Trade Unions will be crushed

ardmacha

Will the red line ever intersect (ie, equal) with the blue line or will they continue to diverge at current rates?

The lines will never intersect.

In the case of Lyons graph the lines will not intersect either. However there is no reason why the aggregate earnings in the private sector should be exactly equal to the public sector. Different age profile, different levels of education etc will mean a difference.

The main contention in this forum is that the growth in public service salaries has outpaced the growth in private sector salaries over the years. The graph and data shows that this is not true for this 10 year period.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it does make a difference to how we make a visual interpretation.

Which is greater: 162/10 or 171/10?

[I got further than first year.]

Are you conceding that the public service line is steeper than the private sector line or still maintaining that it's the other way around?

You also failed to answer my other question. You made a seemingly negative comment about Ronan Lyons-are you claiming there is a fault with his data, with his presentation with the data or with something else? If so, what?

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

The lines will never intersect.

Thank you.

ardmacha wrote: »

In the case of Lyons graph the lines will not intersect either. However there is no reason why the aggregate earnings in the private sector should be exactly equal to the public sector. Different age profile, different levels of education etc will mean a difference.

So you believe that the average public sector pay should be greater than the average earnings in the private sector? I believe this goes to the core of the problem-there is a belief that the public sector should be paid more on average. I disagree and believe it should be purely based on performance-sh!t performance, sh!t pay, regardless of how many degree a person has coming out their @rse.

ardmacha wrote: »

The main contention in this forum is that the growth in public service salaries has outpaced the growth in private sector salaries over the years. The graph and data shows that this is not true for this 10 year period.

Your own graph shows it to be the case! The SLOPE OF THE LINE IS THE RATE OF CHANGE! The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change. Percentages are irrelevant here-

If I was a public sector worker on 100k and I got a measly 10% increase in the ten years I'd be on 110k. If I was a private sector worker on 10k and I got a great 50% pay rise (5 times the pay rise according to you guys!!) I'd be on a whopping 15k a decade later!! See the problem here? Did that private sector worker's pay really increase 5 times more/faster than his public sector counterpart, if so, how come his total pay rise was half that of the public servant??!!

Guys-look at the slopes. The percentages are irrelevant. It's absolute terms that count when talking about whose pay incremented faster than whose.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

Are you conceding that the public service line is steeper than the private sector line or still maintaining that it's the other way around?

Use your maths!

You also failed to answer my other question. You made a seemingly negative comment about Ronan Lyons-are you claiming there is a fault with his data, with his presentation with the data or with something else? If so, what?

Presentation. Side issue.

SkepticOne

From that graph, the private sector got a 71% increase and the public sector got a 66% increase using the normal method of calculating percentage increases.

This is not to say that savings need to be made in public sector wages; they do, but from a factual point of view the relative rise in public sector wages was slightly less than the relative rise in private sector wages. However a lot of the rise in private sector wages would have been based on unsustainable activity associated with the housing bubble/building boom etc and is being adjusted back now.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Use your maths!

So you are conceding it?

You know if I go and plug the starting and finishing salaries into the m=(y2-y1/x2-x1) formula that the public service pay curve will be steeper. I couldn't be @rsed-Ray Charles could see it's steeper. Ardmacha can see it's steeper too.

znv6i3h7kqf9ys

Getting very complicated in here now. Should it not simply be the case that public sector should get paid less for equivalent jobs as they have offset risk by having a safer jobs and pensions?

Riskymove

Edison Ripe Lasagna wrote: »

Getting very complicated in here now. Should it not simply be the case that public sector should get paid less for equivalent jobs as they have offset risk by having a safer jobs and pensions?

similar jobs like what?

znv6i3h7kqf9ys

Riskymove wrote: »

similar jobs like what?

admin, office manager etc

Riskymove

Edison Ripe Lasagna wrote: »

admin, office manager etc

what should a garda be measured against?

what should a fire fighter?


do we have statistical data on what admin and office managers make?

