# Did you hear the news . . . the Recession is over



## Leper (8 Jun 2010)

IBEC informs us the Recession is over.  Do the people I saw in the Labour Exchange queue last week know it?


----------



## starlite68 (8 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> IBEC informs us the Recession is over. Do the people I saw in the Labour Exchange queue last week know it?


 i dont think i would have much faith in anything IBEC says......they dont seem to have a clue!


----------



## ajapale (8 Jun 2010)

I  remember the 80s recession and twenty or thirty occasions on which the recession was prematurely declared over!


----------



## Leper (8 Jun 2010)

Well, if IBEC are saying the Recession is over, it must be over, but wait, they said this at 7.00am this morning.  At 9.00am their spokesperson was saying that it will take 12 to 18 months more before anybody will notice.

Are they going to refund the amounts they took from their respective employees?  Hmmmmmm!

But, the Recession is over, Euro takes another dive and our imports are now dearer. But, the Recession is over.

Is it?


----------



## DerKaiser (8 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> Well, if IBEC are saying the Recession is over, it must be over, but wait, they said this at 7.00am this morning.  At 9.00am their spokesperson was saying that it will take 12 to 18 months more before anybody will notice.
> 
> Are they going to refund the amounts they took from their respective employees?  Hmmmmmm!
> 
> ...



A recession is a sequence of quarters where the economy contracts.  If we get growth in a quarter the recession ends.

That's what a recession is.

Some people say the current recession will last for the next 10 years.  But we'd need 40 consecutive quarters where each is worse than the one before it for this to happen.

The end of the recession does not mean unemployment will fall.  This can take years.

And yes a weaker euro is helpful for economic growth here as our exports will benefit.


----------



## tenchi-fan (8 Jun 2010)

the recession is over.. if you want it to be  

seriously, too many people doing too little work.. that's where the problem lies. 

Forget about banks lending money because that's what caused the problem to begin with. 

I don't understand why the government will be going after min wage workers .. they're already paying the income levy, not to mention employer prsi. I know I'd prefer to receive €10pw in taxes than to pay out €300pw in benefits.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jun 2010)

tenchi-fan said:


> I know I'd prefer to receive €10pw in taxes than to pay out €300pw in benefits.


 
The problem is that you can't reason with some people.

There's about 100 "caring" organisations who'll whinge and wail on vincent browne, the front line, liveline, etc about how the most vulnerable in society are being hit.

First off, how much is enough? You get the feeling that if benefits were double what they were these guys would still say it's not enough.

Secondly is anyone else wondering why there are so many such organisations. Who are they all being funded by.

I'm 100% with techi fan on this one. Yes there is a shortage of jobs, but we've created the situation in this country where it's not worth working for €20k per annum and almost impossible to hire someone full-time for less than €15k per annum. Get rid of these anomalies and we'll go a long way to solving our unemployment.

Just think about it, how many countries are there where it's better off not to work for €20k per annum? It's laughable. Where will the jobs go, here where you need to pay €25k per annum to get people off benefits or somewhere that you can get motivated staff for half of that?

The cost of living has come down, we now know our standards of living were far too extravagant and not everyone has a huge mortgage. A €10k or €15k per annum job should be a reality not an impossibility.

Then you get this lazy response (from people who've somehow forgotten pre-celtic tiger Ireland) of how can someone live on €10k per annum.  If you're young and have no dependants it can certainly be done.  Your lifestyle won't be great, buy why should everyone be entitled to a great lifestyle??

Additionally any organisation truly worried about the unemployed should acknowledge the poverty trap created by paying relatively high benefits. It removes the incentive to make an effort to ever get on to the ladder of progression (i.e. employment)


----------



## fobs (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> The problem is that you can't reason with some people.
> 
> There's about 100 "caring" organisations who'll whinge and wail on vincent browne, the front line, liveline, etc about how the most vulnerable in society are being hit.
> 
> ...


 
Well said!


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Then you get this lazy response (from people who've somehow forgotten pre-celtic tiger Ireland) of how can someone live on €10k per annum. If you're young and have no dependants it can certainly be done. Your lifestyle won't be great, buy why should everyone be entitled to a great lifestyle??


 or you could ask why should a chosen few be entitled to a great lifestyle and others not?


----------



## Towger (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> First off, how much is enough? You get the feeling that if benefits were double what they were these guys would still say it's not enough.


 
I believe the likes of CORI use an income level of less than 15% of the average income as the poverty line. A good system to insure there are always poor if you are in the charity game. The old Irish level was could you afford a good winter coat and a pair of shoes etc.


----------



## mathepac (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> i dont think i would have much faith in anything IBEC says......they dont seem to have a clue!


Which begs the question - is it a coincidence that a former trustee and member of the national Executive Council of IBEC is now Chairman of the board at the HSE?

