Public sector pay increase

Iwasfrozen

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

No such thing as over qualified when it comes to teaching and inspiring young people in a subject. Also it give the teacher a far wider perspective on the subject and where students can go with it etc.

Actually there is. An msc or a phd doesn't bring any additional skills relevant to teaching the leaving cert.

Students are inspired far more by charisma, should we start paying more for that?

swimming in a sea

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

Of course there wages should be that high, a large portion of public sector workers were underpaid before the cuts of recent years never mind after them. Just because yourself and one or two more think otherwise doesn't change the fact. Some of your statements on it have been crazy, capping teacher pay at 45k? For some of the most important workers in the county responsible for educating our youth. Do you want highly qualified and skilled people doing these jobs or do you want the people left over after the best won't work for the wages?

I can even give you a personal example. Who do you want teaching your children? Do you want someone with pass science degree or someone with a phd in science? I have a science based phd and I would seriously consider teaching if the starting salary (with the extra benefits for higher qualifications) was still around 40k like it used to be for someone with my qualifications, but no chance at the current starting salary with very slow progression never mind if it was capped at 45k. You are also getting a fair bit less into your hand every month working in public sector due to the theft that is the pension levy.

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what happens when the government has to refinance the debt and finds interest rates have risen?

You're 'begging the question' here - assuming that interest rates have magically risen, when I've just explained that:
"markets are concerned with sustainability of debt, which is down to interest-payments-to-GDP, not just public-debt-to-GDP."

swimming in a sea

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

Your opinion can be discounted anyway as you obviously have no idea whatsoever about the job of teaching.

kippy

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

What figure is a good figure to pay them?

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're 'begging the question' here - assuming that interest rates have magically risen, when I've just explained that:
"markets are concerned with sustainability of debt, which is down to interest-payments-to-GDP, not just public-debt-to-GDP."

If interest rates rise for any reason our debt becomes less sustainable and interest rates rise again.

The more debt to gdp a country has the more sensitive they are to interest rate fluctuations. That's why borrowing excessively is irresponsible.

Celticfire

kippy wrote: »

What figure is a good figure to pay them?

Obviously less than what He/She earns.......

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If interest rates rise for any reason our debt becomes less sustainable and interest rates rise again.

The more debt to gdp a country has the more sensitive they are to interest rate fluctuations. That's why borrowing excessively is irresponsible.

No, our existing stock of debt doesn't become less sustainable, only new debt is affected by higher interest rates.

Debt we take on today, doesn't rollover for 10 years anyway - we're even issuing 30 year debt now, so could be 30 years before it rolls over...

So, higher interest rates within the next 10 years, only affect debt that we already have if any of it rolls over at the time (doesn't affect new debt) - so you're only presenting a speculative problem that 'might' occur far into the future (10+ years), when the spending boost can get us to recovery long before then.

dont bother

they deserve it.

what should be done is bank staff's salary's should be halved, and more staff hired to make sure the poor creatures dont feel "obliged" to work their so-called 15 hour days etc...

what a load of sh!t.

PS deserve every cent they get. they're the ones who kept the country going by not complaining when they got their salaries DESTROYED.

what are the other Private Sector workers doing? complaining about how they have to work hard for their BONUS - a bonus!?!?! fvck you and the horse you rode in on

PS workers work hard without the promise of a monetary bonus.

Tiger Mcilroy

dont bother wrote: »

they deserve it.

what should be done is bank staff's salary's should be halved, and more staff hired to make sure the poor creatures dont feel "obliged" to work their so-called 15 hour days etc...

what a load of sh!t.

PS deserve every cent they get. they're the ones who kept the country going by not complaining when they got their salaries DESTROYED.

what are the other Private Sector workers doing? complaining about how they have to work hard for their BONUS - a bonus!?!?! fvck you and the horse you rode in on

PS workers work hard without the promise of a monetary bonus.

I saw the bit in bold and snorted my coffee over my keyboard!!

dont bother

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I saw the bit in bold and snorted my coffee over my keyboard!!

i'd say that's not all you're partial to snorting either.

