Why is everyone going on strike?

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

You claimed that the state was spending money it didn't have.
That claim was wrong.

You're absolutely correct. What I should have said was:

The Nation was spending money it didn't really have.

Peter Flynt

Graham wrote: »

You're absolutely correct. What I should have said was:

The Nation was spending money it didn't really have.

Only it did have it. The country was running a budget surplus for the ten years to 2007.

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Only it did have it. The country was running a budget surplus for the ten years to 2007.

Only if you manage to sweep absolutely vast amounts of borrowing across the nation under the carpet and hope nobody notices the 4ft lump in the middle of the room.

Peter Flynt

Graham wrote: »

Only if you manage to sweep absolutely vast amounts of borrowing across the nation under the carpet and hope nobody notices the 4ft lump in the middle of the room.

In 2007, our national debt stood at €40bn.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Only if you manage to sweep absolutely vast amounts of borrowing across the nation under the carpet and hope nobody notices the 4ft lump in the middle of the room.

Not really. He's right - There were surpluses posted.

However, those revenues that drove them were amongst the most fickle revenues a country has ever seen. So we had extremely high spending compared to our structural ability to raise revenues to cover them. So much so that the 2010 deficit is eyewatering. Once those revenues retreated, we were left with a state-bill that was outrageous compared to our ability to cover it.

The deficits posted in 08,09,10 and even now can easily be ascribed (in reverse) to those years, but from a completely accountancy-only context, surpluses were posted at the time.

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

In 2007, our national debt stood at €40bn.

And enormous cross-sections of the population borrowed vastly in excess of what would have been prudent resulting in hundreds of thousands in negative equity and an adding fuel to an unprecedented financial meltdown.

Are you really suggesting we should return to that economic model in order to increase pay to the PS?

Really?

Peter Flynt

Graham wrote: »

And enormous cross-sections of the population borrowed vastly in excess of what would have been prudent resulting in hundreds of thousands in negative equity and an adding to an unprecedented financial meltdown.

Are you really suggesting we should return to that economic model in order to increase pay to the PS?

Really?

No.

I'm suggesting that fair and equitable agreements between public sector representatives and the state (FG/Indos) should take place.

What has happened is this - The state has cut the public sector to shreds since 2008 - PS pay and services. Everyone knows this.

In terms of PS pay and T&C of employment, complacency has set in. They (senior civil servants & politicians) turned up with Croke Park & Haddington Road and threw it on the table and said "take it or leave it and have even greater cuts".

Unions didn't oppose.

Now they're trying the same trick with Haddington Road - but now the scenario is different. Taxes are being cut and public servants are being employed on reduced pay scales.

It's time for an open. honest and proper forum to discuss public sector pay deals, and not senior civil servants on six figure salaries presenting useless politicians with "agreements" that no one agrees to.

JustTheOne

Adopt the Finland model.

Pay increases linked to productivity.

No-one's job is safe for life.

Simple.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

No.

I'm suggesting that fair and equitable agreements between public sector representatives and the state (FG/Indos) should take place.

What has happened is this - The state has cut the public sector to shreds since 2008 - PS pay and services. Everyone knows this.

In terms of PS pay and T&C of employment, complacency has set in. They (senior civil servants & politicians) turned up with Croke Park & Haddington Road and threw it on the table and said "take it or leave it and have even greater cuts".

Unions didn't oppose.

Now they're trying the same trick with Haddington Road - but now the scenario is different. Taxes are being cut and public servants are being employed on reduced pay scales.

It's time for an open. honest and proper forum to discuss public sector pay deals, and not senior civil servants on six figure salaries presenting useless politicians with "agreements" that no one agrees to.

The state cut spending everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. Because it had no money. Even by doing so, we've still not managed to cut spending sufficiently considering our revenues today to find a balanced budget.

As it stands, we don't afford the running of the state that exists, today, with today's payscales.

If payscales are to change, then Government revenues must increase by proportionally more.

Where are these revenues to come from?

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Union demands?

I haven't seen much in demands from the unions since 2008.

It is a simple fact that the state, since 2008, has asked public sector workers to pay more in deductions than any other worker, as they were asked to take higher cuts. This is beyond dispute as separate levies were installed on public sector workers, simply for being public sector workers and no other reason.

