# The R Word



## ccbkd

Looks like the inevitable we are heading deep into recession, how do you see this panning out?


----------



## eileen alana

Yep, the storm clouds are gathering


----------



## Howitzer

Shush! Don't you know it's just the media and all those negative types talking us down.


----------



## sam h

Apparently we've talked ourselves into it, so if we all stay really, really quiet maybe it will go away!


----------



## ccbkd

Howitzer said:


> Shush! Don't you know it's just the media and all those negative types talking us down.


 
Shutting the door when the horse has bolted, as a construction professional I have gone through one redundancy already and I feel distinctly uncomfortable in my new position due to the downward spiral, I am in the process of considering a move to somewhere more vibrant and exciting like London for Olympic site or Dubai, the gloom is just causing too much anguish and despair with workers on the site lossing jobs due to redundacies and liquidations! No my friend it is very real!


----------



## Calico

I have to say, I find it hard to take these studies/predictions (ESRI today for eg) seriously. This will be the 5th time they revised their forecasts so it doesn't really say much about their skills if you ask me.


----------



## ccbkd

Calico said:


> I have to say, I find it hard to take these studies/predictions (ESRI today for eg) seriously. This will be the 5th time they revised their forecasts so it doesn't really say much about their skills if you ask me.


 
The amount of people here trying to deny the enviable is valient but really its last gasp on the battle field before the bayonet is applied to wounded and dying! get used to it tighten the belts the atmosphere has changed.


----------



## shnaek

The real question is, what are the government* going to do about it? Find out on December 13th!

*I know the government haven't got 100% power here. Thought I'd get that in before someone says 'The government can do SFA about it'. Real question is - will they take the hard long term decisions, or will they increase the tax burden they place on us?


----------



## p45

Taking the 80s recesson as a loose guide then apartment/flats rents will be cheap, lots of shops will have their shutters down, I see at least 30% of coffee shops/sandwich bars closing.  Pubs will have happy hours to entice customers back in, people having to sell their homes because they can't meet their repayments because of job losses, (how many of the 600 Hibernian employees will still have their homess in 2 years time?)    The 7 euro box of popcorn will definately go for a hop at your local cinema and also expect it to slash it's early showing prices (in the 80s day time tickets were cut by almost 70% from £3 to £1).   The 10 euro hamburger's days are numbered and the joint some doors away will have to match the cut, the same for the 4 euro roll.   We've already started to stop paying over the odds for these things choosing to go without.    Watch your local shopping mall, in mine, Liffey valley, 3 stores have shut since the start of the year.  I'm sure there's a pattern in similar malls.


----------



## MrMan

Well at least prices will fall, every cloud....


----------



## Calico

ccbkd said:


> The amount of people here trying to deny the enviable is valient but really its last gasp on the battle field before the bayonet is applied to wounded and dying! get used to it tighten the belts the atmosphere has changed.



There's no doubt about it, the atmosphere has definitely changed but I'm just making the point that the ESRI has by its own admission been wrong 5 times now about economic growth so they can make all the predictions they want. When we actually see two consecutive quarters of contraction then we're in recession. There's no point panicing 'till then.


----------



## eileen alana

ccbkd said:


> Shutting the door when the horse has bolted, as a construction professional I have gone through one redundancy already and I feel distinctly uncomfortable in my new position due to the downward spiral, I am in the process of considering a move to somewhere more vibrant and exciting like London for Olympic site or Dubai, the gloom is just causing too much anguish and despair with workers on the site lossing jobs due to redundacies and liquidations! No my friend it is very real!


 
There are thousands of building workers in similar situation, in one sense you are lucky if you have the choice to emigrate. There are many who can't leave due to family and financial constrains. 

What has happened to th NDP which was supposed to cater for a large percentage of those left go from the housing sector??


----------



## jimbob1234

P45  - one thing i must say is that bars cannot have happy hours anymore , they are banned cos us irish would drink even more and thats not a good thing. 

we are indeed heading into a recession but a recession is neccessary to clear out the excesses that have built up over the last 10 years. house prices need to fall, commodity prices need to drop and the govt has to stop giving public servants these huge wage increases for doing nothing. 

to put things in perspective we will not have a recession anything like the 1980's. monetary policy back then was a joke with interest rates at 18%. if we have negative gdp now the ECB will slash rates and growth will be revived. a recession is nothing to worry about unless your working in construction , to be perfectly honest anyone working in construction for the past 10 yrs that doesnt have  a very nice nest egg built up due to the huge salaries they had doesent deserve any sympathy at all.


----------



## Kelmar

Spare a thought for poor old Brian Lenihan and his misfortune to become Minister for Finance at a time like this. 

My heart goes out to him......


----------



## rmelly

> if we have negative gdp now the ECB will slash rates and growth will be revived.


 
No - if France & Germany have negative gdp. Ireland will never be a significant factor in determining ECB rate changes.


----------



## jimbob1234

the poor man. somehome i dont think they will be getting a pay freeze


----------



## eileen alana

jimbob1234 said:


> P45 -  to be perfectly honest anyone working in construction for the past 10 yrs that doesnt have a very nice nest egg built up due to the huge salaries they had doesent deserve any sympathy at all.


 

Yes but bear in mind the ordinary labourers got nothing like the huge salaries that property developers and land owners coined from the good times.


----------



## Treehouse

I find it a bit odd that this is the biggest economics news in a long time, and lots of Irish message boards are buzzing with it, and yet here at AAM it's all very low-key. As I write, there are twice as many people viewing the Cars forum as this one.

Anyway, I'm new here so maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Howitzer

Treehouse said:


> I find it a bit odd that this is the biggest economics news in a long time, and lots of Irish message boards are buzzing with it, and yet here at AAM it's all very low-key. As I write, there are twice as many people viewing the Cars forum as this one.
> Anyway, I'm new here so maybe I'm missing something.


Most of the sceptics got banned or moved on from AAM due to the ban on discussion of House Prices. Given the role housing played over the last few years it was a little hard to hold a valid discourse without reference to it. 

AAM is now more of a reference site than a discussion one, which is no bad thing I suppose.


----------



## MrMan

> Yes but bear in mind the ordinary labourers got nothing like the huge salaries that property developers and land owners coined from the good times.



The ordinary labourers would have gotten pretty good wages actually in the last 10 years plus they would also have alot of access to doing tommers etc. In fairness to the developers, they may not be everyones favourite bunch, but they did take the risks and deserved their rewards, and some are now finding the downside to risks aswell.

Regarding the level of coverage this site has on the 'recession' i find it as a nice change from the constant hype and regurgitation of statistics. I know people have doubts that we can actually talk ourselves into a recession, but we are in danger of getting consumed by what 'could' happen and who to blame rather than looking at the positives.


----------



## Bronte

I think Michael O' Leary said the recession will be a good thing..........


----------



## eileen alana

He would because he dosen't have to worry about paying his mortgage or the ever increasing price of energy and food.


----------



## Sherpa

Treehouse said:


> I find it a bit odd that this is the biggest economics news in a long time, and lots of Irish message boards are buzzing with it, and yet here at AAM it's all very low-key. As I write, there are twice as many people viewing the Cars forum as this one.
> 
> Anyway, I'm new here so maybe I'm missing something.


 
A lot of people who would previously have discussed these sorts of issues on AAM have moved over to www.thepropertypin.com 

If you're looking for good debate and commentary on economic/financial matters (including, whisper it, house prices) I'd recommend you take a look.


----------



## annette mac

I'm afraid I'm finding it hard to get engaged with all of this recession-speak, 'cos I've lived through the 70s and 80s and survived!  I bought my first house when the banks made it almost impossible to do so, you had to establish a savings record over several years, save a considerable deposit and they almost ignored female earnings as a factor in assessing a couples' income, if you managed to come through all that the interest rate was 17% and inflation was raging.  I was paying paye at 45% and prsi at 7.75% which meant that with childcare costs it was hardly worth my while working but I, like everyone else held on to my job for dear life because there weren't any around. The worse thing about the 80s was forced emigration, at one stage a friend who was from a family of 10, had 8 members of her family working in the states and local gaa clubs couldn't field teams.  I have to say that all of those 8 managed to return home and make lives for themselves here.  What I would worry about most is the younger people have grown up with so much that they simply don't know what it's like to go without and we certainly did go without  then, but we hadn't grown up with much so we still managed to enjoy ourselves, there were few meals out and loads of parties at home with friends and six packs and big pots of spaghetti bolonaise.  This is not much consolation to people with negative equity and big mortgages I know, but what I'm trying to say is that every age has brought it's challenges and people do survive.  Any study of economic history shows that boom and bust come in cycles and in the midst of either you have to remember that 'this too will pass'.


----------



## joe sod

Calico said:


> I have to say, I find it hard to take these studies/predictions (ESRI today for eg) seriously. This will be the 5th time they revised their forecasts so it doesn't really say much about their skills if you ask me.


 
I have to agree with this posting, although i believe there will be a recession and have believed this for 5 years now, i don't have much time for the ESRI or their forecasts, only a month ago they were predicting we would return to 4% grrowth in 2010 and oil would fall to $70 and alot of other silly assumptions, last week they came out with a silly survey on male and female working hours carried out by surveying people rather than proper scientific evaluation, and now they come out saying we are going back to the eighties. Are these really professionals funded by the government


----------



## cole

Some wag on newstalk said they'd be voting against the recession as they didn't understand it.


----------



## dewdrop

Government finances which have taken a dive surely indicates cut backs are on the way unless we borrow heavily and this will only postpone the day of reckoning. what concerns me is how people from aged around 40 downwards who have never had to cut  back will cope with tough times. Many middle aged folk who have experiences of bad times often comment how will the new generation, with all their money etc, cope in a recessionary period.


----------



## annR

cole said:


> Some wag on newstalk said they'd be voting against the recession as they didn't understand it.


 

lol


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

For 15 years we have grown by over 5% p.a. Now we are told we might fall back 0.4% and people are making for the back room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver. What's the big deal? I am not an economist but how can slipping back a few months mean the wheels are coming off?


----------



## NikolazTesla

dewdrop said:


> Government finances which have taken a dive surely indicates cut backs are on the way unless we borrow heavily and this will only postpone the day of reckoning. what concerns me is how people from aged around 40 downwards who have never had to cut back will cope with tough times. Many middle aged folk who have experiences of bad times often comment how will the new generation, with all their money etc, cope in a recessionary period.


 
This morning, when I turned on Radio 1, I was bombarded with the usual negative comments from our usual negative broadcasters.

We in Ireland are no differnent to people in other parts of the world - and the majority of Irish people listen to this rubbish day in and day out - and actually believe it 

Without becoming too philosophical - there is a term called "Race Suggestion" that we have seen in action for centuries - and the majority will more than likely allow this "influence" determine what happens to them in life, and, the sad part is that they are oblivious as to why this is happening to them!

Negativity, like Evil, is one of the greatest curses inflicted on mankind, and over the centuries we have "evolved" into what can be called, a "dumb and dumber" race.

We are dumb because we allow the opinions of many - aka "race suggestion" - determine what we make of our life. This is not what Man was put on this Earth for - Man is an "individual" - but his "individuality" has been smothered now for centuries, mostly due to the silly and ridiculous "religious" groups that evolved from primative lines of thought - aka - Paganism.

When one "wakes up" and takes the time to look into what the word "soul" really means - they will eventually discover that the soul = the mind.

To listen to the idiotic preachings of ignorant people - ignorance meaning lack of REAL knowledge in relation to the subject matter - is to condemn one to a life of domination by others - aks - loss of individuality.

Summary - the doom and gloom experts are nothing more than ignorant people - see description of innorance above. They are but puppets of the so called "modern day society" in which we have to live - but - this does not mean that we have to listen to them with all of thier negativity and doom and gloom.

It is up to every individual to give to oneslef the best, and the most, that they can get out of life - if one takes heed of the "Race Suggestion" each and every day -then they will bring to themselves exactly what they predominantly think about - every result has to have a preceding action due to the universal law of "Cause & Effect" - change the preceding action and the result (outcome) will change - and as every action is preceded by thought - then thought - or the thinking process - becomes the most important thing in our lives.

This is why my slogan is:

"You are what you think"

Many will laugh - but that is to be expected - if I get one reply agreeing with my way of thinking I will be pleasently surprised, and, so might this person - as like attracts like - and like minded people share information freely, petty things like money do not even come into the equation!

This has been called by many freeloaders the "Law of Attraction" - but many have used th e universal laws incorrectly - as if the really understood the meaning of the laws, they would not do whgat they do and fool innocent peolpe - but as the laws are universal, and *************************,m they will get back exactly what they hand out.

You might be familiar with some of the quotes from the Bible - and one of the most famous is:

" Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"

This is the real meaning of the "Law of Attraction" - and the Bible has many other wise words of wisdom for those who understand whay it was written - it was written for the individual to find individuality - not for to go to Heaven instead of Hell - as Hell is a man made concept, as God is perfect and no such imperfectness can be possible - Hell was, and still is, a tool used to control the masses - all I can say is that for those who open their mind in search of truthful information, may be pleasently surprised what they will discover.

So - do not listen to the doom and gloom merchants, in the same way that you should not listen to the boom merchants - listen FOR what awakens the soul (mind) and stimlates the body into action - as for some silly reason, "Race Suggestion" has resulted in people thinking that they can actually accomplish great things without actually doing anything - now, if that is not a "Ridiculous" mentality, I don't know what is!

Now the flak


----------



## NikolazTesla

BTW - maybe "R" really stands for "Ridiculous"


----------



## newirishman

There is too much philosophy in the above post for my taste, and I really hate it if some random quip from the bible is thrown at me for no apparent reason.

Anyway, I take the only useful part of a sentence from tha tpost:

"accomplish great things without actually doing anything"

A national property boom does not create sustainable wealth. However, many people might have made lots of money, as it is always a pyramid scheme (see DmcWilliams Generation Game) but the young are ****ed with their 40 year mortgages.
So why did so many bet in property? Because you can "accomplish great things without actually doing anything". Do you have to any creative idea to invest in property? No. Do you have to take any risk? No. Banks have taken the risk. 

10 years of Celtic tiger wasted. Infrastructure still in bits. Not a single complete motorway between any two bigger cities in Ireland. Dublin public transport rubbish. Health Service bad. Public Service too bloated.

How is this country going to make it over the next 10 years if even during prosperous times too little has been achieved. Good night and good luck.


----------



## eileen alana

NikolazTesla said:


> This is why my slogan is:
> 
> "You are what you think"
> 
> Many will laugh - but that is to be expected - if I get one reply agreeing with my way of thinking I will be pleasently surprised, and, so might this person - as like attracts like - and like minded people share information freely, petty things like money do not even come into the equation!
> 
> 
> Now the flak


 
Who are you? the new messiah....


----------



## NikolazTesla

newirishman said:


> There is too much philosophy in the above post for my taste, and I really hate it if some random quip from the bible is thrown at me for no apparent reason.
> 
> Anyway, I take the only useful part of a sentence from tha tpost:
> 
> "accomplish great things without actually doing anything"
> 
> A national property boom does not create sustainable wealth. However, many people might have made lots of money, as it is always a pyramid scheme (see DmcWilliams Generation Game) but the young are ****ed with their 40 year mortgages.
> So why did so many bet in property? Because you can "accomplish great things without actually doing anything". Do you have to any creative idea to invest in property? No. Do you have to take any risk? No. Banks have taken the risk.
> 
> 10 years of Celtic tiger wasted. Infrastructure still in bits. Not a single complete motorway between any two bigger cities in Ireland. Dublin public transport rubbish. Health Service bad. Public Service too bloated.
> 
> How is this country going to make it over the next 10 years if even during prosperous times too little has been achieved. Good night and good luck.


 
It is not unusual for one to not see the "wood from the trees".

I will drop the mind talk, as much as I can, but it becomes very difficult as everything you have mentioned has to originate as a "thought" - this fact can't be denied.

So - why is the country now seen to be ***ked.

Simple - the people in Ireland vote with thier hearts inbsted of their minds - the so called "traditional" party following shows just how much people were, and still are, controlled - see, it is really very hard to try and hide truthful information, as the truth will always come to the surface.

What this country needs is some "great thinkers" - some people who will speak the truth, get rid of all the wasters, gather the best minds from the various discilpines, and then come up with a plan of action to build a great nation - on par with what the Egyptians done in the past, but without the need to haul massive stones up steep slopes for over 20 years

No one said it is easy - but everyone knows it is possible - look what other countries like GB done during the 2nd World War when a raving lunatic was allowed to control the minds of a nation - see, as I keep saying, everything goes back to the mind, it is just how it is!

People bought houses because the listened to the boomers - they ignored the facts that were presented by the likes of D.Williams - whom btw, I consider to be a brillaint thinker.

Now, if we had a few more D.Williams in Ireland, and forget about the past and what our Father's and Grand Father's done - the dead are gone and we should always let "the dead bury the dead" - and start to look for great minds instead of "mediocre thinkers" - then, and only then, might Ireland become the Egypt of today.

As for investing in property, and making moiney without doing anything, you have grasped the wrong end of the stick, so as to speak, the concept of doing something does not have to be physical,  but always has to be mental, and it is those who do not use their mental faculities, as they should, who are doing nothing.

A cripple can, and many have, accomplished great things in their lifetime, and this is because they have used and developed thier mind far beyond what the majority of "normal" people will ever do!


----------



## NikolazTesla

eileen alana said:


> Who are you? the new messiah....


 
I am just an individual - like you - that has decided to develop my individuality and not let the "race suggestion" influence my life.

It has taken me some years to get to this stage of my life - and I do not expect the younger ones to grasp many of the concepts put forward - as there really is no substitute for experience, no matter how much we think otherwise.

It might come as a great shock to many, to discoiver that our "education" system is fundamentally flawed - and if you read my post above you will see why!!


----------



## eileen alana

The next thing we will be hearing is that the statues have begun their movements again


----------



## eileen alana

NikolazTesla said:


> It might come as a great shock to many, to *discoiver* that our "education" system is fundamentally flawed - and if you read my post above you will see why!!


 
ummmmmmm


----------



## newirishman

NikolazTesla, your reply is what is to be expected from someone who quotes the bible for no reason. 
Another post without substance, only "phrases" and some insults.
Leave the sermon for the mass where you will find many sheeple looking for guidance that they don't get.
I am out of this.


----------



## eileen alana

me too, I can't bear this sort of stuff.


----------



## NikolazTesla

eileen alana said:


> The next thing we will be hearing is that the statues have begun their movements again


 
Now - do not take this personal - but this shows your ignorance - read my post to see what I think of statues!


----------



## NikolazTesla

eileen alana said:


> ummmmmmm


 
Feel free to piuck out incorrect \spellings - they are but part of a system of communication - what matters most is the thought of the individual - but as I said - our education system IS fundamentaly flawed.

You will have to put up wiyth my bad \spelling and mistypes - sorry!


----------



## NikolazTesla

newirishman said:


> NikolazTesla, your reply is what is to be expected from someone who quotes the bible for no reason.
> Another post without substance, only "phrases" and some insults.
> Leave the sermon for the mass where you will find many sheeple looking for guidance that they don't get.
> I am out of this.


 
Actually - I thought that my quote from the Bible was explained quite well?

What part caused confusion and I will try and clarify!


----------



## CGorman

Harchibald said:


> For 15 years we have grown by over 5% p.a. Now we are told we might fall back 0.4% and people are making for the back room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver. What's the big deal? I am not an economist but how can slipping back a few months mean the wheels are coming off?



Thank God someones pointed this out! Recession! Its only going to be a recession in the strictest technical sense. -0.4% for one year after stunning growth for 12yrs is nothing. Even if the ESRI are wrong and it's -1, or -2... thats comparitively little. Yes people will lose jobs and in vast numbers, but at least as a nation we have built up substantial personal savings. 

In a yrs time after 3yrs of university and a top class degree i'll be out in the real world starting off on €380 - €390 a week (if i'm lucky). My girlfriend is finished and is on €150 a week for the next month gaining experience with the prospect of €400 a week therafter. 

Awful? No. At least we can get jobs locally with great long term prospects. This is not the 80's - we will not be returning to that, that is a scenario completely different to now when everyone suffered vastly. This time round it is only the fool hardy who will suffer - those who squandered the fruits of the boom, speculated at the peak on property or who left school without proper education, attracted by short term high wages in the construction sector.


----------



## tiger




----------



## eileen alana

NikolazTesla said:


> Now - do not take this personal - but this shows your ignorance - read my post to see what I think of statues!


 

excuse me I am not ignorant, I know exactly what you writing about and to be honest it doesn't interest me one bit. I am not interested in philosophical debates and a financial forum is not the place for you to start on.


----------



## eileen alana

tiger said:


>


 
Thank you


----------



## griswold

Nikolaz, are you a crazy Scientologist or Tony Quinn drone? Sounds like it with all this talk of freeing yourself from the herd.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Tesla_ have you been playing with your electric machines again?


----------



## newirishman

CGorman said:


> Thank God someones pointed this out! Recession! Its only going to be a recession in the strictest technical sense. -0.4% for one year after stunning growth for 12yrs is nothing. Even if the ESRI are wrong and it's -1, or -2... thats comparitively little. Yes people will lose jobs and in vast numbers, but at least as a nation we have built up substantial personal savings.
> 
> In a yrs time after 3yrs of university and a top class degree i'll be out in the real world starting off on €380 - €390 a week (if i'm lucky). My girlfriend is finished and is on €150 a week for the next month gaining experience with the prospect of €400 a week therafter.
> 
> Awful? No. At least we can get jobs locally with great long term prospects. This is not the 80's - we will not be returning to that, that is a scenario completely different to now when everyone suffered vastly. This time round it is only the fool hardy who will suffer - those who squandered the fruits of the boom, speculated at the peak on property or who left school without proper education, attracted by short term high wages in the construction sector.



Yeah, you are right. This is merely a correction, long overdue, nothing than finally something to get the hot air out of that property bubble. The fundamentals are sound. Nothing to worry about.


----------



## NikolazTesla

CGorman said:


> Thank God someones pointed this out! Recession! Its only going to be a recession in the strictest technical sense. -0.4% for one year after stunning growth for 12yrs is nothing. Even if the ESRI are wrong and it's -1, or -2... thats comparitively little. Yes people will lose jobs and in vast numbers, but at least as a nation we have built up substantial personal savings.
> 
> In a yrs time after 3yrs of university and a top class degree i'll be out in the real world starting off on €380 - €390 a week (if i'm lucky). My girlfriend is finished and is on €150 a week for the next month gaining experience with the prospect of €400 a week therafter.
> 
> Awful? No. At least we can get jobs locally with great long term prospects. This is not the 80's - we will not be returning to that, that is a scenario completely different to now when everyone suffered vastly. This time round it is only the fool hardy who will suffer - those who squandered the fruits of the boom, speculated at the peak on property or who left school without proper education, attracted by short term high wages in the construction sector.


 
Good on you CG - and why set your goal on 380 to 390 a week - why not on 800 to 1000 a week.

Always remember that if you CONTINUALY think big thoughts - big things will happen - and vice versa of course.

The only think that stands in your way of 800 to 1000 a week is your current thinking process - change that and you WILL be pleasently surprised - that I can say with certainty - as the Universal Laws work for one and all - God has no favourites, for we are are all made in the image of God - we are Individuals.

Do not undersetimate what I have said - and take some time to think about it before you dismiss it - remember - "Race Suggestion" like "Hell", are your biggest obstacles to get over - and once you get over it the world is literally at your doorstep.

Be careful what you think - for good brings good and bad brings bad - so it is always best to think good - this means moral and just thinking - in other words - never do to any other person what you would not like done to yourself - and, just to clarify, I am not a Bible teacher, or religious person, or a communist, or a capitalist - I am bit a simple man as you - who has decided to think for myself - and since I started doing this "my self" thinking - my life and circumstances have changed for the better - although I still have many areas to improve on.

Think big and you will get big - think small and you will get small.

Think Correctly!


----------



## NikolazTesla

eileen alana said:


> excuse me I am not ignorant, I know exactly what you writing about and to be honest it doesn't interest me one bit. I am not interested in philosophical debates and a financial forum is not the place for you to start on.


 
Wrong - anything that influences an outcome is worth discussing - it just so happens that my line of thought is different to most - but who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

I am not saying any of you are wrong - am I ?


----------



## NikolazTesla

griswold said:


> Nikolaz, are you a crazy Scientologist or Tony Quinn drone? Sounds like it with all this talk of freeing yourself from the herd.


 
Hmmm - so there is no truth in anything I have wrote - come on , even a child can see that I present facts - no pun intended of course.


----------



## newirishman

tiger said:


>



Thanks a lot!


----------



## griswold

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## NikolazTesla

Harchibald said:


> _Tesla_ have you been playing with your electric machines again?


 
No HB - just doing some serious reading and study to free the mind from the influences of "race suggestion".

There is another word for what I write about - and some peddle it commercially under the guise of "Self Improvement"!


----------



## NikolazTesla

griswold said:


> Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


 
Sorry - I don't have one yet, but I will consider it if I get enough requests - maybe a poll?


----------



## Treehouse

CGorman said:


> Yes people will lose jobs and in vast numbers, but at least as a nation we have built up substantial personal savings.




Have we? Serious question. It was my understanding that we were all in massive debt, and that a large amount of that debt is collatoralised against rapidly depreciating assets (namely, property). What evidence is out there that we have built of substantial personal savings?

On the jobs point, I don't think you are fully allowing for the massive knock-on consequences of "vast numbers" of job losses. Just look at how the construction meltdown has poisoned related industries: builders suppliers, estate agents, DIY firms, banking,  furniture/kitchen/carpet sales etc. And when people lose jobs there, that in turn hurts yet more industries: the newsagent selling these people their lunch, the garage filling up their cars, the clothes shops who sell them their work clothes, the cleaning company who cleaned the offices, the printer who did their stationery...you could go on forever. 

I think you are being too sunny on both these points.


----------



## NicolaM

Re your newsletter, Nikolaz


NikolazTesla said:


> Sorry - I don't have one yet, but I will consider it if I get enough requests - maybe a poll?


You have a finely tuned sense of irony 

Nicola


----------



## jimbob1234

who agrees here that nikolaz posts are a waste of time and should be banned 

an earlier poster said that the ordinary labourer wasnt of good money. i know loads of block layers which is as laborious as you can get that were on 1k a week no problems for years during the boom.


----------



## eileen alana

jimbob1234 - You are 100% correct in what you say, however, that was for those labourers who were in unionised jobs. They were many others who worked in jobs where there were no unions and they were paid 500e or less per week.

I am speaking about ordinary labourers without a trade and not carpenters, blocklayers or plasterers who did make an awful lot of money during the good times.


----------



## p45

Will Starbucks go the way of Dunkin' donuts?  (Anyone remember them?)


----------



## eileen alana

I loved Dunkin donuts


----------



## CGorman

NikolazTesla said:


> Good on you CG - and why set your goal on 380 to 390 a week - why not on 800 to 1000 a week.



Errm try "Reality"... thats the wage i've to accept at the start... 800/1000 will come in time, but in reality i've to start at the bottom



NikolazTesla said:


> The only think that stands in your way of 800 to 1000 a week is your current thinking process - change that and you WILL be pleasently surprised - that I can say with certainty - as the Universal Laws work for one and all - God has no favourites, for we are are all made in the image of God - we are Individuals.... "Race Suggestion" like "Hell", are your biggest obstacles to get over - and once you get over it the world is literally at your doorstep.



No sooner is the Celtic Tiger dead and gone, but catholic ireland is back alive and kicking!! Please, as the other posters said, your comments are quasi tony quinn/religious... something I don't subscribe to. I place reality and hard work above naive foolhardy positivism. Thats just my view, your entitled to yours.

RE TREEHOUSE:

Of course there is a serious knock on effect on related and semi related industries - but I think that effect is already being felt and that the growth projections take that into account - thats why it's -0.4 forecast rather than +0.4. As I said earlier even if we dropped 2 or 3 percent this year, we've still come such a long way in the past few years.

As for savings, well straight off at a national  government level, our debt is tiny at 30% of GDP, nearly an historic low. At an individual level, obviously it depends on a case by case situation, and as I said some people chose to squander the boom, others were wiser. Most people continued the savings habit after the SSIA's. Virtually everyone who's worked over the past 10yrs has had an income far greater than they've needed to survive comfortable and hence should have strong savings - if they don't thats their own fault for being naive. Despite the decline in prices, anyone who bought prior to 2004 should still have decent equity in their homes. In addition redundancy repayments are much greater now than back in the 80's. 

I agree with you that things are bad now, but I don't buy the sunday independnent analysis that we're screwed. I think such a generalistic assessment is naive - yes some individauls will suffer, but more from their own over consumption and underinvestment over the past decade than from anything else.


----------



## Guest117

My tip for the recession is to get out of all Irish Bank stocks ( Hope not breaching posting guidelines )- I don't believe they have hit the bottom yet and fear that one or two will need to be bailed out of trouble by govt before end of year

Oh and yes the R word is real and getting deeper


----------



## griswold

This could be a good thread to bet on for it running up about 5000 posts and 200000 views?
Its only about a month ago I seem to remember that the ESRI released a positive report, (a week before the referendum,) suggesting that we would avoid any serious problems and recover quickly. Why the sudden change. 
Every month a more pessimistic report comes from somewhere or another. Where are all the positive glass half full men - the "economists" employed by banks who were insistent there would only be good times. I suppose it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen.
Will there be even more negative reports next month? I think there will and this whole story has a long way to unfold.


----------



## Guest124

Motor trade is in for a bumpy ride and if your thinking of selling a Car - do it now!


----------



## newirishman

CGorman said:


> As for savings, well straight off at a national  government level, our debt is tiny at 30% of GDP, nearly an historic low. At an individual level, obviously it depends on a case by case situation, and as I said some people chose to squander the boom, others were wiser. Most people continued the savings habit after the SSIA's. Virtually everyone who's worked over the past 10yrs has had an income far greater than they've needed to survive comfortable and hence should have strong savings - if they don't thats their own fault for being naive. Despite the decline in prices, anyone who bought prior to 2004 should still have decent equity in their homes. In addition redundancy repayments are much greater now than back in the 80's.
> 
> I agree with you that things are bad now, but I don't buy the sunday independnent analysis that we're screwed. I think such a generalistic assessment is naive - yes some individauls will suffer, but more from their own over consumption and underinvestment over the past decade than from anything else.



This is a rather naive view. I have many examples in my workplace and fom friends where singles and couples bought property in 2005 / 2006 / 2007 We have the single guy who is 29 and has a 480K mortgage which means montly repayments of 2.400 Euro. He doesn't have savings left because the 20K he had are gone with buying the house. Then, the couple with monthly mortgage payment of 3.000 Euro, expecting the first child soon. They are of course on a good salary but there is not much space to built up huge savings.

Why were 95% / 100% / 110% mortgages on the market? Because people needed them to get on the ladder. How many people are trying to get onto the affordable housing scheme?

The avg industrial wage is around 35K, the average house price is 283K. If you have kids and a mortage to server how can you build up savings?

You would be surprised how many people on their early 30ies have good salaries but no savings, but a 35yrs mortgage on a property that was/is 30% overvalued.

As DMcWilliams pointed out, and as you mention it above: The property bubble moved public debt to private debt, made the 45+ generation wealthy but the young generation debt ridden. Public debt low, but private debt is one of the highest in Europe. 

Where do all your future entrepreneurs come from if all money they will ever earn goes into repayments?


----------



## jimbob1234

i was talking to a mortgage broker yesterday thats a friend of mine and he was saying that the banks cant even sell the houses they have repossesed at huge discounts. an earlier poster said an irish bank will go down and need govt intervention, an irish government wont support a bank like that cos they cant afford it,maybe europe will??

i honestly dont think things feel that bad. restuarants and bars are not empty. people are still driving a lot. housing is knackered but commercial is doing very well. 

Oil is really holding the whole world to ransom at the moment and it cant go on forever unless we are in peak oil (then we are looking at a depression). the US are making moves to curb speculation in the oil markets. the FED meet today , if they raise rates a quarter point then dollar will firm and oil will fall. ud b very surprised what oil falling back to 90 dollars a barrell would do for confidence all over the world. the ESRI would be out again with a new statement

a person who is 29 and has a 480k mortgage is off their head , who in their right mind would saddle themselves with this much debt?


----------



## joe sod

What ireland needs now is a lowering in the value of the currency, if we still had irish pound we could allow its value to drop just like in america, this would erode the huge levels of debt people have and also boost our exports, unfortunately ECB seems to want to maintain the euro at a high level and maintain interest rates which is more in line with the german economy. I think it is the thirty somethings with high debt dependant on high wage jobs which are most in trouble, these high wage jobs will be the first to be cut, as the hibernian workers are finding out, the internet and high tech revolution of the 1990s is now affecting jobs which up to this were unaffected. School leavers should be ok because they wont have built up high wage expectations and will have no debt and can easily emmigrate. In the 1980sthere was a lot more protectionism which meant that thirtysomethings established in jobs were protected by unions unless the company went bust. This time more liberalisation means companies can cut wages or use temporary workers. It is the unjustified high wages that is irelands key problem


----------



## csirl

ERSI has a poor record in forcasting, so I take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

We're heading for a slowdown alright, but not the 1980s. We're just going back into a normal level of growth rather than the super growth we've had for the past decade. 

Property has less of an effect on most peoples lives that people imagine. A very high proportion of Irish people have mortgage free homes and the majority have not bought property in the past 10 years or so. Whereas those who have bought recently may be hit hard, they are not the majority.

There was an interesting comment in the Indo yesterday in their analysis that said that a 1% change in exports has as much impact on the economy as a 10% change in property. 

Also, I cant understand how most of the commentators on the "decline of the construction industry" dont see the correlation between the withdrawal of tax breaks and the reduction in output. Tax breaks officially end next Monday (30th June) and surprise surprise, people are going to get laid off in the construction industry. The construction industry output appears to have declined over the past 2 years in line with the tappered reduction in tax breaks. Tax breaks are the same as a subsidy, only not as obvious to the taxpayer. Any industry that is heavily subsidised is naturally going to employ more people and is going to lay these extra people off once the subsidy expires.


----------



## dtlyn

jimbob1234 said:


> i was talking to a mortgage broker yesterday thats a friend of mine and he was saying that the banks cant even sell the houses they have repossesed at huge discounts.


 
Where does one buy a repossesed house? And have there been that many of late? I'm sure I read elsewhere on here that there has been <100 this year. 



> Where do all your future entrepreneurs come from if all money they will ever earn goes into repayments?


 
I get the impression there is a fairly populous generation of young recent graduates ( ~<27 )who refused/were unable to saddle themselves with such debts. In recent times they have become more aware of economic factors that influence them, have become save savvy and will learn from the experiences of those slighty older than them who got caught up in all this spend thrift. 

One of our major advantages is this young highly educated work force, so all is not lost for the future I feel.

DMcWilliams might end up calling them YECCs or something. Young, Educated,Conservative  and Cynical.


----------



## jimbob1234

you could just ring the banks and ask them. there are an awful lot more than 100 im sure. the banks keep it out of the news


----------



## JohnBoy

As for savings, well straight off at a national government level, our debt is tiny at 30% of GDP, nearly an historic low. 


