Posts By Michael Taft

vsign4

Cameron’s Swarm is Europe’s Solution

, , No Comment

David Cameron labelled them a ‘swarm’. Thousands of them have died in the Mediterranean.  Border fences are being built to keep them out:  Hungary, Spain, Bulgaria, Calais.  The Slovakian Government will take a handful of them but only if they are ‘Christian’ (apparently they don’t do Muslims or Mosques).  And all the while millions are being spent  on aperverse mini-stimulus – as ‘defence contractors, outsourcing companies and security forces find willing buyers for their security-based “solutions”, bringing new surveillance systems, patrol vessels, co-ordination centres and detention facilities to the market with little scrutiny or due diligence.‘  A rational political and economic response gives way to militarisation.

This is what has been labelled the ‘migration crisis’ – as hundreds of thousands are seeking refuge, asylum, work and a better life while risking oppression and even their lives to come to Europe. 

Much has been written on this subject – including this insightful analysis by Dr. Vincent Durac.  I don’t intend to survey all the issues or appropriate responses as this crisis has many origins and dynamics and will require substantial doses of enlightened national policy combined with international cooperation.  But here are a couple of thoughts.

First, the men, women and children that make up Cameron’s swarm – they are not a problem, they are a solution.  They are a solution to Europe’s ageing demographic, skill base and employment crisis.

A key part of this is the fact that Europe is growing old.  Using the EU’s main scenario demographic projection, we see that the EU’s total population will rise by 17 million while the number of over 65s will rise by 54 million.  Working age population will fall by 34 million.  12 of the 28 EU countries are actually projected to experience an overall fall in their populations.  With a higher proportion of elderly and a falling number of working age men and women, Europe is set to suffer a slow age crash.

Read Post →

july29

Eurostat Has Done Us a Favour

, , Comment Closed

We should not under-estimate the impact of the Eurostat ruling. It completely removes the rationale for Irish Water and the water charges.  After Eurostat, there is no policy, no direction, no strategy.  Ministers will downplay the ruling with a ‘move-on-nothing-to-see-here’ rhetoric, punctuated by a ‘there-is-no-alternative’ but all this does is expose the inability to grasp how fundamentally the landscape has changed.

Eurostat was never going to rule in any other way than it did.  The Government admitted this last April in the Spring Statement when it put all water expenditure back on the books in its projections up to 2020.  The fundamental issue is not whether enough people paid the charges.  It was the ‘market corporation’ rule:  did Irish Water look like and act like a commercial company in a market economy?  Eurostat said no – and this is all down to the Government’s headless-chicken response after the mass Right2Water protests last October and November.

The Government capped charges, froze them until 2018, and introduced an indirect subsidy through social transfers (the water conservation grant).  The lack of ‘economically significant prices’ (i.e. charges that reflect the cost of producing water) and government control led Eurostat to rightly label the whole exercise as a mere reorganisation of non-market activities.  Given all this, what company in the world could be considered a market entity?

The main rationale for the Government’s water policy was not charges; this could have been introduced as a stand-alone revenue-raising measure.  Nor was it the creation of a single water authority; that could have been done as a public agency rather than a corporation. The over-riding issue was to take the estimated €5.5 billion of desperately needed investment over the next seven years ‘off-the-books’.  Everything flows from this:  to take investment off the books you need to create a corporation, you need to charge a ‘market-like’ rate for the service.

Remember those lectures from Government Ministers and commentators with that ‘common-people-just-don’t-understand’ attitude?  Without the investment there would be water shortages while we would all be walking through sewage.  And the only way to get this investment was through Irish Water and charges.

Eurostat has killed that narrative.  Investment will be on –the-books.  With that foundation removed, the edifice – and the rationale for that edifice (the corporation, the charges) – crumbles.

What now?  Whatever they say in public Ministers must know its game over.  The only way to pass the Eurostat test is introduce ‘economically significant prices’.  This would mean reverting to prices based on usage with no cap determined by an independent regulator.  Is that likely?  No, not with the potential to bring another 100,000 to 200,000 on the streets.  The people didn’t win many victories during the austerity days; they won the battle over uncertain charges, PPs numbers and cut-offs.  No political party is going to challenge that.

