5% paycut proposed for the public sector

BroomBurner

For anyone that would like to start figuring out the costs, etc. of a pay cut of x%, here is a list of salaries across the board for the Public Sector as published by the Irish times... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0115/1231738223996.html

Please note that those figures give the the starting scale and the higher scale for each position, normally workers would fall somewhere in the average.

Also worth reading is http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0115/1231738224028.html

BOHSBOHS

professore wrote: »

The Pension Reserve Fund is SOLELY for public sector pensions but is paid for by all our taxes.

Incorrect.

MG

BroomBurner wrote: »

For anyone that would like to start figuring out the costs, etc. of a pay cut of x%, here is a list of salaries across the board for the Public Sector as published by the Irish times... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0115/1231738223996.html

Please note that those figures give the the starting scale and the higher scale for each position, normally workers would fall somewhere in the average.

Also worth reading is http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0115/1231738224028.html

Those salaries are very good, the lowest seems to be about 23k.

BTW I was reading this thread earlier, not trying to draw a direct comparison but I think it is an interesting contrast.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055457613

gurramok

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

Incorrect.

Correct

Its for social welfare provision as well. It won't provide for my private sector pension, it only provides for public sector pensions despite my taxes paying into it.l

rn

MG wrote: »

This is absolutely vital to drive home. Just to illustrate how bad things are, I suggest a plan to stabilise the finances. Top of the head stuff I admit, I may have forgotten something, but roughly in the right direction. Honestly, I don’t think it will plug the gap fully, but it would stop us getting into a spiral. This is not a strategic plan, it is one which is needed immediately.
• Address to the nation by the Taoiseach
• Pay cuts in public sector basic rates (say 5% below 80k, 10% above)
• Slash allowances, privileges, special payments etc in public service
• Massive reform of public sector
• Job cuts in public sector (thousands)
• Outsourcing of public sector jobs
• Sell off of some assets (Aer Lingus, Bord Gais etc but not before taking strategic assets back into national ownership – no repeat of the Heathrow slots fiasco)
• Cutting of many services
• Cutting of many quangos & various aid programmes
• Cutting of some capital projects
• Broaden tax base – RPT is a likely one
• Raising of income taxes (unfortunate but probably necessary- to say 25% and 45% ) As far as possible, tax policy must reward enterprise and hard work

• No change to CT
• Freeze minimum wage until 2012 (would prefer a cut to about 7 euro an hour but unlikely to happen)
• Cut VAT back to 21%
• Freeze social welfare payments until 2011
• TDs & councillors to take 50% paycut and slash allowances

And all this to be done by Feb 1st!

That’s how bad things are in my opinion. Time for a big bath.

Hmmm This is my first time to post on this area of the board. I work for a large multinational ICT company and would consider myself well paid and definitely not immune the current recession - our second one in ICT this decade. However the last one in 2001 was definitely worse for us.

It seams to me some of the cuts are disproportionately over the top. I agree with the unions in that no one should take a pay cut. However I do not agree with the unions that redundancy (which is needed) should be last in first out. I believe we could cut 20% of the public sector without effecting front line services and effecting over all morale if we did not have to do last in first out. Down turns can be good too. You can use the opportunity to bring down the average age of the public sector by opening up voluntary redundancy (with a decent attractive package) and a good early retirement scheme. Getting rid of 20 of the longest serving public servants who are probably on over 50K due to incremental pay rises will have the same effect as getting rid of 40 younger people on the basic pay rates of ~25K - as well as creating new positions for promotion and thus raising the overall morale and productivity of the public sector. Plus it reduces you over all pension liability. I believe that the majority of people who are there that long, once they get over the initial anger, get on quiet well in their personal lives cos they have the house paid for and the family reared and are now presented with time and money to take on a personal project. We Irish are so negative and narrow minded when it comes to our jobs.

I agree the taoisceach should address the nation, but only after he formulates a decent plan.

I also don't have a major issue with raising of taxes - however I think the lower rate should be left alone and the 41% could be raised to ~45% and a 50% for anyone earning over 80K. (Remember you only pay 50% on earnings over 80K - some people do get this one confused). I would freeze the minimum wage.

