Notes on the Front

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU

December 8th 2008: The Recession Diaries

Recession 41 David McWilliams has produced a table.  In fact, two tables (I've collapsed it into one).  Standing on these tables he spreads the gospel – in order to avoid bankruptcy and 'decades' of misery (decades, mind you) we must rip up the pay agreement and start slashing 'wildly over-paid' public sector salaries.  We are on the verge of a new dark age if we don't act now.  I don't know what accounts for David's apocalyptic language (he wrote the article from the island of Reunion, maybe it's the salt air), but he has taken up the manichean cudgels with a vengeance.  Is it justified? 

As always, there are tables and then there are tables.

Wrong Categories, Wrong Result

Dave McWilliam's Table David's table would certainly lead us to his conclusion.  It seems to show that not only are Irish public sector salaries well in excess of other EU countries, they exceed the average private sector salary by close to €10,000 per year. This would seem game, set and match point.  We might as well all go join David in Reunion and soak up the rays.  Except.

There are considerable problems in David's numbers.  First, his 'average public sector' pay figures don't actually refer to the public sector.  In using Eurostat's Labour Cost Survey database, he has selected three NACE categories to make up this average public sector': L, M and N.  The latter two refer to Education and Health – the classifications used by the Quarterly National Survey.  The categories are valid – they comprise workers in these sectors.  Except that Manus O'Riordan of SIPTU points out that:

'The QNHS data does not at all distinguish between public and private employment in either Health or Education. A good quarter of the QNHS Education total is in fact comprised of private sector workers, while over half those in Health are also operating in the private sector. QNHS totals for Health and Education should, accordingly, not at all be used as a proxy for their public sector component.'

In other words, David's public sector categories – Education, Health and Average Public Sector – are a mix of public and private (in the case of Health, a 50/50 mix).  So we can't tell how much of his 'public sector' is actually 'private sector' pay.  And we can't tell if it is more or less.  But we can take a guess. 

Public Sector WagesThe CSO's Public Sector Earnings report can be more useful as it actually charts public sector earnings.  If we compare the CSO findings with David's/Eurostat's findings we see that they converge on Public Admin.  No surprise there – in all EU countries there is probably little private sector involvement in this category.

However, they diverge significantly on 'Education'. Bearing in mind Manus's point – that 25% in the 'Education' category used by Eurostat are private sector workers and that the CSO's report focuses exclusively on the public sector – we can see the considerable discrepancy – a discrepancy of over €6,000.  We should treat this with caution – different agencies use different methodologies, which makes comparison difficult.  However, it is more than arguable that David's figure, using Eurostat, is actually picking up private sector earnings – earnings that well exceed public sector earnings.  This swells his 'public sector average'.  He may rail at the high level of public sector earnings – but what he may actually be railing at is high private sector earnings.

David has inadvertently incorporated private sector earnings into his public sector figures - and it appears, deducing from the data, that these private sector earnings are much higher than their public sector counterpart.  This undermines his apocalyptic language of 'wildly overpaid' public sector workers.  But there's more.

Let's hone in on the one exclusively public sector – Public Administration.  David takes his figures from the Eurostat Labour Cost Survey.  What he attempts to show is that Ireland is alone in paying its public sector workers more than private sector workers.  But in doing this he was very selective.  The data he works off of shows:

  • That in the Eurozone countries reporting, public servants actually make more than private sector workers – nearly €3,000 more. 

  • Of all the EU countries reporting (17 out of 27), in eleven countries public servants earn more than private sector workers.  In only six do private sector earnings outstrip those of public servants.  Now, most of these higher-earning public sector countries come from the New Members States.  It could be argued, therefore, that they are not applicable to more advanced countries, since they have a weak private sector. But as I discuss below, that may very well be the case with Ireland also.

However we cut it, we have to admit – the picture is much complex than the simple 'sandy-beach' landscape David presents us.  The wider public debate would have been better served had all the data – and not just a partial selection – been presented.  As it is, all we have is pottage.

Accounting for Living Standards

When comparing wages between countries, one has to be very careful because account must be taken of living standards.  To do this, we should employ power purchasing parities (PPPs) – the 'how-much-bread-you-can-buy-with-a-Euro' measurement.  If we do, we find the difference between public sector pay here and in other countries narrows considerably.

David shows in his tables that, of the countries reporting, Irish public sector pay is, on average, €5,345 more than their counterparts.  However, when PPPs are applied, this gap shrinks by half – to €2,700.  Okay, it's still higher – but it hardly justifies David's end-times prediction.

