Protest: Demonstration to protest against Government bail outs of property developers

mrgaa1

construction is worthless to the economy ??????? The blinkers are really on here. How can anyone write "construction is worthless to the economy" without quantifying such a reckless statement is not worth considering. Who builds the roads, the schools, hospitals, community centres, church's, sewerage treatment centres, our communication services, the list is endless. I had to re-check the date on my computer to ensure it wasn't 1st April.:D

SimpleSam06

mrgaa1 wrote: »

construction is worthless to the economy ??????? The blinkers are really on here. How can anyone write "construction is worthless to the economy" without quantifying such a reckless statement is not worth considering. Who builds the roads, the schools, hospitals, community centres, church's, sewerage treatment centres, our communication services, the list is endless. I had to re-check the date on my computer to ensure it wasn't 1st April.:D

I feel the same whenever I read your posts. You're talking about infrastructure buildout, which while technically construction is not what was under discussion here. We're talking about urban and residential / commercial construction. You know, that boom thing, which had a marked lack of infrastructure buildout, unfortunately.

You do remember the boom, don't you?

SkepticOne

I think the reason people are protesting is that they see through the purported reasons for the scheme. It was said that the scheme was put in place to help first time buyers. These buyers, it was claimed, wanted homes even at the current inflated prices but were unable to secure mortgages due to the credit crunch. Therefore the government stepped in to provide loans.

But if it was to help FTBs, why limit them to new builds? The reason put forward by the government is that 70% of FTBs buy new builds anyway. Most people will see through this. Even if the figure is correct, it makes no sense to penalise the minority who may prefer second-hand homes. Obviously, the true reason is the help property developers at the expense of productive sectors of the economy.

I have nothing against builders and developers but if they make massive business mistakes they should pay for them. They were in it for massive profits, no problem with that. The clever ones got out while the going was good and fair play to them. But why should the economy suffer further by helping out the less clever ones who did not see the crash coming and have vast amounts of unsold inventory around the country.

The FTB as well as the economy overall are far better off without bailouts for parasitical elements.

Climate Expert

Sam is right, construction is worthless to an economy.

Having an economy based on endless builiding of houses and shopping centres is a circular economy with no net output. It all requires constant foreign loans to keep the whole thing going. This money is now gone and the house of cards is falling down.

SimpleSam06

Ah yes, here it is, one viable alternative for economic growth coming right up, faceman...

What I would do is:
Step 1:
Go on a rampage through the public sector, cutting off dead weight left and right without fear or favour. The problem with beaurocracies is that eventually the people that rise to the top end up caring more about the organisation than about the organisation's goals, so start at the top and work your way down. Healthcare reform, top of the agenda.

The unions would protest, weep, and threaten to bring the country to its knees (and they could do it too), so they need to be broken good and hard. I'm thinking along the lines of eminent domain for threatening the country, do your jobs or go to prison. Harsh yes, but needed, the purpose of the public sector is to support and maintain the nation, not the other way round.

That would more or less help the economy to break even so, then we move along to

Step 2:

Finance and build eight or ten world class educational institutions, with a difference, which is that they would be quite specialised. I'm think along the lines of

• Marine engineering and technology- We are an island ffs
• Chip fabrication- Chip fabs are high expense but low ongoing cost, and there is no reason we couldn't do it as well as people in Taiwan
• Robotics and Automation- If you want to compete with slave labour conditions in the third world, you need free labour, to whit automation
• Pharmaceuticals- Again another soft market, once you have the result you can reproduce it for half nothing
• Bioengineering- Biofuel algae, marine life, hydroponics, the list goes on and on
• Materials science- SOme very interesting things going on in this field at the moment
• Energy physics- Batteries and supercapacitors, these will be vital components no matter what happens in the future
• Cultural and artistic- We have a rich culturaltradition here, which needs to be developed centrally, and turned into tourist bobs as well as reflected in a variety of ways throughout society
• Software and media- More high initial cost, low ongoing cost industries, also vital for marketing for any other industries founded

Plus a few others.

The mandate of these institutions would be not just to educate but to research. Also they would provide a massive cash boost to any town or city they are placed in, ongoing.

Step 3:
While your institutions are being built and start pumping out graduates, the overall aim of government would be to improve infrastructure, roads, rail, electricity, telecomms, basics like water, and generally prepare for industrial growth.

You can then create and fund domestic industries for each group, much more private than semi state, and each of those would then lead directly on to subsidiary industries, and so on.

I am aware that a plan like this would put us badly in the hole to the tune of tens of billions, but we're going there anyway, so we may as well get something out of it. Not to mention that if even one or two of these groups successfully produce industries, we'll have that paid back smartly.

If you're going to respond to that, please read the thread first, I don't like repeating myself.

mrgaa1

for once we're almost in agreement
STEP 1 needs to be done ASAP
STEP 2 is a good idea - the problem will be high wages and the cost of doing business so further tax breaks may be required
STEP 3 construction gets what it needs - projects that are needed to bring ourselves forward.

The main problem with all of this is that it would need a dictator to push it through - our current government are more interested in point scoring at the moment and giving snide remarks to each other. In times of economic crisis the government should be removed from making such judgements and a cross-party group put together with leaders of the business world to push through such initiatives.

faceman

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ah yes, here it is, one viable alternative for economic growth coming right up, faceman...

OK im up to speed now and i agree with assessment that its anti competitive and shouldnt be allowed in its current state.

I agree with most of your proposals actually but I dont think Step 1 will ever be achieved and could ever.

Re step 2, i would cherry pick 2 or 3 of those industries, in the science and finance fields. Steer clear of anything linked to manufacturing though.

wrote:

If you're going to respond to that, please read the thread first, I don't like repeating myself.

Ah go on, go on, go on, go on, go on!

SkepticOne

mrgaa1 wrote: »

The main problem with all of this is that it would need a dictator to push it through - our current government are more interested in point scoring at the moment and giving snide remarks to each other. In times of economic crisis the government should be removed from making such judgements and a cross-party group put together with leaders of the business world to push through such initiatives.

Simply scrapping the builder bailout would be of benefit in itself. You don't need a dictator to do that.

SimpleSam06

mrgaa1 wrote: »

The main problem with all of this is that it would need a dictator to push it through

Indeed! Or good strong leadership that made its intentions clear before getting elected, itself no mean feat what with the enormous size of the public sector.

mrgaa1 wrote: »

In times of economic crisis the government should be removed from making such judgements and a cross-party group put together with leaders of the business world to push through such initiatives.

Thats not a bad idea. I'm not sure if a committee would have the needed impetus however.

faceman wrote: »

I agree with most of your proposals actually but I dont think Step 1 will ever be achieved and could ever.

Its quite achievable, as I said, we can't rest permanently in thrall to the public sector. If drastic measures need be taken, then that's what should happen, and the sooner the better.

faceman wrote: »

Re step 2, i would cherry pick 2 or 3 of those industries, in the science and finance fields. Steer clear of anything linked to manufacturing though.

Why would you steer clear of manufacturing? If you want to know where a "knowledge economy" leads to, take a look at Iceland. We need manufacturing, we need strong export based industries. And don't say a first world country can't compete with the third world, Germany and (largely resource free) Japan are two of the world's largest exporters. There really is no long term alternative.

faceman wrote: »

Ah go on, go on, go on, go on, go on!

Fine, but if I start copy-pasting I'm holding you responsible!

gurramok

mrgaa1 wrote: »

As a nation we are unreal - our country is basically on its knees and almost horizontal and any initiatives to create work, generate revenue and basically getting things moving somewhere and we complain. What do we want - a salary from the government and not work for it?

You've just put two fingers to 2nd hand sellers, they are excluded.

