A lot of “fluff” jobs will take a hit after this

One eyed Jack

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Did you just make up that rule. Do you speak for the accounting profession?

Integrity and confidentiality are two of the fundamental principles of the accounting profession, how can you not be aware of this?


Confidentiality

Members have an obligation to respect the confidentiality of information about client or employer’s affairs acquired in the course of professional work. The duty of confidentiality continues even after the end of the relationship between the member and the employer or client.


Accounting Technicians Ireland Code of Professional Ethics

anewme

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Whose personal information are you referring to specifically? Are accountants not allowed talk about the work they do? Stop digging it’s a ridiculous argument you’re trying to make.

No you are not allowed to speak about your clients, you need to keep peoples earnings confidential.

If this needs to be pointed out, you should not be trusted with client information.

beauf

...For example if they are high net worth...

anewme

beauf wrote: »

...For example if they are high net worth...

More like this really...

These are not architects, solicitors or accountants but people working in large organisations, pharma and multi nationals in roles like HR and staffing or general marketing jobs on €80k per annum. You would be surprised how handy many admin type roles are pulling in upwards of €70k per year I’m not even joking.

As I said previously, I'd not be happy to have a blabber mouth whinger and begrudger complete my tax returns and I'd hazard a guess that those named above would share my sentiments.

Op has appointed himself as self adjudicator of his clients earnings, who and what they should earn, without any qualification to do so.

Why is is it any of his business what different roles earn?

Also feels like the big I am broadcasting peoples earnings.

Clear lack of respect for his clients.

Would be weeded out in most practices (in Dublin) anyway.

The OP, its nativity and knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, generally its a personality type.

Getting away for the OP a bit what jobs do people think will not come back.

I cant think of any except maybe some catering? Airlines?



Pharmasuitcials, finance, multinationals, etc are awash with money so can't see anything happening there.

Massive money will be pumped into construction in the form of public infrastructure projects to reflow the economy.

A lot more spending on healthcare and public services as well.

beauf

We've had crashes before and recessions.

What disappeared then...

beauf

beauf wrote: »

We've had crashes before and recessions.

What disappeared then...

That is true, new professions are being invented all the time as well.

As long as the bounce back happens quickly we will be grand.

v638sg7k1a92bx

mariaalice wrote: »

The OP, its nativity and knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, generally its a personality type.

Getting away for the OP a bit what jobs do people think will not come back.

I cant think of any except maybe some catering? Airlines?



Pharmasuitcials, finance, multinationals, etc are awash with money so can't see anything happening there.

Massive money will be pumped into construction in the form of public infrastructure projects to reflow the economy.

A lot more spending on healthcare and public services as well.

The cost of everything and value of nothing. You’re only the tenth person to use that cliche and then the one about how AI is going to wipe out accountants.

Junior Prehistoric Grits

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

The cost of everything and value of nothing. You’re only the tenth person to use that cliche and then the one about how AI is going to wipe out accountants.

But that is what it is, I would love to know what causes it, its a kind of cynicism and corrdes a lot of life for the person.

One eyed Jack

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

The cost of everything and value of nothing. You’re only the tenth person to use that cliche and then the one about how AI is going to wipe out accountants.

I don’t think anyone was suggesting that “AI is going to wipe out accountants”, there’s simply less demand for roles in accounting due to automation of accounting practices. There are still plenty of people who have qualifications relating to accounting and finance, but as you pointed out yourself earlier, they’re obviously not all accountants.

Simply put there are far more people with an education and background in accounting and finance than there are roles for people to be employed as accountants.

GreeBo

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

He was “only” on €75K 4 days ago.

Maybe Srameen is her husband?:pac:

v638sg7k1a92bx

anewme wrote: »

More like this really...

These are not architects, solicitors or accountants but people working in large organisations, pharma and multi nationals in roles like HR and staffing or general marketing jobs on €80k per annum. You would be surprised how handy many admin type roles are pulling in upwards of €70k per year I’m not even joking.

As I said previously, I'd not be happy to have a blabber mouth whinger and begrudger complete my tax returns and I'd hazard a guess that those named above would share my sentiments.

Op has appointed himself as self adjudicator of his clients earnings, who and what they should earn, without any qualification to do so.