How do progressives react to this?  The safe ground would be to call for the scrapping of the charges and the reform of Irish Water.  Fianna Fail is already calling for that.  Progressives can and must go further.  We can’t effectively challenge the current ‘steady-as-it-goes’ Government approach with a ‘steady-as-it-went’ that dominated past policy.  We need creative and innovative thinking that can not only address the issues but present an exciting, inclusive alternative to water supply and all public provision.

Investment

We need to increase investment to €600 million annually to modernise our infrastructure.

Water investment has been a bit of a roller-coaster ride.  We are now slightly ahead of 1995 levels after peaking in 2008.  We need to do better.

Read Post →

banksy-youth-unemployment

No Country for Young People

, , Comment Closed

So you’re young, ready to take up work, make a bit of money and, most of all, make the social contribution that is expected of all members of the homo economicus species.  There’s only one problem.  You live in Ireland.

Following on from my previous blog on the weakness of our market economy to produce jobs – except in the construction sector – let’s look at employment growth by age.  Overall employment is rising, even if it is patchy.  But not for young people.   For young people, the jobs recession continues apace.

employment_growth1

Employment grew by 2.2 percent overall.  But for young people – between 20 and 34 years – it fell by 1.5 percent.  Among older groups – over 50s – employment grew by 5 percent.

When we drill down further, we find that those aged between 30 and 34 years saw employment fell by 3.1 percent.

This is part of a longer trend.employment_growth2jpg

Since the crisis began, employment has fallen by 10 percent.  However, for those aged 20-34, employment fell by a third.  For other age groups, employment has recovered and increased – with employment among 50s and over increasing by 14 percent.

There has been some discussion about bringing Irish people back from abroad.  It has been suggested that a main obstacle is our ‘high’ tax regime (sigh).  As we see above, the problem remains what it has been some time ago – lack of jobs (though there will be some sectors that are undergoing growth).

Young people face more problems than just falling employment.  Since 2008, nearly 475,000 people have emigrated.  Unsurprisingly, the majority who left were young people.  Over 300,000 men and women aged between 20 and 34 years have left the country – or 65 percent of all those emigrating.

emigration1

For those who stayed behind it’s still tough out there in the labour market.  The unemployment rate for those aged between 20 and 24 years the unemployment rate is 19.6 percent – twice the national average.  No wonder Eurostat estimates that 40 percent of young people are at risk of poverty or social exclusion (for the age group 18 – 24 years).

Read Post →

robinthumb

Growing the Economy the Robin Hood Way

, , Comment Closed

Who said the following?

‘ . . . if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.’

Or

‘The poor and the middle class (middle income) matter the most for growth.’

Or

‘ . . enhanced power by the elite could result in a more limited provision of public goods that boost productivity and growth, and which disproportionately benefit the poor.

The Socialist Party of the World?  The European Zapatista League?  The People’s Front of Judea (or the Judean People’s Front or the Judean Popular People’s Front)? 

No, it was the International Monetary Fund, that crazy gang that gave us poverty, deprivation and economic deterioration to just about wherever they went (now playing in Greece).

The IMF has recently published Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective – a strongly argued study that concludes that increasing equality is one of the best things a country can do to promote sustainable growth (that, and investment).  They propose a number of channels – fiscal redistributive policies, investment in education and health, and financial inclusion policies (e.g. basic bank accounts, etc.).

A particularly noteworthy finding is an estimate of the impact of redistribution on growth. 

impact1

If the income share of the poorest 20 percent increases by one percentage point, GDP grows by 0.4 percentage points.  However, if the income share of the highest income group, the top 20 percent, increases, GDP growth actually falls.

In other words, redistribution that leads to greater equality is good for the economy; redistribution that favours the highest income groups is bad (Britain after the Tory budget, take note).  You want to grow the economy?  Do a Robin Hood on it – take from the rich and give to the poor.

