million in 2015 is an increase of 28%.

Increase 210,000 by 28% = 270,000

Also society has changed a lot since 1995. More services are being provided. We have more Social Workers, OT's, Physio's, Speech Therapists, Home Help workers, Teachers, Guards, Psychiatric Nurses etc etc. Society wouldn't tolerate 1995 levels of service today.

My error - 4.5M is 20% higher than 3.6M , but you are of course correct , coming from 3.6M it is a 28% increase.

I accept that society has changed and has different needs..

However I'd submit that the growth in staffing levels was not delivered to the areas that really needed the growth..

The fundamental issue with the PS is value for money.. and I simply don't think we are seeing a maximised return on the money spent.

Mongfinder General · 28-04-2015 09:58PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000
In 2007
Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

In 2007 the PS made up 1 in 6 jobs in Ireland. In the mid 1980's t was 1 in 3

osarusan · 28-04-2015 09:59PM

Mongfinder General wrote: »

In 2007 the PS made up 1 in 6 jobs in Ireland. In the mid 1980's t was 1 in 3

Probably massive unemployment would have been a factor at that time.

test3test · 28-04-2015 10:00PM

Mongfinder General wrote: »

In 2007 the PS made up 1 in 6 jobs in Ireland. In the mid 1980's t was 1 in 3

1 in 2 in the public service in the 1980's done nothing at all at all.

bobbysands81 · 28-04-2015 10:09PM

test3test wrote: »

That is doubtful, given that average public sector pension is currently worth €34,623 per year.
Do not forget the tax free 18 months pay you get on retirement too. How many private sector workers get that?

I present you with facts and you say that's 'doubtful'.

My occupational pension will be approx 17k.

My Contributory OAP will be approx 12k (I think). I haven't included contributions to this in my calculations.

crusier · 28-04-2015 10:13PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I present you with facts and you say that's 'doubtful'.

My occupational pension will be approx 17k.

My Contributory OAP will be approx 12k (I think). I haven't included contributions to this in my calculations.

You won't starve bobbysands81

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2015 10:26PM

twowheelsonly wrote: »

In Nursing and Teaching that may (or may not) be true but certainly in my sector ability and experience are the biggest factors in promotions in most cases.

No you sack them all. When Darkpagandeath crashes his car or his house goes on fire we can recruit again. You might have to wait a bit longer for them to turn up but sure as long as they're not sitting on their arses getting overpaid that's fine too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - People such as Firemen, Gardai, Prison Officers and a few more don't necessarily get paid for what they do but what they're prepared to do.

@darkpagandeath - I don't know what you work at or how much you get paid (please do feel free to tell us ) but your obsession (but lack of understanding) with PS workers and wages is mind boggling. It must be half a dozen times on this thread that you've come out and said that Irish PS workers are paid more than their equivalents in Europe. SO DO PRIVATE SECTOR. We have a higher cost of living than most of these places. They're also paid more than their equivalents in Kenya, Nepal, Uruguay and India if you want further comparisons.

Again using the fact that we have high wages here to justify even higher PS worker wages is ridiculous or is the hyperbole more important ?

KomradeBishop · 28-04-2015 10:32PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is where we disagree, on how much a boost to gdp increased spending of borrowed money would bring. I believe a boost to infrastructure spending could be useful but spending money on increased wages is throwing good money after bad.

Also you must take into consideration the increased risk borrowing brings, obviously the more money a country has borrowed the more at risk they are to market fluctuations. While interest rates are low we should be working to build up a budget surplus before they rise again.

Putting more money into the private sector through government spending - almost any government spending - with much of it passing through as increased aggregate demand, increases GDP full stop.

A budget surplus removes money from the private sector, helping to push GDP down, and reduces future tax intake, requiring yet more cutting if you want to maintain a surplus - so your policy there makes our debt to GDP less sustainable, and more risky.

barneystinson · 28-04-2015 11:04PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Again using the fact that we have high wages here to justify even higher PS worker wages is ridiculous or is the hyperbole more important ?

You never PM'ed me after my invitation last night... not interested in specific real world examples of where the private sector worker is better paid than their PS equivalent...?

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2015 11:14PM

barneystinson wrote: »

You never PM'ed me after my invitation last night... not interested in specific real world examples of where the private sector worker is better paid than their PS equivalent...?

What's the point we have been told again and again either.

Comparing public service to private is impossible.

Or it's because private sector wages is high. So that's why theirs is higher again.

Or some other reason. That's not really factually related to PS being paid more.

jcon1913 · 28-04-2015 11:15PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Putting more money into the private sector through government spending - almost any government spending - with much of it passing through as increased aggregate demand, increases GDP full stop.

A budget surplus removes money from the private sector, helping to push GDP down, and reduces future tax intake, requiring yet much cutting if you want to maintain a surplus - so your policy there makes our debt to GDP less sustainable, and more risky.

How many times? This is voodoo. Who is going to pay these loans?

