Public sector pay increase

evolving_doors · 30-04-2015 04:02PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

And the ones that are actually private (like Yeats in Galway) are on very very good money and in reality their hours are similar enough to teachers in normal school.

Actually, how much do private teachers get paid in Yeats College?

Iwasfrozen · 30-04-2015 04:31PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Ireland ranks extremely high for secondary education though. I think 7th or 9th in the world?

Great for all the multi nationals who want to employ leaving cert students. Not great for anything else.

ardmacha wrote: »

Which countries (as distinct from individual institutions) have higher rankings? And there is a lack of funding, fees are one quarter of those in England.

What do you mean what countries have higher rankings? The table ranks universities and the two hugest ranked universities in Ireland aren't even in the top 100.

Yes, exactly, fees are far too low. We need a proper loan system in this country. Australia have a great system we could adopt.

Iwasfrozen · 30-04-2015 04:34PM

Geuze wrote: »

Young teachers have taken 3-4 paycuts.

They do an important job.

I'm sure we'd want the educators of our children to be high quality, wouldn't we?

A society should be proud to pay high wages to teachers, sure you'd want to be doing that.

Now, they should be productive and accountable, yes.

We are proud of them but 30k starting increasing up to 50k base salary is plenty for them.

30-04-2015 04:38PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Actually, how much do private teachers get paid in Yeats College?

To be honest I don't have an exact number however I was chatting to one teacher I know and when he started out teaching about 10 years ago he had a few hours in a school and then worked 3 days a week in yeats and he was getting paid more than now with many years of full time service.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Great for all the multi nationals who want to employ leaving cert students. Not great for anything else.

Our skilled graduates are rugularly cited as one of the reason why companies setup here.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What do you mean what countries have higher rankings? The table ranks universities.
.

The university ranking system is a poor measure of how good a university is at producing skilled graduates. Its also heavily weighted towards historically good universities which it being very difficult to actually move around on the ranking scale.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We are proud of them but 30k starting increasing up to 50k base salary is plenty for them.

It isn't though, 50k is a very poor salary ceiling for a job as important and as skilled as teaching. But there is no convincing you and your ilk of this you would rather ignore the difficulty and importance of the job and instead focus on the fiction that's being sprouted in this thread.

jmayo · 30-04-2015 04:46PM

jcon1913 wrote: »

When Intel compared Ireland to Scotland, they looked at education levels amongst 8 years olds, Ireland came out tops. Not sure if it has changed ( waits for rush of teachers at the keyboards ) but we have a good education system here as far as I can see.

Didn't Intel made that decision back in early 90s rather than recently.
Besides comparing Ireland to Scotland would not be exaclty the best barometer of our success.

And speaking of Intel didn't Jim O'Hara complain about the quality and number of suitable Irish graduates during the 2000s ?

BoatMad wrote: »

several countries like france have already punched a few holes in that

France can do whatever it wants, it is one of the biggest Eurozone economies.
Ireland doesn't have their clout so we have to play ball with our budget deficits.

KB's argument is that it is now cheap to borrow so why not, and that a country is not like a business or a person.

Yes a country is not like those, but as the likes of Greece has found out it doesn't matter in the end when you overborrow and can't repay.
You are still a bad bet.
Much like the person needing the dodgy moneylender charging extortionate rates, the country looking defualt in the face has to pay huge rates to anyone willing to lend to them.

And the more debt we add, no matter how low the rates and how sustainable it currently is, the more we are at risk down the road.

Hit a rocky growth patch, lose some of those multinationals due to tax laws changing elsewhere and we are heading for trouble.
What would happen if we were suddenly back at 10 billion in current budget deficit and have even higher debt to GDP ?

Who would lent to us and at what rates ?
And what type of austerity would have to be put in place to pull the deficit back to exceptable EU levels ?

househero · 30-04-2015 05:05PM

Good to read about your political opinions, but fir the most part, your arguments are redundant.

Public sector pay will increase as the pay freeze agreement ends, gov tax take has increased steadily.

House prices will rise, private sector business will benefit from increased spending (from public sector families and from people 'unlocking' value from their homes) the gov will take in more tax as spending increases.

Do you not realise Ireland is dependent on external tax's and the huge public sector? Growth has been poor as the gov (the countries biggest employer) hasn't increased wages in 7 years.

This is the truth

jcon1913 · 30-04-2015 05:07PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

To be honest I don't have an exact number however I was chatting to one teacher I know and when he started out teaching about 10 years ago he had a few hours in a school and then worked 3 days a week in yeats and he was getting paid more then now with many year of

Our skilled graduates are rugularly cited as one of the reason why companies setup here.

The university ranking system is a poor measure of how good a university is at producing skilled graduates. Its also heavily weighted towards historically good universities which it being very difficult to actually move around on the ranking scale.

It isn't though, 50k is a very poor salary ceiling for a job as important and as skilled as teaching. But there is no convincing you and your ilk of this you would rather ignore the difficulty and importance of the job and instead focus on the fiction that's being sprouted in this thread.

And yet there are lots of people interested in teaching? Everyone thinks that their job is the most important in the world, and teachers are no different.

kegblag · 30-04-2015 05:13PM

househero wrote: »

Growth has been poor as the gov (the countries biggest employer) hasn't increased wages in 7 years.

This is the truth

Last year's GDP growth was 4.8, the GNP growth which exludes MNC was 5.2%. Is that poor growth? All done without inflating public sector costs too.

barneystinson · 30-04-2015 06:15PM

jcon1913 wrote: »

And yet there are lots of people interested in teaching? Everyone thinks that their job is the most important in the world, and teachers are no different.

What's your job jcon, and I'll tell you exactly where it rates in importance...?!

jcon1913 · 30-04-2015 06:21PM

barneystinson wrote: »

What's your job jcon, and I'll tell you exactly where it rates in importance...?!

Barney you can rest assured its more important than your - at least in my mind, which is where is matters :pac::pac::pac:

''I do not like the world I live in so I live in a world of my own''

KomradeBishop · 30-04-2015 06:32PM

jmayo wrote: »

KB's argument is that it is now cheap to borrow so why not, and that a country is not like a business or a person.

Yes a country is not like those, but as the likes of Greece has found out it doesn't matter in the end when you overborrow and can't repay.
You are still a bad bet.
Much like the person needing the dodgy moneylender charging extortionate rates, the country looking defualt in the face has to pay huge rates to anyone willing to lend to them.

And the more debt we add, no matter how low the rates and how sustainable it currently is, the more we are at risk down the road.

Hit a rocky growth patch, lose some of those multinationals due to tax laws changing elsewhere and we are heading for trouble.
What would happen if we were suddenly back at 10 billion in current budget deficit and have even higher debt to GDP ?

Who would lent to us and at what rates ?
And what type of austerity would have to be put in place to pull the deficit back to exceptable EU levels ?

You're getting stuck focusing on the overall quantity of the debt again, when what matters is the interest-payments-to-GDP. Greece has an interest rate pushing 25+% recently, Ireland has it's lowest interest rate ever at around 0.65%.
The overall size of the debt is not actually a very meaningful way to compare countries debt burdens, since it is the interest rate that matters.

You're also assuming 'deficit spending forever' here, which is not what I proposed - if our interest rates become burdensome, that only affects rolling over debt from 10 years ago, and you can just stop borrowing/spending...

Posters here seem to have a bias for cherry-picking unrealistically worst-case scenarios, often showing a lack of understanding of how the debt works in the process.

I've been studying this stuff on/off for the last 4+ years, so I know what I'm talking about - I'm not missing any 'gotcha'-type minor details here, and when posters try to bring up such 'gotcha's, they don't seem to think them through (nor even check my previous posts where I've already rebutted them). That keeps discussion stalled at an unproductive level.

Mr. teddywinkles · 30-04-2015 06:39PM

Geuze wrote: »

The HR function in the HSE has 2,000 staff and needs 800.

I don't think we need more staff there.

I meant hire in the areas that's needed.

darkpagandeath · 30-04-2015 06:53PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I meant hire in the areas that's needed.

where would that be ? Plenty of nurses doctors. Most of the waiting is to do with consultants and theatre time and that's due to budget overspend the theatre time. Plenty of consultants to they just don't seem to be working fast enough. The trolley issue is budget the beds are there just not open.

Iwasfrozen · 30-04-2015 07:16PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The university ranking system is a poor measure of how good a university is at producing skilled graduates. Its also heavily weighted towards historically good universities which it being very difficult to actually move around on the ranking scale.

Why is it a poor measure of how good a university is at producing skilled graduates? It seems to me to be quite a good measure of how good a university is at producing skilled graduates.

Historically prestigious universities are high on the list because they can attract the best students and the best lecturers. They are also very well funded by former students who tend to be more successful than graduates of average universities.

It isn't though, 50k is a very poor salary ceiling for a job as important and as skilled as teaching. But there is no convincing you and your ilk of this you would rather ignore the difficulty and importance of the job and instead focus on the fiction that's being sprouted in this thread.

Skilled as teaching? A BA is more than sufficient knowledge for a person to teach that subject to leaving cert level. The other skills are learned on placement in college or on the job when working.

30k starting to 50k base is a very generous salery and frankly a more realistic salary in line with the private sector would be 25k starting to 50k, don't get sniping with me just because you're butthurt the dept cut the extra qualifications bonus.

If teachers think they can make more money in the private sector they are welcome to leave, working a full twelve months a year may be a bit tough on the little snowflakes though.

evolving_doors · 30-04-2015 07:23PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Actually, how much do private teachers get paid in Yeats College?

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

To be honest I don't have an exact number however I was chatting to one teacher I know and when he started out teaching about 10 years ago he had a few hours in a school and then worked 3 days a week in yeats and he was getting paid more than now with many years of full time service.

i think you need to understand how privately paid and part time works...
A few hours in a school isn't the same pro-rata as equivalent time in Yeats.
Is he getting equivalent state pension in Yeats,
is his pay consolidated into just contact time in Yeats (whereas in public system it's spread over the year).
Does he work a full 22 hrs contact time in Yeats.

Just as an aside.. there are many teacher who work in fee paying schools and are privately paid with worse terms and conditions than their publicly paid teachers next door. If seen a fair few 'well known' schools appear in labour court cases under CID's.
I also heard about one well known fee paying school that attempted to link all their privately paid teachers pay to their student's results! While a colleague with the same subject 2 doors down and was paid by the dept. wasn't. As you can see, once a chink appears it's abused.

Also: The private model can never be applicable to say a public school in a deprived area. Payment by results!!!

evolving_doors · 30-04-2015 07:32PM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Would you imagine that? Based on experience? Teachers in private education work longer hours than their public sectors colleagues as they are paid more.

Where are you getting that nonsense from?
I'm familiar with both systems. Nearly all the teachers in BOTH systems begin work when they get home. And on the weekend. I'm not giving the beal bocht but you are doing a misservice to the teachers who break their back to go out of their way voluntarily for students in both systems

jcon1913 wrote: »

S o for example they are expected to give extra grinds, e.g. in private schools it would not be unusual for teachers to give extra classes in the run-up to Irish / French / Spanish orals.

Same in public system btw... actually you may find students in private system can easily afford one to one grinds outside school.

jcon1913 wrote: »

They would be expected to put in extra hours by training a sports team, etc.
Simples

Actually most of the fee paying sector employ coaches (paripatetic staff) to do these also. With the lack of jobs in teaching any new recruit in ANY system is expected to take on extra curricular. And btw a lot of us do it because we enjoy it, despite ever getting little thanks for it.

not so simples.

jcon1913 · 30-04-2015 08:17PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Where are you getting that nonsense from?
I'm familiar with both systems. Nearly all the teachers in BOTH systems begin work when they get home. And on the weekend. I'm not giving the beal bocht but you are doing a misservice to the teachers who break their back to go out of their way voluntarily for students in both systems

Same in public system btw... actually you may find students in private system can easily afford one to one grinds outside school.

Actually most of the fee paying sector employ coaches (paripatetic staff) to do these also. With the lack of jobs in teaching any new recruit in ANY system is expected to take on extra curricular. And btw a lot of us do it because we enjoy it, despite ever getting little thanks for it.

not so simples.

So why do the schools that charge fees pay their teachers more? It would make no sense.

I suggest that either:

(a) they work longer hours
(b) they are better at their job

I appreciate that teachers do extra work, thats not the point. although it does prove one of my earlier points that there are plenty of applicants for posts in teaching. So the salaries must be attractive enough for those applicants.

I'm not even going to answer the points about hours after work, I dont want to get into teacher bashing. Some teachers do extra work lets leave it at that.

evolving_doors · 30-04-2015 10:11PM

jcon1913 wrote: »

So why do the schools that charge fees pay their teachers more? It would make no sense.

I suggest that either:

(a) they work longer hours
(b) they are better at their job

I appreciate that teachers do extra work, thats not the point. although it does prove one of my earlier points that there are plenty of applicants for posts in teaching. So the salaries must be attractive enough for those applicants.

I'm not even going to answer the points about hours after work, I dont want to get into teacher bashing. Some teachers do extra work lets leave it at that.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about or what your friend is spinning you. At the very best privately paid teachers in fee paying schools are paid on a par with dept paid teachers (minus pension entitlements)... but from what I hear talking to other privately paid teachers, those days are coming to an end because labour is cheap and any teacher will take whatever contract is thrown at them. Privately paid teaching is an albatross that any sane teacher would do well to get away from.

Teachers in the fee paying and voluntary non fee paying all went to the same teacher training colleges. There are excellent teachers I know of who have written text books/revision books/oversee examiners for exams etc in the public system as well as the fee paying system system.

Maybe you are confusing things with private 'grind schools' which are a whole different kettle of fish all together. (I've worked in those too BTW and it's the same ding dong... (much the same pay/ no pension) most of the money is made through revision courses or extra grinds.

jcon1913 wrote: »

I appreciate that teachers do extra work, thats not the point. although it does prove one of my earlier points that there are plenty of applicants for posts in teaching. So the salaries must be attractive enough for those applicants.

I'm not even going to answer the points about hours after work, I dont want to get into teacher bashing. Some teachers do extra work lets leave it at that.

It's because they listen to idiots here or Eddie Hobbs and their Mammy who think "Ah shur anyone would want to be mad not to be a teacher".
Here's my story.
4 yrs in college. 1 year Hdip (it's been changed to 2 years self funded now). Masters of my own volition (self funded (with some tax relief though!). Postgrad on top.
10 years teaching... only got CID in the last 5.
=43k Gross

Pension system has now changed to career average instead of defined benefit so ignore what eddie hobbs says.

Don't get me wrong, the holidays are a definite perk and if you're a woman then mat leave is better than private sector.

Anyone who want's to become a teacher now should be prepared to be doing it as a part time hobby.

ANyhow's that's for a different thread.

Yes some teachers do extra work... some don't. Fee paying/privately paid or voluntary/public it doesn't matter which it is.

SaveOurLyric · 30-04-2015 10:48PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Here's my story.
4 yrs in college. 1 year Hdip (it's been changed to 2 years self funded now). Masters of my own volition (self funded (with some tax relief though!). Postgrad on top.
10 years teaching... only got CID in the last 5.
=43k Gross

I would consider that a pretty just salary for a teacher. As you acknowledge, the holidays are pretty decent compared to virtually every other job, so that has to be taken in to account in the salary. I would also consider it well in line with the contribution made. It is the teaching of school level material - not university level material. And pay is determined by the contribution and availability of people available to do that level of work - not the number of years in higher education.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Pension system has now changed to career average instead of defined benefit so ignore what eddie hobbs says.

Which is great and about time. A completely bonkers scheme having been previously in place does not justify it continuing and teachers should not feel aggrieved that the matter has now been corrected.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Anyone who want's to become a teacher now should be prepared to be doing it as a part time hobby.

There's an awful lot of people who would love to live on €43k/yr. It might be part time alright, but I think they would see it a desireable earner rather than a hobby.

On the substantive question, pay rates for PS were wrong. And were somewhat corrected. Restoring the mistake would be ludicrous.

jcon1913 · 30-04-2015 11:15PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about or what your friend is spinning you. At the very best privately paid teachers in fee paying schools are paid on a par with dept paid teachers (minus pension entitlements)... but from what I hear talking to other privately paid teachers, those days are coming to an end because labour is cheap and any teacher will take whatever contract is thrown at them. Privately paid teaching is an albatross that any sane teacher would do well to get away from.

Teachers in the fee paying and voluntary non fee paying all went to the same teacher training colleges. There are excellent teachers I know of who have written text books/revision books/oversee examiners for exams etc in the public system as well as the fee paying system system.

Maybe you are confusing things with private 'grind schools' which are a whole different kettle of fish all together. (I've worked in those too BTW and it's the same ding dong... (much the same pay/ no pension) most of the money is made through revision courses or extra grinds.

It's because they listen to idiots here or Eddie Hobbs and their Mammy who think "Ah shur anyone would want to be mad not to be a teacher".
Here's my story.
4 yrs in college. 1 year Hdip (it's been changed to 2 years self funded now). Masters of my own volition (self funded (with some tax relief though!). Postgrad on top.
10 years teaching... only got CID in the last 5.
=43k Gross

Pension system has now changed to career average instead of defined benefit so ignore what eddie hobbs says.

