Is it time for wage increases?

[Firefly]

But he is competitive, he said so. So much so that he is seeking a pay rise.

I believe I am competitive. This time next year I could be obsolete, although I try to keep abreast of where things are going. Anyway, why are we focusing on me?

 

[jjm]

Firefly just make sure you get enough .

 

[Firefly]

Firefly just make sure you get enough .

I'll do my best thanks! It won't be anything extravagant anyway. Things are dandy and if push comes to shove I don't want to be one of those who stands out in an accountant's spreadsheet!

 

[jjm]

NO you will not The Accountant will get a bit more than you

 

[Firefly]

NO you will not The Accountant will get a bit more than you

I'd believe it! Bloody accountants!!

 

[TheBigShort]

Good for them. Hadn't noticed it on the news though.

It wasnt on it. Does it matter?

Thanks. I'm a saver rather than a spender though, so it might take some time.

Good, we need savers as well as spenders. When consumers save, government spends. When consumers spend, government can save.

Why would they need higher wages?

Why do you need a higher wage?

I would also make it as easy as possible for indigenous industry to grow.

By cutting government spending?

 

[TheBigShort]

I believe I am competitive. This time next year I could be obsolete, although I try to keep abreast of where things are going. Anyway, why are we focusing on me?

It is not my intention. But you believe that public sector workers shouldn't get a pay rise if government has to borrow. But you are prepared to seek a pay rise for yourself. There is a considerable chance that your employer may have borrowed to invest in your employment. The last time there was excess private borrowing the economy collapsed.
I don't believe in borrowing for the sake of pay rises, but if borrowing can provide stimulus to the economy as a whole, public sector workers should also benefit from that.
The economy is growing. But it is disjointed growth at the whim of private speculators. This has its benefits where investment is made on sound footing, but it is also open to speculative gambles on property, stocks etc that benefit few.
Fiscal stimulus, at this time, can target broader swathes of population, including public sector workers. Of course it needs to be managed, but ideally, at this time it is the way to progress the economy.

 

[Firefly]

It wasnt on it. Does it matter?

I would have liked to have seen more balanced coverage from RTE. For all I thought, it was just the government's fault newly qualified staff were being paid less.

Good, we need savers as well as spenders. When consumers save, government spends. When consumers spend, government can save.

Fair point, however I save a large portion of my income in a bank in the UK.

Why do you need a higher wage?

I don't need a higher wage. I believe I can obtain a higher wage based on the reasons already given.

By cutting government spending?

Not necessarily. This kind of thing looks good: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...loyment/setting_up_a_business_in_ireland.html

 

[Firefly]

It is not my intention. But you believe that public sector workers shouldn't get a pay rise if government has to borrow. But you are prepared to seek a pay rise for yourself. There is a considerable chance that your employer may have borrowed to invest in your employment.

Nope. Long hours studying and building up IT environments in my own time. I also have the relevant certifications for my role and I paid for all learning material and the courses myself. Granted there have been plenty opportunity to learn "on the job" but that holds true for everyone - no one knows everything. I'm not portraying myself as a martyr to the cause by the way, just trying to taking personal responsibility for my income.

The last time there was excess private borrowing the economy collapsed.

I would add public borrowing to that. It's why the IMF flew into town.

I don't believe in borrowing for the sake of pay rises, but if borrowing can provide stimulus to the economy as a whole, public sector workers should also benefit from that.

They do, they get paid. If more help is needed, certainly hire more workers, but why pay them more? You still haven't really answered my question - how do you think wages in the public sector can be increased?

Regarding the house building program, and need for public sector workers in "planning divisions of county councils, Office of public works", I think it's fair to say that things have been relatively handy for them for the last number of years! We know how little building activity has been going on. If they were able to manage the largest building period in our history upto 2008, I'm sure the'd manage 6,000 houses!

The economy is growing. But it is disjointed growth at the whim of private speculators. This has its benefits where investment is made on sound footing, but it is also open to speculative gambles on property, stocks etc that benefit few.
Fiscal stimulus, at this time, can target broader swathes of population, including public sector workers. Of course it needs to be managed, but ideally, at this time it is the way to progress the economy.

I agree with all of that, but as already pointed out, I don't agree we should borrow money for any stimulus package whilst we are still borrowing to consume.

 

[TheBigShort]

Nope. Long hours studying and building up IT environments in my own time. I also have the relevant certifications for my role and I paid for all learning material and the courses myself.

