Spare a thought for Paddy

Taxipete29

mickeyk wrote: »

What do you propose it should be based on?

I am merely pointing out that averages across industries do not paint a clear picture.

Riskymove

mickeyk wrote: »

Are you serious? It is the people working in the private sector excluding agriculture, average farm income is 16k would you like to include that as well?

I meant the actual definition by the CSO and how they worked it out

They do not produce an overall definitve Private sector average afaik so am interested in how they produced that figure

The_Honeybadger

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I am merely pointing out that averages across industries do not paint a clear picture.

Well please paint us a clear picture then, but until you can do that stop shooting down data that doesn't suit your argument. The example you gave of a person on 50k and 200k is based on two people, of course the average will be skewed, private sector earnings across the entire sector will give a much better balance of the various earnings. Unless you can provide more accurate data what is your problem?

The_Honeybadger

Riskymove wrote: »

I meant the actual definition by the CSO and how they worked it out

They do not produce an overall definitve Private sector average afaik so am interested in how they produced that figure

Not sure how they worked it out will try have a look later

Taxipete29

mickeyk wrote: »

Well please paint us a clear picture then, but until you can do that stop shooting down data that doesn't suit your argument. The example you gave of a person on 50k and 200k is based on two people, of course the average will be skewed, private sector earnings across the entire sector will give a much better balance of the various earnings. Unless you can provide more accurate data what is your problem?

The average will always be skewed when you have people at the top level who earn huge multiples of those below them as is the case in most sectors.

I dont have a problem or argument. I was merely pointing out that your figures dont tell the whole story. I am commenting on what you posted. You seem a bit touchy

The_Honeybadger

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The average will always be skewed when you have people at the top level who earn huge multiples of those below them as is the case in most sectors.

I dont have a problem or argument. I was merely pointing out that your figures dont tell the whole story. I am commenting on what you posted. You seem a bit touchy

Apologies that post was a bit aggressive. It just annoys me when PS (not referring to you don't know what you do) say the likes of "ye were all laughing at us during the boom", and when data which blows that out of the water is produced they just blank it and say it doesn't tell the full story. Is it not the case though that this phenomenon exists in both sectors, some incomes are multiples of those at the bottom, how can we paint a clear picture if not by averages?

Nidot

mickeyk wrote: »

Apologies that post was a bit aggressive. It just annoys me when PS (not referring to you don't know what you do) say the likes of "ye were all laughing at us during the boom", and when data which blows that out of the water is produced they just blank it and say it doesn't tell the full story. Is it not the case though that this phenomenon exists in both sectors, some incomes are multiples of those at the bottom, how can we paint a clear picture if not by averages?

Top post mickeyk, its good to point out that both sectors encounter the same problem when averages are bandied about.

MaceFace

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I love when people trot out graphs based on average wages.

If a Doctor earns 200k and a Nurse earns 50k, their average wage is 125k. Now is that representative of what either of them earn?? NO.....

I don't love it when people try and confuse things.

When we hear people have had an average 7% cut in pay, this isn't clear either. One person has had a 5% cut and the other maybe 8%.

ardmacha

On this chart it is clear that semi State bodies have the highest wages, and the likes of the ESB have received increases, rather than decreases, in the last year. Yet the witchhunt is on for the public sector, with little or no mention of semi States. Mob dynamics are difficult to understand.

The_Honeybadger

ardmacha wrote: »

On this chart it is clear that semi State bodies have the highest wages, and the likes of the ESB have received increases, rather than decreases, in the last year. Yet the witchhunt is on for the public sector, with little or no mention of semi States. Mob dynamics are difficult to understand.

Absolutely true, esb funds itself and even makes the gov a profit though, if we were supporting them it may well be a different story. But what you say is definately the case.

Taxipete29

MaceFace wrote: »

I don't love it when people try and confuse things.

When we hear people have had an average 7% cut in pay, this isn't clear either. One person has had a 5% cut and the other maybe 8%.

You must be easily confused plus not very good at maths. The figures you posted come to a 6.5% average cut.

Stark

The 7% figure comes from unequal numbers of people receiving 5% and 8% cuts (weighted average) and also people receiving different cuts to different portions of their pay, similar to the way you're taxed differently on different portions of your income.

BrownianMotion

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You must be easily confused plus not very good at maths. The figures you posted come to a 6.5% average cut.

Scenario 1
Person 1 on 32000 gets cut 5%.
Person 2 on 64000 gets cut 8%.