Heres a few gems of wisdom for you from down the ages:

''As a country we are living way beyond our means''

Link:
http://www.thejournal.ie/charlie-haughey-were-living-way-beyond-our-means-1755468-Nov2014/

''Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery'' - Charles Dickens

We cannot continue to borrow money - no amount of mumbo jumbo is going to change that, and you should desist when you cannot explain how borrowing more money is going to help this country, beyond waffling using terms no-one here understands, unless they have studied Ecomonics. You clearly have, and yet cannot explain how this theory of spending your way out of an economic trough works.

Heres a quick summary:

John Keynes an economist in the early 20th century had a theory that governments should borrow to boost demand, since markets on their own could never guarantee full employment, which was viewed as ideal.

Keynes' theories gained popularity after the start of World War 2, and afterwards became the assumed best practise i.e. that markets only worked well when governments interfered in them by spending large amounts of a country's money.

From 1979 these ideas were questioned by people and politicians who believed the theories of an economist called Milton Friedman who predicted in his 1963 book that Keynesian policies would lead to unemployment and inflation - what Friedman called Stagflation. Friedmans ideas became fashionable for a while, although there was a return to Keynes theories after the crashes of 2007 and onwards.

Personally I don't think the ''spend your way out of a recession by borrowing'' theory is suitable to a small open economy like Ireland because so much of consumer spending leaves the country being spent on imported consumer goods. As mentioned by previous posters spending on infastructure eg roads, schools, hospitals may be the exception, as the period the benefit accrues to the community is matched by the period of the loans taken to build improvements.

Kelly06 · 28-04-2015 11:22PM

There are plenty of examples where a private sector worker receives better pay than a public servant ... Take the professional grades for example engineers or solicitors. A basic solicitors role is paid far far below what a solicitor in the private sector would be on with the same experience. The trade off here is the ability to clock off at 6 at the latest and the generous leave allowance. Similar for engineers they are just two examples that I can think of.

I was looking at a payslip today at the deductions taken and wondering do people actually realise that an extra tax was added that is more or less the same deduction as the usc. Now we all hate usc with a passion so imagine if the government decided to double your usc overnight?

in my role I'm paid more or less what a private sector counterpart would be paid. I have the benefit of a more generous leave allocation and more flexibility in my hours of attendance. I pay far more tax than I would in the private sector however.

barneystinson · 28-04-2015 11:24PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's the point we have been told again and again either.

Comparing public service to private is impossible.

Or it's because private sector wages is high. So that's why theirs is higher again.

Or some other reason. That's not really factually related to PS being paid more.

Soooooooo.....

You're saying PS is higher paid. I'm offering to give you a direct example of a category of worker where this is not the case.

So is it that you:

1. simply don't want to see actual evidence of direct comparisons,
2. accept that across the board comparisons of the type you've been trying to make is a nonsense, or
3. something else?

barneystinson · 28-04-2015 11:27PM

Kelly06 wrote: »

There are plenty of examples where a private sector worker receives better pay than a public servant ... Take the professional grades for example engineers or solicitors. A basic solicitors role is paid far far below what a solicitor in the private sector would be on with the same experience. The trade off here is the ability to clock off at 6 at the latest and the generous leave allowance. Similar for engineers they are just two examples that I can think of.

I was looking at a payslip today at the deductions taken and wondering do people actually realise that an extra tax was added that is more or less the same deduction as the usc. Now we all hate usc with a passion so imagine if the government decided to double your usc overnight?

in my role I'm paid more or less what a private sector counterpart would be paid. I have the benefit of a more generous leave allocation and more flexibility in my hours of attendance. I pay far more tax than I would in the private sector however.

No Kelly, you don't pay more tax, that's a bit of a silly statement TBH.

I presume you're talking about the PRD. That's not a tax, it's a paycut by another name...

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2015 11:29PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Soooooooo.....

You're saying PS is higher paid. I'm offering to give you a direct example of a category of worker where this is not the case.

So is it that you:

1. simply don't want to see actual evidence of direct comparisons,
2. accept that across the board comparisons of the type you've been trying to make is a nonsense, or
3. something else?

The overwhelming amount of stats says otherwise. They have been brought in line the last while with the pay cuts. Now I guarantee they want that completely reversed and increases on top. Do some deserve pay rises I'm sure a lot do in line with private sector and inflation nothing more. But that's not how it works everyone or no one is the norm. Turning the tap back on from the glory days will just be a kick in the face to those that helped get this country back on it's feet.

Kelly06 · 28-04-2015 11:32PM

barneystinson wrote: »

No Kelly, you don't pay more tax, that's a bit of a silly statement TBH.

I see the pension levy as a tax purely for the reason that it doesn't relate to your pension. You are actually charged it on your wage regardless if you are entitled to a pension at all. For example if you get a 1 year contact in the ps the pension related deduction is deducted but you are not eligible to be a member of the pension scheme and draw down benefits with less than two years service ...That is a fact. Most of the public servants I know feel the same.

Kelly06 · 28-04-2015 11:35PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I presume you're talking about the PRD. That's not a tax, it's a paycut by another name...

As far as I'm aware the PRD is paid to your employer and goes into the pot for funding of that department, local authority or organisation etc.

Public sector pay increase

Comments