I was talking about the setting up of a business, like a factory for instance. I borrow a million and then out of that I hire you to look after IT requirements. If the business crashes I go bankrupt and leave a tab for others to pick up. You can claim state redundancy. If the business works I keep lions share, do whatever to avoid paying taxes and keep your pay rise to a minimum.

I would add public borrowing to that. It's why the IMF flew into town.

That is the point. Too much private sector lending, too much public sector spending. Disaster.
One or other. The EU, through the ECB has chosen to restrain government spending (fiscal pact) but have unlimited money printing for whoever wants to or can borrow.
I would prefer if governments tore up fiscal pact, stop QE, and target infrastructure spending.

They do, they get paid. If more help is needed, certainly hire more workers, but why pay them more?

When did I say you have to pay them more? This is ridiculous. I never said it, what I said was a fiscal stimulus will generate economic activity in a more targeted way than QE will ever do. Increasing public spending, ill let the government of the day decide what form it should take. It could be house building, it could be hiring more public servants, it could public-private partnership, it could nuclear testing, it could be water infrastructure, it could be anything, it could your pay rise!
Whatever it is it is better than QE. That is the point. It will induce economic activity at ALL income levels, in turn increasing wages.
It has nothing to do with your obsession to constantly divert this topic to current pay disputes.
It is about economic policy of fiscal spending over QE.

You still haven't really answered my question - how do you think wages in the public sector can be increased?

I have, numerous times. No more.

I agree with all of that, but as already pointed out, I don't agree we should borrow money for any stimulus package whilst we are still borrowing to consume

And you dont agree with QE either. So banks, governments, corporations will shortly go bankrupt.

 

[jjm]

Hi firefly Help TheBigShort glitch in the system you wont get paid. Good enough for you and you wanted to cut the dole

 

[Firefly]

When did I say you have to pay them more? This is ridiculous. I never said it, what I said was a fiscal stimulus will generate economic activity in a more targeted way than QE will ever do.

You were asked repeatedly how wages in the public sector could be increased. You have pointed towards a stimulus package as a solution, but in your own words you are saying the above. So you still have not answered the question. More public servants, maybe, more employment maybe, but this thread concerns raising wages and you have not shown how wages for the largest cohort in the public sector will be achieved.

I'm with with on fiscal spending being better than QE by the way, but not when we are borrowing to consume.

 

[TheBigShort]

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1116/832163-ireland-prime-location-for-big-data-investment/

Here is an example of how government borrowing can be used to exploit potential within the economy.
Two of the top five issues for international entities were legal framework and data-related conditions and regulations.
If Ireland is seen as a favourite location then clearly we are doing some things right. But with some foresight perhaps we could spend money in the areas where we are not doing so well, or could do better? God forbid if that requires a public servant getting a higher wage.

 

[jim]

to answer the OP's question - yes it is. economy is growing, public sector and others are getting an increase, wages have stagnated for a few yrs.

so, yep - its time.

 

[Firefly]

I was talking about the setting up of a business, like a factory for instance. I borrow a million and then out of that I hire you to look after IT requirements. If the business crashes I go bankrupt and leave a tab for others to pick up. You can claim state redundancy. If the business works I keep lions share, do whatever to avoid paying taxes and keep your pay rise to a minimum.

That's how it works in a lot of cases yes. On the flip side, employees should build marketable skills so as not to be dependent on one employer and if that employer does not increase wages to a level the employee feels appropriate, the employee is free to look elsewhere.

That is the point. Too much private sector lending, too much public sector spending. Disaster.
One or other. The EU, through the ECB has chosen to restrain government spending (fiscal pact) but have unlimited money printing for whoever wants to or can borrow.
I would prefer if governments tore up fiscal pact, stop QE, and target infrastructure spending.

I agree - we are saying the same thing, except I don't believe we should borrow whilst still borrowing to consume.

And you dont agree with QE either. So banks, governments, corporations will shortly go bankrupt.

How? How will the government go bankrupt? If it wasn't for the budget just gone we would have balanced the books this year.

 

[Firefly]

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1116/832163-ireland-prime-location-for-big-data-investment/

Here is an example of how government borrowing can be used to exploit potential within the economy.
Two of the top five issues for international entities were legal framework and data-related conditions and regulations.
If Ireland is seen as a favourite location then clearly we are doing some things right. But with some foresight perhaps we could spend money in the areas where we are not doing so well, or could do better?

Why are you fixated on borrowing? Where in the article does it mention the need for the government to borrow for this? Why not divert spending from somewhere else?

God forbid if that requires a public servant getting a higher wage.

I have no issue with public servants getting a higher wage as long as we do not have to borrow just to raise wages. You agreed with me remember?