[broken link removed]


----------



## Latrade (9 Jun 2010)

Leper said:


> Are they going to refund the amounts they took from their respective employees? Hmmmmmm!
> 
> But, the Recession is over, Euro takes another dive and our imports are now dearer. But, the Recession is over.
> 
> Is it?


 
Not sure what that top bit about refunds is about.

However, the last bit seems to miss the point somewhat. We're an exporting economy, part of the problem these last two years has been the strength of the Euro has made exporting more expensive and caused a drop. A weaker Euro means our products are cheaper and is better for business.

I wouldn't say the report is overly joyous, particuarly as it projects 0% growth. It's good the decline appears to have slowed, maybe even stopped, but it seemed clear enough to me that even if things do begin to grow, this wouldn't immediately translate to more jobs. 





mathepac said:


> Which begs the question - is it a coincidence that a former trustee and member of the national Executive Council of IBEC is now Chairman of the board at the HSE?
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
And his years in the medical devices industry? Not particuarly relevant to this discussion.


----------



## mathepac (9 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> ...  And his years in the medical devices industry? Not particuarly relevant to this discussion.


I agree that his time in the medical devices industry is not relevant to this discussion, which is why I didn't introduce it.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> or you could ask why should a chosen few be entitled to a great lifestyle and others not?


 
Maybe because we're all different. Some are stonger than others, some are smarter than others, Some work harder than others.

If you've had the same opportunities you can't have any complaints. If you haven't, being in receipt of even higher state benefits isn't going to motivate you to better yourself.

The 400,000 + unemployed would be far better served by circumstances encouraging employment (even if low paid) than those which discourage employment (minimum wages and benefits trap).

Some forms of socialism are so intellectually limited it's a joke, and in the end they hurt the lower paid the most. The idea that the economy is not a closed circuit and the naive belief that people do not respond to incentives seem to be beyond the grasp of many.

To put it simply, if you cannot personally benefit to a reasonable extent from your own excess effort why get off your ass? It's such a basic idea, why is it ignored by so many?


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Maybe because we're all different. Some are stonger than others, some are smarter than others, Some work harder than others.
> 
> If you've had the same opportunities you can't have any complaints. If you haven't, being in receipt of even higher state benefits isn't going to motivate you to better yourself.
> 
> ...



So in short no one is *entitled* to a great lifestyle but those who are smart enough and/or work hard enough may get one. Is that it?


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2010)

mathepac said:


> Which begs the question - is it a coincidence that a former trustee and member of the national Executive Council of IBEC is now Chairman of the board at the HSE?
> 
> [broken link removed]



He looks like the right sort of person to me.


----------



## Latrade (9 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> So in short no one is *entitled* to a great lifestyle but those who are smart enough and/or work hard enough may get one. Is that it?


 
I don't see any problem in that in essence, I personally would say that everyone is entitled to a safety net and is entitled to the opportunity to work towards attaining a "great lifestyle".


----------



## Latrade (9 Jun 2010)

mathepac said:


> I agree that his time in the medical devices industry is not relevant to this discussion, which is why I didn't introduce it.


 
I don't see why an individual involved with the HSE who has extensive experience as a director and as a board member along with extensive experience in the medical devices industry is being referenced in a topic on an economic report relating to the recession.


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> I don't see any problem in that in essence, I personally would say that everyone is entitled to a safety net and is entitled to the opportunity to work towards attaining a "great lifestyle".


+1


Latrade said:


> I don't see why an individual involved with the HSE who has extensive experience as a director and as a board member along with extensive experience in the medical devices industry is being referenced in a topic on an economic report relating to the recession.



and another +1


----------



## Mpsox (9 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> I don't see any problem in that in essence, I personally would say that everyone is entitled to a safety net and is entitled to the opportunity to work towards attaining a "great lifestyle".


 
Unfortunately a lot of people in Ireland did not work towards attaining a "great lifestyle" during the boom years. Instead they bought the lifestyle on credit and rather then generating wealth via entrpreneurship or improving their skills and talents, many sat back and assumed that an unproductive resource (ie property) would never stop rising in value. I've sympathy for people in negative equity with no job, I've little sympathy for people with horrendous levels of personal debt and an inability to pay it and little or nothing to show for it


----------



## Latrade (9 Jun 2010)

Couldn't agree more Mpsox, covetting they neighbour and all that (maybe those Abrahamic religions have a point).


----------



## Yorrick (9 Jun 2010)

Ah Yes. I think I can see all those Lisbon Treaty jobs coming down the line.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> So in short no one is *entitled* to a great lifestyle but those who are smart enough and/or work hard enough may get one. Is that it?


 
Yep.  The same applies to countries and individuals.


----------



## Sunny (9 Jun 2010)

Yorrick said:


> Ah Yes. I think I can see all those Lisbon Treaty jobs coming down the line.


 
Can you see all the jobs that might have been saved because we didn't vote no?


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> The 400,000 + unemployed would be far better served by circumstances encouraging employment (even if low paid) than those which discourage employment (minimum wages and benefits trap).
> ?


 but surely that would lead to the 'race to the bottom' is that what we really want?