Now the "emergency" caused by the 2008 financial crash is going on longer than the emergency declared in September 1939 for WW2.

Great. You acknowledge the emergency is over. You'll be glad to also know that pay is being restored gradually and in a more sustainable way.

So what's the problem? Why the threat of industrial action? Could greed be even a tiny factor do you think?

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

What has happened is this - The state has cut the public sector to shreds since 2008 - PS pay and services. Everyone knows this.

and yet we still have one of the best paid public sectors in Europe and PS pay rates continue to outstrip their private sector equivalents. That's before you start looking at the rock solid job security, gold-plated pensions and other associated PS benefits.

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

As it stands, we don't afford the running of the state that exists, today, with today's payscales.

If payscales are to change, then Government revenues must increase by proportionally more.

Where are these revenues to come from?

If you're recruiting extra nurses, teachers & police and telling existing nurses, teachers & police to work for a reduced pay scale that was introduced 5 years ago, then, quite frankly, you're using their money to fund the new recruits.

People aren't stupid.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

If you're recruiting extra nurses, teachers & police and telling existing nurses, teachers & police to work for a reduced pay scale that was introduced 5 years ago, then, quite frankly, you're using their money to fund the new recruits.

People aren't stupid.

Where is the additional Govt revenues to cover this coming from? This is not an answer to the question I asked you.

A person has €8 but wants to spend €10. How does he do this?

Peter Flynt

Graham wrote: »

and yet we still have one of the best paid public sectors in Europe and PS pay rates continue to outstrip their private sector equivalents. That's before you start looking at the rock solid job security, gold-plated pensions and other associated PS benefits.

Ah whatever.

No talking to people like you. You make up your own stuff and try and pass it off as "fact".

G'luck.

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

If you're recruiting extra nurses, teachers & police and telling existing nurses, teachers & police to work for a reduced pay scale that was introduced 5 years ago, then, quite frankly, you're using their money to fund the new recruits.

That's a new approach.

So we shouldn't recruit more teachers or Gardai, we should just pay the ones we have more?

newwan

newwan wrote: »

Drivers, teachers, nurses likely and guards blu flu...
What is going on?

Are they justified or is it a case of everyone wanting their slice of the pie?

Its the natural outcome from the Luas strike.

The Luas case was widely recognised as pure greed and showed that if you have clout or run an essential service and you are prepared to be bloody-minded, you will get a result.

So its no wonder that those working in sectors that are vital (teachers, gardai etc) and feel they have a legitimate grievance (they do, but petty compared to others) are going on strike.

If the Luas people were still on strike, none of these sectors would be striking now.

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the additional Govt revenues to cover this coming from? This is not an answer to the question I asked you.

A person has €8 but wants to spend €10. How does he do this?

Politics is about choices.

PS pay demands, even the 16% one currently demanded by AGSI, can be met.

The politicians don't want to pay it. They want to cut taxes, restore social welfare, recruit public servants, and invest in services instead.

The logic appears to be - well they haven't striked for the past eight years so where's the incentive to restore pay?

No votes in that.

Larbre34

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the additional Govt revenues to cover this coming from? This is not an answer to the question I asked you.

A person has €8 but wants to spend €10. How does he do this?

Credit Card.

I'm only half joking, public service pay and pensions have a huge element on the never-never in this and every Country, nature of the beast, so the question you pose isn't in the right context. The question is what sort of acceptable service level do the people trade off for certain level of borrowings.

The public service is aging and losing experience to retirement. If people who feel a vocation to work in the emergency services can do so for more money and a better quality of work life abroad, then they will. Our public service wages bill is simply a reflection of a world-wide jobs market in many of these fields

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Politics is about choices.
PS pay demands, even the 16% one currently demanded by AGSI, can be met.
The politicians don't want to pay it. They want to cut taxes, restore social welfare, recruit public servants, and invest in services instead.
The logic appears to be - well they haven't striked for the past eight years so where's the incentive to restore pay?
No votes in that.

This has almost nothing to do with the question I have asked you.

Simple logic. We are currently running (still) a deficit. If PS Pay is to be increased, Government Revenues must increase by proportionally more than that pay increase.

