Is it time for wage increases?

[jjm]

(Where do you think it is going to come from Purple said)
The over paid private sector who are putting there own jobs and the jobs of the lower paid at risk,

 

[TheBigShort]

Who should benefit from a growing economy?

No answer to this question.

How would borrowing take homeless people off the street?

No answer to this question.

So, with that in place, do you think we should borrow more money in order to raise wages in the public sector?

Wanted, a fourth answer to this question. Stop trying to limit the discussion to your public sector worker neighbour/friend/spouse. The topic is about wages in the round, for all workers. The topic is about the bankrupt nature of our, and developed economies and how to resolve it. As stated, I have posted a number of articles from various sources all pointing to rising incomes (particularly for low and middle income earners) as a method to returning stability. You deliberately choose to ignore these points and persist with repetitive questions about public sector pay in a vacuum.

Perhaps you could answer some questions first, as a matter of courtesy, before expecting your repeated question to be answered again and again?

 

[Purple]

(Where do you think it is going to come from Purple said)
The over paid private sector who are putting there own jobs and the jobs of the lower paid at risk,

Even though all the economic evidence points to the Public Sector enjoying a like for like premium of around 10%, excluding their gold plated pensions, over the private sector? A small dose of reality would do you no harm.

 

[Purple]

Wanted, a fourth answer to this question. Stop trying to limit the discussion to your public sector worker neighbour/friend/spouse. The topic is about wages in the round, for all workers. The topic is about the bankrupt nature of our, and developed economies and how to resolve it. As stated, I have posted a number of articles from various sources all pointing to rising incomes (particularly for low and middle income earners) as a method to returning stability. You deliberately choose to ignore these points and persist with repetitive questions about public sector pay in a vacuum.

Perhaps you could answer some questions first, as a matter of courtesy, before expecting your repeated question to be answered again and again?

Only the Public Sector can bully pay rises without any economic justification. In the Private Sector pay rises have to be earned and have to be based on economic reality. Therefore your discussion, by its very nature, is limited to the Public Sector. If a corner shop or Dry Cleaners or Cafe or small manufacturing business is hardly making enough money to fund existing levels of pay they can hardly give pay rises. If the Public Sector bully in State into giving them the €1 billion in pay increases they are looking for, and that's €1 billion every year, it will mean more income transfer from the Private Sector so less net income for those same people in the Cafes and shops.

 

[Firefly]

Wanted, a fourth answer to this question. Stop trying to limit the discussion to your public sector worker neighbour/friend/spouse. The topic is about wages in the round, for all workers.

Again you are dodging the specific question I have asked. The largest employer in the state, by a country mile, is the State. I would have thought that for wages to increase for everyone we should at least determine how this can be achieved for the largest employer in the state. In order for wages to increase for public sector workers the state would have to borrow more money. My question to you is do you think the state should borrow more money in order to increase wages in the public seector? By all means, when you have answered this, I would be more than happy to try and tease out how we can raise wages for everyone else.

The topic is about the bankrupt nature of our, and developed economies and how to resolve it. As stated, I have posted a number of articles from various sources all pointing to rising incomes (particularly for low and middle income earners) as a method to returning stability. You deliberately choose to ignore these points and persist with repetitive questions about public sector pay in a vacuum.

I am not ignoring these points, but as stated, I would like you to answer the question above before moving on to raising wages for everyone else. You see it's very easy to throw out statements like, it would be good to raise wages, but in order to be taken seriously, you will have to provide something as to how you think this can be achieved.

Perhaps you could answer some questions first, as a matter of courtesy, before expecting your repeated question to be answered again and again?

I am happy to answer any questions you have. I may not have all the answers but I will certainly try. Given, that you are still dodging my question above though, I really think it's you first on this.

 

[TheBigShort]

In the context of general economic theory, wage increases are inflationary. Central banks around the world are trying to stoke inflation. Their primary tool is QE which is failing. It is only creating greater divides between rich and poor.
This is why property prices are rising in affluent areas of capital cities around the world, but elsewhere they are stagnant. This is why debt burdens are increasing not reducing as all money issued today is on the basis of a loan taken out rather than the value of productivity.
The quickest and fairest way to stoke inflation into developed economies is through increased wages. This will stoke inflation, increase savings and reduce debt burden.
But it will also mean a massive transfer of capital to labour. Something that right wing free market worshipping monetarists cannot countenance right now.

Here is the OP again. Nowhere does it say borrow to pay public sector pay increases. That is a line being peddled by others to avoid the issue.
The theme of the topic is how do economies induce an inflationary effect (assuming it desirable , assuming it is policy) into economies.
To date CB's globally have undertaken monetary expansion through QE. I would argue that a fiscal expansion would be more effective. This would increase employment, increase incomes, increase savings for ALL workers, inducing an inflationary effect, reducing debt.
The Irish government should not do this in a vacuum. But neither should it wait for it to happen (as happen it will). Interest rates are 0%, fuel is cheap, so the option of borrowing, to invest in capital infrastructure projects should commence.

