The Irish Times doesn't know what Neoliberalism means

Baby boomer said:

Yeah, I'd broadly agree. However, I think that any democratic civil society can and must allow sectoral interest groups to function freely. You will find that regimes that crack down on trade unions don't stop there and quickly crack down on everyone else too!

Click to expand...

I agree. I have no problem with Trade Unions in theory but the Irish ones represent middle to high paid employees in the protected sectors of the economy and actively create a culture of mediocrity which hurts the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the most. For that I despise them.

Baby boomer said:

The advocacy groups are a peculiar animal. They largely exist on public money and grants of one sort or another. They are basically paid by the taxpayer to advocate for even greater taxpayer spending on their chosen cause! Not a great bargain for said taxpayers!

Click to expand...

I agree. If the State sector was doing its job properly there would be no need for most of them.

State employees are the real guardians of democracy. They are where the citizen interacts with the State, the are the interface of the Social Contract. When they fail to do their job properly, when they obfuscate and resist change, they undermine the citizens belief in that social contract. Advocacy groups are the manifestation of their shortcomings.

Purple said:

That's just not true for the vast majority of public servants. At the top end it is true and I'd support significant pay rises for senior Civil Servants in particular, but mid to low ranking public servants are paid more than their private sector counterparts.

Click to expand...

I've never seen a good overall remuneration comparison that took account of the actual nature of work being done and the full extent of benefits available in the private sector. Things like disability insurance are standard in most white collar private sector roles, but non-existent for public services.

RetirementPlan said:

Things like disability insurance are standard in most white collar private sector roles

Click to expand...

No they're not, certainly not in the SME sector where most people work and not at the clerical level that most people in the public sector work.

RetirementPlan said:

I've never seen a good overall remuneration comparison that took account of the actual nature of work being done and the full extent of benefits available in the private sector.

Click to expand...

This is an Irish Times article from 2017 about a Davy report on the topic.

RetirementPlan said:

....Things like disability insurance are standard in most white collar private sector roles, but non-existent for public services.

Click to expand...

It's hardly standard, and even where it does exist, it tends to be riddled with exclusions and anomalies.

On the other hand, the faculty for retirement on ill-health grounds with enhanced pensionable service, is pretty standard throughout the public service and is an excellent benefit. It can also be topped up to a Rolls-Royce disability benefit scheme for a relatively small premium (about 1.5% of salary IIRC) a price I would advise almost any public servant to take.

While Una Mullally doesn't know what Neoliberal means her besties in Sinn Fein don't know the name of this country and are confused about who the Irish Defence Forces are. It's amazing that so many people are willing to sacrifice democratic values on the alter of populism.

Leo said:

Now that would be centre right, but who has introduced a tax cut for those earning more than 200k?

The Centre Left WIki definition pretty much sums up our whole political system.

Click to expand...

As I posted above, the Fine Gael manifesto had a policy to raise the higher rate threshold which would have the effect of giving the highest tax cuts to everyone with a salary >50k p.a. which would include salaries > 200k. They have not introduced, it but they are in coalition. As you say, it is a centre right policy.

time to plan said:

As I posted above, the Fine Gael manifesto had a policy to raise the higher rate threshold which would have the effect of giving the highest tax cuts to everyone with a salary >50k p.a. which would include salaries > 200k. They have not introduced, it but they are in coalition. As you say, it is a centre right policy.

Click to expand...

Any cut to the tax lower income earners pay also reduced the total tax paid by higher earners. You are suggesting that any reduction in the tax paid by low earners is a right wing policy because it also benefits high earners.
Are increasing the State pension and universal healthcare and free third level education also right wing policies because they also benefit rich people?
What about looking after public parks and the fireworks for New Years and improving the roads? they also benefit rich people so they must be right wing policies.

Jasus...I've heard it all now.

Purple said:

This is an Irish Times article from 2017 about a Davy report on the topic.

Click to expand...