So what can we make of the Minister for Finance’s latest comments

noonan1‘I use the Budget for economic management purposes and I’m going to cut personal taxes in this Budget . . . I’m going to cut the Universal Social Charge (USC) by at least 1 per cent and maybe a bit more.’

The ESRI estimated the impact of cutting the USC’s standard rate of 7 percent on income groups.  This is what they found.

impact2

A cut equivalent to €500 million (cutting the USC standard rate from 7 to 5.35 percent) has almost no impact on the poorest 20 percent.  There’s not much of an increase in the second quintile group (the 3rd and 4th deciles).  However, the greatest gains go to the highest income groups – the 9th and 10th deciles.

Read Post →

222

Ireland’s Lean Mean Job Creating Machine is Looking a Bit Flabby

, , Comment Closed

You’d think, listening to Ministers reeling off employment numbers and media reports of new job announcements, that Ireland was some lean, mean job creation machine. Well, in comparison with other EU-15 countries we are neither mean nor lean. Indeed, we fall well behind in key sectors.

Let’s leave aside the arguments over the 2013 employment numbers.  I suggested that they were inflated due to a statistical re-alignment between the Quarter National Household Survey and the Census (you can read those arguments here andhere).  If people want to believe that job growth in 2013 (when domestic demand fell) was higher than in 2014 (when domestic demand rose by nearly 4 percent) – well, sure, go ahead.  I prefer to take on board the CSO’s warning about interpreting job creation trends in 2013.

Robust comparisons can only start with the last quarter of 2013.  That’s when the CSO finished its statistical re-alignment.  Therefore, we have two year-on-year periods to compare.  We should be cautious interpreting this data; it would be preferable to have a longer time-series.  Therefore, any conclusions are tentative and subject to revision.

The following looks at the market, or business, economy.  This is essentially the private sector, excluding the public sector dominated sectors (public administration, education and health) and the farming sector.  Here are the year-on-year figures for 2014 to 2015 Quarter 1.

emplo_growth1

This doesn’t look so bad.  Ireland’s employment growth is above the EU-15 average and ranks 4th in the table.  However, something interesting happens when we exclude the construction sector which is non-traded and which in the past the Irish economy overly-relied on for job creation.

emplo_growth2

Ireland falls well down the job creation table when construction is excluded  – below the EU-15 average.

In the last year, the Irish market economy generated 29,700 jobs.  Of this, 19,500 jobs were in the construction sector – or 66 percent.

When we look at the previous quarter – the 4th quarter of 2014 – we find a similar pattern.

Read Post →

2

Supporting Syriza

, , 1 Comment

Question: which Eurozone government has 61 percent public support for their position in the Greek bailout negotiations?  Answers on a small postcard.  

Last January Syriza won 36 percent of the vote, which allowed them to enter government as the senior coalition party.  Yesterday, 61 percent of the Greek people supported Syriza’s rejection of the terms laid down by the 18 other Eurozone governments.   There can be no doubting the Syriza Government’s mandate. 

The next week will be crucial in hammering out a deal – if that is possible given the intransigence of the creditors to date.  How can we, in Ireland, provide concrete assistance to the people of Greece?

We can look to the honourable behaviour of the Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis as a guide. This is not the time, however tempting, to use the referendum result for domestic political purposes.  The Greek people need concrete support.  We should be calling on the Irish Government to take up the following positions in the upcoming negotiations. 

First, we should demand that the Irish Government now engage constructively in the negotiations with Greece:  first, by calling on the ECB to comply with their own commercial mandate and provide the necessary liquidity to allow the Greek banks to open.  In the short-term capital controls and withdrawal limits would have to remain, but re-opening the banks would take the pressure off businesses and households.  Failure to do this is a coercive political act.  Opening the banks should be the Irish Government’s first diplomatic stop.

Second, the key short-term issue is budgetary – allowing the Greek government to run a deficit.  Given the humanitarian crisis and the collapsing of the productive economy, the demand for a primary surplus (i.e. more revenue than expenditure when interest payments are excluded) is not only penal and irrational; for creditors it is the surest way to guarantee that debts will never be repaid.  Greek businesses need space to start growing and employing; fiscal policy should be assisting, not thwarting this.