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> but surely that would lead to the 'race to the bottom' is that what we really want?



Race to the bottom... God I hate that phrase. It’s just union double speak for protecting the haves from the have-not’s. 
Tell me, were you in favour of the race to the bottom when we were at the bottom and we “stole” all the jobs from higher paid Americans in the 80’s and 90’s when Intel, HP, IBM, Boston Scientific, Abbot Labs etc sacked their US employees and moved their jobs here?

The really good thing about international capitalism is that it gives poor countries the opportunity to grow and develop if they have a stable enough political and legal structure to accommodate the inflows of capital. Look at what it has done for South Korea, Ireland, Porto Rica, Costa Rica, Vietnam, Poland etc. The “Race to the bottom” is a poisonous phase that epitomises a mind-set that  seeks to deprive the poorest of the poor of the same opportunities that we had. Look at the advances in this country since the 1950’s when we abandoned quasi-socialism and embraced capitalism.


----------



## michaelm (9 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Can you see all the jobs that might have been saved because we didn't vote no?


Surely even those most committed to a united Europe will admit that the 'Yes to Jobs' was a deceit.


----------



## csirl (9 Jun 2010)

michaelm said:


> Surely even those most committed to a united Europe will admit that the 'Yes to Jobs' was a deceit.


 
Looks like we'll have to vote again


----------



## Sunny (9 Jun 2010)

michaelm said:


> Surely even those most committed to a united Europe will admit that the 'Yes to Jobs' was a deceit.


 
Course it was rubbish. Just like all the rubbish on the No side.


----------



## Sunny (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> but surely that would lead to the 'race to the bottom' is that what we really want?


 
There is no evidence that suggests that scrapping the minimum wage would lead to a race to the bottom. Likewise there is very little evidence to suggest that scrapping it would automatically lead to more jobs.


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

so where do you stand on the minimum wage?


----------



## Firefly (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> but surely that would lead to the 'race to the bottom' is that what we really want?


 
In the markets that we wish to have an advantage in, yes


----------



## csirl (9 Jun 2010)

How come you never get a 'race to the bottom' in the social welfare system?


----------



## Caveat (9 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Race to the bottom... God I hate that phrase. It’s just union double speak for protecting the haves from the have-not’s.
> Tell me, were you in favour of the race to the bottom when we were at the bottom and we “stole” all the jobs from higher paid Americans in the 80’s and 90’s when Intel, HP, IBM, Boston Scientific, Abbot Labs etc sacked their US employees and moved their jobs here?
> 
> The really good thing about international capitalism is that it gives poor countries the opportunity to grow and develop if they have a stable enough political and legal structure to accommodate the inflows of capital. Look at what it has done for South Korea, Ireland, Porto Rica, Costa Rica, Vietnam, Poland etc. The “Race to the bottom” is a poisonous phase that epitomises a mind-set that seeks to deprive the poorest of the poor of the same opportunities that we had. Look at the advances in this country since the 1950’s when we abandoned quasi-socialism and embraced capitalism.


 
Agree 100% with all of this.


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

csirl said:


> How come you never get a 'race to the bottom' in the social welfare system?


 that would'nt be much of race in all fairness!


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> that would'nt be much of race in all fairness!



How about we race down to the EU average for socail welfare and wages, given that we are poxy little island of the coast of a bigger island off the coast of the mainland?


----------



## shnaek (9 Jun 2010)

caveat said:


> agree 100% with all of this.


+1


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> How about we race down to the EU average for socail welfare and wages, given that we are poxy little island of the coast of a bigger island off the coast of the mainland?


 cost of living for a start....in this poxy little island as you put it.


----------



## Purple (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> cost of living for a start....in this poxy little island as you put it.



Cost of living and wages are linked; the more everybody gets paid the more everything costs.


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Cost of living and wages are linked; the more everybody gets paid the more everything costs.


 the cost of living would want to come down a lot before we cut any social welfare payments.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> cost of living for a start....in this poxy little island as you put it.


 
Agree 100% with purple.

Talking about races to the bottom, focusing job creation on the high value end of the market, higher costs of living in this country (as if we are some special closed circuit economy where this is sustainable) and telling people they should try living on social welfare are tired, hackneyed misleading statements.

In the same way the idea of incentivising effort is not comprehended by the intellectually bankrupt left, there also seems to be some serious mental obstacle to figuring out that our higher costs of living are driven primarily by the fact that our labour costs are high, and consistent with having one of the highest minimum wages in the world. 

Our wages are higher than those in the UK and Europe and our social welfare is way higher than elsewhere in the UK and europe. The same people who complain that prices are high here don't see the irony in defending our wage levels.

I wouldn't go as far as calling us poxy, but hey someone has to balance the arguement away from those who believe we are some kind of special place where wage and social welfare structures completely out of kilter with our nearest neighbours is a sustainable situation. It is make believe.

