70% of companies have not had pay cuts

Scofflaw

herya wrote: »

Lovely! You couldn't represent your kind better.

To be fair, I'm not sure maxximus isn't simply trolling here - although I'm sure the PS has trolls too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

maxximus

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Can't be bothered mate.
If people don't want to understand, they won't.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, this year has been better for me than last, which was in turn better than 2005-2006. Next year currently looks OK, as far as I can tell - and still I have my freedom. You're still in the public sector, and will be as long as you do have a job. Of the two of us, I'd much rather be me.

amused,
Scofflaw

good for you scofflaw , i d much rather be me too, i dont wish to see anyone lose their job , best of good luck to you in the new year .

maxximus

herya wrote: »

Lovely! You couldn't represent your kind better.

herya , another who must think its ok to abuse the public sector and not receive any back , catch up lad !!!:mad:

Scofflaw

maxximus wrote: »

herya , another who must think its ok to abuse the public sector and not receive any back , catch up lad !!!:mad:

This isn't actually a boxing ring, though. The idea is to discuss the issues, and you can either help, or be prevented from hindering, if you see what I mean.

moderately,
Scofflaw

maxximus

Scofflaw wrote: »

This isn't actually a boxing ring, though. The idea is to discuss the issues, and you can either help, or be prevented from hindering, if you see what I mean.

moderately,
Scofflaw

hold on there now scofflaw , i wasnt the first to express laughter at the possibility of anothers misfortune , im sure you will admit to that as it is in black and white a few posts back ?????

So threaten me all you like , but dont be a hypocrite about it , lad.

coady

the goverment have done a good job of divide and conquer so we dont complain about the real problem.,, bailing the banks out .

hobochris

Is there a source for the op?

Scofflaw

hobochris wrote: »

Is there a source for the op?

No, I think the claim in the OP is based on a misreading of a report that said 70% of companies either had, or were going to, institute pay cuts or changes in working conditions - rather the reverse of the claim, but doesn't seemed to have dampened the ardour.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

coady wrote: »

the goverment have done a good job of divide and conquer so we dont complain about the real problem.,, bailing the banks out .

Government deficit is actually more of a problem, being rather larger and not a once-off.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

maxximus wrote: »

hold on there now scofflaw , i wasnt the first to express laughter at the possibility of anothers misfortune , im sure you will admit to that as it is in black and white a few posts back ?????

So threaten me all you like , but dont be a hypocrite about it , lad.

Actually, maxximus, as far as I can see you were.

moderately,
Scofflaw

maxximus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, maxximus, as far as I can see you were.

moderately,
Scofflaw

i first laughed at the how ridiculous your post was , i did not joke about anyone having their pay cut or losing their job until a precedent was set by you good self , hope that clears it up for you.

Scofflaw

maxximus wrote: »

i first laughed at the how ridiculous your post was , i did not joke about anyone having their pay cut or losing their job until a precedent was set by you good self , hope that clears it up for you.

Then perhaps you need to contemplate the meaning of the expression "who laughs longest", since I suspect neither of us will actually be laughing in December.

cordially,
Scofflaw

maxximus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Then perhaps you need to contemplate the meaning of the expression "who laughs longest", since I suspect neither of us will actually be laughing in December.

cordially,
Scofflaw

most prob not but i still reserve my right to protest against it , a point lost on many of the private sector on here , my presence on this thread was merely to dispute that a little , cheerio

NewDubliner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Government deficit is actually more of a problem, being rather larger and not a once-off.

How much of the deficit has been caused by interest on borrowing for bank and property-speculator bailouts?

herya

NewDubliner wrote: »

How much of the deficit has been caused by interest on borrowing for bank and property-speculator bailouts?

I'm sure much was, and it was all caused by the public (politicians) and private (bankers) Gordian knot at the top.

The whole thing is not really public vs private as much as senior cliquish circles against young employees (public or private). I guess that no public sector juniors will enjoy the level of salaries and benefits current senior and middleweight staff have. Similarly a junior bank teller in AIB enjoys nothing from the bucketloads of money thrown over their heads.

Sand

How much of the deficit has been caused by interest on borrowing for bank and property-speculator bailouts?

None. The government is not borrowing to fund NAMA. It is issuing bonds to the banks. The banks use the govt bonds as collateral to borrow money from the ECB.

The deficit is caused by two things:

- The Department of Finance, the social partners, the government all ramping up spending massively based on windfall taxes from property transactions, whilst grossly overestimating the income they would have to pay for this spending on everything from decentralisation to Nearys golden handshake for a job terribly done.

- The collapse of private sector employment leading to increasing welfare benefit costs which were ramped up on the basis of historically low unemploment.