KomradeBishop

It's funny really, the main thing that would actually allow us to spend more on the PS and government spending in general, is the effect that QE is having on interest rates right now - and QE is basically a massive subsidy to the finance-industry and wealthy, through raising asset prices - so to put this in context more:
- Effectively piss gobloads of money at the wealthy and finance, in a massive subsidy, through QE; response: Silence.
- Discuss directing some of this money to government spending (through lowest-interest-rate-ever debt); response: Controversy, PS bashing, saying the workers don't deserve it, attempts at claiming it is impractical etc..

It seems in this case, that when something benefits finance and the wealthy, giving them a massive subsidy they did nothing to earn and do not deserve, then there is no controversy/debate - but when there's discussion of some of the same money that goes to them through QE, going to government spending on the PS (or in general, government spending), and to deserving PS workers who have suffered many cuts, this gets peoples heckles up and stokes a big controversy.

Obviously, I doubt most people are up to date enough on economic events to be able to view it this way, but when you have the knowledge to see it from this perspective, it's kind of funny.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, our existing stock of debt doesn't become less sustainable, only new debt is affected by higher interest rates.

Debt we take on today, doesn't rollover for 10 years anyway - we're even issuing 30 year debt now, so could be 30 years before it rolls over...

So, higher interest rates within the next 10 years, only affect debt that we already have if any of it rolls over at the time (doesn't affect new debt) - so you're only presenting a speculative problem that 'might' occur far into the future (10+ years), when the spending boost can get us to recovery long before then.

Agreed but what happens if interest rates are higher in 10 years time when our debt is due to be rolled over? Suddenly this debt becomes unsustainable which causes our future interest rates to also increase.

This is the bit you don't seem to understand, increasing our debt to gdp ratio increases our exposure to bond market volatility.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agreed but what happens if interest rates are higher in 10 years time when our debt is due to be rolled over? Suddenly this debt becomes unsustainable which causes our future interest rates to also increase.

This is the bit you don't seem to understand, increasing our debt to gdp ratio increases our exposure to bond market volatility.

Except in 10 years the GDP growth caused by restoring the private economy, means we would have even less debt-vs-GDP than now, and wouldn't even need to roll it over, just pay it down if interest rates get high.
We don't have to take on high-interest rate debt to roll debt over, if we don't want to.

You're making a ton of worst-case assumptions anyway - begging the question again, that just, magically, interest rates will be sky high - for some unspecified reason.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except in 10 years the GDP growth caused by restoring the private economy, means we would have even less debt-vs-GDP than now, and wouldn't even need to roll it over, just pay it down if interest rates get high.
We don't have to take on high-interest rate debt to roll debt over, if we don't want to.

You're making a ton of worst-case assumptions anyway - begging the question again, that just, magically, interest rates will be sky high - for some unspecified reason.

In ten years time our debt to gdp wouldn't be lower as we would have taken out more loans in the meantime. How do we "just pay" a loan if the interest rates get too high? The only available source of income to pay off a loan for a country in deficit is more loans.

I'm not assuming rates will be sky high, I'm pointing out how taking on more debt, instead of working towards a budgetary surplus and slowly paying our debt off, leaves the government more exposed to market volatility.

Letree

When do we get these damn payrises anyway?

Quin_Dub

Letree wrote: »

When do we get these damn payrises anyway?

When you move to the glorious Private Sector!!!

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In ten years time our debt to gdp wouldn't be lower as we would have taken out more loans in the meantime. How do we "just pay" a loan if the interest rates get too high? The only available source of income to pay off a loan for a country in deficit is more loans.

I'm not assuming rates will be sky high, I'm pointing out how taking on more debt, instead of working towards a budgetary surplus and slowly paying our debt off, leaves the government more exposed to market volatility.

Again you're making a ton of unwarranted assumptions - that we just keep borrowing more and more, that the deficit lasts forever, that GDP stays static - etc., all of which is contrary to what has already been explained.

You seem to be taking what I am arguing for - short/medium-term deficit spending to boost the private sector back to recovery - and replacing it with 'deficit spending forever'; so you're not actually debating with what I'm actually posting.