And far from being the "caring" left, the champions of this nonsense will leave the next generation bankrupt whilst excluding any hope of the unemployed ever getting back on their feet. It's not socialism, it's protectionism of the haves, as purple has said.

PS: I still await an explanation from someone as to why going back to the real level of welfare payments from 5 years ago cannot be done.  We didn't have widespread starvation in 2005.  We obviously can't set social welfare to a level capable of paying mortgages taken out at the height of the boom, but every other element of the increases in the cost of living since then are not irreversable


----------



## starlite68 (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Agree 100% with purple.
> 
> Talking about races to the bottom, focusing job creation on the high value end of the market, higher costs of living in this country (as if we are some special closed circuit economy where this is sustainable) and telling people they should try living on social welfare are tired, hackneyed misleading statements.
> 
> ...


 so is your plan to start with those on social welfare and the minimum wage,how about starting at the other end of the field!??


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Jun 2010)

According to the latest figures produced by Eurostat , the EC statistical office , Ireland has the 6th highest minimum wage in Europe when adjusted for purchasing power.

The UK are in fifth place.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jun 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> According to the latest figures produced by Eurostat , the EC statistical office , Ireland has the 6th highest minimum wage in Europe when adjusted for purchasing power.
> 
> The UK are in fifth place.



See the correlation? 25% higher minimum wage, 25% higher cost of living.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> so is your plan to start with those on social welfare and the minimum wage,how about starting at the other end of the field!??



Why not do both?  Make arguments for each on their own merits.


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> See the correlation? 25% higher minimum wage, 25% higher cost of living.



Oh I see the correlation alright , the cost of living is such that the minimum wage is currently set at the right level.

It is hugely debatable as to whether a decrease in the minimum wage would  reduce our living costs appreciably.


----------



## tenchi-fan (9 Jun 2010)

Social welfare < Minimum wage < skilled and educated workers < newly qualified worker < experienced workers.
This is a legitimate hierarchy!!

If a welfare family gets €40k you know something is wrong. Start with the obvious anomaly. If you try to cut a min wage worker's wage first they will quit and go on the dole. If you try to cut an experienced worker's wage, he may emigrate or choose to work fewer hours. If you cut social welfare, what will happen? Will people suddenly stop claiming welfare out of principle? Nope. They'll crowd out min wage jobs which would allow a cut to min wage. Min wage workers may upskill, at some people will recognise they may be better off starting their own businesses.


----------



## censuspro (10 Jun 2010)

tenchi-fan said:


> Social welfare < Minimum wage < skilled and educated workers < newly qualified worker < experienced workers.
> This is a legitimate hierarchy!!
> 
> If a welfare family gets €40k you know something is wrong. Start with the obvious anomaly. If you try to cut a min wage worker's wage first they will quit and go on the dole. If you try to cut an experienced worker's wage, he may emigrate or choose to work fewer hours. If you cut social welfare, what will happen? Will people suddenly stop claiming welfare out of principle? Nope. They'll crowd out min wage jobs which would allow a cut to min wage. Min wage workers may upskill, at some people will recognise they may be better off starting their own businesses.


 
I think a cut in some social welfare payments, more rigorous means testing for social housing particularly for lone parents is plausible economically and politically. If govt was to implement social welfare cuts, those impacted are the least likely to vote so the govt may not actually suffer all that much. Apart from the intellectual left types I think most people would be in favour.
I'm hesitant to endorse a cut in the minimum wage especially without a cut in social welfare payments. If low wages alone was the answer to recovery and prosperity, countries like Somalia would be an economic super power.


----------



## starlite68 (10 Jun 2010)

censuspro said:


> I think a cut in some social welfare payments, more rigorous means testing for social housing particularly for lone parents is plausible economically and politically. If govt was to implement social welfare cuts, those impacted are the least likely to vote so the govt may not actually suffer all that much.


 i would think that someone on welfare who would have to suffer a pay cut might well make it their business to vote this time...i know i definitly would!


----------



## Firefly (10 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> the cost of living would want to come down a lot before we cut any social welfare payments.


 
The only way the cost of living comes down is if people have less money to spend.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2010)

The hourly rate on the dole is around €5.50 an hour. That’s around the same as the minimum wage in much of the EU and is higher than the Federal minimum wage in the USA. I have heard people say that if we abolish the minimum wage people will we working for €2.50 an hour. I know it’s hard to believe but they said it with a straight face!
Let’s be clear, nobody will work for less than they will get on the dole. Therefore the social welfare system creates a wage floor in the labour market. I have no problem with a minimum wage but I do think ours is way too high in that the starting point on the wage cost graph is too high.

Please don’t anyone pretend that there are droves of people out there supporting families on the minimum wage. Less than 3.5% of the workforce is on the minimum wage and nearly all of them are young, starting off and living with their Mammy. 

