A month with the MacBook Pro

This is a quick update to the the previous post about getting a new MacBook Pro. So far three things have happened that people considering the purchase might be interested in.

  1. The keyboard has only gotten better over time. So much better, in fact, that I’m typing more and for longer (I have pretty poor wrists) and I have not been able to use the removable keyboard and trackpad I had for my office, as they were no longer comfortable. As a result my large screen, wireless keyboard, and trackpad, are all sitting on my filling cabinet.
  2. The battery is definitely worse than my MacBook Air’s, but not enough to make me want to return it. I’ll get 7-8 hours if I’m really careful, or 5-6 if I’m not. This is a bummer because it means I must carry the charger around everywhere I go, which increases weight somewhat.
  3. There is, so far as I can see, no downside to the ‘dongle life’. I have one (the VGA adapter) and it handles everything I’ve needed so far. The Hyper one I bought to connect to my screen is sitting on top of the screen, on my filing cabinet.

Why can't we fix healthcare?

There are no beds. The sick and the dying are left outside while stressed-out healthcare professionals work round the clock to help them. Elective procedures are cancelled, previously closed beds are reopened. It is a surprise. The ensuing media storm assures us the situation is unacceptable. The doctors’ representative, the nurses’ representative, the union representative, the patients’ representative, the minister and the technocrats who run the system are all over the airwaves, because the situation is unacceptable. The solution is more money. Much more money. Money and time. Because change will take place, but only over a number of years. And change must happen. Because this is unacceptable

Continue reading "Why can't we fix healthcare?"

Economic Outlook 2017: The start of a new age of anxiety

On the advent of ‘Global Trumpism’, Stephen Kinsella, Ireland’s economic commentator of the year, reflects on its potential to destabilise the Irish economy.

In 1948, the poet WH Auden wrote The Age of Anxiety. Auden was talking about a world after the second world war in which the old certainties he was raised with had been blown away. By 1948, Britain had ceased to be a world power, the US was ascendant, and much of Europe was still in ashes. Auden was also talking about himself. Then aged 37, he was worried his best years were behind him, and did not look forward to old age.

Continue reading "Economic Outlook 2017: The start of a new age of anxiety"

Strange days indeed

We’re living through very strange times. Times when it’s a good thing that only 46 per cent of the Austrian electorate voted for a neo-Nazi to become their president. Thankfully he lost, but only marginally.

Times when fairly sensible constitutional reforms to improve the stability of Italy’s governance system get rejected and immediately throw the Italian banking system, with its €360 billion-worth of non-performing loans, into crisis.

Times when the European Central Bank (ECB) boss Mario Draghi’s decision to only buy the pittance of €60 billion of bonds per month instead of €80 billion in a ‘trimming’ exercise causes the markets to have a conniption.

Times when the 2017 French presidential election will be framed as a contest between Marine Le Pen of the Front Nationale, a hard-right ultra nationalist candidate, and François Fillon, a hard-right neoconservative candidate. Whoever the Socialists choose will be decimated, thanks to François Hollande’s tenure in the Elysée Palace.

Times when Angela Merkel, who allowed more than one million refugees into Germany in under two years to save their lives, needs to kowtow to interests in her own party to stay in power, and starts ranting about appropriate burka policies in supposedly liberal Germany.

Times when a racist, misogynist, lying, nativist demagogue like US president-elect Donald Trump can appoint climate change deniers to the US Environmental Protection Agency and union-busting burger magnates to the Department of Labor, even as the unemployment rate in the US falls to its lowest level since 2006.

Trump will preside over the first US economy since World War II where the average person born in the 1980s has less than a 50 per cent chance of earning the same or more as their parents. Think about that and apply it to your own situation.

Do you expect to earn more than your parents? For most people in Ireland, I think the answer would still be yes. What would it mean for your life, and your expectations for your children, if you didn’t expect to earn more than your parents did?

The ECB last week forecast global economic activity to continue to strengthen, although remaining below its pre-crisis pace. It’s important to stress just how sluggish the international economy is. A recent study on global growth by the ECB found the growth of imports since 2012 has been half of what it was between 1980 and 2008.

We are living through the longest period of below-trend growth in almost half a century, for both advanced and developing economies. One reason for this below-trend growth is the sputtering Chinese economy, which since the 1990s was hoovering up imports of every commodity and service imaginable as it grew.

