Notes On The Front

Time to Introduce Price Controls on Energy

It is beyond time to start implementing price controls on energy products.  We have a few months left before the winter and another big price increase.  To those who claim that ‘price controls don’t work’, look at France.

France has one of the lowest inflation rates in Europe:  5.8 percent annually up to May, compared to an EU average of 8.8 percent and an Irish rate of 8.3 percent.  A big explanation for this is a series of energy price controls they have introduced – on both electricity and gas.

France has been putting pressure on the EDF, the main electricity supplier (which is owned by the State) to keep price increases close to production costs.  In April they imposed a 4% price increase cap while freezing gas prices since November last year.  These benefit a high proportion of households and business.

Variations in pricing are not wholly down to price controls.  Other measures that reduce costs may also be at play (e.g. VAT reductions).  But price controls have played a key role.

• France is not the only country to intervene in the pricing of energy products. The OECD charts the range of measures that countries are taking.  These include price support measures:  price controls, reduced electricity charges and network fees, VAT and excise tax reductions, and compensation to distributors for selling energy products at reduced prices.
• Malta has mandated the state-owned provider to freeze prices at their 2014 level which means a 0 percent increase in electricity and gas prices over the last year. They compensate the provider for the losses the price cap has brought about.
• Portugal and Spain are introducing electricity caps which are estimated to cut electricity prices by 50 percent to about 40 percent of the population.
• In Hungary, electricity prices fell by 21 percent with gas prices falling by 17 percent owing to the introduction of price caps.

A number of other countries have intervened in the pricing of energy products through various mechanisms.   

In Ireland, there has been tentative discussions regarding price controls or caps.  Back in September of last year the Tánaiste addressed this issue:

‘Maximum price orders will be considered by Government to halt galloping gas and electricity costs, the Tánaiste has told the Dáil . . . Mr Varadkar said: “We’re not going to rule out using maximum price orders.” ‘

What is the follow-up to that ‘consideration’?  What did the Government conclude?  What study did they undertake?  Have they published it?  Will they publish their findings?

Apparently, the Minister for Finance has been looking into excess profits in the energy sector. 

‘I am aware that the European Commission has confirmed that EU member states can consider imposing temporary tax measures on windfall profits of energy providers and use the revenue generated to provide consumers with relief from high prices. Officials in my Department and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are evaluating the potential for such a proposal.’

Of course, it would be far better to remove excess or windfall profits through price regulation rather than taxing it.  A tax allows companies to retain a large portion of the profit.

There are a number of forms price regulation could take. 

• The simplest way would be to introduce a price cap. However, this must be finely calculated; otherwise, retailers and generators could exit the market (though this threat can by over-played at times). 
• Reducing prices to the average profit margin prior to the crisis would allow for companies to maintain a profit but ensure that no one is benefitting beyond the historical norm.
• Reducing prices to the cost of production would mean that companies would have to temporarily forgo profits but, again, care must be taken that companies don’t suspend investment or be prevented from increasing employee wages.
• The price of electricity and gas could be standardised for the duration of this emergency (some companies offer the same product – electricity or gas - at price differentials of €400 per year, depending on the 'plan’).
• The Regulator could draw up a tariff schedule that benefits low-users of energy. For instance, the average household consumes 4,200 kWh per year of electricity.  Prices on the first 25 percent (or 1,000 kWh) consumed could be significantly reduced.  If consumption is related to income, this could benefit lower-income households.

Other measures could include reducing for a period transmission and distribution tariffs to the network, ensuring the savings is passed on to the consumer. 

If the state were to intervene in market pricing, it would need to be clear about its objectives.  It is not, in the long term, about suppressing fossil-fuel energy prices.   These prices will rise given the transition to renewable energy sources.  The objective is to smooth out spikes to provide certainty to consumers and protect them from high prices during periods of high demand. It is further intended to ensure that no one profiteers selling a public good. 

The first step is to acknowledge the principle that energy prices should be regulated (in Slovenia they are debating price controls on petrol); that energy is a public good, vital to the functioning of a productive economy and household welfare.

Once we have accepted this common-sense proposition, we can figure out the best way to achieve that.

And the great thing is that we don’t need an emergency budget to introduce price regulation.  So what’s the hold up? 

The Inflation Dividend

Public finances are, so far, holding up reasonably well.  Tax revenues are rising on the back of economic activity and higher prices.  For instance, as prices rise, so do indirect taxes.  This has been coupled with reduced expenditure – driven mainly by the withdrawal of pandemic supports and the continued fall in unemployment.

All this makes for an ‘inflation dividend’ – the unanticipated upturn in the Exchequer’s balance sheet. 

In April, the Government estimated that it would run a deficit of €1.9 billion this year.  The recent ESRI quarterly commentary now estimates the Government will actually have a €1.6 billion surplus.  Next year, the think tank estimates a surplus of €3.2 billion – nearly three times what the Government estimated.  There is also the Covid contingency fund which the government set up to meet potential ongoing pandemic costs.  This €4 billion fund has not been exhausted. 

We should be cautious about any estimate.  Such is the volatility in the economy and the potential for further disruptions, projections can swing significantly even within a few weeks.  However, whatever about the numbers, it is reasonable to conclude that public finances are moving into surplus much sooner than expected.

So what do we do with this extra money?  We could pay down debt but our debt levels are already average by Eurozone standards and interest rate increases won’t really start impacting the Government’s balance sheet until the end of the decade.

We could set up a rainy-day fund, especially given our fiscal over-reliance on a handful of multi-nationals.  However, we already have a rainy-day fund – in the form of cash balances held by the Government.  While much of this cash is used as a buffer for cash-flow purposes, we held €27 billion at the beginning of this year.   

Given the debilitating impact on households and businesses from the current inflation crisis, the €1.6 billion projected surplus should be treated as a ‘dividend’, to be paid out in anti-inflation measures.  That’s the budget for relief measures. 

This doesn’t tell us what are the most efficient and socially equitable measures to take but it gives us a price tag:

• Increased social transfers, including significant increases in the Working Family Payment thresholds. The Back-to-School Allowance could be extended to all households.  There could be a significant increase in prescription medicine subsidies, coupled with drug price controls.

• Resources to reduce the cost of public services would also play a role in this dividend. A reduction in public transport fares (why not try, even on a pilot basis, the German example where €9 per month gets you free access to all public transport), and a 50 percent cut in childcare fees (cheaper than you think) would be just two of many measures.

This dividend should be seen as additional to measures the Government would have implemented regardless of the crisis:  social protection and public service increases, inflation-indexing tax thresholds, public sector pay, etc.

For those who worry about the impact of a €1.6 billion anti-inflation package on public finances, they needn’t.  The €1.6 billion is just the gross cost.  Every expenditure drives up tax revenue.  For instance, an increase in social transfers increases income tax revenue (social insurance benefits are taxable) while boosting consumption taxes.  If we reduce childcare fees that money doesn’t go into a black hole.  Households will spend most of it in the rest of the economy, again driving tax revenue.  The cost to the Exchequer of a €1.6 anti-inflation package will, in net terms, be considerably less.

But we need a more invigorated debate on the current crisis.  It needs to go beyond just cash transfers, though that is an important element.  The role of wages, price controls and the transformation of public services into universal basic services should be part of any sophisticated, multi-prong and medium-term strategy. 

And that should start immediately and not wait for the October budget.

Modelling a New Collective Bargaining Framework

Here is a link to my presentation to the Nevin Economic Reserch Institute Labour Market Conference which was held on Tuesday, June 14th: Modelling a New Collective Bargaining Framework.

 

It argues for a new collective bargaining framework that can vindicate employees' right to collective bargaining. Using international examples it covers firm-level and sectoral collective bargaining proposals, along with Right to Organise measures. It can hopefully be used as a basis for a wider discussion among trade unionists and progressives regarding the democratic reforms needed to ensure employees have access to collective bargaining.

 

Don’t Lower Wage Expectations. Raise Them!

Ibec’s Danny McCoy stated:

‘The most catastrophic mistake would be to try to index wage increases to price increases.’

Why?  I suppose it has something to do with that wage-price spiral notion – the idea that wage increases to protect people from inflation will drive further inflation. There’s not much evidence for this, though.  Recently, a senior economist at the IMF dismissed the idea. 

‘A leading economist from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has dismissed concerns that wage increases to help workers deal with rising living costs will spark a wage-price spiral.  Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director at the IMF, said during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday that it is possible that wages could rise without driving inflation higher, with company profits declining instead.’

Oh, so maybe it’s not about wages and prices at all.  Maybe its about profits.  That’s what Aiden Regan thinks.  Writing in the Business Post, Aiden explains.

‘. . . wages are not responsible for price increases today.  On the contrary: increased corporate profits are.  Big corporations with pricing power are taking advantage of supply chain bottlenecks and increasing prices over and above their labour and non-wage costs.  This corporate profiteering coupled with rising energy prices, is what’s mostly responsible for the price increases that have occurred in the post-pandemic recovery period.’

In the US, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that in the six quarters to the end of 2021, profits contributed 54 percent to unit price increases with non-labour costs contributing 38 percent.  Unit labour costs contributed only 8 percent.  Fortune, the business publication, headlined a recent article:

‘U.S. companies post their biggest profit growth in decades by jacking up prices during the pandemic’.

Is this happening here?  We don’t know. Irish data is not reliable due to multi-national accounting distortions (i.e. tax haven-type activities).  The data coming from our peer group in the EU (other high-income countries) can give us a better read. 

In the two years during the pandemic, profits in non-financial companies grew at nearly twice the rate as wages.  This was a turnaround from the preceding two years – 2017-2019 – when wage growth outstripped profits.   It is likely that Irish profit growth mirrors the wider European trend, if not exceeding it, given the weakness in Irish labour’s bargaining power. 

It certainly does appear that energy companies are benefitting.  Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe stated that officials in his department ‘are evaluating the potential for such a proposal’ – that is, an excess profits tax.   A 10 per cent tax would generate €60 million, based on energy providers' 2020 tax returns. This implies that energy companies have pulled in €600 million in excess profits.  It would be interesting to make similar investigations throughout sectors where prices are also rising significantly.

There is, though, considerable pessimism regarding the possibility of obtaining wage increases to help off-set the impact of inflation.  The Central Bank recently published the results of a survey of people’s wage expectations over the next year.

Slightly over half expect wages to stay about the same.  While 31 percent expect a slight increase in earnings (with 2 percent expecting a lot) 14 percent expect a fall.  This pessimism is growing.  The same survey showed that only two months previously, in February, only 7.7 percent expected a decrease.

Wage falls and effective wage freezes will only exacerbate consumer spending in a high inflation environment.  And the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council warned about this impact on consumer spending. 

“Domestically focused SMEs can also be negatively impacted by lower discretionary consumer spending, as Irish individuals are forced to allocate more of their household budget to the essential goods and services whose prices have risen.”

So, pessimistic wage expectations and negative impacts arising from such pessimism.  Mark Paul makes some provocative comments: 

“Policymakers need to start coming up with better answers for workers than lumping responsibility on to their shoulders for a phenomenon — inflation — of which they are more victims than perpetrators . . . Some major corporate entities are pushing through price increases but also promising shareholders they will resume or increase dividends. It is increasingly difficult to preach pay restraint to workers when many captains of industry, and the investors for whom they work, remain so well paid . . . There is little evidence so far of any wage-price spirals in Ireland or anywhere in Europe. But there is plenty of evidence that profitable employers will have to get real on pay.”

So what should be the response?  Raise wage expectations.  Act on those expectations.  Join a union.  Make pay demands.  Wage increases will be good for the economy. 

The Government could kick start this by doing two things:  capping energy prices and providing a supplemental increase in the national minimum wage (France and Belgium did this a few months ago).  This would show the Government is attempting to get to grips with prices and living standards.

It’s not the only things they should do.  But it would be a good start.

The Emerging Transformation

There is an emerging transformation in the workplace.  Whether that transformation will be realised, even partially, cannot yet be determined. It is still early days. New trends, new demands, new expectations, many coming out of the pandemic experience, have the potential to significantly alter people’s relationship with and within the workplace, substantially improving life quality and opportunity.

There are at least five new trends and demands: 

• The Living Wage
• Remote working
• The 4-day working week,
• The social wage
• Collective bargaining

Let’s go through each of these to find out where they stand now.

Living Wage

The momentum towards a Living Wage appears irresistible.  During the pandemic, low-paid workers were popularly seen as the bulwark of the productive economy.  In the Programme for Government, the coalition parties committed to moving towards a Living Wage over the lifetime of the current Dail.  Recently, the Tánaiste reiterated this commitment:

‘The Irish Government will be among the early movers in adopting a national, mandatory living wage. I intend to honour the Programme for Government commitment that we should do so.’

He further announced that he had received recommendations from the Low Pay Commission regarding the implementation of the Living Wage and that he would bring specific proposals to government before the summer recess.