And who would question anything coming from those trustworthy people at Davy? Honestly, this comparison doesn't even get off the starting tracks. Comparing average salaries and concluding one is overpaid is just ridiculous. Do we really have to spell out, again and again, that this is comparing apples and oranges. Public sector tends not to have the large numbers of low-paid entry level staff that you see in businesses like hospitality and retail in particular. The days of large numbers of COs shuffling paper are a thing of the past, with perhaps a small number of exceptions like DSP and to a lesser extent Revenue. So if you compare averages, when one side is heavily weighted by large numbers of low-paid staff, of course you're going to get significant differences. Those differences tell you nothing about whether are people are paid appropriately for their work.

There was a better comparison done by the ERSI some years back, but the comparison of roles was very superficial, based on job titles. Public sector job titles don't compare easily. You can have someone who's title is Assistant Principal or Principal Officer, who may be an architect, or an engineer or a data analyst or an accountant or auditor or a policy analyst or a comms expert. The only way to compare their roles against the private sector is to look at what they actually do. Those of us on the ground looking at the steady stream of colleagues being well trained up in the public sector and being creamed off by Apple, Google, Facebook and others have a pretty good understanding of salary comparisons.

Baby boomer said:

It's hardly standard, and even where it does exist, it tends to be riddled with exclusions and anomalies.

On the other hand, the faculty for retirement on ill-health grounds with enhanced pensionable service, is pretty standard throughout the public service and is an excellent benefit. It can also be topped up to a Rolls-Royce disability benefit scheme for a relatively small premium (about 1.5% of salary IIRC) a price I would advise almost any public servant to take.

Click to expand...

Very standard in professional services and MNCs. The riddled exclusions and anomalies didn't seem to cause any difficulties for the former colleague in an MNC who left on disability with back problems, and was back working as a consultant in the same sector within a matter of months. The exclusions didn't seem to cause difficulties for David Norris who was paid disability from Trinity's disability scheme for years while working as as Senator.

Cost neutral early retirement is, as the name suggests, cost neutral. I'm not sure what other scheme you're referring to. The cases that I'm aware of had people facing into standard Disability Allowance once their six months sick pay ran out, which is not a pleasant scenario for anyone. Hence the large numbers of people with little other choice but to pay for their own disability cover.

RetirementPlan said:

.....Those of us on the ground looking at the steady stream of colleagues being well trained up in the public sector and being creamed off by Apple, Google, Facebook and others have a pretty good understanding of salary comparisons.

Click to expand...

Ok, there's a little acknowledged reality at play here. In much of the public sector, salary and promotion doesn't correlate very well to ability, skills and market rates. The public sector, rightly or wrongly, often doesn't reward people who go the extra mile. It does reward CYA merchants who are adept at playing the system. Therefore those who are mediocre will tend to stay for the comfortable life and a reasonably good reward package. They may be perfectly adequate performers but don't aspire to rise above mere adequacy.

On the other hand, you will have people who stand out in terms of ability, application and achievement. Or maybe they have acquired skills and experience in a highly in-demand field, eg taxation, IT, whatever. Either way, they can easily improve their remuneration package by leaving. But everyone can't. The Apples, Googles and Facebook are quite specific and selective in terms of who they want. Not everyone measures up.

Purple said:

While Una Mullally doesn't know what Neoliberal means her besties in Sinn Fein don't know the name of this country and are confused about who the Irish Defence Forces are. It's amazing that so many people are willing to sacrifice democratic values on the alter of populism.

Click to expand...

An excellent article from Kathy Sheridan. Goes some way to balance the Shinner propaganda nonsense from Una Mullally.

Purple said:

Any cut to the tax lower income earners pay also reduced the total tax paid by higher earners. You are suggesting that any reduction in the tax paid by low earners is a right wing policy because it also benefits high earners.
Are increasing the State pension and universal healthcare and free third level education also right wing policies because they also benefit rich people?
What about looking after public parks and the fireworks for New Years and improving the roads? they also benefit rich people so they must be right wing policies.