But our private debt is at an all time high. Total outstanding Irish private sector credit is equivalent to 95% of GNP according to the Iirsh Central Bank.


----------



## theoneill

I reckon my local Aldi is going to get very busy in coming months.


----------



## shnaek

jimbob1234 said:


> you could just ring the banks and ask them. there are an awful lot more than 100 im sure. the banks keep it out of the news



Surely the banks attempt to sell these houses on the market? Or is there a repossesedhousesales.ie website?


----------



## CGorman

newirishman said:


> This is a rather naive view. I have many examples in my workplace and fom friends where singles and couples bought property in 2005 / 2006 / 2007 We have the single guy who is 29 and has a 480K mortgage which means montly repayments of 2.400 Euro. He doesn't have savings left because the 20K he had are gone with buying the house. Then, the couple with monthly mortgage payment of 3.000 Euro, expecting the first child soon. They are of course on a good salary but there is not much space to built up huge savings.



You call me naive?  Nah, I'd call your friends naive - buying in 2005-2007 was foolhardy, it was a speculative market. As for buying a 500k at 96% financing at 29 in the past few years goes well beyond foolish (unless, the person in question has an income of 100k+.)

I stand by my earlier comments:


This is more of a "technical" recession than anything else, and is very unevenly distributed among sectors 
Growth will resume at a much more realistic rate in a year or two
This slowdown will punish those who were foolish, greedy or tempted by speculation and short termism
Hard workers and those who have invested in their education will continue to succeed
Unemployment will rise, but it will not be anything like the 80's. 
Slowdown will hit some little and some very hard depending on whether they have been prudent or lived beyond their means
A slowdown is actually excellent news for hard working educated young people as it will make housing more affordable and focus firms on performance. In this climate firms will reward those who work hard and improve productivity, whilst lazy or inefficent workers will be overlooked.
Entrepreneurs will continue to thrive. A recession will push lots of big firms into the red and they will lose focus; leaving ample room for cunning entrepreneurs. Also a decline in rents for commercial property is good news for new businesses trying to get established


----------



## Purple

CGorman said:


> This is more of a "technical" recession than anything else, and is very unevenly distributed among sectors
> Growth will resume at a much more realistic rate in a year or two
> This slowdown will punish those who were foolish, greedy or tempted by speculation and short termism
> Hard workers and those who have invested in their education will continue to succeed
> Unemployment will rise, but it will not be anything like the 80's.
> Slowdown will hit some little and some very hard depending on whether they have been prudent or lived beyond their means
> A slowdown is actually excellent news for hard working educated young people as it will make housing more affordable and focus firms on performance. In this climate firms will reward those who work hard and improve productivity, whilst lazy or inefficent workers will be overlooked.
> Entrepreneurs will continue to thrive. A recession will push lots of big firms into the red and they will lose focus; leaving ample room for cunning entrepreneurs. Also a decline in rents for commercial property is good news for new businesses trying to get established


I admire your optimism, and I agree with most of what you are saying.
In my view an entrepreneur is not someone who opens a shoe shop; it’s someone who comes up with a new idea and knows how to commercialise it (or takes an old idea and comes up with a new way to commercialise it). In other words there is a big difference between an entrepreneur and a business owner. In that context entrepreneurial activity is, to a great extent, recession proof. The problem is that most entrepreneurs come from a background where they acquired a technical and business skill base. Since there will be fewer jobs and less VC money around the breeding ground which creates these people will be less fertile. 

The bottom line is that high property prices, and the knock on from those prices, were killing this economy. If it takes a recession to get us out of that cycle it will be a price well worth paying.


----------



## CGorman

Purple said:


> The problem is that most entrepreneurs come from a background where they acquired a technical and business skill base. Since there will be fewer jobs and less VC money around the breeding ground which creates these people will be less fertile.



Good point Purple. However I note with interest the experience of my mother, who unable to get a job after college in the mid 1980's had no choice but to set up a business herself to get by. It turned out to be a great success - much better than many were earning at the time. Indeed despite shutting up shop 10yrs ago or so due to ill health (and two boys to mind), she's still being asked to fill orders (to which she declines). She built a business and a reputation at a time when everything was bleak.

Her experience I feel is mirrored by many others. Have a look at the incorporation dates of many major local businesses in your area. You'll be surprised by the numbers from the mid 1980's. I think unemployment can actually stimulate people to go into business themselves as they are faced with no choice.

Its an interesting notion I know, and I have no statistical backing for it; however I believe it to be the case. In addition I think the large lump sum redundancy payments made these days coupled with strong support from Enterprise Ireland, County Enterprise Boards and the like will help alot of people to go down this route. 

As regards VC. I recently was researching this area as part of my work and was quite surprised to see strong activity in the past 12mts despite the slowdown. I believe good ideas, with strong characters behind them will usually find funding eventually.


----------



## MrKeane

A lot of entrepreneurs have been able to ramp up their businesses because they could get access to lots of cheap money over the last 10 or so years. The rising tide was lifting all boats, I suspect it will be a lot more difficult to ramp up a new business idea in the new environment.


----------



## Purple

MrKeane said:


> A lot of entrepreneurs have been able to ramp up their businesses because they could get access to lots of cheap money over the last 10 or so years. The rising tide was lifting all boats, I suspect it will be a lot more difficult to ramp up a new business idea in the new environment.


I agree.


----------



## jimbob1234

shnaek said:


> Surely the banks attempt to sell these houses on the market? Or is there a repossesedhousesales.ie website?


 
they will try and off load them quietly as if they start putting them on the web etc then confidence will plunge altogether and they would be a lot worse off


----------



## Treehouse

CGorman said:


> I stand by my earlier comments:
> 
> 
> This is more of a "technical" recession than anything else, and is very unevenly distributed among sectors
> Growth will resume at a much more realistic rate in a year or two
> This slowdown will punish those who were foolish, greedy or tempted by speculation and short termism
> Hard workers and those who have invested in their education will continue to succeed
> Unemployment will rise, but it will not be anything like the 80's.
> Slowdown will hit some little and some very hard depending on whether they have been prudent or lived beyond their means
> A slowdown is actually excellent news for hard working educated young people as it will make housing more affordable and focus firms on performance. In this climate firms will reward those who work hard and improve productivity, whilst lazy or inefficent workers will be overlooked.
> Entrepreneurs will continue to thrive. A recession will push lots of big firms into the red and they will lose focus; leaving ample room for cunning entrepreneurs. Also a decline in rents for commercial property is good news for new businesses trying to get established





 I am not an economist, and I DON'T want to get into an unpleasant argument with anyone, so please don't take the comments below as personal at all.

I just want to express an opinion that almost all of the above is based on wishful thinking, platitudes, unsubstantiated assumptions, and blind faith. Quite where sweeping positive statements like "Growth will resume at a much more realistic rate in a year or two" come from I don't know. Perhaps you have some economic insights that I don't and which you haven't mentioned.

As I say, this is NOT a personal comment, so please let's not get into a dumb internet shouting match. I just think each of your assertions is platitudinous and shallow.


----------



## CGorman

Treehouse said:


> I am not an economist, and I DON'T want to get into an unpleasant argument with anyone, so please don't take the comments below as personal at all.
> 
> I just want to express an opinion that almost all of the above is based on wishful thinking, platitudes, unsubstantiated assumptions, and blind faith. Quite where sweeping positive statements like "Growth will resume at a much more realistic rate in a year or two" come from I don't know. Perhaps you have some economic insights that I don't and which you haven't mentioned.
> 
> As I say, this is NOT a personal comment, so please let's not get into a dumb internet shouting match. I just think each of your assertions is platitudinous and shallow.



No problem Treehouse, I don't take it personally - I can see your viewpoint clearly (it is the viewpoint of many people). 

However, let me add a little substance to the above. I said I would expect growth to resume at a realistic pace in a year or so. To me that would be something along the lines of 08': -0.75%, 09': 0.75%, 10': 2.1% and gradually rising to about 3-4%pa for the medium term. I do not expect us to witness tiger like growth again - that would be absurd. I do however expect the current recession to be sharp, but relatively short (from an technical economic point of view). The shockwaves and losses will continue for some time, but as a whole the economy should still expand.

I too am not a professional economist, but have studied finance at third level and have had an avid interest in economics and business for a long time. 

By all means we can have different opinions and yet take nothing personally, I am merely interested in constructive debate.


----------



## z109

CGorman, I think before trying to project the recovery, we need to look at how the present came about - what is it that has pushed the economy into recession? To my mind:
- housing bubble (nuff said)
- commercial property bubble (Irish commercial rents are the second highest in Europe)
- consumer credit bubble
- pro-cyclical spending policies from the government
- wage inflation due to high living costs (fueled by bubbles!)

So, we have become uncompetitive and indebted, in my view.

The questions then become:
- what will be the impact if oil prices remain high?
- what will be the impact if interest rates rise?
- what effects will reductions in public spending and probably in public service headcount have?
- how far will house prices fall? (not looking to debate them, but you pointed out that they are at 2005 levels already in some areas. If they fall further, this will leave more people in negative equity)
- will the global economy go into recession?
- will any of the multi-nationals (who account for 90% of our exports) downsize or leave altogether?

Given these ponderables, do you really see a turnaround to positive growth in six months?


----------



## television

CGorman said:


> No problem Treehouse, I don't take it personally - I can see your viewpoint clearly (it is the viewpoint of many people).
> 
> However, let me add a little substance to the above. I said I would expect growth to resume at a realistic pace in a year or so. To me that would be something along the lines of 08': -0.75%, 09': 0.75%, 10': 2.1% and gradually rising to about 3-4%pa for the medium term. I do not expect us to witness tiger like growth again - that would be absurd. I do however expect the current recession to be sharp, but relatively short (from an technical economic point of view). The shockwaves and losses will continue for some time, but as a whole the economy should still expand.
> 
> I too am not a professional economist, but have studied finance at third level and have had an avid interest in economics and business for a long time.
> 
> By all means we can have different opinions and yet take nothing personally, I am merely interested in constructive debate.


 
Where do you base these groth figures from? Just off the top of your head??


----------



## gradgrind

> Originally Posted by *MrKeane* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=655703#post655703
> _A lot of entrepreneurs have been able to ramp up their businesses because they could get access to lots of cheap money over the last 10 or so years. The rising tide was lifting all boats, I suspect it will be a lot more difficult to ramp up a new business idea in the new environment._


True and another problem is that the lowest income you need to pay the bills in Ireland is one of the highest in the world. But anything that a new business produces will likely have a price set by the rest of the world rather than by Irish partnership agreements. 

In America you might get by for a year or two selling one widget a week, in Ireland you might need two widgets. Your business will need to expand quicker than it would in a lower cost economy. 

If you're starting your business from your savings or a redundancy payoff you'll run through your savings here quicker than elsewhere.


----------



## leesider29

The problems at the moment are twofold, external and internal. We are witnessing high fuel prices, high food prices, possible raises in interest rates and the global credit crunch. Internally there has been mismanagement of the boom especially in the public sector through current spending and bad management of resources.

Firstly I think fuel prices will drop back to near the $100 a barrel due to a stronger dollar in the future and therefore less speculation. Food prices will probably remain high, eventhough some people suggest they might ease off a bit due to larger harvests this year. Interest rates we really don't have any control over but raising them will not reduce inflation from oil and food so why do it?? The credit crunch is ongoing but the worst seems to be over.......no banks have gone under in the last few months and there has been no more cash injections by the ECB or the FED.

Internally we really need to get our house in order and sad as it is this is the only time the government was going to take this on. The problem now is that they don't cut capital investment and they have to really work hard at weening us off fossil fuels.....we are one of the most dependent countries on oil and really leave ourselves open.

Yes I think we are entering a recession but I think it will be shortlived as with an open economy such as ours we are affected dramatically by external factors and these will change over the next year. It also gives the government the "opportunity" to make tough decisions and finally get our house in order. There are knockon effects with all these job losses of course but I think at this stage people need to stay calm realise we are not going back to 1980s and knuckle down to getting ourselves out of it.

Believe me my industry is one of the ones most affected by this so I am feeling the pain and have been for a while but where there is a will there is a way!!!!

All based on my humble opinion!


----------



## Treehouse

CGorman said:


> By all means we can have different opinions and yet take nothing personally, I am merely interested in constructive debate.




That's cool CG, me too.

Yeah, my problem with all this optimism is that I  believe we have had no economy for several years, or at least a fake economy - Billy Connolly might call it a Wee Pretendy Economy. Our economy has consisted of:

1. A housing bubble fuelled by cheap credit and easy access to that credit.
2. A consumer boom fuelled by the same cheap credit, and further fuelled by mortgage equity withdrawal
3. A boom in non-tradeable services that rely on other people having money (creating wealth I suppose) to pay for them. Again a result of the consumer boom and increasing demand for these services.
4. A massively bloated and inefficient public sector, funded by government revenue as a result of the housing boom, stamp duty, increased VAT income from consumer boom etc.
5. Multinationals, who help the economy through tax and employment, but with the massive downside that the tax take is limited, the employment insecure, and the "wealth creation" minimal. FinFacts reported in 2006 that 92% of Ireland's exports are from foreign multiationals. That's a damn scary statistic.
http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10008570.shtml


What else do we have? Agriculture and tourism for sure. After that, we are down to small companies and a small amount of manufacturing. The vast bulk of our economy - it seems to me - was non wealth-creating as we see in the 5 elements listed above. So when those parts of the economy falter, we have little to fall back on.

And as I see it, each of those 5 major elements of our economy I listed above are now looking very bleak. This is reflected in rising unemplyment, falling government revenues, a tanking housing market, multinationals scaling back, the consumer boom faltering as credit tightens and rising  interest rates make shopping more expensive as they make the mortgage more expensive.

And I don't know how any of this gets fixed in a few years. 

And none of this even allows for external/global effects on our economy. A world recession would obviously make all of this worse, although I agree with Leesider that oil prices are just another speculative bubble and will fall back in time.

Anyway. We're fuc**d I reckon!


----------



## television

Treehouse said:


> That's cool CG, me too.
> 
> Yeah, my problem with all this optimism is that I believe we have had no economy for several years, or at least a fake economy - Billy Connolly might call it a Wee Pretendy Economy. Our economy has consisted of:
> 
> 1. A housing bubble fuelled by cheap credit and easy access to that credit.
> 2. A consumer boom fuelled by the same cheap credit, and further fuelled by mortgage equity withdrawal
> 3. A boom in non-tradeable services that rely on other people having money (creating wealth I suppose) to pay for them. Again a result of the consumer boom and increasing demand for these services.
> 4. A massively bloated and inefficient public sector, funded by government revenue as a result of the housing boom, stamp duty, increased VAT income from consumer boom etc.
> 5. Multinationals, who help the economy through tax and employment, but with the massive downside that the tax take is limited, the employment insecure, and the "wealth creation" minimal. FinFacts reported in 2006 that 92% of Ireland's exports are from foreign multiationals. That's a damn scary statistic.
> http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10008570.shtml
> 
> 
> What else do we have? Agriculture and tourism for sure. After that, we are down to small companies and a small amount of manufacturing. The vast bulk of our economy - it seems to me - was non wealth-creating as we see in the 5 elements listed above. So when those parts of the economy falter, we have little to fall back on.
> 
> And as I see it, each of those 5 major elements of our economy I listed above are now looking very bleak. This is reflected in rising unemplyment, falling government revenues, a tanking housing market, multinationals scaling back, the consumer boom faltering as credit tightens and rising interest rates make shopping more expensive as they make the mortgage more expensive.
> 
> And I don't know how any of this gets fixed in a few years.
> 
> And none of this even allows for external/global effects on our economy. A world recession would obviously make all of this worse, although I agree with Leesider that oil prices are just another speculative bubble and will fall back in time.
> 
> Anyway. We're fuc**d I reckon!


 
Thats some pesimistic stuff there David (McWilliams). But I am tending to aggree with your logic. Makes a lot of sence. But I am one of those working in the bloated public sector with a full time non sackable job. Happy days


----------



## ccbkd

This thread is great especially loving the bit in the middle from Nicolaz and his brand of quasi-religious philosophy, nice try Nico but I am afraid you must have pressed the wrong button on Boards.ie in a bid to espouse on the philosophy forum this is the wrong forum don't you know AAM is full of Accountants, Estate Agents and Solicitors whom I believe are Lucifiers Off-spring!


----------



## JohnBoy

CGorman said:


> No problem Treehouse, I don't take it personally - I can see your viewpoint clearly (it is the viewpoint of many people).
> 
> However, let me add a little substance to the above. I said I would expect growth to resume at a realistic pace in a year or so. To me that would be something along the lines of 08': -0.75%, 09': 0.75%, 10': 2.1% and gradually rising to about 3-4%pa for the medium term. I do not expect us to witness tiger like growth again - that would be absurd. I do however expect the current recession to be sharp, but relatively short (from an technical economic point of view). The shockwaves and losses will continue for some time, but as a whole the economy should still expand.
> 
> I too am not a professional economist, but have studied finance at third level and have had an avid interest in economics and business for a long time.
> 
> By all means we can have different opinions and yet take nothing personally, I am merely interested in constructive debate.


 
Whilst I am firmly in the pessimists camp I am open to being convinced otherwise. On your growth projections above what economic sectors do you reckon will generate growth given that the construction sector could shrink for another year or two at least.


----------



## Welfarite

Treehouse said:


> 4. A massively bloated and inefficient public sector, funded by government revenue as a result of the housing boom, stamp duty, increased VAT income from consumer boom etc.


 
Is this your own opinion or is it based on facts? 

A recent OECD report found that general government employment in Ireland is relatively low among OECD countries. while, numbers employed in the PS has increased, such increases were from a relatively low base. They are significantly less than the level of public employment in Norway, Sweden, France, Finland and Belguim. Expenditure has increased substantially over the last decade but this reflected the need to play catch-up from historically low levels. Ireland has the third smallest total public expenditure as a % of GDP (behind Korea and Mexico) adn this figure has decreased over the past decade.


----------



## z109

leesider29 said:


> The credit crunch is ongoing but the worst seems to be over.......no banks have gone under in the last few months and there has been no more cash injections by the ECB or the FED.


Not sure where you get this idea from.

The Fed and the ECB are still conducting regular cash injection operations. LIBOR/EURIBOR/Dollar LIBOR are still hovering near the highs of last August. The TED spread is widening again. B&Bs cash call failed and had to be bailed out by a direct investment, HBOS's cash call is also looking very dodgy. If the banks cannot recapitalise themselves they will fail/be dismembered/be taken over in a shotgun marriage.

The credit default fiasco in the US is moving from subprime loans to Alt-A loans, Adjustable Reset Mortgages, Home Equity Loans, Credit Cards, Auto Loans and Commercial Real Estate Loans. Why does it matter what Americans are defaulting on? Because it's not just American banks that hold this debt. A much wider range of banks hold these loans compared with subprime related securities. While the default rates will not be as high as subprime loans (except maybe in the case of home equity and credit cards!), there will still be substantial pain.

The worst of the credit crunch hasn't yet started.


----------



## jimbob1234

the public sector is our biggest problem. they cant have the same wages as the private sector and have job security and huge pensions as well, thats just all wrong. in the US no one wants to work for the govt as the private sector is so much better, its the opposite here, eveyone wants to end up in the civil service due to all the benefits


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> the public sector is our biggest problem. they cant have the same wages as the private sector and have job security and huge pensions as well, thats just all wrong. in the US no one wants to work for the govt as the private sector is so much better, its the opposite here, eveyone wants to end up in the civil service due to all the benefits


 
Or the private sector pushing up prices to unjustifible levels over the boom period. Of course the public sector is responcible for the credit crunch, fall in house prices, the oil crises, competition from the far east, banks giving credit to people who could never afford it etc. Yes, that would be the public sectors fault.


----------



## jimbob1234

who said its responsible for the credit crunch, fall in house prices, etc. the public sector is our biggest internal problem that is directly managed by the govt. its woefully inefficent, overpaid,lazy, and totally full of wasters. 

and by the way the central bank is part of the public sector and they could have stepped in and stopped the bank giving credit to people who cudnt afford it

they also could have stopped house prices rising so fast by opening up govt zoned land to resedential development.


----------



## shnaek

jimbob1234 - you make the right point there. In France, public sector pay is about 10% less, taking into account job permanency and pension. What we need in Ireland is accountability in the public sector. If you mess up, then you're demoted, or you're out. Fact is, the government took in too much tax when revenues were artificially high - thus all the vested interests raced in to raid the family silver. In an ideal world governments would save in the good times and spend in the bad. This will never happen in a democracy. The only solution is to keep tax revenues relatively stable, and not allow spending to get out of control with no tangeable benefits whatsoever.

I like CGormans optimism. There is always a place for this type of thinking, and it is better that we have some positive thinkers around as times get hard. but the credit crisis is not over. An Irish bank is definitely going to fall. And there are more hard times ahead. No doubt about it. And house prices will fall for a long time to come. We need all the optimism we can get!

Also, we need to look at global issues. Europe could well proceed with initiatives which ruin our low tax advantage. This may happen with or without Lisbon. It is common sense for them to protect their interests. And if Obama wins in the US, the US could enter a new era of protectionism. Without low tax and US multinationals, what is it exactly that we produce here? Tourism and agriculture. The two things we have always produced. Where are the Irish multinationals? We don't have too many. 

There is also a strong possibility that we are going to see a lot of strikes in the next year. That will do us no good. 

While people who work in Hibernian and others are loosing their jobs, the trade unions are 'angry' about a pay freeze pointing at 'fat cat' bosses. How many 'fat cat' bosses are there? Sweet F.A. But there are hundreds of thousands of public 'servants' (I prefer to call them 'masters' seeing as how they are pulling the strings and the rest of us are dancing) who need to know that redundancy and unemployment is a reality for a lot of us outside the walls of the public sector. And when the war is over, this is where all the bodies will be.


----------



## jimbob1234

indeed. a person in the public sector cant get fired even if they mess up! whats that about like. they will still receive their bench mark pay increases and will still have a job during even the most severe economic depression cos they are protected by all these unions. my sister has just 2 yrs experience as a primary school teacher and between yard duty (which is during their short working day) and getting extra money cos she got and honours degree (whats this rubbish about) she is on 41k per year. off to oz for the summer now on full pay, civil servants dont even know what the word recession means

if an irish bank falls and it looks like IL&P are the most successtible to the credit crisis then the irish economy will fall apart


----------



## jimbob1234

will dell pay you an extra 2500 per year if you have a first class honours degree and ur boss only has a second class honours degree


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> who said its responsible for the credit crunch, fall in house prices, etc. the public sector is our biggest internal problem that is directly managed by the govt. its woefully inefficent, overpaid,lazy, and totally full of wasters.


 
A previous poster made a good point about the public sector. 



> A recent OECD report found that general government employment in Ireland is relatively low among OECD countries. while, numbers employed in the PS has increased, such increases were from a relatively low base. They are significantly less than the level of public employment in Norway, Sweden, France, Finland and Belguim. Expenditure has increased substantially over the last decade but this reflected the need to play catch-up from historically low levels. Ireland has the third smallest total public expenditure as a % of GDP (behind Korea and Mexico) adn this figure has decreased over the past decade.


 
Groups like IBEC etc would want the public sector to have the same crappy exploititive conditions that are present in some of the private sector. I have worked in the private sector are from my experience there is a fair amount of wasters there too. It is a bit simplistic to suggest that the private sector good public sector bad. This simplcity has characterised your previous posts I suppose. 

If those in the private sector except crappy pay, terrible conditions, instability etc than good luck to them. Why do you feel the need to inflict that on your fellow worker in the public sector?

Yes the public sector needs reform and become more customer focused. I would not even mind a pay freeze if i though it would help the whole economy. However the private sector needs to get more competitive also, i.e. smalland medium size businesses who have ripped people off over the last number of years.


----------



## z109

jimbob1234, aside from being foolish, making wild assertions about which specific banks might fail is against posting guidelines. I suggest you go back and edit your post before the mods close us down!

On the public service front, I see it as a futile debate about what they have vs. what we have. As government income shrinks, costs will come down. There will be rumblings of discontent. There will probably even be strikes. It may even get really bad. But this thread is probably not the place for it to be debated.


----------



## jimbob1234

what are you talking about. who said there is crappy pay, terrible conditions etc in the private sector. i work in the private sector and am paid well and have great conditions . i have a problem with my counterpart in the public sector being paid more than me or the same as me and also getting great pension and a job for life. you cant have everything. you obviously are a civil servant with the silly posts you are making. everyone knows the civil service is in efficent. try getting a call back from the PAYE office after leaving a message at 2pm on a friday or any other day for that matter


----------



## Welfarite

jimbob1234 said:


> the public sector is our biggest internal problem that is directly managed by the govt. its woefully inefficent, overpaid,lazy, and totally full of wasters.


 

That is an outlandish, OTT, unjustified remark. It amazes me that when all is rosy in the garden, there is not a peep about the PS. This is because the private sector know that their wages, bonuses, perks are better than the PS. Then, when the R word is mentioned, suddenly it is the PS who are to blame for it!

Benchmarking DID NOT give any increases to PS last time around (as another poster suggested), rather it took into account the permanence adn pensionability of the job and offset it. 

I am a PS, work hard adn am good at what I do. I give value for money and if I didn't have a PS pension coming (which I do pay into it, BTW), I would be paying into a private pension fund. Before bench marking, my equicvalent job in the private sector was paying 15% more in salary. The benchmarking award allowed me to earn as much as my couterparts in the private sector. 

Oh, and 40000 clerical officers earn 20,000 a year, rising to 37,000 after 17 years in the job. Should they pay for the mismanagment of the economy by enduring a pay freeze?


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> what are you talking about. who said there is crappy pay, terrible conditions etc in the private sector. i work in the private sector and am paid well and have great conditions . i have a problem with my counterpart in the public sector being paid more than me or the same as me and also getting great pension and a job for life. you cant have everything. you obviously are a civil servant with the silly posts you are making. everyone knows the civil service is in efficent. try getting a call back from the PAYE office after leaving a message at 2pm on a friday or any other day for that matter


 
Silly posts? Constructive comment. I did not say every one in the private sector has crappy conditions. i said some, i.e, those 550 people in Hibernian. Yes I work in the public sector and I work hard.  In fact I probably do 50% more work than I get paid for.


----------



## p45

For the first time since the very early 90s someone I know has been made redundant.  They work in a mortgage company and 9 of the staff have been give notice.


----------



## Guest117

television said:


> Yes I work in the public sector and I work hard. In fact I probably do 50% more work than I get paid for.


 
This comment demonstrates the mindset in the public sector that is the main problem.

How can you do 50% more work than you are paid for ? - that is just called increased productivity in the real world and you do not get paid extra for it. It is expected ! - Don't ever leave the public sector my friend - you will sink with this attitude


----------



## television

badge55 said:


> This comment demonstrates the mindset in the public sector that is the main problem.
> 
> How can you do 50% more work than you are paid for ? - that is just called increased productivity in the real world and you do not get paid extra for it. It is expected ! - Don't ever leave the public sector my friend - you will sink with this attitude


 
I am no economist but there is something a little suspect about your reasoning here. If you increased your productivity by 50% would you go to your boss looking for a pay rise? If you dont then I suggest you are the one with the problem. 

Again I have worked in the private sector. The amount of slacking where I worked (a major Irish bank) was pretty high. As someone said this Public sector/private sector slagging match will do no worker any good. But go ahead sling some unsubstantiated mud.


----------



## jimbob1234

exactly badge, if a person in the public sector says they are productive then they are deluded. do they have goals? do they get paid less if they do less work, of course not. thousands of public servants just sail through their day and career and never really know what the working world is really like. 

welfairtie - you say "The benchmarking award allowed me to earn as much as my couterparts in the private sector. 
"

how can you justify this if you have a defined pension scheme and can never get the sack?? you should not earning the same as a private sector worker


----------



## csirl

What needs to be cut in the public service is all the "jobs for the boys" quangos and agencies that dont contribute much. The wage bill for the core civil service is a surprisingly low amount of overall government expediture - equivalent to only a few euros per tax payer per week. However, the programme expenditure is full of bloated quagos wasting money.

On example I've come across in recent years is where 2 similar major projects were undertaken. One was undertaken directly by a Government department who allocated 3 staff to the project. It got done on time on budget. The other project was allocated to a specifically set up quango with 20-30 staff, its own HQ and politically connected board. Didnt happen & millions were wasted.


----------



## shnaek

I think yoganmahew is right - this thread is being pulled off topic here!


----------



## Welfarite

jimbob1234 said:


> welfairtie - you say "The benchmarking award allowed me to earn as much as my couterparts in the private sector.
> "
> 
> how can you justify this if you have a defined pension scheme and can never get the sack?? you should not earning the same as a private sector worker


 
I can justify it by the fact that I worked as hard for my salary as anybody in the private sector. It has nothing to do with a defined pension scheme. I could die before I retire.

Please explain factually why you think I should not be earning the same as a private sector worker.


----------



## shnaek

Good post, csirl. Trouble is, once these quangos have been born it is very hard to put them down!


----------



## jimbob1234

as you have too many perks. once again i will repeat them, the defined pension scheme, flexi time, cant get laid off etc etc

can i ask you a questio and please be honest, are you at work at present?


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> exactly badge, if a person in the public sector says they are productive then they are deluded. do they have goals? do they get paid less if they do less work, of course not. thousands of public servants just sail through their day and career and never really know what the working world is really like.
> 
> 1. The nurses who mind your family when their sick, the ambulence men who attend car wrecks, the teachers who teach your kids etc..........
> 
> Do they have goals? of course not. Do they sail through the day doing nothing.
> 
> If you exibited a little balance, a little understanding for the human condition, a little common sence, then maybe your argument about the need for reform would hold more weight. But you sound so bitter and blinkered.


----------



## shnaek

Welfarite said:


> Please explain factually why you think I should not be earning the same as a private sector worker.



Permanency and pensions. But this debate could go over and back without ever being resolved. Better keep it on the recession topic.


----------



## Guest117

television said:


> I am no economist but there is something a little suspect about your reasoning here. If you increased your productivity by 50% would you go to your boss looking for a pay rise? If you dont then I suggest you are the one with the problem.


 

No problem here Television - I run a company in the private sector - and yes if there is increased productivity then a small bonus might be paid

My point is that nobody in the private sector thinks they are doing 50% more work than they are being paid for. If they do think that then they will quickly learn that they were not doing enough before and only now is the performance satisfactory.

I stand by my comments 100% and don't want you to take it personally - you are entitled to disagree


----------



## television

csirl said:


> What needs to be cut in the public service is all the "jobs for the boys" quagos and agencies that dont contribute much. The wage bill for the core civil service is a surprisingly low amount of overall government expediture - equivalent to only a few euros per tax payer per week. However, the programme expenditure is full of bloated quagos wasting money.
> 
> On example I've come across in recent years is where 2 similar major projects were undertaken. One was undertaken directly by a Government department who allocated 3 staff to the project. It got done on time on budget. The other project was allocated to a specifically set up quago with 20-30 staff, its own HQ and politically connected board. Didnt happen & millions were wasted.


 
100% in aggreement.


----------



## jimbob1234

do you not think your shielded from the real world. we could have a depression here that could last 10 yrs and it wouldnt affect you in the slightest. other people could lose their jobs,cars and houses but it wudnt affect you cos your public sector job "protects" you from all that. its like you never left home and your mums are still minding you


----------



## television

badge55 said:


> No problem here Television - I run a company in the private sector - and yes if there is increased productivity then a small bonus might be paid
> 
> My point is that nobody in the private sector thinks they are doing 50% more work than they are being paid for. If they do think that then they will quickly learn that they were not doing enough before and only now is the performance satisfactory.
> 
> I stand by my comments 100% and don't want you to take it personally - you are entitled to disagree


 

See the reward I get for doing 50%more than I get paid to do is personal satisfaction. I like doing it. I dont need monetary reward. In the private sector doing 50% more would mean that in the past you may have been unproductive in the first place. But for me money has nothing todo with why I work more than I am contracted to. I do it because i believe I am doing something worthwhile for the community. Put a price in the thousands of people in the public service who think this way??


----------



## Welfarite

jimbob1234 said:


> as you have too many perks. once again i will repeat them, the defined pension scheme, flexi time, cant get laid off etc etc
> 
> can i ask you a questio and please be honest, are you at work at present?


 
How is flexitime a "perk" in your mind?
Yes, I am at work. If you look at my usual posts, you will see that AAM is part of this. And please don't get personal in your posts.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> do you not think your shielded from the real world. we could have a depression here that could last 10 yrs and it wouldnt affect you in the slightest. other people could lose their jobs,cars and houses but it wudnt affect you cos your public sector job "protects" you from all that. its like you never left home and your mums are still minding you


 
There are arguments for the benifits of working in the public/private sector.in times of plenty the private sector works make hay while the public sector cost along. In times of recession the private sector worker can have it bad. I got no answer to this.


----------



## Welfarite

I think csgirl has a good point.

At times of recession, the PS wage bill and pension is targeted as being a drain on much needed resources for the economy. However, the govt. should look at the money that is being spent on spin-cocotors, sub-committees, personal advisers, duplicate agencies, etc, etc. that have been created in the good times. The first stepo should be to dissolve/fire all the add-ons that they have developed over the last fifteen years. We can't afford them now.


----------



## JohnBoy

uiop said:


> What have we done wrong apart from house prices ? Are we any more corrupt than other countries ?
> 
> And what have we done right apart from low corporation tax ?


 
What have we done wrong?

Allowed construction output to peak at almost 23% of GNP in 2006. Huge amounts of capital and labour were sucked into what is now a financial and economic black hole. If the construction sector were to shrink to 'normal' EU levels then we will have lost perhaps 10% of our economy.

Debates about the public sector aside, the real drivers of employment growth over the past 4/5 years have been the pubilc sector and the construction sector (with all the associated hiring in retail; services etc that were dependent on this).

We allowed inflation take hold and now workers (rightly) are demanding higher wages to compensate for this when in fact we need real wages to fall in order to restore competiveness (it took Germany a decade to do this). Ireland is a very expensive place to live in.

When did we last attract a flagship foreign company? We have completely failed to grow a domestic export sector yet the export sector is expected to now step up to the plate and rescue the economy. We are dependent on decisions taken in other countries for too much of our economic wellbeing. 

Where are our domestic tech companies? When did and Iirsh company last list on the NASDAQ. 

Knowledge economy? Not really. We need engineers and scientists but we have plumbers and estate agents. People are happy to believe that we have a well educated workforce but many IT companies are having trouble filling posts because I believe that we have a genuine educational and skills deficit. Why slog away at computer science when you could earn more as an electrician? For sure, we could attract overseas talent but see my point above about inflation.

Private sector credit almost equal to GNP! This will act as a severe drag on domestic consumption for years to come. 

We need better infrastructure (the capital spending plan will address this in part but lack of €€€ will put a good portion on hold). 

What have I missed?


----------



## Flax

There is slacking in both the public and private sector. I work in the private sector and there are some high paid, disgracefully lazy people in my office.

Saying all that... my experience with the public sector is consistently awful - they seem so unmotivated and lazy. I guess they know they won't get fired, so they don't care. 

A large amount of people feel the same way I do, so we can't all be making it up.