Third, the Irish Government should support the establishment of a European Debt Conference.  This does not commit any government to a particular position but it at least provides a space, outside the day-to-day politics of the Eurogroup and the EU, to consider medium-term solutions – not only for Greece and the peripheral regions – but for the entire Eurozone.  My own preferred solution would run along these lines, but the Irish Government need not take up any position prior to such a conference being held.

And, fourth, the Irish Government should support the release of structural funds already committed to Greece to kick-start a badly need investment programme.  This could also involve reframing the National Strategic Reference Framework to allow Greek businesses to access the funds allocated to them but denied because of inflexible rules.

These should form the core of any progressive campaign to re-align Irish Government policy:

  • Open the banks
  • Suspend austerity (the first step in getting rid of it)
  • Support a European Debt Conference
  • An investment programme for the Greek economy

The Greek government would still be under strict supervision and required to make progress on reforms:  rehabilitating the tax collection system, ending corruption and patronage, and ending the dominance of oligarchical control over economic sectors.  But this wouldn’t pose a problem for the Syriza government.  These policies already form the core elements of the programme they were elected on.  These reforms will take time and can only succeed when the economy and society are given the fiscal and political space to implement them.  Hard to do much when your banks are closed.

Let’s not demand too much.  The Irish government does not bring the biggest battalion to the Eurogroup.  But it has a potentially influential voice given our experience of a bail-out.  And given the importance of this issue (keeping the Eurozone intact) it is amazing there has not been a parliamentary debate over what position the Government should adopt in these negotiations.  This should change immediately.

The Irish Government should be required to come into the Dail and explain and debate its negotiating position.

We have an opportunity to push the default button.  When Syriza was elected in January, the Eurozone governments should have been relieved: for finally, there was a Greek government that was intent on tackling the issues of reform – corruption, the patronage, the oligarchical controls; reforms which the previous New Democracy and PASOK failed at (or didn’t even try).  That didn’t end well.

There has now been, in effect, a second election in the form of a referendum.  There is no doubting Syriza’s mandate.  Nor is there doubting their continuing commitment to the reform and modernisation of the Greek economy. 

Let’s start anew.  There is still time.  And the Irish government can play a pivotal role in that.

That is the least we should demand of our elected representatives the EU.

Read Post →

standards

Irish Living Standards Fall Further Behind Europe

, , Comment Closed

In 2014, GDP increased by 4.8 percent – as often said, the fastest growing economy in Europe.  In 2014, employment increased by 40,000.  In 2014, the recovery started.

In 2014, living standards fell even further behind the EU-15 average.

Eurostat measures living standards through actual individual consumption.  Unlike private consumption, or consumer spending, actual individual consumption

‘ . . . encompasses consumer goods and services purchased directly by households, as well as services provided by non-profit institutions and the government for individual consumption (e.g., health and education services).’

It, therefore, measures consumption not only of goods and services, but public services provided by the government.  As Eurostat states:

‘Although GDP per capita is an important and widely used indicator of countries’ level of economic welfare, (actual individual) consumption per capita may be more useful for comparing the relative welfare of consumers across various countries.’

In short, actual individual consumption can be treated a proxy for living standards.  So what is the relative welfare of consumers (i.e. everyone) across Europe?  The following captures the relationship of real (after inflation) living standards in purchasing power parities between EU-15 countries and the EU-15 average.

Read Post →

12

Free Education: A Really Modest Proposal

, , Comment Closed

Sometimes a proposal comes along that is so sensible and so modest that you wonder why it doesn’t feature high up the public agenda.  Take the proposal made recently by Barnardos:  at a very small cost the state could actually provide what it is constitutionally mandated to do:

‘Article 42.4:  The State shall provide for free primary education  . . . ‘

In its briefing, Providing Free Education for all Schoolchildren, Barnardos proposes that primary and secondary education be made free. They first outline the costs of education that are not covered under the current system, costs that are borne by families.