Surprising as it might be to those who consider trade union leadership to be coherent, the banks are not responsible for the fiscal crisis. They are responsible for the bank crisis. Fiscal discipline is the remit of the government and the civil servants working with the government.

SkepticOne

Sand wrote: »

None. The government is not borrowing to fund NAMA. It is issuing bonds to the banks. The banks use the govt bonds as collateral to borrow money from the ECB.

Issuing bonds - a form of borrowing surely?

Sand

Issuing bonds - a form of borrowing surely?

Not in this case because we are giving the banks 54 billion in bonds but we are not getting 54 billion in cash in return. Instead we are getting maybe 30 billion of toxic loans in return.

Over time the costs of NAMA will impact the government (the SPV structure is Enron style accounting - its debt we owe, to the banks ironically enough) but the 26 billion deficit has nothing to do with interest on loans to do bank bailouts. There havent been any.

NewDubliner

Sand wrote: »

None. The government is not borrowing to fund NAMA. It is issuing bonds to the banks. The banks use the govt bonds as collateral to borrow money from the ECB.

So paying interest on the loans means that dividends on the government shares in the banks are lower?.

Now, how did the government fund the billions it put directly into the banks? Was it borrowed or taken from somewhere else? (e.g. the state pension fund)

Certainly the collapse in tax revenues is a big part of the deficit, but I'm interested to see if there are other savings than can be made, which the banks and the government have being keeping off the table.

Johnboymac

I took my job for the security! and that is the only reason i am still in it, apart from the fact that i want to keep my sanity. My income is barely above 550pw so all this bs about wages being 900+ is exactly that. comparitively speaking i would be financially better off claiming the dole...so where is the sense in that!!!(married+ 5qualifying children)
All the rises within the c/s have been on a small percentage basis..ie: 5% spread in increments of 1.5%,1.5 and 2% over the course of 24+mths..whereas sw have had 3% year on year increases and lord knows the increases during the boom years in some sectors and then productivity bonuses..none of which the cs enjoys or ever did!!
BTW i have 10yrs exp

P. Breathnach

NewDubliner wrote: »

How much of the deficit has been caused by interest on borrowing for bank and property-speculator bailouts?

An amount approximating to zero.

Scofflaw

NewDubliner wrote: »

How much of the deficit has been caused by interest on borrowing for bank and property-speculator bailouts?

This has been answered already, but this is from the Govt Pre-Budget Outlook:

Separate to the banking problem, we are facing a serious fiscal challenge as there is a significant gap between expenditure and revenue. The budgetary position has deteriorated rapidly and we are now in a much more difficult period. Tax revenues are back at 2003 levels, while current expenditure has increased by over 70 per cent since then and the Exchequer deficit is forecast to be in the region of €26 billion this year. Continuing to borrow at a high level to bridge the gap between our revenues and our expenditures is unsustainable in the medium to long-term.

The deficit is a current expenditure deficit. That's why the NAMA issue is a bit of a red herring in certain senses - the government isn't funding some sort of bailout. Indeed, as far as I can seem even if everything the government took on through NAMA turned out to be worth nothing at all - that is, not a penny of the loans were repaid, and the collateral (largely property) was worth nothing at all - the full bill would be the same as 2 years current account deficit. That's not nothing, particularly when you consider that it would be in addition to the deficit - but if the total collapse of NAMA somehow meant a return to fiscal balance for the government, it would probably be the less expensive option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NewDubliner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

An amount approximating to zero.

There's a lot of 'smoke & mirrors' accounting going on. That, and a game of 'find the lady'.

For example, if instead of investing billions in banks that the NPRF would not touch, if we'd put it into oil stocks we'd be rakiing it in. But, the government made the NPRF hand the money over to the banks instead & word is there will be another raid soon.

Then there's the higher rates of interest we're being charged because of our support for bank and property speculator debt.

There are costs to the bailouts, but they're indirect and cleverly concealed.

Scofflaw

NewDubliner wrote: »

There's a lot of 'smoke & mirrors' accounting going on. That, and a game of 'find the lady'.

For example, if instead of investing billions in banks that the NPRF would not touch, if we'd put it into oil stocks we'd be rakiing it in. But, the government made the NPRF hand the money over to the banks instead & word is there will be another raid soon.

Then there's the higher rates of interest we're being charged because of our support for bank and property speculator debt.

There are costs to the bailouts, but they're indirect and cleverly concealed.

They certainly don't appear to form part of the headline budget deficit of €26 billion annually. If you plan on suggesting that any appreciable portion of that deficit is really from the bank bailout then you've something of an uphill battle ahead of you. Apart from anything else, putting bank bailout costs into the general government budget rather than NAMA would mean that they counted towards our deficit as per our euro stability commitments, whereas part of the point of NAMA is to ensure that they don't do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NewDubliner

Scofflaw wrote: »

They certainly don't appear to form part of the headline budget deficit of €26 billion annually.