I do not agree with slashing allowances and expenses - because when you look into them, there is usually a valid reason why they are there. However this notion of un-vouched for allowances and expenses needs to be removed. Let there be a valid paper trail of your justification to an allowance.

What I stated above would be massive reform of the public sector - but I would also reform local government. I would get rid of 100% of the county councillors in the country. Most of the have been instrumental in destroying our towns and villages with unplanned "zoning" decisions. And have the intelligence of a brown paper bag. However I do believe that local government is vital and I would probably insert appox 15-20 local full time governments. By offering a decent salary, I'd hope to attract some of the best and more skilled people from the private sector that have lost their jobs in recent times. The original county councillors could be returned to doing what they should always have been doing - filling the potholes.

I do not agree that services should be cut. I am paying my taxes - I will probably be paying more taxes half way through this year. The amount of money spent on public services can be cut without cutting back on service.

Quangos should be quashed. People should be appointed to state boards based on how good they are: not who they are married to/ know.

I do not agree with privatisation of certain "services" needed in an island nation. For example I never agreed with selling of Eircom or Aer Lingus. The ESB and Bord Gais should never be privatised. Or at least the infrastucture (that the state and yours and my taxes paid for) should be split out from the business before they are sold. Health should never be provided on a private basis. Basically the government's core job is to provide the equitable services to all our citizens to enable us to work and live in a good organised country. Private companies are driven by profits and can never work in the area of phone, power and gas infrastructure. We shouldn't loose sight of this just because there is a down turn on.

MG

rn wrote: »

It seams to me some of the cuts are disproportionately over the top.

19 Billion is the target, that's why it's over the top. I don't think these measures are actually enough to cover off the hole.

No one wants to raise taxes or cut services but that is the scale of the mess we are in......we really need to get our heads around that.

BroomBurner

MG wrote: »

Those salaries are very good, the lowest seems to be about 23k.

BTW I was reading this thread earlier, not trying to draw a direct comparison but I think it is an interesting contrast.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055457613

What's you point though? Their starting salaries are all quite low but they jump massively in a short amount of time. That's the career path they chose, I'm certainly not going to begrudge them when they start earning massive money in a short amount of time.

rn

MG wrote: »

19 Billion is the target, that's why it's over the top. I don't think these measures are actually enough to cover off the hole.

No one wants to raise taxes or cut services but that is the scale of the mess we are in......we really need to get our heads around that.

My head is around that. But my head is around also that the slide has been at unprecedented speed, mainly because we allowed public sector spending to be increased on back of receipts of capital, once off taxes. The best thing to do is just halt the slide and get just enough room for a small surplus in the balance of payments on a monthly basis. And all I point out that if its done surgically the economy could stabilise quiet quickly.

Trying to get all the 19Bn in one year would suck so much cash out the economy, you are getting to the stage where the recession would fuel itself.

The best thing we need to do is match achieve savings that match income with expenditure and then borrow to cover the existing 19Bn deficit. But that needs to be done ASAP otherwise you are borrowing a couple of billion more!

rkevin

The Economist wrote: »

This really comes across from the public sector workers here.

The latest authoritative deficit figure I've seen is €19bn. Public sector pay is €20bn. So basically, if we want to come in line, we have to sack 95% of the entire public sector. That's how severe the problem is. Centralising payroll will do nothing. Reviewing the printing of leaflets will do nothing. Even if we manage to get the unions to agree to a 20% pay cut for all public servants, we still need another €15bn -- that's about eight times the entire Gardaí budget!

People coming on here saying "we won't pay for private sector mistakes" are breathtakingly arrogant.

any person know that you need a public sector
try and run this county without a public service or with 5% of what we have
economist not sure what the public service did to you but you are talking crap on this post but thank god you are talking about it as it will help you get ove the issue you have with the public service

MG

BroomBurner wrote: »

What's you point though? Their starting salaries are all quite low but they jump massively in a short amount of time. That's the career path they chose, I'm certainly not going to begrudge them when they start earning massive money in a short amount of time.

