Public sector pay increase

Celticfire · 29-04-2015 03:21PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When the crisis hit public sector unions choose to throw future entrants under the bus to protect their members. We don't need to spend more money on the ps. We need to make it more efficient and redistribute funds from senior members.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They were bloated in the good times by a spend happy government and protected during the bad by betraying future entrants.

Can you explain how they were betrayed and what you think the unions and workers should have done? Not forgetting that it was The Government that cut the new entrant wages as part of the budget.

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 03:21PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Given low interest rates. The problem with your logic is the greater the government's debt to gdp the greater their risk to interest rate fluctuations.

Not really - markets are concerned with sustainability of debt, which is down to interest-payments-to-GDP, not just public-debt-to-GDP.

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 03:24PM

Celticfire wrote: »

Can you explain how they were betrayed and what you think the unions and workers should have done? Not forgetting that it was The Government that cut the new entrant wages as part of the budget.

They should have cut wages all round in proportion rather than shouldering the burden on new entrants.

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 03:27PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not really - markets are concerned with sustainability of debt, which is down to interest-payments-to-GDP, not just public-debt-to-GDP.

And what happens when the government has to refinance the debt and finds interest rates have risen?

Celticfire · 29-04-2015 03:29PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They should have cut wages all round in proportion rather than shouldering the burden on new entrants.

I gotcha ... they should have volunteered for a third pay cut just to keep you happy.

I guess if your boss was looking to hire some you'd be the first to volunteer a pay cut to help him out or are you just generous with other peoples money?

29-04-2015 03:30PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why isn't it fair? Their wages should never have been that high in the first place.

They were bloated in the good times by a spend happy government and protected during the bad by betraying future entrants.

We shouldn't even be talking about a pay increase while in deficit. It would be comical if it wasn't serious.

Of course there wages should be that high, a large portion of public sector workers were underpaid before the cuts of recent years never mind after them. Just because yourself and one or two more think otherwise doesn't change the fact. Some of your statements on it have been crazy, capping teacher pay at 45k? For some of the most important workers in the county responsible for educating our youth. Do you want highly qualified and skilled people doing these jobs or do you want the people left over after the best won't work for the wages?

I can even give you a personal example. Who do you want teaching your children? Do you want someone with pass science degree or someone with a phd in science? I have a science based phd and I would seriously consider teaching if the starting salary (with the extra benefits for higher qualifications) was still around 40k like it used to be for someone with my qualifications, but no chance at the current starting salary with very slow progression never mind if it was capped at 45k. You are also getting a fair bit less into your hand every month working in public sector due to the theft that is the pension levy.

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 03:33PM

Celticfire wrote: »

I gotcha ... they should have volunteered for a third pay cut just to keep you happy.

I guess if your boss was looking to hire some you'd be the first to volunteer a pay cut to help him out or are you just generous with other peoples money?

I'm not looking for volunteers, I'm looking for public ssector deunionization so the government can have the flexibility to make these decisions.

Celticfire · 29-04-2015 03:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not looking for volunteers, I'm looking for public ssector deunionization so the government can have the flexibility to make these decisions.

Don't hold your breath then, unions aren't going anywhere.

You didn't explain how they were betrayed. The Government made it decision with no union input ( in fact unions expressed the fact that they didn't agree with lower pay for new entrants and have gotten a reversal on this)

So you in fact got what you were looking for, the government to make a decision but it was a betrayal by unions and workers, strange logic

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 03:40PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

Of course there wages should be that high, a large portion of public sector workers were underpaid before the cuts of recent years never mind after them. Just because yourself and one or two more think otherwise doesn't change the fact. Some of your statements on it have been crazy, capping teacher pay at 45k? For some of the most important workers in the county responsible for educating our youth. Do you want highly qualified and skilled people doing these jobs or do you want the people left over after the best won't work for the wages?

I can even give you a personal example. Who do you want teaching your children? Do you want someone with pass science degree or someone with a phd in science? I have a science based phd and I would seriously consider teaching if the starting salary (with the extra benefits for higher qualifications) was still around 40k like it used to be for someone with my qualifications, but no chance at the current starting salary with very slow progression never mind if it was capped at 45k. You are also getting a fair bit less into your hand every month working in public sector due to the theft that is the pension levy.

An msc and a phd are not needed to teach leaving cert. Why would we pay someone extra for being over qualified?

29-04-2015 03:43PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An msc and a phd are not needed to teach leaving cert. Why would we pay someone extra for being over qualified?

No such thing as over qualified when it comes to teaching and inspiring young people in a subject. Also it give the teacher a far wider perspective on the subject and where students can go with it etc along with having a better and more in depth knowledge of the subject.

The extra incentives should be immediately reintroduced to get highly qualified people back into teaching.

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 03:54PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

No such thing as over qualified when it comes to teaching and inspiring young people in a subject. Also it give the teacher a far wider perspective on the subject and where students can go with it etc.

Actually there is. An msc or a phd doesn't bring any additional skills relevant to teaching the leaving cert.