Note I worked in the public sector for a while (outside contractor) and I witnessed first hand how little work gets done.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> so welfairrite is at work he is doing 50% more work than he gets paid for and still he has time to spend all day on the internet . you dont sound very productive to me.


 
Whats your excuse for being on the internet now?Shouldyou now be doign something productive?


----------



## television

JohnBoy said:


> What have we done wrong?
> 
> Allowed construction output to peak at almost 23% of GNP in 2006. Huge amounts of capital and labour were sucked into what is now a financial and economic black hole. If the construction sector were to shrink to 'normal' EU levels then we will have lost perhaps 10% of our economy.
> 
> Debates about the public sector aside, the real drivers of employment growth over the past 4/5 years have been the pubilc sector and the construction sector (with all the associated hiring in retail; services etc that were dependent on this).
> 
> We allowed inflation take hold and now workers (rightly) are demanding higher wages to compensate for this when in fact we need real wages to fall in order to restore competiveness (it took Germany a decade to do this). Ireland is a very expensive place to live in.
> 
> When did we last attract a flagship foreign company? We have completely failed to grow a domestic export sector yet the export sector is expected to now step up to the plate and rescue the economy. We are dependent on decisions taken in other countries for too much of our economic wellbeing.
> 
> Where are our domestic tech companies? When did and Iirsh company last list on the NASDAQ.
> 
> Knowledge economy? Not really. We need engineers and scientists but we have plumbers and estate agents. People are happy to believe that we have a well educated workforce but many IT companies are having trouble filling posts because I believe that we have a genuine educational and skills deficit. Why slog away at computer science when you could earn more as an electrician? For sure, we could attract overseas talent but see my point above about inflation.
> 
> Private sector credit almost equal to GNP! This will act as a severe drag on domestic consumption for years to come.
> 
> We need better infrastructure (the capital spending plan will address this in part but lack of €€€ will put a good portion on hold).
> 
> What have I missed?


 
Not a lot.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> my apologies it was television that said that
> 
> television - im on holidays so im entitled to be on the internet. at work i wudnt have time. and to sum it all up we will finish with flaxs comment


 
Dito,

You have serious issues with the public sector!!!!!!! its kind of scary.


----------



## jimbob1234

entitled !!! a private sector is not entitled to anything at retirement, unless they pump a load of their monthly salary into a pension and then pray for good stock market times


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> entitled !!! a private sector is not entitled to anything at retirement, unless they pump a load of their monthly salary into a pension and then pray for good stock market times


 

You fail to see one very basic point. Public sector workers do pay for thier pensions. For example I pay 400 E a month from my gross salary into my state pension. Ok it is not dependant on the markets but then again markets usually dookay on the long term.


----------



## jimbob1234

private sector people retiring this year are not goign to be ok as the markets are in disarray.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> private sector people retiring this year are not goign to be ok as the markets are in disarray.


 

Not true. if a private sector employee had been clever they would have moved thier fund to a safe bet 3 or 4 years ago. So they are doing fine if they had any sence. Most advisors would advise this from a pention fund coming to maturity


----------



## Guest117

television said:


> But for me money has nothing todo with why I work more than I am contracted to. I do it because i believe I am doing something worthwhile for the community. Put a price in the thousands of people in the public service who think this way??


 
So you work more than you are contracted to do!

You have just admitted there is a problem - maybe not with you - but in the system.

If you can do 50% more than you are contracted for then your contract was a ridiculous document in the first place. In the private sector the person who agreed such a contract would be sanctioned or sacked and the contract would be changed .

- It ain't rocket science


----------



## gurramok

[broken link removed]

"Average weekly earnings for the State’s 256,600 public sector employees rose by 3.6  per cent to €931.38 by the end of last year"

Thats about 48k average and we haven't even included generous pensions and jobs for life security yet folks.

Average Ind Wage about 33k, somethings amiss, think about it.


----------



## MrMan

jimbob, why haven't you gone for a public sector job? You say that the job is safe for life, has a great pension scheme, it is stress free, allows ample free time, and is even recession proof. Why haven't we all gone for this job. Your arguments might hold some weight if you tried being civil and state some fact rather than sensationalising differnet aspects of your perception of the public sector. This private v public sector thing borders on childish name calling and it boils down to personal choice, one set wants job security the other seems to want higher rewards.


----------



## jimbob1234

well said gurramok


----------



## csirl

Agree that these arguments are childish. If people think that the public or private sectors workers get it soo easy or make so much money, then why dont they apply for a job in that sector?

I'm tired of the ......" the public/private (delete as applicable) sector has whatever which I dont have in my job...." statements. Everyone is free to chose their career path.


----------



## Guest117

csirl said:


> Agree that these arguments are childish. If people think that the public or private sectors workers get it soo easy or make so much money, then why dont they apply for a job in that sector?
> 
> I'm tired of the ......" the public/private (delete as applicable) sector has whatever which I dont have in my job...." statements. Everyone is free to chose their career path.


 
csirl

Have i missed something -- Are you a moderator or censor of some kind?

If you are tired of *this* debate then push the button and you won't see it any more !

Can we not express an opinion on something without being told that the obvious choice is just to change job.

Telling everyone to switch sector if they think the other is better is hardly practical.


----------



## cole

Jimbob1234 this public v private argument is here if you want to read it. I will echo what others have said...why don't you join the public sector if it's all it's cracked up to be? Anyhoo back to the recession....


----------



## jimbob1234

no thanks .im fine here on this thread


----------



## gurramok

The public sector argument is linked to the recession. After all, they have to be paid and the source for those payments depend on performance of the economy.
Now, when there is a recession, where does the revenue come from to pay the public sector?

The government is their employer and the employer has reduced revenue to pay their employees, something has to give.

Shall we have a pay freeze like what Germany did or keep the wages high while offering redundancy to reduce the numbers?


----------



## cole

Let's all blame the public sector. 

Let's have redundancies. Let's have 40 pupils/teacher, less doctors/nurses etc. That'll certainly get the country back on its feet.

Our problem is that we didn't save money when we were flush so that we could spend it when we're in difficulties. But that would require joined up thinking.


----------



## jimbob1234

lets most definietely have lots and lots of redundnacies in the admin side of the public sector. obviously we cant let nurses go etc but what about admin staff in universities, institutes of technology, all over the healt board in the offices etc etc. they are all over staffed


----------



## shanegl

cole said:


> Jimbob1234 this public v private argument is here if you want to read it. I will echo what others have said...why don't you join the public sector if it's all it's cracked up to be? Anyhoo back to the recession....



Can someone not complain about the civil service (which we all pay for by the way) without wanting to work there? What's wrong with wanting a little value for money?


----------



## MrKeane

Look at motor tax, loads of goons in offices all over the country paid to collect the tax. 

Then look at Ryanair and their ticketing system - no offices up and down the country. Need an office to pay your tax then pay a 30% premium.

Why is motortax collection not put online and outsourced to India? That would deliver better value for the customer.


----------



## Treehouse

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, this thread has just been totally derailed. Can we get off this PS thing please? It's pretty tedious and only tangential to the topic at hand.

And can someone answer me this question:

What does our economy look like when you remove: a vibrant housing market, non-wealth creating sectors (PS, non-tradable services), multinationals (whose 
domicile is not guaranteed) and consumer spending (which will drop as IRs rise and belts are tightened)?

What is left after that little lot is removed from the mix (given that they add only marginally to the wealth of the nation)? Agri, tourism, small businesses and....what else?


----------



## television

badge55 said:


> So you work more than you are contracted to do!
> 
> You have just admitted there is a problem - maybe not with you - but in the system.
> 
> If you can do 50% more than you are contracted for then your contract was a ridiculous document in the first place. In the private sector the person who agreed such a contract would be sanctioned or sacked and the contract would be changed .
> 
> - It ain't rocket science


 
What is certainly not rocket science is the notion of PUBLIC SERVICE. It is possible to work really hard as I do in my job and give extra aswell. This extra is nothing to do with extra productivity as you call it. It is because I feel a sence of Public service and vocation. 

If you want to replace that sence of vocation and say i should get more money thats fine.

However I aggree that the public sector needs major reform to become more customer focused.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> they will borrow to pay them cos the unions will keep acting up so the countries national debt will rise a lot, taxes will rise to counter this so in effect you and me will be paying their salaries. the usual crap


 
You may not be aware of it but public servents pay tax as well. You really need to basic training in financial matters. You have so many basic misconceptions and prejudices agains the PS


----------



## cole

shanegl said:


> Can someone not complain about the civil service (which we all pay for by the way) without wanting to work there? What's wrong with wanting a little value for money?


 
Absolutely. 

It's the tired repetition of PS being lazy, short hours, long holidays, good pay etc. As I pointed out there is a whole thread devoted to this.


----------



## Towger

MrKeane said:


> Why is motortax collection not put online and outsourced to India?


 
Umm... It is online, a nice expensive system by complements of IBM. Unlike Ryanair’s, which initially cost 3k and is a hell of a lot more complex. But why bother to have motor tax at all. It was initially introduced as a temporary measure last time we had to tighten our belts. It would be even cheaper and greener to increase tax on motor fuel to compensate. The same could be done with PRSI, this just increase PAYE/tax, and last I heard this move would free up over 3000 civil service jobs.


----------



## dewdrop

I often think that when the Irish have a problem they need someone to blame..e.g. the Brits in the past, the Church, the farmers etc and now the PS. I have no connection with the PS


----------



## television

dewdrop said:


> I often think that when the Irish have a problem they need someone to blame..e.g. the Brits in the past, the Church, the farmers etc and now the PS. I have no connection with the PS


 

Good point.


----------



## jimbob1234

its all about value for money. there is none with the PS. they basically are there to provide us with a service that we pay for but i have rang the dept of education about various matters in the past and have gottne passed around for at least 10 mins, hung up on and gotten no call back after being promised one. the service is appaling


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> its all about value for money. there is none with the PS. they basically are there to provide us with a service that we pay for but i have rang the dept of education about various matters in the past and have gottne passed around for at least 10 mins, hung up on and gotten no call back after being promised one. the service is appaling


 

Can't say i disagree with you. Annoying as hell. THis happens in the private sector also.


----------



## jimbob1234

if it happens in the private sector then you can make a complaint and the person involved will be spoken to, and possibly will affect his / her wage review and position in the company. who can you complain about bad service in the public sector to? you wont get the persons managers name, if you write in it will be binned. if the person does get spoken to by their manager, it wont make them give better service as they will still get the same pay, same job security , same pension etc as anyone who does work hard.  there are so many middle managers in there that its impossible to talk to the rite person. its just an over sized beauracracy with loads of red tape. making a complaint is a waste of time cos the person involved will still have a job while we are all out of work in the private sector


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> if it happens in the private sector then you can make a complaint and the person involved will be spoken to, and possibly will affect his / her wage review and position in the company. who can you complain about bad service in the public sector to? you wont get the persons managers name, if you write in it will be binned. if the person does get spoken to by their manager, it wont make them give better service as they will still get the same pay, same job security , same pension etc as anyone who does work hard. there are so many middle managers in there that its impossible to talk to the rite person. its just an over sized beauracracy with loads of red tape. making a complaint is a waste of time cos the person involved will still have a job while we are all out of work in the private sector


 
From personal experiences I know that if you have a rubbish stAFF member in the public services they can be got rid of. or will leave I have seen it happening. But I aggree with a lot of what you are saying. Reform needed. But most of the public sector are not afraid of reform and most are trying to do thier best and many beyond what is required from them.


----------



## jimbob1234

ok, i accept what your saying. i dont think they can be gotten rid of though or their salary reduced???


----------



## television

Salaries reduced no. But not given a promotion yes. maybe thats what makes them bitter and useless.


----------



## jimbob1234

maybe indeed.


----------



## MrKeane

Towger said:


> Umm... It is online, a nice expensive system by complements of IBM. Unlike Ryanair’s, which initially cost 3k and is a hell of a lot more complex. But why bother to have motor tax at all. It was initially introduced as a temporary measure last time we had to tighten our belts. It would be even cheaper and greener to increase tax on motor fuel to compensate. The same could be done with PRSI, this just increase PAYE/tax, and last I heard this move would free up over 3000 civil service jobs.


 
I know there is an online option but a lot of it is still done via offices around the country. Slap a 30% premium on office transactions and phase it out.

Agree about motor tax - abolish it and increase tax on fuel.

I think we should outsource the public service to India completely. Send the gardai and army to training college over there, decentralise most government departments to India, the country would save a mint.


----------



## starlite68

CGorman said:


> Thank God someones pointed this out! Recession! Its only going to be a recession in the strictest technical sense. -0.4% for one year after stunning growth for 12yrs is nothing. Even if the ESRI are wrong and it's -1, or -2... thats comparitively little. Yes people will lose jobs and in vast numbers, but at least as a nation we have built up substantial personal savings.
> 
> In a yrs time after 3yrs of university and a top class degree i'll be out in the real world starting off on €380 - €390 a week


 what makes you sure you will walk into a job in a years time?  i have two friends with university degrees and they  are both unemployed now for the last few months...in a years time jobs will most likely be a lot harder to find than they are now...even for people with degrees. i hope all works out well for you in the future,  but dont go taking it as a given!


----------



## Purple

starlite68 said:


> i have two friends with university degrees and they  are both unemployed now for the last few months


 So they can't get a job doing anything? I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Purple

JohnBoy said:


> What have we done wrong?
> 
> Allowed construction output to peak at almost 23% of GNP in 2006. Huge amounts of capital and labour were sucked into what is now a financial and economic black hole. If the construction sector were to shrink to 'normal' EU levels then we will have lost perhaps 10% of our economy.
> 
> Debates about the public sector aside, the real drivers of employment growth over the past 4/5 years have been the pubilc sector and the construction sector (with all the associated hiring in retail; services etc that were dependent on this).
> 
> We allowed inflation take hold and now workers (rightly) are demanding higher wages to compensate for this when in fact we need real wages to fall in order to restore competiveness (it took Germany a decade to do this). Ireland is a very expensive place to live in.
> 
> When did we last attract a flagship foreign company? We have completely failed to grow a domestic export sector yet the export sector is expected to now step up to the plate and rescue the economy. We are dependent on decisions taken in other countries for too much of our economic wellbeing.
> 
> Where are our domestic tech companies? When did and Iirsh company last list on the NASDAQ.
> 
> Knowledge economy? Not really. We need engineers and scientists but we have plumbers and estate agents. People are happy to believe that we have a well educated workforce but many IT companies are having trouble filling posts because I believe that we have a genuine educational and skills deficit. Why slog away at computer science when you could earn more as an electrician? For sure, we could attract overseas talent but see my point above about inflation.
> 
> Private sector credit almost equal to GNP! This will act as a severe drag on domestic consumption for years to come.
> 
> We need better infrastructure (the capital spending plan will address this in part but lack of €€€ will put a good portion on hold).
> 
> What have I missed?



Superb post.


> Knowledge economy? Not really. We need engineers and scientists but we have plumbers and estate agents


That’s the best and most succinct summing up of what’s wrong with this country I have ever read.


----------



## Purple

While I have a huge big axe to grind about the public sector it is ridiculous to blame those who work in it for all our economic woes. 
The basic problem is weak government with no real leadership and no vision of how the country should use its wealth.
Allied to that weak and bad management in the public sector, political interference and unions that resisted change for the sake of it (or to justify their own existence) and we just didn’t change the way we ran things from the 70’s and 80’s ‘till now.
Public sector employees are not the problem; they are just as motivated or lazy as those in the private sector. The problem is the structure they work within. They cannot change this.

We are now a nation of cynical and defeatist indebted consumers instead of a nation of citizens proud of what we have achieved over the last 15 years. This is because we realise that while things are better than they were they are nowhere near as good as they should be. 

While this recession will hurt many (and my sector is right at the top of the list of those most exposed to it) it may well be the medicine that stops us from killing ourselves altogether.


----------



## joe sod

[broken link removed]

an excellent article from moneyweek on ireland


----------



## cole

Purple said:


> We are now a nation of cynical and defeatist indebted consumers instead of a nation of citizens proud of what we have achieved over the last 15 years. This is because we realise that while things are better than they were they are nowhere near as good as they should be.
> 
> While this recession will hurt many (and my sector is right at the top of the list of those most exposed to it) it may well be the medicine that stops us from killing ourselves altogether.


 
Good points.



joe sod said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> an excellent article from moneyweek on ireland


 
Agreed, an excellent article.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> While I have a huge big axe to grind about the public sector it is ridiculous to blame those who work in it for all our economic woes.
> The basic problem is weak government with no real leadership and no vision of how the country should use its wealth.
> Allied to that weak and bad management in the public sector, political interference and unions that resisted change for the sake of it (or to justify their own existence) and we just didn’t change the way we ran things from the 70’s and 80’s ‘till now.
> Public sector employees are not the problem; they are just as motivated or lazy as those in the private sector. The problem is the structure they work within. They cannot change this.
> 
> We are now a nation of cynical and defeatist indebted consumers instead of a nation of citizens proud of what we have achieved over the last 15 years. This is because we realise that while things are better than they were they are nowhere near as good as they should be.
> 
> While this recession will hurt many (and my sector is right at the top of the list of those most exposed to it) it may well be the medicine that stops us from killing ourselves altogether.


 
An excellent post. Aggree with every word.


----------



## webtax

Maybe we should invite the German Ambassador back to share his views on the current state of affairs?

http://www.independent.ie/national-...voy-over-his-coarse-irish-speech-1081773.html


----------



## z109

Purple said:


> While I have a huge big axe to grind about the public sector it is ridiculous to blame those who work in it for all our economic woes.
> The basic problem is weak government with no real leadership and no vision of how the country should use its wealth.
> Allied to that weak and bad management in the public sector, political interference and unions that resisted change for the sake of it (or to justify their own existence) and we just didn’t change the way we ran things from the 70’s and 80’s ‘till now.
> Public sector employees are not the problem; they are just as motivated or lazy as those in the private sector. The problem is the structure they work within. They cannot change this.
> 
> We are now a nation of cynical and defeatist indebted consumers instead of a nation of citizens proud of what we have achieved over the last 15 years. This is because we realise that while things are better than they were they are nowhere near as good as they should be.
> 
> While this recession will hurt many (and my sector is right at the top of the list of those most exposed to it) it may well be the medicine that stops us from killing ourselves altogether.



I disagree Purple, I think there were two basic problems, one a result of the other; they were greed and envy. There were those who sought to make a quick buck and those who sought to ape the lifestyles of the rich and famous. 

When we hear about the mess that people's personal finances are in, we don't ever hear "well you were greedy to have a big house with a huge interest only mortgages, a new car every other year, three holidays away, every gadget under the sun and a sex and the city lifestyle". Instead we hear how they were duped by easy money, that they didn't realise they had to pay it back, that they didn't look at the documents they were signing. Why did all those fools buy apartments in Sunny Beach? To go there on holiday? Please, spare me. They bought because they were greedy enough to believe the spiel told to them by the salesman who told them they'd double their money in five years and with a rental income to boot. And besides, everyone else has one.

We elected those most like us.

Rant off.


----------



## Treehouse

Purple said:


> We are now a nation of cynical and defeatist indebted consumers instead of a nation of citizens proud of what we have achieved over the last 15 years.




But the very worrying problem Purple is that there is a very good chance we have achieved almost nothing in the last 15 years. 

The ISEQ as I understand it is at the same levels as pre boom (I could be wrong on that though), and as we know that other great foundation of our "achievement", housing, is tanking as we speak. Those two elements alone account for most of our boom, and are now gone in the blink of an eye. So, what is it exactly that we have achieved? 

That's not a rhetorical question by the way - I am open to being totally wrong, I just look around and do not undertsand (as I have not understood for 5 years+) where all the money is coming from and where all this wealth is being created. Trading house and the Dundrum Shopping Centre just don't do it - they are pretend growth, not real growth. So, honestly, what do we have left? 

And I agree with Yogan's rant 100%.


----------



## ivuernis

Treehouse said:


> The ISEQ as I understand it is at the same levels as pre boom (I could be wrong on that though)


 
The ISEQ is back to about 2004 levels. As an aside it's worth noting that Shanghai's Composite Index has fallen by about 50% in the last 8 months.


----------



## Guest117

Originally posted by starlite68 - i have two friends with university degrees and they are both unemployed now for the last few months -




Purple said:


> So they can't get a job doing anything? I find that hard to believe.


 

I agree with Purple - if they were willing to work at anything they could most likely get a job. Problem may be that they will only accept certain jobs now and deem themselves over qualified for certain types of work which might be available.

I fear for the current generation who have no experience of leaving college and having to either get down and dirty to get a job or emigrate. Mummy and Daddy have brought them up a little soft methinks


----------



## europhile

webtax said:


> Maybe we should invite the German Ambassador back to share his views on the current state of affairs?
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...voy-over-his-coarse-irish-speech-1081773.html



He was dead right.  Fur coat and no knickers.


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> While this recession will hurt many it may well be the medicine that stops us from killing ourselves altogether.


 
I fully agree with you Purple.


----------



## jimbob1234

"Public sector employees are not the problem; they are just as motivated or lazy as those in the private sector. The problem is the structure they work within. They cannot change this.
Public sector employees are not the problem; they are just as motivated or lazy as those in the private sector. The problem is the structure they work within. They cannot change this."

this is a good point indeed. guys / gals to be honest oil is going no where but up. 141 dollars this morning and counting. the worlds economies are fallign into recession, we will have stagflation everywhere. the stock market is a precursor to what will happen in the future, so if you believe this then china is headed for a massive massive massive slowdown, which will probably happen after the olypmics. we are all in serious trouble then. but it will last a few yrs, prices will subside due to lack of demand and growth will start again. we need to be ready for it


----------



## Purple

yoganmahew said:


> I disagree Purple, I think there were two basic problems, one a result of the other; they were greed and envy. There were those who sought to make a quick buck and those who sought to ape the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
> 
> When we hear about the mess that people's personal finances are in, we don't ever hear "well you were greedy to have a big house with a huge interest only mortgages, a new car every other year, three holidays away, every gadget under the sun and a sex and the city lifestyle". Instead we hear how they were duped by easy money, that they didn't realise they had to pay it back, that they didn't look at the documents they were signing. Why did all those fools buy apartments in Sunny Beach? To go there on holiday? Please, spare me. They bought because they were greedy enough to believe the spiel told to them by the salesman who told them they'd double their money in five years and with a rental income to boot. And besides, everyone else has one.
> 
> We elected those most like us.
> 
> Rant off.


I agree completely that we were greedy but I have no problem with people being greedy as long as they pay their taxes. The real problem is that many people took risks without informing themselves of just how much of a risk they were taking. There is a massive cultural problem in this country of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. I have taken financial risks in both a business and personal context but I fully accept that if things go pear-shaped and I end up loosing my home I will have no one to blame but myself. Those who, as you said, thought that they could get rich by coat-tailing the markets (in housing, stocks etc) without actually doing any work and now blame everyone but themselves give me a pain (see my thread in LOS about stupid debt).


----------



## Purple

uiop said:


> Well we export goods produced by multinationals which set up and invested heavily here. The exported goods added to the bottom line of the multinationals which justified their original investments. Isnt that the story ? We couldnt produce our own innovation in large enough quantities so we get paid to produce the innovation of others ?
> As long as people keep their jobs and this continues then we've achived something. However if we become inefficient through arrogance listening to the media telling us all how great we are and how we all drive suvs etc and have to have one thats 2009 etc then we're screwed. I dont wanna sound off the wall like mr tesla there so I wont elaborate but I think the media perpetuate this kind of twisted thinking.


The underlying problem is that we attracted those companies here by being a low-cost, low tax economy. Then for some bizarre reason thought that we could become a high cost economy and they would stay here. When did we forget that we took the jobs from people in the USA etc because they were paid more than us? Not those companies are leaving in exactly the same way they came and we have a problem with that. Why? We stole the jobs from someone else and now the next guy is stealing them from us.
The real tragedy is that we didn’t develop an indigenous high-tech manufacturing base (with a few notable exceptions like Trinity Biotech, Elan and smaller companies like Creganna Medical). There is no major economy in the world that does not have a strong high-tech engineering and science based manufacturing sector. Since the Second World War Germany, Japan, South Korea and China have all build their economy in this way. Why did we think offering cheap labour and stealing tax from Germans could was sustainable?


----------



## jimbob1234

there are very few of these jobs being lost to be fair. unemployment is going up due to construction not to job losses in the likes on intel, dell etc


----------



## starlite68

jimbob1234 said:


> there are very few of these jobs being lost to be fair. unemployment is going up due to construction not to job losses in the likes on intel, dell etc


 those companys that you mention are going to feel the knock-on effect of this downturn too...its just a matter of time,  and there is noting stopping them from relocaiting to low wage countries with far lower overheads....just like what hibernian are doing with some of their operation.
i dont always agree with "purple" but there is a lot of truth in his last post.


----------



## jimbob1234

i understand that but the high tech companies wont be as badly affected as they were in 2001 when the dot coms collapsed. we survived that didnt we? and came back stronger


----------



## starlite68

we did...but i think everyone would agree that what we are facing now is being caused by very different events than in 2001


----------



## Treehouse

Purple said:


> The underlying problem is that we attracted those companies here by being a low-cost, low tax economy. Then for some bizarre reason thought that we could become a high cost economy and they would stay here. When did we forget that we took the jobs from people in the USA etc because they were paid more than us? Not those companies are leaving in exactly the same way they came and we have a problem with that. Why? We stole the jobs from someone else and now the next guy is stealing them from us.
> The real tragedy is that we didn’t develop an indigenous high-tech manufacturing base (with a few notable exceptions like Trinity Biotech, Elan and smaller companies like Creganna Medical). There is no major economy in the world that does not have a strong high-tech engineering and science based manufacturing sector. Since the Second World War Germany, Japan, South Korea and China have all build their economy in this way. Why did we think offering cheap labour and stealing tax from Germans could was sustainable?




Yeah, this absolutely nails it. All of the competitive advantages we had 10 years ago are gone. And instead of making a concerted effort to maintain those advantages, the government seems to have instead believed their own bullsh1T about our "young educated workforce" and "knowledge economy". Anyone that couldn't see through this vain, self-flattering delusion is probably starting to see through it now.

A friend of my dad's (a doctor in his early 60's) said to me about 2 years ago that the multinationals would never leave because they are too afraid to p1ss off the Irish government. The moment I heard that from a smart, educated professional, I knew we were screwed.


----------



## polaris

Indeed, I remember at the beginning of last year when there was uncertainty about  Amgen opening their plant in Cork, many people were saying that they were delaying the announcement until after the general election as a favour to Fianna Fail.

We certainly have an inflated sense of our importance on the world stage!


----------



## shnaek

Purple is on the ball there with his last few posts. We got to find a way to dig ourselves out of the hole we put ourselves in, and the first thing we need is strong leadership. We'll see exactly what type of leadership we have over the coming months. It's hard to be optimistic.


----------



## Purple

Treehouse said:


> Yeah, this absolutely nails it. All of the competitive advantages we had 10 years ago are gone. And instead of making a concerted effort to maintain those advantages, the government seems to have instead believed their own bullsh1T about our "young educated workforce" and "knowledge economy". Anyone that couldn't see through this vain, self-flattering delusion is probably starting to see through it now.
> 
> A friend of my dad's (a doctor in his early 60's) said to me about 2 years ago that the multinationals would never leave because they are too afraid to p1ss off the Irish government. The moment I heard that from a smart, educated professional, I knew we were screwed.


 Spot on. I love the last bit!


----------



## Afuera

jimbob1234 said:


> guys / gals to be honest *oil is going no where but up*. 141 dollars this morning and counting. *the worlds economies are fallign into recession*, we will have stagflation everywhere.


Surely a global recession is going to have a bad impact on demand for oil? I don't see the ever rising prices for oil that you seem to suggest. In fact I would be surprised if oil stays above $100 throughout 2009.


----------



## JohnBoy

jimbob1234 said:


> i understand that but the high tech companies wont be as badly affected as they were in 2001 when the dot coms collapsed. we survived that didnt we? and came back stronger


 
We did come back stronger but with a different type of economic growth. The post-2001 boom was mainly a consumption led boom as too-low interest rates sent the housing market into overdrive. Credit fueled a huge spending binge which in turn fed into the government's spending plans. If we were only facing a global economic slowdown with the 2000 era economy (lower costs; lower private sector debt & a more diversified economy) then I would be a lot more optimistic.


----------



## Guest117

Agree with Purple, Treehouse and others

Don't know if any of you saw a documentary ( prob primetime or similar ) about how Ireland / IDA lured all the multi nationals here in the past. 

Basically the IDA ( think Padraig Whyte was director at time ) hired a marketing company to create a brand for Ireland and sell us to the world. They did a hell of a job! - We all know how they spun it - well educated young motivated workforce - cheap land and labour - perched on the edge of europe etc etc

Point is ( and well made above ) we have nothing to sell or spin now ! At least not without a complete re think and hopefully some very creative ideas.

On a lighter note - the one thing the doom and gloom merchants don't make any allowance for is human resilience. The likes of George Lee et al cannot factor in the fact that entrepreneurial spirit might win out and screw up their predictions / projections. It is not a number so they cannot crunch it and therefore choose to ignore it.


----------



## Purple

Not just have we nothing new to sell but countries from Central America to Eastern Europe have copied our IDA model exactly.


----------



## jimbob1234

Afuera said:


> Surely a global recession is going to have a bad impact on demand for oil? I don't see the ever rising prices for oil that you seem to suggest. In fact I would be surprised if oil stays above $100 throughout 2009.


 

it will but it will take a global recession to kill that demand so it will be a while yet before the back of oil is broken


----------



## Purple

jimbob1234 said:


> it will but it will take a global recession to kill that demand so it will be a while yet before the back of oil is broken



It looks like the price of oil will continue to [broken link removed].


----------



## csirl

Wait till we get a few oil strikes on the Atlantic coast, then its happy days again so long as the crustys dont prevent us bringing it ashore.


----------



## ccbkd

csirl said:


> Wait till we get a few oil strikes on the Atlantic coast, then its happy days again so long as the crustys dont prevent us bringing it ashore.


 
Not an expert on this but the Cost of Drilling and Licensing impediments have kept this scenario as (no pun intended) a pipedream!


----------



## Purple

ccbkd said:


> Not an expert on this but the Cost of Drilling and Licensing impediments have kept this scenario as (no pun intended) a pipedream!


As the price goes up the cost of extraction becomes less prohibitive.


----------



## csirl

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccbkd* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=657275#post657275
> _Not an expert on this but the Cost of Drilling and Licensing impediments have kept this scenario as (no pun intended) a pipedream!_
> 
> As the price goes up the cost of extraction becomes less prohibitive.


 
And technological advances make it possible to extract the oil more easily. As oil shortage gets more pronounced, there is a lot more effort going into developing the technology to access previously inaccessable oil fields.

The gas field off the coast of Mayo that the shell to sea people are objecting to is a classic example of a fossil fuel reserve that has only recently become accessable and viable due to price increases and technology advances.


----------



## jimbob1234

and what about the apes in mayo that delayed it being brought ashore for years. has anyone here been in LA, you can drive around the city and actually see the nodding donkeys pumping oil besides shops, houses etc


----------



## Guest117

csirl said:


> Wait till we get a few oil strikes on the Atlantic coast, then its happy days again so long as the crustys dont prevent us bringing it ashore.


 

No benefit to the Irish economy if we strike oil 

Fianna Fail will just sell it for a few brown envelopes like P Flynn did with the Corrib Gas

We need a better plan than an oil strike -  LOL


----------



## chum

Oil companies have approx 30 years of leases currently outstanding, they do not have the capability to even use up their current leases so drilling our way out of high oil prices is probably one of the greatest myths big oil preaches.


----------



## Jock04

csirl said:


> Wait till we get a few oil strikes on the Atlantic coast, then its happy days again so long as the crustys dont prevent us bringing it ashore.


 
Yeah, I remember drilling a few dustbowls out there alright.

There will no doubt be a few small fields that will economically yield something, but there'll be no North Sea type bonanza.


----------



## Jock04

uiop said:


> why does the government give tax breaks for companies drilling out there when surely the economic pressures involved from global lack of supplies will get companies out there taking a risk anyway ?
> 
> Is there any scientific basis for assuming theres nothing major out there to be discovered ? Would that not be the same as saying that every part of it had been drilled/explored ?
> 
> ps are we in a recession or not ?


 
Offshore drilling is horrendously expensive in itself, but before drilling starts there's already been very significant sums spent on satellite analysis, seabed geological surveys ec etc.
There's no doubt that some already-surveyed blocks will be getting closer to financial viability, almost by the day. I don't doubt some of these small fields will be developed using combined drillship/tanker technology, where a drillship goes onsite, drills the well, then the production unit fills the tanker, the well gets plugged & off you go.
 But don't confuse that with finding another Brent or Forties field. They'd already know about fields that size if they were there.


----------



## joe sod

Everyone knows the government gave in too easily to benchmarking and the public sector unions, we now have the highest paid public sector workers in europe about the same level of pay as the scandinavian countries, however the scandinavian countries can afford them because they have oil(norway) and stong home based scientific multinationals in denmark finland and sweden. We simply can't now afford to pay these wages and pensions, however once the government does not try and raise taxation to pay for this largesse like they did in the 80s we should be able to contain the problem


----------



## Complainer

joe sod said:


> we now have the highest paid public sector workers in europe


Would you like to clarify your source for this? I'm pretty sure the recent OECD review of the Irish public sector came up with a pretty different conclusion.


----------



## joejoe

I hope the public sector dont get a cent in a pay raise. If they are not happy with their current rate of pay there are and will be many people happy to take there place.

Joejoe


----------



## Purple

joejoe said:


> I hope the public sector dont get a cent in a pay raise.



The government will do what they are told by the public sector unions, just as they have done for the last 10 years.


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> The government will do what they are told by the public sector unions, just as they have done for the last 10 years.


Wishful thinking!


----------



## starlite68

im afraid purple is right.....the government are terrified of the public sector unions,they have had them in a stranglehold for years now.  thats what half the problem is in this country is....weak governments


----------



## rmelly

yes, that was the case for so long, but the government showed some backbone on benchmarking II, so I see a glimpse of change...

Also they didn't cave in (yet) to SIPTU on their demands in exchange for support of the lisbon treaty


----------



## rmelly

uiop said:


> Whats' a worst case scenario if the government did actually stand up to the public sector ? Would the country fall to pieces with strikes or would it just mean less votes for the government ?


 
strikes, strikes and more strikes.


----------



## murphaph

But could essential services be maintained? Could the army drive the buses? If a winter of discontent is required to break the public service union stranglehold on our country then would the general public (ie, private sector, no guaranteed pay rises or job for life security) support a strong challenge to the unions? 

The public sector unions could be placated in good times. 'Partnership' was always flawed as far as I am concerned and a downturn will expose it. A short downturn may refocus minds on waste in the public sector, something which is badly needed IMO!!


----------



## starlite68

uiop said:


> Whats' a worst case scenario if the government did actually stand up to the public sector ? Would the country fall to pieces with strikes or would it just mean less votes for the government ?


 i would say plenty of strikes.....and less votes for the government.
the present government just dont have what it takes to go head to head with them.


----------



## rmelly

murphaph said:


> But could essential services be maintained?