In case you didn't know, €500m+ has been set aside for buyers who earn over €40k to buy a new build only house. That €500m could have been used for medical cards, no education cutbacks, less income levy, to bring back cervical cancer screening etc but no, its been used for big developers only who are registered to Homebond.

mrgaa1 wrote: »

Some of the posts here are almost in glee that developers (and mind you there were some real greedy ones) and building contractors are going bust all over the place meaning that hard working trades and craftsmen are out of work. Is this something to be happy about? The building industry - whether some people here like it or not - is a major cornerstone of our countrys livelihood.

Its not in glee. Its not a buyers fault that prices are too high hence less houses been built.
We have prices too high, less physical numbers of buyers around and even chronically less who can afford to buy of that number.
Lower the prices alot and buyers, whats left of them will come back hence sustaining a good few jobs in construction like other 1st world economies.

mrgaa1 wrote: »

House prices are now affordable - a friend of mine went and got a mortgage recently for a house and the valuation from the bank came back higher than what the price he was paying for.

I asked you before and you never replied, show us examples of where houses are affordable.

mrgaa1 wrote: »

If we don't watch ourselves our country will go down the sink as industry after industry move to other countries. Will this be the builders fault - our infrastructure is still very poor, our broadband is a joke and like it or not (unless some people want to pick up a pick and shovel) the construction industry will have to complete this work. But if the monies are not released nothing will happen.

Also - another reason for costly builds is our pay structure. Anyone here willing to take a 30% pay cut and do the same or take on more work. I wouldn't think so.

Stop giving out about initiatives and lets move forward. OUR country is facing its greatest crisis - no point blaming the past all we can do is learn from it - we have to deal with the now and whats going to happen. Ireland needs to be ready for when we come out of recession otherwise what industries will be left for us to avail of job opportunitys.

2 words, Govt mismanagement of the economy.

To inform you if you bother to listen, 25% of the economy was based on construction related activity in 2006(source DKM). Its around 10% in other 1st world countries hence oversupply of too many employed in construction etc.
A govt policy should redeploy the excess to export industries but to get that, you need to protest outside FF headquarters to make them listen as they have not done that yet.

To sum up, 15% of the economy is disappearing in a normal housing demand arena and that's the crux that cannot be rolled back for generations.

faceman wrote:

All in all there are greater issues out there at the moment such as a health service, but unless people are touched by those issues, they tend to turn a blind eye to them.

That €500m+ for the developers could of been diverted to needy areas of the economy, but oh no, they found the dosh for developers to try to help them sell houses at high prices using buyers as pawns who are refused mortgages by the banks.

ZYX wrote:

Don't worry faceman. You are bang on the money.

How??

dan_d

Construction is not worthless to the economy.The problem arises when construction becomes the largest percentage of your entire economy. You cannot build and maintain your entire economy based on the construction sector. It is not sustainable.
Unfortunately our politicians were too stupid to see that.I'm wondering are they still that stupid...they seem to think that if we reboot the construction industry everything will come right again.Eh no.Construction needs to die a natural death so to speak...as in it needs to find it's balance and continue with that.It's going to be seriously reduced, but it should still be there. It doesn't solve the ensuing unemployment issues or the fact that the current gov is hand in glove with every developer in the place, but we need to get out of the mindset that the housing market and the construction industry are what our economy should measure it's success/health by.

Colonel Sanders

I really hate the word 'affordability'. I could afford to pay €100 for a pint of guiness but of course never would. Likewise I could afford to buy a decent house today but will not do so as residential property is still massively over valued.

What the Home Choice scheme really stands for is defined in this paragraph:

To qualify for a Home Choice Loan applicants must:

be a first time buyer (some exceptions may apply);
earn more than €40,000
be in permanent employment for two years; If self-employed be able to submit two years certified accounts;
have proof of being unsuccessful in securing a sufficient mortgage from a bank or building society to buy a home.

This is surely sub prime lending?

I asked a local FF rep who banged on my door one day about this loans. Assured me that they were not sub prime. When I quizzed him on his logic of prime v sub prime he said homechoice was not sub prime 'because it isn't'.