Simply that public sector pay per that article is very good, even at a starting level. Even good jobs in the private sector don't start at that level. Like every profession, some go on to massive money but most don't and are at middle levels. The pay bands quoted in that article are not ungenerous in comparison.

MG

rn wrote: »

My head is around that. But my head is around also that the slide has been at unprecedented speed, mainly because we allowed public sector spending to be increased on back of receipts of capital, once off taxes. The best thing to do is just halt the slide and get just enough room for a small surplus in the balance of payments on a monthly basis. And all I point out that if its done surgically the economy could stabilise quiet quickly.

Trying to get all the 19Bn in one year would suck so much cash out the economy, you are getting to the stage where the recession would fuel itself.

The best thing we need to do is match achieve savings that match income with expenditure and then borrow to cover the existing 19Bn deficit. But that needs to be done ASAP otherwise you are borrowing a couple of billion more!

It's 19 Bn every year so we need to cut it now so that it isn't a problem next year again and every year after that. Obviously there are longer term actions to be taken as well (i.e. public sector reform).

MG

rkevin wrote: »

any person know that you need a public sector
try and run this county without a public service or with 5% of what we have
economist not sure what the public service did to you but you are talking crap on this post but thank god you are talking about it as it will help you get ove the issue you have with the public service

That's not what he was saying - he was only emphasising how large the problem is and in this context how incredible it is that the public service refuse to shoulder any of the burden.

kippy

MG wrote: »

That's not what he was saying - he was only emphasising how large the problem is and in this context how incredible it is that the public service refuse to shoulder any of the burden.

I detest sweeping generalisations......
I have no problem with reform/pay cuts/whatever is needed. However I want to see cost savings implemented in other ways as well.
No point in cutting peoples salaries by 10% to see other areas of the Public Sector spend vast quantities of money on unneeded buildings/resources etc......
I've alluded to this before but in the private sector all else is looked at before cost savings through wages and employees who can highlight and implement cost savings are given something for their trouble, This needs to be etched into public sector workers brains. See a cost saving, highlight it.

MG

kippy wrote: »

I detest sweeping generalisations......
I have no problem with reform/pay cuts/whatever is needed. However I want to see cost savings implemented in other ways as well.
No point in cutting peoples salaries by 10% to see other areas of the Public Sector spend vast quantities of money on unneeded buildings/resources etc......
I've alluded to this before but in the private sector all else is looked at before cost savings through wages and employees who can highlight and implement cost savings are given something for their trouble, This needs to be etched into public sector workers brains. See a cost saving, highlight it.

I've covered this. Ideally, we'd have preformance related pay and public sector reform. The unions wouldn't allow this or would delay it for years. Pay increases in the public sector are accross the board within the pay scales. An accross the board cut is a blunt instrument but given the urgency of the need to act and the difficulties in intorducing public sector reform, it is one of the only instruments available.

P. Breathnach

MG wrote: »

That's not what he was saying - he was only emphasising how large the problem is and in this context how incredible it is that the public service refuse to shoulder any of the burden.

There is another sentiment out there that is equally incredible: that the public sector shoulder all of the burden.

I recognise that expenditure needs to be reduced significantly. But revenue needs to be increased.

One result of the particular mix of taxes that we have is that government revenue has fallen proportionately far more than has the level of economic activity -- due mainly to the reliance on stamp duty and VAT, both of which have fallen greatly. It seems to me reasonable to adjust the tax base and incidence to compensate somewhat for that.

MG

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is another sentiment out there that is equally incredible: that the public sector shoulder all of the burden.

I recognise that expenditure needs to be reduced significantly. But revenue needs to be increased.

One result of the particular mix of taxes that we have is that government revenue has fallen proportionately far more than has the level of economic activity -- due mainly to the reliance on stamp duty and VAT, both of which have fallen greatly. It seems to me reasonable to adjust the tax base and incidence to compensate somewhat for that.

No..private sector workers are getting pays cuts and unemployment...how is that not sharing the burden???????????

