Our economy cannot sustain if everyone gets 6.5% wage increases every year.
It absolutely can, with a combination of price increases and productivity improvements.
Our economy cannot sustain if everyone gets 6.5% wage increases every year.
It absolutely can, with a combination of price increases and productivity improvements.
What's really frightening isThat's frightening.
Do you really think that we can improve our productivity, as a whole, by more than 6.5% per year?
I know companies can increase their productivity by more than 6.5% per year but they can do it by sacking the inefficient part of their work force. Unless you are advocating Thatcherite measures, and my guess is that you are not, what's your plan?
What's really frightening is
a) your picking of an arguement through selective reading of my post.
b) your assumption that one single solution applies to all companies and all industries
Indeed you did, but your response referred exclusively to one of the two parts of my response. Go back and read it a third time and see what you get.I quoted your full post.
I just did and I'm still not getting it. Price increases which make us uncompetitive are a result of the pay increases. You are saying that this can be offset by increases in our efficiency which will keep our economy competitive. I am asking how we can achieve 6.5% increases in the efficiency of our economy. I’m not trying to be argumentative and I don’t think my question is unreasonable.Indeed you did, but your response referred exclusively to one of the two parts of my response. Go back and read it a third time and see what you get.
This was my plan. However, the IT job market is quite poor at present. To cut a long story short, moving would incur a 20% pay cut!Leave + work for someone else so.
I'm the citizen of three states, and I have worked abroad in the past. But I gotta stay, at present, Ireland is the best place in the world to live, so I'm staying put!Preferably abroad....and see if you get the same as here. Our economy cannot sustain if everyone gets 6.5% wage increases every year.
Our economy cannot sustain if the Government gets 15% wage increases every year.Our economy cannot sustain if everyone gets 6.5% wage increases every year.
More than I expected but not what I asked for. Given last year's performance, I'm worth more that 6.5%. Those that did absolutely nothing got 4%!Why? You got more than you expected.
I’ve never come across price increases that make us more competitive.I referred to 'price increases', and you have now developed this into 'price increases which make us uncompetitive are as a result of the pay increases'. I didn't refer to price increases which make us uncompetitive.
I accept that you never said that but do you agree that for pay increases of 6.5% to be sustainable then efficiency will have to increase by the same amount. I agree that there are some companies that can achieve this and some companies that can’t but much like the miners’ strike in the UK in the 80’s there’s a strong argument that the social cost would outweigh the economic benefit.I also never stated that we can achieve 6.5% increases in the efficiency of our economy, so there is no such question to answer. I'm sure there are companies and industries where such gains (and more) are achievable, and I'm sure there are companies and industries where such gains are not achievable.
Fair enough.My original comment on this thread was simply to point out the one-sided-view of rabbit's comment. Now on double-checking it, I find that perhaps I might agree with one aspect of rabbit's post - I wouldn't suggest that the economy could sustain 6.5% for every employee. There are cases where this is sustainble, and cases where it is not.
Our economy cannot sustain if the Government gets 15% wage increases every year.
True, we shouldn't confuse political and economic issuesOf course if could.
Our economy cannot sustain if the Government gets 15% wage increases every year.
Of course if [sic] could.
Not trueJust today she missed the Cystic Fibrosis debate in the Dail because she was at the SuperBowl!
Note the smilie!
However, if you want to ignore the smilie and take the comment in a serious frame of mind, think of value for money.
Mary Harney told us to "shop around".
Are we getting value for money by giving our Minister for Wealth a 15% pay increase? Just today she missed the Cystic Fibrosis debate in the Dail because she was at the SuperBowl!
She was in the USA on a visit that had been arranged for a long time. She went to the Super Bowl as a guest of some of the people she met there. It may be the case that she should have cut her trip short to be at the debate here but I don't know who she met there or how important those meetings were so I am not in a position to comment. That is clear is that saying that she was not in the Dail because she was at the Super Bowl without putting it in context is misleading to say the least.Seems she was at least at the superbowl. See here. Also heard she was on a week long trip that just happened to be where the superbowl was on . She could have flown home monday. Also heard she used the government jet.
Note the smilie!
However, if you want to ignore the smilie and take the comment in a serious frame of mind, think of value for money.
Mary Harney told us to "shop around".
Are we getting value for money by giving our Minister for Wealth a 15% pay increase? Just today she missed the Cystic Fibrosis debate in the Dail because she was at the SuperBowl!
Not going to happen in a hurry, Harney for example will devote enormous amounts of time, effort and cost squeezing moderate savings from indirect employees, E.g. GPs/pharmacists/consultants (not that they’re not worthwhile; and no I'm none of the above) instead of tackling her own backyard where billions are at stake. Why…? Maybe, because she's public sector herself? Maybe, not up to tackling unions? Maybe, because across the public sector 300,000 = a lot of votes? Who knows?I'd rather we focussed on getting value for money from the other 300,000 public sector employees that cost the exchequer tens of billions a year.