 
The army could fulfil certain tasks e.g. transport, waste disposal but what about nurses/junior doctors, electricity supply, air traffic controllers, front line staff in DSFA etc.


----------



## joejoe

I realy hope that the government stand up and put the public unions and workers in their place. They all have privliged postions and just take take take....

Joejoe


----------



## starlite68

joejoe said:


> I realy hope that the government stand up and put the public unions and workers in their place. They all have privliged postions and just take take take....
> 
> Joejoe


 i hope so too joejoe...but dont go expecting very much...this goverment has shown no real backbone when it comes to tackeling the hard issues.


----------



## Complainer

murphaph said:


> But could essential services be maintained? Could the army drive the buses?


You might just find that the army have a different idea of their role to the PD-like posters on this thread.


rmelly said:


> yes, that was the case for so long, but the government showed some backbone on benchmarking II, so I see a glimpse of change...


Indeed, the recent benchmarking report shows the utter fallacy of Purple's comment above. I guess if he keeps saying it often enough, there are some people out there who will believe it, regardless of the truth.


----------



## rmelly

Complainer said:


> Indeed, the recent benchmarking report shows the utter fallacy of Purple's comment above. I guess if he keeps saying it often enough, there are some people out there who will believe it, regardless of the truth.


 
Come on now, I didn't go that far.


----------



## Treehouse

Why does this recession thread keep reverting to a discussion of the public service? 

What about the other crucial questions in the recession: our manufacturing base, the multinationals, exports, migration, property, consumer spending, the credit crunch, the banking crisis, the ISEQ meltdown, oil, food prices, unemployment...


----------



## rmelly

Because the public sector pay is a drain on government spending, and the cost only ever goes one way - UP. 

The private sector makes the money, the public sector spends it.

When less money is coming in (reduced tax revenue) caused mainly by global phenomenon beyond the governments control, the most obvious target is to reduce the burden of the public sector.

Standard business behaviour, when sales fall or stagnate (tax take), rationalise/reduce costs.


----------



## television

rmelly said:


> Because the public sector pay is a drain on government spending, and the cost only ever goes one way - UP. .


 
Wow thats a clever bit of analysis. As a key role of government is running the public service it is obvious that thats where the money goes, i.e. running our hospitals schools etc. 



rmelly said:


> The private sector makes the money, the public sector spends it..


 
Public servants pay tax and cannot use the miriad of tax scams/loopholes avalible to some business people earning fortunes in the private sector.



rmelly said:


> When less money is coming in (reduced tax revenue) caused mainly by global phenomenon beyond the governments control, the most obvious target is to reduce the burden of the public sector.
> 
> Standard business behaviour, when sales fall or stagnate (tax take), rationalise/reduce costs.


 
What exactly do you want to rationalise in the public service? The health service? This was done in the 80s and lead a decade of under funding and cutbacks. |Much of the funding on heath ovwer the last 10 years went in to addressing this. 

I suggest all workers regardless of being in the public private should act in a united way to ensure our public services are maintained and strengthened during this time. This is not the time to make the public service a scapegoat for this recession. All of us whether in the private or public sector will suffer if the government is allowed to cutback on our schools and hospitals.


----------



## joejoe

One thing is for sure televison, your a public servant, how about the new pay talks, would you be happy to take a stall in pay? Do your bit for the country.

Joejoe


----------



## Complainer

rmelly said:


> Because the public sector pay is a drain on government spending, and the cost only ever goes one way - UP.
> 
> The private sector makes the money, the public sector spends it.


Nice rhetoric, but fairly empty and meaningless. To describe spending on hospitals, schools, public transport infrastructure, supports for people with disabilities etc as 'a drain' ignores the vital and essential purpose of these spends.



rmelly said:


> When less money is coming in (reduced tax revenue) caused mainly by global phenomenon beyond the governments control, the most obvious target is to reduce the burden of the public sector.


Indeed, but following the most obvious path is not always the smartest approach. For the record, the boom/bust in the construction sector was very much the creation of our current government.



rmelly said:


> Standard business behaviour, when sales fall or stagnate (tax take), rationalise/reduce costs.


Smart businesses go a little deeper. Smart businesses seek to continue to retain the best staff, as they know their future sucess depends on these staff. Smart businesses invest in their future, whether through infrastructure or research or product development, as they know their future success depends on it.

But regardless, the government is not a business. It is a government.

Our government needs to invest in education now. Schools will be facing a 25% approx increase in their heating bill this winter with no corresponding increase in their capitation fee. It's kinda difficult to focus on leaving cert maths if your fingers are blue with cold.

Our government needs to invest in public transport infrastructure, as the ridiculous model of single-occupant-car-commute becomes unattainable for many workers.


----------



## television

joejoe said:


> One thing is for sure televison, your a public servant, how about the new pay talks, would you be happy to take a stall in pay? Do your bit for the country.
> 
> Joejoe


 
I have being doing my bit for the country for 15 years working in the public sector.


----------



## jimbob1234

would you b happy taking a pay freeze? i had to do it for 2 yrs running during hte dot com collapse


----------



## Flax

I'm pretty sure his dodge the question answer can be interpreted as "no".


----------



## csirl

The Health Service is the area of the public sector that needs reform. There are more people employed in it that the entire Civil Service, Gardai, Armed forces and education sector combined - shows you how bloated its admin structure is. 

However, with over 100,000 people employed in it - thats 1 in 20 of the workforce. Or 1 in 10 households has a HSE funded employee (think about this when walking around your area - count the houses and think how good or health service would be if you had a medical professional every 10 houses rather than an administrator) - the Government does not have the bottle for alienating this proportion of the electorate. Reforming the  HSE with a drastic cut in admin numbers would cost them at minimum 10% of votes in the next election and probably a lot more when you consider friends & relatives of these employees would probably also be annoyed with the Government.


----------



## television

Flax said:


> I'm pretty sure his dodge the question answer can be interpreted as "no".


 
I Would accept a pay freeze if I thought there would be no cut in vital services in health and education.


----------



## rmelly

Complainer said:


> Nice rhetoric, but fairly empty and meaningless. To describe spending on hospitals, schools, public transport infrastructure, supports for people with disabilities etc as 'a drain' ignores the vital and essential purpose of these spends.


 


> It was reported today that the HSE has proposed to Government that 1,000 of its management and administrative posts should be axed as part of a voluntary redundancy programme.


 
Are these 1000 employees vital and essential, or are they an indication of the bloated public sector?

[broken link removed]


----------



## rmelly

television said:


> I Would accept a pay freeze if I thought there would be no cut in vital services in health and education.


 
Have you told your union that?


----------



## television

rmelly said:


> Have you told your union that?


 
Yes.

However they offered a pretty effective counter argument. No point in me repeating it here.


----------



## jimbob1234

im sure you did yeah, i dont believe you told your union that you were ok with a pay freeze. its simple as this, the country is short on money so pay increases should be off the table. like in the private sector if the company is doing badly or short of money then people get laid off and / or a pay freeze. simple math really. you cant pay more out when you have less of it


----------



## television

How dare you question my personal integrity! Jokin don't care if you believe me or not. I am a union rep and have urged restrained at branch level. Listen I aggree with your thinking on this.  However I do think those on the average industrial wage need increase in line with inflation, public or private sector.


----------



## rmelly

Complainer said:


> Smart businesses go a little deeper. Smart businesses seek to continue to retain the best staff, as they know their future sucess depends on these staff.


 
Difficult to do in a jobs for life environment.


----------



## television

rmelly said:


> Difficult to do in a jobs for life environment.


 
Said before but if the public sector is such a breeze, join it.


----------



## jimbob1234

it would kill me not to be motivated at work and have nothing to work towards except my retirement. must be a terrible existence


----------



## rmelly

television said:


> Said before but if the public sector is such a breeze, join it.


 
No thanks, think I'll stay where I am. I don't want to become part of the problem.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> it would kill me not to be motivated at work and have nothing to work towards except my retirement. must be a terrible existence


 
Good constructive stuff. Tell that to the teachers nurses guards doctors ambulence drivers etc etc etc.


----------



## television

rmelly said:


> No thanks, think I'll stay where I am. I don't want to become part of the problem.


 


Keep making your wigits if thats what gives you fulfilment. 



> it would kill me not to be motivated at work and have nothing to work towards except my retirement. must be a terrible existence


 
The fun and sence of fulfilment there must be in helping multinational companies or irish sme achieve thier bottom line. It must make you proud.


----------



## rmelly

television said:


> Keep making your wigits if thats what gives you fulfilment


 
Just responding to your equally facetious comment...


----------



## rmelly

television said:


> The fun and sence of fulfilment there must be in helping multinational companies or irish sme achieve thier bottom line. It must make you proud.


 
No, I get fulfilment in delivering high quality, scalable, resilient, high availability, extensible, robust multi-tiered J2EE solutions to satisfied customers.


----------



## television

rmelly said:


> No, I get fulfilment in delivering high quality, scalable, resilient, high availability, extensible, robust multi-tiered J2EE solutions to satisfied customers.


 
V Funny seriously.


----------



## jimbob1234

television - sorry when i talk about the public sector im talking about admin staff. i have said that in a previous post. you keep referring to doctors, nurses, ambulance staff etc. no one is questioning the work that these people do. these staff should be added to, im sure everyone here agrees with that. stop bringing "your only valid point" in this arguement up over and over. we are all talking about admin staff here


----------



## Flax

I wonder how many of the admin staff could be replaced by software? A lot I would think...


----------



## MrMan

> I wonder how many of the admin staff could be replaced by software? A lot I would think...



we couldn't even get a voting system using software, I think the admin staff are safe.


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> I Would accept a pay freeze if I thought there would be no cut in vital services in health and education.


a pay freeze? When the industry I worked in hit hard times, we took a 10% cut, 2 years freeze at that cut level and 30% of my colleagues were made redundant.

Do you not understand the principle that if you are not taking in money (tax revenues are falling) you have to cut costs? How do you propose to pay for your current costs? Borrow (deferred taxes) or just tax the private sector  more heavily.


----------



## television

diarmuidc said:


> a pay freeze? When the industry I worked in hit hard times, we took a 10% cut, 2 years freeze at that cut level and 30% of my colleagues were made redundant.
> 
> Do you not understand the principle that if you are not taking in money (tax revenues are falling) you have to cut costs? How do you propose to pay for your current costs? Borrow (deferred taxes) or just tax the private sector more heavily.


 
Bummer for you that. if I were you I would have exercised my economic right and got another job. Inflation means any pay freeze is a pay cut in real terms. When times are good there is bonuses in the private sector that are not avalible to equilivent people in the public sector. Thats the risk choice people make in the private sector.

PAYE workers in the public and private sector pay the same amount of tax. I am not worried if business is taxed a little more. Businesses of all kinds have been ripping of the consumer during the boom its time they gave a little back.


----------



## rmelly

television said:


> When times are good there is bonuses in the private sector that are not avalible to equilivent people in the public sector.


 
An oversimplistic generalisation I'm afraid - there are many hundreds of thousands in private sector who don't receive bonuses.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> When times are good there is bonuses in the private sector that are not avalible to equilivent people in the public sector. Thats the risk choice people make in the private sector.


That used to be the case but then we got Benchmarking; a one way valve that pumps money into the pockets of the public sector. It can truly be said that you now have it every way; all of the rewards with none of the risks.

You say that you think those in the public and private sector on average wages should get a pay increase. I agree with you in the sense that they deserve it but the fact is that as a country we cannot afford it.
If these pay increases go ahead how do you propose they are paid for?
Do you count teachers getting over €100 an hour for classroom time as being on an average wage? (22 hours a week X 33 weeks a year = 726 weeks a year or 14 weeks work for the average owner of a small business in Ireland who works 52 hours a week)
Do you think that nurses should get a pay increase on top of the 8.5% per hour increase they will get when their short working week in reduced even more?
Do you think that any organisation can increase its staff levels by 60'000 in less than ten years without generating any waste? (Just as the health sector has done)
Before the HSE was created the health service was run by the Dept. of Health. What do all those people in the Dept. of Health who used to run the service do now?  

All over the private sector people who deserve a pay increase are not just taking pay cuts, they are loosing their jobs. How does that get Benchmarked?


----------



## television

rmelly said:


> An oversimplistic generalisation I'm afraid - there are many hundreds of thousands in private sector who don't receive bonuses.


 
An oversimplistic generalisation; now you would not be one for that when it comes to your analysis of the public sector would you?


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> I am not worried if business is taxed a little more. Businesses of all kinds have been ripping of the consumer during the boom its time they gave a little back.



Incredible. There you go, people like me in the the private sector, regardless of loss of jobs and revenue, should work harder so that people like you can continue to live in your protected, privileged world with no risk of job loss or reduction in salary. 

You're in for a rude awakening.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> That used to be the case but then we got Benchmarking; a one way valve that pumps money into the pockets of the public sector. It can truly be said that you now have it every way; all of the rewards with none of the risks.


 
Last round of benchmarking what was in it for the public sector. Pensions were taken into account so stop whinging about that one.



Purple said:


> You say that you think those in the public and private sector on average wages should get a pay increase. I agree with you in the sense that they deserve it but the fact is that as a country we cannot afford it..


 
Efficencies can be brought about without cutting pay or at least that should not be the first cut, which it frequently is.



Purple said:


> Do you count teachers getting over €100 an hour for classroom time as being on an average wage? (22 hours a week X 33 weeks a year = 726 weeks a year or 14 weeks work for the average owner of a small business in Ireland who works 52 hours a week)?


 
No.



Purple said:


> Do you think that nurses should get a pay increase on top of the 8.5% per hour increase they will get when their short working week in reduced even more?


 
They want to be counted like physios and Occupational therapists which have those terms and conditions. They do a dam tough job I do not begrude them looking for it.






Purple said:


> Do you think that any organisation can increase its staff levels by 60'000 in less than ten years without generating any waste? (Just as the health sector has done)
> Before the HSE was created the health service was run by the Dept. of Health. What do all those people in the Dept. of Health who used to run the service do now? ?


 
This increase must be seen in the context of neglect and cutbackds of the health services in the 80s, the rising population in ireland, etc.



Purple said:


> All over the private sector people who deserve a pay increase are not just taking pay cuts, they are loosing their jobs. How does that get Benchmarked?


 
Why do you see the laying off of people in the private sector as the responcibility/fault of the public sector. If we have the most streamlined and efficent public sector in the world, global economic problems will lead to job losses in ireland.


----------



## diarmuidc

So when things are on the way up, you want a ride along the backs of the private sector via benchmarking. However as soon as things turn down, you are unwilling to make the same sacrifices as the private sector. 

Some partnership.


----------



## rmelly

television said:


> An oversimplistic generalisation; now you would not be one for that when it comes to your analysis of the public sector would you?


 
Maybe, but when you comment on mine, then include your own...


----------



## television

diarmuidc said:


> Incredible. There you go, people like me in the the private sector, regardless of loss of jobs and revenue, should work harder so that people like you can continue to live in your protected, privileged world with no risk of job loss or reduction in salary.
> 
> You're in for a rude awakening.


 
I am saying that businesses who have creamed off the top and ripped off consumers over the last decade have a cheek to be demanding anything. Where do you think this benchmarking money has got to. Paying the overinflated costs which an innefficent and greedy business sector has passed on to comsumers (while at the same time using every trick in tho book to avoid tax at the expence of hard working PAYE workers in the public/private sector)

irish business must become more street wise more efficent and innovative, this has nothing to do with the public sector. The only one in for the rude awakening is SMBs who have allowed complacency to fester in the good times. WHo is going to suffer becuase of this? Your average joe in the private sector, while the bosses sun themselves in sunny spanish retreats.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Last round of benchmarking what was in it for the public sector. Pensions were taken into account so stop whinging about that one.


 Only 12% was allowed. The real figure should be much higher. The shorter hours, job security and generally better terms and conditions were not taken into account.



television said:


> Efficencies can be brought about without cutting pay or at least that should not be the first cut, which it frequently is.


 I agree but job cuts are required.



television said:


> They want to be counted like physios and Occupational therapists which have those terms and conditions. They do a dam tough job I do not begrude them looking for it.


 Some of them do and some of them don’t. 32 hours a week is a part time job.



television said:


> This increase must be seen in the context of neglect and cutbackds of the health services in the 80s, the rising population in ireland, etc.


 I agree but that’s not what I asked.



television said:


> Why do you see the laying off of people in the private sector as the responcibility/fault of the public sector.


 The increase in costs and the subsequent loss of competitiveness due to inefficient and/or overpriced public services has a direct effect of employment in the whole economy. 





television said:


> If we have the most streamlined and efficent public sector in the world, global economic problems will lead to job losses in ireland.


 I agree.
This debate is focusing far too much on the public sector. While reform, staff cuts and pay freezes are absolutely necessary (but not likely) there are other factors that have a much bigger impact on the economy as Treehouse pointed out earlier.


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> I am saying that businesses who have creamed off the top and ripped off consumers over the last decade have a cheek to be demanding anything. Where do you think this benchmarking money has got to. Paying the overinflated costs which an innefficent and greedy business sector has passed on to comsumers (while at the same time using every trick in tho book to avoid tax at the expence of hard working PAYE workers in the public/private sector)



Joe Higgins, is that you?


----------



## television

diarmuidc said:


> Joe Higgins, is that you?


 
I got togive it to you; that was funny. Very Funny.


Purple, there has been efficencies and reform in the public sector. More is needed perhaps but reform has been ongoing.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> I am saying that businesses who have creamed off the top and ripped off consumers over the last decade have a cheek to be demanding anything. Where do you think this benchmarking money has got to. Paying the overinflated costs which an innefficent and greedy business sector has passed on to comsumers (while at the same time using every trick in tho book to avoid tax at the expence of hard working PAYE workers in the public/private sector)


 How do businesses in an open economy cream off (make supernormal profits)? I compete with companies in Ireland, the UK, the EU and the Far East for business. We are completely open to competition from all over the world. The same is the case for  a huge proportion of SME’s in this country.




television said:


> irish business must become more street wise more efficent and innovative, this has nothing to do with the public sector. The only one in for the rude awakening is SMBs who have allowed complacency to fester in the good times. WHo is going to suffer becuase of this? Your average joe in the private sector, while the bosses sun themselves in sunny spanish retreats.


 With respect you have no idea what you are talking about. The era of the “Bosses” being absentee owners living the highlife while their employees toiled “down mill” has been over, with very few exceptions, for decades. I would suggest that there are far more employers paying their staff more than they are paying themselves. I know that this does not fit into your view of the world but it’s reality.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> How do businesses in an open economy cream off (make supernormal profits)?


 
By charging consumers of their products over inflated prices.




Purple said:


> With respect you have no idea what you are talking about. The era of the “Bosses” being absentee owners living the highlife while their employees toiled “down mill” has been over, with very few exceptions, for decades. I would suggest that there are far more employers paying their staff more than they are paying themselves. I know that this does not fit into your view of the world but it’s reality.


 
With respect, even if those people who are paying thier staff more them themselves is a fact, this is usually short term and in the long run if the business is sucessful then they get the rewards. 

And tell the rest of the speel to the workers in Hibernian who lost their jobs. Replace miner with call centre worker. Your nieve idealism of the worker and owner striving towards one mutually benifical economic nirvana is pretty cosy until thier is a downturn and then no amount of worker efficency will save them from the chop.


----------



## jimbob1234

i think its obvious that television has lost this arguement. there wont be a pay freeze cos the unions will strike and that will be it. the public sector has this country by the short and curlys. the unions have no understanding of economics and inflation. its a well known fact that if inflation fans a new round of pay increases to combat that inflation then that will stroke a new and more violent round of inflation. thats basic economics, the private sector knows this and cuts its cloth accordingly and stops pay rises during bad times. its so simple to understand. if the govt gives the public sector rises to help people with inflation then this country is going broke very very fast


----------



## Purple

television said:


> I got togive it to you; that was funny. Very Funny.


 Agreed 




television said:


> Purple, there has been efficencies and reform in the public sector. More is needed perhaps but reform has been ongoing.


 Yes but; more and faster.


----------



## starlite68

television said:


> I got togive it to you; that was funny. Very Funny.
> 
> 
> Purple, there has been efficencies and reform in the public sector. More is needed perhaps but reform has been ongoing.


more is definitly needed....the whole public service should be streamlined, espically the upper sectors...problem is the government dosent have the will or the desire to do it.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> i think its obvious that television has lost this arguement. there wont be a pay freeze cos the unions will strike and that will be it. the public sector has this country by the short and curlys. the unions have no understanding of economics and inflation. its a well known fact that if inflation fans a new round of pay increases to combat that inflation then that will stroke a new and more violent round of inflation. thats basic economics, the private sector knows this and cuts its cloth accordingly and stops pay rises during bad times. its so simple to understand. if the govt gives the public sector rises to help people with inflation then this country is going broke very very fast


 
I think I am doing pretty well actually. And pay rises to be given to the lowes paid pubic sector. Not all. 

Again Jimbon if the public sector was streamlined down to an inch of our lives this country would still be caught by the short and curlies economiclly. Its external economic factors im afraid.

Gradual rise in interest rates
Credit crunch
India and China
etc etc etc


----------



## diarmuidc

jimbob1234 said:


> the unions have no understanding of economics and inflation.


Of course they do, however their job is to ignore any issues and get the best deal for their members, denying everything and anything. The problem is that the government will just bend over for them.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> With respect, even if those people who are paying thier staff more them themselves is a fact, this is usually short term and in the long run if the business is sucessful then they get the rewards.


 This is true but the owner takes the risk (and their house could be the thing that they risk). The other thing to remember is that even if they don't loose everything there is a good chance that their business will not pan out as planned and they struggle for years to make it work.



television said:


> And tell the rest of the speel to the workers in Hibernian who lost their jobs. Replace miner with call centre worker. Your nieve idealism of the worker and owner striving towards one mutually benifical economic nirvana is pretty cosy until thier is a downturn and then no amount of worker efficency will save them from the chop.


I do not think that _"worker and owner striving towards one mutually beneficial economic nirvana"_ but skilled people have to be looked after in an SME and this means that they are often in a strong position to negotiate their pay and conditions. You must also remember that if a small business goes under the owner is usually hit hardest.


----------



## Flax

Back OT.

(I'll start with a quick explanation of how "Google AdWords" work.)

A. Company creates a "Google AdWord" advert and agrees to pay a fee, e.g. 50 cents, every time someone clicks on the advert. The important bit here is the company chooses what fee he should pay. The idea is he competes with other companies with similar adverts; whoever is willing to pay the highest fee gets their advert to display in a premium position.
B. Website decides to display Google adverts on his website. This means the adverts from the company above will appear on his website. He gets a cut of the 50 cent every time someone clicks on the advert.

Now to the story...

My friend has noticed that companies (over the past month) have reduced the amount they're willing to pay per click. This means companies are watching the purse strings, with the knock on effect that my friend now has less income.


----------



## jimbob1234

i was at a seminar in dell recenltly and got a tour of the factory. not even half the lines were going!!! the sales people were saying they were v quiet


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Again Jimbon if the public sector was streamlined down to an inch of our lives this country would still be caught by the short and curlies economiclly. Its external economic factors im afraid.
> 
> Gradual rise in interest rates
> Credit crunch
> India and China
> etc etc etc



All very true, and what this thread should be about, but just because other factors have more of an effect on the economy it doesn’t mean the public sector should not be as streamlined and efficient as possible.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> I do not think that _"worker and owner striving towards one mutually beneficial economic nirvana"_ but skilled people have to be looked after in an SME and this means that they are often in a strong position to negotiate their pay and conditions. You must also remember that if a small business goes under the owner is usually hit hardest.


 
What about the unskilled average joe. What happens to him????


----------



## television

Purple said:


> All very true, and what this thread should be about, but just because other factors have more of an effect on the economy it doesn’t mean the public sector should not be as streamlined and efficient as possible.


 
Aggreed. Can some one tell that to jimbob


----------



## Purple

television said:


> What about the unskilled average joe. What happens to him????


He gets another unskilled job at minimum wage or he upskills. By the way, most average joes are skilled.


----------



## Towger

television said:


> Last round of benchmarking what was in it for the public sector. Pensions were taken into account so stop whinging about that one.


 
What... Pensions were added and given a value of only 15% of salary, but the true value of the civil service index linked pension is almost 30%.


----------



## jimbob1234

television said:


> Aggreed. Can some one tell that to jimbob


 

why you picking on me. i have made about 3 posts today, not near as many as other people.


----------



## jimbob1234

television - ok times are slow economically now. why cant the public sector streamline like other businesses and make people redundant?  they can be re hired when the economy turns up again, this is the way the world works. if the country is in real trouble then the non nationals will leave and we wont need all the admin staff at all in the public sector so there is no reason why they cant be fired!!


----------



## Towger

television said:


> With respect, even if those people who are paying thier staff more them themselves is a fact, this is usually short term and in the long run if the business is sucessful then they get the rewards.


 
Not true. Only last week I was talking to the owner of a very well known and long running Dublin company. They closed down last year for that very reason. It was just not worth their time and effort running it any more.


----------



## television

Towger said:


> Not true. Only last week I was talking to the owner of a very well known and long running Dublin company. They closed down last year for that very reason. It was just not worth their time and effort running it any more.


 
I am talking about a general economic principal here. There is exceptions of course.


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> television - ok times are slow economically now. why cant the public sector streamline like other businesses and make people redundant? they can be re hired when the economy turns up again, this is the way the world works. if the country is in real trouble then the non nationals will leave and we wont need all the admin staff at all in the public sector so there is no reason why they cant be fired!!


 
This can be done through volentary redundencies. A sizable amount of the public sector are part time so I suggest this is going to happen.


----------



## Treehouse

I find it depressing beyond words that this thread is being propelled along by someone making arguments that favour their own narrow sectional interests. The economy is going down the tubes, and yet it's still the Celtic Tiger mentality that wins out - I'm alright jack, never mind the wider issues, never mind the collective good.

Television, in fairness to you I recognise that other posters have facilitated your desire to talk about your own particular interests. Still, it's depressing that the last 5 pages have been about the PS when that is just 1 element in the current meltdown.


----------



## jimbob1234

well if they make the numbers through voluntary redundancies then thats great.


----------



## television

Treehouse said:


> Television, in fairness to you I recognise that other posters have facilitated your desire to talk about your own particular interests. Still, it's depressing that the last 5 pages have been about the PS when that is just 1 element in the current meltdown.


 
I think that is a very unfair comment. I have repeatedly said that this recession is about factors other than the public service ineffeciency. I have highlighted this throughout. I am not the one blaming the public service and constantly harping back to it as the main cause of the economic problems.

In relation to the public service I have advocated reform. I have even said I am willing to take a pay freeze if it made a difference to the economic problems we face. I recognise the fact that further pay increases accross the board will fuel inflation and this helps no one, but his has to be balances with the needs of low paid public sector workers.


----------



## shnaek

television said:


> This can be done through volentary redundencies. A sizable amount of the public sector are part time so I suggest this is going to happen.



Trouble is, public or private- voluntary redundancies are a blunt instrument. In general you tend to loose the best, because they are the ones who are in demand and can move with ease. The people with the least drive won't move. Of course people will stay because they like the job too. But a blunt instrument it is.


----------



## television

shnaek said:


> Trouble is, public or private- voluntary redundancies are a blunt instrument. In general you tend to loose the best, because they are the ones who are in demand and can move with ease. The people with the least drive won't move. Of course people will stay because they like the job too. But a blunt instrument it is.


 
Good point.


----------



## Treehouse

television said:


> I think that is a very unfair comment. I have repeatedly said that this recession is about factors other than the public service ineffeciency. I have highlighted this throughout. I am not the one blaming the public service and constantly harping back to it as the main cause of the economic problems.




Yes, you have TV, but only to bolster your own position: lay off the PS, it's not all our fault. That line, while absolutely true, is self-serving.

But TV, you are right, it is somewhat graceless of me to single you out. I think other posters who have laid into the PS are equally culpable in narrowing the issue so much.

Sorry, just kinda depressed at the state of debate in this country at the moment.


----------



## Humdinger

Sorry, just kinda depressed at the state of debate in this country at the moment.[/quote]

The PS are part of the problem and part of the solution ... but only part. However it is a piece that is under our control supposedly. Oil, interest rates etc etc are not and are impacting all EU economies. We can only focus on the things we can control to make ourselves more competitive.

You may be depressed at the state of debate in the country .... a floating voter, I am more concerned at the quality of debate around the cabinet table. Vision, leadership and a bit of bottle to make some politically difficult decisions all look thin on the ground. I get nervous when I see a number of the faces in that illustrious group.


----------



## Purple

Humdinger said:


> You may be depressed at the state of debate in the country .... a floating voter, I am more concerned at the quality of debate around the cabinet table. Vision, leadership and a bit of bottle to make some politically difficult decisions all look thin on the ground. I get nervous when I see a number of the faces in that illustrious group.


 It doesn't matter who is sitting around the table. Our political structure will always give us weak government.


----------



## CGorman

Deleted


----------



## television

Purple said:


> It doesn't matter who is sitting around the table. Our political structure will always give us weak government.


 
Would you care to elaborate on this? Are you talking about PR>


----------



## joejoe

television said:


> Good constructive stuff. Tell that to the teachers nurses guards doctors ambulence drivers etc etc etc.


 

Let me be constructive, the teachers get paid for the 3 months or so summer break, then get paid additional moneys for marking and supervising exams, why dont they do it as per of their normal salary? There are loads of constructive things the public sector can do, but it may mean they have to contrabute more for less. How lightly is that to happen? 

In the hospitals, get rid of the care aisistants and get the nurses to feed the patients and make the beds, they do it that way in most other european countries and make all the middle management work not just supervise. 

Joejoe


----------



## television

joejoe said:


> Let me be constructive, the teachers get paid for the 3 months or so summer break, then get paid additional moneys for marking and supervising exams, why dont they do it as per of their normal salary? There are loads of constructive things the public sector can do, but it may mean they have to contrabute more for less. How lightly is that to happen?
> 
> In the hospitals, get rid of the care aisistants and get the nurses to feed the patients and make the beds, they do it that way in most other european countries and make all the middle management work not just supervise.
> 
> Joejoe


 
3 months off paid for all extra money. Teachings a breeze and highly paid. joejoe why dont you try it for a day. 

joejoe if you are an ordinary joe/josephene soap like myself then why are you coming down so hard on your fellow worker. Public sector and private sectors joe soaps like me and you have no place arguing over who is less or more productive, we should be fighting for each others rights for fair pay and conditions. Dont be brainwashed by employers into thinking the public sector is the cause of the problems and the big bad guy. That suits employers as it plays one smuck of against the other, while the fat cat bosses cream off the top. While feeding into private sector workers feARS that if they dont behave and shut up and take a pay cut their jobs are heading to India. Direct your anger at getting united with your public sector collegue to fifght for decent pay and conditions for all workers.


----------



## joejoe

uiop said:


> I never read so much cliched old fashioned outmoded nonsense in my life; the only thing missing was not calling him ' Comrade joejoe'. Public sector jobs are by and large for the greedy and the lazy, not the enlightened. They are exclusive. Not everyone can be lucky enough to get one. Imagine what would happen if everyone in the country worked for the public sector. The country would be decimated. We are not going to establish a socialist utopia with everyone having a fantastic job with fantastic pay, fantastic 3 month holidays plus fantastic wages and conditions as a small country going alone.
> The reality is we are in competition with places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel etc for investment. Our public service needs to be competitive with the public services of other countries. End of story. Wake up. I find the entitlement mentality in the public sector to be disgusting. Why should someone in the public sector be entitled to any more than someone else with a family to feed in the private sector. Wheres the equality and brotherhood/sisterhood there ? I suspect its more a case of 'im allright jack' plus some convenient narrow minded self protecting self biased views.


 
The public workers do not have my support in the search for a pay rise, for inflationery reasons or not. It must be quite apparent that most of the public working in the private sector, or the unemployeed are in support of my views, not the socialist self protecting public sector, they dont sack each other because the trend it might set.

Comrade Joejoe


----------



## room305

Funny that this thread has ended up being a long rant about the public sector. Worse again, it would appear that some of those working in the public sector do not see any reason why they should accept a paycut!

For the record, as a public sector worker I would be willing to accept a 10 - 15% paycut. A pay freeze across the board should be a given, it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

The notion that we can tax "fat cat bosses" and continue to trundle along our merry way without any pain highlights the kind of trouble we're in. During the high taxation era of Haugheynomics we witnessed large scale tax evasion, high unemployment, mass emmigration and near bankruptcy. The last thing we want now is extra taxes.

When it comes to government spending, the government should mandate a 15% cut in spending for each department. Let the top brass in each department decide how they want to do it - cut pay, lay off staff, cut non-essential services. I worked for a firm that had to cut spending during the dot com collapse. The manager let go some of the more unproductive staff (some because they were new and lacked experience, others because they were lazy) and gave everyone remaining a ten percent pay rise to acknowledge that they now had a greater workload. If I remember correctly, things seemed to run smoother afterwards as some of the more "difficult" or "sensitive" staff members were let go. No harm to cut some deadwood every now and again. Public sector should be no different in this regard. Anyone engaging in a wildcat strike should be fired. If the unions don't like it they should be told in a no uncertain terms that they can accept the pain now, or expect to have the job functions of their members permanently privatised.

That said, it is not simply a matter of cutting the public sector wage bill and away we go Celtic Tiger Part Deux. The problems in the Irish economy run a lot deeper than that.


----------



## television

uiop said:


> I never read so much cliched old fashioned outmoded nonsense in my life; the only thing missing was not calling him ' Comrade joejoe'.


 
You know all the rights you have in your job, holiday pay, the working time directive, Employment Appeal Tribunals, safty standards, redundency pay, protection of migrant workers, etc etc etc,

All won by the left or the trade union movement accross Europe. How quickely you would like to dismiss these things. 



uiop said:


> Public sector jobs are by and large for the greedy and the lazy, not the enlightened. They are exclusive. Not everyone can be lucky enough to get one. Imagine what would happen if everyone in the country worked for the public sector.


 
Why then does everyone not have one?? So many greedy and lazy people out there, like you aunt, sister, cousin, friends. Please you make it too easy for me with that kind of mindless diatribe.




uiop said:


> The country would be decimated. We are not going to establish a socialist utopia with everyone having a fantastic job with fantastic pay, fantastic 3 month holidays plus fantastic wages and conditions as a small country going alone..


 
I have argued for public service reform. I believe in the value of having a thriving private sector which can generate wealth with minimun government interference. I believe we should be a low tax high skilled workforce and economy. I dont think that makes me Karl Marx. 





uiop said:


> The reality is we are in competition with places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel etc for investment. Our public service needs to be competitive with the public services of other countries.


 
According to a recent OECD report our public service does not come out too bad in terms of effeciency. Although it does point towards the need for reform. However a race to the bottom in terms of workers rights be they in the private or public sector does no one any good. Certain principals of equity and fairness need to be kept in mind. It does absolutly no worker any good when we are at each others thoats. Yes point out faults needs for improvements in the public sector but the over the top characterisation of PSWs is unnecessary.



uiop said:


> End of story. Wake up. .