There’s a problem: prices in China have fallen every year since 2012. No boom here. As China switches slowly from investment-led growth to consumption-led growth, because it has a middle class now, commodity exporters outside China have seen demand for their stuff hit the floor.

Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, addresses the media in Frankfurt last week Picture: Getty

This collapse in demand has geopolitical implications. Countries like Venezuela and Nigeria are deeply dependent on just a few commodities to export. Without buoyant demand for oil, gas, copper and coal, they get mired in recessions and depressions. These recessions have real human consequences, as we in Ireland know.

Venezuela, for example, is currently going through a crisis which makes Ireland’s troika bailout look like a chat over coffee slices in the Shelbourne Hotel. People are unable to find work, food, or shelter, the government is in crisis, and inflation is out of control. Consumer prices in the country have increased 180 per cent year-on-year, and piracy has returned as a real problem.

Another reason for the collapse of global trade is the European Union. Since 2008, austerity and poor crisis management meant that demand for goods and services has been much lower than it should have been. If demand is low, then employment will be low. As we know, long spells of unemployment cause social, economic, and political problems.

Domestic demand in the eurozone was around 1 per cent lower in the second quarter of 2016 than it had been in the first quarter of 2008. The US economy from 2008 to 2016 managed to increase demand by about 23 per cent – which explains why president-elect Donald Trump inherits an economy with low unemployment.

In the eurozone from 2008 to 2016 we managed to increase demand by just 7 per cent. We should have been able to do better. But we didn’t, and the result is mass unemployment and mass youth unemployment in Greece (50 per cent), Spain (48 per cent), and Italy (40 per cent).

Which brings me back to Italy, and its shuddering banking system. Banks are basically balance sheet management systems. We should remember that for a bank, its assets, the things it owns, are its loans and the bonds and cash it holds. The bank’s liabilities, the things it owes, are its deposits and the bonds it has issued to balance the books. A very large bank’s balance sheet is highly sensitive to the economy it operates in.

Say the bank has one mortgage and one deposit. If the price of the house linked to the mortgage falls, the value of the bank’s balance sheet goes down. Even worse, if the person paying the mortgage loses their job and has to default, then the bank has to eat into its equity — the difference between its assets and its liabilities — to cover the losses. If it can’t do that, the bank will need a bailout from the taxpayer or to be wound up.

The Italian banks are stuffed full of non-performing loans. Estimates range from €300 billion to €400 billion.

The era of globalisation we have enjoyed since the 1970s may well be ending

The largest immediate problem is the third-largest bank, Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MDS). It requires €5 billion in recapitalisation funds from the private sector and probably some funds from the European Stability Mechanism, sooner rather than later.

Whatever problems MDS has internally, it shares the same underlying macroeconomic problem with all of Italy’s banks. Without sustained economic growth, loans will continue to either default or scrape by. You can’t heal the balance sheets of a banking system unless the economy is getting stronger. Which it won’t do without significant reforms. The best chance for those reforms went out the window along with Matteo Renzi’s political career.

Italy’s banks are too big to fail, for a few reasons. Size-wise, the banks are about one fifth of Italy’s GDP. They are highly connected, so letting one get into trouble damages other, potentially healthy banks. The ‘bondholders’ of the banks aren’t the typical large international institutional investor. They are ordinary Italian citizens who now own something like €200 billion-worth of bank bonds. Defaulting on them would be like the Irish government defaulting on Prize Bonds.

The likelihood is that European cash will be found to help the injured banks limp along, but this just delays the inevitable. Meanwhile, other tensions increase.

It is fascinating to note that Renzi is the 41st prime minister of Italy since 1946, and the fifth since 2008.

Italy is the only eurozone country whose GDP has not recovered after the crisis. Youth unemployment and Europe’s migration crisis have hit it hard. Yet the amount of net public investment in its crumbling infrastructure has been either zero or slightly negative for decades.

It is not surprising, then, that the world values survey finds the share of the population who “believe it is a good thing to have a strong leader without elections or parliament” is rising.

Faced with either institutional paralysis and democratically elected politicians simply ‘ruling a void’, to use the political scientist Peter Mair’s notable phrase, the average person says no thanks.