P. Breathnach

Edison Ripe Lasagna wrote: »

Getting very complicated in here now. Should it not simply be the case that public sector should get paid less for equivalent jobs as they have offset risk by having a safer jobs and pensions?

You mean benchmarking. It's difficult to object to that. It's also a difficult operation to conduct, because deciding job equivalence is very complex. There probably isn't a great deal of equivalence within the private sector.

murphaph

Why not just pay the public sector the minimum required to get applicants with the required abilities, like erm, the private sector. The private sector pays as little as possible to keep the people they want to keep-not one penny more. The public sector has the added advantage of job security to offer, so should be able to offer even lower pay than the private sector (in general) as this added benefit (job security) will be factored in by prospective applicants.

The goal should be to spend as little as possible, while maintaining standards to a defined minimum acceptable level. Not everyone should start on the same salary nor should everyone get the same increase. All new applicants should start on the lowest salary they will accept and only get increments/pay rises when their performance merits it.

seangal

looks like the union are doing the crushing and will be around for a lot longer

LoLth

murphaph wrote: »

So you are conceding it?

You know if I go and plug the starting and finishing salaries into the m=(y2-y1/x2-x1) formula that the public service pay curve will be steeper. I couldn't be @rsed-Ray Charles could see it's steeper. Ardmacha can see it's steeper too.

but are you not referring to the rate of change rather than the absolute quantity of change?

is the rate constant? is the rate likely to be constant forever?

ronbyrne2005

Riskymove wrote: »

what should a garda be measured against?

what should a fire fighter?


do we have statistical data on what admin and office managers make?

Should be benchmarked against same jobs in rest europe with an allowance factored in for higher cost of living.

murphaph

LoLth wrote: »

but are you not referring to the rate of change rather than the absolute quantity of change?

is the rate constant? is the rate likely to be constant forever?

Both the rate of change and the quantity of change were larger for the public service from 1998 to 2008. My point is that if we don't make changes now, that this disparity will continue until the country is bankrupt (if not already). The private sector pay for the next two years will make very interesting reading-the 2008 figure already showed a marked drop off in the rate of increase of private sector pay.

Even if the lines were parallel, it would be a somewhat sustainable position (in theory), but having divergent lines means only one thing-either public sector pay needs cutting or private sector pay needs increasing. The latter is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

murphaph

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Should be benchmarked against same jobs in rest europe with an allowance factored in for higher cost of living.

Don't think so ron. The rest of Europe isn't bankrupt and borrowing 20bn a year from the Germans. The higher wages in ireland fueled the higher cost of living-cut wages and the cost of living will fall further, faster. The only ones who will suffer are the ones who bought property at the height of the boom and those who have become accustomed to 3 foreign holidays a year, all the while Ireland was becoming less relevant as an exporter.

ardmacha

Both the rate of change and the quantity of change were larger for the public service from 1998 to 2008. My point is that if we don't make changes now, that this disparity will continue until the country is bankrupt (if not already). The private sector pay for the next two years will make very interesting reading-the 2008 figure already showed a marked drop off in the rate of increase of private sector pay.

Even if the lines were parallel, it would be a somewhat sustainable position (in theory), but having divergent lines means only one thing-either public sector pay needs cutting or private sector pay needs increasing. The latter is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

Yes I do see the slope of the line. But it is not the slope of the line that is of interest it is the rate of increase, which is less for the public sector. The point is that this is a complex matter, not easily analysed by looking at averages and summaries. If the public sector improved health and education by hiring more consultants and professors and the private sector experienced immigration of people doing cleaning jobs and building labourers then the gap could widen, but this would not mean that public servants had become better paid.This debate is largely fact free in part because the likes of the HSE cannot even produce statistics.
Aggregate private sector pay rates may not show a huge dropoff in 2008-2009 as the lower paid temps and latecomers have been laid off first in many cases.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

Yes I do see the slope of the line. But it is not the slope of the line that is of interest it is the rate of increase, which is less for the public sector. The point is that this is a complex matter, not easily analysed by looking at averages and summaries. If the public sector improved health and education by hiring more consultants and professors and the private sector experienced immigration of people doing cleaning jobs and building labourers then the gap could widen, but this would not mean that public servants had become better paid.This debate is largely fact free in part because the likes of the HSE cannot even produce statistics.
Aggregate private sector pay rates may not show a huge dropoff in 2008-2009 as the lower paid temps and latecomers have been laid off first in many cases.

The slope of the line IS the rate of increase. The only possible way it can be spun (and it is spin) that the average public sector pay increased slower than the private sector is when the figures are expressed as a percentage of pay. The fact is that in 8 out of 10 years, between 1998 and 2008, the public sector average wage increased by MORE than the private sector equivalent.

I accept that these things are more complicated than this graph, but when even a simple graph is being disputed and held up for something other than what it is, you have to wonder.

Another example-
You work in a department with another lad. He started on 50k ten years ago and received a pay increase of 50% over that time to bring him to 75k. You were hired at the same time and worked alongside him after starting on 32k and got a bigger percentage pay rise of 75% and are now on 56k. Who got stiffed? You for starting on a smaller comparative salary, or your colleague for getting a smaller percentage pay increase? Who is happier at the end of the day?

The private sector got stiffed from day one of Benchmarking IMO.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

Both the rate of change and the quantity of change were larger for the public service from 1998 to 2008. ...

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

The rate of change is the slope of the line. .

The word slope (gradient, incline, pitch) is used to describe the measurement of the steepness of a straight line. The higher the slope, the steeper the line. The slope of a line is a rate of change.

Which line has the greater slope? The public sector line clearly => the public sector rate of pay increase was greater. Please address my previous points put to you before getting back to me on anything else. I have asked you straight questions and you have simply ignored them and jumped back in on the next page. That's not proper debate.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

The rate of change is the slope of the line. .

Which line has the greater slope? The public sector line clearly => the public sector rate of pay increase was greater.

Being persistent does not make you right. You are attempting to treat irregular lines as straight lines, even though they have more of the characteristics of a curve. Don't substitute looking at pictures for proper mathematics.

Please address my previous points put to you before getting back to me on anything else. I have asked you straight questions and you have simply ignored them and jumped back in on the next page. That's not proper debate.

Proper debate does not involve going off on wild goose chases of your choosing. I deal with the points that I choose to address.

The core fact is that over the period in Lyons's chart private sector pay increased by a greater percentage than public sector pay. Not only have you not dealt with that, you have denied it.

K-9

joolsveer wrote: »

IBEC is a registered trades union. Would you see it crushed as well?

IBEC represents some employers and haven't come out of this or social partnership well.

seangal wrote: »

Agree but I thing from being on boards the public have turned against the PS employee so if they go on strike they cant really turn against them much more and being honest they don’t care.
Mark my words if the government go ahead with the pay cut the public sector will cause this government to FALL in January. I would go as far as to say that is what the Government want as it give them a way out and avoid cleaning up the mess they made.
I would also say this is the agenda the Unions and Irish Media are working on also.

Maybe, but any new Govt. is going to be faced with the same figures.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a bit ironic that you describe my view as narrow. I suspect that you don't know what my position is.

The graph shows otherwise: public sector pay rose by 62% between 1998 and 2008; private sector bay rose by 71% in the same period.

It backs up the point that the massive increase in the pay bill has mostly come about through a huge increase in numbers during the period, rather than bigger pay rises.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Being persistent does not make you right. You are attempting to treat irregular lines as straight lines, even though they have more of the characteristics of a curve. Don't substitute looking at pictures for proper mathematics.

The curves approximate a straight line and if you want to use integration to calculate the area under the curve, it will still show a greater rate of increase for the public sector average pay. I can tell that by looking at the two curves, as can anyone really. Sometimes proper maths is as simple as looking at 'pictures'

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Proper debate does not involve going off on wild goose chases of your choosing. I deal with the points that I choose to address.

Hmmmm, sounds familiar alright.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The core fact is that over the period in Lyons's chart private sector pay increased by a greater percentage than public sector pay. Not only have you not dealt with that, you have denied it.

Wrong. I can see quite clearly that the average wage in the private sector increased on average at a higher percentage than the average wage in the public sector and I (unlike others) would certainly not deny a mathematical truth. That is not the same as the rate of increase being higher however. The public service average pay still increased bý noticeably a greater amount over the 10 years. It increased more in 8 out of the 10 years.

For the rate of increase in the private sector to have been higher, it's curve would have had to have been steeper than the public sector's, which clearly it isn't.

Are you finally accepting now that the public sector curve (which approximates a straight line very well) is indeed steeper than the private sector, something which you claimed the opposite of a couple of hours ago?

The ONLY reason the private sector pay increased by a greater percentage (but much lower in absolute terms) was because the private sector average started out at a MUCH lower average than the public sector.

frman

Can we stop talking about lines on a graph and get back to crushing the unions ?

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

... Wrong. I can see quite clearly that the average wage in the private sector increased on average at a higher percentage than the average wage in the public sector and I (unlike others) would certainly not deny a mathematical truth. That is not the same as the rate of increase being higher however...

So something increases by a higher percentage, but that's not a greater rate of increase? Holding a discussion with you is a waste of time, and I can find more enjoyable ways of wasting my time.

But whenever you affirm that black is white, I will refute it. I just won't spend time discussing it with you.

SkepticOne

The dispute over how the graph is interpreted comes down to whether you absolute increases or relative increases are important. The slope of the graph is useful if you are interested in absolute changes.

Increase in absolute terms:
Public Sector: €19,468
Private Sector: €15,651

However in percentage terms:
Public Sector: 66%
Private Sector: 71%

I don't think either comparison is particularly useful. What we really need to compare is the amount that is being spent on wages overall and the country's capacity to pay it, and then work out how to reconcile those two.

irish_bob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

you do love your semantics , typical civil servant

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

you do love your semantics , typical civil servant

You don't like it when I try to have things correct, and correctly expressed? I suppose it is an obstacle to misinformed ranting.

Daithinski

What is this thread about again? I enjoyed the maths lessons though...

jackthekipper

If the "Crushing" of the unions doesn't help matters who will get the blame next?

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

Please, for the love of God, mathematics, science and education in general, go and get a maths book, or a stats book, or an educated friend, or a poster in the maths forum, or just go to wikipedia and clear this up for yourself.

If I'm in a car chasing another car in front of me, given enough time, I'll catch him if I'm accelerating more quickly than he is, otherwise I won't. Simple. Some people here should be embarrassed at their grasp of mathematics. It's as plain as day from the graph that public wages are increasing more rapidly than private, as the gap between public and private gets bigger as time goes on. This is not semantics or spin - the public wages are (according to the graph) increasing more quickly than private wages. I have no interest in the public vs. private squabble, but incorrect interpretation of data just annoys the hell out of me.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

Please, for the love of God, mathematics, science and education in general, go and get a maths book, or a stats book, or an educated friend, or a poster in the maths forum, or just go to wikipedia and clear this up for yourself.

If I'm in a car chasing another car in front of me, given enough time, I'll catch him if I'm accelerating more quickly than he is, otherwise I won't. Simple. Some people here should be embarrassed at their grasp of mathematics. It's as plain as day from the graph that public wages are increasing more rapidly than private, as the gap between public and private gets bigger as time goes on. This is not semantics or spin - the public wages are (according to the graph) increasing more quickly than private wages. I have no interest in the public vs. private squabble, but incorrect interpretation of data just annoys the hell out of me.