 
A tirade of mumbo jumbo does not make it end of story I am afraid.




uiop said:


> I find the entitlement mentality in the public sector to be disgusting. Why should someone in the public sector be entitled to any more than someone else with a family to feed in the private sector. Wheres the equality and brotherhood/sisterhood there ? I suspect its more a case of 'im allright jack' plus some convenient narrow minded self protecting self biased views.


 
Workers in the all sectors accross the global village are intitled to fair terms and conditions and to be free from exploitation. All workerss should unite to ensure this is made a reality. This is not socialism it is common sence. Divided people are easily exploited. Ultimately there needs to be a realisation that mindless competition of global capatialism creates winners and loosers. Billions of exploited and empoverished people all over the globe who is going to fight for these peoples rights? Big business? Multinationals? The only thing stopping them from running an even greater muck over these people and countries is the last vestages of certain social and ethical principals which were won by European socialists since the 1st world war.


----------



## room305

television said:


> Direct your anger at getting united with your public sector collegue to fifght for decent pay and conditions for all workers.


 
Sorry television but this is nothing but Joe Higgins fantasy-land nonsense.

By way of example, a close friend works in the manufacturing industry on not much above minimum wage (yes, we still have a few factories left!). This factory is tottering on the brink of closure. A few months ago it moved to only opening three days a week, after a period of which it shut for two weeks. Then the owner switched his product supply line slightly and things have improved. However, it is a difficult game - accepting orders but not wishing to risk having much capital tied up in inventory. Since their suppliers are in the same position the factory is practically working to order. Most of the staff believe it is only a matter of time before the factory will close. It's not possible for the staff to accept much of a wage cut (since it would be illegal) although I believe most of them are working extra "unclocked" hours when the orders/supplies come in.

Now tell me how your comrades and these workers can unite to fight for "decent pay and conditions for all workers"?


----------



## television

room305 said:


> The notion that we can tax "fat cat bosses" and continue to trundle along our merry way without any pain highlights the kind of trouble we're in. During the high taxation era of Haugheynomics we witnessed large scale tax evasion, high unemployment, mass emmigration and near bankruptcy. The last thing we want now is extra taxes.


 
But the complete irony of what you are sayingg is that it was the PAYE smucks in the public/private sector that were paying 60% tax at the time while the fat cat bosses were sifting away the cash in off shore accounts.




room305 said:


> When it comes to government spending, the government should mandate a 15% cut in spending for each department. Let the top brass in each department decide how they want to do it - cut pay, lay off staff, cut non-essential services.


 
That would mean overcrowded and delapadated schools, more old people on trollies, those on medical cardson huge waiting lists to see consultants, mental health services cut etc etc. You are happy with that? 



room305 said:


> I worked for a firm that had to cut spending during the dot com collapse. The manager let go some of the more unproductive staff (some because they were new and lacked experience, others because they were lazy) and gave everyone remaining a ten percent pay rise to acknowledge that they now had a greater workload. If I remember correctly, things seemed to run smoother afterwards as some of the more "difficult" or "sensitive" staff members were let go. No harm to cut some deadwood every now and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what mindless speculation does.
> 
> 
> 
> room305 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public sector should be no different in this regard. Anyone engaging in a wildcat strike should be fired. If the unions don't like it they should be told in a no uncertain terms that they can accept the pain now, or expect to have the job functions of their members permanently privatised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let business mindlessly exploit workers at the drop of a hat. Thats your solution? if you dont like being exploited and treated like dirt you know where the door is. That is the type of community you want your children living in?? Scary
> 
> 
> 
> room305 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, it is not simply a matter of cutting the public sector wage bill and away we go Celtic Tiger Part Deux. The problems in the Irish economy run a lot deeper than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aggreed but people on here are falling for the IBEC spin. I hope I am talking to proper business people here and not just poor brainwashed smucks working for soemone else. I can handle business owners advocating exploitation and crap conditions, but ordinary workers, it saddens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## television

room305 said:


> Sorry television but this is nothing but Joe Higgins fantasy-land nonsense.
> 
> By way of example, a close friend works in the manufacturing industry on not much above minimum wage (yes, we still have a few factories left!). This factory is tottering on the brink of closure. A few months ago it moved to only opening three days a week, after a period of which it shut for two weeks. Then the owner switched his product supply line slightly and things have improved. However, it is a difficult game - accepting orders but not wishing to risk having much capital tied up in inventory. Since their suppliers are in the same position the factory is practically working to order. Most of the staff believe it is only a matter of time before the factory will close. It's not possible for the staff to accept much of a wage cut (since it would be illegal) although I believe most of them are working extra "unclocked" hours when the orders/supplies come in.
> 
> Now tell me how your comrades and these workers can unite to fight for "decent pay and conditions for all workers"?


 
Same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution as a means of exploiting workers. It required unity but eventually workers accross europe rallied and forced governments to improve workers conditions. You are not looking at this in a global context. Further exploitation will continue unless workers unite globally. I am not talking about a socialist Eutopia, just decent pay and condtions for people of all sectors


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> Same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution as a means of exploiting workers. It required unity but eventually workers accross europe rallied and forced governments to improve workers conditions. You are not looking at this in a global context. Further exploitation will continue unless workers unite globally. I am not talking about a socialist Eutopia, just decent pay and condtions for people of all sectors



What century are you living in? Your rhetoric is dated and your anecdotes are not based on the current workplace. 

You can take out the "fat cat bosses" confiscate ALL their assets and you will not even scratch the surface of Ireland's shortfall in tax. WAKE UP


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution as a means of exploiting workers. It required unity but eventually workers accross europe rallied and forced governments to improve workers conditions.


…and those rights were enshrined in law and the “class war” as it was, was won. The only group that didn’t realise this were the unions. 



television said:


> You are not looking at this in a global context. Further exploitation will continue unless workers unite globally. I am not talking about a socialist Eutopia, just decent pay and condtions for people of all sectors


 Here’s an example; A good living wage in China is (say) €1 a day. This is enough to pay the bills, put the kids though school and put food on the table. In Ireland €10 an hour provides a lower standard of living in real terms. So will you, as a socialist, buy goods produced by the guy in Ireland for twenty times the price of the goods produced by the guy in China? Will you spend €2000 on the kids toys at Christmas (and will you ask everyone else to do the same)? If not then you may begin to understand how international trade and commerce works because at the moment it seems that you have no idea.
Your brand of socialism results in a true race to the bottom which deprives whole generations of hope and any realistic aspiration to a better life. The only reason countries in Southeast Asia  have emerged as prosperous and stable political entities over the last 20-25 years is because Japanese and American companies pumped billions of dollars into their economies. Go and ask the tens of thousands of people working in Johor, the disc drive manufacturing capital of the world, if they would rather the big Japanese and US technology companies had stayed at home. Further afield go and ask the thousands of people working for Intel in Costa Rica if the big bad capitalist “Fat Cat” bosses should have stayed away. If you would like to save the air-fare I can tell you the answer; they would laugh in your face and tell you to open your eyes.


----------



## jimbob1234

this debate is still going on 

can i ask television a question. when the words pay freezes are put around by the media does that mean a real pay freeze and no increments this year or does it mean that the PS will still get their increments but no new benchmarking


----------



## Towger

jimbob1234 said:


> when the words pay freezes are put around by the media does that mean a real pay freeze and no increments this year or does it mean that the PS will still get their increments but no new benchmarking


 
This drives me mad every time I hear it. When RTE uses 'pay freeze', it means no Benchmarking (why can't benching making work in reverse as well). Standard length of service and promotion/grade increases still stand.


----------



## diarmuidc

Just out of clarity can we *stop* using PS as a acronym? PS could stand for private or public service so it just confuses this debate


----------



## jimbob1234

so they are still getting their increments. oh for god sake. they are so pathetic. they are getting rises in a recessions and they are still complaining?


----------



## csirl

If money is to be saved in the public sector it has to be targeted at the following:

1. The plethora of local authorities - most should be amalgamated.

2. The HSE - should be abolished.

3. Quangos - all the unecessary jobs for the boys agencies should be culled.

4. Outsourcing - a large proportion of public sector employment is form processing and call centre type work. There is no reason why permanent pensionable public servants should be doing this work - should be outsourced.

5. New Ideas - certain sectors of the public service need new ideas. The State should invest in bringing in senior managers with a track record of sucess to work in areas such as transport, health, education & justice - would be worth spending the extra money they may cost. [I have it from a reliable source that a few years ago, one of the sucessful zero tolerance people from NY expressed an interest in the vacant Garda Commissioner job, however, wasnt seriously considered as pay demand was in excess of usual rate. This would have been money well spent - missed opportunity].


----------



## joe sod

television said:


> Same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution as a means of exploiting workers. It required unity but eventually workers accross europe rallied and forced governments to improve workers conditions. You are not looking at this in a global context. Further exploitation will continue unless workers unite globally. I am not talking about a socialist Eutopia, just decent pay and condtions for people of all sectors


 
What are you talking about russia 1917, do you want a rerun of the twentieth century. The communist revolution collapsed because people are naturally selfish and always want to earn more than their neighbour, is the public service prepared to take a pay cut to equalise their pay with every other worker, i doubt it


----------



## csirl

It would be interesting if each of the agencies in the public sector were made keep within their budgets i.e. any overruns in the programme expenditure and they'd have to pay the extra out of their salaries budget (I suppose consquently, if there were savings, then they all get a bonus).


----------



## television

Purple said:


> …and those rights were enshrined in law and the “class war” as it was, was won. The only group that didn’t realise this were the unions.
> 
> Here’s an example; A good living wage in China is (say) €1 a day. This is enough to pay the bills, put the kids though school and put food on the table. In Ireland €10 an hour provides a lower standard of living in real terms. So will you, as a socialist, buy goods produced by the guy in Ireland for twenty times the price of the goods produced by the guy in China? Will you spend €2000 on the kids toys at Christmas (and will you ask everyone else to do the same)? If not then you may begin to understand how international trade and commerce works because at the moment it seems that you have no idea.
> Your brand of socialism results in a true race to the bottom which deprives whole generations of hope and any realistic aspiration to a better life. The only reason countries in Southeast Asia have emerged as prosperous and stable political entities over the last 20-25 years is because Japanese and American companies pumped billions of dollars into their economies. Go and ask the tens of thousands of people working in Johor, the disc drive manufacturing capital of the world, if they would rather the big Japanese and US technology companies had stayed at home. Further afield go and ask the thousands of people working for Intel in Costa Rica if the big bad capitalist “Fat Cat” bosses should have stayed away. If you would like to save the air-fare I can tell you the answer; they would laugh in your face and tell you to open your eyes.


 
Your are interpreting what I am saying based on your own prejudice. Not on the facts of what I am saying. Multinationals who abide by the laws of these countries and offer these people a fair wage based on thier own standard of living is quite acceptable to me. However this is frequently not the case. Where they get the oppurtunity multinationsals have and will contimue to exploit workers in the developing world. This is a fact. And you think otherwise your being nieve. Yes development is important but development that takes into account some basic decency and standards of social justice. And yes if you asked these people would they rather have a job (where they know they are being exploited) or no job at all, they would probably take the job.  However this does not lessen the exploitation and the need to try and change it. You want to leave it up to the market place to gradually improve these peoples lives. You fail to realise that in Europe these better conditions were won by trade unions and the left. If someone does not fight for these rights for emerging countries they are not going to be given them.


----------



## Towger

csirl said:


> 2. The HSE - should be abolished.


 
Your other points are good. 5 is hard to do unless you have enough power to force it through. Look at Mary Harney, she wants to reform the system, but can't rock the boat too much or it will sink. But maybe it is time for it to sink, clear the boards and start again.

Now the HSE. It should stand and perform it's original purpose. All the regional health boards under it should be basically scrapped. They are all duplicating the same paper pushing back office operations. Their numerous different systems where mainly designed for the NHS, and anyone of them is capable of running the whole country. Rest of rant removed...


----------



## television

diarmuidc said:


> What century are you living in? Your rhetoric is dated and your anecdotes are not based on the current workplace.
> 
> You can take out the "fat cat bosses" confiscate ALL their assets and you will not even scratch the surface of Ireland's shortfall in tax. WAKE UP


 
Rethoric in relation for the need for social justice and unity among workers accross the world is not dated. Do you realise that there ishundred of millions of workers in the developing world who are suffering exploitation and terms and conditions that are by any standard is immoral. You think this is morally acceptable? Business has a role in solving poverty and improving peoples lives but without being allowed to organise some business will exploit these workers. This is a fact. This is not outdated. It happens every day in a greater scale than ever happened in Europe in the 19 century, Billions of people expolited. They deserve better. YOu want to call them "socialists" if they are tryign to unit, of trying to deride anyone who points out the need for all workers to show some solidarity with them with the cheap name call of "out dates socialism". Its never outdated to have concern for workers accross the globe. of telling business that they should abide by some basic moral ethical and social princials. You may have some nieve view that unchecked global capitialism will solve the worlds problems. The reality over the last hundred years it that it has made winners out of a few nations while plunging the rest (billions of people) into poverty and misery.


----------



## television

joe sod said:


> What are you talking about russia 1917, do you want a rerun of the twentieth century. The communist revolution collapsed because people are naturally selfish and always want to earn more than their neighbour, is the public service prepared to take a pay cut to equalise their pay with every other worker, i doubt it


 

Joe sod. I am not talking about the russian revolution. And your assessment in relation tothe colapse of Russian communism is flawed to say the least. I am saying that the terms and conditions of employment that we all take for granted today were won by socialist groups in france and germany and england in the 19 and early 20 century. they were not given in a willing magnamimus way by business. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming. 

So when people deride unions take into account that they are there to serve the needs of workers, like me and you. to do thier best to ensure that workers have a voice. That is not outdated it is perfectly reasonable


----------



## csirl

Actually, the biggest reform in labour conditions in Europe was due to the Black Death. And was caused by simple supply and demand economics rather than unions or protests. With half the workforce eliminated, there was competition for workers and so employers had to give better terms and conditions or else they couldnt recruit or lost their people to other employers with better conditions. This broke the semi-slavery system that existed up to this time.


----------



## television

csirl said:


> Actually, the biggest reform in labour conditions in Europe was due to the Black Death. And was caused by simple supply and demand economics rather than unions or protests. With half the workforce eliminated, there was competition for workers and so employers had to give better terms and conditions or else they couldnt recruit or lost their people to other employers with better conditions. This broke the semi-slavery system that existed up to this time.


 
I abviously talking to a historian here. I shall take about to your superior knowledge.


----------



## television

Listen csirl your big time out of your comfort zone with that last one. Stick to what you know Its when you make most sense even if I completly disagree with you. 

I am talking about the agricultural/industrial revolution 1750-1850. Black death has nothing to with it.


----------



## Treehouse

This is great.

Abolish the PS, save the country!

Talk about seeing the hole and not the doughnut.


----------



## jimbob1234

sence?


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> sence?


 
sense.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sense


----------



## jimbob1234

i know what sense is. i just didnt know what sence was.


----------



## television

I suggest you use your common sense jimbob


----------



## Sunny

television said:


> I am saying that the terms and conditions of employment that we all take for granted today were won by socialist groups in france and germany and england in the 19 and early 20 century. they were not given in a willing magnamimus way by business. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming.


 


television said:


> I am talking about the agricultural/industrial revolution 1750-1850. Black death has nothing to with it.


 
You seem to be getting confused with your time periods


----------



## television

Sunny said:


> You seem to be getting confused with your time periods


 

Sorry Sunny I am not. agricultural revloution industrial revloution aprox 1750-1870.

Gradual improvement in the conditions of workers won by the socialist movement from the 1820 turn of the century with further improvements untilthe present day. I am abslolutly clear about that and have no confusion. Of course these dates are aproximations but pretty accurate.

Why do some people latch on to numbers without having a clue of the context and then get all smug? You have not got a clue Sunny.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Your are interpreting what I am saying based on your own prejudice. Not on the facts of what I am saying. Multinationals who abide by the laws of these countries and offer these people a fair wage based on thier own standard of living is quite acceptable to me. However this is frequently not the case. Where they get the oppurtunity multinationsals have and will contimue to exploit workers in the developing world. This is a fact. And you think otherwise your being nieve. Yes development is important but development that takes into account some basic decency and standards of social justice. And yes if you asked these people would they rather have a job (where they know they are being exploited) or no job at all, they would probably take the job.  However this does not lessen the exploitation and the need to try and change it. You want to leave it up to the market place to gradually improve these peoples lives. You fail to realise that in Europe these better conditions were won by trade unions and the left. If someone does not fight for these rights for emerging countries they are not going to be given them.


What is required is government for the people, of the people and by the people (Abe Lincoln). In the modern era you are confusing corruption and ineptitude by governments, and the exploitation that follows within such a failed state, with exploitation due to the economic model that states purport to adhere to. It doesn’t matter if a country is capitalist or socialist if the government fails to legislate and govern for the people its citizens will be exploited. You see the vehicle for that exploitation and you say it is the root cause. In that you are incorrect. 

By the way csirl is completely correct that the black death was the reason that European peasants and the “low-born” were empowered. It also lead to the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution. Despite the rhetoric the industrial revolution lead to a massive increase in living standards for the poor and a massive decrease in infant mortality rates.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> I am saying that the terms and conditions of employment that we all take for granted today were won by socialist groups in france and germany and england in the 19 and early 20 century.



 But before this agricultural workers were treated even worse by big and small farmers. The root cause was not capitalism it was the lack of a real universal franchise (even one for men only). Without democracy and government for the people none of this would have happened. I do accept, BTW, that unions played a valuable role in improving rights for average employees. The problem is that they seem to be stuck in the 1920’s and forget that the battles have been won and they are now political lobby groups for protected middle-class state employees.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> What is required is government for the people, of the people and by the people (Abe Lincoln). In the modern era you are confusing corruption and ineptitude by governments, and the exploitation that follows within such a failed state, with exploitation due to the economic model that states purport to adhere to. .


 
Where does curruption come from by and larger? from business wanting to bend the rules, to try to get around the laws of the land for their own greed.



Purple said:


> It doesn’t matter if a country is capitalist or socialist if the government fails to legislate and govern for the people its citizens will be exploited. You see the vehicle for that exploitation and you say it is the root cause. In that you are incorrect.


 
Frequently leglislation is ignored by business where they can get away with it. Business has a responcibility to act morally, not just pay lip service to laws and bend them where possible.



Purple said:


> By the way csirl is completely correct that the black death was the reason that European peasants and the “low-born” were empowered.


 
That is not what she was arguing? Look at her post.

There is a tendency to make straw men here and then break them down. It is really annoying. Lets keep this dissussion in context. we are talking about the origins of the movement for the betterment of workers rights brought about by worker orginisation since the agrivulutral revolution. It is irlivent to talk about the black death and the subsequent labour shortage and improvement in the remaining workers rights at that time and then make the assumption that this had any effect on the movement for reform 300 years later. It is stretching it to the extreme. 




Purple said:


> It also lead to the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution.


 
That is about the most vague and nonsencical comment I have ever heard. If you try to ake a very vague and broad statement hoping some of it is factual without having the slighest grasp of the facts then go head. I an not prepared to enter into a mindless discussion with someone not if full grasp of the facts.


Yes the Industrial revolution had a positive effect on the people of europe. But ordinary workers had to fight to get basic standards in terms of employment and force governments to legislate. They did this through worker organisation. it would not have been given to them without organisation. Governments and business listen when people have a united voice.


----------



## z109

Purple said:


> But before this agricultural workers were treated even worse by big and small farmers. The root cause was not capitalism it was the lack of a real universal franchise (even one for men only). Without democracy and government for the people none of this would have happened. I do accept, BTW, that unions played a valuable role in improving rights for average employees. The problem is that they seem to be stuck in the 1920’s and forget that the battles have been won and they are now political lobby groups for protected middle-class state employees.


You are confusing rights of workers to be treated fairly in their contract of employment with individual voting rights. In the UK and Ireland, 1867 and 1884 are the key dates in which male workers won some voting rights. 1867 giving them to landed agricultural workers and urban householders and 1884 extending them more generally.

Workers rights in Britain and Ireland came in around in the same time period with a number of factory acts.

What was important was the liberal capitalist ideology that infused both the Tories and the Liberals at the time.

France was largely a dictatorship in the nineteen century (either with a monarchy or an elected monarch).

Germany didn't exist as a country until after 1870. It too was an absolute monarchy, although Bismarch introduced an advisory elected assembly.

If you're going to use a historical basis for your argument...


----------



## Humdinger

"past performance is not indicative of future returns" .... while the history lesson is interesting, I struggle to see how it changes the reality of our economy becoming increasingly uncompetitive ..... central government and public services are part of the solution and like everyone else, need to trim some of the fat out of the system. We can no longer afford some of the flab that exists.... in the last week we have seen the silo'd menality of many of the players which does not bode well for a quick and flexible response to the hole we find ourselves in. We simply have a cost base in this country which is not sustainable.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> I do accept, BTW, that unions played a valuable role in improving rights for average employees.


 

I am talking about the socialist movement as a whole which includes unions.


----------



## jimbob1234

whick?


----------



## shnaek

Humdinger said:


> "past performance is not indicative of future returns" .... while the history lesson is interesting, I struggle to see how it changes the reality of our economy becoming increasingly uncompetitive ..... central government and public services are part of the solution and like everyone else, need to trim some of the fat out of the system. We can no longer afford some of the flab that exists.... in the last week we have seen the silo'd menality of many of the players which does not bode well for a quick and flexible response to the hole we find ourselves in. We simply have a cost base in this country which is not sustainable.



Looks like your attempt to drag this thread back on topic has failed


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> whick?


 

Do you have anything constructive to add?? You are becoming a little boring.


----------



## jimbob1234

i add that the PS cant spell


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> i add that the PS cant spell


 
Actually if your going to be pedantic about it. its "can't".

Now Jimbob your loosing the smart a... stuff. Get back to loosing the central argument will you.

PS Capital I also.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Where does curruption come from by and larger? from business wanting to bend the rules, to try to get around the laws of the land for their own greed.


 “Business” is not a homogenous entity. What you are talking about are people. Some people, both in business and in a personal capacity, will try to bend and/or break the rules. The prevalence of these activities depends on a number of factors ranging from legal deterrent, social acceptability and potential gain etc. People in business are no more or less moral or socially aware than those they employ.




television said:


> Frequently leglislation is ignored by business where they can get away with it. Business has a responcibility to act morally, not just pay lip service to laws and bend them where possible.


 see above




television said:


> That is not what she was arguing? Look at her post.


 Yes it was, look at her post.



television said:


> There is a tendency to make straw men here and then break them down. It is really annoying. Lets keep this dissussion in context. we are talking about the origins of the movement for the betterment of workers rights brought about by worker orginisation since the agrivulutral revolution. It is irlivent to talk about the black death and the subsequent labour shortage and improvement in the remaining workers rights at that time and then make the assumption that this had any effect on the movement for reform 300 years later. It is stretching it to the extreme.


 What mattered was supply and demand. Just as it did as skill became increasingly important in the labour market of the 1920’s. 




television said:


> That is about the most vague and nonsencical comment I have ever heard. If you try to ake a very vague and broad statement hoping some of it is factual without having the slighest grasp of the facts then go head. I an not prepared to enter into a mindless discussion with someone not if full grasp of the facts.


Here's some info on income level increase, with the counter arguements, between 1750 and 1850.
The drop in infant mortality rates during the industrial revolution is will known. Try Google.
The next time you think about trowing around insults try spending three minutes checking the facts first.


----------



## jimbob1234

what is loosing


----------



## Sunny

television said:


> Actually if your going to be pedantic about it. its "can't".
> 
> Now Jimbob your loosing the smart a... stuff. Get back to loosing the central argument will you.
> 
> PS Capital I also.


 
loosing????   

I don't care about peoples spelling but this thread has gone completely off topic just like the other one on plans to help the economy and no offence Television but you are strongly involved in both. Can we get them back on topic.

I see consumer confidence has hit another all time low today, the ISEQ is at 2003 levels, manufacturing is at another low and the ISME survey is the gloomiest in 20 years. Another good day for the Celtic Tiger


----------



## television

Purple said:


> “Business” is not a homogenous entity. What you are talking about are people. Some people, both in business and in a personal capacity, will try to bend and/or break the rules. The prevalence of these activities depends on a number of factors ranging from legal deterrent, social acceptability and potential gain etc. People in business are no more or less moral or socially aware than those they employ.


 
No, but this is what we are talking about business workers and the relationship between the two. This is the specific context.

see above



Purple said:


> “Yes it was, look at her post. What mattered was supply and demand. Just as it did as skill became increasingly important in the labour market of the 1920’s. .


 
She/he suggested that the fact that there was a decrease in the supply of workers brought about about by the plauge had an effect on the improvements in workers conditions to a greater extent than worker action and unity did since the industrial revolution. This is a completly ridiculous argument. If you take a look at the context of the discussion and the previous posts this is the only fair conclusion as to what she was suggesting.



Purple said:


> “Here's some info on income level increase, with the counter arguements, between 1750 and 1850.
> The drop in infant mortality rates during the industrial revolution is will known. Try Google.
> The next time you think about trowing around insults try spending three minutes checking the facts first.


 
I have not argued that the population did not increase in Europe during the Industrial revolution. I am arguing specifically about how workers united accross europe to force governments to legislate incrementally to improve workers conditions. I am also arguing that this legislative change was at every corner held up and fought against by business. 

Can you please stop building straw men.


----------



## Purple

Guys, we all need to lay off the personal stuff or this thread will be closed.


----------



## jimbob1234

the iseq is in terrible shape. the US futures are down sharply today. the dow is 19.9% down , 20% signifies a bear market. if it stays down today then really the rest of the year is a washout in the markets. im short so doing quite nicely


----------



## joe sod

I think we need people with business experience in the cabinet now, there seems to be an over representation of former teachers and lawyers in the cabinet, there is nothing wrong with this to an extent but hard business experience would be valuable, afterall in the eighties these people eventually got cabinet positions


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> what is loosing


 
Remember your capitals at the beginning of a sentence jimbob.

Keep digging.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> Guys, we all need to lay off the personal stuff or this thread will be closed.


 

Here here


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> I think we need people with business experience in the cabinet now, there seems to be an over representation of former teachers and lawyers in the cabinet, there is nothing wrong with this to an extent but hard business experience would be valuable, afterall in the eighties these people eventually got cabinet positions


Despite the swipes that they get from the media about long holidays and high pay politicians work very long hours in high-pressure jobs with no job security. Nobody in their right mind would become a TD.


----------



## television

Sunny said:


> loosing????
> 
> I don't care about peoples spelling but this thread has gone completely off topic just like the other one on plans to help the economy and no offence Television but you are strongly involved in both. Can we get them back on topic.


 
I suggest Jimbob started the spelling exercise.


----------



## jimbob1234

apologies - but we all know the PS is a huge problem in this country. we cant sort it cos of the unions and people who think a pay freeze is a pay rise but not a huge pay rise. can we discuss the other factors? opinions on the present state of the credit crunch and stock market?


----------



## csirl

> I am talking about the agricultural/industrial revolution 1750-1850. Black death has nothing to with it.


 
The Black Death has everything to do with improvements in work conditions for workers. 

I'm disputing your view that the greatest improvement in workers rights was during the 19th and 20th century - my view is that by far the greatest improvement in workers conditions took place after the Black Death - 14th century.

Up to this time, the workforce, which was mainly agricultural was in near slavery style conditions under the control of an overlord with no rights and not even allowed leave employment. The labour shortage created by the Black Death broke this system and gave workers the freedom to chose their own employers. Consequently employers had to improve wages and conditions in order to attract employees who were in short supply. The freedom to work for whoever you chose and not have you family bonded to an overlord must be the biggest breakthrough ever in this area.


----------



## television

csirl said:


> The Black Death has everything to do with improvements in work conditions for workers.


 
But has little to do with the movement for reform of workers rights and leglislation of the 19 century accross europe. I also suggest that by even your own logic you are stretching to the extreme the improvements in the rights of peasents after the black death. greater mobility perhaps(although accross eastern europe mobility decreased)  rise in incomes relatively but still appaling conditions, as is testified by the famine conditions across much of europe in the 14 15 Centuries.


----------



## jimbob1234

will people give it up already with the black death thing


----------



## Sunny

jimbob1234 said:


> will people give it up already with the black death thing


 
Exactly. I am pretty sure the black death is not resonsible for Ireland's economic woes.

Open up another thread if you to debate it


----------



## csirl

> will people give it up already with the black death thing


 
People are talking about the current state of the country as if it were as bad as the black death 

How about introducing a new "R-word" - Recovery.


----------



## Humdinger

Purple said:


> Despite the swipes that they get from the media about long holidays and high pay politicians work very long hours in high-pressure jobs with no job security. Nobody in their right mind would become a TD.


 
I agree that it takes a certain animal to become a politician though there is lots of ammo to challenge the high pressure/ no security comments. TDs submitted 6000 passport applications last year for constituents for example .... that makes a difference .... NOT. Many on sabbaticals for 20 years from state jobs etc etc.

Sadly we now need them to make a difference, grab hold of the R word and put some real actions in place that will make that difference. 

I think there is a willingness to do this amongst our "cabinet leaders". However with a few notable exceptions, there is'nt the vision, competence or leadership to execute what needs to happen.  look at Health, lots of willing and good intentions ... 5 years later the situation is worse and the cost base has trippled.

I hope I am am proved wrong but I fear the cabinet don't have the brains or cojones for the fight.

Anyway, back to the black death and the ideological musing


----------



## shnaek

Humdinger said:


> However with a few notable exceptions, there is'nt the vision, competence or leadership to execute what needs to happen.  look at Health, lots of willing and good intentions ... 5 years later the situation is worse and the cost base has trippled.


Hear, hear. There are certainly plenty of good intentions there, but we need skilled leadership, and we need some way of getting that kind of leadership in charge of our country. I don't see many contenders across the political spectrum. That reflects on us as a people as much as it does our elected representatives. I just hope that the lessons of the 70s and 80s have been learned. Otherwise, will the last person to leave switch the lights off...


----------



## jimbob1234

i think brian cowan is a very tough customer and he will make very harsh decisions without maybe thinking them through fully first.


----------



## ccbkd

jimbob1234 said:


> i think brian cowan is a very tough customer and he will make very harsh decisions without maybe thinking them through fully first.


 
I think its Brian Cowens fault that we're in the position we're in he was not qualified to be a Finance Minister, surely someone from an accountancy /economic background would have had more vision and would have had the foresight to see the kinda of mess the property bubble had to the potential to create instead he sleepwalked his way into the situation we're in now and doddered over stamp duty -He is not the real Deal!! and to add insult to injury he appoints a bloody barrister as his successor in Ministeral post


----------



## Humdinger

Don't panic... its alright ... rte website reporting a massive find of gold in Monaghan by Conroy. We are sorted then  !!!!

Gold finds aside, is there an argument that this is precisely the kick in the ass we need. Yes there will be wreckage from recession ... we had however lost the run of ourselves though ... private and public spending with abandon, personal borrowing levels, white elephants and throwing money at projects with little or no return, the eco brigade gone mad.

The 80's forced us to make some hard decisions .....Will this force us to get our house in order and rebase and reorient the economy ... can we become lean, flexible, and hungry again ... we have alot of flab to lose or is that just wishful thinking. 

How about building a nuclear power plant for starters ... that could change things ????


----------



## Towger

Humdinger said:


> How about building a nuclear power plant for starters ... that could change things ????


 
Why not? The EBS want to 3 of them. Sure we already have the foundations for one laid, just need to clear the weeds off the top .


----------



## Purple

shnaek said:


> Hear, hear. There are certainly plenty of good intentions there, but we need skilled leadership, and we need some way of getting that kind of leadership in charge of our country.


 To get the right guy/gal to run the health service we would need to be offering up to 10 million euro a year.


----------



## csirl

> i think brian cowan is a very tough customer and he will make very harsh decisions without maybe thinking them through fully first.


 
I think Brian Cowan is turning into another Gordan Brown.



> To get the right guy/gal to run the health service we would need to be offering up to 10 million euro a year.


 
How about bringing Maggie Thatcher out of retirement, or Jack Welch?


----------



## shnaek

Purple said:


> To get the right guy/gal to run the health service we would need to be offering up to 10 million euro a year.



Nah, the health 'service' is fecked no matter who's at the top. One person at the top can do nothing but spend their time fighting vested interests and an angry public. I'd give Michael O'Leary 10 mil for a few years to see what he could do with it though!


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> How about bringing Maggie Thatcher out of retirement, or Jack Welch?


What's needed is someone with a proven record of successfully restructuring a large organisation. They do not have to have any experience in healthcare; they just have to be a good manager. Such a person in the private sector would cost millions. If they did a good job it would be money well spent.


----------



## television

uiop said:


> Plenty of people I know have tried to get one but the government cant afford to employ them all and not so many jobs are available . Why is it that people with socialist type views frequently resort to some sort of insincere sarcasm which I personally find to be the lowest form of debate.


This is coming from a person who has said the following about public service workers.



> Public sector jobs are by and large for the greedy and the lazy,


Hardly a well constructed and unbias analysis.



uiop said:


> And as for bringing up the concept of family to use in an argument. Neither I nor anyone else owe my close family a living. They are well capable of being successful without leeching off the state.


I was making the poin that a lot of those people you are terming lazy and greedy are in fact probably your friends family etc. You really think these people are more lazy then people in the private sector.



uiop said:


> Elaborate please on your views for public service reform.


I am no economist but here goes.
1. Have a transparent charters of customer rights accross the public service setting out clear action plans etc for the effective delivery of services.

2. Encentivise public sector workers to deliever according to the charter and sack or demote those who fail to deliver. Starting with managers. Ordinary staff will do the work if they are properly motivated by good managment.

3. Streamline these services by implimenting the computerisation of all services that can be done by computer. (while maintaining a service for those who cannot access computers or dont know how to use them)

4. A series of volentary redundencies accross the Public servise and the oppurtunity for those who avail of this to get tax and other encentives to upskill/retrain for employment in the private sector.

5. Employing quality people from the private sector if necessary to act in CEO s.



uiop said:


> You could have fooled me. So why dont you explain to us how much money goes into the health service per person; compare this to elsewhere and also explain why its not as good as for example the health services in Canada and Germany etc.


 Yes but Canada and Germany have a history of properly funding health care. There is many structural reasons why we do not get the same bang for our buck as they do. We are playing catch up.



uiop said:


> The typical socialist response is to spend spend spend without any regard for the real value of money. I suspect a lot of socialists who preach this attitude want to see the collapse of civilisation and the collapse of money itself. The others are too brainwashed to think through their ideas and see the impracticality of unlimited spending and borrowing.


 I dont think I advocated spend spend spend. Where have I said this.




uiop said:


> We do not live in a global village. Wakey wakey time again. We live in a world of limited resources and limited money supply of limited value. We compete with others for a share of this value.


 Even the greatest advotes of capatialism would aggree with me that the world is becoming smaller in terms of the movement of goods people and services. My point was that this has oppurtunities and potential costs for workers accross the globe. It is not enough as in the past for workers in countries to unit to effectively tackle exploitation, they must unite transnationally. In this great world of global competition you talk about there is winners and loosers. and the loosers are hundreds of millions of people for whom capitialism has failed. Not because capitialism is bad but because it has allowed to go unchecked.




uiop said:


> How exactly are workers across the world spposed to unite when you even apparently refuse to vote yes for the Lisbon treaty and unite workers across Europe even more closely ? (And this is coming from someone who was and still is highly skeptical of Lisbon)


A fair point. Your only one.



uiop said:


> Even closer to home, the public service needs a pay cut is so they can share the wealth more equitably with the unemployed and with the private sector workers in wider society who in any imminent recession will lose their jobs or take a pay freeze or cut.


