I agree the public sector is overstaffed.
I agree some people in the public sector are on ridiculously high salaries.
I do not agree that all people in the public sector are overpaid.
I do not agree that all people in the private sector are taking pay cuts or losing their jobs.
Using all that as a starting point I agree we should stop fighting with each other and try and find a fair solution to our problem.
OK then - Complainer, Liaconn & Dieselblue for example:
Simple question, YES or NO answer please.
"Do you agree that there needs to be substantial cuts made within the public sector either in personnel and/or in pay?"
Oh don't be so coy. Why not be a bit clearer about your recommendation. This is the IBEC wet dream - dump all employment protections, and let employers (public and private) continuously cut wages and conditions and fire any objectors, until we are all working in sweatshop conditions. This is your proposal - right?
The rush to cut public salaries is misguided. This will take considerable amounts of money out of the economy with substantial downstream effects and push many more people onto the dole.
Public sector staff have already had a substantial cut in pay via the so-called pensions levy. So the public sector has done its part, and now it is time for others to play their part. The public sector is ready to be part of the solution, but it is not going to be the sole, soft target for cuts.
If I, in a private company, take a pay cut how does that reduce the government deficit?So the public sector has done its part, and now it is time for others to play their part.
The rush to cut public salaries is misguided. This will take considerable amounts of money out of the economy with substantial downstream effects and push many more people onto the dole.
Public sector staff have already had a substantial cut in pay via the so-called pensions levy. So the public sector has done its part, and now it is time for others to play their part. The public sector is ready to be part of the solution, but it is not going to be the sole, soft target for cuts.
Your analysis implies that the impacts of all other options have been seriously evaluated and proven as worse than cutting public sector. What serious analysis has been done on other options to address the deficit, including increasing income tax, increasing CGT, increasing corporation tax and cutting out many of the existing tax reliefs available to the wealthy? You can't rule something as 'least-worst' until you have evaluated all other options.1. Will a public sector pay cut take " considerable amounts of money out of the economy"? Yes of course it will. But it is borrowed money. We are borrowing lots of money and we are mortgaging our children's future to have this money in the economy. We know that wide-scale pay cuts reduce the size of the economy. We must do this if it is our "least-worst" option. I think we have no choice but to do it. But perhaps we, as a nation, will make a different choice. I hope not.
To be honest, I was thinking about direct public job cuts, as mentioned in Caveat's question, but thanks for reminding all about the downstream impact of job cuts. This is not just an sociological issue, this is a real economic issue. More unemployment (direct and downstream) has a direct cost on the state. Is it unreasonable to suggest that perhaps someone should check whether the net economic effects of the job cuts is to save the state money, or possibly to actually cost the state even more money.2. Will a public sector pay cut push "many more people onto the dole". I don't know. Certainly, it won't push any public sector employees onto the dole. Those who sell goods and services to the public sector ( and to the employees of the public sector) will of course see their businesses suffer. So yes - it will produce higher unemployment.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I live in reality land too. I have direct family members unemployed, and others with salary cuts. I do know what's happening out there. I know that my former colleagues in private sector software industry are whinging about their pay being frozen, but they have had no pay cuts. They did cut some staff, but this was really just a case of 'don't waste the recession', taking the opportunity to dump some staff no longer wanted.3. "Public sector staff have already had a substantial cut in pay via the so-called pensions levy. So the public sector has done its part, and now it is time for others to play their part." Here is where the serious disagreement starts. I am sorry to be blunt but it is just nonsense to suggest that the public sector has 'done its part'. Out here in Reality Land, many people are coping with downturns of 30-50% in business and resultant downturns of 40-60% in their income. Employees are facing 20% pay cuts and mass lay-offs. Of course some private sector employees ( and businesses) are doing quite nicely. But the reality is that the public sector has been disproportionately insulated from the worst effects of the downturn, the brunt of which has been borne by private sector employees. To present the public sector as a 'sole soft target' is, with respect, to take a perspective utterly divorced from reality.