Don't get me wrong, the holidays are a definite perk and if you're a woman then mat leave is better than private sector.

Anyone who want's to become a teacher now should be prepared to be doing it as a part time hobby.

ANyhow's that's for a different thread.

Yes some teachers do extra work... some don't. Fee paying/privately paid or voluntary/public it doesn't matter which it is.

Ill pick you up one point only. Teachers in fee paying schools are paid more. I have seen the P60s so its all official.

Maybe youre thinking about the grind schools - I have no idea what people in Bruce college / Leeson St whatever are paid.

You make some good points about the qualifications etc. although most teachers I know are happy with their lot.

Id have no quibble with hours salaries and so on, I chose not to teach ( sound of mammies all over Ireland sighing ).

miss tickle · 30-04-2015 11:31PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about or what your friend is spinning you. At the very best privately paid teachers in fee paying schools are paid on a par with dept paid teachers (minus pension entitlements)... but from what I hear talking to other privately paid teachers, those days are coming to an end because labour is cheap and any teacher will take whatever contract is thrown at them. Privately paid teaching is an albatross that any sane teacher would do well to get away from.

Teachers in the fee paying and voluntary non fee paying all went to the same teacher training colleges. There are excellent teachers I know of who have written text books/revision books/oversee examiners for exams etc in the public system as well as the fee paying system system.

Maybe you are confusing things with private 'grind schools' which are a whole different kettle of fish all together. (I've worked in those too BTW and it's the same ding dong... (much the same pay/ no pension) most of the money is made through revision courses or extra grinds.

It's because they listen to idiots here or Eddie Hobbs and their Mammy who think "Ah shur anyone would want to be mad not to be a teacher".
Here's my story.
4 yrs in college. 1 year Hdip (it's been changed to 2 years self funded now). Masters of my own volition (self funded (with some tax relief though!). Postgrad on top.
10 years teaching... only got CID in the last 5.
=43k Gross

Pension system has now changed to career average instead of defined benefit so ignore what eddie hobbs says.

Don't get me wrong, the holidays are a definite perk and if you're a woman then mat leave is better than private sector.

Anyone who want's to become a teacher now should be prepared to be doing it as a part time hobby.

ANyhow's that's for a different thread.

Yes some teachers do extra work... some don't. Fee paying/privately paid or voluntary/public it doesn't matter which it is.

But if you do the math on your hourly rate, it would equate to 93,772. for a person working a 37 hour week with 4 weeks holiday per year.

barneystinson · 30-04-2015 11:36PM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Ill pick you up one point only. Teachers in fee paying schools are paid more. I have seen the P60s so its all official.

Maybe youre thinking about the grind schools - I have no idea what people in Bruce college / Leeson St whatever are paid.

You make some good points about the qualifications etc. although most teachers I know are happy with their lot.

Id have no quibble with hours salaries and so on, I chose not to teach ( sound of mammies all over Ireland sighing ).

OT I know, but jcon1913, is your username a reference to James Connolly and the 1913 Lockout?! If so it's one of the most ironic usernames I've seen in a while...

jcon1913 · 01-05-2015 12:05AM

barneystinson wrote: »

OT I know, but jcon1913, is your username a reference to James Connolly and the 1913 Lockout?! If so it's one of the most ironic usernames I've seen in a while...

Barney youre definately spending too much time on boardsðŸ˜„ðŸ˜„ðŸ˜„

But you are right

Too exhausted catching criminals / fellow citizens to sleep?

barneystinson · 01-05-2015 01:08AM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Barney youre definately spending too much time on boardsðŸ˜„ðŸ˜„ðŸ˜„

But you are right

Too exhausted catching criminals / fellow citizens to sleep?

Catching criminals / fellow citizens?

Anyway, maybe you mean your username ironically, or maybe you are so far right that your ideology met Connolly's coming the other way...

not yet · 01-05-2015 12:34PM

I for one will be spending my well earned pay restoration on a villa in Turkey..

Tzardine · 01-05-2015 12:37PM

not yet wrote: »

I for one will be spending my well earned pay restoration on a villa in Turkey..

I am going to hire a helicopter for my kids communion.

That's when you know the good times are back.

BoatMad · 01-05-2015 01:07PM

Tzardine wrote: »

I am going to hire a helicopter for my kids communion.

