IMPACT's '10 myths about the public sector' are based on figures from 2005

ceret

IMPACT has launched an advertising campaign tied into their website, "http://www.7stepstotransform.ie". It lists "10 mythes about the public sector" ( http://www.7stepstotransform.ie/myths.php ).

That page quotes some figures and IMPACT told me that some of it was based on the OECD report titled "Ireland: Towards an integrated Public Service". You can read it here http://www.onegov.ie/eng/FAQs/OECD_Review_of_the_Irish_Public_Service.html

That report was published in 2008, but the figures it's using are based on 2005 (page 21, Table 1.1). Myth 2 "The Public service is massively overstaffed", Myth 3 "The public service is inefficent" and Myth 7 "We have one of the biggest public service wage bills in Europe" are all based on 2005 figures.

Quite misleading!

Idbatterim

I saw this in the letter box earlier and took a read of the propoganda! All of it absolute rubbish! no doubt alot if it will be swallowed by the bleeding hearts though!

bridgitt

How can some people be so foolish to be taken in by the trade unions propoganda ?

irish_bob

bridgitt wrote: »

How can some people be so foolish to be taken in by the trade unions propoganda ?

willfull ignorance mostly

Moriarty

Can you provide figures to demonstrate that the ones they use are unrepresentitive, since you're claiming that they're misleading?

It's not uncommon to use figures from a few years previous in things like this, as quite often they're the last years for which relevant figures are available.

AARRRGH

bridgitt wrote: »

How can some people be so foolish to be taken in by the trade unions propoganda ?

The same way people bought ridiculously overpriced houses during a property boom.

The answer, unfortunately, is that most people are thick.

ceret

Moriarty wrote: »

Can you provide figures to demonstrate that the ones they use are unrepresentitive, since you're claiming that they're misleading?

It's not uncommon to use figures from a few years previous in things like this, as quite often they're the last years for which relevant figures are available.

The figures are correct. In 2005 Ireland spent a low percentage of GDP on public sector pay. Ireland's GDP has changed a bit in the last 12 months (to say the least) with some people projecting a 8.4% drop (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b83102fe-9590-11de-90e0-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1). It is misleading to use this figure to claim that *now* Ireland doesn't spend a lot on public sector pay.

In short, they are trying to use apples to sell us oranges.

Moriarty

That's also an unfair comparison, ceret.

Would you agree that staff levels need to be planned on a medium to long term basis? I think this is a reasonable proposition for a skilled workforce, many positions of which don't exist in the private sector to temporarily absorb and retain skilled labour in this country..

Would you agree that we're currently in a budgetry crisis which is unrepresentitive of Ireland's true economic output?

Would you then agree that the comparison of the current wage bill to current GDP levels could be described most charitably as innocently tunnel-visioned, and far more easily as purposely misleading to further a seperate agenda?

Victor

Moriarty wrote: »

Would you agree that we're currently in a budgetry crisis which is unrepresentitive of Ireland's true economic output?

the boom was abmormal. What we are experiencing now is closer to normality.

Moriarty

Do you have figures to back that up?

Is that what the department of finance is saying?

Victor

The boom was about spending capital income (taxes on construction) to finance current expenditure.

Moriarty

As I said ... ^

FlutterinBantam

Exactly, and now they are finding they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

SkepticOne

ceret wrote: »

The figures are correct. In 2005 Ireland spent a low percentage of GDP on public sector pay. Ireland's GDP has changed a bit in the last 12 months (to say the least) with some people projecting a 8.4% drop

Even in good times, Ireland's GDP was not something upon which to base international comparisons since a lot of it was propped up by foreign direct investment availing of low corporation tax.

lmimmfn

AARRRGH wrote: »

The same way people bought ridiculously overpriced houses during a property boom.

The answer, unfortunately, is that most people are thick.

lol,+1

The Saint

Moriarty wrote: »

Can you provide figures to demonstrate that the ones they use are unrepresentitive, since you're claiming that they're misleading?

It's not uncommon to use figures from a few years previous in things like this, as quite often they're the last years for which relevant figures are available.

