Buyer bubble burst...

beeno67

Calina wrote: »

Second point: housing supply is not dependent on my landlord's mortgage. It isn't even relevant in the debate of are there enough houses around for people to live in. If there weren't, I wouldn't be able to find one. Either you understand this concept or not. My money is on "not".

.

Try and be a little less snotty. You do not understand supply and demand, fair enough but do not insult me because of this. I never said there was a shortage of properties for people to live in. The problem is they are still not affordable for you. Your landlords house is not for sale so is not part of the supply. You want a property to buy so you are part of the demand part of the equation

Calina

beeno67 wrote: »

Try and be a little less snotty. You do not understand supply and demand, fair enough but do not insult me because of this. I never said there was a shortage of properties for people to live in. The problem is they are still not affordable for you. Your landlords house is not for sale so is not part of the supply. You want a property to buy so you are part of the demand part of the equation

The point that was made was that there isnot enough space in Dublin to build enough houses for all the people who need them. As far as actual housing supply is concerned, it does not matter whether they are bought or rented provided someone is actually living in them. Otherwise the issue of land available is irrelevant.

The truth is if both rents and asking prices are falling then there is a lack of people around who actually want to live in them at the prices currently quoted. My landlord's house is actually part of the supply because it is used for accommodation. The only way you could claim that it was not part of the supply is if it was not being used or made available for habitation if he wanted to withhold it for whatever reason.

In other words, if a house is available for rent or sale or being used either via rent or purchase for accommodation then it is part of the housing supply and claiming that rented properties are not part of the supply when claiming that there is a land shortage is disingenuous at best. Currently - again - sales prices are dropping and supply is rising which implies an excess of supply over demand so arguing that there is limited supply is currently not correct. In other words Dublin does not have a housing shortage per se - there is an adequate supply of accommodation for the people who want to live here. What it has is a sales market which is completely askew from economic reality. Housing supply is not sales supply.

Again - if you want to argue that Dublin has not got enough houses for people to live in, fire away. What it currently has not got is enough houses for sale at prices that people are willing to spend. Those who are not buying are by and large housed via rental. The land scarcity argument is only viable if you are going to argue on the basis of overall housing supply. As rents are falling, housing supply is basically okay. So for that reason I ask - why should I buy something that I can rent for significantly less in the short term?

You see, the supply issue right now is not in the number of houses - it's in the number of actual willing buyers. Telling me that there's a limited supply of houses when I can see that sales supply has more or less doubled in 12 months just doesn't wash. You are claiming that there is a shortage of housing supply. I disagree and currently, the figures are backing me up. Supply is rising all over the shop and some of the biggest price falls have been on trophy houses in areas taht were supposed to be immune to a property crash.

beeno67

Calina wrote: »

The point that was made was that there isnot enough space in Dublin to build enough houses for all the people who need them. As far as actual housing supply is concerned, it does not matter whether they are bought or rented provided someone is actually living in them. Otherwise the issue of land available is irrelevant.

The truth is if both rents and asking prices are falling then there is a lack of people around who actually want to live in them at the prices currently quoted. My landlord's house is actually part of the supply because it is used for accommodation. The only way you could claim that it was not part of the supply is if it was not being used or made available for habitation if he wanted to withhold it for whatever reason.

In other words, if a house is available for rent or sale or being used either via rent or purchase for accommodation then it is part of the housing supply and claiming that rented properties are not part of the supply when claiming that there is a land shortage is disingenuous at best. Currently - again - sales prices are dropping and supply is rising which implies an excess of supply over demand so arguing that there is limited supply is currently not correct. In other words Dublin does not have a housing shortage per se - there is an adequate supply of accommodation for the people who want to live here. What it has is a sales market which is completely askew from economic reality. Housing supply is not sales supply.

Again - if you want to argue that Dublin has not got enough houses for people to live in, fire away. What it currently has not got is enough houses for sale at prices that people are willing to spend. Those who are not buying are by and large housed via rental. The land scarcity argument is only viable if you are going to argue on the basis of overall housing supply. As rents are falling, housing supply is basically okay. So for that reason I ask - why should I buy something that I can rent for significantly less in the short term?