So instead of fixing any of that you think we should pay everyone more. Is that the case?

No, pls read pages 1-15 again, to get a grasp of the topic.

all means, when you have answered this, I would be more than happy to try and tease out how we can raise wages for everyone else.

Please tell me, why should we grow an economy and who should benefit from a growing economy?
How would borrowing remove homeless people from the streets? Do you expect private sector workers to pay deposits on housing? Or are you talking about state agencies implementing a housing development plan? Or other?

I am not ignoring these points,

You are.

I would like you to answer the question above before moving on to raising wages for everyone else.

I would like you to answer questions too, but ypu choose not to.
Why are you discussing increased wages for public sector workers first, then pay increases for everyone else later? Who mentioned that? That is not what this is about.
If you want to discuss micro elements of it, here is one option. The government borrows €2m for a capital spending on an IT project that will be used by a good department to provide on-line services to the public. The project will be tendered to the private market giving a boost to local indigenous IT companies that employ IT contractors. The successful company offers markets rates of pay to prospective candidates. If demand exceeds supply, wages will rise.
The successful candidates (assured of two years work) spend their wages in the local cafe and dry cleaners. The cafe owner, hires extra staff to meet demand, and the staff take a weekend break in Killarney.
All money into the private sector, barely a public servant to be seen or to benefit.

 

[jjm]

Have a small dose of reality ,Who wanted to cut the safety net for people in the private sector who lost there jobs. Who wanted to do away with the USC giving a pay increase to public servents on D stamp,Who has being shouting about having a system like they have in the HSE in there work place.Who has being talking down to the very people who pay There wages.Who has being talking down there fellow tradesmem. I better stop .

 

[Purple]

The Irish government should not do this in a vacuum. But neither should it wait for it to happen (as happen it will). Interest rates are 0%, fuel is cheap, so the option of borrowing, to invest in capital infrastructure projects should commence.

Ok, so as wages increase globally we should keep pace with them and/or we should borrow for capital investment only, not to increase wages in the public sector. Yes, I see no problem with that.

Here is the OP again. Nowhere does it say borrow to pay public sector pay increases. That is a line being peddled by others to avoid the issue.

If we increase public sector wages the only ways to fund it is to borrow, increase taxes or reduce services.

If you want to discuss micro elements of it, here is one option. The government borrows €2m for a capital spending on an IT project that will be used by a good department to provide on-line services to the public. The project will be tendered to the private market giving a boost to local indigenous IT companies that employ IT contractors. The successful company offers markets rates of pay to prospective candidates. If demand exceeds supply, wages will rise.

That is a positive only if it reduced costs in the delivery of those services by the state. If a business invests in capital or IT infrastructure it will look for a return on that investment. The return to the State has to be a reduction in costs.

 

[Firefly]

Here is the OP again. Nowhere does it say borrow to pay public sector pay increases. That is a line being peddled by others to avoid the issue.
Why are you discussing increased wages for public sector workers first, then pay increases for everyone else later? Who mentioned that?

You have proposed that wages should increase. I am asking how. I think it's logical to start with the largest employer in the state....if we can increase wages there your proposal has a chance.I promise to answer each and all the questions you have asked once you answer my question. Do you think the government should increase borrowings to raise wages in the public sector?

 

[Purple]

Have a small dose of reality ,Who wanted to cut the safety net for people in the private sector who lost there jobs.

No, I want there to be a time limit on that safety, after which it reduces to a minimal level.

Who wanted to do away with the USC giving a pay increase to public servents on D stamp,

Yes, emergency taxes should be removed before pay increases are given.

Who has being shouting about having a system like they have in the HSE in there work place.

I don’t understand this point.

Who has being talking down to the very people who pay There wages.

I don’t understand this point. Am I talking down the people who pay my wages?

Who has being talking down there fellow tradesmem. I better stop .

I don’t understand this point either. Are you referring to by posts about the low standards and skills of Irish trained Construction Sector Tradespeople? If so then yes, I think they have shamefully low standards and are, for the most part, not fit for purpose.

 

[TheBigShort]

You have proposed that wages should increase. I am asking how.

Fiscal stimulus. Interest rates are 0%. Unlikely to go lower.

I think it's logical to start with the largest employer in the state....i

I dont.

promise to answer each and all the questions you have asked once you answer my question.

wage increases should not occur in a vaccum. Or to put it another way, we shouldn't borrow to increase wages per se, or to put it another way, we shouldn't borrow to increase wages in the flat terms that you have presented here.

That is, no we shouldn't borrow €500 simply to give someone a pay rise. We should borrow to generate fiscal stimulus, like an IT program or develop a homeless strategy. Both will put money in workers pockets, fuelling demand, in turn, employment, in turn increased wages.
Instead we have QE to repair the balance sheets of bankrupt banks, in turn to offer lending to consumers for profit, at considerably higher rates than 0%. Inducing more debt overhang. A system that is broken.

 

[TheBigShort]

None of the products are made in Ireland

You say one thing, these people say another



who are we to believe?