OK so workers accross all sectors should distribute income evenly. Now you sound like Karl Marx.
I have said that I have no problem with a pay freeze if I believed it would help the economy. 



uiop said:


> Of course you would never accept being equal with those in the private sector who ultimately pay your wages.


 
Public sector workers pay tax. 


uiop said:


> Why should any public service job be protected when private sector jobs are not.


why do you not turn the argument around a little here. Why not say why do private sector workers not deserve similar terms and conditions as the public sector? What is wrong with a private sector worker looking for stability of employment? "Oh no I am sorry jack you are completing against those chineese and Indians for jobs take what your given and shut up or were off". I know that is the way it is. But the only way to effectively change it is for workers accross the globe to unite not compete.
The public sector is there to serve the public. If public servents are doing their job well and performing their duties, why are they not intitled to secure employment?


----------



## television

uiop said:


> This is coming from a public service worker who apparently claims to be able to spell but however is apparently too 'lazy' to spell correctly


 
Again good constructive stuff. Why is it that when people are loosing the argument the revert to pointless and vindictive jibes about spelling. Typical. But utterly pointless.



uiop said:


> Why is it that people with socialist type views frequently resort to some sort of insincere sarcasm which I personally find to be the lowest form of debate.


 
Interesting observation in light of your last flippant remark. I have systematically deconstructed your argument and that’s the best response you have got. I will not be referring to you in the future.


----------



## Humdinger

I guess its this sort of commentary that makes those in the private sector want to pull their hair out. Billions of taxpayers money gets spent by the public service

I am no economist but here goes.
1. Have a transparent charters of customer rights accross the public service setting out clear action plans etc for the effective delivery of services.

You are saying that one does'nt exist today

2. Encentivise public sector workers to deliever according to the charter and sack or demote those who fail to deliver. Starting with managers. Ordinary staff will do the work if they are properly motivated by good managment.

Public service workers are paid on average very well to do their jobs ...additional incentives should not be required

3. Streamline these services by implimenting the computerisation of all services that can be done by computer. (while maintaining a service for those who cannot access computers or dont know how to use them)

Should have been done a long time ago ... a no brainer though I am sure the bearded brothers in the unions will create a song and dance about it ... was this not supposed to be part of the commitment during the first benchmarking bonanza or was that one of the pieces that got lost in the wave of transparency

4. A series of volentary redundencies accross the Public servise and the oppurtunity for those who avail of this to get tax and other encentives to upskill/retrain for employment in the private sector.

Address those who don't perform like any good organisation and make redundant where necessary... voluntary redundancy does'nt address the underlying issue and is an expensive cop-out

5. Employing quality people from the private sector if necessary to act in CEO s.


Why not say why do private sector workers not deserve similar terms and conditions as the public sector? 

Welcome to fantasia.


----------



## television

Humdinger said:


> I guess its this sort of commentary that makes those in the private sector want to pull their hair out. Billions of taxpayers money gets spent by the public service


 
What you are saying is that you agree with me then? Why make a sweeping statement which actually means nothing of consequence and has absolutly no substance. 

1. You aggree with me on point number 1.

2. Performance related pay. You are against that?

3. Your in aggrement with me on.

4. Private sector often looks for Voluntary redundancies before looking for anything else.

Its interesting that you think that fair terms and conditions of employment is fantasy?


----------



## television

Humdinger said:


> Public service workers are paid on average very well to do their jobs ...additional incentives should not be require


 
Public sector workers with similar qualification levels lag significanly behind the private sector equilivent in terms of pay, and that is after sucessive round of benchmarking. That is a fact.


----------



## Humdinger

I am merely surprised that an orgaisation spending billions, with a multitude of experts and external consultants does'nt have the so called "charter" to deliver services .... quite amazing actually ....its worse than I thought

There is a difference between incentivisation and performance related pay

Computerisation ... go for it ... thought you had agreed to do so years ago

Voluntary redundancies ... sometimes happens though rare enough these days ... see performance related pay above !!!! 

Of course fair conditions of employment exist in the non public sector. They are not the fantasy conditions that you describe in public service nirvana.

Public service v private sector pay scales inferior....  maybe we should establish a benchmarking body to sort this out ... no need for any detailed reports or transparent comparisons though ...


----------



## Purple

yoganmahew said:


> You are confusing rights of workers to be treated fairly in their contract of employment with individual voting rights.


No, I am saying that one lead to the other. The rest of your post is correct in fact. No confusion here.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Even the greatest advotes of capatialism would aggree with me that the world is becoming smaller in terms of the movement of goods people and services. My point was that this has oppurtunities and potential costs for workers accross the globe. It is not enough as in the past for workers in countries to unit to effectively tackle exploitation, they must unite transnationally. In this great world of global competition you talk about there is winners and loosers. and the loosers are hundreds of millions of people for whom capitialism has failed. Not because capitialism is bad but because it has allowed to go unchecked.



In these countries government has failed to govern for the people and so some of those with power have used that power to exploit their fellow citizens. The instrument of that exploitation can be capital, military or politics (and often all three). You are seeing the symptom as the cause.

Here's a question, I have asked you before but I will ask again as I am interested in your answer. If you have the choice of buying a computer which was made in China for €300 or one made by Irish employees for €1200 which would you buy? 
In this scenario employees in both countries are paid a good living wage, it just so happens that a good living wage in China is one twentieth of a good living wage in Ireland. So neither group of employees are exploited.
Even if you would buy the more expensive computer I think you will accept that most people will not so the manufacturer in Ireland can either reduce costs, relocate to a low wage environment or go out of business.
Ignoring the realitied of international competition do not change it.


----------



## z109

Purple said:


> No, I am saying that one lead to the other. The rest of your post is correct in fact. No confusion here.


Whereas I am saying the opposite - I am saying that the improvement in workers rights through the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, in particular education improvements (which I apologise for not mentioning initially!) led to greater democracy.


----------



## Purple

yoganmahew said:


> Whereas I am saying the opposite - I am saying that the improvement in workers rights through the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, in particular education improvements (which I apologise for not mentioning initially!) led to greater democracy.


I don't think they can be separated but the innovations and societal changes resulting from the population drop started the ball rolling. Urbanisation, education, political enlightenment, liberal humanism, labour organisation and most importantly the need for a skilled workforce, and the empowerment that this gave to average citizens, were all factors that increased the rate of change.


----------



## jimbob1234

television said:


> Public sector workers with similar qualification levels lag significanly behind the private sector equilivent in terms of pay, and that is after sucessive round of benchmarking. That is a fact.


 

well why dont they join the private sector so for the big money. i hear these stories about people on 30k with a degree and masters in the civil service. in my opinoin if a person has those qualifications and isnt being paid properly then that their own fault. they obviously have no drive or ambition .

by the way thats the way it should work. a person should have less pay in the PS due to the job for life scenario. we have being saying this for the whole post. PS workers cant have pay equality and the job for life as well


----------



## shnaek

jimbob1234 said:


> well why dont they join the private sector so for the big money. i hear these stories about people on 30k with a degree and masters in the civil service. in my opinoin if a person has those qualifications and isnt being paid properly then that their own fault. they obviously have no drive or ambition .
> 
> by the way thats the way it should work. a person should have less pay in the PS due to the job for life scenario. we have being saying this for the whole post. PS workers cant have pay equality and the job for life as well



Good post. but fair play to yourself too, Television, for arguing your points well. I don't agree with most of them, but I applaud your coming on here and putting forward points of view which only one or two others in here are supporting. 

And seeing as how we can't get off the public/private sector debate - why is it that the Gardai still use notepads when you go in there to report a crime? Would it be because they'd want more pay to use a computer? Even though a computer would be far more efficient and reliable all round? 
And why is it that train drivers here in Cork keep striking at the drop of a hat? They wanted more money to drive new trains. Would a private sector worker get more money to move to a new office? 
And why is it that the employees of the old health boards got 'incentives' to change their name to HSE? If a private sector company changes it's name and sweet FA else, do their workers get 'incentives'?
Public sector unions run the country for their own benefit, with the government as their lapdogs. How can one have any other view when you look around and see a porter in Limerick refusing to push a sick woman in a trolley without permission from his union (which he didn't get) ? 
How can we in the private sector look around and applaud the public sector? How can we feel anything but frustration as the unions go to raid the family silver once more? Of course we all want pay rises these days - the price of everything is going up. But this isn't realistic in the private sector during a recession, so we end up having to tighten our belts and make do with what we have. Unless we work for Linsey or Hibernian, in which case paycuts (10%) or unemployment awaits. While our comrades in the jobs for life, gauranteed pension sector go looking for pay rises. It is no wonder people are angry.


----------



## jimbob1234

they are getting the pay rises anyway, what they are looking for is new benchmarking rates, if the govt give in to this in these economic times then i will give up on them totally and never again vote fianna fail. 

if the gardai put everything in a computer rather than a notepad then were would be no chance of a report going "missing", that would upset some people im afraid


----------



## shnaek

jimbob1234 said:


> if the gardai put everything in a computer rather than a notepad then were would be no chance of a report going "missing", that would upset some people im afraid


And we'd see the true crime stats too.


----------



## Humdinger

shnaek said:


> While our comrades in the jobs for life, gauranteed pension sector go looking for pay rises. It is no wonder people are angry.


 
There are lots of good people in the public sector who make a real contribution and probably deserve increases. 
How about giving the public sector increases using private sector principles. My former employer gave increases to only the top 70% of performers ... even in the "tiger" years .... the other 30% were told why they had not received increases ... all very transparent ...they either shaped up or shipped out. Forced ranking each year identified the bottom 10% of performers who again had a period to shape up or in most cases left of their own volition. Staff satisfaction was measured each year and was high. Client satisfaction was also built into the equation ...it was (and I assume still is) a very successful business
Never happen in the public sector of course

Struggling to see where this private v public sector debate fits in the context of the R word. We are in a hole and given that there is a time lag on economic indicators, the hole is probably deeper than we realise and getting deeper.


----------



## Purple

Humdinger said:


> There are lots of good people in the public sector who make a real contribution and probably deserve increases.


 What people deserve and what their employer can afford to give them are not the same thing.


----------



## Humdinger

Purple said:


> What people deserve and what their employer can afford to give them are not the same thing.


 
I agree though the HR flexibility, structures, processes and practice are not in place to even recognise those where an increase could be worked thru assuming efficiencies, headcount reduction elsewhere etc etc etc.

Are there any elements that could be outsourced to india as part of an efficiency drive.


----------



## aonfocaleile

I have to say that as a public sector worker I am embarrassed that the unions are today calling for "significant increases in pay". Many of my colleagues feel the same and would accept a pay freeze. I also expect that a recruitment freeze is imminent. 
I can't deny that there is a need for reform in the public sector and a lot of _Purple_'s points in this regard are very valid. Reform needs to come from the top down and I would suggest that public services in the transport and electricity sectors should be top of the list. (I'm not going to get into the health service - its thankfully something I know nothing about). 

Its easy to point the finger at the public sector when a downturn is looming/has already arrived. But to describe all public sector workers as lazy and pathetic shows a blatant disregard for the interity of public servants and displays an amazing lack of knowledge about the work of the public sector. I have avoided AAM for some time because of the public sector bashing that goes on by a limited number of posters - and before anyone asks, I'm on annual leave at the moment and not wasting any taxpayers money by posting here today.


----------



## jimbob1234

aonfocaleile - a good post, thank you for that. i know we have all said things that were out of order. do you agree that is the large increases in pay are granted then this country will be ruined and we will have hyperinflation.


----------



## aonfocaleile

I don't think large pay hikes would lead to hyperinflation but my knowledge of economics is limited. In any event, I doubt that "large" increases are likely - its more likely that the Govt will grant modest increases over a number of years through the partnership process, more as conciliatory gesture than anything less (otherwise they will surely have to relinquish their own pay hike - now due in September). A Government led by Cowen is probably more likely to reject the pay increase than one led by Ahern but I'm surprised this hasn't been announced yet. 

I think the credit crunch is having the most serious impact and would like (in an effort to bring the thread back on topic) to see more debate on this subject. What do people think is in the offing for the US economy and what impact will this have here? I know friends of mine working in multi-nationals are worried about their jobs...


----------



## jimbob1234

aon - when you say you would accept a pay freeze are you saying you would accept a real pay freeze or still get your increment and not get a new bench marking


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> aon - when you say you would accept a pay freeze are you saying you would accept a real pay freeze or still get your increment and not get a new bench marking


 
Jimbob will you get over it please. Yes public sector workers recieve incremental credit and no, there is absolutly no chance that any public sector worker in their right mind is going to say they should be halted. You really need to get off the mindless public sector bashing, and move on to something else in relation to the cause of the recession. 

The last round of benchmarking gave no increase to the vast majority of Public Sector workers.


----------



## aonfocaleile

It wouldn't be the end of the world _for me_ if a "real" pay freeze was introduced but there isn't the remotest chance of this happening. Any public sector pay freeze would relate to national wage agreements rather than increments.  Bear in mind that increments are not automatically awarded - they are performance related in my organisation and many staff do not receive them if they are not up to scratch. 

Substantial overtime payments, outdated working practices, top-heavy organisations and dubious agencies should be the target in terms of reducing the public sector pay bill - not the incremental pay of individuals.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> In these countries government has failed to govern for the people and so some of those with power have used that power to exploit their fellow citizens. The instrument of that exploitation can be capital, military or politics (and often all three). You are seeing the symptom as the cause.


 
The problem with this is that you do not see the relationships that exist between government and business. Business influences government in a varity of ways, sometimes quite reasonably and other times to allow curruption and exploitation. This relationship is becoming more pronounced in every level, for example drug companies have a huge influence on the health policy and multinational IT companies in education. Now these companies do not have the health or education of ordinary people as thier primary motivation.  So goverments can not be seen outside the context of the business community, they are interlinked. 


Purple said:


> Here's a question, I have asked you before but I will ask again as I am interested in your answer. If you have the choice of buying a computer which was made in China for €300 or one made by Irish employees for €1200 which would you buy?


 
If the workers in China had decent working conditions and were payed a fair wage according to thier own economy and had decent terms and conditions of employment then I have no problem buying the chineese produce. 


Purple said:


> In this scenario employees in both countries are paid a good living wage, it just so happens that a good living wage in China is one twentieth of a good living wage in Ireland. So neither group of employees are exploited..


 
But frequently this is not the case. Of course people in the developing world will work for next to nothing and put up with conditions people in the west would not. Frequently multinationals set up in the developing world do not allow unions and do expolit workers and if these people do not like it they will just employ one of a hundred people waiting at the factory gate. A suituation like this makes it easy for these people suffer terrible exploitation by any standard. This is wrong.

.[/quote]Even if you would buy the more expensive computer I think you will accept that most people will not so the manufacturer in Ireland can either reduce costs, relocate to a low wage environment or go out of business. Ignoring the realitied of international competition do not change it.[/quote]

What happens when all the irish multinationals get up and move to places like India etc. This rethoric about Irish workers needing to be smarter and cleverer and innovative in order to compete is a complete load of rubbish. The indians are producing cleverer more innovate and smarter young people then we ever will and they have a cost base a fraction of ours. I just dont see how we can all be winners in this one. At least not in the short to medium term and that transition is going to cause a lot of pain for billions of people.


----------



## Treehouse

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

Please, more about the public sector in this thread. Not been discussed enough.


----------



## television

Treehouse said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Please, more about the public sector in this thread. Not been discussed enough.


 
Can someone tell that to JIMBOB pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## aonfocaleile

Treehouse said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Please, more about the public sector in this thread. Not been discussed enough.


 


Hate to sound all _George Lee, _but can we PLEASE talk about the recession??


----------



## jimbob1234

television said:


> Jimbob will you get over it please. Yes public sector workers recieve incremental credit and no, there is absolutly no chance that any public sector worker in their right mind is going to say they should be halted. You really need to get off the mindless public sector bashing, and move on to something else in relation to the cause of the recession.
> 
> The last round of benchmarking gave no increase to the vast majority of Public Sector workers.


 
so television its not a pay freeze at all really. when you said in your earlier posts you favoured a pay freeze you meant the opposite really. you still expect your increments , when reality in the private sector is that a pay freeze is exactly as it says - a pay freeze


----------



## television

jimbob1234 said:


> so television its not a pay freeze at all really. when you said in your earlier posts you favoured a pay freeze you meant the opposite really. you still expect your increments , when reality in the private sector is that a pay freeze is exactly as it says - a pay freeze


 
These increments are part of the basic salary structure


----------



## Purple

television said:


> What happens when all the irish multinationals get up and move to places like India etc. This rethoric about Irish workers needing to be smarter and cleverer and innovative in order to compete is a complete load of rubbish. The indians are producing cleverer more innovate and smarter young people then we ever will and they have a cost base a fraction of ours. I just dont see how we can all be winners in this one. At least not in the short to medium term and that transition is going to cause a lot of pain for billions of people.


What will happen is that India and China will get richer, their citizens will get more power due to the increasing importance of education and skills within the workforce and they will, eventually have the same standard of living we have. Just like Europe this may take a few generations but they will get there as long as the market is allowed to function. This is the up side of capitalism; it flows to where it can get the best return and so enriches the poor. The protectionism desired by the unions in this country is fundamentally unjust as it attempts to stifle economic development and opportunity in developing countries. This does not suit Ireland, but if you are really committed to the betterment of “workers” around the world you will afford them the same opportunities that we had to develop their economy.
 If the unions had their way South Korea would still be a poverty stricken backwater.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> What will happen is that India and China will get richer, their citizens will get more power due to the increasing importance of education and skills within the workforce and they will, eventually have the same standard of living we have. Just like Europe this may take a few generations but they will get there as long as the market is allowed to function. This is the up side of capitalism; it flows to where it can get the best return and so enriches the poor. The protectionism desired by the unions in this country is fundamentally unjust as it attempts to stifle economic development and opportunity in developing countries. This does not suit Ireland, but if you are really committed to the betterment of “workers” around the world you will afford them the same opportunities that we had to develop their economy.
> If the unions had their way South Korea would still be a poverty stricken backwater.


 
You have great faith in the power of the markets to make people happy.And lets say you are right, along the way to this eutopia dont people in the mean time deserve decent pay and fair terms of conditions of employment? yes economic development is the only way for people to get out of poverty. But it must be regulated by government so that people are not exploited. However we increasingly see governments unwilling to do anything to upset multinationals for fear that they will up sticks. This is particularly true in developing nations. This allows greater room for exploitation of workers. And workers can lessen the impact of this through organisation.


----------



## ubiquitous

One man's regulation is another man's protectionism. And vice versa. Governments' main motivation in these scenarios is normally to maximise its own tax take, not to prevent the exploitation of workers. The unwillingness of governments to upset multinationals is not always a bad thing. Ireland's prosperity over the past 15 years would never had happened had successive governments not done everything in their power to make Ireland a decent place for the multinationals to do business. From 1922 until the early 1960s we shunned the multinationals in favour of protectionist self-sufficiency and look how far that got us.


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


> One man's regulation is another man's protectionism. And vice versa. Governments' main motivation in these scenarios is normally to maximise its own tax take, not to prevent the exploitation of workers. The unwillingness of governments to upset multinationals is not always a bad thing. Ireland's prosperity over the past 15 years would never had happened had successive governments not done everything in their power to make Ireland a decent place to do business.


 
But these companies came into an enviroment where there was well established employee protection law. They had to behave themselves so to speak. I disagree with you that governments do not have a role in helping to prevent exploitation, and in fairness to the European Union to date it has implimented very progressive employment laws which protect workers from exploitation


----------



## ubiquitous

There was damn all employee protection law in this country until the early-to-mid 1990s. For example The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act was only enacted in 1989. We have been attracting multinationals since the 1960s.

I never said that governments do not have a role in helping to prevent exploitation. Of course they do. My point was that this is rarely (or never) their main motivation.


----------



## jimbob1234

television said:


> These increments are part of the basic salary structure


 

well that structure shudnt be in place. a person should get taken on and reviewed as in the private sector and get paid according to performance. if anyone joined a company and was told that whether they worked hard or not etc they would still get their increments and never ever ever have to suffer a real pay freeze then why should they work hard?????


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


> There was damn all employee protection law in this country until the early-to-mid 1990s. We have been attracting multinationals since the 1960s.


 
I never said that governments do not have a role in helping to prevent exploitation. Of course they do. My point was that this is rarely (or never) their main motivation.[/quote]

I think you will find that there was a significant amount of leglislation since the foundation of the state re employment law. Irish entry into the EEC accelerated this. Althought the 1990 did bring significant leglislative change. But to say there was dam all employment law in ireland before the 1990 is factually incorrect. See this paper regarding the facts.

[broken link removed]


----------



## ubiquitous

That's a very useful and informative document. Thanks for the link. 

As for the state of Irish employee protection law pre-1990, as always this is a matter of interpretation. Interestingly, from my count, the document cites 14 pieces of employee protection legislation enacted between 1922 and 1989, and 15 in the period 1989-2003. 

Of the entire 29, it is worth noting that only 4 (the Conditions of Employment Act 1936, the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act 1938 ,the Trade Union Act 1941, and the Industrial Relations Act 1946) pre-date the era of multinationals-based industrial policy which started in the 1960s.

This would seem to support the argument that industrial expansion leads to improvements in workers conditions at the expense of the contrary view. In our 49 years of industrial development since De Valera stepped down in 1959, we have enacted approx 80% of our employee protection legislation, dwarfing what was achieved in this area during the previous 37 years of protectionism.


----------



## ubiquitous

uiop said:


> ... sitting on their arses in some air conditioned government office somewhere pretending to work from 10am to 3.30 pm with a 2 hour lunch break in between.


Several interesting points in your post (most of which I agree with) but imho the above line  does no justice whatsoever to your argument. What's wrong with air conditioning? Do you expect civil servants to stand up all day? Or to sit on their elbows? And sorry, the notion of civil servants having a 3.5 hour working day does not stand up to any scrutiny.


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


> That's a very useful and informative document. Thanks for the link.
> 
> As for the state of Irish employee protection law pre-1990, as always this is a matter of interpretation. Interestingly, from my count, the document cites 14 pieces of employee protection legislation enacted between 1922 and 1989, and 15 in the period 1989-2003.
> 
> Of the entire 29, it is worth noting that only 4 (the Conditions of Employment Act 1936, the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act 1938 ,the Trade Union Act 1941, and the Industrial Relations Act 1946) pre-date the era of multinationals-based industrial policy which started in the 1960s.
> 
> This would seem to support the argument that industrial expansion leads to improvements in workers conditions at the expense of the contrary view. In our 49 years of industrial development since De Valera stepped down in 1959, we have enacted approx 80% of our employee protection legislation, dwarfing what was achieved in this area during the previous 37 years of protectionism.


 
Nice use of the article to defend your position. However I think you will aggree that you were wrong in your statement that there was "dam all employmen leglislation before the 1990.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> You have great faith in the power of the markets to make people happy.


 I never suggested that money makes people happy. Money is a tool, a means to an end. People make people happy.



television said:


> And lets say you are right, along the way to this eutopia dont people in the mean time deserve decent pay and fair terms of conditions of employment?


 I don’t think utopia is achievable due to the imperfect world we live in and the imperfection of human nature. I do agree that they deserve decent pay and fair terms of conditions of employment but in the real world this cannot be achieved overnight. It requires economic, political and social development all happening in tandem.  


television said:


> yes economic development is the only way for people to get out of poverty. But it must be regulated by government so that people are not exploited.


 Yes, but see my last point.


television said:


> However we increasingly see governments unwilling to do anything to upset multinationals for fear that they will up sticks. This is particularly true in developing nations.


 The great era of multinational exploitation was between 1880 and 1914. No multinational in the world today is anywhere near as powerful than the British East India Company. 100 years ago King Leopold II of Belgium owned the Congo. It was his personal property. His had a railway line build between Leopoldville and the top of the rapids of the Congo River, during construction over 30’000 people died.(Read up on E.D. Moral and Rodger Casement for details)  The East India Company raised armies and levied taxes. These were not states; they were people and corporate entities. While exploitation still happens, much of the time state sponsored in order to facilitate big business (Shell Oil and Ogoniland in Nigeria being a good example) it is not on anything like the same scale as it was 100-150 years ago.


----------



## room305

television said:


> But the complete irony of what you are sayingg is that it was the PAYE smucks in the public/private sector that were paying 60% tax at the time while the fat cat bosses were sifting away the cash in off shore accounts.


 
How is this irony? 



television said:


> That would mean overcrowded and delapadated schools, more old people on trollies, those on medical cardson huge waiting lists to see consultants, mental health services cut etc etc. You are happy with that?


 
Don't we already have these things? I said that _non-essential_ services could be cut but the choice was there to lay-off poorly performing staff either. Therefore, if senior civil servants decided it was better to cut essential services instead of non-productive staff it reflects poorly on their own ability and their own positions should be reviewed.



television said:


> Thats what mindless speculation does.


 
If "mindless speculation" empowers good managers to bring companies through turbulent economic times then yay for mindless speculation I say! 



television said:


> So let business mindlessly exploit workers at the drop of a hat. Thats your solution? if you dont like being exploited and treated like dirt you know where the door is. That is the type of community you want your children living in?? Scary


 
I'd like my children to grow up in a country with jobs. I'd like my children to grow up in a country with low taxes and a government that spends within its means. 



television said:


> Aggreed but people on here are falling for the IBEC spin. I hope I am talking to proper business people here and not just poor brainwashed smucks working for soemone else. I can handle business owners advocating exploitation and crap conditions, but ordinary workers, it saddens me.


 
I pay about as much attention to "IBEC spin" as you do to the economic theories of Ludwig Von Mises. What saddens me is that it is 2008 and someone still feels the need to pepper their arguments with socialist paranoia about "fat cat bosses" and "ordinary workers". Also I don't think anyone - not even business owners - advocate "exploitation and crap conditions". Most businesses want to get the best from their employees, exploitation generally isn't the best method to do this.



television said:


> Same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution as a means of exploiting workers. It required unity but eventually workers accross europe rallied and forced governments to improve workers conditions. You are not looking at this in a global context. Further exploitation will continue unless workers unite globally. I am not talking about a socialist Eutopia, just decent pay and condtions for people of all sectors


 
If European socialist workers want to improve conditions for workers in developing countries then they should change positions and advocate an immediate end to all EU subsidies and tariffs.



television said:


> Where they get the oppurtunity multinationsals have and will contimue to exploit workers in the developing world. This is a fact. And you think otherwise your being nieve. Yes development is important but development that takes into account some basic decency and standards of social justice ... If someone does not fight for these rights for emerging countries they are not going to be given them.


 
As workers in the developing world save money, improve their education and standard of living they will demand better conditions and pay. As their productivity improves they will be rewarded with greater pay. Western trade unions dictating what is and isn't acceptable for this workers is neither appreciated nor productive. Think it through for a minute. Would Fruit of the Loom workers in Donegal in the late eighties have appreciated American trade unions opposing these factories on the basis they were being "exploited"? About as much as Moroccan workers would appreciate former Irish Fruit of the Loom workers intervening on their behalf now.



television said:


> You may have some nieve view that unchecked global capitialism will solve the worlds problems. The reality over the last hundred years it that it has made winners out of a few nations while plunging the rest (billions of people) into poverty and misery.


 
This is not backed up by the facts. Global capitalism has greatly improved the lives of workers in all countries that have embraced it and disproportionately the poorest in those countries. I refer you to "In defence of global capitalism" by Swedish economist Johan Norberg, by way of reference. Look at how Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Ireland have developed by embracing globalisation.



television said:


> Jimbob will you get over it please. Yes public sector workers recieve incremental credit and no, there is absolutly no chance that any public sector worker in their right mind is going to say they should be halted. You really need to get off the mindless public sector bashing, and move on to something else in relation to the cause of the recession.


 
I think incremental credits should be halted (and I work in the public sector) but I agree with you that they are not the cause of the recession nor the solution. However, it is symbolic as much as anything else. We all have to show a willingness to accept some pain. 

It would appear I am not the only public sector worker who thinks so either.



aonfocaleile said:


> It wouldn't be the end of the world _for me_ if a "real" pay freeze was introduced but there isn't the remotest chance of this happening.


 


aonfocaleile said:


> Substantial overtime payments, outdated working practices, top-heavy organisations and dubious agencies should be the target in terms of reducing the public sector pay bill - not the incremental pay of individuals.


 
Very true.



television said:


> The problem with this is that you do not see the relationships that exist between government and business. Business influences government in a varity of ways, sometimes quite reasonably and other times to allow curruption and exploitation. This relationship is becoming more pronounced in every level, for example drug companies have a huge influence on the health policy and multinational IT companies in education. Now these companies do not have the health or education of ordinary people as thier primary motivation. So goverments can not be seen outside the context of the business community, they are interlinked.


 
It's funny you talk about the undue influence businesses can bring to governments when in this country the right of unions to dictate economic policy is put on a statutory footing. 



television said:


> If the workers in China had decent working conditions and were payed a fair wage according to thier own economy and had decent terms and conditions of employment then I have no problem buying the chineese produce.


 
You must accept then that Irish factories cannot compete with these wages and certainly cannot offer increased pay and jobs for life to their workers if they are to remain viable.



television said:


> But frequently this is not the case. Of course people in the developing world will work for next to nothing and put up with conditions people in the west would not. Frequently multinationals set up in the developing world do not allow unions and do expolit workers and if these people do not like it they will just employ one of a hundred people waiting at the factory gate. A suituation like this makes it easy for these people suffer terrible exploitation by any standard. This is wrong.


 
Actually most frequently this is the case. Think about it. You set up a factory in a country where the average daily wage is €1. Offering €2 will ensure you get the absolute pick of the best workers in this country but make little impact on your bottom line (allowing you to expand, foster goodwill, have productive employees etc.). Yet you would probably still insist these workers are being exploited. While trade unions in the West are shouting loudly about shutting down factories in South-East Asia, workers in those factories are hoping they will continue to expand so their friends and families can get jobs there.



uiop said:


> Short working day comment not withdrawn. Since when do public servants ever do unpaid unofficial overtime for example ?


 
I can vouch that I most assuredly do and so do many others. However, I agree with the thrust of your argument that the public sector should be reducing their conditions/pay to meet those of the private sector rather than blithely assuming it can work the other way around.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Nice use of the article to defend your position. However I think you will aggree that you were wrong in your statement that there was "dam all employmen leglislation before the 1990.



If you're talking about the totality of employment legislation, ie recognition of trade unions, redundancy compensation, equality between men and women, etc, yes my statement was wrong. My point was somewhat badly made. What I meant that much or most of the employee protection legislation that we take for granted today has been enacted since the early 1990s, or more particularly 1989 when the workplace Safety legislation was brought in. The remainder of my point stands regardless.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Nice use of the article to defend your position. However I think you will aggree that you were wrong in your statement that there was "dam all employmen leglislation before the 1990.



If you're talking about the totality of employment legislation, ie recognition of trade unions, redundancy compensation, equality between men and women, etc, yes my statement was wrong. My point was somewhat badly made. What I meant that much or most of the employee protection legislation that we take for granted today has been enacted since the early 1990s, or more particularly 1989 when the workplace Safety legislation was brought in. The remainder of my point stands regardless, ie we had damn all legislation to protect workers before we became and industrial economy by attracting multinationals.


----------



## television

room305 said:


> The notion that we can tax "fat cat bosses" and continue to trundle along our merry way without any pain highlights the kind of trouble we're in. During the high taxation era of Haugheynomics we witnessed large scale tax evasion, high unemployment, mass emmigration and near bankruptcy. The last thing we want now is extra taxes. .


 How is this irony? 
It is ironic because you talk about the danger of taxing fat cat bosses today, yet they were the very ones who in the 80s were doing the tax evasion. Even today the very wealthies people in Ireland can avoid paying any tax. You might counter this by saying they create wealth, however if your earning millions you should pay your taxes.



room305 said:


> Don't we already have these things? I said that _non-essential_ services could be cut but the choice was there to lay-off poorly performing staff either. Therefore, if senior civil servants decided it was better to cut essential services instead of non-productive staff it reflects poorly on their own ability and their own positions should be reviewed.


Yes but a 15% cut will make it worse. Let me just quote what you actually said rather the what you are quoting above.


room305 said:


> When it comes to government spending, the government should mandate a 15% cut in spending for each department. Let the top brass in each department decide how they want to do it - cut pay, lay off staff, cut non-essential services


If you seriously think that cutting 15% of the health budget will not impact on front line staff and patient care you are being naive. The demands of 21st century quality health care and global health inflation mean that funding needs to increase concurrently.



room305 said:


> I'd like my children to grow up in a country with jobs. I'd like my children to grow up in a country with low taxes and a government that spends within its means.


I agree with you here, but its quality jobs also. Jobs where people feel fulfilled and not constantly in fear of being laid off and so are easily brainwashed into accepting poor conditions and exploitation. I hope you realise that the reality of globalisation will mean that the liklyhood is that jobs will be leaked out of this country pretty rapidly and its not just low skilled jobs either. This idea that we can complete globally if we up skill and become a “knowledge economy” ignores the fact that India and chineese are both cheaper and smarter than we are. 



room305 said:


> I pay about as much attention to "IBEC spin" as you do to the economic theories of Ludwig Von Mises. .


A significant amount of global business leaders consider that guy their secular business God. 



room305 said:


> What saddens me is that it is 2008 and someone still feels the need to pepper their arguments with socialist paranoia about "fat cat bosses" and "ordinary workers".


Okay I was engaging in a little bit of left wing rhetoric to upset the neo-liberal folks that dominate this site.



room305 said:


> Also I don't think anyone - not even business owners - advocate "exploitation and crap conditions". Most businesses want to get the best from their employees; exploitation generally isn't the best method to do this. "


No, they may not advocate it but many would allow it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that where regulation does not exist business will exploit workers. You have been programmed into thinking that the cosy “Google working condition utopia” exists for most workers. This is not the reality of low paid workers in Ireland. Hundreds of thousands of cleaners, security guards, shop workers, unskilled factory operatives etc etc, (having worked in all of the above jobs in my time I can tell you that there is far from the “businesses wanting to get the best out of these people world” you are suggesting. Where rubbish pay, no respect and exploitation are rampant even today, and that’s despite the myriad of employment rights legislation. That is the real world for hundreds of thousands of people. Bury your head in the sand and believe in the cosy business loves its worker hyperbole if you like. It is not the world inhabited by low paid workers. 



room305 said:


> If European socialist workers want to improve conditions for workers in developing countries then they should change positions and advocate an immediate end to all EU subsidies and tariffs.


Agreed, but where have I advocated protectionism.



room305 said:


> As workers in the developing world save money, improve their education and standard of living they will demand better conditions and pay. As their productivity improves they will be rewarded with greater pay. .