But before we assume that the national minimum wage will increase from €10.50 per hour to €12.90, in line with the Living Wage Technical Group’s estimate, there are some complexities in setting and implementing a Living Wage.

The Tánaiste recognised this when he outlined two approaches.  One is the basket of goods and services approach, similar to the Living Wage Technical Group’s, whereby necessary items are priced to ensure an agreed standard of living.  The second is the fixed threshold approach - setting a statutory floor as a percentage of the median wage.  And then there’s the issue of phasing in the new wage floor.  We should know what approach the Government intends to adopt in a few weeks.

But be prepared for considerable resistance from owner-management interests.  For a Living Wage challenges the exploitative business model that exists in many sectors.  This will require us to challenge assertions that ‘business can’t afford it’, that it will undermine competitiveness, or other such self-serving claims.  Progressives and trade unionists need to fully enter this debate – not just on the basis of rights and living standards, but on the increased business efficiency which a Living Wage would promote.

Remote Working

During the pandemic remote working was not only a necessity to keep sectors and enterprises functioning, it became hugely popular.  Prior to the pandemic only 8 percent worked remotely.  This increased to nearly 40 percent in 2020/21.  Unsurprisingly, over 90 percent of people working remotely – fully or in hybrid arrangements involving home, hub and office – claimed they were satisfied or very satisfied.

With workplaces re-opening, the issue is now asserting the right to hybrid working – partially working from home, from the workplace, and/or from a work hub.

However, the Government’s first attempt to introduce a statutory right to remote/hybrid working was widely ridiculed.  ICTU stated:

‘. . . the proposed legislation published by Government is fundamentally flawed and stacked in favour of the employer. It is in clear conflict with national policy to facilitate remote working and current labour market realities.’

A major sticking point is the numerous grounds on which employers can deny a request for remote working (13) and the lack of an appeals process.  Some called the government’s legislation ‘the right to be refused remote working’.  The Government beat a tactical retreat, stressing that it will be open to amendments and changes to the legislation. 

A set of proposals worth examining has come from Niamh Egleston and Alan Eustace of TCD.  They propose (here and here and here):

• Employees may request flexible working arrangements of any kind without penalisation nor discrimination

• In particular, employees are entitled to take up to 150 days working from home per annum, provided they give at least 48 hours’ notice

• Employers may refuse to allow an employee to work from home on any given day, provided they give the employee specified reasons for this refusal

• Employees are entitled to challenge the refusal to an independent statutory agency, in which circumstances the burden on justifying the refusal lies on the employer

This would give people an entitlement of approximately three days a week remote working with the burden of explaining their decision resting on the employer.

The 4-Day Working Week

There is growing interest in the 4-day working week.  In Ireland, a pilot of 17 companies is commencing while internationally the number of state or company-sponsored trials is increasing.  Every week there is news of a new and successful experiment in 4-day working.

The 4-day working week is shorthand for reduction in working hours without loss of pay.  More precisely, campaigners use the formulation 100:80:100:  100 percent of the pay for 80 percent of the hours with 100 percent of the output. There are two key points here.

• First, the reduction of hours should not result in a loss of productivity. To date, studies have shown that reduced hours have led to an increase in ‘per-unit’ productivity.  However, this doesn’t mean that enterprises can maintain the overall level of productivity with hours being reduced by 20 percent.

• Second, a reduction of working hours will impact companies and sectors in different ways. A ‘4-day working week’ does not necessarily mean a three-day weekend for every worker.  It could mean reducing full-time hours from eight to six hours a day; longer holidays; flexible rota and shift work.

However, the results are coming in.  The ILO states:

‘. . . shorter working hours are positively associated with higher labour productivity per hour due to reduced fatigue, increased worker motivation, decreased absenteeism, lower risks of mistakes and accidents at work, and reduced employee turnover. Shorter working hours are also likely to reduce occupational health problems and associated health-care costs and to improve workers’ work–life balance, especially for those workers working excessively long hours. A reduction in working hours, such as a shorter full-time workweek, would also directly address the issue of “time poverty” . . . ‘

A shorter working week could make a significant contribution to reducing the impact of climate change.  The Guardian reported a study in the UK that estimated that

‘. . . moving to a four-day week by 2025 would shrink the UK’s emissions by 127m tonnes, a reduction of more than 20% and equivalent to taking the country’s entire private car fleet off the road.’

The Government has made a minimal contribution to the debate over a reduced working week.  The Department of the Environment is seeking proposals on the feasibility and implications of moving its staff to a four-day working week.  Along with the Department of Enterprise it will fund research into the economic, social and environmental impact of a four-day working week in the Irish economy. 

What is needed is a clear policy objective of reducing working hours consistent with the campaign’s 100:80:100.  This needs to be followed up by a significant state-sponsored trial of how this might work in all the sectors of the economy, with a post-trial assessment of productivity, firm performance, employee health and life satisfaction, carbon reduction and all the elements that a four-day working week would impact.

The Social Wage

The Social Wage refers to the in-work benefits that employees receive; namely, PRSI benefits.  In many instances, employees will receive company- specific benefits (sick pay scheme, maternity pay top-ups, etc.).  However, these are usually associated with high-income companies in the ICT, financial, professional and modern manufacturing sectors.  For example, some companies offer a sick-pay scheme, but most private sector employees don’t have access to such a scheme.    The Social Wage refers to benefits that all employees receive arising from their PRSI contributions. 

 A comprehensive reform of the Social Wage would see a range of in-work benefits converted to pay-related benefits.  In its submission to the Commission on Taxation and Social Welfare SIPTU put forward a range of proposals:

• Jobseekers’ Benefit to become pay-related - 70 per cent of previous earnings

• The Government is introducing pay-related sick-pay but only for 10 days per year and at 70 percent of earnings. This should be extended, in line with other EU countries to 100 per cent of earnings for four weeks within each year. Following the first four weeks, Illness Benefit should be 70 per cent of earnings for up to one year.

• Maternity and Paternity Benefit to be paid at 100 per cent of earnings. A First Year Benefit would allow a parent to take leave for the remainder of the year at 50 per cent of previous earnings. Parent’s Benefit to be paid at 50 per cent of previous earnings for the entire period of leave for Parents’ and Parental Leave.

• All benefits for those unable to work (e.g. Invalidity Pension), should be paid at 70 per cent of previous earnings.

This would provide security for employees during periods of temporary unemployment, illness, family formation, and disability and injury.  There is already movement in some of these areas:  the Government’s new sick-pay scheme referred to above; moves to introduce some type of pay-related element to unemployment benefit; and additional days of parental leave (but unpaid). 

A more comprehensive reform would strengthen the safety net in the workplace and provide security for people in-work.

Collective Bargaining

Last, but certainly not least, is collective bargaining.  Indeed, collective bargaining is the foundation for all the trends and proposals above.  It would help protect the low-paid from work intensification and loss of benefits during the drive to a Living Wage and help prevent employers from issuing frivolous rejections of remote working.  Further, through negotiations, collective bargaining can help ensure that the transition to a 4-day working week and a higher social wage is phased in as efficiently and equitably as possible with the least disruption. 

A key issue is the treatment of gig, or platform, workers along with bogus self-employed.  Though legislation will be necessary, there is much that collective bargaining – especially at the sectoral level – can achieve in promoting the rights, income certainty and living standards of these workers.

We have already seen the benefits of campaigning trade unionism in the example of the Financial Services Union demands for the ‘right to disconnect’.  It led to the introduction of a Code of Practice.  However, it also shows the need for collective representation and agreements to ensure that the code is properly implemented in the workplace.

An overwhelming majority of people believe employees should have the right to collective bargaining.  In a poll commissioned by the Financial Services Union and carried out by Ireland Thinks, the following question was put:

‘Currently employers are not legally obliged to negotiate with the trade unions of their employees. Should employers be legally required to negotiate with their trade unions if employees wish them to do so?’

74 percent agreed that employers should be legally required to negotiate with employees with only 17 percent disagreeing.  This is a substantial majority.

In a recent UCD survey of attitudes towards trade unions in the workplace, people who were not members of a trade union were asked if a vote to establish a union was held in their organisation, would they vote to establish a union.  44 percent said yes.  That’s in addition to the 28 percent who are already members of a union and 16 percent who used to be. 

What was interesting in this survey is that 51 percent of women non-members would vote to establish a union.  More interesting, two-thirds of young people (16-24 years) would support a union in their workplace.

The recent Citizen’s Assembly on Gender Equality called on the Government to establish:

‘. . . a legal right to collective bargaining to improve wages, working conditions and rights in all sectors.’

And the EU Directive on Minimum Wages will require governments to develop specific and concrete policies to raise collective bargaining coverage to between 70 and 80 percent of all employees (only 30 percent of employees are currently covered by a collective agreement).

Not only is there a clear majority for a statutory right to collective bargaining; there is also a desire among people to be represented by unions in their workplace.  The question is whether this government will vindicate that right or whether we will have to wait for another, progressive government to do this

 ***

Were the above reforms implemented in full, it would transform the workplace:  the elimination of low pay, greater work-life balance through remote working and the 4-day working week, greater security through a robust social wage, and greater power to influence decisions in the workplace through collective bargaining.

To realise this transformation, we need three things:

• First, a road map: if we are to achieve these demands, we need a roadmap of action over the next few years to show how they can be implemented. Any one reform would test the adaptability of our enterprise base; implementing them all together would be even more challenging.  All stakeholders – employees, employers and the government – will need to know what to expect and how, together, the reforms can be embedded into a new model of work.

• Second, we need to show how each of these reforms will actually boost economic and enterprise performance. For instance, the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council referred to studies showing that remote working improves productivity in the right policy context. A Living Wage can reduce staff-turnover, recruitment and retention costs while promoting output per the Fair Wage-Effort thesis.  The National Centre for Partnership and Performance shows the productivity enhancements of collective bargaining and greater employee participation in decision-making at firm level.

• Third, we need a new and inclusive narrative. Some of the reforms will appeal to different employees:  Living Wage for low-paid workers; remote working for those whose work can facilitate that; a 4-day working week for full-time employees with many part-time workers wanting more hours (nearly 80,000 part-time workers are under-employed, while over 200,000 would like to work but are not counted in our unemployment stats).

The trade union movement should lead this new narrative as it can develop a platform of different demands that can appeal to the widest alliance of workers.

This is one of the key challenges of the decade – to transform the workplace into a space that provides a decent living standard, greater work-life balance and more personal time; ensures a higher level of security; and empowers employees to exert more influence over what happens in the workplace.

But let’s not assume that ‘common sense’ will propel these transformations.  We can marshal all the arguments but ultimately this is about power in the workplace.  Owners and management have historically shown that they are willing to sacrifice the interests of the enterprise in order to maintain their power.

The momentum is with us – for the time being.   While history can, from time to time, open up windows, these openings may not last long before inertia or powerful antagonistic forces close them again. So we need to act now and climb through the windows before the shutters come down.

Why We Don't Need More Elon Musks

Greg Bensinger has some strong words.

‘Twitter’s board of directors [decision] to accept a takeover bid from Elon Musk means the company thinks the social media company would be best served by the ownership of a man who uses the platform to slime his critics, body-shame people, defy securities laws and relentlessly hawk cryptocurrencies.’

He goes on to highlight Musk’s corporate track record.  During the pandemic and lockdowns, Musk forced Tesla workers back to work, violating local health regulation.  The same company has been the subject of allegations of racist abuse, discrimination, and sexual harassment.  Similar allegations occurred among SpaceX employees.  A California regulator sued the company over reports of racial discrimination against hundreds of employees [Musk told the workers to be ‘thick-skinned’].  Is anyone surprised that Musk was found guilty of threatening people – even illegally firing one – for attempting to organise a union at Tesla?

But, hey, isn’t our Elon an ‘entrepreneur’ – mercurial, maybe; but a visionary, an example of what the private sector can do if only those darn government regulators would get off its and his back? 

No. 

The classic definition of entrepreneur, first formulated by Kerry-born economist Richard Cantillon in the 18^th century, is someone who organises and risks their own money pursuing a business venture.   

This is not what Elon Musk does.   He has built a career living off other people’s money; notably, the US taxpayer.  He is a sponge capitalist, soaking up whatever public subsidy is going.  His reliance on government handouts is chronic and long-standing.  There’s just one twist:  the public pays the money and he keeps the profit.

[Note:  sponge capitalism should not be confused with SpongeBob SquarePants which apparently contains many anti-capitalist messages.]

Let’s start with the now famous Los Angeles Times investigation into Musk’s financing. 

‘Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.  And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.’

Jerry Hirsch compiled data showing that, by 2015, Tesla, SolarCity and Space X received nearly $5 billion government (US) subsidies.  This included grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans, and environmental credits and rebates.  Some of these are subsidies are particularly remarkable.  Again, according to Hirsch writing in 2015:

‘New York state is spending $750 million to build a solar panel factory in Buffalo for SolarCity. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company will lease the plant for $1 a year. It will not pay property taxes for a decade, which would otherwise total an estimated $260 million.’