Either people disengage politically, or when asked, people use their vote to bring in a strongman character who makes unobtainable populist promises to take power, which, results in corrupting the system further. The model here is not Donald Trump but Silvio Berlusconi, the architect of many of Italy’s current woes.

The era of globalisation we have enjoyed since the 1970s may well be coming to an end. As we’ve talked about in this column many times, economic policy failure always ends up becoming a political problem in the end. So the failure to cope adequately with the global financial crisis of 2008 created many of the problems we have today. Ireland is not insulated from, or immune to, these problems, and a return to re-nationalisation driven by these large forces would hurt us all the more.

Strange times indeed.

Governing is about making decisions. Sometimes those decisions are life and death

Ultimately, governing is choosing the best option for society given many competing alternatives and scarce resources. What is best for society might not be best for individual groups within society, however. When you are about to decide to harm a section of the population by action, or inaction, you need robust evidence. And how robust is that evidence? How do you evaluate an emotional claim?

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition that affects sufferers’ lungs and digestive systems. About 70,000 people worldwide have it. Ireland’s 1,200 cystic fibrosis sufferers have lobbied for years for specific treatments from the state, with some notable successes including specialised hospital facilities, and some treatments.

In each case, the taxpayer, via the state, comes to the rescue of a group of citizens whose only fault was to be born. This is correct and right. The price you pay with your taxes is not just social services. It is also civilisation. So my taxes help you, and your taxes help me. Very often we forget this important circularity when discussing individual issues such as public sector pay or universal social charges.

Continue reading "Governing is about making decisions. Sometimes those decisions are life and death"

Evincing the emotion of housing

Home ownership is the most emotive policy issue in the state. Not water charges, not public sector pay, not Travellers’ rights, not reproductive rights, not even the status of Ireland’s so-called military neutrality. Nothing evinces emotion like housing.

The tip of the spear is, of course, homelessness. We are one of the richest countries on planet Earth, and we have thousands of families living in hotel rooms, hostels and on the streets while vulture funds buy properties and jack up rents only to pay no tax on their gains.

We have a generation of young people for whom owning a house is not a dream but a fantasy. We have a banking system still stuffed with non-performing loans nearly nine years after those loans stopped performing.

We have a minority government incapable of action, hamstrung by domestic politics and fiscal and monetary rules.

None of what I’ve written above is wrong. It’s just not very helpful. The words you’ve just read is not analysis so much as emotive language, aimed at identifying a problem and sympathising with sufferers of that problem without trying to fix it. It’s virtue-signalling, which is just whinging, basically, and it’s what much of the commentariat has been doing since the Central Bank introduced its rules on loan to income and loan to value for homeowners in February 2015.

Blamed for doing nothing before the crisis, the Central Bank was blamed for doing something to avoid the next one. Regulators shouldn’t be popular. That’s why they aren’t elected, they are independent, and they get paid lots of money.

I was a fan of the prudential rules when they were introduced because I listened to the entire banking inquiry online. As each banker came in to be roasted (consequence-free, of course), it was clear they hadn’t a clue of the damage they were doing while they handed out the loans to grateful (and greedy) homeowners.

Unfettered access to credit via a loan to value ratio that was much, much too high was the true cause of the housing bubble from 2002 to 2007. It is the Central Bank’s job to safeguard the stability of the entire financial system. It didn’t do that before 2007. We know this because there was a peak-to-trough fall of over 50 per cent in residential property between 2007 and 2012.

A build-up of credit on the household sector’s balance sheet made this sector much less resilient to the 2007 downturn.

Flawless logic of the rules

The logic of the rules on households and banks to restrict the supply of credit is flawless. Requiring those borrowing a mortgage to put up a minimum percentage as a deposit and then capping the amount they can borrow at 3.5 times their own incomes means the borrower is much more resilient to any change in the value of their house.

This is exactly what the rules are there to do, and new research by John Joyce and Fergal McCann shows that newer mortgages given out since 2009 are much more resilient. The probability of these homes defaulting is much, much less than the homes borrowed for in 2005 and 2006 with 100 per cent (and more) mortgages, but this is probably because banks had reverted to their historical role of gatekeepers of credit rather than being dispensing machines for it, a role they had assumed from 2002 to 2007.

Good economics tells us why. The economist Hyman Minsky described a financial cycle where banks, stung badly in a previous crisis, are extremely reticent to lend. Only the best projects get funded. So for example only two senior civil servants married for 20 years with no other debts get a mortgage. These people are safe as houses (pun intended). Then as the economy recovers, more and more loans repay, and so banks make credit more freely available. The process moves from careful extension of credit to euphoria and collapse with remarkable regularity.

It is clear we are at the start of yet another cycle of credit extension, over extension, and property mania. The end is a collapse. The Central Bank is doing its job in guarding against the Minsky cycle, but has bowed to pressure to change its rules.

Rental sector is the problem

The problem is the damaged and poorly regulated rental sector, which is unable to accommodate all these people, stuffed full of accidental landlords who need rents to go up to heal their own damaged balance sheets. Fergal McCann’s research on Irish rents shows that they increase where the population is higher, unemployment rates lower, house prices higher, and rental supply lower. Dublin, in other words. The locus of the problem is the supply of available rental accommodation in Dublin.

The residential property price index for Dublin was almost 9 per cent above the rest of the country in September 2016. Since mid-2013, all residential property prices have been rising, but Dublin has done all the running. Many people think that apartment prices are rising faster than house prices, but this isn’t the case. The recovery in Dublin house prices is the real story since 2013.

The loan to income rule is there to stop banks over-extending themselves across the household sector. It is a crude measure which penalises people who have costs other than buying the house: for example, those who have to commute long distances to and from work. Banks can only lend 3.5 times the value of the house, capping the exposure they previously had to households with relatively low incomes who, once made unemployed, were unable to service any portion of the pre-crisis debts they were allowed to run up.

The loan to income rule isn’t changing. If any rule was to change, this one would make the most sense in my view. It is in the loan to value area that everything went really wrong before 2007. Research by Gerard Kennedy, Eoin O’Brien and Maria Woods showed using the ratio of prices-to-income and the ratio of prices-to-rent that house prices fell below their long-run values during the crisis - meaning they were undervalued - and today they are slightly above these long-run averages, meaning they are slightly overvalued.

The loan to value rule is there to make sure households have an equity buffer. Today, if you are a first-time buyer, you can only borrow 90 per cent of the value of the property up to €220,000 and 8o per cent for the remaining balance. In 2017, you’ll be able to borrow 90 per cent of the entire value. Combined with the mortgage relief and tax credits introduced in Budget 2017, and the fact that banks can make ‘proportionate allowances’, the effective deposit will be reduced from slightly under 20 per cent to 5 per cent.

A concrete example: first-time buyers purchasing a property worth €400,000 need €58,000 today. By January 2017, the same buyer will need a deposit of €40,000, and they can avail of tax rebates of €20,000. The effective deposit has gone from €58,000 to €20,000.

It is very difficult to see how this will not result in price increases, especially where the supply, reasonably, of housing is fixed.

With credit now more easily available, with a much smaller equity buffer, households will also be that bit less resilient to downturns.

It is very interesting to see where the unpopularity of the rules came from. Of course, the populists hated them. Of course, the tabloids hated them. Stories of young families struggling to raise a large deposit while paying rising rents shot through the media. Most interestingly, the strongest critics were the mandarins of the Department of Finance, which lobbied intensively behind the scenes to get the loan to value and loan to income rules relaxed. In its August 16 submission to the Central Bank, the department argued for exactly the changes the Central Bank has brought forward.

Anyone who bought in 2016 might feel like a sucker today, but they shouldn’t. They are much more resilient to any downturn. They owe less, and the Central Bank’s changes mean they can expect to see rises in the price of their property, especially if they are in Dublin. The rental market may see an easing of price increases as first time buyers who now need a far smaller deposit can exit the rent market in favour of ‘getting on the ladder’. Those who are looking today are in a better position, but their expectations have been changed, and they don’t know what risks exactly the Central Bank thinks might be worth changing the rules again.

Say we see a huge spike in house price increases in Dublin as first-time buyers run out in January and bid up the price of every three-bed semi inside the M50. Will the Central Bank act? How and when, and in what measure? People don’t know. The Central Bank is stuffed with smart people whose job it is to keep tabs on price movements, but how it communicates its future policy moves matters a lot when people are considering what will likely be the largest purchase of their lives.