Where are the revenues coming from that you hope to put towards Public Sector pay increases?

You state that they can be met. They cannot, without increasing revenues. I'm open to it. Just tell me where the money comes from.

tayto lover

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Probably.

If only we had an effective opposition eh!

If only the 100+ non-FG TD would form a government and deliver us from this evil!

I still wouldn't trust any of them tbh.
A few years ago I asked posters if they could name a politician you could trust. One who would put the country first, not bow to the influential and rich elite and not become involved in feathering his own personal nest.
I got very few answers.

Graham

Larbre34 wrote: »

Credit Card.

I'm only half joking, public service pay and pensions have a huge element on the never-never in this and every Country, nature of the beast, so the question you pose isn't in the right context.

+1

Larbre34 wrote: »

The question is what sort of service level do the people trade off for certain level of borrowings.

Is increasing borrowing in order to pay the PS more money to do the same work going to have a material impact on the service levels?

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Credit Card.

I'm only half joking, public service pay and pensions have a huge element on the never-never in this and every Country, nature of the beast, so the question you pose isn't in the right context. The question is what sort of acceptable service level do the people trade off for certain level of borrowings.

The public service is aging and losing experience to retirement. If people who feel a vocation to work in the emergency services can do so for more money and a better quality of work life abroad, then they will. Our public service wages bill is simply a reflection of a world-wide jobs market in many of these fields

And in a cold hearted business decision between using the credit card to increase PS wages and using the credit card to invest in the state through infrastructure upgrades?

Is the answer to this problem "two credit cards"?

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

This has almost nothing to do with the question I have asked you.

Simple logic. We are currently running (still) a deficit. If PS Pay is to be increased, Government Revenues must increase by proportionally more than that pay increase.

Where are the revenues coming from that you hope to put towards Public Sector pay increases?

You state that they can be met. They cannot, without increasing revenues. I'm open to it. Just tell me where the money comes from.

Then judging by this logic you seem to be suggesting that public sector pay should be cut further?

By how much further do you feel that PS wage should be cut?

Presumably you're seeking a cut of €4bn in PS wages only to reduce the deficit to zero?

This will lead to public sector wage cuts across the board of approximately 30%.

So that 23K garda or nurse will have their wage reduced to approx 16K.

This will lead to a significant reduction in general taxation.
Do you want public servants to pay for that as well?

Social welfare recipients received a 2.5% pay increase.

Graham

bubblypop wrote: »

Social welfare recipients received a 2.5% pay increase.

I didn't see anyone in the thread suggest that was a good idea either.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Then judging by this logic you seem to be suggesting that public sector pay should be cut further?

By how much further do you feel that PS wage should be cut?

Presumably you're seeking a cut of €4bn in PS wages only to reduce the deficit to zero?

This will lead to public sector wage cuts across the board of approximately 30%.

So that 23K garda or nurse will have their wage reduced to approx 16K.

This will lead to a significant reduction in general taxation.
Do you want public servants to pay for that as well?

I'm afraid you have asked me a lot of questions without having the courtesy to answer my single question.

I'm more than happy to engage and discuss, if you choose to.

I'll ask again;
How do we pay for the PS Increases that you are proposing?

newwan

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Ah whatever.

No talking to people like you. You make up your own stuff and try and pass it off as "fact".

G'luck.

Can you explain to me how his statement is made up?
Our public sector seems very well paid in comparison to the private sector from everything i have read.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Social welfare recipients received a 2.5% pay increase.

And they didn't even need to go on strike to get it.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I didn't see anyone in the thread suggest that was a good idea either.

But it might be part of the reason why services are deciding on industrial action.
They hear the country is doing well, social welfare is going up.
They ( public service in particular ) have lost income as a result of what were called ' emergency measures'
If the emergency is over, then why are they still loosing to emergency measures'?

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm afraid you have asked me a lot of questions without having the courtesy to answer my simple one.

I'm more than happy to engage and discuss, if you choose to.

How do we pay for the PS Increases that you are proposing?

Being in debt is not the issue. It's ability to repay the debt. There are 1001 ways and more for the state to increase its revenue base. Increasing taxation isn't necessarily the answer. Investing in schemes which may lead to economic growth might be.