A $1 lease and no property tax.  And Nevada agreed to provide Tesla with $1.3 billion in incentives to help build a massive battery factory near Reno.

And none of this accounts for the $5 billion-plus in public procurement contracts Musk’s companies received.  No wonder a hedge fund manager stated:

‘Government support is a theme of [Musk’s] companies, and without it none of them would be around’.

All that comes from a 2015 investigation.  What has our Elon been up to since then?  Old habits are hard to break. Business Insider points out that Musk received a public sector contract last year from NASA worth $2.9 billion to bring "commercial" humans to the moon.  He got another contract worth $653 million from the US Air Force in 2020.  And while Tesla was grabbing some of the stimulus corporate grants during the pandemic in 2020, Musk tweeted that a government stimulus is not in the best interests of people. 

Jacob Silverman identifies more public subsides:

‘[A government] program designed to spur new investment in impoverished areas has done little of the sort, instead providing tax breaks for space-travel moguls like Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson. The Qualified Opportunity Zones program has been criticized for doling out its benefits to huge businesses seeking the latest tax advantage, rather than the scrappy local entrepreneurs it was supposed to help . . .  By moving to Texas and pushing more of his money into opportunity-zone ventures, Elon Musk may save billions in taxes.’

Silverman also doubts Musk’s entrepreneurial foundation:

‘It’s entirely possible that this carnival barker of a CEO will continue finding crafty ways to extract tax breaks and favorable contracts from government entities for the rest of his career. But we should be alive to the ways in which Musk’s reputation is built on a faulty foundation of borrowed money and worker exploitation . . . For all his supposed brilliance in developing electric vehicles and rockets, this may be his greatest talent: grifting the government.’

What lessons can we draw from all this?  Going beyond Musk-bashing, there are three issues.

First, if investors should be rewarded for the proportion of resources they put into a venture (a simple business maxim), this should be applied to taxpayers’ money.  If a public agency provides a subsidy - either through direct grants, tax breaks or an in-kind contribution – they should receive a proportionate amount of equity or stake in the company or venture.  This is a simple business maxim.  We wouldn’t expect the private sector to invest without any stake.  Why do we allow this to happen with the public sector?

Second, public procurement contracts should come with clauses regulating best-practice behaviour. How can public agencies award contracts to businesses that are being sued by public agencies for discrimination, that break labour laws, and whose executives conduct themselves publicly in shameless attacks on individuals?  Public procurement should be a tool to create high-road, efficient and socially-responsible companies that are democratically accountable.

Third, yes, we need entrepreneurship (however that is defined) and entrepreneurs.  That is why we need greater democracy in the workplace and more employee involvement in the firm-level decision-making process.  We need to mobilise the ideas and contributions of people working across the economy – something that doesn’t happen now because capital, not labour, is privileged; companies are organised around top-down hierarchical structures; and people are just treated as just another commodity or input.  Instead of celebrating publicly-subsidised, bonus-soaked CEOs and owners, we should be acclaiming the entrepreneurial abilities of all workers, and pursuing policies that promote them.   

We need direct returns on public investment, more efficient and socially-responsible companies, we need more entrepreneurs.

That’s why we don’t need more Elon Musks.

Public Sector Pay and Facts of Life

Pat Leahy, in describing the ‘intricate dance of the pay deal’ (referring to the upcoming negotiations over a new public sector pay deal), refers to the ‘hefty public sector (pay) premium’:

‘When it comes to average rates of pay it’s a fact of life that public sector workers are better paid than their private sector counterparts . . . ‘

Better paid?  A fact of life?  Hardly.  This particular fact is not a fact at all. 

The CSO publishes average rates of private and public sector pay from its Labour Force Survey (Table EHQ08). 

Pre-pandemic, public sector pay was 35.4 percent higher than private sector pay, while last year this gap was closed to 30.5 percent (though pandemic wage volatility may not have fully washed out).  So does this prove the ‘fact of life’?  No.

The most fundamental rule of comparisons is that they must be done on a like-for-like basis – otherwise, you could end up with apples, oranges and mangoes.  For instance, in the public sector there are no occupations comparable to hospitality and retail.  Conversely, there are no equivalent occupations such as Gardai and defence forces in the private sector. 

Mr. Leahy seems to get some of this. He points out that large enterprises pay more than small ones, and that there is a premium associated with trade union membership – things that characterise the public sector.  Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on anecdote or intuition.

The CSO has done (on three occasions) a like-for-like comparison between public and private sector pay.  

In 2018, public sector pay was, on average, nearly 4 percent below private sector pay.  There was a public sector premium back in 2011 but at 3 percent, it could hardly be described as ‘hefty’.  The ‘fact of life’ that public sector pay is higher than private sector pay hasn’t effectively been a ‘fact’ for years.

Why the difference between the straight comparison between public and private sector pay and the like-for-like comparison?  In producing the latter, the CSO does a deep-dive into the variables that impact on the differential:

• Gender
• Nationality
• Age
• Full-time/Part-time status
• Supervisor status
• Temporary/Permanent status
• Shift work status
• Usual Hours worked
• Overtime Hours
• Length of service with current employer
• Union Membership Status
• Occupation
• Size of Enterprise

While overall public sector workers earn nearly 4 percent below their like-for-like counterparts in the private sector, the gaps widen when we focus on gender.

• Males in the public sector earn 10.3 percent less than their private sector counterparts
• Females in the public sector earn 3.3 percent more

For males, that is quite a gap.  For females, the public sector still retains a small (not hefty) premium but this may be due to the fact that the public sector has been more successful in reducing the gender pay gap. 

• Total gender pay gap throughout the economy: 3 percent
• Private sector gender pay gap: 0 percent
• Public sector gender pay gap: 1 percent

A contributing factor to the low (but still too high) gender pay gap in the public sector is collective bargaining – something that exists throughout the public sector but which private sector workers are largely denied.  It should also be noted that the gender pay gap in the Irish public sector is the 6^th lowest in the EU.   However, the Irish private sector pay gap is the 8^th highest. 

The latest like-for-like data we have is from 2018.  What’s happened since then?  We have to be careful regarding data for 2020 and 2021 given the pandemic-impact on the composition of the labour market.

Private sector pay has increased at nearly twice the rate of the public sector.  However, some of this increase could be compositional change (e.g. fewer hospitality workers would slightly increase the overall percentage increase in the private sector).  However, we can safely say that public sector weekly earnings are, on average, not keeping up with private sector earnings.

* * *

None of the above is intended to suggest what pay increase either public or private sector workers should receive this year or next.  It is only intended to show that the so-called ‘fact of life’ – namely, that public sector workers earn more than private sector workers – is clearly and demonstrably wrong. 

It is imperative that commentators and analysts should, when making public statements, attempt to accurately describe the context.  This doesn’t mean we will all agree on the optimal policy position.  However, misstatements of facts skewer and degrade the public debate, and can potentially lead to socially inequitable and economically inefficient outcomes.

The remedy?  Do a little research.

Cutting VAT Will Be Regressive

The Government is proposing to reduce the VAT rate on domestic energy products.  This is likely to lead to more cash handouts to higher income groups as energy consumption increases as household income increases.

This data comes from the 2015/16 Household Budget Survey.  The nominal amounts will have changed.  However, the ratios are likely to be similar today.  The highest income decile spends, on average, nearly a third more than the average and nearly twice as much as the lowest decile.

Since VAT is a tax on spending, it will rise with the level of consumption.  Therefore, a cut in VAT will reflect that consumption structure.  Let’s get a sense of this by selecting some examples from Bonkers.ie based on the Regulator’s estimate of median household consumption.  In these examples, we estimate the annual cash benefit to households.

The regulator estimates that the median level of electricity consumption is 3,500 kWh annually.  50 percent of households consume less than this, 50 percent consume more.  Reducing the VAT rate from 13.5 percent to 9 percent would mean an average savings of €54 per year.  For those consuming lower amounts (e.g. 2/3 of the median), the savings would be €40.  But for those with higher consumption, the savings could rise to €94 and up to €134 for very high consumers.

We can do the same exercise with gas.

Again, using the regulator’s gas average consumption estimate, we get the same ratios.

Overall, combining the savings from cutting VAT on electricity and gas from 13.5 percent to 9 percent, we find:

• Average consumers will benefit by €110 annually
• High consuming households will benefit by €196
• Very high consuming household will benefit by €284
• Low consuming households, however, will benefit by €78.

These should be treated indicatively as savings will vary with provider and the energy plan a household is on.  However, this is the broad ballpark.

It shouldn’t be surprising.  The more you consume, the more VAT you pay.  Therefore, a reduction in VAT (equivalent to a cut of a third in the VAT rate) is likely to benefit higher consumption.

This is hardly equitable.  A better course – if one is determined distribute resources to households via this method - is to distribute an equal amount to each household.  This would be similar to the way the Government credited energy bills in their first round of reliefs.  A credit of approximately €110 to each household would be more progressive – giving extra benefit to half of all households (those consuming below the median), with no additional benefit because a household consumes more.

This course, while being more progressive, would cost approximately the same as cutting VAT for the full year. 

Of course, an even better way would be for the Government to regulate energy prices as discussed here, or set a wage increase target as discussed here.  Instead of reducing the tax yield as a VAT cut would do, a wage increase would increase tax revenue – revenue which the Government could use to help focus resources on fixed-income households (social protection and pensions).  Further, even a small wage increase such as 1 percent would benefit low and average-income earners far more than a VAT cut.

Understandably, the Government wants to be seen as being pro-active, helping out households.  The optics of cutting VAT can look positive. And it can be done quickly.  However, when we look under the hood, we find that cutting VAT could be regressive in cash terms.

We need a better, more progressive and fiscally efficient approach.

Wages are Part of the Solution

Unsurprisingly, wages are struggling to keep up with inflation.  Despite pay rises over the last year, inflation is running so high that, after inflation, wages are falling.  This is called real wages – the real meaning ‘after inflation’.

Between the last quarter of 2020 and the last quarter of 2021, hourly wages rose by 2.6 percent.  However, inflation during this period ran at 5.4 percent.  This means that, in real terms, wages fell by 2.8 percent.

Wage rises differ from sector to sector.  Average real hourly wages fell by nearly 11 percent in the utilities sector (electricity, gas, water and waste) while mining workers managed a marginal increase.  However, sectoral breakdowns have to be treated cautiously.

• Utility workers didn’t’ actually receive real wage cuts of 11 percent. More likely the composition between highly paid energy workers and low-paid waste workers changed.  

• Public Administration workers saw their nominal wages (before inflation) rise by nearly 5 percent. Again, we may be seeing compositional changes at work within higher and lower paid workers.

• Hospitality wages could still be impacted by pandemic volatility.

Despite the caveats at sectoral level, at national level the differences should wash out.  And that shows, on average, a real wage cut of 2.8 percent.

Another way of measuring the impact of inflation on wage income is to look at weekly earnings.

This tells a similar story.  On average, real weekly wages fell by 3.4 percent in real terms, indicating a marginal fall in the hours worked per week.  Arts & Recreation along with Administrative Services experienced a real wage increase but this was due to an increase in hours worked. 

Back in January the Tánaiste stated that workers should receive pay rises from companies to help deal with the rising cost of living, calling it ‘part of the solution’.  This is welcomed.  However, others have warned against wage increases feeding into a price spiral.  The Central Bank is apparently looking out for 'damaging wage increases’. 

Is there a risk that wage increases could fuel inflation?  Not for the most part.  There are two reasons:

First, we have supply-side inflation, caused by interruptions in production and supply chains throughout the world, now exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.  Increasing or cutting wages won’t produce more oil or wind (energy), steel (construction), fertilizer (agriculture), or reduce shipping costs.  The main drivers of inflation are not due to domestic demand.  That’s why inflation is going up everywhere.

Second, we have been here before.  Back in 2000 the ‘social partners’ negotiated the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) which provided a pay increase of 5.5 percent in 2000 and again in 2001, followed by a 4 percent increase the following year.  However, inflation unexpectedly spiked at nearly 7 percent in October 2000.  Unions demanded a re-negotiation and received an additional 2 percent in 2001 and a further 1 percent in 2002.  Did this ‘fuel’ inflation?  No. 

In October 2001 inflation fell to 4.3 percent and by October 2003 it fell to a normal 2.3 percent.  The combined additional 3 percent pay rises didn’t fuel inflation.  Inflation fell regardless of the pay increases.  This doesn’t mean that the same thing would happen today.  Inflationary experiences are different.  However, there is no automatic relationship between a pay rise and inflation.

Heavy Lifting

Wage increases can do the heavy lifting in terms of protecting people from inflation.  A one percent increase for an employee on median earnings (approximately €40,500) will net a single worker €206 after tax.  For an employee with an adult dependent, this would rise to €286.  Let’s compare that to the impact of tax cuts.  Note:  the tax cuts are based on average energy consumption for Electric Ireland, calculated from Bonkers.ie

An additional 1 percent pay increase would be of far more benefit than reducing the VAT rate on electricity or suspending the entire carbon tax on gas bills (some parties referring to carbon tax are only calling for the increase this year to be suspended, not the entire amount).

For low-paid workers (2/3 of median earnings), the pay increase would equal €190.  A VAT cut would save €35 while suspending all carbon tax would save €50 (assuming consumption at 75 percent of average).

One could include the impact of VAT and Carbon Tax cuts on petrol though there are, for many, substitution goods (e.g. public transport, use reduction), unlike domestic energy.  And there is the impact on oil-based heating; though why prices should vary so much – between €560 and €880 per 500 litres of oil – is worth asking.

Increasing pay would allow the Government to focus on those not in work such as pensioners.  It would raise revenue for the Government through higher tax receipts.  It would also raise business income as low-average income earners would likely spend the additional income.

The Government could take the lead on this, and call for a 5 percent pay increase across the economy.  This would incorporate any pay increases that were coming in any event.  Or it could call for a 2 percent increase above what was already planned by businesses.  This is what is described as a ‘pay norm’.   This would, of course, be easier to negotiate for workers under collective bargaining.

Many companies would not be able to afford this hike, but could manage some of it.  In such circumstances the Government could call for low and average-paid workers to get most of whatever benefit is available.

And if the Government fails to do this, it is always up to the opposition parties in the Dail to combine behind a private members’ motion stating that it is the will of parliament that wages rise to help alleviate the currently inflation emergency. 

Increasing wages, increasing workers’ portion of the value-added that they generate, is just one way to help get us through this crisis. It, therefore, requires an official policy to promote it.

Neither Washington Nor Moscow

(I’m stealing this title from Gavan Titley’s thoughtful contribution on the Ukrainian crisis)

At times, the debate over the Russian invasion of Ukraine reaches the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.  Some commentators portray an informed and intelligent discussion as an apology for one side or the other.  If you criticise NATO policy over the last two decades, you are a tool of Putin.  If you criticise Putin, you accept the many US-led abuses.  It is reminiscent of Albert Camus’ observation:  when I criticise Franco, I’m called a communist; when I criticise the invasion of Hungary, I’m called a stooge of Western powers.

This simplistic either/or way of looking at the world can only degrade discourse.

Smearing the Left

Some of the debate has been hijacked to score domestic political points; namely, attacking the Left for being ‘soft’ on Putin (and that’s one of the milder accusations).  Lucinda Creighton, writing in the Sunday Business Post (pay-walled) takes this point-scoring to the extreme:

‘How the left manages to excuse the egregiously indefensible [the Russian invasion}, while attributing every bad deed in the world to the US and Nato is mystifying.’

I’m sure that members of the Labour Party and Social Democrats (never mind other progressive parties) will be surprised to learn that they are Putin apologists.  But it gets worse.

‘ . . . last week the Irish People Before Profit party was protesting outside Dail Eireann against Nato.  Mick Barry, one of the party’s TDs, called for Nato to be withdrawn from eastern Europe, rather any united effort to remove Putin and his 100,000 troops from Ukraine . . . ‘

Mick Barry is more than capable of addressing this claim, but the accusation goes to the heart of debased political discourse.  One can listen to Mick’s speech in front of the Dail in a video put up on Twitter, entitled: ‘No to the Putin regime's invasion of Ukraine!’.  These are his first lines:

‘The first point that I would like to make is that we stand here as ordinary people living in Ireland, as workers and young people, as socialists and anti-war activists, and we want to express our solidarity with the workers, young people and ordinary people of Ukraine.  We stand in solidarity against what you are being put under, and your families and your friends.  The second point I want to make is that with no hesitation, no qualification whatsoever, we completely and absolutely condemn the invasion of Ukraine, the Putin regime and what they have been doing today and over the last while . . . absolutely, completely. 100 percent condemn Putin and the invasion of Ukraine.’

I don’t know how much clearer you can get.  Yet. Creighton wants to twist this into making excuses for Putin and the invasion. 

International Politics and Crazy

What irks many commentators is the idea that we should explore all the contributing factors leading up to the invasion, factors that go back years.  Jonathan Steele, writing in the Irish Times and Guardian, is worth quoting at length. He suggests that to end the crisis we must first understand Putin’s mindset: 

What happened this week is that Putin lost his patience, and his temper . . .To those who say Nato is entitled to invite any state to join, Putin argues that the “open door” policy is conditioned by a second principle, which Nato states have accepted: namely that the enhancement of a state’s security should not be to the detriment of the security of other states (such as Russia). Barack Obama put his signature to the principle at a summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The summit’s declaration includes a wonderfully idealistic ambition: “We recommit ourselves to the vision of a free, democratic, common and indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok”. This echoes Mikhail Gorbachev’s plea, when the cold war division of Europe ended, for Russia and other European states to live together in a “common European home”. We now suffer in the shadow of the thwarting of that dream.

‘For Putin the OSCE statement is proof of the hypocrisy that goes back to earlier US presidents, who showed the dishonesty of Nato’s “open door” policy by rejecting Russia’s repeated feelers about joining the alliance. In his speech this week, the Russian leader said he had asked Bill Clinton about the possibility of membership but was fobbed off with the argument that Russia was too big. In 2000, during his first weeks as president, Putin was asked by David Frost on the BBC if it was possible Russia could join Nato. He replied: “I would not rule such a possibility out, if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner.”

Steele is right.  We are living in the shadow of missed opportunities and geo-political manoeuvring. There was a window following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in which a new security framework could have been devised encompassing the US, the EU and Russia.  That failure resonates today.  Yet, according to some, we should not attempt to understand the rationale of Russian state policy – a policy that goes back to Tsarist days. Instead, we are required to discuss Russian state policy in terms of Putin’s ‘madness’, ‘insanity’ ‘megalomania’. 

And here it gets worse again.  Creighton writes:

‘The truth is there is no such thing as Nato expansionism.  It is a fiction.  To claim its existence is to impose the imperialistic ambitions of Vladimir Putin on a voluntary alliance of democratic sovereign states.’

Oh.  Now we’re supposed to reject simple geographical and chronological facts.  Nato was established in 1949 with 12 members.  Three more joined in the 1950s.  But since 1955, with the exception of Spain, there was no expansion of Nato membership.  However, starting in 1999 we have seen a near doubling of membership – almost all to the east.  Prior to 1999, only one NATO country bordered Russia – Norway (and that only a slip of land below the Arctic, hardly a tactical concern).  Now there are five.  Were Ukraine to join, it would have the longest NATO border with Russia.

This is not a fiction.  But to state this is to invite the charge that we are rationalising Putin’s ‘imperialistic ambitions’. 

A Dangerous World

So where should progressives situate themselves in this debate?  Where we should always be:  supporting human rights, peace and the rule of international law, democracy and cooperation.  This leads us to utterly condemn the invasion of Ukraine and to support the strongest economic and political sanctions against the Putin regime, even to the point of the EU providing arms to the Ukrainian forces. While this may not be palatable to many (understandably), Russia will not come to the negotiating table with a view to a cease-fire and ultimate withdrawal unless Ukrainian forces can thwart the Russian military’s strategic goals.  Ireland’s role in this is to provide humanitarian and non-lethal aid to Ukraine, open our borders to refugees and give assistance to those countries bordering Ukraine who are taking in refugees, especially Poland.

But as Peter Beinart rightly puts it, because we reject Putin’s lies doesn’t mean we have to buy into the half-truths of others (and vice-versa, I might add).    This becomes important given that more and more voices are being raised in favour of Ireland joining Nato or at least evolving a closer relationship.   Beinart states:

‘Saying the US stands with Ukraine because America is committed to democracy and the “rules-based international order” is at best a half-truth. The US helps dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates commit war crimes in Yemen, employs economic sanctions that deny people from Iran to Venezuela to Syria life-saving medicines, rips up international agreements like the Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate accords, and threatens the international criminal court if it investigates the US or Israel.’

And this is a highly abridged list.

It is a dangerous world.  While joining Nato is a legitimate position to debate, it is wholly wrong.  The US and Nato are destabilising forces in international affairs.  So is Russia.  China has so far refrained from overt military expansion (though the militarisation of the South China Seas and the threats to the people of Taiwan suggest a worrying trajectory), but their record on human rights is dismal. 

Progressives must be tribunes for people – for the Uyghurs, the Palestinians, the Rohingyas, African Americans, and so many more.  We must oppose the war machines in Yemen and the military build-ups throughout the world. We must support trade unionists and civil society activists in their struggles against oppression. We must campaign for a Europe free from weapons of mass destruction and the extension of the International Court of Justice to all countries. 

Most of all, we must argue for a new European security framework.  Ireland can help lead this debate as a ‘neutral’ country.  If, on the other side of this conflict, we return to the status quo, we only leave Russian political culture open to nationalist and militaristic influences, even after Putin.  We return to the situation that got us here today. 

Aligning with this super-power or that cannot help advance this agenda; aligning with one or other destabiliser of the international order only compromises a better mission.  That we will, depending on the issue, end up making the same arguments and engaging in temporary, tactical relationships is inevitable in a complex and dangerous world. Yesterday, Russia opposed the illegal Iraq invasion; today, the US opposes the illegal Ukraine invasion.  What should mark Ireland out is that we are consistently and, in principle, supportive of an international rule of law – something that the current regimes in US and Russia are not.    

So, neither Moscow or Washington, neither this super-power nor that; for a new European security framework from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond – one that transcends NATO and Russian militarism. 

And the challenge today is to use all the tools at our disposal to end the invasion, to bring about a cease-fire and a withdrawal of the Russian military from Ukraine.

End the war, establish peace and implement the principle that one country cannot enhance their security at the expense of another country – something that both NATO and Russian militarism have violated.

Confronting a Higher Inflation Future

With inflation projected to climb to 4.5 percent next year, and continuing at levels in excess of pre-pandemic trends, it is time to assess the varying impacts on income groups.  Inflation affects households in different ways, depending on income and consumption patterns.  But generally low-income households will fare the worst.   Let’s see if we can estimate it.

Across the Board

The following stylised estimate comes with explanations.  First, this is not an attempt to measure inflation by income group, but rather the impact of higher prices on income levels.  Second, income and expenditure data comes from the 2016 Household Budget Survey so this data is a little out of date.  Third, this takes the 5.5 percent headline inflation rate (12 months to December) and applies it to total expenditure regardless of the composition of that spending.  Finally, the additional expenditure arising from inflation is measured against total disposable income.

This is what we find.

For the lowest-income group, inflation over the last year represents 8.5 percent of their income.  At the highest end, it represents 4.2 percent of income – or less than half the impact on the lowest income group.

This should be treated indicatively.  However, this regressive trend shouldn’t surprise us.  It is a function of higher savings at the upper levels.  For instance, a household whose expenditure is equal to revenue (i.e. they don’t save) will face the full impact of inflation as a percentage of income.  However, households that save will experience inflation as a smaller proportion of income.  For instance:

• In the highest income group, households spend 76 percent of their income

• In the 9^th decile, households spend 89 percent of their income

This doesn’t factor in income rises over the year.  And as income and spending data dates from 2016, there could be a change in the gap between highest and lowest income groups.  The CSO’s Survey on Income and Living Conditions shows that the ratio between the highest and lowest income fell.  But we should also be mindful that, were all households impacted equally, living standards for low-income households would end up worse as they would have to reduce their spending (e.g. turn off the heat in the house, consume less food) or go into debt.  Higher income households just save slightly less.

Factoring in Energy Inflation

Let’s wade a little further into the data pond and factor in the impact of domestic energy prices.  While inflation averaged 5.5 percent, energy prices (gas, electricity, other fuels) experienced a 27 percent rise.  All other goods and services rose by 3.6 percent.

If lower income groups disproportionately spend more (as a percentage of their income) on energy, then the regressive trends we saw above could be exacerbated.  And that’s exactly what happens when we factor in energy prices.

Inflation is even higher in the lowest income group, while at the highest level the impact of inflation on revenue falls.  Why does this happen?  In the lowest decile, spending on energy makes up over 9 percent of total expenditure; at the highest end this figure is 3 percent.   Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised that inflation rises even higher for low-income groups given the level of spending on light and fuel.

However, there is a major health warning in starting a decomposition of average inflation rates.  For instance, lower income groups spend a higher proportion on food.  Food inflation over the last year has been well below the average (1.2 percent compared to an average 5.5 percent).  So if we were to factor in food inflation, we would probably see the gap between the lowest and highest income groups narrow.