I can only speak about the employment areas I know but engineers in Ireland get paid about twice as much as their counterparts in Wales. Skilled machinists in Wales get £5-£12 an hour. In Ireland they get €18-€40 an hour. Their counterparts in Germany get considerably less than that and since there is such a shortage of them there has been no drop in wages over the last two years.


----------



## Latrade (10 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> i would think that someone on welfare who would have *to suffer a pay cut* might well make it their business to vote this time...i know i definitly would!


 
I said earlier that I feel everyone is entitled to a social safety net/ambulance and I do. The difference is such mechanisms are temporary until you get back up to supporting yourself. But to have someone talk about "pay cut" in social welfare, like they've somehow earned it, c'mon! 

This whole mess isn't too difficult, we're only a country of 4 million, it's no different to running a big city, just a bit more spread out. 

In my opinion, nothing is untouchable if it prevents this country going bust and provides a future. We must consider all areas of goverment spending.

Funny too that a cut in SW would bring out the voters, when we had all those years of Bertie throwing money out through SW in order to buy votes. Fickle bunch by the sounds of it, in fact sounds like their vote is for sale rather than based upon anything else.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> Funny too that a cut in SW would bring out the voters, when we had all those years of Bertie throwing money out through SW in order to buy votes. Fickle bunch by the sounds of it, in fact sounds like their vote is for sale rather than based upon anything else.


 
More SF candidates in the next election so me thinks


----------



## csirl (10 Jun 2010)

> The hourly rate on the dole is around €5.50 an hour.


 
In reality its a lot higher. Factor in rent allowance, medical cards, allowances for dependants etc.


----------



## csirl (10 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> i would think that someone on welfare who would have to suffer a pay cut might well make it their business to vote this time...i know i definitly would!


 
I dont agree. The majority of the non-working class arent even registered to vote. Analysis of elections in most western countries shows time and time again, no matter what the government does and no matter what the economic conditions are, welfare recipients just dont vote in large numbers.


----------



## sunrock (10 Jun 2010)

OTher european immigrants here who don`t qualify for irish welfare, would work for the minimum wage here even if it was 3 euros an hour.Thus if the minimum wage is to be cut,welfare has to be cut, otherwise all the irish minimum wage workers would just go on welfare.
We need leadership on getting our wage and salary and welfare levels down. I suggest an across the board reduction on all public servants and also on welfare and the minimum wage.The generous packages and protected positions of our high paid public servants need to tackled first.


----------



## Sunny (10 Jun 2010)

sunrock said:


> OTher european immigrants here who don`t qualify for irish welfare, would work for the minimum wage here even if it was 3 euros an hour.Thus if the minimum wage is to be cut,welfare has to be cut, otherwise all the irish minimum wage workers would just go on welfare.
> We need leadership on getting our wage and salary and welfare levels down. I suggest an across the board reduction on all public servants and also on welfare and the minimum wage.The generous packages and protected positions of our high paid public servants need to tackled first.


 
Why not everyone? Middle class and high earners earn more than than in other European Countries. I earn more than someone doing the same job in most European Countries apart from the UK. Why is increasing competitivness limited to social welfare, minimum wage earners and public sector workers?


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2010)

sunny said:


> why not everyone? Middle class and high earners earn more than than in other european countries. I earn more than someone doing the same job in most european countries apart from the uk. Why is increasing competitivness limited to social welfare, minimum wage earners and public sector workers?



+1


----------



## DerKaiser (10 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Why is increasing competitivness limited to social welfare, minimum wage earners and public sector workers?


 
It shouldn't be.

And this is what kills me about the whole private vs public debate.....

The minimum wage, public sector pay & social welfare are all decided on by government and so to change them government action is needed.

Private sector wages are market driven.  Brian Cowen can't walk in to Tesco and order them to cut the pay of middle and senior management.

I believe Tesco should pay it's employees less and cut grocery prices, I believe Deloitte should cut the wages of its accountants and I believe that public sector pay needed to come down from where it was a couple of years ago.

I can shop around for accountants or groceries and that will drive competition.  There is no competition for providing the majority of public services, so my desire for better value doesn't come from taking my business elsewhere but from putting pressure on elected representatives to provide cheaper public services.

So next time I reckon public service pay needs to be cut, don't feel singled out.  I've probably switched from Tesco to Lidl and start using Ryanair rather than aer lingus i.e. voting with my hard cash that I believe Tesco and Aer Lingus pay too much to their employees!


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> It shouldn't be.
> 
> And this is what kills me about the whole private vs public debate.....
> 
> ...


 
Presumably you've run this past your employer as well and urged him to cut your wages in the interest of producing a cheaper product for the market ?