The role of the Central Bank is to dispassionately and independently analyse and regulate an important and highly emotive asset class. It has tweaked the rules once. The question is now: when will the rules change again? Will Minsky be proven right, once again?

Invested: 2017 An economic odyssey

We still live in the shadow of the global financial crisis of 2008. Investors need to be clear about this in order to prosper.

Countries that have failed to recover their previous dynamism have not grown. Economic growth allows the redistribution of more of the fruits of growth to those closer to the bottom of the income distribution. The government taxes those who have done well and transfers it down the income distribution in the form of health, education and social protection expenditure.

Without that redistribution, living standards stagnate and resentment builds. Populists exploit this resentment by lying through their teeth about their ability to deliver more growth and less inequality.

In the past, the ‘elites’ could be relied upon to fatten their own purses first and redistribute second. Without redistribution, typically via the tax system, the people see the purse-fattening much more clearly.

Which brings me back to the global financial crisis. People aren’t stupid. Before the crisis, they see those above them in the pecking order doing very well indeed. Then they see those above them make the most appalling mistakes as the crisis unfolds. And then, once the crisis has happened, they see . . . nothing. Nothing happens. Those above them keep their jobs, their living standards stay high, either because they receive golden parachutes, or they just stay where they are. In a paroxysm of bluster, denial and moral hazard, the system just keeps going.

Continue reading "Invested: 2017 An economic odyssey"

Will robots eat your job? @ryanavent's snapshot of a global economy in flux

Review of 'The Wealth of Humans', By Ryan Avent, Penguin, €19

Will robots eat your job? Will your kids have higher standards of living than you, in an age where there are too many workers and too much savings, when technological change makes the jobs many people do obsolete? When their citizens see their jobs disappearing due to international competition or technological change, how will politicians react? Will we see an increase in globalisation or a series of Brexits to re-nationalise the global economy?

Ryan Avent’s new book The Wealth of Humans takes us through the arguments around the digital revolution, the development of the world economy and the very notion of work and wealth in a new post-scarcity age.

Continue reading "Will robots eat your job? @ryanavent's snapshot of a global economy in flux"

The government doesn’t have the cash, so why are we talking pay

The government is trying to hold the line on public sector pay. It is currently politically convenient for Fianna Fáil to support the government on opposing full restoration of public sector pay in a shorter timeframe than the terms of the Lansdowne and Haddington Road agreements allow. This political convenience may change, of course.

Behind the scenes, and out of the glare of the media, things are lining up for a series of talks between the government and some unions.

The government doesn’t have the cash to meet union demands. To restore public sector pay to pre-bust levels would eat the entirety of 2017’s - and a bit of 2018’s - fiscal space. The fiscal space is a forecast. You figure out the likely fiscal space by extrapolating annual government revenue and expenditure figures into the future and checking what’s left over for additional tax cuts and spending increases.

Forecasts are reliant on the assumptions they make. Many of the assumptions underpinning Budget 2017 are already looking ropey. For example, it assumes an exchange rate between the euro and sterling of 0.85. That’s now drifting towards 0.90. In the event of a hard Brexit, that goes higher, not lower, making the forecasts more and more incorrect.

Continue reading "The government doesn’t have the cash, so why are we talking pay"

When losers from globalisation outnumber the winners, expect changes

We live in a world characterised by the wholesale rejection of elites. Exercising the power given them as citizens, voters are striking back at the systems which they see as rewarding insiders and punishing outsiders.

The median is the object in the exact middle of a distribution. For example, in the list of numbers from 1 to 9, the median is 5. The median is a better measure than the average for our purposes.

The median-income household across the developed world is not without resources, nor is it without education. The median household is increasingly without opportunity, or even the hope of opportunity for its children. The median household sees crumbling infrastructure, outsourced jobs, stagnant wages, and the evaporation of what used to be called the middle class.

The median household understands just how damaged its prospects have been by 40 years of policies aimed at increasing the openness of trade, creating winners at both ends of the income distribution in every country that tries it, and losers in the middle.

Let’s define globalisation as that moment in time when the rate of increase of trade is greater than the rate of increase of economic output per person. Imagine there are only two countries, called ‘home’ and ‘foreign’. Increasing trade makes the people who own the production facilities that make the things being traded much better off – they are the winners – but it also allows them to outsource their operations to cheaper countries, making workers in the ‘home’ country poorer and the workers in the ‘foreign’ country richer. The ‘home’ country workers are the losers, the ‘foreign’ country workers are the winners.