You're correct. It's not uncommon to use past figures when more current one are unavailable. However, it is also standard practice while doing so to explicitly state when the statistics you are using to make your argument are from (eg. 2005 est.). It is this omission, and in my opinion intentional omission, that is clearly misleading as anyone with a bit of cop on can figure out that the situation four years ago is a hell of a lot different than it is today and these statistics are redundant.

ceret

This recent document from the Department of Finance (http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2009/payanaljul09.pdf), shows that the public sector pay bill was €14billion in 2005, and will be about €20billion in 2009. So not only has the GDP gone down, but the public sector pay bill has gone up. This makes IMPACT's claims even more misleading!

nesf

Moriarty wrote: »

Can you provide figures to demonstrate that the ones they use are unrepresentitive, since you're claiming that they're misleading?

It's not uncommon to use figures from a few years previous in things like this, as quite often they're the last years for which relevant figures are available.

The core issue is this: it makes absolutely no sense to talk about current pay/staffing levels as being ok based on figures from 4 years ago. The onus is on Impact to back up their claims sufficiently here not for anyone questioning them to provide different figures.

If I made the point that the Irish retail sector was showing strong growth and linked to 2005 figures I'd (hopefully) be laughed at. Ditto for employment numbers or pretty much any ratio based on GDP. Anyone arguing that 2005 figures are useful for anything that's strongly tied to current economic conditions (which any analysis of the public service most certainly will be) either somehow hasn't noticed the massive economic changes of the past 4 years both globally and nationally or is trying to sell you something. There are numbers available through the CSO on public sector wages etc and more recent studies on public sector pay by the ESRI etc, ask yourself why wouldn't Impact want to those figures (even if they didn't want to use the conclusions drawn).

RCIRL

AARRRGH wrote: »

The same way people bought ridiculously overpriced houses during a property boom.

The answer, unfortunately, is that most people are thick.

All houses were "ridiculously overpriced" during the boom, so you are saying everyone who bought a house during the boom is thick. These thick people you are referring to would include, single people, newly married couples, family's with children all all ages. Some of these people are all suffering now and could possibly be suffering for the rest of their lives.

They had no choice, unlike you lucky enough to be either spoon fed by your parents, housed by the Co Council or lucky enough not to be in a situation where you require one of life's most important necessity's.

The only person who is thick my friend is you.

nesf

For instance, one of their points is that we remain under the EU average of public sector spending as a percentage of GDP compared to the EU average. This point is highly misleading. We for various reasons have a far lower percentage of our GDP taken in as tax. It makes absolutely no sense to compare our public sector spending against other EU countries by looking at it as a % of GDP without first correcting for tax takes. Think about it. Also, said % of GDP number is based on 2005 pay levels and 2005 GDP which are both quite different in 2009, as is the our tax take which is the main driving force behind the need for cuts in public expenditure.

We may have been spending too much or too little on public services in 2005 (depending on your politics) but it didn't really matter that year because the tax take more than comfortably covered the cost of funding it. In 2009 our tax take will fall well short of the amount needed to pay for our current level of public spending. It makes no sense in the slightest to talk about public spending in terms of a % of 2005 GDP or a % of 2005 tax intake (the two are somewhat linked but will diverge for various reasons), neither has much relevance right now since both our GDP and tax intake in 2009 are very different!

RCIRL

ceret wrote: »

This recent document from the Department of Finance (http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2009/payanaljul09.pdf), shows that the public sector pay bill was €14billion in 2005, and will be about €20billion in 2009. So not only has the GDP gone down, but the public sector pay bill has gone up. This makes IMPACT's claims even more misleading!

Welcome IMPACT and the PS, please take your position with the Government, Associated political party's and the Banks. Enjoy your stay in,

Ireland's Grovelling Cesspit
Only the scummiest will survive.

lmimmfn

RCIRL wrote: »

All houses were "ridiculously overpriced" during the boom, so you are saying everyone who bought a house during the boom is thick. These thick people you are referring to would include, single people, newly married couples, family's with children all all ages. Some of these people are all suffering now and could possibly be suffering for the rest of their lives.

Yep, totally thick and made the problem even worse for themselves lol.

RCIRL wrote: »

They had no choice, unlike you lucky enough to be either spoon fed by your parents, housed by the Co Council or lucky enough not to be in a situation where you require one of life's most important necessity's.

em, we rented, sorry if you never even considered that, well you learn something new every day and im happy youll have gained some life education from reading this.