----------



## starlite68 (10 Jun 2010)

sunrock said:


> OTher european immigrants here who don`t qualify for irish welfare, would work for the minimum wage here even if it was 3 euros an hour.Thus if the minimum wage is to be cut,welfare has to be cut, otherwise all the irish minimum wage workers would just go on welfare.
> We need leadership on getting our wage and salary and welfare levels down. I suggest an across the board reduction on all public servants and also on welfare and the minimum wage.The generous packages and protected positions of our high paid public servants need to tackled first.


 so is this going be our new minimum wage 3 euro an hour!
the low wage model just will not work in this county.


----------



## DerKaiser (10 Jun 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Presumably you've run this past your employer as well and urged him to cut your wages in the interest of producing a cheaper product for the market ?


 
Sure everyone is overpaid but me!!!!  Isn't that what we all think!


----------



## cork (10 Jun 2010)

sunrock said:


> Thus if the minimum wage is to be cut,welfare has to be cut, otherwise all the irish minimum wage workers would just go on welfare.
> We need leadership on getting our wage and salary and welfare levels down.



Is the mimimum wage too high?

People on the mimimum wage often work hard and have unsocial hours eg. bar work


----------



## starlite68 (10 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> I have heard people say that if we abolish the minimum wage people will we working for €2.50 .


 we are talking 3 euro now purple.....not bad eah....soon we will be able to buy a loaf of bread for sixpence and a gallon of petrol for a shilling!


----------



## Teatime (10 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Agree 100% with purple.
> 
> Talking about races to the bottom, focusing job creation on the high value end of the market, higher costs of living in this country (as if we are some special closed circuit economy where this is sustainable) and telling people they should try living on social welfare are tired, hackneyed misleading statements.
> 
> ...


 

I think you're right, this country is consuming itself from the inside. Everything has to come down or we will be ruined. Will need a very strong govt to help us out of this mess.


----------



## csirl (10 Jun 2010)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0610/rent.html

Government is trumpeting that it is reducing rent allowance. A single parent or a childless couple can now get only €930 per month. You can now rent a 3-bed semi in a reasonable area of Dublin at this price. Surely these rates are far too high? Wouldnt a 2 bed apartment be enough for these people?


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> we are talking 3 euro now purple.....not bad eah....soon we will be able to buy a loaf of bread for sixpence and a gallon of petrol for a shilling!



Why would anyone work for €3 when the dole pays more than that?


----------



## starlite68 (10 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Why would anyone work for €3 when the dole pays more than that?


 but i thought you were in favour of cutting the dole.......problem solved!


----------



## tenchi-fan (10 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> So next time I reckon public service pay needs to be cut, don't feel singled out.  I've probably switched from Tesco to Lidl and start using Ryanair rather than aer lingus i.e. voting with my hard cash that I believe Tesco and Aer Lingus pay too much to their employees!



I think Aldi actually have a higher starting wage than tesco!

How can you expect Tesco staff to take a pay cut when during the day have their customers are wearing pajamas and deciding what ready meal to bring home to their kids? 
If welfare was cut tesco would be forced to cut their prices to cater for the fact a lot of people have less money. They could also pay their staff less because they're not competing with social welfare. Then they could cut their prices further.


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> but i thought you were in favour of cutting the dole.......problem solved!



I am but it's more complex than that.


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2010)

tenchi-fan said:


> How can you expect Tesco staff to take a pay cut when during the day have their customers are wearing pajamas and deciding what ready meal to bring home to their kids?


 What's that got to do with what Tesco pay their staff?




tenchi-fan said:


> If welfare was cut tesco would be forced to cut their prices to cater for the fact a lot of people have less money. They could also pay their staff less because they're not competing with social welfare. Then they could cut their prices further.


 The opposite of what we've had for the last 10 years? If we are not any better off in real terms after 10 years of wage and cost increases why does anyone think that we will be any worse off in real terms after a few years of price and wage cuts?


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2010)

starlite68 said:


> so is this going be our new minimum wage 3 euro an hour!
> the low wage model just will not work in this county.



What do you mean by "the low wage model"?
Wages in an open economy have to be market driven. If they are too high businesses will not employ people as doing so will not generate a profit. If they are too low people will not take the job.


----------



## DerKaiser (11 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> What do you mean by "the low wage model"?
> Wages in an open economy have to be market driven. If they are too high businesses will not employ people as doing so will not generate a profit. If they are too low people will not take the job.


 
Yep.  Why have a model?  If there are companies out there who want to pay their employees €15k per annum and we have 400,000 on the dole why would we turn them away?  

Because some muppet decided on a whim that Ireland would rather have people on social welfare than the opprtunity of a low paid job


----------



## Sunny (11 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Yep. Why have a model? If there are companies out there who want to pay their employees €15k per annum and we have 400,000 on the dole why would we turn them away?
> 
> Because some muppet decided on a whim that Ireland would rather have people on social welfare than the opprtunity of a low paid job


 
Well considering the minimum wage is only about €15k a year, there is nothing to stop companies paying that.


----------



## DerKaiser (11 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> Well considering the minimum wage is only about €15k a year, there is nothing to stop companies paying that.


