Why should our ambulance drivers be paid more than hospital consultants in Finland.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Nope, I can appreciate satire properly made. However, satire is usually meant to be funny ; the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit. Is there anything witty about riskymoves dig at the banks , when the thread is about the public sector, and it is the public sector which is found to be such a big drain on government expenditure ? I suppose if I was on the public service gravy train then I would find it funny.

It's a pity I don't do smileys. But, then, if I did, I'd have great difficulty in selecting the appropriate one.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a pity I don't do smileys. But, then, if I did, I'd have great difficulty in selecting the appropriate one.

Maybe a would do for you. The game is up. The country cannot continue to afford to pay public servants the highest known public sector pay and pensions in the world. Servants should be that ; not higher paid than those who pay them ( 26 to 48 % depending on the survey and if you take shorter p.s. hours etc in to account ).

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Maybe a would do for you. The game is up...

You misread me. That's the problem about prejudice: people don't see things as they really are. [It is entertaining to note that your fellow-traveller, irish_bob, thanks such posts.]

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You misread me.

How ? I suggest , if you are searching for a smiley, maybe a would be appropriate. The game is up. The government cannot affort such high public sector pay + pensions anymore. Do not just take my word for it. See whats in the budget next month.;)

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the problem about prejudice: people don't see things as they really are.

If you cannot "see things as they really are", and grasp the seriousness of the financial situation regarding govt expenditure, I would not use the word "prejudice" in relation to your condition.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

[It is entertaining to note that your fellow-traveller, irish_bob, thanks such posts.]

So anyone who thinks current levels of Irish public sector expenditure are unsustainable is " a fellow-traveller" and they cannot thank someone for a point made ?

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

How ? I suggest , if you are searching for a smiley, maybe a would be appropriate. The game is up. The government cannot affort such high public sector pay + pensions anymore. Do not just take my word for it. See whats in the budget next month.;)

If you cannot "see things as they really are", and grasp the seriousness of the financial situation regarding govt expenditure, I would not use the word "prejudice" in relation to your condition.

I repeat: you misread me. You are now more directly misrepresenting my position.

So anyone who thinks current levels of Irish public sector expenditure are unsustainable is " a fellow-traveller" and they cannot thank someone for a point made ?

I have no issue with people thinking that there is a problem with public expenditure. My issue is with people vilifying those who work in the public sector.

#15

jimmmy wrote: »

Servants should be that ; not higher paid than those who pay them ( 26 to 48 % depending on the survey and if you take shorter p.s. hours etc in to account ).

That sums up why you have no interest in a reasoned discussion. You want servants, not workers.

Are you suggesting that a publicly employed doctor should earn less than a privately employed cleaner? All because the public employee is a servant.

Its obvious PS pay needs to be cut. But you have no interest in a rational debate.

This thread is an absolute farce.

jimmmy

#15 wrote: »

You want servants, not workers.

No, The public wants workers serving the public good. Public servants should not be paid 26% to 48% more than the private sector
( depending on the survey, if it includes the shorter public service hours worked etc ) as it is the private sector who collects the tax and submits it to the government, who then pay their employees : the private sector does not enjoy such security, still subsidised pension etc

#15 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a publicly employed doctor should earn less than a privately employed cleaner?

Certainly not.
Why should privately employed cleaners earn less than public service cleaners, in the same country ?
To get back to the point of the thread, why should a hospital consultant get paid double in Ireland compared to Berlin for exactly the same work ?

#15

jimmmy wrote: »

Public servants should not be paid 26% to 48% more than the private sector

How can you justify such a large comparison that does not compare like with like?

If you want to cut PS pay, fine, the country can't afford it. Thats an entirely reasonable argument.

Comparing doctors with estate agents, or bankers with teachers, or nurses with taxi men, or successful businessmen with PS office staff, is just ridiculous.

How can you justify those comparisons? On what basis do you compare wildly different jobs?

It defies logic.

I'm not actually arguing against your point that PS pay needs to come down, but your logic is flawed and your points a tad ridiculous.

Certainly not.
Why should privately employed cleaners earn less than public service cleaners, in the same country ?

I didn't say they should. How can govt control what a private company pays it employees?

To get back to the point of the thread, why should a hospital consultant get paid double in Ireland compared to Berlin for exactly the same work ?

Because they live in a far more expensive country, with ridiculous prices for everything, with a stupid govt.

Thats why.

Now that prices are coming down, its reasonable for consultants to take a pay cut. Do you not understand the whole Celtic Tiger thing? Germany didn't experience such a bubble. Thats why wages went so high, its not hard to understand. The bubble has burst, time for wages to come down. Its quite obvious that PS pay will be reduced in the coming months.

jimmmy

"To get back to the point of the thread, why should a hospital consultant get paid double in Ireland compared to Berlin for exactly the same work ? "

#15 wrote: »

Because they live in a far more expensive country, with ridiculous prices for everything, with a stupid govt.