  • School books:  The cost of schoolbooks is estimated at €60 million.  However, the School Book Scheme only receives a subsidy of €15 million – leaving parents to pay out the rest.
  • Voluntary contributions:  Based on the Barnardos School Cost Survey 2014, parents are paying €89 million in voluntary contributions and €38.5 million for classroom resources.
  • School transport:  For a primary pupil availing of school transport, parents pay €100.  This rises to €350 for secondary pupils.  In total, parents are paying €27 million to transport their children to school.
  • Capitation grants:  these grants paid to schools on a per pupil basis have been cut by 15 percent since 2010 – or €35 million.

So how much would it cost to make education free?  Here are Barnardos’ estimates.

Barnardos

Providing the resources to ensure free primary education would cost €103 million; for secondary education, €127 million.  The total is €230 million.

Barnardos is proposing that in 2016, the centenary of that document that mentioned something about cherishing the children, the Government make primary education free.  Free secondary education would be phased in over three years.

Read Post →

33

€1 – Because We’re Worth It

, , Comment Closed

The Low Pay Commission will soon be recommending an increase in the minimum wage.  How much should it recommend?  Let’s start with the conclusion:  the minimum wage should rise by €1 per hour.  Now, let’s go through the arguments.

First, some background:  the minimum wage (NMW) is €8.65 per hour.  This rate was set back in 2007.  In 2011 it was cut to €7.65 but only a few weeks later the current government restored the cut; this would have affected very workers as employers would have been prevented by law from cutting the pay of workers already employed. 

Ireland is the only EU-15 country that has frozen the NMW since 2007 (with the exception of poor Greece where the Institutions demanded a cut).

11

The average increase (bar Greece) has been 16 percent in other EU-15 countries with a NMW.  A number of other, poorer EU countries have actually doubled their NMW (Romania, Bulgaria and Latvia) – but these countries were starting off a low-base.

Over that period thee has been an alarming rise in deprivation among those at work. 

  • In 2008, when the recession began, 6.6 percent of people in work suffered deprivation
  • In 2013, this proportion rose to 19.2 percent

Approximately 350,000 in work suffer from multiple deprivation experiences.  This is not necessarily confined to low-paid employees; there will be self-employed in this category while many workers higher up the wage ladder may be suffering from deprivation due to debt issues or rising child costs.  Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion are low-paid employees.

Read Post →

clearys

We Are Not a Cost

, , Comment Closed

If anyone is uncertain about the power relationship between employees and employers, I suggest they look to the Dunnes Stores dispute and the closure of Clerys.  These encapsulate the massive imbalance of power in the workplace. 

I won’t get into the details of these ongoing disputes.  Any rational person hopes the workers succeed – in the case of Dunnes Stores, to win the right to negotiate collectively and reduce the level of precariousness; in the case of the Clerys workers, to be given their fair share of compensation – and dignity – after years of services to the company.

So here, let’s take a step back and look at the presentation of the relationship between employees and employers.  This may seem, at first, abstract but it leads us to something fundamental.

It starts with costs.

Labels are powerful things.  For instance, costs; this is usually not a good thing:  ‘that was a costly venture’, ‘a costly holiday’, a ‘costly day out’.  These are things we usually try to avoid, unless the ‘cost was worth it’

‘Profit’, however, is usually something positive:  that was a ‘profitable experience’, I ‘profited’ from that lecture, we are ‘back in profit’.  Profit equals growth and prosperity.  Further, it is considered a good thing because it’s opposite – loss – is not.  Loss is bad for a household, a company, and a voluntary organisation.  Continued loss may result in bankruptcy or closure or poverty.

So when we discuss labour and capital in the economy or in a business, we are already using labels that colour the debate:  costs and profits.  If costs are something to be avoided or reduced in order to maximise benefit, then we must depress the price of labour (i.e. wages and working conditions), and diminish the agencies that champions this ‘cost’ (e.g. trade unions, the collective bargaining power of workers, legislation that benefits workers). 

Likewise, if profits are an unqualified good – we should support the agencies that maximise profits and gear our legal, labour and tax framework to that end. 

Even before we begin discussing the relationship between wages and profits, the former is considered a cost, a burden while the latter is a sign of prosperity, growth.

The interesting thing about this highly ideological reading, is that it is not vindicated by basic economic accounting (here comes the abstract part).  

An enterprise creates income by creating gross value-added.  We can measure this by the following:

Gross value-added equals sales revenue minus the purchase of goods and services needed to produce the product the enterprise is selling (rent, accountancy services, machinery maintenance, etc.). 

The important point here is that employees’ wages and working conditions is not a cost in the measurement for creating value.

Read Post →

aus_treaty

The EU Fiscal Rules: Not Fit for Purpose

, , Comment Closed

What would you say about a system for your car that was sold on the basis that it would alert you to an upcoming crash?  A good idea, no?  Except that the system only warns you after the crash.  There you are, in a massive, multi-car pile-up, bleeding all over the M50 – and only then does the system kick in:

‘Warning, warning, you are an imminent danger of having been in a crash – warning, warning.’

You’d be right to sue.

That’s how the EU fiscal rules operate:  it purports to provide an early warning system against economic crash but, in fact, it does no such thing.  We should return it to the manufacturer, unopened, postage due.

Remember the Fiscal Treaty campaign?  It was claimed by the proponents that we needed these rules because it would prevent things like the Great Recession and, in particular, the Irish crash of 2008.  We needed these rules because we Irish are irresponsible – along with the other PIGS states.  If only we had these rules we could have escaped the crash, the debt crisis and the recession – which was, of course, brought on by our fiscal irresponsibility.  That was the narrative. 

But the cold reality is that were these EU fiscal rules in active operation they would not have seen, predicted, never mind warned of the impending crisis.  It would have been as useful as a diviners’ rod.  How can we know this?  Because the EU Commission, the fairground purveyor of these miracle rules, tells us so.

The rules focus on the structural deficit.  This measures the deficit when all the cyclical components are stripped out – that is, all the boom and the bust parts of the economy.  It purports to tell us what the deficit would look like if the economy were on an even keel. 

If so, then the EU rules should have been blaring warning sounds with red lights and sirens in Ireland in the years before the crash.  Everyone knew (if only in private) that during the period of 2000 – 2006 Irish public finances were dangerously over-reliant on revenue from the speculative boom.  Everyone – except the EU Commission and their rules.

 Let’s look at the estimate from the EU Commission itself.  Remember:  if the figure is in plus, that means we were fiscally responsible, our public finances were robust, and we were almost German-like when it came to prudent budgeting. 

sd1

Oh, my:  according the EU rules and methodology we had extremely sound public finances.

Read Post →

qq

Drawing Lessons from the Public Sector Pay Talks

, , Comment Closed

With the public sector pay negotiations getting underway, it is timely to step back from the details and look at the broader landscape.  For it is clear:  if the wage structure in the overall economy mirrored the wage structure in the public sector, we would have a more prosperous economy and society; the recession wouldn’t have been so hard, the recovery wouldn’t have been so delayed, and the social deficits arising out of inequality would not be so endemic. 

While there is much focus on the private-public wage differential, there is less attention paid to the distribution of wages from the bottom to the top – which is the key to long-term sustainable growth and better social outcomes.  Let’s have a quick look at the former first.

The CSO has done exceptional and detailed work on comparing private and public sector pay.  The lazy comparison is to compare the headline average private and public sector pay.  However, this comes up against the like-for-like dilemma.  For instance, there are no hospitality workers in the public sector; there are no Gardai in the private sector.  Without a like-for-like comparison you get all sorts of numbers that don’t tell you much.

The CSO has compensated for that – comparing professions, age, duration of employment, size of enterprise, educational qualifications.  When they do that, they come to some interesting conclusions.

psp1

Among this grouping – which makes up the overwhelming majority of public sector workers – the ‘premium’ (i.e. the additional amount public sector workers above private sector workers) is a little more than one percent higher.  On a like-for-like basis, public sector workers earn fractionally more than private sector workers. 

What is more interesting is the gender difference.  Men in the public sector actually earn less than males in the private sector – two percent less.  However, women in the public sector earn five percent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis.  And this is a good thing when one considers that women still face pay (and other types of) discrimination in the workplace.   If there was less gender discrimination in the private sector, the overall public sector premium would probably turn negative.

Just one more word:  This data comes from the CSO.  Since 2010 there have been small wage movements.  Between 2010 and 2014 (4th quarter):

  • Increase in private sector weekly earnings:  2.3%
  • Increase in public sector weekly earnings: (-0.7%)

Read Post →

1

The Minister’s Problems with the Unemployed and Statistics

, , Comment Closed

We all know there will be people who will never work. They’re allergic to work.  So we’re not including those in the statistics. But everybody who wants a job will have a job in the next couple of years.’

There were a lot of criticisms of the Finance Minister’s comments, rightly describing them as a slur on people who cannot find a job.  What I also find illuminating is the innovative approach to statistical representation.

Imagine saying ‘We all know people who are allergic to obeying the law.  So we’re not including those in the statistics.’ Or ‘We all know people who are allergic to paying taxes.  So we’re not including those in the statistics.’  See – we just eliminated crime and tax evasion.  There’s no end of progress we can make on the outstanding issues of the day if we just employ the ‘Noonan Manoeuvre.’

But there are some statistics that the Minister is not including as well – statistics that his own government gathers and sends on to the EU.  Like this one:

  • There are 20 unemployed for every job vacancy.

This comes from the Eurostat Vacancy Rate as reported by the Nevin Economic Research Institute.  We’re not as bad as Greece where there are 74.3 unemployed for every job vacancy but we have a long ways to before we reach Belgium (5) never mind Germany (2.1).

To put that 20:1 ratio in perspective, imagine someone dropping five €10 notes from the roof of a building on to 100 people in the street.  There’s a mad scramble and eventually five people walk away with the notes.  But 95 people don’t.  What do we say about those empty-handed 95?  They’re allergic to €10 notes?  The mind reels.

But the Minister’s capacity to not include statistics does not end there.  Take this one.

There are, according to the last Quarterly National Household Survey, 2.153 million people in the labour force.  There are 1.939 million in work.  When you subtract those at work from the labour force you come up with 213,000.  That’s the number of unemployed.  The number of unemployed doesn’t determine the number of jobs in the market.  There are still only so many jobs to go around for a larger number of people looking for them (there are niche exceptions where an employer has a vacancy but can’t find someone with the matching skills necessary – a phenomenon in the ICT sector and foreign language skills; maybe we should teach all the unemployed Dutch?).

Of course, there are ways to manipulate this equation which, also, rarely gets included.

Read Post →

empPock

To Those Who Have Made the Biggest Sacrifice – Nothing

, , Comment Closed

Government Ministers are fond of saying that they want to repay those who made the biggest sacrifices; hence: tax cuts.  They have also stated that they want to target the ‘squeezed middle’ which they define as the income group between €35,000 and €75,000.  This is an interesting figure.  A household with two people working at the upper end of this ‘middle’ could earn nearly €150,000.  This government wants to reward them because it is obvious that their current income level is a terrible sacrifice.

For me, those who have fallen into deprivation – now that’s a sacrifice.  And there are a lot of people who have been sacrificing.

Social Protection Payments 1

In 2013, there were over 800,000 reliant on social protection payments in these three categories, both recipients and beneficiaries.  Deprivation has increased from 45 percent to 76 percent.

However, in the Government’s discourse of sacrifice, these people never feature.  They have been effectively air-brushed from the social debate.  The standard response of Ministers is that they have ‘protected’ basic social protection payments but they have done nothing of the sort.  They have frozen these payments, which means that the value of the payment has fallen due to inflation.  Since the Government took office:

  • A single person has suffered a real cut of 3 percent, or €5.69 per week
  • For a couple, the real cut has been €9.45 per week

So how much have the unemployed, lone parents and the disabled and sick lost out on since the cuts commenced in 2010?  Let’s look at the nominal (i.e. the actual amount in Euros and cents) and the real cuts (factoring in inflation.  We will take this out to 2016, using the Government’s projected growth in inflation, to get a sense of what would have to be spent to compensate people’s sacrifice.

Read Post →