The Cost of Public Sector Workers

But there's another measurement to look at, for David's argument is not just based on a 'it's-not-fair-public-servants-earn-more-than-private-sector workers' contention. David's argument is profoundly eschatological – he is posing the end times of our economy because we can't afford to keep on paying these 'wildly over-paid' public servants. If we do, say your prayers.  So is this the case?

The same Labour Costs Survey measures the actual cost to the State of hiring public sector workers.  This includes wages, of course, but also social insurance contributions, pensions, training, allowances, etc.  So is the Irish State paying too much too its public servants?  Not by a long shot.

Ireland lags behind all the countries that David selects.  Among the five countries, Irish public servants are the fourth cheapest (e.g. it costs the Netherlands nearly €55,000 per public servant – an Irish public servant 'costs' the Government nearly €46,000).  Pity David didn't point this out.

The Public Sector – Private Sector Differential

We saw that David's argument – that there is a €9,900 pay differential between the public and private sectors – was deeply flawed because he selected and compared the wrong categories.  But is there a differential, and how much is it?  Let's be clear – this is a debate that is often subjected to smoke-and-mirror arguments.  So let's tread deliberately.   

David is correct to show up the gap between public servants (those in Public Adminstration – the only truly public sector category we have to work with) and private sector workers.  It's nearly €7,000 in favour of the former.  So are public servants paid too much?  Or are Irish private sector workers paid too little?

In David's table, Irish private sector workers earn less than the average in the other countries - €1,200 less.  But if we put this through the PPP wringer, we find Irish private sector workers earning substantially less:  over €3,000 less.  Or about 11 percent.

UNITE the Union has gone over this ground rather comprehensively. Using OECD, EU AMECO and Eurostat figures, it has shown that Irish private sector workers are well into the bottom half of the Euro wage league – whether nominally or through PPP.  So here's the kicker:  were Irish private sector workers paid on a par with other comparable EU countries (the wealthiest ten countries), they would still trail the public sector – but only by about €55 per week.

You know what that €55 would b equal to?  The same differential in the Eurozone countries.  In other words, Ireland would not – as David would have it out – be out of step.  It would be average.

€55 per week – is this justified?  One could go down a bottomless well arguing that toss but here are a few facts:

  • SIPTU's Marie Sherlock and Lorraine Mulligan point out that nearly 70 percent of public sector workers have a third-level qualification, compared to only 28 percent in the private sector.  The CSO shows there's a €14,000 per year gap between those with third level education and those with a Leaving Cert.  So can anyone be shocked that public sector pay is higher?  In fact, the gap between the public and private sector is much less than the gap based on educational achievement.

  • The Government is the largest employer in the state.  Given that the size of the firm is a major determinant of pay, how do 'large employers' compare?  Public Administration workers average €21.47 per hour.  Private sector workers in firms that employ between 500 and 1000 people average €20.10 per hour while those employed in firms with a 1000 or more average €19.06.  A difference, yes, but a small one.

  • Again, the SIPTU researchers show that over the last two and a half years, private sector earnings have exceeded those of public servants.  Industry and business services experienced a 10.1 percent increase; public servants have received a 8.6 percent.  More interestingly, when inflation is taken into account, private sector workers have seen their wages fall by between 2.1 and 2.8 percent.  Public servants have seen their wages fall by 4.1 percent.  Cut wages?  Wages are already being cut.

* * *

What does all this number-crunching mean?  First off, it means that if you're going to do statistical comparisons make sure you get your categories and your measurements right.  Second, when all the factors are accounted for, public sector workers, on average, are not living high off the hog (2.5 percent of private sector workers earn more than €50 per hour – only 1.5 percent of Public Administration earn this amount; and this doesn't' count the self-employed).  Third, private sector workers should be looking at their own employers and demanding to know why their labour isn't valued as high as it would be in other countries.

But, most of all, this means that public sector workers are being scapegoated – blamed for the fiscal crisis we're in.  And there is a concerted attempt to divide public and private sector workers – to get one group to blame the other.

Instead, we should be pointing the finger at the neo-liberal dogma that has been shoved down our throats for over a decade, the squandering of billions on a property boom that enriched a few, the inane corporate policies that has brought our banking system to the brink, the right wing policies of the bobbsey-twins – Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

Is there a problem with public sector wages?  I'd be surprised if there wasn't.  We have one of the highest wage inequalities in the EU, we have an 'incomes' strategy that controls one type of income – wages – while self-employed and capital income is allowed to go on its merry way unfettered, our wealth is so concentrated that 75,000 households own over €325 billion in capital assets (and I bet not one of those households is employed in the public sector).  With a wage/income structure so disfigured, I have no doubt that it wreaks havoc throughout the economy.