Poor logic, we are in the EC and a doctor / consultant here can buy his flights, holidays, books , clothes , etc from other countries in the EC. For food he can shop in Lidl in Ireland as well as Lidl in Germany. The cost of living here does not nesessitate our consultants being paid double what they are in Germany. A new house can be bought for less than a years gross wages here in Ireland....can many doctors do that in Germany ? I remember meeting one in Germany once who rented

Riskymove

doesnt sound like something you'd say jimmmy :pac:

Originally Posted by jimmmy
Because they live in a far more expensive country, with ridiculous prices for everything, with a stupid govt.

jimmmy

Sorry Riskymove, I made a typo with the "quote" function : I have since corrected / edited it.

#15

jimmmy wrote: »

[


Poor logic

That is a compliment coming from you.

Jimmy, why do you think consultants here are paid so much?
Why did these rises happen during the boom years? I'm interested to hear your view as to why this happened.

jimmmy

#15 wrote: »

Jimmy, why do you think consultants here are paid so much?
Why did these rises happen during the boom years? I'm interested to hear your view as to why this happened.

I have answered that before.
It happened because of weak government, who for whatever reason paid themselves and their employees too much. The unions put pressure on the govt, and the govt / Ahern gave in. Strikes were to be avoided at all costs. A few whiffs of the blue flue was enough. The govt were in bed with the public service + unions.

#15

jimmmy wrote: »

I have answered that before.
It happened because of weak government, who for whatever reason paid themselves and their employees too much. The unions put pressure on the govt, and the govt / Ahern gave in. Strikes were to be avoided at all costs. A few whiffs of the blue flue was enough. The govt were in bed with the public service + unions.

Ok, thanks.
In your opinion, did the boom have anything to do with it?

jimmmy

Of cousrse throwing huge sums of money at its employees to spend was going to have an effect on the economy. This is one of the factors which caused prices to inflate and the boom. If the govt did not pay its employees the highest average wages in the known public sector world, and did not raise the minimum wage to nearly treble the N. I. level, the boom would not have got "boomer" as Ahern said. One of the main facors which caused the boom was becoming part of the Eurozone / surrendering control of our interest rates : this decision was taken and implemented by the govt + public servants ( eg Central Bank ).

#15

Ok, thanks.

So increasing public pay caused the boom, rather than the boom leading to an increase in public pay?

Am I correct in saying that the above is your view? If I've misunderstood, please correct me.

jimmmy

#15 wrote: »

Ok, thanks.

So increasing public pay caused the boom, rather than the boom leading to an increase in public pay?

Am I correct in saying that the above is your view?

You are twisting words there. There were different factors which " caused" the boom eg cheap interest rates , as I said. Increasing public pay in itself did not cause the boom, but it was certainly one of the factors which allowed the bubble to grow more than it otherwise would have. The boom also led to increases on top of increases in public pay, because of the increased tax take.
I have answered you. Now, why do you think consultants here are paid so much? Does it cost an extra 100k more per year to live here compared to Germany ?

Shea O'Meara

McTigs wrote: »

well there's the solution right there folks, thats a wrap!

The private sector always earned a higher wage than public when you compare like with like, (position, tasks carried out etc.). Along with rising housing prices, food and so on. That is why there was a call for higher salaries. Not the other way around. Some of the salaries being touted on here are for Senior Administrators the equivalent of an assistant V.P. or lower level Director in the private sector. also the sky is the limit in the private sector where in the public it's capped based on position and time served. There are no caps in the private sector.
Hanging the current crisis on the public sector salary scale is a complete joke.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Increasing public pay in itself did not cause the boom,

of course, its the other way around, public pay could not have been increased that much without the boom to finance it

the Governement (led by Mr Money-will-Fix-it) had been throwing money at everything (not just public pay) squandering the revenues made from the boom as well as allowing it to fall apart so badly through mis-management.

Once again we are at a point where we cannot afford to continue spending what we are spending and changes need to be made. Thats the core problem.

Riskymove

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Hanging the current crisis on the public sector salary scale is a complete joke.

be that as it may, private sector pay wont change the basic underlying problem...the gap must be narrowed

jimmmy

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

The private sector always earned a higher wage than public when you compare like with like

Thats the situation in most developed countries. It makes sense, as those in the public sector work less hours, have greater job security, greater pensions, more sickies etc. However in Ireland the public sector as we all know is overpaid by 26% to 48% compared to the private sector, depending on the report and what factors it considers. If public sector pay and pensions were reduced by 40% to EC levels, it would save the government - you and me - borrowing many billions.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

One of the main facors which caused the boom was becoming part of the Eurozone / surrendering control of our interest rates : this decision was taken and implemented by the govt + public servants ( eg Central Bank ).