One thing for sure is this - If you want quality services then they have to be paid for. It's a matter of opinion whether you think PS wages are too high or too low. Naturally those with a PS gripe have a bunch of cliches, and nothing more.

Asking me, a PS worker, where the money is coming from is glib. I'm not a politician.

Besides I get the impression that if I gave you revenue raising options that you'd come back with negative consequences, and thus the conversation would go around in circles.

One thing seems certain though - From your line of questioning you do not believe that PS workers are deserving of pay increases because we are running a deficit.

Well we've run a deficit for nearly every year of our existence since independence. Using this logic public servants would still be paid in punds, schillings & pence.

Jawgap

Graham wrote: »

Off the top of my head without thinking too hard:

Our debt pile is still substantial.
We've relatively little in reserve.
Our public sector pay is already well above the EU average.
At some point those public sector employees are going to retire, the burden on the state is going to be eye-watering.

Eh? The pile is substantial in absolute terms but not in relative terms - it's being serviced comfortably - the vast bulk is greater than 1 year residual maturity!

Nothing in reserve? Is that a joke? We've €33 billion in reserve - the government - rather prudently in fairness to them - made sure the country, at any given time, has enough money to fund the country for 12 months. Yes, we borrowed to accumulate that money but at ridiculously low interest rates.

Pay in absolute rates runs ahead of the OECD average but when deductions, social benefit availability (or lack thereof) and cost of living are factored in, net rates in Ireland aren't nearly as great as they are made out to be.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Being in debt is not the issue. It's ability to repay the debt. There are 1001 ways and more for the state to increase its revenue base. Increasing taxation isn't necessarily the answer. Investing in schemes which may lead to economic growth might be.

One thing for sure is this - If you want quality services then they have to be paid for. It's a matter of opinion whether you think PS wages are too high or too low. Naturally those with a PS gripe have a bunch of cliches, and nothing more.

Asking me, a PS worker, where the money is coming from is glib. I'm not a politician.

Besides I get the impression that if I gave you revenue raising options that you'd come back with negative consequences, and thus the conversation would go around in circles.

One thing seems certain though - From your line of questioning you do not believe that PS workers are deserving of pay increases because we are running a deficit.

Well we've run a deficit for nearly every year of our existence since independence. Using this logic public servants would still be paid in punds, schillings & pence.

It is infuriating and illuminating that after asking 4 times, you still don't give an answer or even attempt to engage the question of how to fund what you are seeking.

The rest of this diatribe is simple baseless projection. Perhaps instead of assuming my response, you could engage the discussion and receive it? Seems a far easier way to conduct a conversation than this approach above where you commit to answering nothing, and projecting your own beliefs of what someone else might answer instead.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Eh? The pile is substantial in absolute terms but not in relative terms - it's being serviced comfortably - the vast bulk is greater than 1 year residual maturity!

http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/maturity-profile/
2020 looks like it will be a fun year for the NTMA

Jawgap wrote: »

Nothing in reserve? Is that a joke? We've €33 billion in reserve - the government - rather prudently in fairness to them - made sure the country, at any given time, has enough money to fund the country for 12 months. Yes, we borrowed to accumulate that money but at ridiculously low interest rates.

Pay in absolute rates runs ahead of the OECD average but when deductions, social benefit availability (or lack thereof) and cost of living are factored in, net rates in Ireland aren't nearly as great as they are made out to be.

Feedback Loop surely?

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

It is infuriating and illuminating that after asking 4 times, you still don't give an answer or even attempt to engage the question of how to fund what you are seeking.

The rest of this diatribe is simple baseless projection. Perhaps instead of assuming my response, you could engage the discussion and receive it? Seems a far easier way to conduct a conversation than this approach above where you commit to answering nothing, and projecting your own beliefs of what someone else might answer instead.

You logic is skewed because you think that a state can only invest or spend money if it is in surplus.

That simply ain't the case, as we are seeing with general tax cuts and welfare rises now.

Graham

Jawgap wrote: »

net rates in Ireland aren't nearly as great as they are made out to be.

So they're just reasonably great and in excess of the private sector counterparts?

Doesn't strike me as a sound justification for wholesale PS pay increases.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

You logic is skewed because you think that a state can only invest or spend money if it is in surplus.