 

[Purple]

BS, can you clarify if that Fiscal

You say one thing, these people say another



who are we to believe?

Is that the best you can do?
You are either being utterly disingenuous by ignoring the fact that cars, TV's, iPads, Phones, really just about every consumer good we buy is imported or you are suggesting that the state borrow billions in order to allow us to drink more.

 

[TheBigShort]

we should borrow for capital investment only, not to increase wages in the public sector. Yes, I see no problem with that.

That is the point from the get go. As demand is fuelled, employment, wages will rise (without identifying any particular sector, but in general terms).

If we increase public sector wages the only ways to fund it is to borrow, increase taxes or reduce services.

Why do you keep resorting to public sector wages only?

That is a positive only if it reduced costs in the delivery of those services by the state. If a business invests in capital or IT infrastructure it will look for a return on that investment. The return to the State has to be a reduction in costs.

Agreed. And a simple saving could be, that as a particular service is now on-line, this will reduce demand on fuel costs for people travelling, in turn reducing carbon emissions, in turn contributing to the State meeting its carbon quota without penalty.

 

[Purple]

That is, no we shouldn't borrow €500 simply to give someone a pay rise. We should borrow to generate fiscal stimulus, like an IT program or develop a homeless strategy. Both will put money in workers pockets, fuelling demand, in turn, employment, in turn increased wages.
Instead we have QE to repair the balance sheets of bankrupt banks, in turn to offer lending to consumers for profit, at considerably higher rates than 0%. Inducing more debt overhang. A system that is broken.

Ok, we should borrow more money in order to pay state employees to provide more or better services. That's just borrowing to run the country. We already do that in spades.

 

[Purple]

That is the point from the get go. As demand is fuelled, employment, wages will rise (without identifying any particular sector, but in general terms).

But that's not the same as funding homeless services and you want to borrow to do that.

Why do you keep resorting to public sector wages only?

Because they will not increase as a result of a fiscal stimulus. They increase when the Unions put a gun to the head of the people of Ireland.

Agreed. And a simple saving could be, that as a particular service is now on-line, this will reduce demand on fuel costs for people travelling, in turn reducing carbon emissions, in turn contributing to the State meeting its carbon quota without penalty.

No, the saving would be a reduction in headcount in the State agency or Department which delivers the service. If you are suggesting that then we are in agreement.

 

[TheBigShort]

BS, can you clarify if that Fiscal

Is that the best you can do?
You are either being utterly disingenuous by ignoring the fact that cars, TV's, iPads, Phones, really just about every consumer good we buy is imported or you are suggesting that the state borrow billions in order to allow us to drink more.

Ah, give it a break, do we have to go through each and every product manufactured abroad and at home?

We manufacture alot of the technology that is assembled abroad into everyday use products that we consume. Think Apple, Intel, Pharma, etc.

 

[jjm]

Looking at the above posters who said the voted For Fine Gael you can see they have not got the will power to hold the Government feet to the fire,We never had a left wing government in power in this country on its own, Fine Gael supporters on hear need to hold there party feet to the fire,Fine Gael leaders and supporters in the past stood for something the had red line issues which never were for sale.Now all I see Hear and read are Inward looking half baked Fine Gael Supporters who don't know what they want or stand for.

 

[TheBigShort]

But that's not the same as funding homeless services and you want to borrow to do that.

No I don't. The suggestion to borrow to remove homeless people from the streets was made by Firefly. Despite repeated attempts to ask him how this would work, he refuses to answer.

Because they will not increase as a result of a fiscal stimulus. They increase when the Unions put a gun to the head of the people of Ireland.

Dont be so daft. In a growing economy, all sectors should benefit, "a rising tide..." and all that. We have a growing economy. Who should benefit?

No, the saving would be a reduction in headcount in the State agency or Department which delivers the service. If you are suggesting that then we are in agreement.

It could be that too, absolutely. Alternatively, the service could be out-sourced and licensed to the private sector altogether? Reducing jobs in the Public Sector, increasing them in the Private sector?

 

[Firefly]

That is, no we shouldn't borrow €500 simply to give someone a pay rise.

I agree and thanks for answering this.

I know it's off-topic, but across the public sector wages increases are being sought at the moment. It has nothing to do with a fiscal stimulus, just a plain demand for higher wages. This would require more borrowings, so I am glad you also think we "shouldn't borrow....simply to give someone a pay rise".

We should borrow to generate fiscal stimulus, like an IT program or develop a homeless strategy. Both will put money in workers pockets, fuelling demand, in turn, employment, in turn increased wages.

I would agree with this but on a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't just borrow because rates are zero. It would depend on the project and the return to the economy / society in general. As someone who works in IT, I would argue that borrowing money for an IT project, for example, would be down the list. I think transport infrastructure, schools, social housing would be better candidates.

I will answer the questions you have asked me shortly, but again thanks for answering my question and I am glad we are in agreement that borrowing to simply give someone a pay rise is a bad idea.