At the end of the day, this is a political argument.  Of course, all sides marshal the data to support their argument.  But there is a special onus upon commentators – whether in the mainstream or online media – to use that data in a way informs, not obfuscates.  So we can crunch the math all we want, but clearly the numbers look a lot different in the balmy climes of Reunion. 

Because here in the cold and the frost and the winter that is our economy, they aren't telling the same story.

 

 

 

10 responses to “December 8th 2008: The Recession Diaries”

  1. Tomaltach Avatar

    Excellent post.
    I think the public pay comparisons with other countries after PPP and the additional (lower) labour costs in Ireland is telling.
    The comparison between public and private averages doesn’t make much sense to me. The income distribution of both is vastly different. The bulk of very low wage and temporary workers for example must surely be in the private sector. And the top decile in the private sector in terms of income is off the scale in comparison with the public sector. This can all be explained of course. In part it is because nowadays there is a split in the kind of jobs done in the public sector and the kind done in the private sector. So there are categories of work in the private sector which barely exist these days in the public sector. Then there are other complexities such as the differences in pensions, and job security. But of course another part of the reason for the high standard deviation in the private sector has to do with the insane phenomenon of mega salaries.
    Also, when you draw attention to the comparison between private pay in Ireland and other countries you are opening another very important exploration.
    I think a whole lot of valuable questions can flow from this kind of analysis.
    Again, I enjoyed the post.

    Like

  2. Tipster Avatar

    You should consider submitting this post to the op-ed editor in the Sunday BP

    Like

  3. Yvonne Avatar

    There is perhaps more bad news coming down the track as a result of all this scapegoating – wholescale demotivation and a ‘brain drain’ of some very experienced and committed public servants for whom the purported redundancy scheme viewed as a form of early retirment will be just too attractive. (Interesting to reflect again on the language used – I’ve probably been reading too much Stephen Poole – public servants call themselves just that, public servants, while the media and those using the media to voice their perspectives describe them as public sector workers. Musing in a similar vein when I saw a socialist party poster last week claiming a ‘young finance worker’ as a speaker which prompted me to wonder if that occupation become the new ‘sex worker’.)

    Like

  4. James Avatar

    A few points:
    Agreement:
    1) Regarding the “concerted attempt to divide public and private sector workers – to get one group to blame the other”, it’s notable that this attempt comes from the same quarters that normally dismiss any focus on inequalities of wealth, and tell us “you can’t abolish poverty by abolishing wealth”. Yet their whole discourse now centres on the principle that public sector employment standards must be driven down to the levels of the private sector. (I would have thought there was something to be said for the idea of the state being an exemplary employer…)
    Caveats:
    2) The PPP point is crucial of course in terms of rebutting the idea that the public sector is high on the hog. But: from a competitiveness point of view it doesn’t really matter that high labour costs don’t translate into such high purchasing power – it’s nominal wages that count.
    3) As has been pointed out, job security and pensions (and the whole broader picture of employment standards) can’t be ignored.
    4) As regards the low wage sector and education disparities, I believe the ESRI has done a fair bit of research that shows that a significant (6-7%, perhaps?) wage gap survives all the relevant controls (education, seniority etc.), with the possible exception of employer-size.

    Like

  5. James Avatar

    I meant to specify that the reason that nominal wages are important is that we effectively have a fixed exchange rate in the form of the euro. It would of course be a different story (in very many ways) if we had or own currency.

    Like

  6. Tomaltach Avatar

    I happen to have had a discussion with a government minister yesterday. (I won’t name him and I don’t know him personally but happened to get a chance to talk to him at a function). He talked about the budget and what he called the stimulus package. I asked, what stimulus package? Well, he explained, the borrowing we are doing over the next few years and the programs that will enable. He said the key thing is to lift confidence. I asked, why not a real stimulus package like the UK, where they cut taxes and increased spending? He replied, in a rather wooly way, that each country has to do their own thing and that Germany for example are being more restrained, not necessarily getting into the whole stimulus thing, he continued. Ok I said, but you mentioned confidence, but how can the public regain confidence when they hear that a Bord Snip is to engage in more cuts next year. I said, people are thinking this sounds like the board snip of the 80s and so there can be no return of confidence in such circumstances. Oh, he replied, this won’t be 80s style where they just chopped in a big way indiscriminately, in a way that left us compromised for decades, in terms of hospital beds for example. The new cuts will be to weed out inefficiency and with the growth in our public sector spending over the last 10 years, he said, there is obviously room for efficiency.
    Then here came the interesting part. He continued, if you saw the article by David McWilliams in the paper on Sunday, for example, you will see that our public sector has huge scope for cuts. At which point I interrupted him rather bluntly, saying more or less in brief, one or two of the things you have in this post. In particular I mentioned the way McWilliams figures were polluted by the private sector. And I reiterated that our public spend as a percentage of GDP is widely known to be at the lower end of the scale. I said, we need to be a bit circumspect with what we read in the papers, because there are so many people with an agenda against the public service. He agreed, but clearly wasn’t too convinced.
    That was as far as I got, he had to move on, but anyway, I thought it was an interesting illustration of how the facile, agenda laden, and often downright wrong, opinions seep from the media right into the heads of key decision makers.