Why is is it any of his business what different roles earn?

Also feels like the big I am broadcasting peoples earnings.

Clear lack of respect for his clients.

Would be weeded out in most practices (in Dublin) anyway.

Which ones named above exactly. What are their names? By you logic a solicitor or barrister cannot discuss a case they are working on or a doctor discuss an illness because his patient might have that disease. At Cpd events in packed rooms, accountants will talk about “we have a client like this on this income and here is what we did”

Save your phoney outrage for another thread.

plodder

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Utter nonsense. We’ve been hearing this about AI in the accountancy profession for years. I’ve already responded to this several times have a read. Just because you post a link to a Wikipedia page and rhyme off something you read in a start up of the year magazine doesn’t make you look smart.

The reality is that the vast majority of CEO’s of the top listed FTSE 100 companies are accountants. There are good reasons for that so take your Wikipedia definitions somewhere else please.

That would be less true in the tech sector which employs many thousands in this country, and is one of the main drivers for the strong economy we have/had.

It's probably fair to say that very few if any startups are initiated by accountants.

It bothers me sometimes that people in authority (politicians particularly) have absolutely zero clue what goes on in that whole sector.

One eyed Jack

plodder wrote: »

That would be less true in the tech sector which employs many thousands in this country, and is one of the main drivers for the strong economy we have/had.

It's probably fair to say that very few if any startups are initiated by accountants.

To be fair, our economic dependence upon MNCs in the tech sector is also one of the main drivers behind why our economy tanked. Many tech startups arose out of those economic circumstances, as there will be many innovative startups arise out of our current economic circumstances. Enterprise Ireland though aren’t all that fond of startups which aren’t immediate HPSUs.

plodder wrote: »

It bothers me sometimes that people in authority (politicians particularly) have absolutely zero clue what goes on in that whole sector.

Yeah but that’s hardly surprising that people aren’t clued in on an industry they aren’t involved in or that they don’t imagine has any great impact on their lives? The same could be said by anyone in any industry, that people in authority don’t have a clue what goes on in that whole sector. It’s just not a priority for them is all, and that’s completely understandable.

beauf

Pretty every startup I've ever worked in had an accountant somewhere in the mix.
That said they often aren't the best business heads.
They might cut a business unit like R&D because its expensive and doesn't generate income directly.
Then the business struggles or fails because it become directionless.

Optimalprimerib

So that's 99% of us fcked so

marieholmfan

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

My husband this, my husband that. What have you done for yourself?

You work for your brother.

The whole of our economic system is built on fluff middle management jobs. Even if there is some extensive cost cutting in large service and manufacturing companies (which is unlikely unless this lasts well into a second financial year), but they will soon all be back.

vintagecosmos

Just thought I would hop in here. I am not an accountant, but in the sector (business development). Never thought I would see a scrap between industry and practice who said accountants were boring ? :pac: thread should probably move to the accounting forum for a proper scrap. I think a discussion on jobs/professions that are likely to struggle in the coming months/years would be interesting. So ones that require human contact like beauty services etc. Or the OP could retitle the thread to "why me, as a practice accountant, is better than you " Just joking!

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

HR in general is fluff. I accept that some organisations need a hr dept to document numbers of staff, hiring, firing, timesheets, holidays but anytime things get heavy they bring in outside legal counsel and when it come to recruitment they sub contract it out to recruitment agencies (which is another thread) but for the most part HR is definitely fluff.

Bloggers and influencers have never made money to begin with so business as usual for them.

I wouldnt call HR fluff. Staff retention and bad hires can be very costly if gotten wrong. Especially in those multi nationals where a mistake can cost hundreds of thousands/millions as opposed to a couple of quid in a regular SME. Im talking production shutting down, decontaminating production lines, quality issues leading to legal cases etc. Not even going to go into staff resourcing for a mutli country project.

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

In my experience and in reality, most accountants in industry are not real accountants and cant read a P&L and Sheet and just bluff their way through the general ledger accounting roles that they work in.

If you knew how stupid your post was you wouldn’t have said it. Practice accountants are the most clued one because they understand the financials most and their technical ability is far superior than accountants in industry because they need to be aware of constant changes in tax legislation, companies act and accounting frameworks.