I suppose you can link me to where I said this? I can't recall writing anything like it, but you will obviously be able to quote it back to me verbatim (there is an excellent quote function on this site) given that you have asserted it?

Or are you once again projecting?

Peter Flynt wrote: »

That simply ain't the case, as we are seeing with general tax cuts and welfare rises now.

The deficit amount is being borrowed. That is how it is being funded. Any changes to increase this will also require funding.

I asked you how you would fund increased spending, 4 times, and you neglected to answer it.

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose you can link me to where I said this? I can't recall writing anything like it, but you will obviously be able to quote it back to me verbatim (there is an excellent quote function on this site) given that you have asserted it?

Or are you once again projecting?

The deficit amount is being borrowed. That is how it is being funded. Any changes to increase this will also require funding.

I asked you how you would fund increased spending, 4 times, and you neglected to answer it.

There's nothing wrong with borrowing as long as an entity (be it an individual, a business, a bank, or a state) has the ability to repay the borrowing.

FFS, the world spins on borrowed money.

We can borrow now as we can access the markets at reasonably low levels of rates. Therefore spending increases are justifiable, and, you may have noticed, ongoing.

We couldn't borrow in the immediate years after the bust as annual deficit was 4/5 times what it is now.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with borrowing as long as an entity (be it an individual, a business, a bank, or a state) has the ability to repay the borrowing.
FFS, the world spins on borrowed money.
We can borrow now as we can access the markets at reasonably low levels of rates. Therefore spending increases are justifiable, and, you may have noticed, ongoing.
We couldn't borrow in the immediate years after the bust as a deficit was 4/5 times what it is now.

I don't see a link to the evidence that supports your assertion in this. I'll assume that is because none exist. I invite you to retract it.

Are you finally, after the blood-through-a-stone effort offering "borrowing" as the method with which to fund the public sector pay increases?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, it's not like they can't re-finance and re-profile with the amount of cheap money around.

Debt to GDP in 2020 is forecast to be about 77%, plus the bi-lateral element of that debt just became an awful lot cheaper to service and payoff since Brexit.

Jawgap

Graham wrote: »

So they're just reasonably great and in excess of the private sector counterparts?

Doesn't strike me as a sound justification for wholesale PS pay increases.

People use the comparison with EU and OECD rates to claim PS workers here are paid over generously, but they only use the headline rates and ignore the net rates because it doesn't suit the argument.

Just like people use the CSO figures for a good ol' fashioned PS bashing but conveniently ignore them when they show that the coffers are not nearly as empty as the popular press makes out or shows that they are empty for reasons other than to do with the assumption that it's down to weak revenues.

Peter Flynt

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see a link to your assertion in this. I'll assume that is because none exist. I invite you to retract it.

Are you finally, after the blood-through-a-stone effort offering "borrowing" as the method with which to fund the public sector pay increases?

PS wage bill is approximately 14 billion, much much less than the state takes in.

When an entity, like a state, is being run and borrowing is occurring (which pretty much happens in every country in the world), to turn and blame the borrowing on public sector workers seeking wage increases is juvenile nonsense.

God only knows what you think of the 20,000 billion debt the US has. . . . Their public servants are a right shower.

So let's conclude this:

You don't want any public sector wage increases unless there is no deficit and certainly no borrowing.

Sorry. . Ain't gonna happen. Even the United Kingdom restricted its public servants to 1% pay increases during the period of austerity implemented by Osborne & Cameron despite running huge deficits.

Of course, to you, those increases were paid for by borrowing. . . . But, hey, don't let me spoil your day by disagreeing with you.

Ciao.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really, it's not like they can't re-finance and re-profile with the amount of cheap money around.

You are forecasting we will be in a similar interest rate environment in 2020?

What cost if wrong?

Jawgap wrote: »

Debt to GDP in 2020 is forecast to be about 77%, plus the bi-lateral element of that debt just became an awful lot cheaper to service and payoff since Brexit.

The oul GDP deflating effect. If more of the worlds tech companies relocate their IP onto our balance sheet, swelling it to the extent that Debt to GDP is 12% in 2020, will that make much of a difference?