[NOTE:  while over the year food inflation has been below average, in December it exceeded the average on a month-to-month basis.  If food inflation continues to trend above the average, it could be even more damaging to low-income living standards.]

* * *

Where does all this leave us? 

• First, the above is just a crude approximation.  It would be extremely helpful if the CSO disaggregated inflation by deciles and other categories (age, housing tenure, etc.) so that we could get a more informed perspective on the impact of inflation.  The ESRI could also assist using their SWITCH model.  It was only after researching this blog post that I came across this Twitter thread from Pearse Doherty, TD, who has written to the CSO seeking such an inflation breakdown. 
• Second, we will need to rethink how we redistribute income, moving away from the annual ‘here’s a fiver’ approach to social protection payments.  Even linking such payments to average inflation doesn’t take into account of the fact that inflation could be above-average for households reliant on social protection.
• Third, among households that are in formal employment, we are likely to see that inflation is higher for the low-paid.  This calls for wage and income strategies that benefit the lower-paid.
• Fourth, we need to address the structural factors in prices; otherwise we’re in danger of cash subsidies chasing prices.  Treating energy as a ‘public good’ with price regulation could help smooth out energy price cycles.  Targeting free, upfront retrofits – especially for older households and old buildings – can reduce energy consumption and, so, costs.  Reducing the costs of public services would also help drive down costs (e.g. public transport fares, as would tackling housing costs (e.g. rent freeze).

Through a range of redistribution and regulatory measures we can start to meet the challenge of a higher inflation environment. 

A good start is to get a robust analysis of inflation and living costs throughout all the different sectors of society.

* * *

NOTE:  All inflation and Household Budget data taken from CSO. I find it difficult to link individual tables within the CSO's databank.  Any suggestions would be welcome.

Anything We Can Actually Do, We Can Afford

Let’s begin 2022 on a positive, even outrageously optimistic, note. 

Yes, there’s inflation, pandemic disrepair, geo-political instability, low wages, precarious work, social deficits and increasing demands on under-funded public services.  But there will be time to depress ourselves over these.  Let’s start with a hopeful analysis.  And who better to go to than John Maynard Keynes, who said,

‘Anything we can actually do, we can afford’.

All the dire predictions of the fiscal pessimists are swept aside like so many budget begrudgeries.  Finance is an instrument, not a master.   Policy is determined by our own capacities, not by our pockets. 

‘Anything we can actually do, we can afford’ is the watchword(s) of the new political economy.

Keynes made this statement in a 1942 lecture on BBC radio.  Here is the context.

‘Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Why should we not add in every substantial city the dignity of an ancient university or a European capital … an ample theater, a concert hall, a dance hall, a gallery, cafes, and so forth. Assuredly we can afford this and so much more. Anything we can actually do, we can afford . . . Yet these must be only the trimmings on the more solid, urgent and necessary outgoings on housing the people, on reconstructing industry and transport and on replanning the environment of our daily life. Not only shall we come to possess these excellent things. With a big programme carried out at a regulated pace we can hope to keep employment good for many years to come. We shall, in fact, have built our New Jerusalem . . .’

Keynes’ dictum has gained new currency during the pandemic.  Who would have thought in 2019 that we would be able to spend billions on subsidising people in work and out of work? Who would have thought that billions spent on business subsidies would not only be possible but desirable?  Who would have predicted essentially free health services and the takeover of private hospitals? 

Had you predicted  any of this in 2019 you would have been laughed out of the media studios.

‘How could we afford this?’ would have been the refrain.  And, yet, we did.

Of course, there are caveats and conditions.  Inflation is a key constraint. Keynes wrote:

‘The . . . task is to prevent a demand in excess of the physical possibilities of supply, which is the proper meaning of inflation. For the physical possibilities of supply are very far from unlimited . . . Having prepared our blue-prints, covering the whole field of our requirements and not building alone—and these can be as ambitious and glorious as the minds of our engineers and architects and social planners can conceive—those in charge must then concentrate on the vital task of central management, the pace at which the programme is put into operation, neither so slow as to cause unemployment nor so rapid as to cause inflation.‘

This has lessons for our housing programme.  The first issue is not the money but the capacity.  Do we have the labour, the supply chains, efficient public procurement rules, the land?  How does this balance with other demands for retro-fitting and other building and infrastructural projects?  And at what point does the programme start ‘over-heating’, with investment chasing prices rather than completing housing?  This should lead us to emphasise quality and long-term sustainability over setting tenuous targets.

This is about changing the debate from ‘can we afford it’ (yes, we can) to ‘can we actually do it’?  Most days I walk past St. Mary’s Mansions, a social housing estate in Dublin’s North Inner City.  It underwent a massive regeneration which resulted in the highest energy rating, new communal spaces (play areas, etc.) and new units, housing more – all for the price of €23 million; essentially pennies behind the sofa which will be recouped in the years ahead.  This could serve not only as a template for social housing, but all housing.  Dr. Rory Hearne highlights the challenges and benefits of bringing the vast number of empty and derelict housing units back into use.

The real driver of doing and affording, however, is somewhat out of our control.   The EU Commission is currently reviewing the Fiscal Rules.  A return to the old normal or a withdrawal of the ECB backstop to sovereign debt would undermine attempts to finance what is necessary.  That’s why it is imperative the Irish government support the arguments that investment – especially green investment – be exempt from deficit and debt calculations; that productive investment be central bank-financed.   It is imperative that opposition parties hold the government to account on this. Sensible fiscal rules and central bank support for investment would help ensure that what we can do, we can afford.

Even without this, the Irish government can still increase resources under the current rules (always remembering inflationary pressures), investing billions more by 2025 than what is currently projected.  Keeping growth ahead of borrowing still reduces debt, but more importantly can reduce economic inefficiency and social need. The only limitation is capacity.

This requires a different dialogue.  It requires – again, relying on Keynes – a managed 'quasi-boom', a macro-economic policy that the current Government would find difficult given their ideological blinkers (and given the main coalition parties’ track record, I’m not sure I’d like to see them try).  To meet the challenges – from post-pandemic repair, to climate chaos, automation and a low-growth future – we will need to do things differently. 

And the good news is that what we can actually do, we can afford.

Energy is a Public Good

It is time to treat energy as a public good, not a market commodity.  There are better ways to provide economic and social relief from rising energy costs than subsidising prices through fuel allowances and VAT reductions (which we all will pay for).  Regulating energy prices is the first step towards a ‘public good’ status for energy. 

Energy costs; they have spiralled upwards with further increases likely.  This is due to a range of factors largely outside the control of actors within the state. Though we are assured this spike in prices is temporary, it will be of little consolation to households and businesses facing into higher bills over the winter – especially low-income groups who pay a much larger percentage of their incomes for heat and light.

The political debate has so far revolved around subsidies through social protection payments and a temporary suspension of VAT on energy products.  While these measures would provide immediate relief, and are therefore better than nothing, they amount to subsidies to the energy companies.  When subsidies start chasing prices, costs can escalate.

The alternative is to cap energy prices.  The Government, through the Energy Regulator, could impose price ceilings on electricity and gas prices.  In this scenario, energy companies would absorb the cost of reducing energy bills to the state, households and businesses.  The Tánaiste claims this option will be considered:

‘Maximum price orders will be considered by Government to halt galloping gas and electricity costs, the Tánaiste has told the Dáil.  However, Leo Varadkar warned that energy companies were going out of business because of price caps in the UK . . . Mr Varadkar said: “We’re not going to rule out using maximum price orders.” ‘

Spain is introducing such caps while the UK has operated price ceilings since 2019.  And the cause of energy companies going out of business is not, ultimately, because of price caps but rather the long-term effect of privatising the UK energy market.   

In May of last year, the Minister for Enterprise at that time, Heather Humphreys, stated this in relation to maximum price orders for handwash and sanitiser products:

‘The power for Government . . . to fix by order the maximum price at which a product can be supplied to consumers applies only where an emergency order is in force in relation to that product . . .  if the Government are of the opinion that abnormal circumstances prevail or are likely to prevail in relation to the supply of a product, the Government may by order declare that a state of emergency affecting the supply of that product exists.’

‘Abnormal circumstances’ adequately describes the current energy market. 

If the state were to intervene in market pricing, it would need to be clear about what its objectives are.  It is not, in the long term, about suppressing fossil-fuel energy prices.   These prices will rise over the long term with the transition to renewable energy sources.  The objective is to smooth out spikes to provide certainty to consumers and protect them from high prices during  periods of high demand.  Under a price control system, price spikes are temporarily blunted and increases postponed until normal supply chains are restored and demand is reduced (e.g. into the Spring). 

This simple measure, though, begs larger questions which go beyond managing the market.   Energy – electricity, gas, petrol – is a vital public good, necessary to the very functioning of economies and societies.  Given this, there is a strong argument that the generation and distribution of energy products should be publicly managed,  if not brought into public ownership.  In the former, private ownership would continue but would operate along democratically accountable lines – not just in pricing but in investment decisions (all the more urgent given climate justice and Just Transition) and stakeholder relations. 

Michael Davies-Venn writes in the European context:

‘The urgency of decarbonising Europe requires policy consistency, not ad hoc reactions . . .  the European Council [should consider] an unorthodox solution—removing electricity as a private commodity from a liberalised market and treating it as a public good . . . The commission should allow states to (re)nationalise electricity companies, which would remove a driver of energy poverty.’

Price regulation can help reduce fuel poverty.  The Regulator could require all companies to provide the first X amount of energy (gas or electricity) free or at greatly reduced prices.  Companies could make up the difference with higher rates on energy consumption above this amount.  In this way, energy consumption would operate like the tax system,  with its tax-free credit and reduced tax rate on low incomes.  

In the long term we will experience more of these spikes and disruptive events.  With policy dictating a move away from fossil-fuel production, long-term investment will be wound down.  Winding down and shutting these plants could have severe consequences on energy supply if we don’t ensure equivalent amounts of consistent renewable energy coming on stream.  This can’t be left to market forces and market signals.  This needs to be planned. 

Ultimately, we need to see energy as a public good.  Price regulation is preferable to subsidising energy costs, though in the short term we may have to use subsidies while we establish a robust regulatory regime.

As Joseph Baines and Sandy Hager write in the UK context:

‘ . . . bringing the energy sector back under public control will redress many of the failures of privatisation. Public ownership won’t solve the problem of rising wholesale gas prices, but it would bring much-needed stability to an energy market racked by the chaos of failing private suppliers. And since public suppliers are not beholden to shareholders and pressures to pay dividends, they are better positioned to provide effective subsidies to reduce household energy bills and meaningfully invest in the renewable energy infrastructure the UK urgently needs.’

This is the destination.

Controlling Inflation

Inflation exceeded 5 percent last month according to the CSO – the highest annual rate since 2007.  What are we to make of this and what are we to do?  While high rates of inflation can be economically corrosive and usually result in real pay cuts, the primary instrument to rein in inflation – interest rates – can undermine economic growth, business activity and household living standards.  The wrong use of interest rates can prolong a recession, as happened when the ECB increased interest rates in 2011, or can even brutalise a country such as what happened in the US in the 1970s.  So before we get into a conversation around what we do about inflation, we need to discuss what we are to make of this latest data.

Inflation, until last year, was stable and low.

Between 2012 and 2016 inflation was flat.  It picked up until 2019 but only by 2 percent which was notable given the growth in employment and wages.  It fell in 2020 owing to the impact of the pandemic.  But in the last year inflation has shot up by 5.1 percent.

However, we should view the 2021 outcome with the 2020 downturn – to see if we are in a bounce-back territory.  Between 2019 and 2021 inflation rose by 3.6 percent.  This averages out at 1.8 percent over the two years.  While this is high when with the average annual increase between 2016 and 2019 (0.7 percent) it is not, yet, crisis territory.

So what has been driving inflation in the last year?  Is it sector specific or more generalised?  Here is a breakdown of the largest contributors to inflation over the last year.

Over 70 percent of inflation over the last two years has been driven by transport and energy products – essentially, fossil fuels.   Energy products and diesel increased by 26 percent last year.  But food and miscellaneous services increased by less than 0.5 percent.  Restaurants and hotels increased by 4.4 percent but we could be seeing businesses trying to recoup some of their pandemic losses. 

Are the increases in inflation – especially in energy products and transport – permanent or temporary?  Forecasting is not a science but both the Irish Central Bank and the ECB are confident it is only temporary, a perfect storm of energy supply issues, disrupted supply chains and a bounce-back after a deflationary 2020.

And we should be thankful for their confidence.  The last thing we need is for central bankers to start contemplating an interest rate rise.  This could derail recovery.  It should be remembered that just prior to the pandemic the Eurozone was flirting with another recession (Eurozone growth fell from 3.1 percent in 2017 4^th quarter to 1.2 percent on 2019 4^th quarter) while Irish growth was slowing down. 

