OECD Report

D

DerKaiser

Registered User
Messages
1,443
Here's the summary

  • Its report points to falling prices and lower private sector wages.
  • The OECD says unemployment benefits should be cut and calls for much better measures to prevent people becoming long-term unemployed.
  • It also says the minimum wage of €8.65 an hour is high, and should be reviewed annually.
  • The agency says there is scope for reducing health spending by cutting costs and redeploying staff,
  • There is a need to look again at the medical card scheme.
  • It says class sizes at secondary level could be increased without reducing the quality of education received.
  • It says the Government should bring back third-level tuition fees.
  • On banking, it calls for speed in establishing NAMA
  • Nationalisation of any bank should happen only with the utmost reluctance.
  • The OECD also says more needs to be done to help people who are unemployed to meet their mortgage repayments
These guys are not biased and they are not stupid, we need to listen to this.

Prices have fallen and private sector wages are falling.

It's clear health an education budgets need to be reformed.

The minimum wage does need to be looked at to maintain competitiveness with unemployment benefit review in tandem.

I know the greens have already scuppered the introduction 3rd level fees but perhaps a graduate levy, of say 1%, could be ringfenced to fund universities.

The most important issue raised is that we cannot ignore those struggling to meet mortgage repayments. This is where we need serious outside the box thinking.

The unions have been dead set against a deflationary spiral, but the only arguement I see against reducing wages to more competitive levels is the debt burden. We need to look into a way of assisting those genuinely in trouble with their mortgages whilst discouraging people from getting into that situation in the first place.
 
There are probably major problems with this report in terms of frame of reference, bias etc.

Don't worry, Complainer will let you know... ;)
 
Caveat said:
There are probably major problems with this report in terms of frame of reference, bias etc.

Don't worry, Complainer will let you know... ;)
Click to expand...

Apart from the OECD report bit that says Ireland spends less on public services that the many of the other EU15 members. That bit's ok.
 
A lot (if not all) third-level institutions already have "back-door" fees by way of registration fees, in some cases up to €1,500
 
Latrade said:
Apart from the OECD report bit that says Ireland spends less on public services that the many of the other EU15 members. That bit's ok.
Click to expand...

Take out defence spending and see how it looks.
Then take average public sector earnings relative to private sector earnings for the EU15 and see what our public sector wage bill would be if the ratio was the same here.
 
Purple said:
Take out defence spending and see how it looks.
Then take average public sector earnings relative to private sector earnings for the EU15 and see what our public sector wage bill would be if the ratio was the same here.
Click to expand...

I would also have thought that lack of universal health care here means that we should have lower taxes and lower public spending than most of the EU15.
 
Purple said:
Take out defence spending and see how it looks.
Then take average public sector earnings relative to private sector earnings for the EU15 and see what our public sector wage bill would be if the ratio was the same here.
Click to expand...

Ooops, I missed my sarcasm smilie in my post.

Couldn't agree more, but we've had over 12 months of being told that this tiny solitary graph in the OECD report is justification for the government not making cuts. Even though the rest of the report pretty much gives an indication that in comparisson wages are higher and as you say military spend is a lot less. But the mantra is "but the OECD report says..."

And don't forget that we're not really comparable with the EU15 and when you include all member states the comparisson isn't as "good" for the PS employees.

It'll be interesting to see why we're told this OECD should be ignored.
 
DerKaiser said:
The most important issue raised is that we cannot ignore those struggling to meet mortgage repayments. This is where we need serious outside the box thinking.
Click to expand...

I am far from overly knowledgeable on money matters, but when thinking about our lack of competitiveness and peoples debt last year, I wondered if large numbers are struggling to pay their mortgage and in essence the Gov/us own the banks, could everyones wages be slashed by 10% and their mortgages be cut by 10% too?

Now there may be a perfectly simple idea why this wouldn't work, but it was just something off the top of my head and is definitely "outside the box" thinking. Perhaps I'm just a halfwit.
 
DerKaiser said:
The most important issue raised is that we cannot ignore those struggling to meet mortgage repayments. This is where we need serious outside the box thinking.
Click to expand...

I'd agree and there were some suggestions that I thought made some sense (though I never did the figures to judge them). They revolved around incentives.

One was a greater tax increase, but with a tax break for reducing your debt. The more you put into the mortgage, etc, the less tax you got. Again, not sure of the numbers behind it or whether it would have been more beneficial for higher earners (i.e. suddenly take out a bigger mortgage in order to save more from tax relief), but there was some logic to it.

First, most of the debt this time around is personal (most other economic issues the debt has largely been state and private) and the incentive to reduce your debt helps the individual and the banks.

Hand in hand to benefit those who didn't have debt (and couldn't take advantage of the tax relief) was to bring back a system similar to SSAIs for savings. So even though in the short term you paid more tax, you got it back in the medium term.

As I say, I never did the number crunching, but I remember them being thrown out there this time last year and thought they kind of had some logic behind them.

I suppose the ultimate option for a quick fix is nationalise everything and become a communist state for two years. All our wages go to the state and we're allocated proportional living expenses depending on our needs (mortgage, debts, food, heating etc). Shut up shop for two years, sort out the deficit, pay off the national debt and then slowly return back to a free market over a period of 3 years. Hang on...I think I saw that in the ICTU "better way"...
 
DerKaiser said:
Here's the summary

  • Its report points to falling prices and lower private sector wages.
  • The OECD says unemployment benefits should be cut and calls for much better measures to prevent people becoming long-term unemployed.
  • It also says the minimum wage of €8.65 an hour is high, and should be reviewed annually.
  • The agency says there is scope for reducing health spending by cutting costs and redeploying staff,
  • There is a need to look again at the medical card scheme.
  • It says class sizes at secondary level could be increased without reducing the quality of education received.
  • It says the Government should bring back third-level tuition fees.
  • On banking, it calls for speed in establishing NAMA
  • Nationalisation of any bank should happen only with the utmost reluctance.
  • The OECD also says more needs to be done to help people who are unemployed to meet their mortgage repayments
These guys are not biased and they are not stupid, we need to listen to this.

Prices have fallen and private sector wages are falling.

It's clear health an education budgets need to be reformed.

The minimum wage does need to be looked at to maintain competitiveness with unemployment benefit review in tandem.

I know the greens have already scuppered the introduction 3rd level fees but perhaps a graduate levy, of say 1%, could be ringfenced to fund universities.

The most important issue raised is that we cannot ignore those struggling to meet mortgage repayments. This is where we need serious outside the box thinking.

The unions have been dead set against a deflationary spiral, but the only arguement I see against reducing wages to more competitive levels is the debt burden. We need to look into a way of assisting those genuinely in trouble with their mortgages whilst discouraging people from getting into that situation in the first place.
Click to expand...
What particular OECD report are you referring to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top