It comes across just as blanket opposition to any use of debt financing, even if it can be shown to be sustainable - trying to cherry-pick worst case scenarios, and making unwarranted assumptions that conform to worst-case scenarios, just to try and back your argument.


I mean, you talk about wanting a budget surplus to pay off debt now, and ask earlier "How do we 'just pay' a loan if the interest rates get too high?" - as if a budget surplus can't do that, allowing us to pay a loan down instead of rolling it over to high-interest debt.
This is starting to smell like you're being deliberately/selectively blind, whenever it suits your argument here.

jcon1913

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's funny really, the main thing that would actually allow us to spend more on the PS and government spending in general, is the effect that QE is having on interest rates right now - and QE is basically a massive subsidy to the finance-industry and wealthy, through raising asset prices - so to put this in context more:
- Effectively piss gobloads of money at the wealthy and finance, in a massive subsidy, through QE; response: Silence.
- Discuss directing some of this money to government spending (through lowest-interest-rate-ever debt); response: Controversy, PS bashing, saying the workers don't deserve it, attempts at claiming it is impractical etc..

It seems in this case, that when something benefits finance and the wealthy, giving them a massive subsidy they did nothing to earn and do not deserve, then there is no controversy/debate - but when there's discussion of some of the same money that goes to them through QE, going to government spending on the PS (or in general, government spending), and to deserving PS workers who have suffered many cuts, this gets peoples heckles up and stokes a big controversy.

Obviously, I doubt most people are up to date enough on economic events to be able to view it this way, but when you have the knowledge to see it from this perspective, it's kind of funny.

You are right about Quantitive Easing but the guy in the street doesnt understand what that is or what effect it has on him.

Fear Ciarrai

Letree wrote:

When do we get these damn payrises anyway?

Around the time the election posters go up

Mr. teddywinkles

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Learn basic economics/accounting rather than reaching for bollocks retorts and hyperbole: Debt sustainability is determined by the interest rate on the debt, which is at its lowest level for over 30 years now with Ireland (and the highest level in years for Greece).

And this interest rate is fixed yea?

KomradeBishop

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

And this interest rate is fixed yea?

For the term of the debt issued, ya - I think that many people, are under the misapprehension that interest rates on government bonds, affect all of the debt, but it only affects newly issued debt - and that interest rate tends to be locked in for 10 years (in some cases lately, for 30 years).

So, there is huge room for increased government spending right now, based on public debt issued at perfectly sustainable interest rates.

Mr. teddywinkles

PowerToWait wrote: »

Some crew of cribbing whiners on here! Why anyone gives a damn what the other person gets in salary and what for is beyond me. Let alone post 30 odd pages of shìte about them.

Just mind your own house and stop cribbing about next door.

Most of the argument is if the economy is stable enough for this. Why not use this money to better ends. More beds in hospitals. More staff etc. To my mind more logical

MonkeyTennis

If you gave it to PS workers it would go directly on

Decking
Tinted Windows
New Identities
Electric Double Basses

Justventing

What?! only the PS pays pension levy, PS kept services running despite unilaterally enforced pay cuts, increased working hours and as the PS is the last to get the trickle down from any economic improvement, we have to put up with public dissection of any changes long before any actual change will arise.

Kermit.de.frog

When public sector wages were going up in the last decade virtually no jobs were being created outside of construction. Wages were too high and the country too expensive. There was a huge plunge in the rate of FDI in Ireland from 2002.

Without the construction froth Ireland would have entered a big recession years before 2008. That is what happens when you price yourself out of the market.

Irish workers are not worth the highest wages in Europe especially the public sector.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish workers are not worth the highest wages in Europe especially the public sector.

Why not? We are well regarded as one of the best places in the world to do business and our highly skilled work force and excellent education system is one of the main reasons.

Some people really need to get over there blinding begrudgery of anyone making a cent more than them. Making up totally fictional stories about the public sector being the cause of the crash is a new low and particularly idiotic too.