He also assured me that applicants would be rigourously screened to ensure they don't over borrow. I said that banks would be willing to lend to these type of people unless they are trying to buy an over valued, sh!t box, guaranteed negative equity trap and the governemnt either
a) doesn't know this and is completetly incompetent
b) is fully aware of this and is deliberately trying to trap FTBs into buying unsold developer stock

I also notice that Frank Fahey has been trying to pimp these loans around Galway and possibly beyond (see here). This is a man with no ministerial responsibility for housing and owns approx 40 properties. Also the day the Homechoice scheme was sneaked in under the radar Dermot Ahern (another minister with no responsibility for housing) called the bottom of the market (see here)

Do I need to go on or is it clear that this scheme is rotten to the core?

faceman

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Why would you steer clear of manufacturing? If you want to know where a "knowledge economy" leads to, take a look at Iceland. We need manufacturing, we need strong export based industries. And don't say a first world country can't compete with the third world, Germany and (largely resource free) Japan are two of the world's largest exporters. There really is no long term alternative.

We dont ever hear of manufacturing jobs being outsourced to Germany or Japan tho.

SimpleSam06

faceman wrote: »

We dont ever hear of manufacturing jobs being outsourced to Germany or Japan tho.

Exactly. Thats why we need domestic export based industries, not FDI funded and owned. Our OWN industries. Time for the hat in hand attitude to take a back seat. Germany and Japan are perfect examples of economies that went through almost exactly the process I described above, and look where they are today. And before any remarks about Germany just going into recession, thats because the entire world around them is broke and not buying. They didn't get to be the most powerful economy in the EU by begging for FDI and praying the next US president doesn't introduce an outsourcing tax and reduce us all to poverty. And while I'm on the subject, the US used exactly the process I described above to pull itself out of the great depression.

ZYX

Are people taking this nonsense by SimpleSam seriously. Just to stick with cutting Civil Service. If we sack 100,000 workers and assume we have to pay no redundancy. That would save the economy about 2 billion a year. Hardly
"That would more or less help the economy to break even so,"

The rest isn't even worth talking about.

gurramok

faceman wrote: »

We dont ever hear of manufacturing jobs being outsourced to Germany or Japan tho.

Because they have huge homegrown industries that compete. Also, they got investment from their repesctive govts in the old days to grow. We have hardly no home grown manufacturers that have loyalty and can compete.

What have we got in maufacturing that is home-grown...just Dimplex?

SimpleSam06

ZYX wrote: »

Are people taking this nonsense by SimpleSam seriously. Just to stick with cutting Civil Service. If we sack 100,000 workers and assume we have to pay no redundancy. That would save the economy about 2 billion a year. Hardly
"That would more or less help the economy to break even so,"

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is someone afraid for his government paycheque. And you should be too, with your hundred thousand workers, around half the public sector, earning 20k per annum each.

What I'd do is set up a "General Auditors" office, bus in a few systems analyst lads from Walmart and Dell, maybe USPS, all world class masters in systems and logistics, back that up with a raft of accountants, since we're chasing the money trail, and a group of software developers, and audit the entire system from top to bottom.

Once we have a clear picture (which doesn't exist at the moment), we can then identify areas of waste and areas of need, and yes there are areas that need more people in them. Remove the dead weight, freeze wages until they are comparable with other countries in our position, use the incredible power of modern technology to help lighten the workload, and away we go.

My sympathies to those public sector workers who might lose their jobs in this process, but tbh if they are half as qualified as they keep telling us they should have no difficulty finding work elsewhere. Even if they don't they'll cost us less on the dole than sucking down the coffees while they work out new and exciting ways to push pencils across their desks.

ZYX wrote: »

The rest isn't even worth talking about.