Jimmmy,

perhaps my memory is failing but did the people not decide in a referendum to do this?

#15

jimmmy wrote: »

You are twisting words there. There were different factors which " caused" the boom eg cheap interest rates , as I said. Increasing public pay in itself did not cause the boom, but it was certainly one of the factors which allowed the bubble to grow more than it otherwise would have. The boom also led to increases on top of increases in public pay, because of the increased tax take.
I have answered you. Now, why do you think consultants here are paid so much? Does it cost an extra 100k more per year to live here compared to Germany ?

Incredible stuff. Accusing me of twisting words. I even said

If I've misunderstood, please correct me.

which you decided to leave out of the quote for some reason

I was trying to clarify your position and I even asked you to correct me if I had it wrong. FFS:rolleyes:


I already answered you. We were living in an overheated economy and we did not have a govt capable of managing the boom.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

Jimmmy,

perhaps my memory is failing but did the people not decide in a referendum to do this?

I cannot remember to be absolutely honest - was there a referendum ( probably in the late nineties ? ) - it was a gradual process. We were pegged / level to the £ sterling until about 30 years ago were we not. Then the punt floated. Then in the nineties the punt became locted at a fixed exchange rate to the other European currencies. Then the euro was invented + replaced the punt. We could not control our exchange rates during the tiger - the Germans were the masters, and wanted it kept low to suit their own economy. Savers in 03 and 04 were getting 1 % interest, when over those years everyone who had property was making 20% on it ...and as recent as 16 months ago anyone who spoke of a slowdown or recession was told by Ahern to go off and commit suicide.
Please refresh my memory : was the referendum to lock in to the same exchange rate as Germany or to adopt the euro, and lose control of our interest rates. If we were not locked in to the euro, we could devalue overnight, like I remember we did about 17 years ago against sterling, during a crises then.

OMD

jimmmy wrote: »

Certainly not.
Why should privately employed cleaners earn less than public service cleaners, in the same country ?
To get back to the point of the thread, why should a hospital consultant get paid double in Ireland compared to Berlin for exactly the same work ?

For the same reasons Irish cleaners are paid more than their german equivalents. The one thing you can say about consultants is that they have a comparable workforce in private sector to which they can be compared. A full time private consultant would expect to earn more than a full time public one. This may change in the future as people spend less on private health.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Please refresh my memory : was the referendum to lock in to the same exchange rate as Germany or to adopt the euro, and lose control of our interest rates. If we were not locked in to the euro, we could devalue overnight, like I remember we did about 17 years ago against sterling, during a crises then.

I dont recall 100% but am sure we voted to join eurozone and take euro as currency

certainly others had referendum and said no to Euro(e.g. Danes I think)

jimmmy

#15 wrote: »

We were living in an overheated economy and we did not have a govt capable of managing the boom.

We agree there. The govt mismanaged the boom ( created by cheap international credit ) by, among other things

• paying itself + its employees + welfare etc too much
• pouring oil on the property fire eg extending section 23 / 27 deadlines
• poor planning eg tax breaks to unsustainable new hotels . People having to drive long distances to commute.
• poor planning eg building housing estates in Leitrim etc - 2/3 of dwellings there are now unoccupied
• lowering tax too much / not saving for a rainy day like the Germans do
• raising the minimum wage to 50% more than UK

The taxes raised in the boom paid a bloated public sector, which exploded by almost 100,000 people over 6 years. Time to get real now. The world does not owe our public sector a living. Anymore than private sector people are owed a living. Many Self employed people now would be better off on the dole, but they cannot get it / would be means tested...and if they have a house , even if its in negative equity, or a few bob put away for extreme emergency, forget it.

irish_bob

#15 wrote: »

Ok, thanks.

So increasing public pay caused the boom, rather than the boom leading to an increase in public pay?

Am I correct in saying that the above is your view? If I've misunderstood, please correct me.

increasing wages and wellfare results in an increased cost of living just like reduced wages and wellfare results in reduced cost of living , its all about purchasing power , one thing that should always be remembered though , the cost of living never ever makes the 1st move which is why wages need to fall 1st

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

increasing wages and wellfare results in an increased cost of living just like reduced wages and wellfare results in reduced cost of living , its all about purchasing power , one thing that should always be remembered though , the cost of living never ever makes the 1st move which is why wages need to fall 1st

Are you planning to publish a new economic theory?

jimmmy

Its not a new economic theory, its common sense. The government throwing money at public servants ( to the point where our 350,000 public servants have the highest average pay in the known world ), at those on welfare ( our old age pension and dole is nearly three times that north of the border ) and raising the minimum wage ( its nearly 50% more than that north of the border ) all meant prises rose. Why is a coffee more in Monte Carlo than in downtown Cairo ?