 
I don't want to pick hairs on this one but if you want to pay someone for a 40 hour week here, it's €350 per week so it's a bit above €15k per year.

I'm trying to make a reasonable point that there's probably many people who'd willingly work for a 40 hour week for less than that i.e. €250pw or €300pw but we've effectively thumbed our noses at such employment.

But the problem is you can't convince the socialists of this.  There's no comprehension that a lower wage might actually encourage more employers to hire people.


----------



## starlite68 (11 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> I am but it's more complex than that.


 thats something we can agree on, its way way more complex.....if making ourselves a low wage economy would solve all our problems then ok fine, i dont believe it will,but apart from that what government is going to touch this with a barge pole?


----------



## Sunny (11 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I don't want to pick hairs on this one but if you want to pay someone for a 40 hour week here, it's €350 per week so it's a bit above €15k per year.
> 
> I'm trying to make a reasonable point that there's probably many people who'd willingly work for a 40 hour week for less than that i.e. €250pw or €300pw but we've effectively thumbed our noses at such employment.
> 
> But the problem is you can't convince the socialists of this. There's no comprehension that a lower wage might actually encourage more employers to hire people.


 
The standard working week that salaries are based on is 35-37 hours per week.

There is no evidence that removing the minimum wage would lead to huge job creation. We can't compete on wages in most industries. If you removed the minimum wage, manufacturing would still get done in China and other low wage economies that we simply can't (and don't want to compete) with.

Most people on minimum wages jobs work in industries like catering, cleaning, hospitality and part-time workers. It is debatable that removing the minimum wage would lead to huge employment in these areas. 

I am not arguing the minimum wage is not high. Probably is. And so is social welfare. But lowering or abolishing it is not the answer to unemployment by itself. There are many other factors.


----------



## DerKaiser (11 Jun 2010)

Sunny said:


> There is no evidence that removing the minimum wage would lead to huge job creation. We can't compete on wages in most industries. If you removed the minimum wage, manufacturing would still get done in China and other low wage economies that we simply can't (and don't want to compete) with.


 
I think there's evidence both ways!

[broken link removed]

One point I'd still make, though, is that we do continue to have manufacturing employment here despite not being able to compete with China on wages. This does not mean we will hold onto these jobs regardless of the wage, it simply means that non-wage factors such as language, education, etc are offsetting the wage disadvantage. 

If we had a minimum wage of say €12k rather than €15k, is there not a stong possibility that this incremental change, coupled with our other advantages, might tip the balance in our favour?


----------



## starlite68 (11 Jun 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I think there's evidence both ways!
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...


 probably....but if it didnt tip the balance where would we go from there....10k..8k..?


----------



## Latrade (11 Jun 2010)

Wage levels are a red herring. At the moment they present the only negotiable issue for employers in their costs (albeit with a floor to how low you can go). There are other costs to doing business here that are not negotiable that need to be reduced and would make it even more attractive to do business here.

I honestly don't feel wages are that big a concern among a lot of the bigger employers. We often compare ourselves to the UK, but there is a difference, there is a reason in many cases why employers believe Ireland is a better place to do business: us.

It isn't just the corporation tax, it's the education levels. The papers will complain, every generation thinks it's too easy now to get good grades, etc, but among international employers more stock is put on the education system and qualifications here than elsewhere. We've a significant proportion of people going onto 3rd level education. The US does, but then still employers put more stock in the 3rd level here than US. 

There's the language, there's the bridge between the US and Europe, all positives that mean they will pay more to get the right people and be in the right place. 

But we're ignoring other issues, like energy costs, rental costs, local authority charges, waste costs, water costs, administration and regulatory costs. There's little we or an employer can do on them.

The ultimate point is we'll just keep going round in circles arguing over minimum wage and social welfare. Don't like social welfare levels? Get off it, get a job. Sorry to be sounding like some American Republican, but I'm not going to see a country go bankrupt because people have extended their cost and style of living to meet what they can claim in social welfare. There's a general minimum that should be able to account for safety and security, everything else is a luxury, if you want them, earn them and earn them honestly. 

Same for minimum wage, if you're unhappy with the pay and the work, then you do what my mum did (and subsequently my sister after becoming a single parent) before there was a minimum wage, you work hard, you educate yourself and you get out the rut. 

The reality check is that we're probably getting back to 2002-2004 levels. I don't remember us being to badly off then.


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2010)

I agree with most of your post but I do think we overplay the education point here. The heads of a number of US multinationals have come out recently and companies about the standard of graduates. Ask a German, Swiss, Dutch of American engineer about the great Irish engineers and they will laugh at you. I’m not saying we’re useless but we are nothing special. I know the teachers unions have peddled the “world class education system” rubbish for years in order to justify their gargantuan salaries and holidays and their Lilliputian hours but we all know why they did that.