Students are inspired far more by charisma, should we start paying more for that?

swimming in a sea · 29-04-2015 04:08PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

Of course there wages should be that high, a large portion of public sector workers were underpaid before the cuts of recent years never mind after them. Just because yourself and one or two more think otherwise doesn't change the fact. Some of your statements on it have been crazy, capping teacher pay at 45k? For some of the most important workers in the county responsible for educating our youth. Do you want highly qualified and skilled people doing these jobs or do you want the people left over after the best won't work for the wages?

I can even give you a personal example. Who do you want teaching your children? Do you want someone with pass science degree or someone with a phd in science? I have a science based phd and I would seriously consider teaching if the starting salary (with the extra benefits for higher qualifications) was still around 40k like it used to be for someone with my qualifications, but no chance at the current starting salary with very slow progression never mind if it was capped at 45k. You are also getting a fair bit less into your hand every month working in public sector due to the theft that is the pension levy.

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 04:14PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what happens when the government has to refinance the debt and finds interest rates have risen?

You're 'begging the question' here - assuming that interest rates have magically risen, when I've just explained that:
"markets are concerned with sustainability of debt, which is down to interest-payments-to-GDP, not just public-debt-to-GDP."

29-04-2015 04:18PM

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

Your opinion can be discounted anyway as you obviously have no idea whatsoever about the job of teaching.

kippy · 29-04-2015 04:19PM

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

What figure is a good figure to pay them?

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 04:20PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're 'begging the question' here - assuming that interest rates have magically risen, when I've just explained that:
"markets are concerned with sustainability of debt, which is down to interest-payments-to-GDP, not just public-debt-to-GDP."

If interest rates rise for any reason our debt becomes less sustainable and interest rates rise again.

The more debt to gdp a country has the more sensitive they are to interest rate fluctuations. That's why borrowing excessively is irresponsible.

Celticfire · 29-04-2015 04:38PM

kippy wrote: »

What figure is a good figure to pay them?

Obviously less than what He/She earns.......

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 04:41PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If interest rates rise for any reason our debt becomes less sustainable and interest rates rise again.

The more debt to gdp a country has the more sensitive they are to interest rate fluctuations. That's why borrowing excessively is irresponsible.

No, our existing stock of debt doesn't become less sustainable, only new debt is affected by higher interest rates.

Debt we take on today, doesn't rollover for 10 years anyway - we're even issuing 30 year debt now, so could be 30 years before it rolls over...

So, higher interest rates within the next 10 years, only affect debt that we already have if any of it rolls over at the time (doesn't affect new debt) - so you're only presenting a speculative problem that 'might' occur far into the future (10+ years), when the spending boost can get us to recovery long before then.

dont bother · 29-04-2015 04:55PM

they deserve it.

what should be done is bank staff's salary's should be halved, and more staff hired to make sure the poor creatures dont feel "obliged" to work their so-called 15 hour days etc...

what a load of sh!t.

PS deserve every cent they get. they're the ones who kept the country going by not complaining when they got their salaries DESTROYED.

what are the other Private Sector workers doing? complaining about how they have to work hard for their BONUS - a bonus!?!?! fvck you and the horse you rode in on

PS workers work hard without the promise of a monetary bonus.

Tiger Mcilroy · 29-04-2015 04:59PM

dont bother wrote: »

they deserve it.

what should be done is bank staff's salary's should be halved, and more staff hired to make sure the poor creatures dont feel "obliged" to work their so-called 15 hour days etc...

what a load of sh!t.

PS deserve every cent they get. they're the ones who kept the country going by not complaining when they got their salaries DESTROYED.

what are the other Private Sector workers doing? complaining about how they have to work hard for their BONUS - a bonus!?!?! fvck you and the horse you rode in on

PS workers work hard without the promise of a monetary bonus.

I saw the bit in bold and snorted my coffee over my keyboard!!

dont bother · 29-04-2015 05:05PM

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I saw the bit in bold and snorted my coffee over my keyboard!!

i'd say that's not all you're partial to snorting either.

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 05:12PM

It's funny really, the main thing that would actually allow us to spend more on the PS and government spending in general, is the effect that QE is having on interest rates right now - and QE is basically a massive subsidy to the finance-industry and wealthy, through raising asset prices - so to put this in context more:
- Effectively piss gobloads of money at the wealthy and finance, in a massive subsidy, through QE; response: Silence.
- Discuss directing some of this money to government spending (through lowest-interest-rate-ever debt); response: Controversy, PS bashing, saying the workers don't deserve it, attempts at claiming it is impractical etc..

It seems in this case, that when something benefits finance and the wealthy, giving them a massive subsidy they did nothing to earn and do not deserve, then there is no controversy/debate - but when there's discussion of some of the same money that goes to them through QE, going to government spending on the PS (or in general, government spending), and to deserving PS workers who have suffered many cuts, this gets peoples heckles up and stokes a big controversy.

Obviously, I doubt most people are up to date enough on economic events to be able to view it this way, but when you have the knowledge to see it from this perspective, it's kind of funny.

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 05:47PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, our existing stock of debt doesn't become less sustainable, only new debt is affected by higher interest rates.