The public sector is paid for by the private sector, it can't just ignore private sector difficulties. If a husband came home from work and said to his wife "dear I've just lost my job" and the wife said "well don't expect me to make any adjustments to my lifestyle" do you think that's a good way to deal with the situation?

Tim Robbins

MG wrote: »

No..private sector workers are getting pays cuts and unemployment...how is that not sharing the burden???????????

The public sector is paid for by the private sector, it can't just ignore private sector difficulties. If a husband came home from work and said to his wife "dear I've just lost my job" and the wife said "well don't expect me to make any adjustments to my lifestyle" do you think that's a good way to deal with the situation?

It's the perfect opportunity to make the redundancies needed in the public sector. They'll get massive redundancies compared to the private sector, but as usual they're moaning.

Tim Robbins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is another sentiment out there that is equally incredible: that the public sector shoulder all of the burden.

Whose saying that?
Private sector will chop people it doesn't need or else company will eventually go out of business.

Time Magazine

kippy wrote: »

Sorry, but I dont have access to the figures for the entire public service. I dont think I can be blamed for anything for not having access to those figures. But those figures are VITAL for any analysis of where the money can be saved. Surely you'd agree with me on that one at least?

Yup, absolutely. Similarly I have no strong figures for how much is spent on admin etc. So I did a very quick, sample check. I picked the DPP as the first state agency that came into my head. Here's their Annual Report. Only 9% of their budget went on Office Expenses, defined as "general office administration costs e.g. purchase and maintenance of office
equipment, office supplies, library costs, office premises maintenance, travel and other incidental expenses." 33% goes on staff costs, 41% on legal costs (staff costs again, but outsourced) and 17% for "payment of legal costs awarded by the courts in judicial review matters and other applications connected to legal proceedings against the Director" and I imagine that's unavoidable for when they lose a case and so on. Seeing as we should realistically be looking for total cuts of at least around 20%, maybe you could halve the office expenses but then that's only going to push the budget down 4%, realistically a big reform would only get 2-3%. So although I agree with you that it's something to be looked at and might cut public spending of the order of €1.5bn (about 5-10% of the shortfall needed), we still have the other €17.5bn to look at.

So 20Billion is the wage bill, whats the total cost of items outside of wages (Travel expenses, Building rental, IT Equipment, Stationary costs, telecommunications costs etc etc
Its not outlandish to suggest that costs outside of wages are the same again....

Just looking at the above, a rough guide I reckon is that admin = 10% and wages = 80%. That makes reasonable sense to me.

rkevin wrote: »

any person know that you need a public sector
try and run this county without a public service or with 5% of what we have
economist

Of course we need a public sector and of course we can't fire 19 out of 20 of the staff. However that's the extent of the budget shortfall. We simply cannot afford to continue paying everyone as much. Realistically that means either lower pay, lower numbers, or a mixture of both. People nonchalantly discussing 5% pay cuts for those over €100k or the government jet are completely missing the picture. It's like suggesting we open the window when the house is on fire.

not sure what the public service did to you but you are talking crap on this post but thank god you are talking about it as it will help you get ove the issue you have with the public service

Ad hominem attacks aren't allowed here. I have no problem with the public service, been there myself and may well go back. We simply can't afford it the current system, though. I'm the first to accept that when I talk about a 10% cut in pay that would include me.

Time Magazine

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is another sentiment out there that is equally incredible: that the public sector shoulder all of the burden.

How many of the 120,000 newly unemployed people were let go from the public sector?

Lplated

Surely a pay cut is the minimum that we should be doing?

Wouldn't now be a good time to realise that we've 'overgrown' our State sector in the last number of years, and rather than trim a little round the edges, we should go for whole sale cuts in staff, followed by significant wage cuts for those that are necessary to retain.

We could outsource a lot of public service work to the private sector (perhaps incentivise former public sector workers who would be let go to become entreprenerial and tender for contracts).

Over time, we have let this expectation build that the State should and will provide everything - look how long it took for the State to decide that it wasn't actually in the airline business (although it did retain its 25%).

The goal should be 'small' government, not 'big' government. A spend of 60 billion a year is unsustainable.