It's as plain as day from the graph, is it?

Do the sums, this mathematics you so enthusiastically endorse. SkepticOne did the calculation only a few posts back. Pay rates in the private sector have been, in the terms you choose, accelerating more quickly. Rate of change rather than amount of change -- understand?

The incorrect interpretation of data annoys me. So does your patronising tone.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's as plain as day from the graph, is it?

Do the sums, this mathematics you so enthusiastically endorse. SkepticOne did the calculation only a few posts back. Pay rates in the private sector have been, in the terms you choose, accelerating more quickly. Rate of change rather than amount of change -- understand?

The incorrect interpretation of data annoys me. So does your patronising tone.

tell me something P

does the Revenue tax one on their "rate of change" or their "income" ?

imstrongerthanu

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055761229

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

tell me something P

does the Revenue tax one on their "rate of change" or their "income" ?

Going on the data, the Public Sector would pay far more tax, PRSI and deductions, naturally!

frman

imstrongerthanu wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055761229

Crush the unions is the only way to go.

See the light.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's as plain as day from the graph, is it?

Do the sums, this mathematics you so enthusiastically endorse. SkepticOne did the calculation only a few posts back. Pay rates in the private sector have been, in the terms you choose, accelerating more quickly. Rate of change rather than amount of change -- understand?

The incorrect interpretation of data annoys me. So does your patronising tone.

Yes, it is as plain as day. I don't mean to be patronising but you're simply wrong and keep embarrassing yourself by insisting you're correct when you don't know what is meant by the rate of change. Seriously, show that graph to a friend with a maths background and ask him/her which plot shows the greatest rate of change or ask him/her whose pay is accelerating more quickly. Car one (private sector) travelling at 1mph is trying to catch car 2 (public sector) at 10mph. After an hour their is nine miles between them. If car one then increases his speed by 50% he is going at 1.5mph. If car 2 increases his speed by only 20% he is going at 12mph. After another hour car 1 is at 2.5miles, car 2 is at 22miles. Repeat the speed gain, car 1 is going at 2.25mph and after another hour has travelled 4.75 miles, car 2 is travelling at 18mph and has travelled 40 miles. Simply answer me this, which car is accelerating more quicky, or another way, which car shows the greatest rate of change of velocity?

ei.sdraob

yeh i really dont understand why this rate of change business is being brought up?



the graph is only since 2003, but please do tell me that the PS are not raking it in

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

Yes, it is as plain as day. I don't mean to be patronising but you're simply wrong and keep embarrassing yourself by insisting you're correct when you don't know what is meant by the rate of change. Seriously, show that graph to a friend with a maths background and ask him/her which plot shows the greatest rate of change or ask him/her whose pay is accelerating more quickly. Car one (private sector) travelling at 1mph is trying to catch car 2 (public sector) at 10mph. After an hour their is nine miles between them. If car one then increases his speed by 50% he is going at 1.5mph. If car 2 increases his speed by only 20% he is going at 12mph. After another hour car 1 is at 2.5miles, car 2 is at 22miles. Repeat the speed gain, car 1 is going at 2.25mph and after another hour has travelled 4.75 miles, car 2 is travelling at 18mph and has travelled 40 miles. Simply answer me this, which car is accelerating more quicky, or another way, which car shows the greatest rate of change of velocity?

Cutting through the verbiage: car 1 is accelerating by 50%, and car 2 is accelerating by 20%. Car 1 is accelerating faster. Assuming no speed limits, car 1 will eventually overtake car 2.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Cutting through the verbiage: car 1 is accelerating by 50%, and car 2 is accelerating by 20%. Car 1 is accelerating faster. Assuming no speed limits, car 1 will eventually overtake car 2.