Debt we take on today, doesn't rollover for 10 years anyway - we're even issuing 30 year debt now, so could be 30 years before it rolls over...

So, higher interest rates within the next 10 years, only affect debt that we already have if any of it rolls over at the time (doesn't affect new debt) - so you're only presenting a speculative problem that 'might' occur far into the future (10+ years), when the spending boost can get us to recovery long before then.

Agreed but what happens if interest rates are higher in 10 years time when our debt is due to be rolled over? Suddenly this debt becomes unsustainable which causes our future interest rates to also increase.

This is the bit you don't seem to understand, increasing our debt to gdp ratio increases our exposure to bond market volatility.

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 06:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agreed but what happens if interest rates are higher in 10 years time when our debt is due to be rolled over? Suddenly this debt becomes unsustainable which causes our future interest rates to also increase.

This is the bit you don't seem to understand, increasing our debt to gdp ratio increases our exposure to bond market volatility.

Except in 10 years the GDP growth caused by restoring the private economy, means we would have even less debt-vs-GDP than now, and wouldn't even need to roll it over, just pay it down if interest rates get high.
We don't have to take on high-interest rate debt to roll debt over, if we don't want to.

You're making a ton of worst-case assumptions anyway - begging the question again, that just, magically, interest rates will be sky high - for some unspecified reason.

Iwasfrozen · 29-04-2015 07:00PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except in 10 years the GDP growth caused by restoring the private economy, means we would have even less debt-vs-GDP than now, and wouldn't even need to roll it over, just pay it down if interest rates get high.
We don't have to take on high-interest rate debt to roll debt over, if we don't want to.

You're making a ton of worst-case assumptions anyway - begging the question again, that just, magically, interest rates will be sky high - for some unspecified reason.

In ten years time our debt to gdp wouldn't be lower as we would have taken out more loans in the meantime. How do we "just pay" a loan if the interest rates get too high? The only available source of income to pay off a loan for a country in deficit is more loans.

I'm not assuming rates will be sky high, I'm pointing out how taking on more debt, instead of working towards a budgetary surplus and slowly paying our debt off, leaves the government more exposed to market volatility.

Letree · 29-04-2015 07:03PM

When do we get these damn payrises anyway?

Quin_Dub · 29-04-2015 07:10PM

Letree wrote: »

When do we get these damn payrises anyway?

When you move to the glorious Private Sector!!!

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 07:27PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In ten years time our debt to gdp wouldn't be lower as we would have taken out more loans in the meantime. How do we "just pay" a loan if the interest rates get too high? The only available source of income to pay off a loan for a country in deficit is more loans.

I'm not assuming rates will be sky high, I'm pointing out how taking on more debt, instead of working towards a budgetary surplus and slowly paying our debt off, leaves the government more exposed to market volatility.

Again you're making a ton of unwarranted assumptions - that we just keep borrowing more and more, that the deficit lasts forever, that GDP stays static - etc., all of which is contrary to what has already been explained.

You seem to be taking what I am arguing for - short/medium-term deficit spending to boost the private sector back to recovery - and replacing it with 'deficit spending forever'; so you're not actually debating with what I'm actually posting.

It comes across just as blanket opposition to any use of debt financing, even if it can be shown to be sustainable - trying to cherry-pick worst case scenarios, and making unwarranted assumptions that conform to worst-case scenarios, just to try and back your argument.

I mean, you talk about wanting a budget surplus to pay off debt now, and ask earlier "How do we 'just pay' a loan if the interest rates get too high?" - as if a budget surplus can't do that, allowing us to pay a loan down instead of rolling it over to high-interest debt.
This is starting to smell like you're being deliberately/selectively blind, whenever it suits your argument here.

jcon1913 · 29-04-2015 08:12PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's funny really, the main thing that would actually allow us to spend more on the PS and government spending in general, is the effect that QE is having on interest rates right now - and QE is basically a massive subsidy to the finance-industry and wealthy, through raising asset prices - so to put this in context more:
- Effectively piss gobloads of money at the wealthy and finance, in a massive subsidy, through QE; response: Silence.
- Discuss directing some of this money to government spending (through lowest-interest-rate-ever debt); response: Controversy, PS bashing, saying the workers don't deserve it, attempts at claiming it is impractical etc..

It seems in this case, that when something benefits finance and the wealthy, giving them a massive subsidy they did nothing to earn and do not deserve, then there is no controversy/debate - but when there's discussion of some of the same money that goes to them through QE, going to government spending on the PS (or in general, government spending), and to deserving PS workers who have suffered many cuts, this gets peoples heckles up and stokes a big controversy.

Obviously, I doubt most people are up to date enough on economic events to be able to view it this way, but when you have the knowledge to see it from this perspective, it's kind of funny.

You are right about Quantitive Easing but the guy in the street doesnt understand what that is or what effect it has on him.

Fear Ciarrai · 29-04-2015 08:21PM

Letree wrote:

When do we get these damn payrises anyway?

Around the time the election posters go up

Public sector pay increase

Comments