That's when you know the good times are back.

anyone in Dublin today can easily see they are back already

jmayo · 01-05-2015 02:22PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're getting stuck focusing on the overall quantity of the debt again, when what matters is the interest-payments-to-GDP. Greece has an interest rate pushing 25+% recently, Ireland has it's lowest interest rate ever at around 0.65%.
The overall size of the debt is not actually a very meaningful way to compare countries debt burdens, since it is the interest rate that matters.

You're also assuming 'deficit spending forever' here, which is not what I proposed - if our interest rates become burdensome, that only affects rolling over debt from 10 years ago, and you can just stop borrowing/spending...

This last line just screams out at me.

Yep it is just that simple.
As you are fond of telling us we are dealing with a country and not a business or a person.
Suddenly putting a brake on a nation's spending/borrowing doesn't work that easily as has been evident in Europe over the last 4+ years.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Posters here seem to have a bias for cherry-picking unrealistically worst-case scenarios, often showing a lack of understanding of how the debt works in the process.

And the problem is you just appear to totally ignore some realistic worse case scenarios.
It is like as if because it aint raining today you decide you don't need a raincoat for the rest of the summer.

To a degree you remind me of those economists telling us we would have a soft landing and that property prices could not possibly crash.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've been studying this stuff on/off for the last 4+ years, so I know what I'm talking about - I'm not missing any 'gotcha'-type minor details here, and when posters try to bring up such 'gotcha's, they don't seem to think them through (nor even check my previous posts where I've already rebutted them). That keeps discussion stalled at an unproductive level.

It is wise man who knows they don't know everything.

jank · 01-05-2015 03:39PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've been studying this stuff on/off for the last 4+ years, so I know what I'm talking about - I'm not missing any 'gotcha'-type minor details here, and when posters try to bring up such 'gotcha's, they don't seem to think them through (nor even check my previous posts where I've already rebutted them). That keeps discussion stalled at an unproductive level.

Yet, your theories seem to be changing monthly. Remember the time when you wanted to burn tax revenue, or when you thought your pal in Greece, Varoufakis was going to be the saviour of Europe? Well as it turns out even his own government stopped listening to him. So many theories, so little reality.

KomradeBishop · 01-05-2015 04:53PM

jmayo wrote: »

This last line just screams out at me.

Yep it is just that simple.
As you are fond of telling us we are dealing with a country and not a business or a person.
Suddenly putting a brake on a nation's spending/borrowing doesn't work that easily as has been evident in Europe over the last 4+ years.

Ireland isn't relying upon stamp duty and similar property-related taxes now, as it was in the runup to the last crisis (which led to a large part of the precipitous fall in government revenue) - and a large portion of that deficit increase was down to welfare payments as well, which are a natural consequence of increased unemployment.
Increased spending today, can easily be directed into programs that can be cut quickly, instead of into programs that aim for a permanent spending/revenue boost, like the above (infrastructural programs, like posters have advocated, are a perfect example of where spending can be directed).

Given that the policies I advocate, result in increased private sector employment (by boosting up the private sector while the policies are active) - thus reducing the welfare bill - that means we'd be more capable of weathering a sudden spike in public debt interest rates, by cutting spending, with the policies I put forward.

Lets put in perspective that a spending boost today, doesn't increase payments on rolled-over debts for ten years either - so boosting spending today, doesn't even have a potential effect for 10 years - we'd have to deal with increased interest rates on public debt during the next 10 years, even if we didn't engage in increased spending today - and the spending I advocate means we'd be paying it down even faster within 10 years, than if we did nothing today.

jmayo wrote: »

And the problem is you just appear to totally ignore some realistic worse case scenarios.
It is like as if because it aint raining today you decide you don't need a raincoat for the rest of the summer.

To a degree you remind me of those economists telling us we would have a soft landing and that property prices could not possibly crash.

There isn't a single thing any poster has mentioned to counter the policies put forward, that I have not already rebutted. Can you quote any? (and make sure anything you quote, isn't followed by a post from me replying to it shortly after)

The scaremongering posters are engaging in, is advocating throwing away our current very limited window of opportunity, for engaging in real recovery policies.

jmayo wrote: »

It is wise man who knows they don't know everything.

Indeed - which is why when posters don't know the effects of a particular policy, they should admit not knowing, rather than finding the flimsiest of reasons to pour doubt on it - especially when said reasons have been dealt with multiple times already.

Public sector pay increase

Comments