RCIRL wrote: »

The only person who is thick my friend is you.

i think you missed the rent option

RCIRL

lmimmfn wrote: »

Yep, totally thick and made the problem even worse for themselves lol.


em, we rented, sorry if you never even considered that, well you learn something new every day and im happy youll have gained some life education from reading this.


i think you missed the rent option

Rent= wasting money while paying for someones mortgage, its handy during a time when you feel no commitment and you require some flexibility.

Mortgage= not wasting money, your paying for a possession which you will own in time. Its a commitment you make based on many circumstances as you have reached a point in your life where you feel stable and you want to live your life in stability.

People who bought homes in Ireland should not be branded as "thick".

If nobody bought houses during this time you wouldn't even be able to rent! There wasn't enough houses available for rent, we cant all stay at home with mammy or live on the street.

The "boom" wasn't something that was made up it happened because a generation of children grew up and needed houses!

Nody

RCIRL wrote: »

Rent= wasting money while paying for someones mortgage, its handy during a time when you feel no commitment and you require some flexibility.

Mortgage= not wasting money, your paying for a possession which you will own in time. Its a commitment you make based on many circumstances as you have reached a point in your life where you feel stable and you want to live your life in stability.

I'd recommend you go look that one up, it has actually been shown in UK as example that if you rented a place for 1990 to 2005 and put the money you saved into stock market you'd end up with more money then the increase on the property (inc. mortgage payments).

Also look at all people with negative equity now, can you honestly claim that they are some kind of winners compared to the people who rented through the boom_

That do require the possibility to be flexible if you have to move, I agree on this.

People who bought homes in Ireland should not be branded as "thick".

Yes they should if they bought a greatly overpriced poorly made shoe box in the middle of no where with the intent to trade up in the future on always increasing house prices (which many did).

If nobody bought houses during this time you wouldn't even be able to rent! There wasn't enough houses available for rent, we cant all stay at home with mammy or live on the street.

People where always buying houses, what changed was the price, size and location equation got blown out of the water by people who felt a house was a guarantied future income due to always increasing house prices.

The "boom" wasn't something that was made up it happened because a generation of children grew up and needed houses!

No the boom was something that happened because people got greedy and decided to buy anything they could almost afford to get on to the properly ladder at ANY PRICE.

The Irish population felt they where rich (only have a look at the 50k+ birthday parties for 18 year old done by regular families in 2006 as example) and hence went on a buying spree from houses, to cars to the latest 50" TV. Money was not an issue as when you run out of it loans where always ready available to use instead on your ever increasing house value, after all once you flipped the house you could always pay of all those loans anyway.

Now around here someone will say it is the banks faults for loaning out etc. but that is taking away the individual responsibility. Yes, the banks would loan out money in a way not sustainable but so will a loan shark. That don't mean I can go blame the loan shark if I take on to much loans and say it is their fault and I'm not to blame. All that money loaned was loaned and spent by individuals on luxury consumption or overpriced poorly built shoe boxes because they felt the need to not miss out. Now the party is over and the tab is due to be paid with a pound of flesh and suffering.

nesf

Nody wrote: »

I'd recommend you go look that one up, it has actually been shown in UK as example that if you rented a place for 1990 to 2005 and put the money you saved into stock market you'd end up with more money then the increase on the property (inc. mortgage payments).

Was the UK property market in boom over that period or did it go through a slump at some point? My memory is telling me the latter is true but I could be wrong.

It's also not a really good way of looking at things. At the end of the 15 years, the mortgage payer has paid off a large chunk of their mortgage and is looking at another 15 years of wage inflation making their payments smaller in real (inflation adjusted) terms. Rents on the other hand will continuously trend upwards following wage inflation over the long term so a renter doesn't get this drop off in the real cost of their living space. The other problem is that it makes an enormous difference where you buy in a boom. People who bought in the early 90s have minuscule mortgage payments versus wages. It's hard to argue the latter weren't winners while it's hard to argue that anyone who bought in the last 5 years wasn't a loser in comparison.

Nody

nesf wrote: »

Was the UK property market in boom over that period or did it go through a slump at some point? My memory is telling me the latter is true but I could be wrong.