Nonetheless, the rise in energy products is particularly concerning coming into the winter, with its impact on low-average income earners as well as the business sector.  Are we powerless in the face of this inflationary spike? 

The usual macro-economic tools to counter inflation take demand out of the economy.  This can be achieved through higher interest rates, increased taxation or reduced public spending.  In such circumstances, unemployment results.  This is the usual orthodox perspective:  trading off inflation with unemployment.   However, it is difficult to see any of these working with an inflation that is driven by energy products.  In any event, these can be highly inefficient tools resulting in considerable economic and social damage.

No, we are not powerless.  It is time we consider price controls and to start treating energy as a public good.  This will be the subject of the next post.

 

No, We are Not Becoming a 'Big State'

‘Big state’ is all the rhetorical rage.  Ireland is a ‘big state’, is becoming a ‘bigger state’, how are we going to pay for this ‘big state’, etc. etc.  The idea that spending is so large we are becoming (if we haven’t already become) a ‘big state’ has already embedded itself in the public debate. My favourite headline comes from last year:

‘How are we going to pay for the Irish big state utopia?’

The problem is that this is completely wrong.  We are not becoming a big state.  The Government is intent on maintaining our historical low-tax, low-spend, low-service model. 

There are two ways to test this ‘big state’ thesis.  First, by looking at our historical levels of tax and spend.  This shows we are returning to pre-crash levels.

In terms of spending on public services, we’re pretty much back to pre-crash levels.  Between 1995 and 2007, spending on public services averaged 18.4 percent of GNI*.  The Government is projecting public service expenditure to be 18.8 percent in 2025. In fact, the Government’s 2025 projection will put public service spending below the pre-pandemic level of 2019 which was 19.7 percent.

[Note:  the spike during the recession / austerity period does not indicate an increase in spending on public services.  During that period public service spending was cut.  The reason for the spike was that national income fell even faster.]

When it comes to primary spending (total spending excluding interest payments), again we’re pretty much back to where we started in 1995, with the same caveat about the spike during the recession/austerity period.  Spending in 2025 is projected to be lower than in 2019, the year before the pandemic hit.

When we turn to taxation, we find a similar pattern.

Once again we see that government revenue reverts back to 1995, with the 2025 projection coming in below 2019 levels.

So if we are to look at this historically, we do not find a ‘big state’ nor are we ‘becoming a big state’.  It’s the same ol’ low-tax, low-spend state that we have been mired in for decades.

The second way to test the ‘big state’ thesis is to compare our spending and taxation levels with other EU countries; specifically, our peer group in the EU – other high income economies.  In this test, while we have Irish government projections out to 2025, we don’t have projections for other EU governments.  I have used the average spend (as a percentage of GDP) between 2014 and 2019 for EU countries and assigned that to 2025. Therefore, this should be treated indicatively.

Ireland comes at the bottom of the table of our EU peer group, lagging well behind average. But as has been pointed out, Ireland doesn’t need to spend as much as other EU countries (and, so, doesn’t need to raise as much revenue) due to a lower number of pensioners.  Factoring this in would reduce the gap between Ireland and the EU peer group average by about two-thirds. Therefore: 

• For total government spending to reach the average of our EU peer group, we would have to spend an additional €9.3 billion in 2025

• For total government revenue to reach the average of our EU peer group, we’d have to increase taxes by €8.7 billion

In gross terms we would need to increase spending on public services by €9 billion in 2025 to reach our EU peer group average.  The impact of an older demographic would be balanced by the need to spend additional money on education given our youth demographic.

Whichever way you cut this, we fall well behind our peer group average.  Compared to that benchmark, we remain a low-spend, low-tax, low-service economy.

No, we are not a big state.  We are not becoming a big state.  Indeed, if the trends continue beyond 2025, we are getting smaller and smaller. 

Big state Ireland is just a myth.

 

Squeezing the Social

The Government’s head-long drive into a balanced budget is premature, unnecessary and potentially damaging to our social infrastructure.   Progressives and trade unionist should unite to oppose this strategy. 

It’s been a bit of a roller coaster this year regarding medium-term projections.

• Back in April the Government was targeting a small deficit of €800 million or -0.2 percent of GDP by 2025.

• A few months later, in the Summer Economic Statement, the Government revised this target to a deficit of €7.4 billion, 1.5 percent of GDP, by 2025.

• Now, in yesterday’s Budget 2022, the Government is projecting a surplus of €875 million, or 0.3 percent of GDP.

This turnaround – from a deficit of €7 billion to a slight surplus – has occurred because of sharp post-pandemic recovery resulting in higher tax revenue and lower expenditure – namely, unemployment payments.

So what’s wrong with that?  Isn’t a balanced budget a good thing?  After all, it’s being achieved without any spending cuts.  Well, here’s the rub.  Current spending is being squeezed.  Let’s look at expenditure on public services. 

Spending on public services will decline to 2023 and start to rise again.  But in 2025 it will still be lower than what it was this year;  1.4 percent lower.  It should be noted that this squeeze is happening at a time of upward pressure on spending due to older demographics, especially in health. 

Another way of looking at public service expenditure is to measure it as a percentage of GNI* - in other words, how much of our national income do we set aside for public services.  Let’s take a long look.

We’re pretty much back to pre-crash levels.  Between 1995 and 2007, spending on public services averaged 18.4 percent of GNI*.  The Government is projecting public service expenditure to be 18.8 percent in 2025. In fact, the Government projections will put public service spending below the pre-pandemic level of 2019 which was 19.7 percent.

Big state indeed.

[Note:  while spending on public services rose as a percentage of GNI* during the austerity period, as shown in the graph, this was not due to increases in spending.  During that period spending was actually cut.  It rose because it is benchmarked against a rapid decline in national income.]

The situation regarding Social Payments is more difficult to analyse because we don’t have a breakdown of its components.  But here’s what the projections tell us.

Social Payments falls considerably.  Between 2021 and 2025 it falls from €37.4 billion to €31.7 billion factoring in inflation; or from16.7 percent of GNI* to 12 percent.

It can be argued this is due to falling unemployment and to some extent this is true.  But to what extent is debatable.  Let’s look at the three-year period from 2022 to 2025.

• Real spending on social payments falls by over €1 billion

• Unemployment falls from 7.2 percent in 2022 to 5 percent in 2025. In actual numbers, it falls from approximately 183,000 to 135,000 – a decline of 48,000 on the Live Register. 

• However, during this period we should expect an additional 60,000 pensioners.

So the growth in pensioners will more than cancel out the decline in unemployment.  Yet real expenditure on social payments falls.  Something has to give (that is, squeezed).  Payments?  Qualifying conditions? 

There is an alternative strategy.  SIPTU has proposed that we maintain a deficit of 2 percent out to 2025 which would give the Government greater fiscal flexibility.  However, let’s assume a more modest target – one that maintains compliance with the currently suspended Fiscal Rules.  This would allow the Government to target a 1 percent deficit by 2025.  It seems like a small amount but in Euros it adds up.

• In 2025, it would provide an additional €6.2 billion in spending.

• Between 2022 and 2025 it would provide an additional €21.2 billion in spending

Those are substantial sums.  And they would be available to the Government if they just followed with the Fiscal Rules.  Unfortunately, the Government is going further and faster that what those rules require. 

With those resources we could target spending on the key drivers of long-term economic growth.  Three leading drivers are: 

• Education and R&D: investment in human capital

• Childcare: to promote labour force participation

• Eliminating Child Poverty: maximise skills and life opportunities

There are other areas, including additional resources for housing if supply constraints ease, which could also benefit and which help build a robust and resilient social infrastructure.

[Note:  if the government spent this money it would generate additional revenue from more people employed and higher economic activity.  This would mean the net impact on the deficit would lower it and, so, we would be well in line with the Fiscal Rules.]

So the issue is not whether there is the money.  It’s there – and for cheap on the international markets.  The issue is that the Government has decided not to avail of it.  Of course, they may be giving themselves some wriggle room in their medium-terms projections.  If so, we have to force them to do lots and lots of wriggling. 

For as it stands now they have made a political choice to squeeze public services and social protection to the point that they are falling in real terms  in order to fast-forward an unnecessary balanced budget. 

It’s that political choice we must challenge.

Some Employers Get It

There is a column in the Food & Wine supplement in the Business Post titled, ‘The Secret Restaurateur’ (pay walled).  It is anonymous and written by an ‘industry insider’:  a hospitality employer.  I hadn’t come across this column before but thanks to Senator Marie Sherlock (@marie_sherlock) for referring to this contribution on her Facebook page. 

The employer-cum-columnist takes aim at his/her peers in the hospitality sector who are scapegoating employees for their recruitment problems.

‘I have heard employers describe workers as choosing their couch and Netflix over returning to work. Others ask if those claiming the payment are in Ireland at all.  The language used is clearly crafted to attack and demean those who have relied on the supports. Too often the commentary has descended into welfare bashing - the peddling of a pernicious narrative stigmatising those on the PUP [Pandemic Unemployment Payment].’

This is a far cry from the narrative coming from employers’ organisations who seem to think that abolishing PUP would solve the labour shortage problem in the hospitality sector.  However, the evidence suggests otherwise. 

First, hospitality workers are coming off PUP at a faster rate than almost all other sectors.

Between early February, when the number of PUP recipients peaked and the last date we have data for, September 28^th, the number of hospitality workers receiving PUP declined from 112,000 to 18,000 - a reduction of 94,000.

So what’s all this about a labour shortage?

Of course, just because you formerly worked in the hospitality sector doesn’t mean that you will return to that sector when you sign off of PUP.  You might find better-paying work in another sector (e.g. retail).  You might return to education or take up a SOLAS course to gain a new skill.  You might be leaving Ireland (i.e. go home) or to some part of the country.  You might take up primary caring responsibilities in the home while your partner works. 

Whatever the reason might be, it’s not people lying around in their underwear, drinking Red Bull and binge watching some zombie series on Netflix.  It’s that people are working somewhere else.  Our Secret Restaurateur has this to say:

‘These are people whose lives changed fundamentally when they were hurtled into unemployment. Many of the [hospitality] jobs now being offered to them are part-time and unreliable. It is unreasonable to expect workers to leave the security of the PUP when there is no part-time payment support option.’

Issues with staff turnover and recruitment and retention issues have existed in the sector for a long time, pre-dating the financial crash.  This study asked employees who had left their hospitality employer what would have ‘definitely’ made them stay:

• 28 percent said higher pay
• 20 percent said career progression
• 15 percent said more flexible working hours
• 13 percent said working less social hours
• 10 percent said improved benefits packages
• 8 percent said better training

Pay, career, flexibility, benefits:  the lack of these are driving the crisis in the hospitality sector – a crisis that goes beyond just the post-pandemic period.

In a follow-up column, the Secret Restaurateur continues this theme (I don’t know if it is the same author):

‘ . . the message reaching the public is that we [employers] blame workers for our woes with the subtext that some of them are social welfare cheats.  Fáilte Ireland, meanwhile, undertook a rather pointless survey of tourism employers to ask them why they believed workers were taking up their job offers.  If the goal of this research was to discover why workers are not taking up jobs, perhaps it might been better to ask the workers themselves?

‘In the meantime, a video of a business owner extolling the monetary benefits of the pandemic does the round and a young worker collects his wages in the form of a bucket of coppers.  It is beyond farcical.’

Yes, farcical is a good word.  But this leads us to an important insight for progressives and trade unionists; namely, there are some employers who get it.  They understand that the long-term future of hospitality and, indeed, any sector is built around a skilled and motivated workforce, working within inclusive practices and institutions.  There is no future in race-to-the-bottom strategies – whether that is wage-suppression, lowest common denominator working conditions, or denial of employee voice.

These employers (who also need help from being undermined by low-road operations) can be helpful allies in putting the businesses on a high-road path.  What these employers must do, however, is to find a way to collectively make their voice heard and champion the same issues trade unions highlight in the workplace, in spite of the opposition from their own peers.

As the Secret Restaurateur concludes:

‘Instead of taking the easy option and blaming our workers, it might be wise to refocus on the real reasons for poor retention in our industry: high business costs, the black economy, low pay, and inadequate training and career development.  It would help if employers showed greater respect for their employees too.’

Indeed.

 

Living Up to the Living Wage

The Living Wage Technical Group has announced that a single full-time employee would need to earn €12.90 per hour to achieve a minimal and socially acceptable standard of living. 

This is grim.  It’s a 60 cent rise – from €12.30 last year.  It is the biggest single year increase since the Living Wage was first launched in 2014.  And there’s one reason for the increase:  housing costs; namely, rents.

The Living Wage is based on the price of necessary goods and services, everything from food, utilities, transport, communications, clothing and other items.  The price of this total basket rose by €15 per week.  Rents accounted for nearly €12 of that price increase. 

Indeed, when we go all the way back to 2014, housing costs have accounted for all the increase in the Living Wage.