And, when we are at it, its also time to tackle the guaranteed pensions that public sector has gotten used to - we can't afford to continue to shackle the entire country with that sort of liability - the whole lot should be on defined contibution the same as the rest of us mere mortals in society. (i imagine certain regulators might then take a bit more interest in the running of financial institutions if they thought their pension depended on it).

P. Breathnach

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Whose saying that?
Private sector will chop people it doesn't need or else company will eventually go out of business.

Everybody who focuses exclusively on cutting public expenditure as the way of solving the exchequer problem is feeding such a sentiment.

A pay cut in the private sector does nothing useful for the exchequer. It makes the problem a little bit worse, as PAYE yields will fall.

P. Breathnach

The Economist wrote: »

How many of the 120,000 newly unemployed people were let go from the public sector?

Only a small number. But that is not the issue I am addressing. I was following on the point that you made yourself about the scale of the problem, where you showed that even very severe cuts in public expenditure were insufficient to bridge the gap.

MG

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Everybody who focuses exclusively on cutting public expenditure as the way of solving the exchequer problem is feeding such a sentiment.

A pay cut in the private sector does nothing useful for the exchequer. It makes the problem a little bit worse, as PAYE yields will fall.

Do you mean a cut in the public sector or private sector?

rn

P. Breathnach, you are way off. the private sector has sholdered all of the burden for the past few months and as a result can no longer afford the public sector. Either what I propose or what other posters propose, the public sector will have to share some the burden for the first time

But Simply cutting back massively across the board is also not the answer either because by simply getting rid of huge amounts of public servants off the pay roll, you just create a much larger jobs seekers pool depressing further private sector wages, the general populations spending power is reduced and we spiral and spiral into recession.

P. Breathnach

MG wrote: »

No..private sector workers are getting pays cuts and unemployment...how is that not sharing the burden???????????

It's doing nothing for the state of the public finances, which is what I am commenting on.

The public sector is paid for by the private sector, it can't just ignore private sector difficulties. If a husband came home from work and said to his wife "dear I've just lost my job" and the wife said "well don't expect me to make any adjustments to my lifestyle" do you think that's a good way to deal with the situation?

I never said that the public sector should be insulated. I actually indicated the opposite in saying "I recognise that expenditure needs to be reduced significantly". But that is not enough. If you got rid of 20% of the public service and cut the pay of the survivors by 20%, you would not solve the problem.

[I would add that I am intrigued by the focus on people taking pay cuts in the private sector. How widespread is it, and how deep are the cuts? A lot of people I know in the private sector are not experiencing pay cuts.]

MG

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's doing nothing for the state of the public finances, which is what I am commenting on.



I never said that the public sector should be insulated. I actually indicated the opposite in saying "I recognise that expenditure needs to be reduced significantly". But that is not enough. If you got rid of 20% of the public service and cut the pay of the survivors by 20%, you would not solve the problem.

[I would add that I am intrigued by the focus on people taking pay cuts in the private sector. How widespread is it, and how deep are the cuts? A lot of people I know in the private sector are not experiencing pay cuts.]

Do you think that the private sector are laying people off and cutting their salaries to sabotage the public finances??? They are doing it to survive.

P. Breathnach

What a storm I seem to have provoked! Most of the objections seem to come from people who did not read with full attention what I said, and imputed to me views that I did not express.

I'm not going to offer any more clarifications, and will deal only with new points, and then only if I have anything to say that I think might be useful.

peanuthead

Im in the public sector, and I say the 5% cut isnt that big a deal. For someone who is on €50k a year, a 5% deduction would mean a 5k reduction a year.

Now with all the falling mortgage rates and price reductions, we are saving about 5k a year roughly, which means that realistically, we are not being affected at all financially by the recession.

Pretty good outcome if you ask me, considering some people are facing bankruptcies and repossessions

MG

peanuthead wrote: »

Im in the public sector, and I say the 5% cut isnt that big a deal. For someone who is on €50k a year, a 5% deduction would mean a 5k reduction a year.

Now with all the falling mortgage rates and price reductions, we are saving about 5k a year roughly, which means that realistically, we are not being affected at all financially by the recession.