So far, I've got a distinctly pro-builders advocate here to agree with the policies (never thought I'd see the day!), I've got a distinctly pro-investors advocate to provisionally agree with the policies, I've got everyone else raising a glass to it, and its the first time I've ever seen such uniformity of agreement on this forum.

So its largely irrelevant what you think of it at this point, unless you have something more to say than "not worth talking about".

ZYX

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is someone afraid for his government paycheque. And you should be too, with your hundred thousand workers, around half the public sector, earning 20k per annum each.

I recive no money from government. You are making too many assumptions based on my previous posts. I used to receive government money. I no longer do.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What I'd do is set up a "General Auditors" office, bus in a few systems analyst lads from Walmart and Dell, maybe USPS, all world class masters in systems and logistics, back that up with a raft of accountants, since we're chasing the money trail, and a group of software developers, and audit the entire system from top to bottom.

Once we have a clear picture (which doesn't exist at the moment), we can then identify areas of waste and areas of need, and yes there are areas that need more people in them. Remove the dead weight, freeze wages until they are comparable with other countries in our position, use the incredible power of modern technology to help lighten the workload, and away we go.

So they come in and say lets sack 200,000 workers. Still only saves you 4 billion. This does not take into account the lost VAT receipts as these unemployed spend less or even the overall effect on the economy of some many redundancies.

SimpleSam06

ZYX wrote: »

So they come in and say lets sack 200,000 workers. Still only saves you 4 billion. This does not take into account the lost VAT receipts as these unemployed spend less or even the overall effect on the economy of some many redundancies.

So you're trying to tell me that four-fifths of the public sector are receiving payments of approximately €20,000 per year each? Despite the fact that the public sector premium is double that for comparable countries? As for your point on the VAT, thats only taking in a tiny percentage of what was originally paid to them in the first place, all from the same source, the tax coffers. Thats a serious net loss as it stands.

Calina

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What I'd do is set up a "General Auditors" office, bus in a few systems analyst lads from Walmart and Dell, maybe USPS, all world class masters in systems and logistics, back that up with a raft of accountants, since we're chasing the money trail, and a group of software developers, and audit the entire system from top to bottom.

Hmmm.

See this is where you lose me. When I read this, all I am seeing PPARS writ large.

We do have a public accounts committee which could be better utilised if that worries you.

The point is this: we need to streamline our public service yes. But we still need to export stuff and you are not addressing that at all. And making 100K people overnight will result in 100K more on the dole because private sector unemployment is rising. No matter how highly qualified people are, if there are no jobs around, they don't get hired. You seem to think that firing half the public service will magically fix stuff. I don't believe that for one minute. The problems are broader than that.

faceman

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Exactly. Thats why we need domestic export based industries, not FDI funded and owned. Our OWN industries. Time for the hat in hand attitude to take a back seat. Germany and Japan are perfect examples of economies that went through almost exactly the process I described above, and look where they are today. And before any remarks about Germany just going into recession, thats because the entire world around them is broke and not buying. They didn't get to be the most powerful economy in the EU by begging for FDI and praying the next US president doesn't introduce an outsourcing tax and reduce us all to poverty. And while I'm on the subject, the US used exactly the process I described above to pull itself out of the great depression.

But what do we manufacture? Guinness is brewed abroad, Waterford Crystal is now in Eastern Europe.

SimpleSam06

Calina wrote: »

We do have a public accounts committee which could be better utilised if that worries you.

Yes, and they have been instrumental in keeping a low cost, highly efficient public sector that is the wonder of the modern world. :rolleyes: If the apples in the barrel are rotten, go back to the orchard.

Calina wrote: »

But we still need to export stuff and you are not addressing that at all.

Wow. Did you even read the original post on the matter? Or did you look over the associated thread as requested? This question was answered, in fact that was the entire point of the policies.

Calina wrote: »

And making 100K people overnight will result in 100K more on the dole because private sector unemployment is rising. No matter how highly qualified people are, if there are no jobs around, they don't get hired.