The word 'appear' is key here.

P. Breathnach

NewDubliner wrote: »

There's a lot of 'smoke & mirrors' accounting going on. That, and a game of 'find the lady'.

For example, if instead of investing billions in banks that the NPRF would not touch, if we'd put it into oil stocks we'd be rakiing it in. But, the government made the NPRF hand the money over to the banks instead & word is there will be another raid soon.

First, the NPRF is not part of the current budget.

Second, a hypothetical opportunity cost doesn't amount to anything. Can you suppose that the fund would have been invested in oil stocks? Or that those stocks will continue to be a good investment? In any event, we don't know how the NPRF investment in the banks will work out in the medium-to-long term, although I am not supposing that it will prove to be the best deal ever made.

Then there's the higher rates of interest we're being charged because of our support for bank and property speculator debt.

I'll give you the cost of current borrowing argument, insofar as it relates to the current budget. That's why I said that the amount approximated to zero, rather than was actually zero. It's relatively small.

There are costs to the bailouts, but they're indirect and cleverly concealed.

Yes, they are indirect, but I don't think they are concealed.

Scofflaw

NewDubliner wrote: »

The word 'appear' is key here.

Yes - as in, when someone claims that "x appears to be y", a key element is that some form of proof other than the supposition is customarily offered.

In the absence of proof, some sort of motive might be offered - but in this case, the trick you are suggesting would move government debts from what is effectively an off balance sheet vehicle onto the government's balance sheet. While that's not impossible, it is exactly contrary to the normal motivation for creating an off balance sheet vehicle.

Since NAMA has been give an in-principle go-ahead by the ECB as something that doesn't count towards the ECB's measurement of Irish government debt, perhaps you can explain to me the value of putting debt that ought to go in NAMA onto the government's official books, where it would?

amused,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Yup. Its true.

That 70% just fired everybody and went bankrupt. No paycuts tho.

I don't suppose you have figures to show that 70% of business have gone bankrupt and 70% of private sector employees have been made redundant?

Sand

There are costs to the bailouts, but they're indirect and cleverly concealed.

Of course, and I wholly oppose the bailouts on the basis of those costs.

But in relation to the 7 billion given to the banks with little or no strings attached, that 7 billion - if we were to take it from the reserve and instead use it to plug the deficit would only cover....3 months of the deficit?

And whilst I wholly disagree with the bank bailouts, there is more logic to using 7 billion to achieve some infrastructural or economic goal that will allegedly return benefits greater than 7 billion in future, than simply throwing it at the money pit that is the deficit so that we can avoid the difficult but completely necessary adjustment thats needed in spending.

If you want to get really worked up over the pain the public sector is going to have to take over the next few years, the deficit is 26 billion or so. The government is only trying to reduce that by 4 billion this year. That still leaves 22 billion to be made up in future budgets, assuming the government is even able to achieve 4 billion in savings given the govt and the Dept of Finance have been chronically inept in their budget estimates so far.

@Scofflaw

In the absence of proof, some sort of motive might be offered - but in this case, the trick you are suggesting would move government debts from what is effectively an off balance sheet vehicle onto the government's balance sheet. While that's not impossible, it is exactly contrary to the normal motivation for creating an off balance sheet vehicle.

Since NAMA has been give an in-principle go-ahead by the ECB as something that doesn't count towards the ECB's measurement of Irish government debt, perhaps you can explain to me the value of putting debt that ought to go in NAMA onto the government's official books, where it would?

I believe that is a generous application of the term effectively.

Effective implies substance - the use of a SPV is an accounting trick. Ireland will owe the banks 54 billion on the bonds they issue, but due to a neat little bit of accounting inspired by Enron and epic accounting malpractise throughout history, its merely looks like Ireland doesnt owe the banks 54 billion.

No matter if that 54 billion sits on the SPVs balance sheets or the states balance sheet, we the taxpayer still owe it. The use of the SPV is an attempt to hide that reality behind a mess of legal agreements, public-private ownership and gentlemens agreements.

But effectively, we still owe that 54 billion to the banks. Any meaningful, realistic view of Irelands debt obligations will take it into account no matter where it sits.

lmimmfn

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't suppose you have figures to show that 70% of business have gone bankrupt and 70% of private sector employees have been made redundant?

theres no figures for the original post either.

I dont believe that 70% have not had pay cuts, however concentrating on pay cuts isint the whole picture, we have to work extra hours, which is effectively a pay cut, on top of that we've had pay freezes for the past 4 years, newer employees got 0 contribution from the company for their pensions.

Companies not making pay cuts is nowhere near a true reflection of the state of the private sector.