I didn't suggest anything about 'pumping money'. As MOB accurately notes above, cuts will have direct and downstream effects. Perhaps in the rush to slash-and-burn, somebody should stop and do the sums and see if these cuts will actually save money, or end up costing more money downstream.Works out nicely for you that the solution to all our fiscal problems is to pump money into the economy through high wages and high consumption of public servants. If that's your economic view then why not instead increase the dole, as social welfare will have a higher multiplier impact
Sole target? 200,000 people have lost their jobs. Political action is needed to address public spending and that is why it is being constantly debated. Market forces will dictate non public sector wages.
Please stop trying to beat your views into other people. You don't have a monopoly of expertise here. Questioning and challenging your approach does not equate to an unwillingness to solve the problem. There are a range of solutions available, but your absolute and one-sided focus on the slash-and-burn approach does not stand up. Your one-sided analysis of wage inflation doesn't really help us towards a solution either. It wasn't wage inflation that increased property prices. It was the 'perfect storm' of FF/PD planning policy, FF/PD economic policy (giving huge state subsidies to construction and property management, and giving carte-blanche to the banks to inflate prices via flaccid lending controls)Acknowledging that pay increases granted in inflationary times should be reversed in deflationary times is not tantamount to dumping employment protections.
From other posts you seem to be in the school of economics that justified pay raises against the increased housing costs of the last decade. Please show some consistency in the light of increased affordability.
We live in a high cost economy simply because we bought into the 'pay us more because costs of living are increasing' mantra. Well we lost the run of ourselves collectively and got into a vicious circle of wage inflation that has been every bit as damaging as the banking scandals.
There is no moral authority for anyone to berate the banks and builders if they show no willingness to accept the action needed on addressing the current budget deficit arising from unsustainably high public spending
Please stop trying to beat your views into other people. You don't have a monopoly of expertise here.
Your one-sided analysis of wage inflation doesn't really help us towards a solution either.
The rush to cut public salaries is misguided. This will take considerable amounts of borrowed money out of the economy with substantial downstream effects and push many more people onto the dole.
3. "Public sector staff have already had a substantial cut in pay via the so-called pensions levy. So the public sector has done its part, and now it is time for others to play their part." Here is where the serious disagreement starts. I am sorry to be blunt but it is just nonsense to suggest that the public sector has 'done its part'. Out here in Reality Land, many people are coping with downturns of 30-50% in business and resultant downturns of 40-60% in their income. Employees are facing 20% pay cuts and mass lay-offs. Of course some private sector employees ( and businesses) are doing quite nicely. But the reality is that the public sector has been disproportionately insulated from the worst effects of the downturn, the brunt of which has been borne by private sector employees. To present the public sector as a 'sole soft target' is, with respect, to take a perspective utterly divorced from reality.
Sole target? 200,000 people have lost their jobs.
I think this is a gross over exageration. Even the most pessimistic projections have the economy is constricting by only 5-7%, which means that the average reduction in wealth will only be 5-7%, not the "20%" plus figures you are quoting. Maybe certain sectors will be hit hard, but they are not typical. Lets not get carried away here.
His income is still on in excess of 60k per annum for the 3 day week and he collects dole for the remaining 2 days. He's counted as "unemployed" in these stats. There are many more like him.
Any chance of an answer to my question, Beanpole? Or do you still not have the 'interest' to back up a call for 20% pay cuts across the board with an explanation of your rationale?
Beanpole
You keep banging on about a 20% pay cut across the board but, when asked, refuse to explain how you came up with this figure. For instance why the same percentage across the board? Why 20%? Is this in addition to the cuts we have already taken? (and yes, the pension levy is a 'cut'!).
Its just really hard to take your posts seriously when you just bang out statements with no analysis or explanation.
You still haven't answered my question re your self proclaimed 'entirely sensible starting point'. If you go back to my post I broke my question down into a few simple stages for you.
Any chance of an answer to my question, Beanpole? Or do you still not have the 'interest' to back up a call for 20% pay cuts across the board with an explanation of your rationale?
Liaconn, any chance you could harangue beanpole with PMs rather than subjecting the rest of us to this squeaky, scratchy broken record? It's a public discussion forum. People can make suggestions that they don't have to back up with hard documented peer-reviewed evidence. Beanpole is well known to be OTT in his comments and views. He's not going to answer you. He doesn't have to answer to you for his opinions - just as you don't have to agree with him.I'll take it that you don't have the answer then?
I'll take it that you don't have the answer then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?