Total wages: 96000
Total wages cut from both: 6720 (32000*0.05 + 64000*0.08)
Total average cut: (6720/96000)*100 = 7%

Scenario 2
Person 1 on 32000 gets cut 5%.
Person 2 on 64000 gets cut 8%.

Average cut: (5% + 8%)/2 = 6.5%


This is just my little example of how pointless these arguments are. The figures can be twisted to say whatever the vested interest wants them to say.

changes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

can Barry be replaced by any of the 436,900 unemployed people with more skills and education

no? thought so

At any givin time during the boom 150K were unemployed, some people just don't want to work.

About 280K might be interested in replacing barry though.

MaceFace

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You must be easily confused plus not very good at maths. The figures you posted come to a 6.5% average cut.

Well done you..... demonstrated my point exactly.

Even without having to bring the graded reductions into play, take an example of where one person earns 90k and has a 8% pay cut and the other earns 30k and has a 5% cut. That equals an average of 7.25% cut.

ZYX

Just a couple of points. First I am not a PS worker and do feel many are moaning way too much over relatively minor cuts but:

There are not 436,000 unemployed. It is about 270,000 (13% of workforce). This represents an increase of about 150,000 in last few years. Why are people assuming all these are in private sector. I think everyone accepts many contract workers in public service have now joined the ranks of unemployed. I have no idea how many have. Perhaps someone has a figure. "If" more than 30,000 of these were public sector that means public sector have suffered more from job losses than private sector (as a % of total workers). .

While many in private sector have taken pay cuts, 100% of public sector have. 100% of private sector have not taken cuts.

I accept most public sector workers have permanent jobs and, as I said I believe many whinge too much but the idea that as a sector the private sector is taking all the pain is rubbish

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

Just a couple of points. First I am not a PS worker and do feel many are moaning way too much over relatively minor cuts but:

There are not 436,000 unemployed. It is about 270,000 (13% of workforce). This represents an increase of about 150,000 in last few years. Why are people assuming all these are in private sector. I think everyone accepts many contract workers in public service have now joined the ranks of unemployed. I have no idea how many have. Perhaps someone has a figure. "If" more than 30,000 of these were public sector that means public sector have suffered more from job losses than private sector (as a % of total workers). .

While many in private sector have taken pay cuts, 100% of public sector have. 100% of private sector have not taken cuts.

I accept most public sector workers have permanent jobs and, as I said I believe many whinge too much but the idea that as a sector the private sector is taking all the pain is rubbish

as per http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/psempearn.pdf

A total of 360,900 people were employed in the Public Sector in September 2009
compared to 369,100 in September 2008, a decrease of 8,200.

please keep in mind that includes people who retired

so the public sector shrank by 2.2% in one year

once again including retirees



theres no way in hell they can claim that they suffered anywhere near the scale of private sector shrinkage

Guell72

My heart bleeds for Paddy.
If he was any good he would easily get a job. Unless hes in a dead end job because he was too lazy to develop himself while he was employed.
Retrain, make yourself employable Paddy. Dont cry in my milk.

The dole is great. I was made redundant early last year. Got nearly €40,000 redundancy.
I didnt even bother looking for a job for 3 months. I just drew the nice handy dole and played games and bummed around for 3 months. A well earned and well paid rest.

Within 2 weeks of getting up off my arse, after deciding 3 months of leisure should come to an end i got a job, out of several offers. And for more money than i earned before.
This is because i always made sure i was employable.

There is a sad, pathetic, begrudging attitude prevalent in Ireland now. Grow up people. We all made our career choices. Just because yours was a bad one, dont get mad at others who made good choices.

people are
No longer concerned about keeping up with the Jones.
They are more concerned about making sure the Jones dont have what they themselves dont have.

ei.sdraob

Guell72 wrote: »

people are
No longer concerned about keeping up with the Jones.
They are more concerned about making sure the Jones dont have what they themselves dont have.

its not as simple as that

how would you feel if the Jones took a mortgage in your name and in your children's name and you and your children have to pay for their mortgage

the taxpayer doest have to pay for private sector workers but we do have to pay for the public sector workers, by continuing to borrow, the taxpayer and the taxpayers children will be paying for the "Jones's" :mad:

is it a bit too much to ask for a good service at good prices?

Guell72

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its not as simple as that

how would you feel if the Jones took a mortgage in your name and in your children's name and you and your children have to pay for their mortgage

the taxpayer doest have to pay for private sector workers but we do have to pay for the public sector workers, by continuing to borrow, the taxpayer and the taxpayers children will be paying for the "Jones's" :mad:

is it a bit too much to ask for a good service at good prices?