You see, the supply issue right now is not in the number of houses - it's in the number of actual willing buyers. Telling me that there's a limited supply of houses when I can see that sales supply has more or less doubled in 12 months just doesn't wash. You are claiming that there is a shortage of housing supply. I disagree and currently, the figures are backing me up. Supply is rising all over the shop and some of the biggest price falls have been on trophy houses in areas taht were supposed to be immune to a property crash.

If there is oversupply in Dublin of semid houses. (which is what you were talking about) Why do people live in apartments and why do so many commute from other counties. To say rental properties are part of the supply of housing then all renters must be included in the demand.

gurramok

been67, you do come out with some gems like 'the other point is that the average nurse or police man can afford to live in Dublin City, as thousands do.'

Funny thing, alot of them rent.

If they have bought in the last 5 yrs, maybe the policeman where the average wage is about 50k who can buy wth a partner but the nurses on 30-40k?
That is misleading info unless you are saying they are all buying apts as couples, that is the only conclusion.

On the supply thing, there are plenty of all types of properties for sale to cater for demand in dublin, the problem is that the prices are too high and hence they ain't shifting.
Calina hit nail on head, we have the unique situation with both prices and rents dropping, that means supply exceed demand in both areas in Dublin(Daftwatch confirms this)

Of course, if the bottom is hit in both sales and rents, would that supply be soaked up?

If it don't, well you can guess what happens then and it ain't pretty!

been67 wrote:

If there is oversupply in Dublin of semid houses. (which is what you were talking about) Why do people live in apartments and why do so many commute from other counties. To say rental properties are part of the supply of housing then all renters must be included in the demand.

Prices.

It relates to the ladder/pyramid, FTB's cannot afford to buy at the bottom(any type of apt/hse) and the semi-d's on th next rung can't sell not because of supply but because of the prices on the ladder

Gegerty

Calina wrote: »

n other words, if a house is available for rent or sale or being used either via rent or purchase for accommodation then it is part of the housing supply

In that case make your landlord an offer.

beeno67

gurramok wrote: »

been67, you do come out with some gems like 'the other point is that the average nurse or police man can afford to live in Dublin City, as thousands do.'

Funny thing, alot of them rent.

If they have bought in the last 5 yrs, maybe the policeman where the average wage is about 50k who can buy wth a partner but the nurses on 30-40k?

Gurramok, as you know I have linked this before that the average nurse earns 56k per year. Do I really need to link it again?

beeno67

Try this link
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/public_sector_earnings.htm

This shows the average earnings of Public Sector employees is over €45800 per year. When you consider this includes some very low paid you can easily see that a huge proportion of public sector earn over 50K

gurramok

beeno67 wrote: »

Gurramok, as you know I have linked this before that the average nurse earns 56k per year. Do I really need to link it again?

Here we go again, you are quoting staff nurses and higher grade ones who are fewer than ordinary nurses, do you not get the distinction?

I'll requote the average salary for an staff nurse at 32k and thats at 4th grading point, now thats staff nurses who are far fewer in number than lower grade ordinary nurses

http://www.bankofscotland.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=119&nID=177&aID=254

Unless you think lower grade nurses are on more than staff nurses?

been067 wrote:

Try this link
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/public_sector_earnings.htm

This shows the average earnings of Public Sector employees is over €45800 per year. When you consider this includes some very low paid you can easily see that a huge proportion of public sector earn over 50K

We do know the average public sector wage, thats not in dispute, we are talking about nurses.

Did you bother to look at the CSO link, no where does it say what nurses earn in the list.

We have 'others in the public sector' which suspiciously look to take into account Health(anyone confirm this or not) and guess what its €418/week, yes thats under 30k if i'm not mistaken.

EDIT: do we have actual CSO Health sector stats to put this one to bed?

beeno67

gurramok wrote: »

Here we go again, you are quoting staff nurses and higher grade ones who are fewer than ordinary nurses, do you not get the distinction?

I'll requote the average salary for an staff nurse at 32k and thats at 4th grading point, now thats staff nurses who are far fewer in number than lower grade ordinary nurses

http://www.bankofscotland.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=119&nID=177&aID=254

Unless you think lower grade nurses are on more than staff nurses?