Well, those that don't emigrate can join in our fine new public works programme which is ongoing. Of course you missed the point that they would cost us less on the dole than clockwatching in a pensionable job. Did you read any of the thread?

Calina wrote: »

You seem to think that firing half the public service will magically fix stuff. I don't believe that for one minute. The problems are broader than that.

I definitely think the educational system is in need of a drastic overhaul if this is the extent of the reading comprehension coming out of it, tbh.

faceman wrote: »

But what do we manufacture? Guinness is brewed abroad, Waterford Crystal is now in Eastern Europe.

See if you had read that thread like I told you to, you wouldn't need to ask that question. However if you want the shortlist, look at the educational institutions I proposed.

ZYX

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So you're trying to tell me that four-fifths of the public sector are receiving payments of approximately €20,000 per year each? Despite the fact that the public sector premium is double that for comparable countries? As for your point on the VAT, thats only taking in a tiny percentage of what was originally paid to them in the first place, all from the same source, the tax coffers. Thats a serious net loss as it stands.

No SimpleSam06 I am assuming these people are earning about €40,000 each. I am also assuming they are paying tax and PRSI. Once unemployed they are entitled to the dole so the net cost is about €20,000. I have not included things like the extra 200,000 medical cards you would need or the extra on education or housing etc. But lest face it there is no way you could sack 200,000 public health workers. Just think how many extra police and prison officers you are going to need to arrest all those union members who cause you trouble.

SkepticOne

This has somehow developed into a discussion about fixing the economy in general. It has nothing to do with the builder bailout and protests.

The question was put by a supporter of the digouts that if you get rid of them what are you going to put in its place?

It is like asking, if we get rid of corruption what are we to put in its place? Dumb question.

Here's the answer to both: Nothing.

Calina

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yes, and they have been instrumental in keeping a low cost, highly efficient public sector that is the wonder of the modern world. :rolleyes: If the apples in the barrel are rotten, go back to the orchard.


Wow. Did you even read the original post on the matter? Or did you look over the associated thread as requested? This question was answered, in fact that was the entire point of the policies.


Well, those that don't emigrate can join in our fine new public works programme which is ongoing. Of course you missed the point that they would cost us less on the dole than clockwatching in a pensionable job. Did you read any of the thread?


I definitely think the educational system is in need of a drastic overhaul if this is the extent of the reading comprehension coming out of it, tbh.


See if you had read that thread like I told you to, you wouldn't need to ask that question. However if you want the shortlist, look at the educational institutions I proposed.

I responded specifically to your proposal to hire a bunch of expensive consultants and pointed out that past experience on this front has been less than terrific and has cost this country a fortune. I might also add electronic voting as an example of what happens when the government gets in consultants to do things.

As you failed to address that key point, I'll assume that you occasionally miss things as well.

As regards the building of an export sector, it's difficult without raw materials. We have very few of them to be honest about it, this is why the IDA went after IT related FDI in a big way back in the 80s and early 90s.

With respect to the original subject of this thread, I am against favouring residential construction companies over possible export driven innovation. This country fails to give credit to people who try and fail with the result that far fewer people try. This is why we didn't create flowers out of the seeds that were FDI to a great extent.

Your hiring of a bunch of consultants won't fix that.

SimpleSam06

ZYX wrote: »

I am also assuming they are paying tax and PRSI. Once unemployed they are entitled to the dole so the net cost is about €20,000.

The dole is €10k a year, and thats still far, far less than they were costing otherwise. Remember these are not vital employees, this is dead wood we're talking about here. And that assumes that none of these highly qualified and motivated prodigies can find any other work, finds employment in the new institutions being founded, participates in the public works programme, or just plain and simple emigrates.

ZYX wrote: »

But lest face it there is no way you could sack 200,000 public health workers. Just think how many extra police and prison officers you are going to need to arrest all those union members who cause you trouble.