Its pretty simple alright.
Worry about your own job prospects. Make sure you are useful to an employer and you will never be out of a job. Get Paddy and his mates working and paying tax again.
Im a private sector worker and the tax payer paid part of my redundancy. And €900 a month for 3 months. Would you like it back? The tax payers pay paddys' and his mates dole too.
Time to grow up and stop crying about people who made different career choices than you did.

The_Honeybadger

Guell72 wrote: »

Its pretty simple alright.
Worry about your own job prospects. Make sure you are useful to an employer and you will never be out of a job. Get Paddy and his mates working and paying tax again.
Im a private sector worker and the tax payer paid part of my redundancy. And €900 a month for 3 months. Would you like it back? The tax payers pay paddys' and his mates dole too.
Time to grow up and stop crying about people who made different career choices than you did.

Care to share what sector you work in, or are you just so brilliantly multi talented that employers were breaking down your door? Genuinely interested to know.

ei.sdraob

Guell72 wrote: »

Its pretty simple alright.
Worry about your own job prospects. Make sure you are useful to an employer and you will never be out of a job. Get Paddy and his mates working and paying tax again.
Im a private sector worker and the tax payer paid part of my redundancy. And €900 a month for 3 months. Would you like it back? The tax payers pay paddys' and his mates dole too.
Time to grow up and stop crying about people who made different career choices than you did.

i dont like the idea of paying ever increasing taxes to pay for a bunch of workers who live in a reality distortion field

i dont like the idea that the next generation has to pay the interest on the debt run up by these people

and whats worse the service we the public are receiving is only getting worse since now they are "demoralized" and are striking or working to rule

if you want to know i can be quite literary out of a job in a space of 24 hours, if anything that made me save hard and work even harder, not go around and make terrible financial decisions like "Barry" in the parallel thread has made and then expect people to be sorry for him

remember "Barry" was the one who wrote to the newspaper complaining, all i did was point out that he better be happy where he is as at since alot of other people are much worse off

mickeyk wrote: »

Care to share what sector you work in, or are you just so brilliantly multi talented that employers were breaking down your door? Genuinely interested to know.

must be a banker

Guell72

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dont like the idea of paying ever increasing taxes to pay for a bunch of workers who live in a reality distortion field

i dont like the idea that the next generation has to pay the interest on the debt run up by these people

and whats worse the service we the public are receiving is only getting worse since now they are "demoralized" and are striking or working to rule

if you want to know i can be quite literary out of a job in a space of 24 hours, if anything that made me save hard and work even harder, not go around and make terrible financial decisions like "Barry" in the parallel thread has made and then expect people to be sorry for him

remember "Barry" was the one who wrote to the newspaper complaining, all i did was point out that he better be happy where he is as at since alot of other people are much worse off



must be a banker

But sure if you bothered making sure you were worth employing you will be able to get another job. There would be no need to worry about being out of a job in 24 hours. But sure you have the tax payer to cushion you if you are out of a job, so dont worry too much.

I love the way you say "These people" - Tells the whole story doesnt it. :rolleyes:

Worry less about what other people work at or earn and more about your own employability and you'll be far better off.

The_Honeybadger

Guell72 wrote: »

But sure if you bothered making sure you were worth employing you will be able to get another job. There would be no need to worry about being out of a job in 24 hours. But sure you have the tax payer to cushion you if you are out of a job, so dont worry too much.

I love the way you say "These people" - Tells the whole story doesnt it. :rolleyes:

Worry less about what other people work at or earn and more about your own employability and you'll be far better off.

Are you going to answer my question about what you do that is so recession proof (you don't have to be specific), I am honestly very interested to know.

Guell72

mickeyk wrote: »

Are you going to answer my question about what you do that is so recession proof (you don't have to be specific), I am honestly very interested to know.

As i said "Worry less about what other people work at or earn and more about your own employability and you'll be far better off."

My job is not recession proof. But i have prepared myself well for the recession.

If Paddy stays on the dole, its either by his choice or because he didnt make sure he was employable elsewhere in the event he lost his job. Maybe he should look abroad, if he has a skill that is transferable.

The_Honeybadger

Guell72 wrote: »

As i said "Worry less about what other people work at or earn and more about your own employability and you'll be far better off."

My job is not recession proof. But i have prepared myself well for the recession.

If Paddy stays on the dole, its either by his choice or because he didnt make sure he was employable elsewhere in the event he lost his job. Maybe he should look abroad, if he has a skill that is transferable.

I wasn't asking for your credit card number dude, I myself was made redundant in 08 and was back in work within months, I have no worries about my career, don't think my question is unreasonable if you are going to preach to people about their views on employment and related matters.

Sand

I think Barry is one of the lucky few in Ireland, even if he doesnt realise it - he still has things to lose. But he still has a right to be afraid for his future.

Obviously the public sector guy's (Barry?) problems pale in insignifigance compared to the unemployed - I saw Brian Lucey gave a figure of 50K with mortgages who have lost their jobs, so if he thinks it hard to keep his mortgage together on a 7% paycut, I dont know how he would manage on a 100% cut.

But it cant be denied that while his problems are smaller, he still is worried about his ability to meet his payments - rising interest rates on the way, more public sector paycuts in the post, the banks are going to drop the "We're your friends! Talk to us about how you cant pay us back - it'll be fine!" claptrap once theyve screwed the state for everything they can get in NAMA...do the maths. If he falls behind on his payments, the banks will put him out of his home, declare him bankrupt - a quasi criminal status in Ireland. He is worried, and he has a right to be worried. That others are worse off than him doesnt ease his own fears.

It would be nice if the public sector had a little better sense of how lucky they are to still have jobs with quite good conditions - I've remained in a job and I'm quite happy to be in one, thanks very much - but lets face it, theyve been wrapped up in cotton wool for at least a decade now. Theyre not individually to blame for their sense of entitlement.

The unions turned the social partnership process into an ATM for them and they were always told it was because they were worth it, they deserved it because they deserved to keep up with those guys packing shelves in the private sector for 200K a year, plus bonuses. Now the gravy train has stopped rolling - suddenly theyre in debt, facing paycuts and they are afraid

ardmacha

The impression is sometimes given on this forum that public sector jobs became secure because Bertie Aherne said so. The reality is that teachers, civil servants etc have had job security since the 1880s! They weren't always the highest paid, but they could cash in that security and get good rates for mortgages and live a decent life, reflecting their substantial contribution to society. Roll on the 21st century and every Tom, Dick and Harry could get a mortgage whether their job was secure or not or whether their earnings were mostly overtime or other non long term income. House prices rose to a ridiculous levels and people like Barry sought wages which allowed them buy such a house. It was hardly the case that he was mollycoddled relative to the past, a graduate could always have afforded an apartment in Dublin 15. Now the reduced salaries are still adequate, but if you bought have house at an inflated price you are in a hard place.

ParkRunner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dont like the idea of paying ever increasing taxes to pay for a bunch of workers who live in a reality distortion field

i dont like the idea that the next generation has to pay the interest on the debt run up by these people

and whats worse the service we the public are receiving is only getting worse since now they are "demoralized" and are striking or working to rule

if you want to know i can be quite literary out of a job in a space of 24 hours, if anything that made me save hard and work even harder, not go around and make terrible financial decisions like "Barry" in the parallel thread has made and then expect people to be sorry for him

remember "Barry" was the one who wrote to the newspaper complaining, all i did was point out that he better be happy where he is as at since alot of other people are much worse off



must be a banker

If you look at where your ever increasing taxes, as you said, are going you can see from the latest exchequer statement that expenditure in every Department has gone down, except for in Agriculture (why that has gone up I dont know), Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Social and Family Affairs. Your ever increasing taxes are being spent less on public sector wages and more on trying to regenerate private sector enterprises and more on paying the social welfare that those who have lost their jobs are entitled to..as well as on interest on debt repayments.

But my basic point is that you can expect to pay lower taxes when those on social welfare find themselves employment, rather than continue to primarily expect the public sector wages to drop every few months.

Guell72

EF wrote: »

If you look at where your ever increasing taxes, as you said, are going you can see from the latest exchequer statement that expenditure in every Department has gone down, except for in Agriculture (why that has gone up I dont know), Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Social and Family Affairs. Your ever increasing taxes are being spent less on public sector wages and more on trying to regenerate private sector enterprises and more on paying the social welfare that those who have lost their jobs are entitled to..as well as on interest on debt repayments.

But my basic point is that you can expect to pay lower taxes when those on social welfare find themselves employment, rather than continue to primarily expect the public sector wages to drop every few months.

You make sense.
You might as well be talking to a wall though. Its all about pulling the other guy down to some people. Instead of helping themselves and others up. Major chips on shoulders these days.