Debt-to-GDP was always a flawed-enough metric to use to judge anything, lest even attempting to bring relevance to it in light of Ireland's recent GDP figures.

hmmm

We can't go on forever paying higher and higher wages for public sector workers, while cutting back on services to pay for it - we're already paying Swedish taxes for Albanian levels of service. At some stage a government will have to make a stand, and they will be rewarded for it by the electorate.

Graham

Jawgap wrote: »

People use the comparison with EU and OECD rates to claim PS workers here are paid over generously, but they only use the headline rates and ignore the net rates because it doesn't suit the argument.

How about the comparisons to their fellow countrymen in the private sector?

Peter Flynt

hmmm wrote: »

We can't go on forever paying higher and higher wages for public sector workers, while cutting back on services to pay for it - we're already paying Swedish taxes for Albanian levels of service. At some stage a government will have to make a stand, and they will be rewarded for it by the electorate.

In 2015. . .

Some more facts: this year 881,700 people will pay no income tax at all. That’s 38 per cent of all income earners. Some 648,700 people, 28 per cent of workers, will pay neither tax nor USC.

Swedish taxes indeed

Peter Flynt

This 'tactic' of projecting arguments and 'defeating' them is borderline trolling.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

PS wage bill is approximately 14 billion, much much less than the state takes in.

When an entity, like a state, is being run and borrowing is occurring (which pretty much happens in every country in the world), to turn and blame the borrowing on public sector workers seeking wage increases is juvenile nonsense.

Can you point out where I 'turned and blamed the borrowing on PS sector workers"?
Once again, when you can't, I'll invite you to retract this.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

God only knows what you think of the 20,000 billion debt the US has. . . . Their public servants are a right shower.

I'm surprised that you didn't simply tell me what I believe, as you have done with most other issues on this thread.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

So let's conclude this:

You don't want any public sector wage increases unless there is no deficit and certainly no borrowing.

I am more than happy to discuss pay increases for PS Sector, as I have already explicitly said.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are the revenues coming from that you hope to put towards Public Sector pay increases?
You state that they can be met. They cannot, without increasing revenues. I'm open to it. Just tell me where the money comes from.

You were asked 4 times to tell me how you would fund them. It is not my problem that you fled from the answer.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Sorry. . Ain't gonna happen. Even the United Kingdom restricted its public servants to 1% pay increases during the period of austerity implemented by Osborne & Cameron despite running huge deficits.

What ain't gonna happen? A straight answer to a simple question about how to fund your planned increased expenditure?

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Of course, to you, those increases were paid for by borrowing. . . . But, hey, don't let me spoil your day by disagreeing with you.

Of course they were. I'm not sure how that's disagreeing with anything?
States borrow. Credit is cheap. It is not free though, and it's presence does not and should not encourage profligacy.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Ciao

Why not simply engage and answer instead of 'soapbox and run'? A thoroughly frustrating style of debate.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

You are forecasting we will be in a similar interest rate environment in 2020?

What cost if wrong?

Me? No.

The markets in their collective wisdom see us as a decent bet, much better than the UK and the US - almost as good as France and not quite as good as Germany.

Deleted User wrote: »

The oul GDP deflating effect. If more of the worlds tech companies relocate their IP onto our balance sheet, swelling it to the extent that Debt to GDP is 12% in 2020, will that make much of a difference?

Debt-to-GDP was always a flawed-enough metric to use to judge anything, lest even attempting to bring relevance to it in light of Ireland's recent GDP figures.

Indeed it is which is why bond prices are a decent aggregate metric for our economic outlook - if the investors thought we were going to struggle to pay off our debt or that it was at unsustainable levels, surely 10 year bonds would be difficult to sell? any evidence we're having trouble getting bonds away our having to pay a premium for the privilege?

Donal55

Graham wrote: »

How about the comparisons to their fellow countrymen in the private sector?

Prison officer and shopkeeper. How?

Bandana boy

Sharks smelling blood in the water
Or greed
Or Unions trying to justify the fees they take year in year out for delivering very little.

Take your pick

Graham

Donal55 wrote: »

Prison officer and shopkeeeper. How?

You start to look at things like educational/training requirements, difficulty in recruiting/replacement, risk, staff turnover, comparisons with countries of a similar population/income.

That of course only applies to the few occupations where there is no direct private sector equivalent.