Iwasfrozen

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

Why not? We are well regarded as one of the best places in the world to do business and our highly skilled work force and excellent education system is one of the main reasons.

Some people really need to get over there blinding begrudgery of anyone making a cent more than them. Making up totally fiction stories about the public sector being the cause of the crash is a new low and particularly idiotic too.

Excellent education system? Have you seen the university rankings? A lack of funding is being blamed.

jank

Has anyone even mentioned the elephant in the room, that is the pension timebomb? Again, heads in sand seems to be de-jour. Do we really need to make the same mistakes again?

Also people advocating borrowing more? I would accept the point if it were only for one off infrastructure investments as once the road, metro, class room is built or when the Garda car is bought then there is no real recurring costs apart from maintenance. Borrowing money to fund pay rises without any reform or productivity requirements is a stupid stupid course of action when that pay rise has to be then given indefinitely and of course is linked to the pension at the end of the day.

So, borrowing to fund capital projects and infrastructure, yes. Borrowing to find PS pay rises? Stupid.

Tiger Mcilroy

jank wrote: »

Has anyone even mentioned the elephant in the room, that is the pension timebomb? Again, heads in sand seems to be de-jour. Do we really need to make the same mistakes again?

Also people advocating borrowing more? I would accept the point if it were only for one off infrastructure investments as once the road, metro, class room is built or when the Garda car is bought then there is no real recurring costs apart from maintenance. Borrowing money to fund pay rises without any reform or productivity requirements is a stupid stupid course of action when that pay rise has to be then given indefinitely and of course is linked to the pension at the end of the day.

So, borrowing to fund capital projects and infrastructure, yes. Borrowing to find PS pay rises? Stupid.

Its this simple really, we all know that the irish government cannot do maths.

jcon1913

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Excellent education system? Have you seen the university rankings? A lack of funding is being blamed.

When Intel compared Ireland to Scotland, they looked at education levels amongst 8 years olds, Ireland came out tops. Not sure if it has changed ( waits for rush of teachers at the keyboards ) but we have a good education system here as far as I can see.

jcon1913

jank wrote: »

Has anyone even mentioned the elephant in the room, that is the pension timebomb? Again, heads in sand seems to be de-jour. Do we really need to make the same mistakes again?

Also people advocating borrowing more? I would accept the point if it were only for one off infrastructure investments as once the road, metro, class room is built or when the Garda car is bought then there is no real recurring costs apart from maintenance. Borrowing money to fund pay rises without any reform or productivity requirements is a stupid stupid course of action when that pay rise has to be then given indefinitely and of course is linked to the pension at the end of the day.

So, borrowing to fund capital projects and infrastructure, yes. Borrowing to find PS pay rises? Stupid.

Got it in one my friend.

stefanovich

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Excellent education system? Have you seen the university rankings? A lack of funding is being blamed.

Ireland ranks extremely high for secondary education though. I think 7th or 9th in the world?

ardmacha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Excellent education system? Have you seen the university rankings? A lack of funding is being blamed.

Which countries (as distinct from individual institutions) have higher rankings? And there is a lack of funding, fees are one quarter of those in England.

swimming in a sea

kippy wrote: »

What figure is a good figure to pay them?

I'd say about 22.5k, that is for 10 months at about 6.5 hours a day(being tight with the holidays)

that is based on twice the minimum wage, if they signed up to having normal working hours like everyone else then all for change.

swimming in a sea

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I'd say about 22.5k, that is for 10 months at about 6.5 hours a day(being tight with the holidays)

that is based on twice the minimum wage, if they signed up to having normal working hours like everyone else then all for change.

Ha ha 22.5k a year, you wouldn't get a dog to do the job for that.

Also forget about your 6.5 hours nonsense, teacher work far far more than that and during the holidays with all the preparation and correction etc they have to do.

How badly did you fail at your attempt to become a teacher?

kippy

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I'd say about 22.5k, that is for 10 months at about 6.5 hours a day(being tight with the holidays)

that is based on twice the minimum wage, if they signed up to having normal working hours like everyone else then all for change.

And what kind of a scale would you think that should rise to?