When the uncompensated losers from globalisation outnumber the winners, and those people have a vote, expect to see some changes made. The ‘losers from globalisation’ debate is far from settled but as Harvard’s Dani Rodrik and Oxford’s Kevin O’Rourke have repeatedly shown, the losers from globalisation have never been properly compensated. If it is true that the losers are almost never compensated, it is also true that these losses are somehow compounding. My losses become my children’s losses.

Continue reading "When losers from globalisation outnumber the winners, expect changes"

Profile Mark Carney: The Guv’nor


Age: 51

Appearance: urbane, besuited and calm

Newsworthiness: the British media turns on the only steady hand in the post-Brexit confusion

Oh, the irony. After the Brexit result of June 23, as the leadership of both the Conservative and Labour parties imploded, the person who stepped up to save the system was a Canadian. An immigrant! Taking a British job! In fact, the first immigrant to hold the governorship of the Bank of England in its 322-year history. As the system flailed and sterling’s value collapsed, Mark Carney calmly allocated £250 billion to steady the markets, and promised more should it be required.

In a series of speeches over the next ten days, Carney laid out the fundamental issues with respect to Brexit — uncertainty, economic damage, the loss of Britain’s position as a global power — and provided leadership when none was forthcoming from a political class which, to its eternal shame, did not do its job. He said: “At times of great uncertainty, households, businesses and investors ask basic economic questions. Will inflation remain under control? Will the financial system do its job? Will I keep mine?”

Continue reading "Profile Mark Carney: The Guv’nor"

The fatal flaw of the populist approach

The world is awash with populists. From Ireland’s independents to President Duterte of the Philippines, from Germany’s anti-immigrant AfD party to Norbert Hofer of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria, from Ukip and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain to Donald Trump in the US, populists are on the rise. And we’re not talking just a few random demagogues here, though personality does go a long way. (Trump-related Pulp Fiction pun intended, by the way.)

Continue reading "The fatal flaw of the populist approach"

Anti-Social Partnership: Ireland's fractious industrial relationship

We have entered the most fractious period in industrial relations in decades. In the private sector, as unemployment falls to more reasonable levels, and sales of all kinds of goods and services pick up, employees are having conversations about pay increases again, fuelled by the rising cost of living, particularly for younger workers who are renting and saving for a deposit for a home, or raising children, or both.

These conversations about wage increases are happening mostly at the individual level, because union density in the private sector is at a historic low. Nonetheless, employers should grant many of these wage increases if the profitability of their business allows it.

Unlike many economists, I don’t see wage growth as a bad thing or something that erodes ‘competitiveness’. I see wage growth as contributing first to increased living standards and increased demand for goods and services — most people will be increasing their consumption; and second, to helping pay down debt. A nice little bump in inflation would be good for highly indebted households as a by-product.

In the public sector, the situation is quite different. The employer’s ‘profitability’ is not assured, as the government has yet to balance its books, let alone generate a surplus of revenue (your taxes) over expenditure (on hospitals, the police force, universities, pensions, etc). It is not clear the state can afford increases in public sector pay when services and capital expenditure are so desperately needed in housing, health and education.

I say all of this as a public sector worker with three children. The state’s finances are too exposed to any kind of macroeconomic shock, either related to Brexit, in Europe, or further afield, to allow any increase in government expenditure beyond the minimal increases required by the minority government to keep the show on the road.

Importantly, the services the state as an employer provides have been damaged by years of austerity. Faced with a choice of (a) more doctors or (b) more money for existing doctors, most people who are not doctors would choose option (a). That is what Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal Donohoe chose in Budget 2017 as well, increasing funding for teachers, gardaí and other public sector workers.

Public sector pay was reduced as an emergency measure to help stabilise the public finances. Other terms and conditions like the increment structure, security of tenure and very generous pension entitlements were not changed for those already in the system.

The pay bill was managed through wage repression and reductions in the size of the workforce from around 330,000 in 2008 to around 300,000 today. It is not an exaggeration to say public sector workers helped secure the country’s stability at a crucial moment in its history.