Jasus...I've heard it all now.

Click to expand...

You are deluded or far right. Not really worth arguing with.

time to plan said:

You are deluded or far right. Not really worth arguing with.

Click to expand...

If you think Purple is far right, then you must be well to the left of the Cuban Communist Party!

time to plan said:

You are deluded or far right. Not really worth arguing with.

Click to expand...

So you can't argue the point. Got it.

RetirementPlan said:

And who would question anything coming from those trustworthy people at Davy? Honestly, this comparison doesn't even get off the starting tracks. Comparing average salaries and concluding one is overpaid is just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Have you read the article? It makes clear that "at most around half of this pay gap between public and private sector workers could be attributed to differences in education, experience, qualifications and other factors." It also notes that the gold plated defined benefit pensions are not taken into account so the disparity is actually far greater.

Baby boomer said:

The Apples, Googles and Facebook are quite specific and selective in terms of who they want. Not everyone measures up.

Click to expand...

Not only that but they have an unofficial policy of generally not hiring each others people.

Purple said:

Have you read the article? It makes clear that "at most around half of this pay gap between public and private sector workers could be attributed to differences in education, experience, qualifications and other factors." It also notes that the gold plated defined benefit pensions are not taken into account so the disparity is actually far greater.

Click to expand...

I read the report itself, where they confirmed that their views on 'the gap' and the views of others are basically 'finger in the air' stuff.

In any case, these statistical estimates of the underlying wage premium should be taken with a ‘pinch of salt’. They are derived from statistical models of how wages are determined in Ireland alone. A recent European Commission paper takes a broader view, finding that wages in Ireland were exceptionally high compared with other European countries even after accounting for differences in workers’ characteristics. Furthermore, the European Commission found that the pay premium of 20% in Ireland was the largest across 26 European countries. Therefore our view is that, at most, only half (20%) of the pay gap can be explained by differences in experience, age, education and qualifications. This is probably an upper limit. In the United Kingdom, public sector pay levels are set almost exactly in line with the private sector despite sharing similar characteristics to their counterparts in Ireland.

Click to expand...

Did you read the full article yourself, including this bit?

The Davy study is at odds with a recent Central Statistics Office (CSO) paper which found that public sector workers are paid slightly less than their private-sector counterparts overall.

Click to expand...

The lads in Davy must be disappointed that they didn't manage to thin out the qualified people from the Central Bank.

time to plan said:

As I posted above, the Fine Gael manifesto had a policy to raise the higher rate threshold which would have the effect of giving the highest tax cuts to everyone with a salary >50k p.a. which would include salaries > 200k. They have not introduced, it but they are in coalition. As you say, it is a centre right policy.

Click to expand...

I clearly didn't say that, and if you think that particular policy is centre right, you clearly don't understand what that is.

A threshold increase makes a far more significant difference for someone on 50k than it does for someone on 200k. A more center-right version would be to lower the upper tax rate so that higher earners would benefit more.

Carnmore said:

There should be a choice of two schemes, either Defined Benefit, with the full cost met by the eventual recipient, or a Defined Contribution pension scheme.

Click to expand...

The State sector has a genuine advantage in providing DB benefits. The private sector (at least the big boys) kidded itself for many years that it could do that until recently. This is simply one of those things like national defence that private sector capitalism can't do well. Many reasons but mostly because they are not prepared to accept the short to medium term risks. They could of course continue to provide DB and charge employees for the risks but that wouldn't wash.
The State can take those risks so it enjoys a key competitive advantage on this. This should lead to actual cost savings to society as a whole at it's combined remuneration of the public sector can be that much less. I am not entering the debate as to whether that is actually happening but the big picture is that providing a DB pension to state employees should be an economic win for society as a whole.
On the separate issue of funding for State pensions, it would IMHO be a silliness to have a €300bn debt alongside a €100bn pension fund and no modern society does that so far as I am aware. The National Pension Reserve Fund was an illusion and turned out to be exactly that.