When you remove housing costs from the basket of goods and services that make up the Living Wage, we find that prices actually fell.  As the Technical Group states:

‘If rents had moved in line with other prices, the reference Living Wage rate would now be €10.70.’

The Living Wage would be much lower, and far fewer people would be earning below a Living Wage if rents increased at the same pace as prices in the economy.

This is a key insight.  Many have proposed that to bring everyone up to the Living Wage, we just increase the National Minimum Wage.  However, this could exacerbate the situation whereby wages are chasing rents.  In a market where demand exceeds supply, more money in workers’ hands will disappear as rents rise further.  And in Dublin, rents make up nearly two-thirds of the net Living Wage.

If we don’t bring housing costs under control it will be extremely difficult to bring everyone up to the Living Wage.  And in attempting to do so in a regime of high rents, wage increases will essentially be subsidising rents.  That would be extremely damaging to the productive economy.

We need a sophisticated multi-prong strategy to ensure that the Living Wage becomes the wage floor.  Here are three areas.

(a)          Living Costs

Reduce high living costs which would reduce the Living Wage.  We have seen the impact of housing costs on the Living but there are other areas:

• Public transport fares: we have one of the least subsidised public transport systems in Europe, resulting in high fares.  Increased subventions would mean lower fares.

• Healthcare: reduce insurance, GP and prescription medicine costs – through a free, universal health service (i.e. Sláintecare)

• Communications: Ireland is a high-cost country. Consumer prices are 40 percent higher than the EU average. Why?  It would be helpful if the Government commissioned a study into all prices to get a real handle on the reason for our high living costs – rather than assume that current market pricing is somehow ‘natural’.

(b)          Collective Bargaining

Second, provide for collective bargaining at company and sectoral level.  The Irish private sector is generally low-paid compared to our EU peer-group.  It also has much lower collective bargaining coverage.  This is especially so in the traditional low-paid sectors – retail and hospitality. 

In our peer EU peer group Ireland is at the bottom of the table bar Austria and is below the overall EU average.  It should also be noted that in Denmark, Sweden and Finland there is no statutory minimum wage, yet their wages are significantly higher.  How do they achieve this?  Through collective bargaining.

By providing workers with the tools to bargain together, they can drive up wages consistent with economic capacity and, so, bring workers closer to the Living Wage.  Further, workers can better protect themselves collectively if employers try to claw back wage increases by degrading working conditions.

(c)           The Minimum Wage

The minimum wage has an important role in reducing low pay.  For example, minimum wage increases could be linked to overall wage increases in the private sector but instead of expressing them in percentage terms, they could be expressed in terms of a flat-rate pay increase or a combination of the two.  This would use general wage increases as parameters but express the increase in terms of an egalitarian calculation.  In this way (and in other ways), the minimum wage would rise as a proportion of the average or median wage.  This is only one of many ways to link minimum wage increases to transparent and verifiable benchmarks.

* * *

This three-pronged approach would help bring workers above the Living Wage while reducing living costs, which would be a benefit to all workers and the productive economy.

In short, the drive to achieve the Living Wage for all workers must take place at a social level (living costs), in the workplace (stronger workers’ rights) and in law with a solidarity minimum wage strategy.

This can help the Irish economy to live up to the Living Wage.

 

 

 

 

Derailing the Pension Age Train

The front page headline in the Irish Independent reads: 

‘Increase in State pension age to 67 should be delayed by seven years, report to recommend.’

Apparently the Commission on Pensions is recommending that the pension age increase should start to rise to 67 in 2028.  Each year subsequently it will rise by three months - 66 and three months in 2028; 66 and six months in 2029 and so on until 2031. Then it will start to increase in phases to 68, but that won’t be complete until 2039.

You can read this proposal in a number of ways but whichever way one reads it (and we will have to await the full report to see the rationale), it is clear that the position of those opposed to pension age increases has been strengthened.

Here is the backstory. The pension age was due to increase from 66 to 67 years back in January as per legislation passed in 2012.  In late 2019 the Stop67 coalition was formed, made up of four groups – Active Retirement Ireland, Age Action, National Women’s Council of Ireland and SIPTU – who started campaigning on the issue.  Shortly after its formation the general election was called.  During the campaign the pension age issue took hold and became the third biggest issue on the doorstep – behind housing and healthcare.  All political parties, bar Fine Gael, opposed the pension age increase.

The new Programme for Government committed established a Commission on Pensions to examine the age issue.  Meanwhile, the pension age increase was scrapped through legislation.  Now the Commission has reported to the Minister for Social Protection, Heather Humphreys.  And we have this leak.

There are two reasons why the position of those opposed to pension age increases has been strengthened.  First, the Commission’s proposal lets the current Government off the hook but ensures that the pension age will, once again, feature prominently in the next general election.  Never mind the phasing in; the issue will (rightly) be presented in stark terms:  do you support raising the pension age. 

What party, apart from Fine Gael, is going to campaign to increase the pension age?  The same number as last time – none.

In short, the Commission took the pension age issue and plopped it right back in the middle of the electoral cycle, repeating what happened prior to the last general election.  And given the widespread opposition to raising the pension age, they will have home field advantage in the next general election.    

Second, the principal fiscal argument against raising the pension age was that it would actually save very little money.  The long-term phasing in of this proposal suggests that the Commission has acknowledged this.  If there was an urgent fiscal necessity to raise the pension age, they would have proposed an immediate start to 67 with the pension age rising to 68 within the decade.  Apparently, that urgent fiscal necessity doesn’t exist, which vindicates the analysis put forward by opponents to age increase.

There might be an attempt to get the current Government to legislate for the increase in 2028 but what would be the point of that?  This government can’t lock in the next one.  Indeed, it was this government that ‘unlocked’ the decision made back in 2012.  In any event, why would any government backbencher address such a contentious issue seven years before the Commission’s proposed implementation date?  Would they really want to go on the doorstep justifying that vote?  A lot of people live by the adage, ‘put off to tomorrow what you don’t have to decide today’; politicians included. 

The pension age increase has now been returned to the political sphere. In the last general election the opposition stopped the pension age from increasing. In the next general election they will be in a strong position to finally kill off future pension age increases.  And the Commission’s seeming acknowledgement that there is no immediate fiscal urgency to raising the pension age only strengthens that prospect.

The ‘pension-age-increase train’ has not been put in reverse.  But it certainly has been derailed.  The next big task is to ensure that no one puts it back on the tracks. 

Rents, Noise and the Government Housing Plan

One of the more damning critiques of the Government’s housing plan came from Eoin Burke-Kennedy, who had only a few days before reminded us that growing supply won’t reduce prices:

‘There are two fundamental forces fuelling the housing crisis here: supply and price. One is too low, the other too high. Everything flows from these two points, the rest is just noise. The Government is wedded to the notion that supply will resolve the pricing issue and make homes more affordable.

The problem is, it won’t.’

It gets even worse when it comes to private rents.  ‘Housing for All’ states that: 

‘Rent increases are unsustainable and are causing affordability issues, particularly for those with low incomes . . . ‘. 

But it doesn’t acknowledge that rents are already too high.  Nor does it acknowledge that this situation could get worse. 

As demand for rental accommodation increases, supply is already falling.

The number of tenancies has fallen from 313,000 tenancies to 298,000 in the last three years – caused by the failure of new supply to make up for properties withdrawn from the market. 

The policy document doesn’t refer to this trend, content to assume an average annual increase of 6,500 in ‘new private rental homes’ up to 2030.   They may be hoping that the combination of new cost-rental units (an average of 2,000 new units per year up to 2030), new affordable housing and increased social housing supply (which would reduce the number of HAP-subsidised private tenancies) will open up new units for rent. 

Will this lead to rents falling to the levels that exist in the capital cities of our peer group in the EU? 

Probably not, especially as the ‘Housing for All’ plan does not have a commitment, never mind the policy instruments, to significantly reduce rents.

The Government is hoping that cost-rental units will reduce rents by 25 percent against market rents.  However, they are projecting only 2,000 units per year up to 2030, which they accept that, in the short-term, won’t impact on the market - that is, provide low-rent options that would force private rents down.

We are still playing in the ‘supply reduces prices’ sandbox.  But, as Burke-Kennedy reminds us, increased supply won’t necessarily reduce housing costs.  Rory Hearne takes us even further into the market: 

‘The plan is simply insufficient and will not reduce rents at this scale.  This, I think, is the intention.  The market is not to be disrupted, because they are still looking to incentivise the private market to provide the supply of rental homes, including investors.   And they want to keep rents high so it remains an attractive investment for institutional investment funds.’

There is considerable evidence to support Rory’s analysis.  First, Irish rental yields (rents as a percentage of the property purchase price) are high by international comparison.  The Global Property Index shows Ireland with the highest rental yield among our EU peer group (based on a 120 sq.m. apartment in major city centres).

In some cases Irish yields are more than twice those pertaining in other countries. 

According to the Business Insider, Ireland has the eighth highest rental yield in the world, with an average rental yield of 6.6 percent.

And Numbeo shows a similar high rental yield in Dublin compared to capital cities in other peer group countries – both inside and outside the city centre.

These percentage differences may seem small, but their impact can be significant.  An indicative guide is that for a city-centre one-bedroom apartment, one percent in the yield is equal to €270 per month or €3,200 per year.  Imagine the reduction if percentage yields fell to the levels of Vienna or Stockholm.

Of course, there is more to rental profits than just the yield.  The gross yield does not include taxation, maintenance, debt-servicing, etc.  An older building is likely to need more maintenance than a newer building, for example.  But the starting point is Ireland’s high gross yields. 

And this is where it gets grim.  The main drivers in the rental market are institutional investors and large landlords.  While they make up only a small proportion of the market nationally (though higher in Dublin), they can effectively set the rent benchmark.  This is because (a) they can enter the market at any price (rent caps don’t apply to new property); and (b) other smaller landlords use this higher price as a benchmark.  Landlord businesses don’t really like competition.  It is easier to let the large actors set an ever higher price and follow that.

The Government’s rental sector policy is, as Rory points out, based on increasing institutional investment as they are the ones building rental accommodation and bringing it to market, replacing smaller landlords leaving the market. But this comes at a steep price.

The Residential Property Board has published some useful assessments of the rental market from the landlords’, tenants’ and letting agents’ perspectives.  And they point out the risks of relying on highly mobile capital. 

‘If investment returns decline.  If rental levels decline then the return on investment will decline and investment funds may seek to go elsewhere.

‘If alternative investments generate a return.  Interest rates and returns on bonds remain low currently. But they will rise at some stage and then they may present a viable alternative.’

A government policy of actively reducing rents through market intervention could cause investment funds to go elsewhere.  And rental yields need to be kept high in the event that a recovery creates alternative investment destinations (e.g. bond returns).

The government is reliant on these internationally-mobile funds and, so, is effectively prevented from taking any action that might undermine the investment returns.  High rental yields are locked into the system, business landlords continue to expand.  It is only the tenants - and the productive economy – who suffer.

Dr. Lorcan Sirr suggested that Housing for All appeared to be:

‘ . . . designed to not make market prices fall.’

This is certainly the case when it comes to rent prices.

In my previous post I argued for creating alternative markets; in particular, an alternative rental market which would see an expansionary public component in what has been, to date, a private market.  However, if we start down a rent-deflationary road we could see a significant private sector withdrawal or slowdown.  This could exacerbate the market, leading to higher rents and/or diminishing supply.  Reducing rents requires a different market configuration.

And this is probably the most depressing aspect of ‘Housing for All’.  Not only are there no proposals to significantly reduce rents; there is not even a discussion of the market itself – the role of institutional landlords, long-term finance, public sector interventions.  This failure to discuss the private rental market shows either a failure of evidence-based policy making, ideological bias, confusion or, at its worst, a surrender to ‘the market’.

Whichever, it makes for a bad day’s work.

 

They’re Going to Let It Happen All over Again

This week the Government will launch its new housing policy.  Cliff Taylor is right:

‘It will be hard to get beyond the noise when the Government publishes its new housing plan . . . .’

We’ll have a surfeit of targets, high-sounding initiatives and policy proposals crafted with good intentions.  But the impact on the ‘market’ will be another thing.  Unforeseen and perverse consequences abound in something as complex as the housing market.

For instance, the Government’s shared equity schemes, intended to help people buy a house, will only add demand to a supply-crisis and, so, push up prices.  Landlords are reluctant to reduce rents because they don’t want to get caught by the rent-increase cap.  So they leave the accommodation empty.  Labour shortages, Brexit-fuelled shortages, higher than EU average interest rates  and time-consuming procurement process – and those are only part of the problems.

And as Eoin Burke-Kennedy reminds us, ramping up supply will not resolve Ireland’s housing crisis. 