The pieces of legislation enacted to reduce public sector pay and increase productivity are called the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts (Fempi).

I suspect many of the commentators having a go at Donohoe and his advisers haven’t actually read the Fempi legislation. The Acts are pieces of emergency legislation. The emergency is not supposed to last forever. Each piece of legislation requires the minister of the day to review it each year and provide a written explanation for why it has to continue for another year to the Dáil. Donohoe did so this year.

Each cut in public sector pay, and each increase in workload as a result of productivity measures, has happened with the explicit consent of public sector unions. They obviously weren’t happy about it, but they and their members agreed to be bound by the terms of a series of agreements on pay and conditions.


Agreements between public sector unions and the government helped smooth this transition for the public sector pay bill, and the measures were as progressive as possible, given the obvious over all regressive nature of the pay cuts. The Haddington Road Agreement, for example, provided for salary reductions for public servants earning more than €65,000, and for pauses or freezes in the payment of increments for all public servants. Similarly the Lansdowne Road Agreement allowed for pay increases for those earning under €65,000 (and for all teachers) and reductions in the Pension-Related Deduction for all public servants. The new Public Sector Pay Commission is charged with advising the government on how to unwind Fempi entirely without breaking the bank. The fiscal space this year was about €1.3 billion in the end. To increase public sector pay to 2008 levels for everyone would cost about that much again.

Simply put, the bill for restoration is too large for one year, so the question facing the Public Sector Pay Commission, set up to advise the minister, is what the time path to pay restoration would look like, hopefully melded with a reform programme and a path for future pay increases as well.

It’s important to note that right now, we aren’t talking about pay increases. We are talking about pay restoration. Fempi states explicitly that every public sector worker is entitled to pay restoration once the emergency has passed, which it has. The only question really is: when will these restorations come, and what conditions will be attached to their restoration?

Unions have moved sequentially in recent weeks to increase pressure on the minority government to accelerate the restoration. As I argued a few weeks ago in this column, semi-state workers in Dublin Bus, through their unions, will get to pass their pay increases directly onto their customers, as will private sector workers in Luas.

Gardaí and primary and secondary teachers and university lecturers are another matter.

Their pay restoration, by definition, comes at the expense of service expansion somewhere else.

We need to explicitly acknowledge this simple fact: the pot of money is finite, and the national budget still in deficit, if only just. In the situation we find ourselves in, in 2016, increasing the public sector pay bill by restoring pay taken away by Fempi means either increasing public debt, increasing taxes, or decreasing services.

Michael Noonan indicated during his budget speech that the only direction public debt is going is down. Taxes are not going up. The only people to get whacked with higher taxes in Budget 2017 were the smokers.

Those who enjoy sugar and particularly sugary drinks are up next. Everyone else’s taxes either stayed the same or fell.

Services will take the hit, but it’s more accurate to say increases in services will take the hit.

It’s easy to caricature the outcome as ‘fewer extra doctors in favour of more money for existing doctors’, but in reality we’ll see less of a planned increase in service provision to pay for public sector wages.

This is important: the public won’t see what’s lost, because the service increase was never there to begin with. The would-be service user will never know what they’ve been deprived of.

Economic activity means there will be a bit more in the kitty next year, but we can’t really expect over a billion of an increase in one category of spending when the entire allocated fiscal space for current spending for 2018 is only €790 million.

I would like the public sector unions currently throwing shapes in the media to be asked, repeatedly, what services would they like to see reduced (or not increased) to fund their pay restoration. None of them have thought about this, or if they have, the argument is that the money will be found from somewhere, which is not an argument but an article of faith.

The only people who have to think about this exact question are the well-paid mandarins of Merrion Street and their boss Paschal Donohoe. In fairness, those arguing to break an agreement early that they signed up to will have to do the running on what service increases they feel should be lost to fund it.

This strikes at the heart of why we have entered the most fractious period in industrial relations in decades: the coalition government of Fine Gael, the Independent Alliance, Katherine Zappone and Fianna Fáil (let’s have no talk that they aren’t in government) does not want to annoy anyone.

If the government allows one set of public sector workers to benefit at the cost of others, then that is unjust. But to fund increases in teachers’, doctors’ and lecturers’ pay when we have a homeless crisis is a worse injustice.