Oh for Gods sake I will link it again.
http://www.hse.ie/eng/newsmedia/2007_Archive/March_2007_/Current_Nurses_Dispute.html

About half way down page in bold writting it says
The total nursing pay bill in 2005 was €2.05 billion, representing an average annual salary of in excess of €56,000 per WTE (whole time equivalent) nurse. This figure will have further increased by end 2006.
Obviously the figure now for average nurse is probably 60K
The difference in your figures is accounted for by extra payments nurses get. EG for working Sunday (as part of normal working week ie not overtime) nurses get double time. The average nurse works 1/7 of her/his time on Sunday.

Gegerty

beeno67 wrote: »

Oh for Gods sake I will link it again.
http://www.hse.ie/eng/newsmedia/2007_Archive/March_2007_/Current_Nurses_Dispute.html

About half way down page in bold writting it says
The total nursing pay bill in 2005 was €2.05 billion, representing an average annual salary of in excess of €56,000 per WTE (whole time equivalent) nurse. This figure will have further increased by end 2006.
Obviously the figure now for average nurse is probably 60K
The difference in your figures is accounted for by extra payments nurses get. EG for working Sunday (as part of normal working week ie not overtime) nurses get double time. The average nurse works 1/7 of her/his time on Sunday.

Nurse Salaries

Job agencies are the best to go by. They know how much people are really earning simply because its one of the 1st questions they ask you when you submit your CV.

gurramok

Yes, i had seen what the HSE had printed with their 56k figure. HSE take a nursing pay bill, it dont say that its strictly divided by the number of nurses, it looks very dubious as they are also in dispute with the nurses.
Unless there are a minority of nurses soaking up a huge overtime bill like the prison officers do to distort the figure?

Thing is, it dont add up at all. Why is it conflicting with the banks link?

Can you supply CSO data of what the health sector actually earns?

If there are only 35,000 nurses and maybe 14,000 gardai, why are we even talking about them in the first place as they form a small minority of potential buyers who are well paid anyway and are in the 21% of the workforce bracket who earn above 35.4k pa.(if your nurse link is true)

beeno67

Gegerty wrote: »

Nurse Salaries

Job agencies are the best to go by. They know how much people are really earning simply because its one of the 1st questions they ask you when you submit your CV.

Except in this case when the figures come from IMPACT Trade Union who in turn got them from INO. The figures exclude all the extra payments.I should add Gurramoks figures also come from INO

gurramok

beeno67 wrote: »

Except in this case when the figures come from IMPACT Trade Union who in turn got them from INO. The figures exclude all the extra payments.I should add Gurramoks figures also come from INO

So basically, we have figures from the Managers reps and figures from the Employees reps and they have such a big range, we simply do not know which is a real representation.

EDIT: from looking up CSO myself, i simply canot find earnings on health. They give numbers employed and other public sector earnings but not health, talk about secrecy(it smacks of hidden sale house price data saga!)

If someone can find CSO health earnings data on nurses, doctors..the lot, we all be grateful in this thread

beeno67

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, i had seen what the HSE had printed with their 56k figure. HSE take a nursing pay bill, it dont say that its strictly divided by the number of nurses, it looks very dubious as they are also in dispute with the nurses.
Unless there are a minority of nurses soaking up a huge overtime bill like the prison officers do to distort the figure?

Thing is, it dont add up at all. Why is it conflicting with the banks link?

Can you supply CSO data of what the health sector actually earns?

If there are only 35,000 nurses and maybe 14,000 gardai, why are we even talking about them in the first place as they form a small minority of potential buyers who are well paid anyway and are in the 21% of the workforce bracket who earn above 35.4k pa.(if your nurse link is true)

Gurramok you brought this topic back up. That is why we are talking about it. Your figures come from INO which makes them unreliable. Nurses in general work very little overtime. Some hospitals have a total ban on overtime.
You are now going back to your ridiculous link that 78% of people earn less than 37000 which was patently ridiculous. As I said before this is the number paying tax at the standard rate. It includes pensioners, as a lot of people on pensions pay tax, mostly at standard rate. My point yesterday that many millionairs pay no tax, was, that if someone earning 1 million a year can pay no tax then it is pretty easy for someone earning 60K or what ever figure you pick to reduce their tax liability to standard rate.

beeno67

gurramok wrote: »

So basically, we have figures from the Managers reps and figures from the Employees reps and they have such a big range, we simply do not know which is a real representation.