The victory’s won for workers in Europe in the 19 and early 20 century were won by people who organised because they had a common bond based on collective need for better conditions. They were not won because people got progressively richer and then demanded rights based on becoming richer. You are making the same mistake as your quoted economist Johan Norberg makes, in assuming that because globalisation gradually increases the wealth of people there is no casualties along the way. The reality is there is. And my argument is that we cannot ignore this ongoing suffering in the name of the great saviour of humanity; globalisation. 



room305 said:


> Western trade unions dictating what is and isn't acceptable for this workers is neither appreciated nor productive.


 
The nature of a trade union is that it is a representative body. It is mandates to speak on behalf of those who it represents. It is not about dictating it is about listening and reflecting the common voice of all members. It is a form of democracy. This point is perhaps you’re weakest.



room305 said:


> Think it through for a minute. Would Fruit of the Loom workers in Donegal in the late eighties have appreciated American trade unions opposing these factories on the basis they were being "exploited"? About as much as Moroccan workers would appreciate former Irish Fruit of the Loom workers intervening on their behalf now.


I have never argued against the free movement of capital or people. I am advocating fair treatment of workers based on their own cultural and economic situation



room305 said:


> This is not backed up by the facts. Global capitalism has greatly improved the lives of workers in all countries that have embraced it and disproportionately the poorest in those countries. I refer you to "In defence of global capitalism" by Swedish economist Johan Norberg, by way of reference. Look at how Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Ireland have developed by embracing globalisation.


See my critique above of Norberg. 



room305 said:


> I think incremental credits should be halted (and I work in the public sector) but I agree with you that they are not the cause of the recession nor the solution. However, it is symbolic as much as anything else. We all have to show a willingness to accept some pain.


I have said that I am willing to accept a pay freeze. But no one is touching my incrementJ. Call me selfish but I have 2 kids a mortgage etc. What do you expect, and despite what the private sector drones say, I work dam hard, I could get a job in the private sector and earn more, but I choose to work in the public sector because I believe in the value of public service. It is not about money for me. It is about vocation and caring about my community. 



room305 said:


> It's funny you talk about the undue influence businesses can bring to governments when in this country the right of unions to dictate economic policy is put on a statutory footing.


See my above point about unions.



room305 said:


> You must accept then that Irish factories cannot compete with these wages and certainly cannot offer increased pay and jobs for life to their workers if they are to remain viable.


Look jobs in the public sector are needed for the public good to one degree or another. They cannot be simplistically equated to workers in the private sector. This may not be a popular analysis but it is a fair one. For example if a ambulance driver is doing a competent job, regularly up skills etc why does he not deserve a permanent job. If he makes repeated errors sack him. But this is the case today.



room305 said:


> Actually most frequently this is the case. Think about it. You set up a factory in a country where the average daily wage is €1. Offering €2 will ensure you get the absolute pick of the best workers in this country but make little impact on your bottom line (allowing you to expand, foster goodwill, have productive employees etc.). Yet you would probably still insist these workers are being exploited.


Absolutely misinterpreting my views. I would not think they are being exploited if they are getting double the average wage. There is more to my argument here but it would take too long to explainJ


----------



## Complainer

Unfortunately (unlike many of the super-efficient, super-effective, super-competitive private sector workers), I've been far too busy with work to keep up on this thread and counter the mix of fiction, fantasy and verging-on-racist bile and invective posted on this thread and a few others here on AAM. Let's catch up on a few facts first.

Increments are not guaranteed in the civil service and much of the broader public service. Increments are dependent on satisfactory performance measured via the PDMS performance management system. Pay-for-performance exists today.

Purple tells us that the class war has been won. This is pure fiction, and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Have a quick look at [broken link removed] by the Institute of Public Health to see how your lifespan is directly related to economic wealth. Poor people die younger.

Fergus Finlay points out that a recent ESRI paper (one that surprisingly enough, didn't get front page headlines for several days) notes that 



> if you live in a household that has someone with a long-term illness or disability, your are twice as likely to be at risk of poverty. As the ESRI says, “these households are twice as likely to be deprived of basic items such as clothes, food or heat”.



Ireland is a long, long way from becoming an equal society. It might suit some people to gloss over the huge economic inequalities that persist and have indeed been worsened in recent years. Don't fall for the spin.

It is almost amusing to see the blinkered focus on public sector issues. If you want to hold down inflation, why not start with the direct factor of *private sector *salaries, rather than the indirect factor of public sector salaries. If you want to talk about a pay freeze, let's talk about a national pay freeze for everyone. 

If (on the other hand) you want to divert attention from the real issues (a tactic that has been used by many, many governments in the past) and find a scapegoat, then keep on bashing the public sector.


----------



## ubiquitous

Complainer said:


> If you want to hold down inflation, why not start with the direct factor of *private sector *salaries, rather than the indirect factor of public sector salaries.


in fairness, that has been the thrust of much of this week's media debate between the unions and business interests. Despite only being able to listen to radio for an hour or two yesterday, I heard several times that we have the second highest minimum wage in the EU. According to some, this is badly needed. According to others it damages our competitiveness. 



Complainer said:


> If you want to talk about a pay freeze, let's talk about a national pay freeze for everyone.



I think the main obstacles to a national pay freeze are (i) the unions as typified by David Begg's statements this week; (2) the obstinacy of the Government in awarding big pay hikes to themselves and senior civil servants only a few months ago, when it was painfully obvious that a recession was on the way.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Unfortunately (unlike many of the super-efficient, super-effective, super-competitive private sector workers), I've been far too busy with work to keep up on this thread and counter the mix of fiction, fantasy and verging-on-racist bile and invective posted on this thread and a few others here on AAM. Let's catch up on a few facts first.


 Please point out where comments “verging-on-racist bile and invective” have been posted.



Complainer said:


> Purple tells us that the class war has been won. This is pure fiction, and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Have a quick look at [broken link removed] by the Institute of Public Health to see how your lifespan is directly related to economic wealth. Poor people die younger.
> 
> Fergus Finlay points out that a recent ESRI paper (one that surprisingly enough, didn't get front page headlines for several days) notes that
> 
> Ireland is a long, long way from becoming an equal society. It might suit some people to gloss over the huge economic inequalities that persist and have indeed been worsened in recent years. Don't fall for the spin.


 Society should not strive for communist style equality; rather it should strive for equality of opportunity. I agree that more can be done in this area but was the socialists in the Labour party that abolished third level fees for everyone instead of increasing funding for those who really need it. I do not believe that high earners (like me) should get children’s allowance or free third level education for their children. That money would be much better spent on those who really need it. But these and other factors that lead to and perpetuate social inequality are political issues and have little to do with economics. The fact is that there are fewer economic barriers than social ones.


----------



## aonfocaleile

jimbob1234 said:


> so they are still getting their increments. oh for god sake. they are so pathetic. they are getting rises in a recessions and they are still complaining?


 
Here's one for a start. If you go further back in thread there's another post that describes public servants as "greedy and lazy". Needless, sweeping generalisations which contribute absolutely nothing to the debate and which the poster in question has failed to back-up with any evidence.


----------



## ccbkd

aonfocaleile said:


> Here's one for a start. If you go further back in thread there's another post that describes public servants as "greedy and lazy". Needless, sweeping generalisations which contribute absolutely nothing to the debate and which the poster in question has failed to back-up with any evidence.


 
Can we move on from obssession with public servants, the weathers miserable and the ECB are about to raise interest rates, lets get back to the thread title and wallow in our collective misery


----------



## ubiquitous

ccbkd said:


> Can we move on from obssession with public servants, the weathers miserable and the ECB are about to raise interest rates, lets get back to the thread title and wallow in our collective misery



Indeed or even close the thread, which seems to have run its course.


----------



## Sunny

ubiquitous said:


> Indeed or even close the thread, which seems to have run its course.


 
I agree. It has gone beyond the point of being interesting and is certainly not a great financial debate.


----------



## shnaek

Purple said:


> Society should not strive for communist style equality; rather it should strive for equality of opportunity.


Well said. Because due to human nature and the way of the world, as you pointed out earlier, there will never be 'equality' because we all aren't equal. I play guitar and sing, and I'd love to be up there on stage playing auritoriums all over the world just like Metallica and the Chilli Peppers, but I amn't equal to them in musical ability. This analogy can be applied to every aspect of life. We aren't, nor will we ever be, equal. We are individuals. Equality of opportunity is the fairest, level playing pitch we can manage. After that it is up to each of us to make the best it. And the rest of that argument I will save for another forum. 

As for 'Increments' and 'Work to Rule' etc - why is it that the public service has it's own language on these things? 
Increment = pay rise. Full stop. Call it a goobeedoo if you like. It's the same thing. 
Work to Rule = strike. 
Stick a beak on me and call me a duck, but I am still a human being. 

And back on topic - the ISEQ is getting hammered this morning. Anyone read McWilliams article in the Indo yesterday? He is comparing Ireland to Japan, and saying we need action fast to avoid a long term situation just like the Japanese found themselves in. 

And it turns out that Ireland is different after all! We are the only country to have gone from such a huge surplus to such a big deficit in such a short amount of time! So all those who were pointing out how different Ireland is were right!

On a lighter note, we will eventually get out of this. How fast will be determined by Fine Fail.


----------



## redstar

television said:


> When times are good there is bonuses in the private sector that are not avalible to equilivent people in the public sector. .



Ever wonder why public sector workers do not get bonuses ? The unions wouldn't have it. They will not allow pay to be related to performance. So anyone who performs well in the public sector will not be rewarded with a bonus. Its their own fault.


----------



## television

shnaek said:


> This analogy can be applied to every aspect of life.


 
No it can't I am afraid.


----------



## shnaek

television said:


> No it can't I am afraid.



Yes it can. So now.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Society should not strive for communist style equality; rather it should strive for equality of opportunity.


Spot on.  Unfortunately too many in politics, the media and the PC brigade, are enamored with equality of outcome rather than of opportunity.


----------



## television

test


----------



## eileen alana

Personal finance expert Jim Aughney gives some tips on how to save money during an economic downturn.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0701/drivetime_av.html?2394125,null,209


----------



## michaelm

eileen alana said:


> Personal finance expert Jim Aughney gives some tips on how to save money during an economic downturn.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0701/drivetime_av.html?2394125,null,209


Not sure it's worth listening to.  It takes them eight minutes to say 'shop around for a better mortgage & credit card rate, mind that overdraft now, claim your tax credits and shop around for insurance'.


----------



## Complainer

redstar said:


> Ever wonder why public sector workers do not get bonuses ? The unions wouldn't have it. They will not allow pay to be related to performance. So anyone who performs well in the public sector will not be rewarded with a bonus. Its their own fault.


Pure fiction, yet again. Bonuses do exist within the public sector, for many senior executives in the civil service, local authorities and some public bodies - remember the furore when Prof Drumm picked up a substantial bonus. But keep on making up stories about the public sector if it makes you feel good.



ubiquitous said:


> in fairness, that has been the thrust of much of this week's media debate between the unions and business interests. Despite only being able to listen to radio for an hour or two yesterday, I heard several times that we have the second highest minimum wage in the EU. According to some, this is badly needed. According to others it damages our competitiveness.


Thanks for the clarification. It's funny how this point has flown right over the heads of the public sector bashing posters here on AAM who can't see the wood for the trees.



Purple said:


> Please point out where comments “verging-on-racist bile and invective” have been posted.


If the cap fits....



Purple said:


> Society should not strive for communist style equality; rather it should strive for equality of opportunity. I agree that more can be done in this area






shnaek said:


> Well said. Because due to human nature and the way of the world, as you pointed out earlier, there will never be 'equality' because we all aren't equal. I play guitar and sing, and I'd love to be up there on stage playing auritoriums all over the world just like Metallica and the Chilli Peppers, but I amn't equal to them in musical ability. This analogy can be applied to every aspect of life. We aren't, nor will we ever be, equal. We are individuals. Equality of opportunity is the fairest, level playing pitch we can manage. After that it is up to each of us to make the best it. And the rest of that argument I will save for another forum.



Hold your horses here, Purple . You told us earlier that the class war was over, and now you think that 'more can be done'. Make your mind up.

No-one mentioned 'communist style equality'. I know it suits your arguement to put two and two together to make 27, but let's stick to a bit of reality here. Perhaps you could explain how the equality of opportunity applies to the households with a person with a long-term illness or disability that have double the risk of poverty? Perhaps you could explain how equality of opportunity applies those in the lowest occupational class whose risk of death is between 100% and 200% higher than those in the highest occupational class?

• For circulatory diseases it was over 120% higher
• For cancers it was over 100% higher
• For respiratory diseases it was over 200% higher
• For injuries and poisonings it was over 150% higher

Did they get an equal chance? Please try to avoid sounding like the Python luxury sketch in your answer. 

When faced with the hard statistical evidence of the very real inequalities in Ireland today, Purple and shneak attempt to move the goalposts and position any attempt to address these inequalities as 'communism'. Readers should keep this in mind when considering the public sector bashing comments on this and other thread.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Hold your horses here, Purple . You told us earlier that the class war was over, and now you think that 'more can be done'. Make your mind up.


There is inequality but there is no "class war" in Ireland. That sort of rhetoric went out before the Second World War. Poverty is primarily a social problem in Ireland. I, and many of my friends, come from areas of social deprivation. We had about the same opportunities as other kids in our area and about the same as kids from average socio-economic backgrounds. If parents let their kids skip school, stay out late, neglect their education and generally behave like scumbags that has nothing to do with household income and everything to do with bad parenting. The same goes for bad diet and smoking. It is not the fault or responsibility of those who work hard and raise their children to be productive members of society that others fail in their duty to their children. I think that the state should use its resources to help the children of these bad parents to overcome the disadvantage that being raised by bad parents gives them but that has nothing to do with class wars, multinationals or any feeling of misplaced guilt that the smoked salmon socialists in the Labour Party feel.



Complainer said:


> No-one mentioned 'communist style equality'. I know it suits your arguement to put two and two together to make 27, but let's stick to a bit of reality here.


 What sort of equality would you like to see? Do you think that people should not be free to do things that damage their health or prospects in the medium to long term? Beyond equality of opportunity what sort of equality would you look for? 


Complainer said:


> Perhaps you could explain how the equality of opportunity applies to the households with a person with a long-term illness or disability that have double the risk of poverty? Perhaps you could explain how equality of opportunity applies those in the lowest occupational class whose risk of death is between 100% and 200% higher than those in the highest occupational class?
> 
> • For circulatory diseases it was over 120% higher
> • For cancers it was over 100% higher
> • For respiratory diseases it was over 200% higher
> • For injuries and poisonings it was over 150% higher
> 
> Did they get an equal chance? Please try to avoid sounding like the Python luxury sketch in your answer.


 “Johnny Blue” and fast food have more to do with it than class wars. You can avoid eating bad food, get exercise and not smoke no matter what occupational class you are in. By the way, what is an occupational class? Is it sort of labelling so beloved by socialists who seeks to trap people in their social strata or is it just more meaningless jargon that judges people based only on their income and address?



Complainer said:


> When faced with the hard statistical evidence of the very real inequalities in Ireland today, Purple and shneak attempt to move the goalposts and position any attempt to address these inequalities as 'communism'. Readers should keep this in mind when considering the public sector bashing comments on this and other thread.


 I am faced with statistical evidence that some people don’t take care of themselves or teach their children to do so. But guess what, they are adults and choose to behave in that way. They have no one to blame but themselves. I smoke on occasion. If I get cancer from my bad habit it will be no one’s fault but mine. The same would apply if I drank too much or spent all my money in a bookie’s.  
Again I will state the blindingly obvious: We should not strive for equality. We should strive for equality of opportunity so that those who choose to better themselves are not held back by bias or lack of resources. We should not seek to provide a living to those who are capable of providing it for themselves (see my signature).


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> There is inequality but there is no "class war" in Ireland. That sort of rhetoric went out before the Second World War. Poverty is primarily a social problem in Ireland. I, and many of my friends, come from areas of social deprivation. We had about the same opportunities as other kids in our area and about the same as kids from average socio-economic backgrounds. If parents let their kids skip school, stay out late, neglect their education and generally behave like scumbags that has nothing to do with household income and everything to do with bad parenting. The same goes for bad diet and smoking. It is not the fault or responsibility of those who work hard and raise their children to be productive members of society that others fail in their duty to their children. I think that the state should use its resources to help the children of these bad parents to overcome the disadvantage that being raised by bad parents gives them but that has nothing to do with class wars, multinationals or any feeling of misplaced guilt that the smoked salmon socialists in the Labour Party feel.



Well, you clearly failed on the 'not sounding like the Python luxury sketch' requirement. Let's see if we can highlight the other gaping holes in these arguments. 

It's just so easy to spout off the 'Daily Mail' blame-the-parents line without bothering to go just a little below the surface and look at root cause. So now it's all the parents fault. Have you ever stopped to think why (according to your explanation) bad parenting is prevalent in areas of economic deprivation? Or perhaps that would be cutting it just a little too close to the bone. And do come up with a credible explanation of how long-term illness and disability is all their own fault too.



Purple said:


> What sort of equality would you like to see? Do you think that people should not be free to do things that damage their health or prospects in the medium to long term? Beyond equality of opportunity what sort of equality would you look for?
> “Johnny Blue” and fast food have more to do with it than class wars. You can avoid eating bad food, get exercise and not smoke no matter what occupational class you are in. By the way, what is an occupational class? Is it sort of labelling so beloved by socialists who seeks to trap people in their social strata or is it just more meaningless jargon that judges people based only on their income and address?



Occupational class is explained (not surprisingly) in the report that I linked to earlier. You might also be interested to check out the root causes of the links between smoking and low income - Try [broken link removed] and you might want to rethink your points.



Purple said:


> I am faced with statistical evidence that some people don’t take care of themselves or teach their children to do so. But guess what, they are adults and choose to behave in that way. They have no one to blame but themselves. I smoke on occasion. If I get cancer from my bad habit it will be no one’s fault but mine. The same would apply if I drank too much or spent all my money in a bookie’s.
> Again I will state the blindingly obvious: We should not strive for equality. We should strive for equality of opportunity so that those who choose to better themselves are not held back by bias or lack of resources. We should not seek to provide a living to those who are capable of providing it for themselves (see my signature).


Again, I'd be very interested in your explanation of how long-term illness or disability comes under the heading 'people don't take care of themselves'. Perhaps you subscribe to the [broken link removed]. It's a bit hard to keep yourself healthy when you can't afford the €80 per month perscription fees. It's a bit hard to keep yourself healthy when you don't have a warm coat, or a warm house.

No-one with a slim grasp on reality believes that a child born into a family with 3rd generation unemployment mixed in with a range of addiction issues gets the same opportunities at education/employment/development as a child who born into a comfortable middle-class family that can pay to get the best healthcare and the best network.


----------



## Complainer

uiop said:


> 1) Wheres your credible explanation ? Chernobyl/Sellafield/Overhead power lines/genetics etc ?  How much of this is under government control. All I get from your style of writing is  an offended tone as though we are expected to be mindreaders.
> 
> 2) How is it the governments fault ? Unless you blame the government for not taking away their freedom. . . or for not implementing genetic engineering/enforced sterilisation...


Look up. That's my point up there flying right over your head. Fault is not the issue here. It's not a question of who is at fault or who caused the disability or long-term illness. The issue is the failure of Government to create anything like equality of opportunity for people in such circumstances. 

Have a look at recent updates from AHEAD about how we treat students with disabilities;

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

Now tell me where is the much acclaimed 'equality of opportunity' there?




uiop said:


> So what ? Any government paper is going to seek to 'stigmatise' smoking. Calling it low class is only one way it is being done. The paper proves nothing.


Eh the ESRI is not the Government. It is a private, independent body. It does recieve some Government funding for some aspects of its work, but it is not the Government. I guess you didn't read beyond the title of the paper. I'll be happy to discuss the finer points when you've actually read it.




uiop said:


> Thats nonsense. Theres a government scheme whereby prescription costs are refunded above a certain amount regardless of income or means.
> [broken link removed]. The Drug Payment scheme has been in operation for many years. The fact you mentioned the figure of €80 per month highlights your ignorance.


Yes, there is a lot of ignorance flying round here. I was specifically referring to the Drugs Payment Scheme in my comment. The limit used to be in the region of €80 per month, and has now increased to [broken link removed]. I'd be very interested to hear how a family with one parent working in a typical low-skill role (warehousing, security, hygiene) and the other minding children with a cleaning job mornings/evenings for pin money can find €90 per month for prescriptions?





uiop said:


> Apparently if this 'class' of people are chain smoking (according to you) then since they can obviously afford so many expensive cigarettes; its' down to choice if they dont' wish to spend 10 euro on a thermal blanket. Or are they too lazy to go down to the local charity shop/health board and beg for a coat. Which is it ? Since you ignored my earlier questions I'll expect yet another fudge followed by a raft of outdated cliches.
> Reality check, which century are you living in ? You appear to be harking back to a time when the welfare state was non existant. However even in those times there still existed charity. Is there a little match girl outside your window by any chance ?


 Just for the record, it was Purple's glib 'Johnny Blue' comment that brought up the issue of smoking. There is indeed a fairly well-established link between low income and smoking. You seem to belive that there is no poverty in Ireland. I'm sure that will be news to the approx 300,000 people deemed by the CSO to be living in consistent poverty. Source: [broken link removed]. The little match girl may well be outside the window. It's probably a bit harder to recognise her and find her, but she does still exist.




uiop said:


> So how prevalent is this ? And what is your solution ? Over the last 10 years I am pretty sure anyone who wanted a job could get one. Even drug addicts got jobs on building sites on Pearse Street (in Dublin) such was the demand for labour.
> Families which have a culture of begging/unemployment are a special problem but I disagree that they won't have the wherewithal to scam some money off the system. I have never seen a gypsy without a jacket. Even the worst cases know what side their bread is buttered on. Drug addiction and crime (the solution of I steal the jacket and disregard the rights of others) is a separate issue and again is a choice made in free will with no lack of support if someone wishes to turn their back on it.
> The state can only provide opportunitys; not impose them or provide people with a meaning for their lives. They have to find that meaning and purpose for themselves.



3rd generation employment does indeed exist. I did some work with a primary school in Jobstown as part of a programme to expose the kids to people who work, as they probably don't know anyone in their extended family who has a job. I'm sure the people who are waiting  will be delighted to hear that there is 'no lock of support if someone wishes to turn their back'.

The state has a long, long way to go in providing equality of opportunity for all its citizens. 

To get back to the R-word, the noises coming from Government, the response to recession will be to cut services from the most vulnerable citizens, while continuing to create a two-tier society by privatising more and more services.

Equality - yea, righ.....


----------



## ubiquitous

Time (once again) to shut this thread in my opinion. 423 posts to date and getting worse and worse the longer it goes on...


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Look up. That's my point up there flying right over your head. Fault is not the issue here. It's not a question of who is at fault or who caused the disability or long-term illness. The issue is the failure of Government to create anything like equality of opportunity for people in such circumstances.


So now you are talking about equality of opportunity. In that I agree with you.




Complainer said:


> You seem to belive that there is no poverty in Ireland. I'm sure that will be news to the approx 300,000 people deemed by the CSO to be living in consistent poverty. Source: [broken link removed]. The little match girl may well be outside the window. It's probably a bit harder to recognise her and find her, but she does still exist.


 I never suggested that there was no poverty in Ireland. I suggested that the root cause was more social than economic 




Complainer said:


> 3rd generation employment does indeed exist. I did some work with a primary school in Jobstown as part of a programme to expose the kids to people who work, as they probably don't know anyone in their extended family who has a job.


 I was born in an area where third generation unemployment was common.  I have friends who are the first in their family to have a job in 30 years so I know all about it. Your work in the school in Jobstown (which is laudable) lends weight to the opinion that the problem is primarily social.  



Complainer said:


> The state has a long, long way to go in providing equality of opportunity for all its citizens.


 Again I agree but funding should be directed toward making it as easy as possible for people to take care of themselves rather than toward the state taking care of them. For example the money the state will spend sending my children to 3rd level would be better spent providing a good income for students from poor backgrounds while they go to 3rd level. Imagine if a 18 year old from the school you went to in Jobstown received €100 on top of what he would get on the dole if he went to college (and passed his exams)? That would be money much better spent than allowing me to go on a few more family holidays over the next 10-15 years. 



Complainer said:


> To get back to the R-word, the noises coming from Government, the response to recession will be to cut services from the most vulnerable citizens, while continuing to create a two-tier society by privatising more and more services.


 I do not support cutting services to the most vulnerable but I do support the provision of services as long as delivery criteria remains as is. There is no fundamental link between privatising provision and creating a two-tier system.


----------



## redstar

Complainer said:


> Pure fiction, yet again. Bonuses do exist within the public sector, for many senior executives in the civil service, local authorities and some public bodies - remember the furore when Prof Drumm picked up a substantial bonus. But keep on making up stories about the public sector if it makes you feel good.



So would a clerical officer of any grade get a bonus for a job well done ? 
Are bonuses only reserved for the senior grade officers and heads ? 
Why are the unions not fighting this inequality and demanding performance related pay for ALL public service staff ?
(ps my wife and sis-in-law both work in the public sector - they are my sources, not 'made up' stories. So there  )


----------



## shnaek

According to the CSO:

Consistent Poverty means having an income below 60% of the median and also experiencing enforced deprivation. This means being on a low income and not being able to afford basic necessities such as new clothes, not having the money to buy food such as meat or fish, not being able to heat your home, or having to go into debt to pay ordinary household bills. 

Well, this figure is likely to get lower as our 'median' income is reduced over the next few years. Also, anyone got a link to where they come up with the 'median' level of income?


----------



## eileen alana

Figures just released from CSO show 10,000 people joined the live register in June.


----------



## television

Purple poverty is a complex issue. You arguing that it is a social and not economic problem is pretty spurious. As any serious analysis of poverty would suggest that the causes of poverty and both social and economic, in fact they both factors are intertwined.

You talk about equality of oppurtunity as opposed to equality, but the problem with this is the untimate rationale for equality of oppurtunity is if fact EQUALITY. Or at least giving poor people the chance to have a life where they will be comfortable, understand the value of education, good health, being an active citizen etc. 

generational poverty will not be solved by your "get on your bike" solution to the poor. You say you come from an area where there was poverty, yet your attitude towards the poor is one of simplistic blame. This is a real shame as it people like you that could offer important insights into the complexity. Yet you choose to settle for "Johnny blue" jibes as a way of undermining issues assciated with poverty. 

Equality of oppurtunity, yes we all aggree this is the best we can strive for. Yet it is a fact that privatisation education will do nothing to bridge the gap between of oppurtunity between the rich and poor. It will further widen the gap. 

Let me give you an example, I have worked on the Trinity Access programme. It aims to get students from socioeconomically deprived areas the chance to go to college. However even with the best supports avalible for these kids, i.e. extra tuition, grants, etc it is very difficult to fit in to the student body at large. See the other students have developed a life of cultural and social capitial and networks etc. And these kids do not want to share cultural and social capitial with kids from clondalkin or finglas. (Now I am not saying that kids from clondalkin do not go to trinity etc on thier own merits and get on great, but this is very rare and these kids have to fight against very subtle but very real prejudices.) These prejudices exist against the poor everywhere, and manifiest themselves in the simplictic "blame the poor its thier own fault" rethoric to more overt and insedious forms of descrimination.


----------



## shnaek

Television - purple and uiop come from a poor background and have expressed their opinions. Surely these are the people the government should be listening to? Unless you come from a poor background yourself and are offering your opinions based on that experience?


----------



## Pique318

shnaek said:


> Purple and uiop come from a poor background and have expressed their opinions.


Yeah but that doesn't mean that they're right. There's an exception to every rule, you know (2 in this case)


----------



## ubiquitous

shnaek said:


> Television - purple and uiop come from a poor background and have expressed their opinions. Surely these are the people the government should be listening to? Unless you come from a poor background yourself and are offering your opinions based on that experience?



I think it was John Drennan who once criticised a Labour Party politician as someone "who would be happier talking to the Combat Poverty Agency than to the poor"


----------



## Protocol

Just to let you know the two main methods of calculating poverty rates in Ireland.

The first is "at-risk-of-poverty".  As the name implies, this means you are not necessarily suffering, but you do have a low income, so any negative event could cause you major difficulties.

Also known as relative income poverty, as you have a low income relative to everybody else.

How is this calculated?

See the relevant CSO publication:
[broken link removed]

What they do is estimate the disposable income per equivalised person, then they get 60% of it, and set this as the "poverty line". If your disp income is below this, then you are "at-risk-of-poverty".

Net disp household income = 834.44
Net disp income per person = 406.84

60% of median equivalised disp income = 202.49

17% of people are under this threshold, that is our rate of relative poverty.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Purple poverty is a complex issue. You arguing that it is a social and not economic problem is pretty spurious. As any serious analysis of poverty would suggest that the causes of poverty and both social and economic, in fact they both factors are intertwined.


 Please read my posts again, I said that the primary cause was social. Of course economic issues factor in the equation. 



television said:


> You talk about equality of oppurtunity as opposed to equality, but the problem with this is the untimate rationale for equality of oppurtunity is if fact EQUALITY. Or at least giving poor people the chance to have a life where they will be comfortable, understand the value of education, good health, being an active citizen etc.


 I agree completely. My point is that you cannot give people a nebulous form of equality, you can only give them equal access to the tools which offer them the chance to have the life they want.  



television said:


> generational poverty will not be solved by your "get on your bike" solution to the poor. You say you come from an area where there was poverty, yet your attitude towards the poor is one of simplistic blame. This is a real shame as it people like you that could offer important insights into the complexity. Yet you choose to settle for "Johnny blue" jibes as a way of undermining issues assciated with poverty.


 It’s not that complex. Some people are happy to live for the now and not build a better life for themselves and their children. Others want more. What the state needs to do in help to instil that desire for betterment in children when their parents fail to do so. The programme you were part of in Jobstown is just the sort of thing we need more of.  By the way I smoked Johnny Blue for years so it was more a David McWilliams style label than a jibe. I have outlined the sort of pandering to middle income voters, dresses up as an initiative to help the poor, that annoys me. 



television said:


> Equality of oppurtunity, yes we all aggree this is the best we can strive for. Yet it is a fact that privatisation education will do nothing to bridge the gap between of oppurtunity between the rich and poor. It will further widen the gap.


 As long as the state funds access for the poor it doesn’t matter who provides the education.



television said:


> Let me give you an example, I have worked on the Trinity Access programme. It aims to get students from socioeconomically deprived areas the chance to go to college. However even with the best supports avalible for these kids, i.e. extra tuition, grants, etc it is very difficult to fit in to the student body at large. See the other students have developed a life of cultural and social capitial and networks etc. And these kids do not want to share cultural and social capitial with kids from clondalkin or finglas. (Now I am not saying that kids from clondalkin do not go to trinity etc on thier own merits and get on great, but this is very rare and these kids have to fight against very subtle but very real prejudices.)


 I am familiar with the Trinity outreach programme and thing it is a great idea but the majority of the funding needs to go into early primary school education (and in fairness a lot does). I have outlined how I think funding should be targeted for students like the one in your example rather than spread around to people (like me) who don’t really need it. Don’t get me wrong, sending my kids to third level without state funding would not be easy but I could do it with planning and time. 




television said:


> No one is seriously suggesting that the government should turn around and redistribute wealth to make all people equal in that respect. So really you are arguing for nothing really here. We all aggree that equality of oppurtunity is what is needed, but this does not exist and this is the cause of inequality.


 True equality will never exist as there will always be some level of bias, nepotism, racism etc in society but again the root cause is not an economic one. Giving people things that they are capable of providing for themselves does not solve the problem; it perpetuates it.


----------



## csirl

I'm not sure of the effectiveness of these access programmes. People from these areas have attended Trinity even before these access programmes were in place. Like uiop they knuckled down and studied in school when other kids were off doing whatever. When in college, they worked part time to fund themselves. However, in recent years, the Trinity Access programme tries to justify its existance by saying that these kids are the product of its work rather that the reality is that these kids would have got there anyway. One friend of mine  - his younger brother went to TCD post the introduction of this programme and was labelled as one of its success stories. However, like his older brother, he would have gone anyway under his own steam.


----------



## Purple

pique318 said:


> yeah But That Doesn't Mean That They're Right. There's An Exception To Every Rule, You Know (2 In This Case) :d


:d


----------



## Protocol

Note that our rate is relatively high compared to other EU countries.

See here:

[broken link removed]

Also note that relative income poverty can never be 0%.


----------



## csirl

You can count me as number 3 along with Purple & Uiop. Though not from a family of systemic unemployment, neither of my parents had much formal education. My father worked for 40 years in relatively low paid employment (and experienced being laid off in the 80s recession). A lot of kids I went to school with had unemployed parents. My school was and still is formally labelled as "disadvantaged" by D/Education. 

The difference between my family and others my area was that my parents had a work ethic and by not drinking excessively, smoking, gambling etc. were able to afford a mortgage when others with higher incomes took the easy option of council housing and some the even easier option of not working. When my father was made redundant in the 80s with no prospect of ever working in his area of employment ever again, to use an old Tory expression, "he got up on his bike and went searching for work" and started from the bottom again at entry level in another totally different type of job.

Myself and my 4 siblings all went to college, and all paid our own way through working part time throughout. I know from personal experience that these "barriers" that left wing people talk about are all in the mind - anyone in this country with a bit of work ethic can get themselves out of poverty very easily.


----------



## shnaek

Protocol said:


> What they do is estimate the disposable income per equivalised person, then they get 60% of it, and set this as the "poverty line". If your disp income is below this, then you are "at-risk-of-poverty".



Why chose 60%? Either way, as a previous poster has pointed out, this goalpost will be moving until the end of time. There will always be people living below 60% of the CSO's median for whatever reasons. I don't think anyone is arguing this isn't the case. The debate is what we do about it. Some believe equality of opportunity is key. Other's believe we should live in the Republic of Marx.


----------



## shnaek

csirl said:


> The difference between my family and others my area was that my parents had a work ethic and by not drinking excessively, smoking, gambling etc. were able to afford a mortgage when others with higher incomes took the easy option of council housing and some the even easier option of not working. When my father was made redundant in the 80s with no prospect of ever working in his area of employment ever again, to use an old Tory expression, "he got up on his bike and went searching for work" and started from the bottom again at entry level in another totally different type of job.



Indeed. This type of honourable work ethic is paramount. Bad parenting has a lot to answer for, in terms of social disadvantage. And I am not talking of mental, age, or phsyical disadvantage here. These people should get 100% support in every way. 

But as far as the work-shy, criminal, or addicted to substances go - how should the government intervene here in order to instill the proper work ethic and respect for society, community and oneself? I have many friends from poor backgrounds, and my own isn't wealthy either. I have friends from the poorest parts of town. They aren't whinging about equality. One of them has started up his own business, and one of them has started a community network bringing people (including former drug addicts) together for a common purpose. Sometimes they get patronised by outsiders from wealthy backgrounds too. But they are doing it for themselves.


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> I know from personal experience that these "barriers" that left wing people talk about are all in the mind - anyone in this country with a bit of work ethic can get themselves out of poverty very easily.


 In other words the probelm is primarily social, not economic.


----------



## shnaek

Purple said:


> In other words the problem is primarily social, not economic.



Hear, hear.