What a silly post you just made.

From my experience, practice is either for you or isnt. And i think its 70/30 industry/practice split. Practice accountants I would say are more at the coalface of the regs and compliance. But at the same time, someone in transfer pricing in a multi national could be more knowledgable on that particular area. I guess it all depends. Everyone has their specialities. There is room for everyone.

Similarly I have come across practice accountants that have made some serious mistakes. In particular one was not submitting VAT returns, and over paid them as was just copying and pasting. But thats why professional indemnity insurance is there I suppose.

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

We’ve been hearing this for years. What’s “screwed” is the basic compliance work like bookkeeping, payroll, Tax compliance. But that was always low value work that clients don’t want to pay for anyway. AI actually makes our job easier.

They said excel will replace accountants and computers will replace pilots... I dont think the accountant will be gone anytime soon. Not until the government recognises a piece of AI as a legal person

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't have to join CIPD to work in HR. It can be joined, if you take their exams or have a HR degree etc. and you can use their initials after your name.

At the risk of triggering the OP I got a HR degree a few years back.

There are professional accountants who are members of prescribed bodies like ACA, ACCA, CPA etc. But there is no legal protection on the term. So anyone can call themselves an accountant. I can even buy CPA letters by joining some obscure accounting institute in the middle east for a fee with no exams. Solicitor on the other hand, enjoy legal protection.

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Death and taxes are two guarantees in life. Double entry accounting had been around for hundreds of years but yet balancing trial balances is something the vast majority of are people are unable to do it despite. We see it regularly where client comes in and says “I’ve done everything myself and all you need to do is sign off” at which stage we ask them
Is your bank account actually €200k overdrawn
Why do your customers have debit balances and does revenue really owe you €100k in PAYE? Then we get the litany of excuses about how they hired someone to do the books every second Wednesday and how they transferred this journal to this account because that seemed to make sense and the. we tell them that the whole thing needs to be done from scratch and will cost double the price.

Accounting web is literally full of people trying to “balance the books”

Id agree here. So much DIY software out there. messages like its easy to do your books yourself etc. The fact is, a lot of clients I deal with plod on with a years worth of bookkeeping but get fundamentals wrong. It is easy to make a mistake if its not your field. Some accounting packages for free like bullet dont stop you from making mistakes. They accept data and put it out. And it all needs to be done from scratch. I always say, focus on your business and pass the books to someone else. For your own sanity, free time, and saving money in the end etc.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Not sure why there’s a row going on between industry and practice accountants. The real enemies are so called bookkeepers who have a vague idea how to work excel and some other accounting software but no actual knowledge of debits and credits or any sort of reconciliation. OTOH much work for accountants in cleaning up their mistakes, so long may it last.

I wouldnt tar them all with the same brush. but yes, there are some dubious characters out there... but like you said. More work for accountants.

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

These type of roles have grown exponentially in the last 8 years especially within multinational, pharma companies and very large organisations. They approach things from a high level point of view so rather than waste time and money in a growing economy they offer a higher salary than their competitors and the competition does likewise. It’s the opportunity cost of waiting months or losing a candidate over a €5k salary increase so they bump the offer by €10k. If there is an economic adjustment I think a lot of these type of fluffy jobs will take a hit.

In Dublin this is particularly true. But thats just supply and demand. I suspect that a particular job may not take a hit, but a blanket pay decrease across the entire organisation proportional to their income. You keep saying fluffy, that implies there is nothing to it.... I am speaking anecdotally here from my own network, people in these high salary roles often have a lot of experience and strong credentials.

Sunny Dayz

But what can you call a "fluff" job though? Initially I thought of jobs in marketing, influencing etc but when you think about it - when this crisis is over - we are going to need marketing, PR etc to help get businesses and brands back up and running again, getting people to engage in discretionary spending again so that Mary can get her job back in retail, John can get his job back in the pub and Niamh can get her weekends waitressing.

plodder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be fair, our economic dependence upon MNCs in the tech sector is also one of the main drivers behind why our economy tanked. Many tech startups arose out of those economic circumstances, as there will be many innovative startups arise out of our current economic circumstances. Enterprise Ireland though aren’t all that fond of startups which aren’t immediate HPSUs.