Well of course we do. INO is obviously quoting basic pay. Everyone knows there will be extras. The only dispute is how much extra. Bank of Scotland quoted a nurse about 25 years old, never promoted, works no Saturdays or Sundays, and has done no courses.

BigglesMcGee

Gegerty wrote: »

The difference with Ireland is that the backbone of our economy is still strong. IT built the celtic tiger, its weathered its own crash and considering the size of our country its still going strong and taking competition like India on the chin. People should get back to basics, stop looking for the next big thing and get back to working hard. Speaking of which....my tea break is over

And Dublin by a long way, is the Backbone of IIreland.

Radley

Gegerty wrote: »

The difference with Ireland is that the backbone of our economy is still strong. IT built the celtic tiger, its weathered its own crash and considering the size of our country its still going strong and taking competition like India on the chin. People should get back to basics, stop looking for the next big thing and get back to working hard. Speaking of which....my tea break is over

Keep chewing the sugar cane there Boxer.

gurramok

beeno67 wrote: »

Gurramok you brought this topic back up. That is why we are talking about it. Your figures come from INO which makes them unreliable. Nurses in general work very little overtime. Some hospitals have a total ban on overtime.

Nope, i responded when you had said the average nurse could afford a gaff no problem so we brought up figures which in the end conflict each other.

beeno67 wrote: »

You are now going back to your ridiculous link that 78% of people earn less than 37000 which was patently ridiculous. As I said before this is the number paying tax at the standard rate. It includes pensioners, as a lot of people on pensions pay tax, mostly at standard rate. My point yesterday that many millionairs pay no tax, was, that if someone earning 1 million a year can pay no tax then it is pretty easy for someone earning 60K or what ever figure you pick to reduce their tax liability to standard rate.

Okay, lets have a deeper look. I've done some research on the pensioners aspect and how many there are in receipt of the state pension(both forms)

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2008/downloads/DistributionOfIncome.pdf
On a Post-Budget Basis
878,140 954,930 504,530 2,337,600 (total)
37.57% 40.85% 21.58%

Now from here http://www.cso.ie/statistics/persons_by_sex_ecstatus.htm

It says 2,132m at work and unemployed. It says 302,000 are retired.

The 2.337m dont equate to the 2.132 figure so there is a bunch of people not listed in the budget link.

From these links, there are a total of 326,000 recipients of state pension (237,000 contributory and 89,000 non-contributory) http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0305/1204675293051.html
http://lists.welfare.ie/pipermail/press/2006-September/000040.html

Add 326,000 to 2,132,000 = 2,458,000 and there is an excess of 121,000 over the optimist 2,337,000 figure.

Which leads to believe that pensioners are not included in the workforce total from the budget figure so the 78% of those earning under 35.4k stands.

adam.number3

One is calculating based on what the nurses think they are been paid, the other is calculating on what the nurses are costing. Could employers pension contributions, employers prsi, etc account for the discrepency?

Gegerty

Radley wrote: »

Keep chewing the sugar cane there Boxer.

Yep and you all keep chewing on the grass. BAAAAAA

BigglesMcGee

Just on the higher rate of tax thing. Most self employed people pay tax at the lower rate no matter what they earn. there are many ways of vastly reducing your tax bill if you are self employed.

beeno67

gurramok wrote: »

Nope, i responded when you had said the average nurse could afford a gaff no problem so we brought up figures which in the end conflict each other.



Okay, lets have a deeper look. I've done some research on the pensioners aspect and how many there are in receipt of the state pension(both forms)

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2008/downloads/DistributionOfIncome.pdf
On a Post-Budget Basis
878,140 954,930 504,530 2,337,600 (total)
37.57% 40.85% 21.58%

Now from here http://www.cso.ie/statistics/persons_by_sex_ecstatus.htm

It says 2,132m at work and unemployed. It says 302,000 are retired.

The 2.337m dont equate to the 2.132 figure so there is a bunch of people not listed in the budget link.