And back to the civil servants again:


4% increase in their expenses. Or was that a 4% increment? Either way, this isn't going to help us fight our way out of recession.


----------



## Protocol

The higher rates for travel and subsistence apply across the public sector.

See here:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5326&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2008&m=c

and here:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5327&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2008&m=c


----------



## Purple

Protocol said:


> The higher rates for travel and subsistence apply across the public sector.
> 
> See here:
> 
> http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5326&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2008&m=c
> 
> and here:
> 
> http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5327&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2008&m=c



The increases are small and costs are going up. I don't think that this will ruin the country.


----------



## shnaek

Purple said:


> The increases are small and costs are going up. I don't think that this will ruin the country.


I don't think anyone would begrudge genuine mileage. However, the fact that most claim around the €4000 mark indicates possible abuse of the system.


----------



## ubiquitous

shnaek said:


> 4% increase in their expenses. Or was that a 4% increment? Either way, this isn't going to help us fight our way out of recession.



I don't think it is hard to argue that motor costs in general have increased by a lot more than 4% since last July.


----------



## csirl

Someone once told me that one of the motivations in getting these rates increased is the knock on effects on TDs expenses.


----------



## Complainer

shnaek said:


> Hear, hear.
> 
> And back to the civil servants again:
> 
> 
> 4% increase in their expenses. Or was that a 4% increment? Either way, this isn't going to help us fight our way out of recession.



Good to see the Herald keeping up Independent Group's usual high standards for printing fiction masquerading as fact. The writer doesn't get it. Here's the truth about expenses. The mileage rate is pretty good, the subsistence rates are pretty crap. However, corporate policies insist on use of public transport where available. Anywhere on regular train routes means train journey.

What the writer omits to mention about the overnight rate is that it covers accomodation and food. Try getting a decent overnight room plus breakfast/lunch/dinner on €140 odd and you'll see how generous the expenses are. The only way to avoid being out of pocket on the overnight rate is stay at a B&B (€50-€60 a night) and not a hotel. 

On a recent trip to Cork, I stayed in Jury's Inn to be with some contractor colleagues who were working with me. The overnight rate was €85 and breakfast was an additional €12. We ate in Isaac's for dinner (no dessert, 1/2 bottle house wine €50). So I went over  my allowance before I got lunch.

The Herald's make-up numbers of somebody spending 30 nights away from home with zero outgoings (no breakfast/lunch/dinner/accomodation) is simply ludicrous. I'd take his claim that most staff claim 4,000 with a large pinch of salt unless there is come credible source for this.


The silly, unplanned decentralisation programme has resulted in a huge increase in T&S payments - just one of the many reasons why this programme should be promptly shelved until a rational, planned programme can be put in place.

To get back to the equality issue, have any of the other posters on this thread wondered why bad parenting seems to be more common in areas of low income, and why heroin addiction seems to be more common in areas of low income?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> The silly, unplanned decentralisation programme has resulted in a huge increase in T&S payments - just one of the many reasons why this programme should be promptly shelved until a rational, planned programme can be put in place.


I agree



Complainer said:


> To get back to the equality issue, have any of the other posters on this thread wondered why bad parenting seems to be more common in areas of low income


Have you ever considered that you may have the root cause and effect backward?


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> I agree
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that you may have the root cause and effect backward?


Ah, the chicken and egg question. Now we're getting places at last. So you're suggesting that the bad parenting skills are the cause of their low income. So perhaps you might like to explain the statistical improbability of a large number of people with bad parenting skills randomly choosing to live in the same community?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Ah, the chicken and egg question. Now we're getting places at last.


It may be unintentional but your didactic tone is condescending and quite bizarre as you have not alluded to this question before. No one here is talking in absolutes so a degree of interconnectedness is a given in all discussions like this.




Complainer said:


> So you're suggesting that the bad parenting skills are the cause of their low income. So perhaps you might like to explain the statistical improbability of a large number of people with bad parenting skills randomly choosing to live in the same community?


 I am suggesting that the root cause of poverty is social rather than economic. Adults have free will in this country and as such can choose to change their environment or move to a different one. I am not saying it is easy, it is not but the function of government should be to make the decision easier for the person to make, not make it easier for them to just stay where they are.   

As a tradesman from a lower socioeconomic background (but by no means deprived or poor as my parents became quite well off throughout my childhood) I detest the term “Working class”. We are citizens in a republic; we should reject any and all attempts to be classified into immobile social or economic strata.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Purple_, you prefer "_lower socioeconomic background_" to "_working class_"?  I'm not so sure about that.


----------



## Purple

This is a republic, we have no class system. Go and live in the UK for a few years if you want to see a country that has one and see how vile it is. 
"Working class pride" means "I have bugger all, I want my children to have bugger all, and I'm proud of it". These are exactly the sorts of reactive people who suffer most in a recession.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> I am suggesting that the root cause of poverty is social rather than economic.


 
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?


----------



## television

Purple said:


> "Working class pride" means "I have bugger all, I want my children to have bugger all, and I'm proud of it". These are exactly the sorts of reactive people who suffer most in a recession.


 
This is what working class pride means to you. my own father was working class . He never felt that he "wanted his children to have bugger all" but he tried to instill in us a sence to understanding that being poor is not a badge of dishonour. Values like working hard for a fair days pay, providing for your family and supporting your extended family, helping those less fortunate than yourself, the importance of community, respecting authority, and most importantly getting an education. These are working class values, and they are the values I will try to give my children and I always consider myself working class.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

television said:


> my own father was working class .


OMG


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> OMG


 
Explain?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

No. no, I don't mean to offend. Some of my best friends are WC. I just thought u were kinda intelligent, maybe even D4. I'm just in a bit of a shock.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> No. no, I don't mean to offend. Some of my best friends are WC. I just thought u were kinda intelligent, maybe even D4. I'm just in a bit of a shock.


 
No actually my father was a judge, but he had a working class mentality. and another thing if you are not being ironic about the "i just thought you were kinda intelligent" remark then intelligence is not awarded by post code.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Anyway what's wrong with a bit of R?  Japan has had R more or less for the last 20 years and I don't  hear them asking for food parcels.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?



I can give an example(I will generalise slightly in order to make my point).

When I got married first I bought a house in a newish suburb of Dublin. Most of my neighbours were from what other posters here would describe as a working class area. Most of their siblings still lived in those areas. When I lived there it would be safe to say that my neighbours had a lower disposable income than their siblings in the nearby council estate. Now, more than 10 years later, my former neighbours have their own home, their kids are going to college and they have a good standard of living. Their siblings are still in the same rut they were in 10 years ago. 

What's the difference between the two groups other than attitude?


----------



## tyoung

Harchibald said:


> Anyway what's wrong with a bit of R?  Japan has had R more or less for the last 20 years and I don't  hear them asking for food parcels.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/asia/12japan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


----------



## television

Purple said:


> I can give an example(I will generalise slightly in order to make my point).
> 
> When I got married first I bought a house in a newish suburb of Dublin. Most of my neighbours were from what other posters here would describe as a working class area. Most of their siblings still lived in those areas. When I lived there it would be safe to say that my neighbours had a lower disposable income than their siblings in the nearby council estate. Now, more than 10 years later, my former neighbours have their own home, their kids are going to college and they have a good standard of living. Their siblings are still in the same rut they were in 10 years ago.
> 
> What's the difference between the two groups other than attitude?


 
Not a great explaination of the your hypothesis that the cause of poverty is social rather than economic i am afraid. 

You seem to be suggesting that the cause of poverty is attitude, would you like to elaborate?


----------



## Purple

television said:


> This is what working class pride means to you.  my own father was working class . He never felt that he "wanted his children to have bugger all" but he tried to instill in us a sence to understanding that being poor is not a badge of dishonour. Values like working hard for a fair days pay, providing for your family ans supporting your entended family, helping those less fortunate than yourself, the importance of community, respecting authority, and most importantly getting an education. These are working class values, and they are the values I will try to give my children and I always consider myself working class.


These are the qualities of a good citizen, "working class" or otherwise. I would hope that all parents try to teach their children these values regardless of what socioeconomic group they are born into. Can I take it that he also tried to instil in you a sense that there was nothing wrong with doing well through your own hard work?  People like that are called class traitors in England.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Not a great explaination of the your hypothesis that the cause of poverty is social rather than economic i am afraid.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that the cause of poverty is attitude, would you like to elaborate?



You are making no attempt to be constructive here.  I am engaging in a discussion but your tone suggests that I should in some way seek your approval. This is not the case. While I enjoy the discussion I feel no compulsion to seek your approval as I regard your biases and preconceptions as intellectually lazy. You have taken an ideological position and accept only views and discourse that supports your ideology.  

I have given you an example and tried to explain my views over a number of pages of posts. 
Would you care to let us know what you thing the root cause of poverty is?


----------



## television

Purple said:


> These are the qualities of a good citizen, "working class" or otherwise. I would hope that all parents try to teach their children these values regardless of what socioeconomic group they are born into. Can I take it that he also tried to instil in you a sense that there was nothing wrong with doing well through your own hard work? People like that are called class traitors in England.


 
No I am afraid a class traitor is someone who turns thier back on thier working class roots and becomes, to basterdise a phrase "more thatcherite that thatcher herself", so to speak. ( I see a lot of that from people on here). Hard work is a core working class value. But hard work to feed your family and to give a little extra back for the good of the community, knowing that there is always someone worse off than your self.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> You are making no attempt to be constructive here. I am engaging in a discussion but your tone suggests that I should in some way seek your approval. This is not the case. While I enjoy the discussion I feel no compulsion to seek your approval as I regard your biases and preconceptions as intellectually lazy. You have taken an ideological position and accept only views and discourse that supports your ideology.
> 
> I have given you an example and tried to explain my views over a number of pages of posts.
> Would you care to let us know what you thing the root cause of poverty is?


 
Nice way of deflecting yourself from answering a question that you know you is pretty much unanswerable. Because I know you have probably reasoned out the flaws in your own argument and dont want to be trapped.


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> *  I am suggesting that the root cause of poverty is social rather than economic. *Adults have free will in this country and as such can choose to change their environment or move to a different one. I am not saying it is easy, it is not but the function of government should be to make the decision easier for the person to make, not make it easier for them to just stay where they are.


Like television, I'm struggling to understand what exactly is meant by the highlighted comment above. In human terms, what are you saying about the root cause of poverty in an area like, for example, Jobstown. 

I could take a stab at your position, based on what you are saying and not saying, but that would probably be a bit unfair.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> You are making no attempt to be constructive here. I am engaging in a discussion but your tone suggests that I should in some way seek your approval. This is not the case. While I enjoy the discussion I feel no compulsion to seek your approval as I regard your biases and preconceptions as intellectually lazy. You have taken an ideological position and accept only views and discourse that supports your ideology.
> 
> I have given you an example and tried to explain my views over a number of pages of posts.
> Would you care to let us know what you thing the root cause of poverty is?


 
1. You choose to define working class in the most dirogatory way possible.
2. You come up with the most simplicstic diatribe about the nature and reasons for poverty which no more amounts to blaming the poor for being lazy, and you call my arguments intellictually lazy?


----------



## Complainer

Actually, I see my post crossed with the latest exchange between Purple and Television, and that Purple appears to be indicating the primary root cause of poverty to be attitude.

Purple - If I've misinterpreted you, accept my apologies and feel free to correct. If not, have you any explanation why some many people with 'bad attitude' end up living beside each other in certain communities?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tyoung said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/asia/12japan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Wow! AAM is a great learning experience. All the same, it seems to me that Japan with more R than you can shake a stick at still isn't third world.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> No I am afraid a class traitor is someone who turns thier back on thier working class roots and becomes, to basterdise a phrase "more thatcherite that thatcher herself", so to speak. ( I see a lot of that from people on here).


 Is that a swipe at those who disagree with you on this thread?



television said:


> Hard work is a core working class value. But hard work to feed your family and to give a little extra back for the good of the community, knowing that there is always someone worse off than your self.


 If that was the case “working class” areas would not be crime and unemployment black-spots. I work hard to feed my family and give them a good life. I give back in the form of time, taxes and other donations, but I am not working class since we do not have a class stratified society and people are generally judged on who they are, not where they came from.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Because I know you have probably reasoned out the flaws in your own argument and dont want to be trapped.


 What flaws?
So far you have presented no counter argument so I am at a loss as to what you are talking about.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> Is that a swipe at those who disagree with you on this thread?
> 
> Not a swipe an observation.
> 
> 
> 
> Purple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a swipe at those who disagree with you on this thread?
> 
> Not a swipe an observation.
> 
> If that was the case “working class” areas would not be crime and unemployment black-spots. I work hard to feed my family and give them a good life. I give back in the form of time, taxes and other donations, but I am not working class since we do not have a class stratified society and people are generally judged on who they are, not where they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not distinguishing between traditional working class values and socio economic deprived areas of today. Core working class values have been slowly seeping away from these areas . It is difficult to understand why this is the case. perhaps its the culture of greed and self centeredness that have developed since thatcher that has lead to the disintegration of community and a sence of shared identity.
> 
> Whatever the reason, where as in the past there was value and honor in being working class today it is a badge of dishonour. Mindless consumerism, the quick fix to happiness, the me fein mentality, are all contributing factors to disempowering the ideal/value of being working class.
> 
> I brought up the idea of social and cultural capitial and its implications for a understanding of the poverty dynamic. I am not going to lecture people on this, but I feel in order for me to have any serious discussion with you about poverty you need an understanding of these concepts
> 
> On class.It may not be as easily identifyable as the sterotypical english version, but there is definate class distinctions in ireland. But in reality this is not the point. The main question is what is the cause of poverty, you suggest it is social rather than economic and I still do not know what you mean?
> 
> Maybe further clarification from you will see us agreeing?
Click to expand...


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Like television, I'm struggling to understand what exactly is meant by the highlighted comment above. In human terms, what are you saying about the root cause of poverty in an area like, for example, Jobstown.
> 
> I could take a stab at your position, based on what you are saying and not saying, but that would probably be a bit unfair.


As I am sure you know the problems of Jobstown go back a long way, way before there was a Jobstown. I will take it that you don’t need a history lesson on the area.
So let’s take a kid in a school in Jobstown (I’m generalising as there are always exceptions and assuming that it’s the same as the sort of area that I was born in and the area I work in now). 
His parents aren’t pushed if he does his Leaving Cert and even if he does they consider his passing his leaving cert to be a big deal. He goes to school with kids who have the same attitude, whose parents have the same attitude, and socialised with same. Even if the kid wants to achieve he will be met with well meaning parental indifference or peer-group pressure not to be a “swat”. None of these problems are economic but all of them lead to and perpetuate a cycle of poverty. Go on one generation, the same kid is now a man living in the same area and has his own kids. He has fallen into the cycle of low level depression (with the accompanying increased likelihood of substance abuse and gambling) and is very exposed to economic downturns as he has no marketable skills. 
Therefore what is required in increased educational resources at early primary school in particular, better public transport so that people in these areas without cars are not trapped in the same square mile and whatever else offers kids there a chance to see what life can offer beyond their own small horizon.  
Of course we are not talking about the majority of people in Jobstown, or Clondalkin, or West Finglas, or any other urban area of the country with high unemployment, but most of the people in those areas are not living in poverty; they are attempting to create a better life for themselves and their families.    

Now, I have left myself open to attack by offering my views openly. I ask again; what, in your opinion, is the root cause of povety?


----------



## television

Purple said:


> Therefore what is required in increased educational resources at early primary school in particular, better public transport so that people in these areas without cars are not trapped in the same square mile and whatever else offers kids there a chance to see what life can offer beyond their own small horizon.


 
Aggreed, but now your rethoric is taking on a more concilatory and less bombastic tone. You now realise that generational poverty is not about an inherent laziness among the poor which is whaat you have been consistantly implying.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> You are not distinguishing between traditional working class values and socio economic deprived areas of today. Core working class values have been slowly seeping away from these areas . It is difficult to understand why this is the case. perhaps its the culture of greed and self centeredness that have developed since thatcher that has lead to the disintegration of community and a sence of shared identity.


 I don’t see how you can suggest that values of good citizenry should be defined as working class and then suggest that there should be a distinction between those values and areas which, by your definitions, can only be defined as working class?




television said:


> Whatever the reason, where as in the past there was value and honor in being working class today it is a badge of dishonour. Mindless consumerism, the quick fix to happiness, the me fein mentality, are all contributing factors to disempowering the ideal/value of being working class.


 My grandparents and parents all grew up poor, I never heard them refer to themselves as working class. My mother’s family in particular was involved in the formation of the trade union movement here and they never used class titles.



television said:


> I brought up the idea of social and cultural capitial and its implications for a understanding of the poverty dynamic. I am not going to lecture people on this, but I feel in order for me to have any serious discussion with you about poverty you need an understanding of these concepts


 These concepts are quite mainstream and unless we are talking about different things they are also cultural rather than economic.



television said:


> On class.It may not be as easily identifyable as the sterotypical english version, but there is definate class distinctions in ireland. But in reality this is not the point.


 I agree that it is not the point. 


television said:


> The main question is what is the cause of poverty, you suggest it is social rather than economic and I still do not know what you mean?


 Can you explain what you do not understand? I have given many explanations and opinions over the last number of pages and yet you seem no closer to understanding my views. 



television said:


> Maybe further clarification from you will see us agreeing?


I am not seeking agreement or to justify my position. It would help if you attempted to clarify your position.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Aggreed, but now your rethoric is taking on a more concilatory and less bombastic tone. You now realise that generational poverty is not about an inherent laziness among the poor which is whaat you have been consistantly implying.


Your didactic and condescending tone not withstanding I have not changed my position at all. Increased resourced are required because some parents, through inadequacy, complacency or laziness, have not equipped themselves with the skills necessary to do their job as parents properly.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> Your didactic and condescending tone not withstanding I have not changed my position at all. Increased resourced are required because some parents, through inadequacy, complacency or laziness, have not equipped themselves with the skills necessary to do their job as parents properly.


 
Perhaps some parents are lazy or inadequate etc. But you seem to see this as traits inherent to the poor. I see them as a consequence of poverty. That is the difference. I do not blame people for this, generations of marginilisation will do that to you, generations of neglect, of terrible schools, of teachers from the middle classes picking up a pay check and not giving a dam and in fact looking down on their students, of social system ignoring the multidimentional nature of poverty and the multidementional nature of solutions. Yes putting money into primary school care but also tackle issues arround the wider public understanding and prejudices surrounding the poor, of the need to empower marginilised people to help themselves, of the need for a coorinated multiagency approach. But your attitude of mindless blame will propetuate the cycle.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Perhaps some parents are lazy or inadequate etc. But you seem to see this as traits inherent to the poor. I see them as a consequence of poverty. That is the difference. I do not blame people for this, generations of marginilisation will do that to you, generations of neglect, of terrible schools, of teachers from the middle classes picking up a pay check and not giving a dam and in fact looking down on their students, of social system ignoring the multidimentional nature of poverty and the multidementional nature of solutions. Yes putting money into primary school care but also tackle issues arround the wider public understanding and prejudices surrounding the poor, of the need to empower marginilised people to help themselves, of the need for a coorinated multiagency approach.


We are all, to some extent, products of our environment but adults have free will and can choose not to slip into a cycle of complacent underachievement. I do blame people for accepting their lot as if they are not good enough or intelligent enough to have better. I hold these views because I know so many people from these backgrounds that have given themselves and their family a better life. They did so not because they were better or smarter but because they choose to. 




television said:


> But your attitude of mindless blame will propetuate the cycle.


 Your simplistic attitude that those who disagree with you are mindless adds nothing to the debate.



television said:


> teachers from the middle classes picking up a pay check and not giving a dam and in fact looking down on their students, of social system ignoring the multidimentional nature of poverty and the multidementional nature of solutions


 With comments like this and your anti-business people comments earlier I m getting a distinct whiff of inverse snobbery.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TV said:
			
		

> You are not distinguishing between traditional working class values and socio economic deprived areas of today. Core working class values have been slowly seeping away from these areas . It is difficult to understand why this is the case. perhaps its the culture of greed and self centeredness that have developed since thatcher that has lead to the disintegration of community and a sence of shared identity.


Ah!! The good old days before Maggie. Let me see, 1979. Double digit inflation. Double digit unemployment. But I was alright, just got a raise to 11K punts, downside was I would now pay 65% tax + 7% PRSI. But living in lower middle class (sorry _Purple_) Firhouse, I felt smug. Except that weekend when my car was stolen not once but twice. First time recovered in Ballyfermot, second time not so lucky found burnt out in Fettercairn (neighbours of Jobstown). Working class values sure ain't what they used to be.


----------



## Purple

I went onto the highest tax band as a third year apprentice... ah, th good old days.
Oh, and last I checked we didn't live on Maggies farm...


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> As I am sure you know the problems of Jobstown go back a long way, way before there was a Jobstown. I will take it that you don’t need a history lesson on the area.
> So let’s take a kid in a school in Jobstown (I’m generalising as there are always exceptions and assuming that it’s the same as the sort of area that I was born in and the area I work in now).
> His parents aren’t pushed if he does his Leaving Cert and even if he does they consider his passing his leaving cert to be a big deal. He goes to school with kids who have the same attitude, whose parents have the same attitude, and socialised with same. Even if the kid wants to achieve he will be met with well meaning parental indifference or peer-group pressure not to be a “swat”. None of these problems are economic but all of them lead to and perpetuate a cycle of poverty. Go on one generation, the same kid is now a man living in the same area and has his own kids. He has fallen into the cycle of low level depression (with the accompanying increased likelihood of substance abuse and gambling) and is very exposed to economic downturns as he has no marketable skills.
> Therefore what is required in increased educational resources at early primary school in particular, better public transport so that people in these areas without cars are not trapped in the same square mile and whatever else offers kids there a chance to see what life can offer beyond their own small horizon.
> Of course we are not talking about the majority of people in Jobstown, or Clondalkin, or West Finglas, or any other urban area of the country with high unemployment, but most of the people in those areas are not living in poverty; they are attempting to create a better life for themselves and their families.
> 
> Now, I have left myself open to attack by offering my views openly. I ask again; what, in your opinion, is the root cause of povety?


There is not a  whole lot that I'd disagree with here, but this does not tell the full story. It is a relatively superficial analysis that doesn't really address root cause.

Firstly, you attribute a large part of the cause to what is effectively peer pressure, or the actions/views of the others in the environment. However, we need to ask the same question of the peers - What led them to act in this manner?

Secondly, you gloss over the impact of poor/no infrastructure. You mention improving schools and public transport as part of the solution, which of course I agree with, but you don't highlight these as part of the cause. I'm a firm believer that if you treat people badly, they will generally respond badly. If you put people into crap housing, with crap leisure facilities, and crap schools, with crap public transport links to the outside world, then it is not a huge surprise that they end up behaving in a somewhat anti-social manner.

I also believe you are mixing up treatment with prevention. I don't disagree with you that in some situations, there are things that a motivated individual can do to get themselves out of a hole. I do think that you are overplaying this card, as there are many, many reasons why this may not be possible. However, we need to aim for prevention rather than treatment. We need to aim to eliminate the social, environment and economic angles that come together to create areas of economic deprivation.

Addressing the many, many inequalities in our society is the first step along this road.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> Ah!! The good old days before Maggie. Let me see, 1979. Double digit inflation. .


 
Maggie may have improved the economy but my argument is that she did so to the detrement of society or at least to the ideals inherent to pride of the working class. A legacy of rampent greed and of ignoring the needs of the poor.


----------



## television

Complainer said:


> There is not a whole lot that I'd disagree with here, but this does not tell the full story. It is a relatively superficial analysis that doesn't really address root cause.


 
Aggree fully with this


----------



## television

Purple said:


> We are all, to some extent, products of our environment but adults have free will and can choose not to slip into a cycle of complacent underachievement.


 
You think a person  who has grown up in generational poverty has the same chance to make "free will" decisions as you term it, than a person coming from a nice middle class home with good parents who teach them the value of education, whos peers with similar embued asperations. Ones ability to act with free will that will help them make good life choices is highly dependant on thier circumstances.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TV said:


> Maggie may have improved the economy but my argument is that she did so to the detrement of society or at least to the ideals inherent to pride of the working class. A legacy of rampent greed and of ignoring the needs of the poor.


TV, that society thing was tried, it was called the Soviet experiment. I actually think many of those guys meant well. Unfortunately they completely misjudged the socio-economic beings that we are. There was no unemployment in the Soviet Union. Little crime. You wouldn't have mindless violence in the deprived areas, in fact relatively speaking no deprived areas. No drug problem. In short - utopia! 

But something was wrong. Western economies were pulling further and further ahead even moreso when Maggie and Ronnie reversed the socialist engines. The Soviet Union made a call - the society thing would condemn them to falling further and further behind - the capitalist model had won. 

If economic success is one of our goals it has been proven by experience to be best fostered by indivualism which can indeed be characterised by the denigrating terms you ascribe to it and it does bring its inevitable alienation - but the alternative of a collective economy with socialist values simply does not recognise the basic facts of human nature.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> TV, that society thing was tried, it was called the Soviet experiment.
> 
> I actually think many of those guys meant well. Unfortunately they completely misjudged the socio-economic beings that we are. There was no unemployment in the Soviet Union. Little crime. You wouldn't have mindless violence in the deprived areas, in fact relatively speaking no deprived areas. No drug problem. In short - utopia!




That society you speak of gave us (Why do you equate society with communism?????????????) 

free health care for all
Oppuntunity to get your self an education regardless of your ability to pay.
An understanding that community makes us strong brings out the best in people, mindless greed brings out the lowest common denominator in us.
Employment law to protect workers.
etc etc,
How quick you are to use the excesses of the soviet system to denegrade the ideal the we live in a society rather than an economy. You want to be called a "consumer" I want to be called a citizen. promoting the ideal of Society does not mean bringing down the capitialist system, it is about understanding that the pursuit of wealth should be focused on creating a better society for all, and sometimes this means redistributing weath to the most vunerable, rather than the blind persuit of wealth for its own sake.



Harchibald said:


> But something was wrong. Western economies were pulling further and further ahead even moreso when Maggie and Ronnie reversed the socialist engines. The Soviet Union made a call - the society thing would condemn them to falling further and further behind - the capitalist model had won.


 
This is not a battle between communism and captitalism. A decent society find ways of creating wealth and redistributing it in a just way, it does not mean that people are not allowed to get rich, but that they see that in the end the blind persuit of wealth is utlimitally pointless.



Harchibald said:


> If economic success is one of our goals it has been proven by experience to be best fostered by indivualism which can indeed be characterised by the denigrating terms you ascribe to it and it does bring its inevitable alienation - but the alternative of a collective economy with socialist values simply does not recognise the basic facts of human nature.


 
You judge the capitialist system according to its lowest common denominator (the pursuit of individualism) I judge humanity according to some higher ideals, the pursuit of justice for all, a fair and caring society where there is shared values of decency. Even on an economic level, rampent greed and individualism will untimaly lead to the distruction of the capitialist system.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

> How quick you are to use the excesses of the soviet system to denegrade the ideal the we live in a society rather than an economy. You want to be called a "consumer" I want to be called a citizen.


 
I never mentioned the excesses of the SU. I stated that they were successful in achieving all the utopian goals you aspire to. It was a reasonably succesful model. But they chose to go West, warts and all, as that was proving the best economic model.  The experiment was tried - the human condition meansthat utopian fairness and equality does not mix with economic success.  There is a choice though,  We could over to the SU system (without the excesses).  Not for me. 

Anyway citoyen TV perhaps the French Revolution is your preferred model.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> - the human condition meansthat utopian fairness and equality does not mix with economic success. There is a choice though,


 
Ideals like fairness, social justice, equality of oppurtunity (Purple) are not eutopian ideas. the most sucessful economice in the world do a pretty good job achieving both, Norway, Japan, Canada, Sweden etc?????


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> Anyway citoyen TV perhaps the French Revolution is your preferred model.


 
Rather be a citizen than a consumer. The ideals of the french revolution is one of the building blocks upon which modern democracy is built on. I know what side of the barracades id sooner be on.


----------



## Complainer

Harchibald said:


> I never mentioned the excesses of the SU. I stated that they were successful in achieving all the utopian goals you aspire to. It was a reasonably successful model. But they chose to go West, warts and all, as that was proving the best economic model.  The experiment was tried - the human condition means that utopian fairness and equality does not mix with economic success.  There is a choice though,  We could over to the SU system (without the excesses).  Not for me.



The SU had about as much to do with socialism as Thatcher's Britian. It was a corrupt regime that retained power with the privileged few, and had more similarities to capitalism than socialism. When they were pushed down to the road to the capitalist model by the World Bank/IMF, they transferred power to a new privileged few, the oligarchs by privatising the utilities. These valuable state assets were sold off for a song and created a new breed of billionaire. 

But this has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> You think a person  who has grown up in generational poverty has the same chance to make "free will" decisions as you term it, than a person coming from a nice middle class home with good parents who teach them the value of education, whos peers with similar embued asperations. Ones ability to act with free will that will help them make good life choices is highly dependant on thier circumstances.



I agree with everything you say here but that only re-enforced the proposition that the root cause of poverty is more a social issue than an economic one.
The solution is to target resources in a way that makes it easier for those in these areas to let on in life. This is why I said that free education for the children of the well off is unjust while the children of the poor are excluded due to the peripheral costs. It would be much better to charge people like me to send my children to third level and use that money to not just pay all of the costs for kids of poor parents but provide them with an income which is greater than what they would get on social welfare while they are there.

I have no problem with money being spent on creating a more equal society; I would happily pay more tax if necessary. I just want the money spent getting people out of the cycle of poverty rather than making them slightly more comfortable staying where they are. Increasing social welfare payments across the board is not the answer; targeted spending that rewards those who work hard to equip themselves and their children for a better future is the answer.


----------



## ashambles

> (The USSR) and had more similarities to capitalism than socialism.



Indeed and furthermore black isn't black at all. It's, if anything, more akin to white.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Increasing social welfare payments across the board is not the answer; targeted spending that rewards those who work hard to equip themselves and their children for a better future is the answer.


Agree wholeheartedly.  Incentivise  people and eliminate  welfare traps.


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> I agree with everything you say here but that only re-enforced the proposition that the root cause of poverty is more a social issue than an economic one.
> The solution is to target resources in a way that makes it easier for those in these areas to let on in life. This is why I said that free education for the children of the well off is unjust while the children of the poor are excluded due to the peripheral costs. It would be much better to charge people like me to send my children to third level and use that money to not just pay all of the costs for kids of poor parents but provide them with an income which is greater than what they would get on social welfare while they are there.


I'm reading Ireland's Economic Miracle by Paul Sweeney which has a serious of interviews with some high-profile individuals from all sides of the spectrum. One of the key features mentioned by almost every interviewee is the importance of education in fuelling our growth. 

You don't fuel growth by making the fuel more expensive. And if it such a good idea to charge for 3rd level, why stop there? Why not charge for secondary & primary schooling too?



Purple said:


> I have no problem with money being spent on creating a more equal society; I would happily pay more tax if necessary. I just want the money spent getting people out of the cycle of poverty rather than making them slightly more comfortable staying where they are. Increasing social welfare payments across the board is not the answer; targeted spending that rewards those who work hard to equip themselves and their children for a better future is the answer.




It's easy to talk about people being 'slightly more comfortable' on welfare. The reality is closer to these situations. If you cut back on welfare, you are likely to deprive those very children who need support most.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> I'm reading Ireland's Economic Miracle by Paul Sweeney which has a serious of interviews with some high-profile individuals from all sides of the spectrum. One of the key features mentioned by almost every interviewee is the importance of education in fuelling our growth.


 Please reread my posts; I have made the case for education and it’s importance in getting out of poverty from the start.



Complainer said:


> You don't fuel growth by making the fuel more expensive. And if it such a good idea to charge for 3rd level, why stop there? Why not charge for secondary & primary schooling too?


 We, as a country have finite resources. Given this do you think it is fair and just that those who don’t really need it get as much help as those who need more? 



Complainer said:


> It's easy to talk about people being 'slightly more comfortable' on welfare. The reality is closer to these situations. If you cut back on welfare, you are likely to deprive those very children who need support most.


  The reality for some people on disability is closer to these situations. Are you suggesting that most people in receipt of social welfare payments are disabled?
Where did I suggest cutting back on welfare? I would have no problem with an increase in spending on welfare but I think it should be targeted in such a way as to reward people who keep their children in full time education and when the children are old enough it should directly reward them as well for staying in full time education.


----------



## Complainer

Purple said:


> Please reread my posts; I have made the case for education and it’s importance in getting out of poverty from the start.
> 
> We, as a country have finite resources. Given this do you think it is fair and just that those who don’t really need it get as much help as those who need more?


Well when you put it like that, it all sounds fine and dandy, but of course this is not what happens in reality. In the real world, the choices available to government are not just bringing back 3rd level fees to fund decent primary education. There are many, many other choices available to goverment to fund decent primary education, such as (just for starters) eliminating many of the tax breaks that subsidise the construction industry, and the private healthcare industry. Or eliminating the costs of expensive PR advisers/agencies/campaigns for Ministers, departments and public bodies.

Bringing back fees for 3rd level education would be a huge step backwards.


----------



## shnaek

Complainer said:


> There are many, many other choices available to goverment to fund decent primary education, such as (just for starters) eliminating many of the tax breaks that subsidise the construction industry, and the private healthcare industry.


And how will eliminating these 'subsidies' help? I presume you have facts and figures, or could you put 'in my opinion' before this sentence? 
Elimination of these 'subsidies' may have taken the heat out of the property market in the past, and prevented our bubble becoming so inflated, but in that case our tax take would have been lower. No harm in my opinion. The tax take should have been lower, so the government wouldn't have lulled itself into a false sense that these housing revenues were going to be coming in forever. With a lower tax take the vested interests and unions wouldn't have had as much family silver to fight over, and the ordinary joe soap wouldn't be looking at so much wealth loss every day of the week as pensions, investments and houses fall in value.



Complainer said:


> Or eliminating the costs of expensive PR advisers/agencies/campaigns for Ministers, departments and public bodies.


Looks like they are doing something about this, and certainly about time too.



Complainer said:


> Bringing back fees for 3rd level education would be a huge step backwards.


I would defer to the experts on this. I hear arguments on both sides. I didn't benefit from it, but I thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as the Universities are properly funded. They have a huge part to play in our society and economy, and should be able to compete with the best universities in the world.


----------



## Complainer

shnaek said:


> And how will eliminating these 'subsidies' help? I presume you have facts and figures, or could you put 'in my opinion' before this sentence?
> Elimination of these 'subsidies' may have taken the heat out of the property market in the past, and prevented our bubble becoming so inflated, but in that case our tax take would have been lower. No harm in my opinion. The tax take should have been lower, so the government wouldn't have lulled itself into a false sense that these housing revenues were going to be coming in forever. With a lower tax take the vested interests and unions wouldn't have had as much family silver to fight over, and the ordinary joe soap wouldn't be looking at so much wealth loss every day of the week as pensions, investments and houses fall in value.


If there is a new posting guidelines about having to use 'In my opinion' before every post, do let me know. I'm realistic enough to know that the Govt is not going do anything that would impact the construction industry negatively in the current environment. I agree with you that less bubble and less inflated prices would have been better for all in the long run.


----------