Yeah but that’s hardly surprising that people aren’t clued in on an industry they aren’t involved in or that they don’t imagine has any great impact on their lives? The same could be said by anyone in any industry, that people in authority don’t have a clue what goes on in that whole sector. It’s just not a priority for them is all, and that’s completely understandable.

I'm thinking at the level of a certain left wing TD who basically said the sector could be nationalised and (for example) a state owned company could manufacture the products that Intel sells. The scale of that level of ignorance is breath taking and a little worrying. Politicians need to have some level of understanding of the economy.

Sure we have an extreme level of dependence on MNCs. That's actually the point I'm making. And while these companies employ accountants and lawyers, but most of the employees who earn good salaries would have various third level qualifications of varying degrees of fluffiness but aren't from "regulated professions".

v638sg7k1a92bx

plodder wrote: »

That would be less true in the tech sector which employs many thousands in this country, and is one of the main drivers for the strong economy we have/had.

It's probably fair to say that very few if any startups are initiated by accountants.

It bothers me sometimes that people in authority (politicians particularly) have absolutely zero clue what goes on in that whole sector.

Usually the accountant would not be the first CEO. When the company gets big enough or they become a public CO or are about to go public they would appoint someone from a finance background purely because they understand the financials.

You would be surprised by the amount of CEO’s and people in senior management positions that have very little understanding of financial information.

v638sg7k1a92bx

marieholmfan wrote: »

You work for your brother.

Keeping it in the family. Like slot of country life, the eldest boy got the family business but I’ve worked in that business since I was in school.

beauf

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

But what can you call a "fluff" job though? Initially I thought of jobs in marketing, influencing etc but when you think about it - when this crisis is over - we are going to need marketing, PR etc to help get businesses and brands back up and running again, getting people to engage in discretionary spending again so that Mary can get her job back in retail, John can get his job back in the pub and Niamh can get her weekends waitressing.

The person in work who does nothing except email virus information often wrong, and organise meaningless meeting usually about non work related stuff. The kind you put on your spam filter and forget about. At least until you see they've been promoted half a dozen time. you avoid all their projects, as they are usually a disaster and torture to deal with.

This goes well for them for a few years, but at some point they get asked to do some real work and the wheels come off, spectacularly. Which is why you kept your distance all those years.

beauf

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Usually the accountant would not be the first CEO. When the company gets big enough or they become a public CO or are about to go public they would appoint someone from a finance background purely because they understand the financials.

You would be surprised by the amount of CEO’s and people in senior management positions that have very little understanding of financial information.

True. Often once a place grows rapidly, it has to change the financial team, to people with more experience of operating at that scale.

v638sg7k1a92bx

vintagecosmos wrote: »

Just thought I would hop in here. I am not an accountant, but in the sector (business development). Never thought I would see a scrap between industry and practice who said accountants were boring ? :pac: thread should probably move to the accounting forum for a proper scrap. I think a discussion on jobs/professions that are likely to struggle in the coming months/years would be interesting. So ones that require human contact like beauty services etc. Or the OP could retitle the thread to "why me, as a practice accountant, is better than you " Just joking!



I wouldnt call HR fluff. Staff retention and bad hires can be very costly if gotten wrong. Especially in those multi nationals where a mistake can cost hundreds of thousands/millions as opposed to a couple of quid in a regular SME. Im talking production shutting down, decontaminating production lines, quality issues leading to legal cases etc. Not even going to go into staff resourcing for a mutli country project.



From my experience, practice is either for you or isnt. And i think its 70/30 industry/practice split. Practice accountants I would say are more at the coalface of the regs and compliance. But at the same time, someone in transfer pricing in a multi national could be more knowledgable on that particular area. I guess it all depends. Everyone has their specialities. There is room for everyone.

Similarly I have come across practice accountants that have made some serious mistakes. In particular one was not submitting VAT returns, and over paid them as was just copying and pasting. But thats why professional indemnity insurance is there I suppose.



They said excel will replace accountants and computers will replace pilots... I dont think the accountant will be gone anytime soon. Not until the government recognises a piece of AI as a legal person



There are professional accountants who are members of prescribed bodies like ACA, ACCA, CPA etc. But there is no legal protection on the term. So anyone can call themselves an accountant. I can even buy CPA letters by joining some obscure accounting institute in the middle east for a fee with no exams. Solicitor on the other hand, enjoy legal protection.