Pretty good outcome if you ask me, considering some people are facing bankruptcies and repossessions

2 and a half k gross.

jdivision

peanuthead wrote: »

Im in the public sector, and I say the 5% cut isnt that big a deal. For someone who is on €50k a year, a 5% deduction would mean a 5k reduction a year.

With maths like that no wonder you're in the public sector. you wouldn't last in the real world

MG

peanuthead wrote: »

Im in the public sector, and I say the 5% cut isnt that big a deal. For someone who is on €50k a year, a 5% deduction would mean a 5k reduction a year.

Now with all the falling mortgage rates and price reductions, we are saving about 5k a year roughly, which means that realistically, we are not being affected at all financially by the recession.

Pretty good outcome if you ask me, considering some people are facing bankruptcies and repossessions

Apologies if I was harsh earlier on the maths -2 and a half k gross is prob about 1300 net or about 110 Euro a month. I think you are right and fair to say that it's not a bad outcome.

BroomBurner

MG wrote: »

Simply that public sector pay per that article is very good, even at a starting level. Even good jobs in the private sector don't start at that level. Like every profession, some go on to massive money but most don't and are at middle levels. The pay bands quoted in that article are not ungenerous in comparison.

That's a really poor analagy though, I'm sorry but you can't compare accountants (is that what they were?) to public servants. The starting salary there is pretty poor but they move up quite high, quite fast.

The starting salary in the profession I chose before I was offered the public service position was €25G, this rose to €28G in year 2 and then €32 halfway through year 2 when I changed company and managed to negotiate a good deal. That type of wage increase is just not possible in the public sector, there is no scope to prove yourself worthy of getting paid more, so increments are used. There are good and bad points to increments. I would like to also point out that the increment scale is also used in some larger private corporations.

MG

BroomBurner wrote: »

you can't compare accountants (is that what they were?) to public servants.

True in so may ways

rkevin

MG wrote: »

Do you think that the private sector are laying people off and cutting their salaries to sabotage the public finances??? They are doing it to survive.

Well if the private sector are letting staff go why are they not reducing there margin on prices
Tonight I was asked to pay €7 yes €7 for a block of ice-cream in a topaz station I told them where to stick it
a lot of private sector employers have ripped of the Irish people over the last 7 year and now they just lay off staff to protect there profits
And trust me it was private sector employees who keep inflation at 5 % not public sector employees[/FONT][/COLOR]

it was the private sector that made us uncompetitve full stop

peanuthead

MG wrote: »

Apologies if I was harsh earlier on the maths -2 and a half k gross is prob about 1300 net or about 110 Euro a month. I think you are right and fair to say that it's not a bad outcome.

Im so embarrassed about that!! I always do 10% first and then half it, but I forgot to half it, haha!!!

What a dope am I?? haha!!

but yes, its not a huge deal considering what other people are losing. Job security is priceless.

rkevin

and this thing about a job for life
since 1995 any person employed in the public service has not a job for life
if the goverement decided to close a hospital or a school or college in the morning any person empolyed since 1995 can face redundancy the same way as in the private sector

MG

rkevin wrote: »

Well if the private sector are letting staff go why are they not reducing there margin on prices
Tonight I was asked to pay €7 yes €7 for a block of ice-cream in a topaz station I told them where to stick it
a lot of private sector employers have ripped of the Irish people over the last 7 year and now they just lay off staff to protect there profits
And trust me it was private sector employees who keep inflation at 5 % not public sector employees[/FONT][/COLOR]

it was the private sector that made us uncompetitve full stop

From RTE.ie toda
Inflation rate plunged again last month
Thursday, 15 January 2009 15:05
New figures show that the annual rate of inflation fell sharply again in December, dropping to 1.1% from 2.5% in November. This was the lowest rate since August 1997.

The Central Statistics Office said lower mortgage repayments, following interest rate cuts, were one of the main factors in the fall. Falling petrol and diesel prices and a decrease in air fares also led to a 2.9% drop in transport costs in the month. Clothing and footwear prices fell by 2.7%.