    Like

  7. Michael Taft Avatar

    James, the caveats you point out are apt and shows that this debate is too complex to be boiled down to populist rhetoric from whichever side. Regarding nominal wages, I introduced them to show that regardless of the headline wage, what it actualy means in living standards changes from economy to economy. Therefore, if a worker here makes x more than a counterpart somewhere else, the comparison doesn’t fully work until we view it through PPPs. However, you are right to point out, however, that from a competitive perspective, it’s the nominal that becomes more important. That’s why I put in the figures for total labour costs – which show that regardless of public or private, it is cheaper to hire labour here than most other EU countries.
    In addition, I have put the link to the ESRI report you refer to. It is an excellent piece of research and contrasts with most media commentary. It does show that, for graduates, there is a consider pubilc sector wage premium. The issues I have with the study are actually referred to by the authors of the report: (a) there is evidence that public sector wages lose that premium the older workers get. This isn’t surprising – an architect graduate will earn more from a local authority than from a prviate sector firm in the early part of their career. But eventually the private sector worker has greater potential for earnings. This would be an interesting study to follow pay trends throughout a career (though architects wouldn’t make a great test-subject these days as private sector architects are losing their jobs in spades); (b) the study must also take on board size of firm which you mention and trade union membership and collective bargaining, espeicially as union membership itself has a premium independent of public/private sector employer.
    Also, James, I agree that pensions can’t be ignored. My own perspective is that we must work out how to extend the benefits of pensions of public sector workers to all workers throughout the economy. Financially, it shouldn’t be too hard – we spend nearly €3 billion a year subsidising the private pension industry. And look what shape that industry’s in.
    I urge readers to have a look at the report James refers to. It’s good to have ‘fact-based’ evidence presented to us rather than the dismal diet of headline seekers.

    Click to access QEC2006Aut_SA_OConnell.pdf

    Tomaltach, yeah I’ve heard this nonsense coming from Ministers. ‘Oh, we are fiscally stimulating – look at how much we are borrowing’. Well, what would they say. One economist at Davy refers to this as ‘accidental stimulus’. Yes, it’s less deflationary than, say, Fine Gael’s programme which would cut borrowing and spending. But this is default borrowing, or ‘fiscal policy of the last resort’. It has occured not through any ‘plan’ but because Fianna Fail has no other ground to fall back on, given the meltdown in tax revenue. I’ve heard of making a virtue out of necessity, but a dog is still a dog, no matter how many birds’ wings you super-glue on it.
    Yvonne, the issue of a ‘brain-drain’ is an issue which I’m sure we will hear more of, especially as the recession starts to hit the professionals and the finance sector. I suspect this will run throughout both public and private sectors. And what if the only way to keep people and their skills here is public sector employment? Now that would be an interesting debate.
    Thanks, Tipster, for the comment. I wouldn’t mind writing for the Post (the best Irish sunday, despite it’s political orientation). I don’t know if the editors would mind. But what would their advertisers think?

    Like

  8. James Avatar

    To the degree that the deficit is caused by a collapse in revenues due to a collapse in private sector activity it really is laughable to call it “stimulus”. True such a deficit is more stimulatory than if the government sought to balance the budget by raising taxes to make up for 100% of the lost revenue, but just because one can imagine more deflationary policies than the current approach doesn’t make the current approach inflationary.

    Like

  9. Michael Avatar

    Excellent article. Could you provide some referance for the figure relating to wealth concentration?

    Like

  10. Michael Taft Avatar

    Michael, apologies for getting back to you. I’ve been on break and only returned today. The wealth concentration figures come from the Bank of Ireland’s Private Banking Report – Wealth of the Nation. You can access it here. http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/WealthNationReportJuly07.pdf
    I note that BoI didn’t produce a report for 2008. Wonder why that is?

    Like

Leave a reply to Tomaltach Cancel reply

Navigation

About

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU