Irish Workers Highest Paid

[Protocol]

Yes, you have to have paid PRSI to be entitled to JSB.

JSB lasts for 9 or 12 months.


JSA is means-tested and lasts forever.

 

[onq]

How much time someone spends in college should have no bearing what so ever on how much they earn. How much their skills are worth to a client or/and employer should be the sole factor in determining their income. If the time in college adds to the open market value of their skills then great but qualification and time spend in and or themselves are no reason to demand higher pay.

That is total and complete nonsense.
People aren't going to train for years and give up a decade of earnings to take on increased responsibility for nothing.
Remuneration is the reward offered by a capitalist society and that is what's expected.
If people see they cannot get paid for what they do they will seek alternative employment.

You seem to be assuming that simply anyone can waltz into a career in the professions and become a success - you're dead wrong there.
The numbert of people attending at third level, never mind qualifying with a marketable profession or skill in the private sector is relatively small for any given generation.

You seem to totally fail to see that what a person earns over his lifetime determines his standard of living and ultimately the quality of life when he retires.
Professional study and the early years in professional practice take away the first 10-12 years of one's earning potential through study and minimally paid work.
This occurs at the start of one's career - at a time when your mates in paid enployment are able to afford cars, entertainment, taking girls our to dinner, foreign holdays - and when money put into a pension fund will multiply to the greates effect.
The latter is reason alone to justify high fees to pay catch-up with non-professionals.

You effectively have no money to invest in pensions or put away in savings.
You thus truncate your earning potential by 20-25% over an average 45-year career.
In fact you are paying out money on digs and fees and books and study trips with no income coming in.

Professionals feel its appropriate to charge more for your services otherwise they'll never reclaim that deficit.
All professionals offer a level of advice in their field that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" cannot aspire to.
This is what they are paid for and the standard they are held to should matters do haywire and proceed to Court.
Joe worker can rely on the rule that "the master is liable for the torts of his servant" - not so the professional.
So before you criticise professionals for their fees, learn what it means to be and to become a professional.

This is not to defend outrageous monies earned by some professionals, but even this is the market [people who retain professionals] believing that "you get what you pay for".
This isn't necessarily the case in professional terms and a small committed office can easily offer a service matching the integrity and professionalism of a larger firm or a "name" firm - the market doesn't see this, and so the bigger offices get bigger and the smaller ones trundle among.
Smaller firms are capable of designing housing estates, but its usually for one or two loyal clients.
They could probably take on more residential estate work , but simply don't get the numbers of schemes being offered that the larger office get - such is life.
Size seems to matter in professional life as in elsewhere and you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Sometimes its not fair - its just a matter of who gets to the seats first.

Of course going to the marketplace and winning clients isn't something that Joe worker knows much about - he is paid for his time or his skill or his organizational abilities.
The directors and marketing people face that grind of seeking new work in adverst trading conditions.
Oh wait - they're better paid, too... see the connection?
Now granted some of them are freebooters, but don't tell me you haven't worked with Joe worker and seen some of the office maestros at goofing off doing their thang.
Workers are no different to professionals and management when it comes to that and there are a lot more of them.

But let's for the minute assume your equal-paid utopia comes to pass - this actually happened - as far as it could - in Soviet Russia.
Taxi drivers and mocrobacteriologists earnt €600 per month in Moscow in 1the 1980's - no inflation there, boyos.
The former got his driving license, his plate, his car, put petrol in and went out to work.
The latter spent up ot 14 years perfecting his qualification.
They each got paid the same.
This information was supplied by the Microbacteriologist I shared midnight tea with on the train from Moscow to Leningrad.
This only works if there is free housing for those who need it, and state aid and medical care for all - which again happened in Soviet Russia.
In other words, there is no loss of earning potential and your basic needs are met by the State.
But this low level of reward promoted ridiculous levels of black marketeering.
For example

• it cost 600 Roubles a month to run a Taxi
• Taxi men earned 600 Roubles a month.

So what did the Taxi man live on?

Now address this to capitalism:
This levelling drift cannot work in a free market economy.
Many people dissillusioned with the projected earning potential and the quality of their life for the first decade after college because of no promise of money thereafter to spur them on will simply choose not to study.
Those professionals who remain in practice will be swamped with demands for their services.
They will put up their fees and the highest payers will get their services.
You will end up with a less egalitarian society, not more, if you pursue your "ideal" to its logical consequences.

There are plenty of solicitors, accountants and professionals out there who exist, not at the Superstar Level, but on €30-40K/annum.
That's pretty close to the industrial wage IIRC - and you want to tell them they should earn less?

FWIW

ONQ.

 

[BeanPole]

JSA is means-tested and lasts forever.

Isn't that the problem? Should be cut after 12 months.

 

[Stonesie]

Isn't that the problem? Should be cut after 12 months.

Not sure what you mean Beanpole, but not many get over 200 when you lose JSB,

JSA is means tested, is far less than 200 and is very hard to get if your not single.

So no, welfare levels are not the problem, so please don't criticise the recently unemployed for not having an "incentive"

In my opinion the cuts should come from an obviously over-paid public sector- but that will never happen

Revenue should come by charging those who can afford them for public services, e.g. 3rd level education, means tested medical care, water charges etc but this will never happen either

 

[Stonesie]

I wouldn'tagree with the arguement if you cut welfare payments and the minimum wage prices will come down and everything will be fine.

What needs to hapen first is rents come down (not the unemployed's area), then prices will fall, (again not the unemployed's area) and only whe prices fall by 50% is it reasonable to suggest cutting the minimum wages by 50% is a good idea

 

[Purple]

That is total and complete nonsense.
People aren't going to train for years and give up a decade of earnings to take on increased responsibility for nothing.
Remuneration is the reward offered by a capitalist society and that is what's expected.
If people see they cannot get paid for what they do they will seek alternative employment.

Are you suggesting that people should be paid more than their customers are willing (or able) to pay simply because they have spent a long time being educated?

Plus, you seem to be assuming that simply anyone can waltz into a career in the professions and become a success - you're dead wrong there.

Anyone with the requisite aptitude and ability should be able to enter any profession.

The numbert of people attending at third level, never mind qualifying with a marketable profession or skill in the private sector is relatively small for any given generation.

The number of newly qualified solicitors entering the market doubled between 1988 and 1998 and doubles again between 1998 and 2008 ([broken link removed]). Are you suggesting that they should all be well paid simply by virtue of the fact that they spend a long time getting qualified? If so can you let us know who should pay them?

You fail to see that what a person earns over his lifetime determines his standard of living and ultimately the quality of life when he retires.

How do you deduce that?

Professional study and the early years of a practice taked away the first 5-12 years of earning potential through study and minimally paid work.

This occurs at the start of your career - especially at a time when your mates in paid enployment are able to afford cars, entertainment, taking girls our to dinner, foreign holdays - all the trappings of success.

You have no money to invest in pensions or put away in savings.
You effectively truncate your earning potential by 25-20% over an average 45-year career, in fact you are paying out money on digs and fees and books and study trips with no income coming in.

They do this in the reasonable belief that their skills will be valuable to the market and so they will get a good return on their investment.

of course its appropriate to charge more for your services otherwise you'll never reclaim that deficit.

So a shop owner should charge more simply because he spent a fortune building a kick-ass shop? ...or maybe he should only build a kick-ass shop if he thinks there is a market for one and he can get a good ROI.

All professionals offer a level of advice in their field that "the man on the Clapham omnibus cannot aspite to" - this is what they are paid for and the standard they are held to should matters do haywire and proceed to Court.
Joe worker can rely on the rule that "the master is liable for the torts of his servant" - not so the professional.

Now that’s rubbish. Any self employed carpenter can be held to account for his work. That’s why they pay insurance. That’s why “professionals” pay insurance.

So before you go criticising professionals for what they charge, leanr a little about what it means to be a professional.
This is not to defend outrageous monies earned by some professional, but this is also the market believing that "you get what you pay for".

I’m not criticising what professionals charge. I am saying that what they charge is set by what the market is willing to pay for their skills and has no direct relation to how long they spent in college, how much they spent on their qualification or how many bells and whistles they have. For example GP “A” may only have the basic qualifications necessary to open a practice while GP “B” may have extra qualifications hanging out of their ying-yang. If more people like GP “A” they can charge more because the market will stand higher prices for their services.

This isn't the case in professional terms and a small committed office can easily offer a service matching the integrity and professionalism of a larger firm or a "name" firm - the market doesn't see this, and so the bigger offices get bigger and the smaller ones trundle among.

Smaller firms are capable of designing housing estates, but its usually for one or two loyal clients.
They could probably take on more residential estate work , but simply don't get the numbers of schemes being offered that the larger office get - such is life.
Size seems to matter in professional life as in elsewhere and you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Large (Law) firms offer a depth and breadth of skills that smaller offices do not. For large companies/ large cases economies of scale justify much larger spends for these skills, but still it’s the market deciding the price that can be charged.

Sometimes its not fair - its a matter of who gets to the seats first.
Of course going to the marketplace and winning clients isn't something that Joe worker knows much about - he is paid for his time or his skill or his organizational abilities or whatever.
Only the directors and marketing people face that grind of seeking new work in adverst trading conditions.

I suggest that the average plumber knows more about that than the average socicitor.

But let's for the minute assume your equal-paid utopia comes to pass - this actually happened - as far as it could - in Soviet Russia.
This only works if there is free housing for those who need it, and state aid and health care for all - which again happened in Soviet Russia.
Even there you had the ridiculous levels of black marketeering - it cost 600 Roubles to run a Taxi in 1988 in Moscow - Taxi men earned 600 Roubles - the same as a Microbacteriologist I shared midnight tea with on the train from Moscos to Leningrad - what did the Taxi man live on? Exactly.

What on earth are you talking about? I am saying that the market should set the price, you are not; I am arguing for a capitalist model, you are not.

Now address capitalism
This levelling drift cannot work in a free market economy.
Many people dissillusioned with their life for the first decade after college and no promise of money thereafter to spur them on will simply choose not to study.
The professionals who remain in practice will be swamped with demands for their services and will put up their fees and the highest payers will win.
You will end up with a less egalitarian society, not more, if you pursue your thoughts to the logical consequences.

What’s your solution, should the state pay professionals a subsidy if the market will not stand the fees they wish to charge in order to have the lifestyle their years of study justify?

BTW, there are plenty of solicitors, accountants and professionals out there who exist, not at the Superstar Level, but on €30-40K/annum.
That's pretty close to the industrial wage IIRC - and you want to tell them they have to earn less.
I have news for you - they are!

I know they are, my sister is a solicitor. I am simply pointing out that the buyer (the market) sets the rate, not the seller.

I'll be looking for a tax rebate this year if things keep going the way they are.

You have my sympathies, genuinely (for what little they are worth) but that’s the nature of things.

 

[Purple]

I wouldn'tagree with the arguement if you cut welfare payments and the minimum wage prices will come down and everything will be fine.

What needs to hapen first is rents come down (not the unemployed's area), then prices will fall, (again not the unemployed's area) and only whe prices fall by 50% is it reasonable to suggest cutting the minimum wages by 50% is a good idea

If nobody can afford the rent what do you thnk the landlords will do?
I agree that pay cuts will not solve everything. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ could not solve everything at this stage.

 

[Stonesie]

But the landlords should take the hit first, sequence is important, can't start with the unemployed and low paid as they are the most vulnerable,

 

[shanegl]

Remuneration is the reward offered by a capitalist society and that is what's expected.

Remuneration is set by the market. This idea you have that spending years studying should automatically mean you're entitled to a certain level of pay is complete nonsense in that context.

 

[Bronte]

taking girls our to dinner,

This is 2009, where does a man have the idea he needs to to pay for a woman's dinner? I'm gobsmacked at this. And you even think it's a sign of success. Oh dear.

In relation to rents, as a landlord I've seen no reduction in my rent since the last social welfare cut, my tenants never mentioned it so I am assuming the tenant is taking the hit themselves and that they can afford it, but I did reduce one rent for someone who had taken a pay cut.

 

[Purple]

But the landlords should take the hit first, sequence is important, can't start with the unemployed and low paid as they are the most vulnerable,

That just doesn't happen, how would the landlord set the price?
They can only react to market demand.

 

[BeanPole]

+1

 

[Stonesie]

That just doesn't happen, how would the landlord set the price?
They can only react to market demand.

Landlords are already reducing rent, because of falling demand,

As rents have only fallen by about 10% I will argue against any suggestion to cut social welfare or the minimum wage by 50%, as I think to do this would cause alot of damage to the wider economy


At the moment, maybe the long term dole and the minimum wage could be cut by 10% but I do not think it would improve much regarding our current economic problems or high prices.

 

[BeanPole]

Landlords are already reducing rent, because of falling demand,

As rents have only fallen by about 10% I will argue against any suggestion to cut social welfare or the minimum wage by 50%, as I think to do this would cause alot of damage to the wider economy.

Nonsense

How does freeing up the labour market damage the economy? By allowing wealth creators access to a lower cost supply of labour, you are stopping jobs being shipped overseas, and also ensuring that producers can offer their output at a lower price to the consumer.

At the moment, maybe the long term dole and the minimum wage could be cut by 10% but I do not think it would improve much regarding our current economic problems or high prices.

Why ever not?

As a society, we cannont afford to have people languishing on the dole for years on end. It is not fair on the individual and it is not fair on those paying their taxes to perpetuate this poverty trap.

Far better to radically reduce / eliminate both JSA and the mininum wage to get people back into the workforce.

Tinkering around the edges by cutting 10% off will, as you have identified have minimal impact. We need to be far more radical

 

[Stonesie]

Most pople agree this recession is demand led, i.e people don't want to spend. Cutting the safety net longterm workers currently have will not do anything to fix this, and will not reduce any poverty trap because supply of labour isn't the problem.

Also the cornerstone of any successful economy is stability, radical policy create shocks and uncertainty which rarely benefit anyone.

I can only think someone who argues cutting the minimum wage by 50% will REDUCE poverty doesn't know anyone on the minimum wage.

 

[Purple]

I think 50% is way too much but a reduction in welfare and the minimum wage slightly greater than the rate of deflation would be a good idea.

 

[sparkeee]

allow yourselves to live on the equivalent dole money for few weeks and then come back with your replies,i am sure there would be a lot less snobbery after.

 

[Purple]

allow yourselves to live on the equivalent dole money for few weeks and then come back with your replies,i am sure there would be a lot less snobbery after.

I have lived on far less (adjusted down for inflation) and it was damn hard but at least it wasn’t a hand out; I earned it .
This is about what the state can afford to pay, you know nothing about any of the posters on this thread so maybe it's you with the preconditions and snobbery problem.

 

[onq]

Onq - There was a guy on thepropertypin blowing a few months back about all the years architects spend studying and their great skills etc.
Can an architecture degree not be obtained in the standard 4 years, similar to other professions? Doesn't every professional have to 'learn the ropes' subsequent to college?

I wasn't drawing a distinction between architects and other professions.

An architects degree takes five years in Ireland and it is strongly recommended you take a year off, usually after 3rd year, to an initial gain experience of how and office is run and the duties you might face.

Some people decide to do other courses after they see just how "glamorous" the life is - LOL!

When I was qualified it was expected that you worked in an practice and learnt the ropes from senior architects for 2 years and then do a Part III exam or seven years after which you were deemed to have your part III's.

So that's a minimum of between 8 and 13 years before you could call yourself a competent architect - in theory.

ONQ.

 

[onq]

Are you suggesting that people should be paid more than their customers are willing (or able) to pay simply because they have spent a long time being educated?

I'm saying that there is a price below which people will not sell their skills after so many years of study and low pay.

Anyone with the requisite aptitude and ability should be able to enter any profession.

People tend to divide into numerate and non-numerate.
I've yet to meet a former accountant working as a hair stylist.
I've never met a former beautician working in a science laboratory.
Both numerate and non-numerate people may be intelligent, articulate and learn quickly, but they will probably never cross their respective Rubicons.

The number of newly qualified solicitors entering the market doubled between 1988 and 1998 and doubles again between 1998 and 2008 ([broken link removed]). Are you suggesting that they should all be well paid simply by virtue of the fact that they spend a long time getting qualified? If so can you let us know who should pay them?

I'm saying there is a rate they will not work below for the responsibility and the pressure they have to deal with, based partly on the years of study they have put in.

How do you deduce that?

Its fairly obvious, unless they receive an inheritance.

They do this in the reasonable belief that their skills will be valuable to the market and so they will get a good return on their investment.

No, its not all determined by what the market will pay - its a balance between what the market will pay and what the seller must make to stay in business, compounded by the back that he/she is making up for over a decade of low pay.

So a shop owner should charge more simply because he spent a fortune building a kick-ass shop? ...or maybe he should only build a kick-ass shop if he thinks there is a market for one and he can get a good ROI.

Now you're thinking correctly - know any shop owners with a sign saying "charitable institution" over the door? Didn't think so.

Now that’s rubbish. Any self employed carpenter can be held to account for his work. That’s why they pay insurance. That’s why “professionals” pay insurance.

I was drawing a distinction between a professional and a non-professional. Tradesmen are a different kettle of fish again.

I’m not criticising what professionals charge. I am saying that what they charge is set by what the market is willing to pay for their skills and has no direct relation to how long they spent in college, how much they spent on their qualification or how many bells and whistles they have. For example GP “A” may only have the basic qualifications necessary to open a practice while GP “B” may have extra qualifications hanging out of their ying-yang. If more people like GP “A” they can charge more because the market will stand higher prices for their services.

Up until recently there were scales of fees for architects - these have been removed as anti-competitive.
We're all on this "competition is good for us" train, heading ever onwards in our race to the bottom.
It won't last, I suspect.
But as to your point even as a professional I have problems with some of the fees charged by other professionals, especially when they perform substandard work or give a poor service.
I agree that in such cases the market will be heard.
My point is that there is a point below which professionals will not sell their services and that its no determined by the market per se - the market is the point at which equilibrium is reached between buyers of services and suppliers of services.
Don't believe me?
Despite hundreds of poorly paid barristers out there how many people take legal action?
These are basic rights we're talking about - but only a small subset pay the fees of the best.
When you go to court only the best will do, but the best cost a lot.

Large (Law) firms offer a depth and breadth of skills that smaller offices do not. For large companies/ large cases economies of scale justify much larger spends for these skills, but still it’s the market deciding the price that can be charged.

This is a typical myth-understanding based on a dismissal of the small firms ability to attain a level of quality of work.
Larger firms can take on more work.
Larger firms can pay people to specialise.
It still comes down to an individual professional making the call.

I suggest that the average plumber knows more about that than the average socicitor.

That makes no sense.
I sit down with a solicitor, I'm on the clock.
I call a plumber out and there's a call out fee.
Both are in the phone book and get known by word of mouth.

What on earth are you talking about? I am saying that the market should set the price, you are not; I am arguing for a capitalist model, you are not.

I am pointing out that the capitalist model has limitations.
Too much competition pulls the bottom out of the market and makes it unprofitable to provide the service.
In all your arguments you seem to ignore profit.
But profit and the lure of it it what drives capital markets.

What’s your solution, should the state pay professionals a subsidy if the market will not stand the fees they wish to charge in order to have the lifestyle their years of study justify?

I don't see a problem.
If a civilization cannot support a competent professional class it doesn't deserve them.

I know they are, my sister is a solicitor. I am simply pointing out that the buyer (the market) sets the rate, not the seller.

Nonsense - the interplay between supply and demand sets the rate.
Have you never seen a supply curve?
That's the price/quantity at which the professional will supply his/her services.
The demand curve is what the client is willing to pay.
Where these curves meet there is a market.

If the client offers too little there is no market.
The professional cannot exist supplying services unprofitably.
Ergo, the professional will be driven out of the market at those prices.

You have my sympathies, genuinely (for what little they are worth) but that’s the nature of things.

If I can persuade someone to kick the Banks in the butt and get them lending again, that's as much help as I'll need, but thanks for the sentiment.