(I'd add pretty much ALL teachers work for at least 6/5 hours per day at this stage and many more at certain times of the year.)

Geuze

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

A friend was just offered 43k stg in the UK as a teacher. He has maybe 5-8 years experience. It seems to be a private school.

That's 60k euro.

Geuze

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Teachers are paid way above what they should be, 45K is a ridiculously high salary for basically a part time job. A job which you can't be sacked from no matter how obvious it is that you're incompetent.

Young teachers have taken 3-4 paycuts.

They do an important job.

I'm sure we'd want the educators of our children to be high quality, wouldn't we?

A society should be proud to pay high wages to teachers, sure you'd want to be doing that.

Now, they should be productive and accountable, yes.

Geuze

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Most of the argument is if the economy is stable enough for this. Why not use this money to better ends. More beds in hospitals. More staff etc. To my mind more logical

The HR function in the HSE has 2,000 staff and needs 800.

I don't think we need more staff there.

Geuze

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish workers are not worth the highest wages in Europe especially the public sector.

Labour costs here are not the highest.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6761066/3-30032015-AP-EN.pdf/7462a05e-7118-480e-a3f5-34e690c11545


We are tenth from the top.

Geuze

jank wrote: »

So, borrowing to fund capital projects and infrastructure, yes. Borrowing to find PS pay rises? Stupid.

Note that borrowing is due to fall, towards 0.5% of GDP.

This is due to the Fiscal Compact treaty.

So borrowing to fund anything won't be happened.

swimming in a sea

Geuze wrote: »

A friend was just offered 43k stg in the UK as a teacher. He has maybe 5-8 years experience. It seems to be a private school.

That's 60k euro.

I think you're backing me up. In a private school earning 43K you can be sure they won't be coasting or if they do they'll be a one year wonder heading off back to state education.

darkpagandeath

Geuze wrote: »

Labour costs here are not the highest.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6761066/3-30032015-AP-EN.pdf/7462a05e-7118-480e-a3f5-34e690c11545


We are tenth from the top.

Public service workers...

BoatMad

Geuze wrote: »

Note that borrowing is due to fall, towards 0.5% of GDP.

This is due to the Fiscal Compact treaty.

So borrowing to fund anything won't be happened.

several countries like france have already punched a few holes in that

swimming in a sea

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I think you're backing me up. In a private school earning 43K you can be sure they won't be coasting or if they do they'll be a one year wonder heading off back to state education.

I would imagine there will be no difference at all between working in the private school and working in the state school. Of course this won't suit your ridiculous argument.

jcon1913

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I would imagine there will be no difference at all between working in the private school and working in the state school. Of course this won't suit your ridiculous argument.

Would you imagine that? Based on experience? Teachers in private education work longer hours than their public sectors colleagues as they are paid more.

So for example they are expected to give extra grinds, e.g. in private schools it would not be unusual for teachers to give extra classes in the run-up to Irish / French / Spanish orals.

They would be expected to put in extra hours by training a sports team, etc.

Simples

BoatMad

jcon1913 wrote: »

Would you imagine that? Based on experience? Teachers in private education work longer hours than their public sectors colleagues as they are paid more.

So for example they are expected to give extra grinds, e.g. in private schools it would not be unusual for teachers to give extra classes in the run-up to Irish / French / Spanish orals.

They would be expected to put in extra hours by training a sports team, etc.

Simples

very few actual private teachers in Ireland, private schools in fact have a lot of state paid teachers, that work similar hours to VEC schools

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

very few actual private teachers in Ireland, private schools in fact have a lot of state paid teachers, that work similar hours to VEC schools

And the ones that are actually private (like Yeats in Galway) are on very very good money and in reality their hours are similar enough to teachers in normal school.

uch

BoatMad wrote: »

very few actual private teachers in Ireland, private schools in fact have a lot of state paid teachers, that work similar hours to VEC schools

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

And the ones that are actually private (like yates in Galway) are on very very good money and in reality there hours are similar enough to teachers in normal school.

Don't be letting Facts get in the way of a Good Public service bashing will you !!!