Id agree here. So much DIY software out there. messages like its easy to do your books yourself etc. The fact is, a lot of clients I deal with plod on with a years worth of bookkeeping but get fundamentals wrong. It is easy to make a mistake if its not your field. Some accounting packages for free like bullet dont stop you from making mistakes. They accept data and put it out. And it all needs to be done from scratch. I always say, focus on your business and pass the books to someone else. For your own sanity, free time, and saving money in the end etc.



I wouldnt tar them all with the same brush. but yes, there are some dubious characters out there... but like you said. More work for accountants.



In Dublin this is particularly true. But thats just supply and demand. I suspect that a particular job may not take a hit, but a blanket pay decrease across the entire organisation proportional to their income. You keep saying fluffy, that implies there is nothing to it.... I am speaking anecdotally here from my own network, people in these high salary roles often have a lot of experience and strong credentials.

Anti money laundering and criminal justice legislation is making it more difficult for non accountants to call themselves accountants. Legal protection isn’t there but it will get to a stage that if you’re not a qualified member of a professional body, revenue won’t issue an agent ID and you won’t be able to operate as an accountant.

plodder

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Usually the accountant would not be the first CEO. When the company gets big enough or they become a public CO or are about to go public they would appoint someone from a finance background purely because they understand the financials.

You would be surprised by the amount of CEO’s and people in senior management positions that have very little understanding of financial information.

I don't disagree that this is often true. Though, most of Intel's CEOs have been engineers. Off the top of my head, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Amazon - all their CEOs have been engineers primarily.

I'd guess many of them did MBAs or got some form of training in accounting, because it obviously is essential at that level. Point is though that the tech sector is quite different from traditional businesses you might be dealing with.

Sunny Dayz

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

But what can you call a "fluff" job though? Initially I thought of jobs in marketing, influencing etc but when you think about it - when this crisis is over - we are going to need marketing, PR etc to help get businesses and brands back up and running again, getting people to engage in discretionary spending again so that Mary can get her job back in retail, John can get his job back in the pub and Niamh can get her weekends waitressing.

Yeah but anythime I look at some influrencrs lovely jumper from Next I just know when i go to buy it, it will be gone :P

plodder

plodder wrote: »

I don't disagree that this is often true. Though, most of Intel's CEOs have been engineers. Off the top of my head, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Amazon - all their CEOs have been engineers primarily.

I'd guess many of them did MBAs or got some form of training in accounting, because it obviously is essential at that level. Point is though that the tech sector is quite different from traditional businesses you might be dealing with.

It is far easier for an engineer to do an MBA and move in to managment that for an accountant to become an engineer.

v638sg7k1a92bx

mariaalice wrote: »

It is far easier for an engineer to do an MBA and move in to managment that for an accountant to become an engineer.

Because accountants don’t move into engineering whereas engineers move into finance because they know that if they want to progress in their career they need to have an understanding of the financials which is why accountants tend to hold senior management positions.

The core courses in an MBA program cover various areas of business administration such as accounting, applied statistics, human resources, business communication, business ethics, business law, business strategy, finance, managerial economics, management, entrepreneurship, marketing, supply-chain management.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Business_Administration

jon1981

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

Because accountants don’t move into engineering whereas engineers move into finance because they know that if they want to progress in their career they need to have an understanding of the financials which is why accountants tend to hold senior management positions.

This is not true. An understanding is needed yes, but you don't need to have done a full qualification in bean counting. A finance module as part of a decent post grad is enough. They don't move into finance. The fortune 100 of public companies has a mixed profile.

A Bachelor of Science (BS) degree is held by 47% of the CEOs who received an undergraduate degree

Not all F100 CEOs obtaining a BS necessarily graduated with a science, engineering, or math degree, with 45% getting their BS in a business field (e.g., accounting, finance, television and radio, etc.).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2019/10/05/new-ceo-study-the-undergraduate-degrees-and-majors-of-fortune-100-ceos/#26d2f7dd4130



OP a company leader doesn't need to understand in detail how to do T accounts or construct a P&L statement. They need to understand the numbers and how to influence them. I know people who have a better grasp on the numbers than some accountants.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be fair, our economic dependence upon MNCs in the tech sector is also one of the main drivers behind why our economy tanked.

Our economic crash had nothing at all to do with the multinational tech sector.

v638sg7k1a92bx

jon1981 wrote: »

This is not true. An understanding is needed yes, but you don't need to have done a full qualification in bean counting. A finance module as part of a decent post grad is enough. They don't move into finance. The fortune 100 of public companies has a mixed profile.








https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2019/10/05/new-ceo-study-the-undergraduate-degrees-and-majors-of-fortune-100-ceos/#26d2f7dd4130



OP a company leader doesn't need to understand in detail how to do T accounts or construct a P&L statement. They need to understand the numbers and how to influence them. I know people who have a better grasp on the numbers than some accountants.

I said an understanding of the financials not debits and credits.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Our economic crash had nothing at all to do with the multinational tech sector.

Had our economy not been so dependent upon tech companies like Motorola in Cork, Dell in Limerick, Gateway in Dublin, Intel and HP in Kildare, Boston Scientific in Galway, our economy wouldn’t have tanked nearly as hard as it did, because we wouldn’t have been as dependent upon them as we were, given that they employed thousands and put billions in investment, exports and wages into the Irish economy.

There were other factors of course, but our reliance on MNCs in the tech sector was a major factor in why the Irish economy in particular tanked as hard as it did when it did.

Ulysses Gaze

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Had our economy not been so dependent upon tech companies like Motorola in Cork, Dell in Limerick, Gateway in Dublin, Intel and HP in Kildare, Boston Scientific in Galway, our economy wouldn’t have tanked nearly as hard as it did, because we wouldn’t have been as dependent upon them as we were, given that they employed thousands and put billions in investment, exports and wages into the Irish economy.

There were other factors of course, but our reliance on MNCs in the tech sector was a major factor in why the Irish economy in particular tanked as hard as it did when it did.

Our economy tanked hard because we had almost 20% of our GDP tied into Property or property related industries. Dell accounted for around 5% which didn't help at all.

But it was not tech MNCs that tanked the economy so badly. If anything, companies like Google, Facebook etc helped keep it afloat.

Cilldara_2000

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Our economy tanked hard because we had almost 20% of our GDP tied into Property or property related industries. Dell accounted for around 5% which didn't help at all.

But it was not tech MNCs that tanked the economy so badly. If anything, companies like Google, Facebook etc helped keep it afloat.

This. We sneered at Europeans and Americans who raised an eyebrow at our "wild west financial regulation" and how we were the only country on earth to get "rich" selling houses to each other. Plenty of people saw it for the paper tiger it turned out to be.

Ulysses Gaze

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

This. We sneered at Europeans and Americans who raised an eyebrow at our "wild west financial regulation" and how we were the only country on earth to get "rich" selling houses to each other. Plenty of people saw it for the paper tiger it turned out to be.

Yes. And buying 4 or 5 apartments off the plans in places such as Bulgaria with the hope of flipping them at massive profits to "diversify" our investments.

And don't forget also pumping huge amounts of money into overvalued shares of basketcase financial institutions like BOI and AIB who were up **** creek without a paddle.

Can't blame the MNCs for that.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Had our economy not been so dependent upon tech companies like Motorola in Cork, Dell in Limerick, Gateway in Dublin, Intel and HP in Kildare, Boston Scientific in Galway, our economy wouldn’t have tanked nearly as hard as it did, because we wouldn’t have been as dependent upon them as we were, given that they employed thousands and put billions in investment, exports and wages into the Irish economy.

There were other factors of course, but our reliance on MNCs in the tech sector was a major factor in why the Irish economy in particular tanked as hard as it did when it did.

Complete and utter nonsense

The tech sector did not crash

For the first few years post crash it was one of the very few areas of growth

You appear to be claiming that we would somehow have been better off if many thousands of people who had well paid jobs, and who kept those jobs post-crash, had never had those jobs in the first place. Bizarre.

One eyed Jack

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Our economy tanked hard because we had almost 20% of our GDP tied into Property or property related industries. Dell accounted for around 5% which didn't help at all.