----------



## Latrade (11 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> I agree with most of your post but I do think we overplay the education point here. The heads of a number of US multinationals have come out recently and companies about the standard of graduates. Ask a German, Swiss, Dutch of American engineer about the great Irish engineers and they will laugh at you. I’m not saying we’re useless but we are nothing special. I know the teachers unions have peddled the “world class education system” rubbish for years in order to justify their gargantuan salaries and holidays and their Lilliputian hours but we all know why they did that.


 
I agree, as an engineer myself, but then I'd probably be more Germanic in my idea of an engineering being mechanical, here it's largely civil (again fuelled by the construction boom). 

But the education here isn't perfect, it has many legitimate issues, but even with all that it still has a good reputation as does the population.


----------



## Sunny (11 Jun 2010)

Standard of education is seriously overrated in this Country. The leaving cert is a joke and the third level institutions are massively underfunded (apart from salaries) due to politicians refusal to admit that their 'free' education policy is a farce.

I think the Irish people have a good reputation in the workplace though.


----------



## Purple (12 Jun 2010)

So it seems that hard work and cost competitiveness are what is needed for an economic recovery and the notion that we can "smart economy" our way out of it is just as delusional as the soft landing that we were going to get after the property boom.

When will we learn?


----------



## starlite68 (12 Jun 2010)

i agree fully with the last few posts.....i never did buy into this BS notion of 'our highly educated workforce' there are emerging countries that are turning out students as good and better than ours by the thousands!
as for the 'smart economy' have to agree with purple on that.....its never going to get us out of this mess.


----------



## sunrock (21 Jun 2010)

Purple said:


> Why would anyone work for €3 when the dole pays more than that?


 
If you were a newly arrived immigrant from eastern europe, and weren`t entitled to welfare , you`d gladly work for 3 euros an hour to start.
I see in some job sites applicants are willing to work a few days free to showcase their talents.
An employer can get cheap or free labour from Fas "job experience" candidates,or get some financial incentive for taking someone off the live register.
The idea here is that once you get working with a company, you establish what your true "worth" and thus wage rate should be. 
This is a good idea, but in a recession with few jobs around,it is difficult to get your foot in the door
Of course alot of people are on welfare rates that make it difficult for them get the same amount in a job.
Anyway we are in a recession and there are very few jobs around.


----------



## mathepac (21 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> I agree, as an engineer myself, but then I'd probably be more Germanic in my idea of an engineering being mechanical, here it's largely civil (again fuelled by the construction boom).
> 
> But the education here isn't perfect, ...


I agree and handing someone a bit of paper and saying "go thou forth and be a software / civil / mechanical / electronic engineer"  isn't education, it's simply expensive vocational training and I believe one of the mistakes we've made over the years is to confuse the two.

Of course we have a need for properly trained and properly qualified graduates from  specialist, tightly focussed, vocational training programmes but what we seem to lack IMHO  are educated generalists who can help steer us out the current slump through having a broader view than a sub-atomic version of a wafer-fab facility (I know that's probably a materials scientist rather that an engineer, but you get the idea). 

Our 2nd and 3rd level systems force children to specialise and narrow their focus much too soon, thereby depriving them of an education and stuffing them onto the vocational-training conveyor belt.

I love, for example, what the medics have done here and in the UK where they have designed the means of taking holders of non-medical degrees and training them as doctors. Will these men and women make better doctors? I have no idea and wouldn't know how to measure "better doctor", but they must surely be more rounded in their development as individuals and that is surely good for their clients, the health service system they work within and thus the country as a whole.


----------



## DerKaiser (21 Jun 2010)

Latrade said:


> But we're ignoring other issues, like energy costs, rental costs, local authority charges, waste costs, water costs, administration and regulatory costs. There's little we or an employer can do on them.



Almost all issues you mention there are wage driven.

Individual employers can't personal control all of their costs through wage  restrictions but collectively we can have a huge impact on the cost of doing business and ultimately the cost of living.

It's no coincidence that electricity costs are high when the ESB has an average wage of about €100k, thankfully we're now seeing a bit of competition here, and it's having a real impact on bringing down costs


----------



## Firefly (24 Jun 2010)

Well...nearly over

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/economy-on-course-for-big-rebound-next-year-2232586.html

Thoughts?


----------



## Caveat (24 Jun 2010)

Heard that this morning. I dunno. Lots of people I have spoken to (primarily manufacturing and services) are seeing a fairly dramatic (relatively speaking) increase in sales over the last few months. We are too.

I get the impression that hospitality and high street retail will take a lot longer to recover though. Still pubs/restaurants/shops closing at a frightening rate.


----------



## csirl (24 Jun 2010)

I think it will end after the next election. I think that most people and most potential investors are in a holding pattern right now - will not make a decision until they have more certainty on the future government and its policies. Whoever is elected, will have the support of the people, which will boost public confidence.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2010)

The recession will be techinically over by the end of the year (it not sooner).

The problem is that it won't feel like that for the man on the street. Exports will lead the recovery but domestic demand will remain very weak.


----------