According to the CSO, consumer prices have now fallen by an average of 2.3% in just three months. That is the largest quarterly fall in the cost of living for 61 years, and economists are now convinced that Ireland's overall inflation rate is about to turn negative.

AdvertisementMortgage interest payments were 8.1% lower in December compared with the previous month, while the price of home heating oil plummeted by almost 17%. Petrol prices were almost 9% down in the month.

The annual rate of service inflation was 2.7% in December, but the figure for goods was -0.9%. The EU harmonised index, which strips out mortgage repayments, fell from 2.1% in November to 1.3% in December.

The CSO said the average inflation rate for the whole of 2008 was 4.1%, down from 4.9% in 2007. But it said the figure would have been a percentage point lower if it were not for a 15% increase in mortgage interest repayments over the year. Prices of energy products rose by 8.8% over the year.

Two categories recorded negative inflation in 2008 - clothing and footwear (-4.9%) and furniture and household equipment (-1.6%).

and if you look at the detail at http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/prices/current/pic.pdf you'll see that the areas with the highest inflation were health, education and tobacco/alcohol - the first two aremostly public sector driven.

So sorry comrade, I don't trust you when the evidence suggest the opposite of what you are saying.

rkevin

so what about my block of ice -cream???
or the bag of coal that has gone up from 13.50 to 14.50 last week
yes it is falling but we would need it to be -30% to correct price inflation caused by private sector employers in past 7 year

MG wrote: »

From RTE.ie toda
Inflation rate plunged again last month
Thursday, 15 January 2009 15:05
New figures show that the annual rate of inflation fell sharply again in December, dropping to 1.1% from 2.5% in November. This was the lowest rate since August 1997.

The Central Statistics Office said lower mortgage repayments, following interest rate cuts, were one of the main factors in the fall. Falling petrol and diesel prices and a decrease in air fares also led to a 2.9% drop in transport costs in the month. Clothing and footwear prices fell by 2.7%.

According to the CSO, consumer prices have now fallen by an average of 2.3% in just three months. That is the largest quarterly fall in the cost of living for 61 years, and economists are now convinced that Ireland's overall inflation rate is about to turn negative.

AdvertisementMortgage interest payments were 8.1% lower in December compared with the previous month, while the price of home heating oil plummeted by almost 17%. Petrol prices were almost 9% down in the month.

The annual rate of service inflation was 2.7% in December, but the figure for goods was -0.9%. The EU harmonised index, which strips out mortgage repayments, fell from 2.1% in November to 1.3% in December.

The CSO said the average inflation rate for the whole of 2008 was 4.1%, down from 4.9% in 2007. But it said the figure would have been a percentage point lower if it were not for a 15% increase in mortgage interest repayments over the year. Prices of energy products rose by 8.8% over the year.

Two categories recorded negative inflation in 2008 - clothing and footwear (-4.9%) and furniture and household equipment (-1.6%).

and if you look at the detail at http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/prices/current/pic.pdf you'll see that the areas with the highest inflation were health, education and tobacco/alcohol - the first two aremostly public sector driven.

So sorry comrade, I don't trust you when the evidence suggest the opposite of what you are saying.

gurramok

rkevin, i'm still waiting on the answers to your own questions. Please list them as your defeating your won argument by not doing so.

Regarding inflation. Your forgetting that huge sections of the public sector got inflation busting increases mostly from benchmarking in the Bertie years and that contributes too.

Have a look at what contributed to price increases over the years. Public funded areas like education, health, council related activities, ESB, Gas were a huge source of the growth of inflation.
Of course, some retailers piggy backed on this as they had this false impression everyone was doing great.

Provide factual links to back up your assertion it was soley the private sector who contributed to inflation.

MG

rkevin wrote: »

so what about my block of ice -cream???
or the bag of coal that has gone up from 13.50 to 14.50 last week
yes it is falling but we would need it to be -30% to correct price inflation caused by private sector employers in past 7 year

The CSO can be contacted on 021-4535000 if you want them to correct their stats for their ice cream mistake.

mikeym

Im a public service worker who gets paid very well for the work I do and yes I feel I work hard enough every week to justify my wages. I also feel sorry for private sector workers because of the security of their jobs.