But it was not tech MNCs that tanked the economy so badly. If anything, companies like Google, Facebook etc helped keep it afloat.

I didn’t say it was MNCs that tanked our economy, I said it was our reliance on them which led to our economy tanking as hard as it did. And you’re correct in saying that companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft are keeping us afloat now, and we’re reliant on them to keep us afloat as our economy has moved from manufacturing to services. Here’s a recent example of the IDA giving themselves a pat on the back for not learning any lessons from the past -


Employment in multinationals reaches a record high

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Complete and utter nonsense

The tech sector did not crash

For the first few years post crash it was one of the very few areas of growth

You appear to be claiming that we would somehow have been better off if many thousands of people who had well paid jobs, and who kept those jobs post-crash, had never had those jobs in the first place. Bizarre.

No, what I’m claiming is that had Irish Governments supported Irish creation of employment by supporting entrepreneurs in Irish business, the Irish economy wouldn’t have tanked like it did when MNCs laid of thousands off employees, and the secondary employment which was dependent upon those MNCs also closed up and employees were laid off leading to massive unemployment and an inability to sustain our own economy. I alluded to this point already when I said that Enterprise Ireland are only interested in supporting High Potential Start Ups instead of encouraging entrepreneurs in Irish business to create employment opportunities and grow our own economy so that we’re not dependent upon FDI from MNCs to keep our economy afloat.

Mango Joe

I've noticed over the years that HR have had a hard time settings the salaries and making the rules without veering astray a little bit and tipping the balance firmly in their own favour.

One way they seem to do this is by having a series of inflated job titles and disproportionately large salaries for their worth.

Yes Shirley the 2nd Deputy Vice President, HR Associate Premier, Most Regal Mayor and Duchess of HR I'm sure you're worth your €80,000 annual salary now that you're a whole 3.5 years out of University.

growleaves

I didn’t say it was MNCs that tanked our economy, I said it was our reliance on them which led to our economy tanking as hard as it did. And you’re correct in saying that companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft are keeping us afloat now, and we’re reliant on them to keep us afloat as our economy has moved from manufacturing to services. Here’s a recent example of the IDA giving themselves a pat on the back for not learning any lessons from the past -

I agree that the lopsidedness of our economy is partly responsible for the severity of the damage.

Unless we come up with some new ideas its going to get even worse as many small and medium businesses go the wall or have already.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, what I’m claiming is that had Irish Governments supported Irish creation of employment by supporting entrepreneurs in Irish business, the Irish economy wouldn’t have tanked like it did when MNCs laid of thousands off employees, and the secondary employment which was dependent upon those MNCs also closed up and employees were laid off leading to massive unemployment and an inability to sustain our own economy. I alluded to this point already when I said that Enterprise Ireland are only interested in supporting High Potential Start Ups instead of encouraging entrepreneurs in Irish business to create employment opportunities and grow our own economy so that we’re not dependent upon FDI from MNCs to keep our economy afloat.

What you are claiming is rubbish, not only rubbish but the exact inversion of the truth. Firstly the MNCs in tech didn't go to the wall in 2008, secondly it was Irish entrepreneurs of the brick and mortar variety that did. Irish owned construction firms laid of most of their staff, IT and Tech workers in foreign owned companies in general weathered the recession.

EDIT:

And Irish owned banks that over loaned to the Irish developers. It is a good job we had foreign tech, or we wouldn't have survived that.

Granadino

Junior Prehistoric Grits wrote: »

...These are not architects, solicitors or accountants but people working in large organisations, pharma and multi nationals in roles like HR and staffing or general marketing jobs on €80k per annum. You would be surprised how handy many admin type roles are pulling in upwards of €70k per year I’m not even joking.

I think after Corina virus fiasco is over many of those jobs will take a hit.

Many solicitors and accountants are chancers so debatable whether they should or should not be included in the fluff category.
I work in one of the fluff areas, and while I'm not on big money, I do know of people in it on very big money, and to a certain extent I agree with you. If a lot of jobs in advertising didn't exist tomorrow, the world would still turn.
If it gets rid of "influencers", then I wouldn't be sorry one bit.
But it does go to show how irrelevant a lot of jobs are. Premier league footballers? Who cares...