There aren't 200,000 health workers in the country. The entire public sector, if I'm not mistaken, comes in at around a quarter of a million people. Probably a decent percentage (no real idea, but I'd guess probably 20% to 25%) of that would be made redundant, and the rest would have to put up with wage reductions and freezes as well as pension entitlements being revoked to a minimum private sector level. I'll remind you that the government promised to reduce public sector employees by 5% back in 2002; instead they increased the numbers by 30,000. Don't think the public sector would be gutted and made ineffectual, just broken down to its proper size and compensation levels.

SimpleSam06

Calina wrote: »

As you failed to address that key point, I'll assume that you occasionally miss things as well.

Sorry, every single point you raised was addressed not once but twice earlier in this thread. That you failed to bother reading it is entirely not my problem.

Calina wrote: »

As regards the building of an export sector, it's difficult without raw materials.

Utter nonsense. Japan has practically no native resources, and there's not a whole lot in Germany either. None of which stopped them becoming two of the largest exporters in the world.

Calina wrote: »

Your hiring of a bunch of consultants won't fix that.

Seriously, do yourself a favour and read the thread before you respond again.

ZYX

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The dole is €10k a year, and thats still far, far less than they were costing otherwise. Remember these are not vital employees, this is dead wood we're talking about here. And that assumes that none of these highly qualified and motivated prodigies can find any other work, finds employment in the new institutions being founded, participates in the public works programme, or just plain and simple emigrates.


There aren't 200,000 health workers in the country. The entire public sector, if I'm not mistaken, comes in at around a quarter of a million people. Probably a decent percentage (no real idea, but I'd guess probably 20% to 25%) of that would be made redundant, and the rest would have to put up with wage reductions and freezes as well as pension entitlements being revoked to a minimum private sector level. Don't think the public secotr would be gutted and made ineffectual, just broken down to its proper size and compensation levels.

But you said

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

"Step 1:
Go on a rampage through the public sector, cutting off dead weight left and right without fear or favour. The problem with beaurocracies is that eventually the people that rise to the top end up caring more about the organisation than about the organisation's goals, so start at the top and work your way down. Healthcare reform, top of the agenda.

That would more or less help the economy to break even so, then we move along to"

I am pointing out that even if you sacked 80% of Public Service and paid them no redundancy payment, you would still not achieve your goal. If you sacked the entire public service you would not achieve your goal. That is why I described your idea as nonsense, and I haven't even gotten past "step 1"

SimpleSam06

ZYX wrote: »

I am pointing out that even if you sacked 80% of Public Service and paid them no redundancy payment, you would still not achieve your goal. If you sacked the entire public service you would not achieve your goal. That is why I described your idea as nonsense, and I haven't even gotten past "step 1"

Heh. You must have missed the part at the bottom so where I specifically said that it would land us in the hole to the tune of tens of billions, but we're going there anyway so we might as well get something out of it. And by the way, if we're 10 billion overdrawn this year alone, where exactly is all the money going if not the public sector? Besides its not just pay and jobs that need cutting.

For example the HSE is now the largest single employer of public servants in Ireland, with more than 73 500 staff directly employed, and a further 38 000 staff employed by voluntary hospitals (not necessarily acute care hospitals), and other bodies funded by the HSE. Its overall budget of approx EUR 16 billion is the largest of any public sector organisation. It is estimated by the Department of Health and Children that some 68% of this budget relates to pay/administrative costs. If we could cut that down to 30% (specifically in administration), we have 5 billion saved right there.

If we can lop off 20% of the rest, which should be quite doable since it has grown by 30,000 after a promised reduction of 5%, well look, we're breaking even, just as I said.

All of this falls into context when you look at the explosion in wages and expenditures on the public sector side since 1996. The OECD released a report that highlights a development of the public service over the last decade that has evolved in an uncoordinated manner without a strategic vision and reflecting poor competence at senior level, limited performance review and accountability.

So I'd suggest you have a think before you start paddling the keys next time.