From these links, there are a total of 326,000 recipients of state pension (237,000 contributory and 89,000 non-contributory) http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0305/1204675293051.html
http://lists.welfare.ie/pipermail/press/2006-September/000040.html

Add 326,000 to 2,132,000 = 2,458,000 and there is an excess of 121,000 over the optimist 2,337,000 figure.

Which leads to believe that pensioners are not included in the workforce total from the budget figure so the 78% of those earning under 35.4k stands.

You are tying yourself up in knots here. The maths is much simpler. According to your figures 2,337,600 people paying tax but only 2,013,000 working so the other 300,000 are people paying tax but not working. As I said this is probably mainly pensioners (obviously on private pensions not State pensions). But if you really believe 78% of people earn under 35,400 then good luck to you.

BigglesMcGee

For a bit of fun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I know you cant really say that rent or value is going to go up or down at a constant rate over the whole term but its a bit of craic anyway.

gurramok

beeno67 wrote: »

You are tying yourself up in knots here. The maths is much simpler. According to your figures 2,337,600 people paying tax but only 2,013,000 working so the other 300,000 are people paying tax but not working. As I said this is probably mainly pensioners (obviously on private pensions not State pensions). But if you really believe 78% of people earn under 35,400 then good luck to you.

Nope, you've tripped over yourself

It's 120,000 unemployed that you've missed and i've accounted for in the
figure.(2,013,000 + 120,000 = 2,133,000).

Okay, first we had millionaires as a possible explanation and now we have hundreds of thousands of pensioners who just so happen to be available for work to be totalled into the total workforce figure, this gets funnier, you a comedian?

To recap, we needed to find out who were the 204,000 people who are accounted from the budget minus the CSO figure (2,337,000-2,133,000).

I've proved that there are 326,000 recipients of State pension so that rules them out, getit?

So instead of state pensioners, its now private pensioners to make up the figure?

Go get the private pension recipient figure to prove my figures wrong(it won't make any difference, figure it out yourself why), i've done my proof on the figures for the state recipients, the ball is in your court.

been067 wrote:

But if you really believe 78% of people earn under 35,400 then good luck to you.

Yes its real and not plucked out of the air unlike some. It's the official figure released by the authorities here, if you have beef with it, get onto them.

Somehow institutions here believe the stats from the authorities of the state more than yours

BigglesMcGee

Done forget our unfair tax individualization either.

Its possible and common for one half of a married couple to earn a lot more before they are paying tax at the higher rate.

johnnyskeleton

adam.number2 wrote: »

The disadvantage for existing home owners who want to trade up or down, is uncertainty. They don't know for sure if they can sell their own home, or indeed exactly how much it is worth. The worst situation for some of them would be to buy their new home and then for the sale of their old home to fall through. There is an understandable fear of being landed with two depreciating assets. (it may not be a realistic fear, but it's an understandable fear at any rate). So while there are some taking out new mortgages, I'm sure, a large proportion of this group are also holding back until market certainty is restored, thus contributing to the ever growing buyer bubble.

Nice to see that after 80 replies, you have finally stated what exactly you mean by a buyer bubble. Now if you would care to tell us whether you think there is one and what will happen if/when it bursts?

Because if you go down the route of "well there are loads of people waiting to buy" it could also be argued that there are also loads of people waiting to sell in addition to those already putting their houses on the market (i.e. people who are waiting for sales to pick up to put their house on the market).

Pa ElGrande

DJDC wrote: »

I’m sorry but the probability of the ECB being forced to raise rates to 7% is absolutely tiny, I'd go as far as saying it’s implausible in the medium term (till 2012). The chances of it even reaching 5% are low. The peripheral countries such as Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy are starting to really struggle and any hike in rates would be dangerous.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a3JWntntntUY&refer=europe
Reports released today showed French consumer sentiment to be below what analysts expected and the ECB March Current A/C surplus was replaced by a significant deficit in April. The markets see the demand for oil and other consumer goods dropping off due to this tightening and hence why today oil dropped 4%, with declines in many equities that have both elastic and inelastic products. The EUR lost 50+ basis points against other major currencies, which wouldn’t happen if traders felt the ECB were going to hike rates.