 

[jjm]

the people in power will raise tax on all the high earners they will not have to borrow to pay a higher wage to public servants .Just take some tax from the people who are lucky enough to work in jobs that can afford to pay an increase in the private sector.As firefly says no problem once they don't borrow.

 

[TheBigShort]

Why are you fixated on borrowing? Where in the article does it mention the need for the government to borrow for this? Why not divert spending from somewhere else?

Where will you cut spending? Reduce garda pay/numbers? Reduce teacher pay/numbers, cut health services? Are you not conscience of current pay disputes.

If we had money in the kitty to spend on infrastructure investment then well and good. But as you have pointed out, we are running a deficit. So in order to invest in essential services, vital infrastructure etc we need to borrow.
We can do it two ways. We can increase government borrowing for targeted infrastructure spending, or we can await the trickle down borrowing of QE to arrive one day and hope we are in the right place at the right time.
I would favour turning off QE and for increaed government spending.
You appear to favour turning off QE and reducing government spending, and expect somehow, the economy will grow!
If you can point me any commentator, any economist, any business person that supports that view, then hands up, you win this discussion.

 

[Firefly]

You still have not shown how wages for those in the public sector can be increased!

Where will you cut spending? Reduce garda pay/numbers? Reduce teacher pay/numbers, cut health services? Are you not conscience of current pay disputes.

I would rather we left things alone. If the budget measures in Oct were reversed we would have balanced the books for the first time in year and next year we could have put ourselves on the path to reducing our debt. You are the one advocating stimulus package for the fastest growing economy in Europe. I am saying rather than borrowing for it (which seems to be the silver bullet for everything the left proposes) I am saying re-direct the money being spent elsewhere.

If we had money in the kitty to spend on infrastructure investment then well and good. But as you have pointed out, we are running a deficit. So in order to invest in essential services, vital infrastructure etc we need to borrow.

And I am saying we shouldn't borrow for this. The exception being homelessness, I have no problem with anyone or the government borrowing in a real emergency situation.

You appear to favour turning off QE and reducing government spending, and expect somehow, the economy will grow!
If you can point me any commentator, any economist, any business person that supports that view, then hands up, you win this discussion.

No need for a commentator economist or any business person...Government spending has been drastically cut since 2008 and not only has the economy grown but we are the fastest growing economy in Europe!

 

[TheBigShort]

You still have not shown how wages for those in the public sector can be increased!

I have, but if you are not happy with it then so what? The topic is not about increasing public sector wages. It is about increasing wages across the economy to provide for stable, properous economic environment that will provide quality services and private investment.

I would rather we left things alone. If the budget measures in Oct were reversed we would have balanced the books for the first time in year and next year we could have put ourselves on the path to reducing our debt. You are the one advocating stimulus package for the fastest growing economy in Europe. I am saying rather than borrowing for it (which seems to be the silver bullet for everything the left proposes) I am saying re-direct the money being spent elsewhere.

And because of all those left-wing governments we have had to date that we have ended up where we are?

And im asking you where would you re-direct the money? What will that do? It is robbing peter to pay paul. So cut healthcare funding to build houses? Or close schools to build a motorway?

And I am saying we shouldn't borrow for this. The exception being homelessness, I have no problem with anyone or the government borrowing in a real emergency situation.

But you cant simply run an economy on the basis that borrowing is ok if its an emergency, but not ok otherwise. Thats what every tinpot basket case in Africa does.

No need for a commentator economist or any business person...Government spending has been drastically cut since 2008 and not only has the economy grown but we are the fastest growing economy in Europe!

Yes, the fastest growing economy in Europe. Propelled by a policy of providing 0% loans from the ECB to banks and governments through QE. Only, governments are restricted to 3% deficits under the fiscal pact so cant borrow accordingly for essential services and infrastructure development to increase the capacity of the economy to increase productivity.
Banks on the other hand are back in lending mode. PTSB offered me €0.10c everytime I used their current account debit card. Sounds like a loyalty card offer from a supermarket. This is the type of nonsense we are being offered with.
SUV sales are on the increase and if I want to replace my smartphone to an iphone 7 (because it has wireless earphones, why wouldn't I?) I can borrow away. But if I am struggling with childcare payments, then perhaps I shouldn't have had children (this was actually said to me once). Certainly the government should not interfere in the free-market and provide additional supports to workers in that sector. That would cost the taxpayer! Cant have that . No, we need to stimulate the economy through increased borrowing for cash-strapped citizens by buying stuff they dont need and worse, its on credit.