OECD Report: cut welfare and PS, Recovery from 'severe recession' will take some time

ei.sdraob

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/oecd-recovery-from-severe-recession-will-take-some-time-432899.html

A major new report on Ireland's economy from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has said major cuts in wages are still needed in order to stabilise the public finances.

In its Economic Survey of Ireland published today, the OECD said Ireland was in "severe recession" and indicated said that the adjustments required for recovery would take a long time, resulting in a permanent lowering of living standards.

"An economic recovery is likely to begin next year but a protracted period of adjustment will be needed to resolve economic imbalances built up during the expansion," the survey said.

The document said that the banking crisis needs to be resolved as a matter of priority, the public sector pay bill has to be cut and that welfare payments must be slashed by at least the same as the deflation evident in the economy.

"A return to normal functioning of the financial system is needed and a range of policies is in place to restore the banking system to good health," the report said.

More people need to pay income tax, a property tax should be introduced and everyone should expect lower wages, the reported advised.

Overall the OECD recommends a more streamlined welfare system, cuts in the minimum wage and efforts to train and upskill the population to avoid long-term unemployment

well there you have it kids:

* cuts in welfare
* cuts in PS
* cuts in min wage
* more (re)training and education
* more taxes

pretty much along the lines of what ive been saying needs to be done


P.S: gold star to anyone who can find the actual full report to read

ei.sdraob

found it, overview full book only available to journalists or in shops or here

summary here

edit: heres the 2008 report just in case as well > http://books.google.com/books?id=6Wt32kFYe7AC


a picture says it all really, we just reverted back in time 5 years but our costs are still at peak levels

Tipp Man

Excellent graph there, really highlights how far out we are

graduate

A few quotes from the full report

"It (Ireland) is the only country in the OECD to give mortgage interest tax relief without having a tax on primary residences"

"wages also appear to be falling at a fast pace: OECD forecasts suggest that average nominal wages will decline by around 5% from their peak (OECD, 2009b). This adjustment is without precedent in recent times among industrialised countries."

"Long-term growth is assumed to be well above the euro area average of 1.4%
principally because of stronger assumed growth in the working-age population in Ireland compared with the more rapidly ageing European average."

ei.sdraob

i got the full report (if anyone wants the pdf contact me)

some interesting graphs

peasant

ei.sdraob wrote: »

some interesting graphs

Nothing like a nice graph to bring it home how f***** we really are

Tipp Man

That is terrific work there ei.sdroab. Like they say a picture speaks a thousand words and really highlights how much trouble we are in

Do you or anyone have Figure 2.9a for other European countries, i.e the %age of the workforce that the PS makes up??

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

That is terrific work there ei.sdroab. Like they say a picture speaks a thousand words and really highlights how much trouble we are in

Do you or anyone have Figure 2.9a for other European countries, i.e the %age of the workforce that the PS makes up??

best place to look would be on google books for 2008/2009 reports that are available

see here

http://books.google.com/books?q=OECD+Economic+Surveys:+Norway+2009%E2%80%8E

http://books.google.com/books?q=OECD+Economic+Surveys+public+sector+employment+2009

dvpower

Recession Porn ^^

ardmacha

This is interesting. Firstly public sector employment did not grow disproportionately, but what growth it did have was mostly in health.

Secondly from 2003 there was a gap in the growth of PS wages dur to benchmarking, but after that they simply tracked private sector wages. If benchmarking had really addressed earlier shortfalls it wouldn't be so bad, but benchmarking mark 1 was a joke and many of those who got the largest increases didn't necessarily deserve them.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

This is interesting. Firstly public sector employment did not grow disproportionately, but what growth it did have was mostly in health.

.

However in the last year the public sector would have grown hugely on these graphs. Total employment fell 10% in last 12 months. Public sector employment fell rather less.

Diarmuid

ardmacha wrote: »

Secondly from 2003 there was a gap in the growth of PS wages dur to benchmarking, but after that they simply tracked private sector wages. If benchmarking had really addressed earlier shortfalls it wouldn't be so bad, but benchmarking mark 1 was a joke and many of those who got the largest increases didn't necessarily deserve them.

Not much news there if you've been following Rowan Lyons.

Riskymove

OMD wrote: »

However in the last year the public sector would have grown hugely on these graphs. Total employment fell 10% in last 12 months. Public sector employment fell rather less.

Hugely? the selective use of exaggerated terms continues

ardmacha

Total employment fell 10% in last 12 months. Public sector employment fell rather less.

This doesn't add any insight, the likes of health and education, whether private or public, remains in demand during a recession.

baalthor

Ah, the OECD is just bitter that it didn't get a job in the public sector

nesf

ardmacha wrote: »

This is interesting. Firstly public sector employment did not grow disproportionately, but what growth it did have was mostly in health.

It's only from 2003 though. You'd have to look at public sector expansion over the whole of the boom, not just the latter years to get a good picture of what was going on.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

It's only from 2003 though. You'd have to look at public sector expansion over the whole of the boom, not just the latter years to get a good picture of what was going on.

I remember seeing data on it somewhere -- I suspect that it was in an ESRI report, and I'll try to dig it out. Public service employee numbers as a percentage of total employment remained remarkably consistent over a period of something of the order of 12 or 15 years.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I remember seeing data on it somewhere -- I suspect that it was in an ESRI report, and I'll try to dig it out. Public service employee numbers as a percentage of total employment remained remarkably consistent over a period of something of the order of 12 or 15 years.

Yeah but what is hidden in that statistic is that we saw very very substantial population growth over this period through immigration.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I remember seeing data on it somewhere -- I suspect that it was in an ESRI report, and I'll try to dig it out. Public service employee numbers as a percentage of total employment remained remarkably consistent over a period of something of the order of 12 or 15 years.

Found it: It's in a paper by Tony Foley that I don't think is available online. The tables don't copy properly for me, and I'm too tired right now to type them all out. In 1988 the public service amounted to 15.2% of employment; in 2007 it was 15.3%. In between those dates the high was 16.2% and the low was 14.7%. He gives his source as the CSO.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but what is hidden in that statistic is that we saw very very substantial population growth over this period through immigration.

Of course. And also higher participation in the labour market.

Some of the absolute increase can be linked to greater demands for service because of population growth.

irish_bob

baalthor wrote: »

Ah, the OECD is just bitter that it didn't get a job in the public sector

i bet they read the sindo aswell