If the ECB continues their current low interest policy then the current housing crash will drag out over a decade, Japan's bust has been 17 years so far. We need this crash over quickly (within 3 years) and the only way to do it is to liquidate the bad investments and move on. Why are people going to continue to put money in bank savings at a yield of 5% when their cost of living is rising at 9% (compare your shopping and fuel bills between this year and last). As an example I'm hoarding Diesel today because it will work out cheaper for me over the next few months, and I'm not the only one doing this. There is a consequence to the ECB's bailouts and low interest policy, it is monetary inflation that manifests itself as price inflation and the longer they delay rising interests rates, the higher they will eventually have to raise interest rates or else face a scenario like the stagflation experienced in the 70's or worst case like Zimbabwe.

The ECB stopped raising interest rates in June 2007, yet mortgage interest rates changed by the banks and savings rates have continued to increase, there is no liquidity problem, there is however a solvency problem in the banking sector with the largest banks in the world being heavily affected, banks know this and are lending money at a higher rate to compensate the for the increased risk and are also building their capital reserves to meet expected bad debts.

The way I see it at present savers have only a few choices if they want to preserve the purchasing power of their money: they can gamble with their savings by taking on ALL the risks within the present, collapsing banking system. Or they can hoard commodities or bet on the price of commodities shooting up due to hoarding either way it does not have a good outcome.

johnnyskeleton

beeno67 wrote: »

Try and be a little less snotty. You do not understand supply and demand, fair enough but do not insult me because of this. I never said there was a shortage of properties for people to live in. The problem is they are still not affordable for you. Your landlords house is not for sale so is not part of the supply. You want a property to buy so you are part of the demand part of the equation

beeno67, I think it's fairer to say that you might not understand supply and demand.

Calina's point is about housing supply and you might want to look at it like this: renting and buying are subcategories of the overall housing market. They are substitute goods, which means (among other things) that an increase in the price of one will mean a shift of demand from that market into the other i.e. if someone can't buy they will rent.

It might also be helpful to think not in terms of supply and demand simpliciter (i.e. no of houses v. no of buyers), but aggregate supply and demand (i.e. no of houses for sale at X v no of buyers perpared to pay Y). While there has been a change in the simple demand over the last few years (i.e. more houses coming into the market for sale, and less buyers coming into the market) the change in aggregate has been much greater, as now people can't afford to sell for much less, and people similarly can't afford to buy at higher prices.

I suspect that it is a failure to understand the market, more than a lack of consumer confidence, that is preventing houses from being sold at the moment.

johnnyskeleton

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Just on the higher rate of tax thing. Most self employed people pay tax at the lower rate no matter what they earn. there are many ways of vastly reducing your tax bill if you are self employed.

Or because the majority of self employed people are struggling? Although there are many ways of reducing your tax bill, almost all of them involve spending money. So you can dramatically reduce the amount of money you pay to the government, but instead you have to live in Leitrim etc.

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

For a bit of fun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I know you cant really say that rent or value is going to go up or down at a constant rate over the whole term but its a bit of craic anyway.

That's brilliant, especially as it can be used to prove either side of the debate. Try playing with the toggles on the left hand side. If there are double digit house price increases, then it is always better to buy after year 1, no matter what the rental decreases are. On the other hand, if both house prices and rents are going down (or are even stagnant), it is never better to buy than rent. If rents stay the same, it is never better to buy unless house prices increase by at least 3% (Figures based on rent €1100, purchase price €250,000 and interest rate 5.3%).

This is what has fuelled the boom: double digit increases meant that people couldn't loose, and if it was kept up then they really couldn't. Problem is that now the increases have turned into decreases so at the moment they can't win.

gurramok

Finally found concrete( true) info on the pay scales from the Dept of Health which details everyone's pay scale in the health service.

Have a look here, it concurs with the INO figures revealed earlier.
http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/salary_scales_mar2008.pdf

EDIT: found well paid teachers as well for future reference http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/teacher_scales.htm

And more professions from the benchmarking report http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewtxt.asp?DocID=5130&CatID=31

/offtopic
It's a quite an eye-opener. There are some professions there that are seriously overpaid for their duties, no wonder the budget for the Dept of Health itself has mushroomed in recent years.
Wonder where Cowen will get the dosh to pay the public sector now that public finances are in the sh1t by a forecasted €8bn!