But I hate the way that Im labeled lazy and a waste of public money when there are people in this country who are gething free money for nothing and they have never paid taxes to this country.

And now the working people are argueing with each other over pay cuts that was a result of poor mismanagement of the countrys finances.

MG

rkevin wrote: »

so what about my block of ice -cream???
or the bag of coal that has gone up from 13.50 to 14.50 last week
yes it is falling but we would need it to be -30% to correct price inflation caused by private sector employers in past 7 year

Of course the real point is that you had the choice to walk out and not pay the exorbitant price. You can go elsewhere for ice cream. That's the free market. But with the majority of public sector services, there is no choice.

rkevin

so i can shop in topman for 40% cheaper in the north than the south
where is that mark up going?????????
you can put all the face that you want but any person can see that we have being ripped off my private sector employers
here is another example and i know they are personel examples
before xmas in the malt house in galway you could get a 2 coarse meal for €22 before 7 today that same meal cost €25
hello there is meant to be a recession on and the price goes up
here is a better one
in french connection in galway i bought a hoddie for €48 in june
in there 40% sale after xmas the same hoddie with 40 % off as i asked him is €52
rip off or what in the private sector and they have done it for years

rkevin

MG wrote: »

Of course the real point is that you had the choice to walk out and not pay the exorbitant price. You can go elsewhere for ice cream. That's the free market. But with the majority of public sector services, there is no choice.

yes i did walk away but as i keep hearing here it was your money that i was spending which in turn was keeping people employed there

gurramok

rkevin, kindly supply the following:

rkevin wrote:

we can talk about this for every but lets do it the honest way
those private sector employees that are bashing the public sector ( you all seem to know what we are paid) it time you tell us the following?
1) what hours you work?
2) What you job is
3) what you wages is
4) Is there money put toward you pension
5) is you VHI paid??????????
6) what bonus you got in last 5 years
7) what pay cut you have taken
as for this pension issue i pay in €80 a week to my pension and god know i might not even live to see is
now put up the above information or back out of this debate and be honest or back out also

Maybe you should back out of this debate as you will not supply the information some of us have already supplied?

Économiste Monétaire

This thread has truly become a train wreck. Someone arguing against CSO figures with an anecdote about a block of ice-cream.

rkevin

the block of ice-cream is a real fact
CSO figures are done by public servents who do nothing and are to lazy to go and do a shop so i am sure they just put any figures out there so dont belive any of that from the CSO

Time Magazine

rkevin wrote: »

the block of ice-cream is a real fact
CSO figures are done by public servents who do nothing and are to lazy to go and do a shop so i am sure they just put any figures out there so dont belive any of that from the CSO

Hi.

This is the Economics forum. This isn't the Rant of the Day Forum. We discuss economics here. We try and maintain a standard of debate that is higher than the Politics forum and, importantly, of an entirely different slant.

The country is currently facing its worst fiscal crisis in at least twenty years. This is a matter of serious economic concern, and the issue of public pay is being discussed. It is an important thread that has gained much attention. I'm doing my best to keep this forum interesting and relevant without moderating too-heavily. However your posts have been disruptive. Usually when a thread has disintegrated to such an extent, the normal course is to lock it.

I'm sure quite a few people will be disappointed if that's what's going to happen, so for the sake of the very good contributors to this thread, please refrain from posting rubbish that has no basis.

Thanks.

rkevin

gurramok wrote: »

rkevin, kindly supply the following:


1) what hours you work?
2) What you job is
3) what you wages is
4) Is there money put toward you pension
5) is you VHI paid??????????
6) what bonus you got in last 5 years
7) what pay cut you have take
Maybe you should back out of this debate as you will not supply the information some of us have already supplied?

1) 39 hours
2) engineer
3) 56k
4) yes not sure how much bit i think it is 8 to 10%
5) no
6) none
7) none
yes i am a well paid public employee but 6 year ago i left the private sector took a big pay cut for a one year contract.
i have no regrets i took the right decision and i love my job and i put every hour in to it.
we all have the same choice to make in life and we have to live with them choice