One boom and bust in the period. If you look at shorter time periods you risk ending up with only boom or bust hence the longer perspective with both.

ei.sdraob

Well once our credit rating goes further down

we'll be in a situation like California with no external help in sight

then the public sector would end up being paid in IOUs

Jaysoose

RCIRL wrote: »

All houses were "ridiculously overpriced" during the boom, so you are saying everyone who bought a house during the boom is thick. These thick people you are referring to would include, single people, newly married couples, family's with children all all ages. Some of these people are all suffering now and could possibly be suffering for the rest of their lives.

They had no choice, unlike you lucky enough to be either spoon fed by your parents, housed by the Co Council or lucky enough not to be in a situation where you require one of life's most important necessity's.

The only person who is thick my friend is you.

Do you see what you have started? never has more ****e been talked by more people on both sides of this argument.

The renters think they are great for not buying "an overpriced shoe box in the middle of knowhere" even though only a small percentage bought aartments and most bought houses they are happy with but this doesnt suit the argument.

The Home owners think they are great "for not paying somebody elses mortgage"

Its all very blah blah and the arguments are so generalised now its pathetic, if you rent well done you are at the mercy of landlords and will lose your deposit, but have the flexibility to move if needed.

If you own you are possibly in negative equity but at least its your overpriced shoebox and you can make any changes etc you wish.

Oh and for the record ARRGGGHH cant wait to bang on his Mantra of "over priced shoe box sold to idiots" ad nauseum.

eoinbn

RCIRL wrote: »

All houses were "ridiculously overpriced" during the boom, so you are saying everyone who bought a house during the boom is thick. These thick people you are referring to would include, single people, newly married couples, family's with children all all ages. Some of these people are all suffering now and could possibly be suffering for the rest of their lives.

They had no choice, unlike you lucky enough to be either spoon fed by your parents, housed by the Co Council or lucky enough not to be in a situation where you require one of life's most important necessity's.

The only person who is thick my friend is you.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_hom_own-people-home-ownership

Those figures are from 2000. It probably changed a little since then- probably dropped.
So are you trying to say that only Italy and Ireland have it right and that other countries like Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Japan have it wrong? 83% is an insane number. It pretty much means that everyone that is working goes and buys a house right away. 50% of the people that work in this country dont pay income tax, but they have enough money to buy a house!
Of course the banks are largely to blame here, but if you are going to make one of the biggest purchases of your life you should do *some* research. There were ratio's of salary to mortgage that the banks seem to forget about, but they were good guidelines that the average person should of obeyed.

wicklowmale

Ok i have a few questions and if anyone can provide some REAL answers that would be great.

1) Re: Pensions: I understand in the private sector when you retire we can take one yrs salary tax free, isn't it correct that the Public sector you can take 1.5-2 times your salary tax free? In this case i can understand they should contribute more towards pesions than the private sector

2) Why should the private sector take the brunt of the redundancies in the country? approx. 200,000 so far in the private sector but none in the Public sector

3) Economists in ireland and abroad (IMF) agree that considering the number of ppl employed in the Public sector, the yearly payrole bill is much too high.

4) As the IMF is helping to provide Ireland, and other European countries to get through this recession, If ireland does not do something serious with the Public sector(ie wage cuts, reduced overtime, redundancies etc) the IMF has the power to come in and take control. This is understanding and realistic, it would be like any bank calling in a examiner or creditor to over see the running of any company that is unable to pay its loans.

Can ppl provide real answers to the above?

ceret

wicklowmale wrote: »

4) As the IMF is helping to provide Ireland, and other European countries to get through this recession, If ireland does not do something serious with the Public sector(ie wage cuts, reduced overtime, redundancies etc) the IMF has the power to come in and take control. This is understanding and realistic, it would be like any bank calling in a examiner or creditor to over see the running of any company that is unable to pay its loans.

The IMF can't come into any country. The government has to invite them in and ask or a loan. The IMF might say "We'll give you €Xbillion if you do X, Y, Z", and the government may or may not agree to them. The government is also quite free to tell them to feck off and doesn't have to do anything.

However it might be that the government would have no money to pay for anything, including salaries of anyone. This can have lots and lots of problems. In argentina all the banks were closed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2760542/Argentina-suspends-all-bank-activity.html)

The IMF is basically a bank. However the bank could make you homeless by repossesing your house and have you living out on the streets. This kind of thing can happen if a country goes broke. Hence a lot of countries 'choose' to agree to the IMF's terms.