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, what I’m claiming is that had Irish Governments supported Irish creation of employment by supporting entrepreneurs in Irish business, the Irish economy wouldn’t have tanked like it did when MNCs laid of thousands off employees

Which MNCs "laid off thousands" as a result of the property crash?
Tech and pharma where the MNCs are concentrated were growing.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

What you are claiming is rubbish, not only rubbish but the exact inversion of the truth. Firstly the MNCs in tech didn't go to the wall in 2008, secondly it was Irish entrepreneurs of the brick and mortar variety that did. Irish owned construction firms laid of most of their staff, IT and Tech workers in foreign owned companies in general weathered the recession.

EDIT:

And Irish owned banks that over loaned to the Irish developers. It is a good job we had foreign tech, or we wouldn't have survived that.

I never claimed MNCs in tech went to the wall in 2008. I claimed that because of Ireland’s dependency upon them, when they restructured and scaled back their operations in Ireland this had a massive detrimental impact on our economy (not least the loss of 35,000 jobs as mentioned in the article I linked to earlier).

Of course it was Irish entrepreneurs that went to the wall because there was little in the way of support from the State while US multinationals were practicing some funky accounting practices which became known as leprechaun economics. The State gave Apple €14Bn in tax breaks, and doesn’t even want it back :pac:


Apple pays over the €14.3bn due to Ireland - but the minister again denies that it's owed


As for the Banks bending over backwards for developers, yep, there was plenty of that too that contributed to our downturn as part of a global economic recession, but they were only in the ha’penny place compared to our over-reliance on FDI to keep our economy afloat. We’re still not heeding the warning signs that it could happen again in a heartbeat -

Ireland's reliance on five huge multinationals is a 'threat' to the economy


Even taking Oracle as an example - in 2016 the Government made great fanfare of an announcement that they were creating 450 jobs -

Oracle expansion to create 450 Dublin jobs


Barely a peep out of them when they’re “restructuring” in 2020 -


200 jobs may go at Oracle Ireland amid wider cuts plan


I suppose the people losing their jobs could always apply to Amazon, until they decide to restructure their Irish operation as a consequence of the current economic circumstances -


Amazon to create 1,000 Dublin jobs over next two years

Hotblack Desiato

"may". Hasn't happened and may or may not ever happen. 200 jobs doesn't amount to a wet fart in the Dublin tech jobs market. Multiples times that in well-paid vacancies going unfilled.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Granadino wrote: »

Many solicitors and accountants are chancers so debatable whether they should or should not be included in the fluff category.
I work in one of the fluff areas, and while I'm not on big money, I do know of people in it on very big money, and to a certain extent I agree with you. If a lot of jobs in advertising didn't exist tomorrow, the world would still turn.
If it gets rid of "influencers", then I wouldn't be sorry one bit.
But it does go to show how irrelevant a lot of jobs are. Premier league footballers? Who cares...

A perfect example of a friend of mine who is on a good salary of €150k in a multi national. Their job is... internal communications. Every time I ask them what they do they can’t explain it, it’s hilarious I don’t even think they know themselves.

ILoveYourVibes

Raconteuse wrote: »

They sure will obviously. Bloggers and influencers - big trouble.

I know people like to pretend HR is fluff but it's not really - although obviously there will be cuts in that department.

They are usually the dept that negotiates with unions so no. HR will usually have a few lawyers in the dept and know about labor laws when negotiating.

Hr also draws up contracts. They negotiate wages benefits and pensions for each job. They protect the interests of the company.

Employees often think they are fluff jobs because they think hr is supposed to be there to help THEM and they wuite rightly see HR rarely helps employees.

Whereas employers know HR is really there to organize and protect THEM and their company. And for that reason employers usually see HR as invaluable and as a necessity. HR is usually one of the first depts to be set up and one of the last to face terminations even in cases of liquidation.

But its true to say they really do nothing but fluff on behalf of actual employees. SADLY.

Unions are there for that. But in this country they are weak. And for some reason a lot of young people seem to think HR is there for them etc. I think its because they are told a lot of psychologists etc are looked for in HR Which is not strictly true. They look for degrees in business admin or maybe industrial relations.