You see, there is the problem, read through it again. Car 2 is accelerating faster. Car 1 will never overtake car 2. NEVER. Ever ever. In fact, he'll just get further and further away from him.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

You see, there is the problem, read through it again. Car 2 is accelerating faster. Car 1 will never overtake car 2. NEVER. Ever ever. In fact, he'll just get further and further away from him.

Wrong. Quit wasting your time and mine.

ceret

Stark wrote: »

A few one day strikes here and there? Big deal. It's not like a Thatcher's Britain style war that we're facing into.

Yeah pretty soon all the shops in Newry will have run out of stuff.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wrong. Quit wasting your time and mine.

I can assure you that you are the one that is wrong. How am I wasting my time? I'm trying to explain what should be simple Junior Cert level maths to you. It's frustrating but not a waste of time, eductation is never a waste of time. It's certainly not a waste of your time either, you need to be able to understand this stuff.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

I can assure you that you are the one that is worng. How am I wasting my time? I'm trying to explain what should be simple Junior Cert level maths to you. It's frustrating but not a waste of time, eductation is never a waste of time. It's certainly not a waste of your time either, you need to be able to understand this stuff.

You would have me believe that (1 x 1.5^n) < (10 x 1.2^n) for all values of n. No, thank you. I'll stick with my Intermediate Certificate maths.

I don't think that the "new maths" brought in since my schooldays has changed the fundamentals.

SkepticOne

This thread is really about ego. We're arguing about slight differences in the speeds of cars while forgetting that they're both headed for the same cliff.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

This thread is really about ego. We're arguing about slight differences in the speeds of cars while forgetting that they're both headed for the same cliff.

For me, it's about truth.

ardmacha

Cutting through the verbiage: car 1 is accelerating by 50%, and car 2 is accelerating by 20%. Car 1 is accelerating faster. Assuming no speed limits, car 1 will eventually overtake car 2.

You see, there is the problem, read through it again. Car 2 is accelerating faster. Car 1 will never overtake car 2. NEVER. Ever ever. In fact, he'll just get further and further away from him.

This forum is littered with people posting things that aren't true, in a way that would do justice to certain political parties. Of course Car 1 will overtake Car 2, in year 11.

Car1 Car2
1.00 10.00
1.50 12.00
2.25 14.40
3.38 17.28
5.06 20.74
7.59 24.88
11.39 29.86
17.09 35.83
25.63 43.00
38.44 51.60
57.67 61.92
86.50 74.30

Now this doesn't prove anything useful about the matter at hand, but untruths are never helpful to honest debate.

As for the above charts they show that public sector numbers have not grown as a proportion of employment and the use of 2003 gives a certain impression that the use of a different year would not.

Stark

Only problem is car 1 was gaining gradually until 2003 when car 2 gave it some more gas and started pulling away again.

ORLY?

ardmacha wrote: »

This forum is littered with people posting things that aren't true, in a way that would do justice to certain political parties. Of course Car 1 will overtake Car 2, in year 11.

Car1 Car2
1.00 10.00
1.50 12.00
2.25 14.40
3.38 17.28
5.06 20.74
7.59 24.88
11.39 29.86
17.09 35.83
25.63 43.00
38.44 51.60
57.67 61.92
86.50 74.30

Now this doesn't prove anything useful about the matter at hand, but untruths are never helpful to honest debate.

As for the above charts they show that public sector numbers have not grown as a proportion of employment and the use of 2003 gives a certain impression that the use of a different year would not.

Apologies, for the use of an incorrect example, it wasn't an untruth, I've been up the walls today and rushed through an example. My example was not linear, so the graphs will intersect. However, the point stands that just because one variable increases by proportionately more than another over a certain time period does not mean that it is accelerating more quickly. This can be seen from the first few points in my example. Acceleration, (or rate of change) is defined by the slope of the graph or acceleration at a point as the slope at that point. The original pay graphs are linear (roughly) and will not intersect, hence the top one is accelerating more quickly. There is no denying this, that is all I have to say on the matter.