ParkRunner

Dan Murphy, General Secretary of the Public Service Executive Union and Secretary of the Public Services Committee of ICTU

Sadly, we are back at the point where Public Servants are characterised by some second rank politicians with an insatiable lust for self publicity and some self important commentators, as inefficient, overpaid, layabouts. In the same caricature, the Private Sector is characterized as a paragon of efficiency and productivity.

This is, of course, absolute nonsense - a “Dublin Opinion” caricature.

Public Servants pay taxes (in full), have to commute to work, raise families and pay bills like everyone else. Like everyone else, they have to pay for crèches, look after elderly relations and pay the same for their groceries. They will have to pay the Income Levy, increased VAT and the additional excise on petrol and their children’s class sizes will also increase.

They feel a bit like Shylock, in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, who says:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? … If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), hardly a hot-bed of radicalism, carried out a detailed examination of the Irish Public Service this year which found that the Public Service has been, and continues to be, a positive force in our society. It is worth noting the OECD team’s observation that our Public Service is ‘doing more with less, relative to the size of the overall economy and workforce’. If there is a criticism, it is that, as the OECD Report states, it is time for the Public Service to ‘communicate its many achievements.’

The OECD Report builds on the fact that our Public Service is, as the Report recognises, “on a sound trajectory of modernisation”. Yet, blithely ignoring the detailed and serious study of the actual facts of the public service as set out in the OECD Report, some commentators persist in conveying an impression that the Public Service is not modernising, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

The OECD Report was, of course, very inconvenient for these commentators as it made it clear that what they were saying was flying in the face of the facts. How did they get over this. Very simple – they assert that the OECD report was a whitewash and the way to do this is to disseminate a total falsehood to the effect that the OECD Team had intended to recommend that 8,000 jobs should be removed from the Public Service - or perhaps the Civil Service which is less than one-eighth of the Public Service. (Does it matter which when it is sheer invention anyway?). This initial falsehood was then, itself, used to justify even more attacks on the Public Service.

These populist attacks on the Public Service are nothing new. They seek, for ideological reasons, to distract from the failures of those who have brought about the recession. In this case the whipping boys are public servants but there have also been attempts to create hostility to other groups such as foreign workers.

It is fascinating to see the direct relationship between the increase in the amount and virulence of the attacks on the public service as it becomes clearer and clearer that something very rotten has been happening at the “Commanding Heights” of the Private Sector such as Banks and Developers.

The purpose of the campaign against Public Servants is to seek to divert attention from the failure of the deregulated market so beloved of some of these right-wing commentators and, in the process, to seek to drive a wedge between workers.

Public Service Pensions is a particular bug-bear of these commentators. They never point out that Public Servants contribute to pensions both by direct explicit contributions (6.5% of pay) and, also, by a deduction from pay in settling pay rates (12% to 15% of pay). The purpose of the attack on pensions is to divert workers in the Private Sector from securing better pensions. Public Service Unions have nothing to apologise for in their efforts to secure good pensions for members. Pensions in Ireland generally have to be improved if we are to avoid a situation where people will move from a life-style sustained by income from employment to poverty in retirement. Yet, what has been happening is that employers have been seeking to worsen existing pensions in the Private Sector – and were doing so in the economic boom, not because they “could not afford” them, but in order to increase their profits.

This trend must be reversed, both in the interests of workers in the Private Sector when they retire and, also, in the interests of the taxpayers as the only port of call for pensioners with inadequate pensions will be the State. What is happening is that employers, by refusing to provide for adequate pensions for their employees while working, are deferring that cost and, ultimately, transferring it to the State. Of course, there is a cost involved in providing for good Pensions and that cost has to be faced, probably by a combination of employers, employees and the State but that is the only way in which it can be tackled. Reducing adequate pension provision is of absolutely no value to anyone. We need to achieve an equality of a decent life for all pensioners, not an equality of poverty

We must learn from the mistakes of the past. The God of unfettered deregulated markets has proved wanting indeed. Lashing at Public Servants and Public Service provision is no answer to this fundamental truth.