‘The supply mantra – the notion that increasing supply is the answer to the problem – is now enshrined as an article of faith with Government, industry and much of the public . . . History unfortunately tells us [otherwise]. Ramping up housing supply has never once in our recent history improved affordability. Even at the high-water mark of construction in 2006, when a record 92,000 homes were built, property prices rose by 14 per cent.’

Yes, we need more house-building to meet future demand.  But we need a reform of the market itself or, more specifically, to create a new public housing market.  Markets are not a natural phenomenon, born from some big bang of supply and demand.  They are socially constructed.  We need new market tools; otherwise, the upward pressure on prices and rents will remain.  And whatever the progressive reforms (and there are many options), they would all lead back to a substantial and sustained public intervention based on non-speculative principles.

Here are three areas to consider. 

Unitary Rental Market

The most radical intervention in the debate over private rental accommodation and rents was NERI’s ‘Ireland’s Housing Emergency -Time for a Game Changer’ which built on the proposals by the National Economic and Social Council.  Essentially, they proposed the fusing of social housing and private rental sectors through a cost-rental model – what can be called a ‘unitary’ market. This would end the idea of social-housing-for-the-poor and replace it with a new public housing market.

Essentially, the means-test for social housing would be abolished.  The state would build affordable rental accommodation open to all applicants regardless of income or employment status.  Rents would be based on ‘cost’,  and where tenants cannot not afford the rent, they would receive a housing payment (a redesigned HAP,  but with the big difference that now these payment s would remain in the public sphere).

The distinction between the means-tested social housing sector and the wider rental market would be abolished.  The state would still build traditional ‘social housing’ targeted at groups with specific needs (e.g. the homeless, older people, tenants with disabilities, Travellers).  But otherwise, public housing would be available to all.  And the competition with traditional private rental accommodation (institutional investors, REITs,) would put downward pressure on their rents. 

The public realm becomes the main driver for affordable rents. 

Non-Speculative House Purchase Market

The state would intervene in the house purchase market through non-speculative housing.  Houses and apartments would be built and sold to first-time purchasers at cost-price.  This would open up the house purchase market to average income groups.  However, the house would remain in the public sphere.  Purchasers couldn’t sell them on the open market (to make a capital gain).  They could only sell them back to the public body that built and sold them,  based on a formula which would include original price, inflation-index and the value of any improvements. There could be limited provisions for inheritance to children who are also first-time buyers.

Climate-Proofed Housing

Rory Hearne points to the inter-related issues of housing need and climate change:

‘The housing and climate crisis are two of the main issues we have to solve . . . we have the opportunity to address the housing crisis and raise people’s living standards through improved homes, while also solving the climate crisis. It is an investment in the future of humanity. In crude accounting terms, the state will reduce costs in health spending associated with poor housing — asthma, bronchitis, mental health impacts.’

A progressive roll-out of a major retro-fitting programme would initially target the lowest income groups.   17 percent of the lowest income decile lives in pre-1918 accommodation.  A major problem is the cost.  The current grant system favours those who already have resources.  Therefore, retro-fitting should be free upfront with repayments based on income,  with the outstanding balance paid off whenever the dwelling is sold or transferred.  This allows the environmental and social benefits to start immediately. Two further steps could be made to climate-proof our housing stock:

• New houses built under new climate-proofed regulations
• Mandatory energy upgrading of second-hand houses put on the market

While these would increase the cost of housing, we need to integrate energy costs (for the household, economy and the environment) as part of a new way to assess the long-term cost of housing.  If there is a need to assist people in the market to pay for the increased upfront cost, ultra-low interest rate ‘green mortgages’ can be provided alongside market mortgages to cover the climate-proofing costs.

* * *

A unitary rental market, non-speculative house purchase market, climate-proofing market interventions – these are attempts to steer housing away from speculative and financialised activities while turning housing into an instrument of climate justice.  This requires a new public housing market while reforming the current one based on the principal of public housing for all.

However  this is done (and others will have more and better ideas),  let’s at least not be seduced by the idea that building more houses will somehow solve our underlying problems of affordability and climate protection.  Otherwise, we’ll face into what one estate agent said to Cliff Taylor:

‘They are going to let it happen all over again.’

A Sporting Economy

After the achievements at the Tokyo Olympics and the ensuing celebration at home, we now return to the hard work of putting sports at the heart of a recovery strategy.  We have a long ways to go.  Ireland is a chronic under-funder of sports and recreation activities compared to our peer EU group.

As a proportion of national income, Ireland spends less than any other EU country.  The average EU spend on sports and recreation is 0.5 percent of net national income; in Ireland it is less than 0.2 percent.  This may appear to be a marginal difference but it would mean that Ireland would have to spend an additional €500 million plus a year to reach the average.  To reach the top spender – Hungary – we’d have to spend an additional €2 billion per year.

Another perspective is the average expenditure per capita within our peer group.

Our peer group spend nearly three times more on sport and recreation than Ireland with the table topper – Sweden – spending nearly four times what we do.

According to the Eurostat classification pending on sports and recreation covers a range of activities: sporting pursuits or events, recreational facilities, passive sporting pursuits (e.g. chess), grants and loans to teams or individuals and spectator facilities. 

The Government’s National Sports Policy presents evidence that sport has a number of individual, social and economic benefits:

‘We now have a much better understanding of sport’s positive contribution to so many aspects of Irish life including health and wellbeing, social and community development, economic activity, educational performance and life-long learning.’

Such evidence includes:

• For every €100 invested by Government in sport, it received €149 in return in taxes

• Sport-related volunteering activity is estimated to have an economic value of between €322 million and €582 million annually

• ESRI research found a positive association between playing sport and Leaving Certificate performance among a sample of 1,200 students

• Research found that engagement in sport was associated with higher incomes among a sample of nearly 6,000 graduates. It also found that enterprises benefited from increased team working, communication skills, motivation, competitiveness and resilience by those engaged with sporting activity

• Research published in The Lancet in 2012 estimated that physical inactivity was responsible for 14.2 percent of all-cause mortality in Ireland. In 2014 this would translate into approximately 4,000 deaths in that year being attributable to Irish people not engaging in enough physical activity

• Physical inactivity has been estimated to cost the health budget approximately €1.5 billion per year.

The policy document found that sport also plays a role in tackling societal challenges around anti-social behaviour, particularly when offered as part of broader personal development programmes or in conjunction with community and youth services.

With all these benefits why doesn’t the government invest more in sports and recreation?  The National Sports policy promises more resources but it is extremely modest.  It proposes to increase spending on sports by a mere €100 million over the period 2018 to 2027 – a little more than an additional €10 million per year.  This will keep Ireland at the bottom of the table.

However, were we to increase sport investment we should note the flaw in the Irish model of public spending.  Like almost all other categories, Irish sports and recreation spending is highly centralised. 

• In the EU, local government accounts for 81 percent of sports and recreation spending; in Ireland, it is 26 percent.

Spending through local governments can create greater accountability and more responsiveness to local need.  This, however, is part of a larger issue with our anaemic local government structures.

Even the Government has shown the considerable benefits from increased investment and participation in sporting and recreational activities:  better health and reduced health costs, increased tax revenue, better educational outcomes, increased social interaction and reduced anti-social activities.  The good news is that investment in sport and recreation generates returns greater than the initial outlay.

Now what we need is a society-wide dialogue on where such investments should be directed:  high-performance and amateur sports, age-inclusive activities, traditional and minority sports, public facilities and affordable access to participation.

That would be a fun conversation.

Code Red for Business

It is a given that all sectors of society will have to make substantial contributions to limiting the damage of climate change – something that was driven home, yet again, by the recent International Panel  on Climate Change report.

Unfortunately, the recent report by the European Investment Bank (EIB) shows that not only is the Irish business sector not pulling its weight, it is actually dragging all of us down.

The EIB’s European Firms and Climate Change Survey 2020/2021 assesses the level of investment EU businesses have undertaken to make themselves ‘climate-ready’.  How many have assessed climate risks to their business and invested to address those risks; conducted energy audits and intend to invest in energy efficiency; have staff dedicated to increasing the company’s climate-resilience:  these are some of the questions the EIB’s survey put to over 13,000 EU businesses. 

Let’s look at some of the headline survey results before going to some practical proposals. First up, what is the percentage of companies that have ‘invested to address climate risks’?

45 percent of businesses throughout the EU have invested to address climate change.  The league leader is Finland with 62 percent.  Where’s Irish business?  At the bottom of the table, marginally above Greece: only 19 percent of Irish businesses have invested to address climate change. Whatever the reasons or excuses, this is a pretty dismal performance.

Irish business regularly features well behind the EU average in the EIB’s action-based categories. They are consistently at or near the bottom of the table. 

It is noteworthy that two-thirds of Irish firms have energy cost concerns, more than the EU average.  Yet, only a little over a third have conducted an energy audit, never mind invested in energy efficiency.  Irish business concerns don’t seem to lead to action across the board.

The EIB survey explores the reasons why businesses don’t invest – but only produce results at the EU-wide level.  So we don’t have specific data for Ireland.  Nonetheless, it can help explain the Irish deficits. 

43 percent of EU businesses stated that uncertainty about regulation and taxation was the biggest barrier to climate investment following closely by cost of investments.  While the Irish government should identify the reasons for business reluctance to invest, and do everything to help businesses overcome those barriers, we can’t rely on voluntary action or a series of carrots (usually tax subsidies).

Like so much in business life, we need a greater role for the stakeholders in putting companies on a sustainable course – whether that be environmental, social or financial.  This requires intervention tools for employees, the state and consumers.

1)  Employees:  currently, all workers are allowed to select a ‘safety representative’ to liaise with employers over health and safety issues.  Safety Representatives are entitled to carry out inspections, receive key information from the employer and receive training necessary for them to carry out their role.  This could be the basis for a new workplace innovation.

All workplaces over a certain size should be required to establish a ‘Climate Action Committee’ within the workplace with Climate Action Representatives elect on to the committee by the workforce.  This would be given a statutory basis.  It would provide for consultation on all climate-related issues.  The Government should keep a database of all representatives in order to provide information, training and allow for sharing idea on the best ways to reduce greenhouse gases.

2)  State:  the State should require all businesses over a certain size to (a) conduct regular energy audits (which could be, with additional resources, overseen by the SEI (Sustainable Energy Ireland); and (b) annually publish a Climate Audit which would, based on the energy audits, explain both what they had done over the previous year and what they intend to do in the future.

3)  Consumers:  we can use the marketplace to our advantage.  But consumer action can only be taken on the basis of information.  Therefore, the state should publish the companies’ energy audits, and the annual Climate Audits.  This would allow organisations and individuals to assess which companies are activing responsibly and sustainably and, so, base their purchase decisions on these results.

These are only some of the steps that will need to be taken to ensure a resilient business sector.  Others will no doubt have better ideas.  There will be some good ideas thrown up by this trade union initiative next month (September).

But we need to start these actions now.  As the IPCC report stated:  this is Code Red for humanity.

Democratising Entrepreneurship

Writing in the Business Post, Tom Maguire quotes a Nobel  prize-winning economist:

‘Success is achieved when the tax rules subsidise activities that benefit society as a whole more than they benefit the individuals engaging in the activities.’

Fair enough.  He also writes that we need to encourage and incentivise a thriving domestic entrepreneurial economy.  Again, fair enough.  We need new and better enterprises driving innovation, incomes, environmental sustainability and progressive working conditions.  Poorly performing, low-road businesses drag all of us down.

However, there are two issues here.  First, would expanding tax reliefs (which Maguire calls for) actually promote entrepreneurship? 

The ESRI’s recent report - ‘Options for Raising Tax Revenue in Ireland’ – touches on some of these issues.  The authors - Theano Kakoulidou and Barra Roantree – specifically look at the Entrepreneur Relief which cuts the Capital Gains Tax from 33 percent to 10 percent under certain conditions.  This is a substantial relief.   It cost the Exchequer €92 million with 875 beneficiaries - an average of a €106,000 tax break per recipient. 

The ESRI study states:

‘The justification for applying lower tax rates to people who own their own business n is far from clear. Preferential capital gains rates are often defended as essential to reward difficult and risky entrepreneurial activity . . . Evidence from the UK shows that few entrepreneurs who availed of a similar relief there knew of its existence when starting their business, and even fewer reported it having influenced the timing or nature of their disposal. This suggests that the relief is more likely to generate efforts to avoid tax on retirement than its intended purpose of spurring entrepreneurship or investment.’

That’s pretty provocative – entrepreneurial reliefs can lead to tax avoidance rather than generating new business activity.  Demands for more reliefs (i.e. cash subsides) need to provide concrete evidence that they are working.  If the ESRI analysis holds, the evidence is thin.

But Maguire cuts to an even more fundamental issue than tax efficiency.  What the heck is entrepreneurship?  There is a tendency in the public debate to mythologise or reify the ‘entrepreneur’ and, so, individualise what is actually a complex social activity.  Maguire states:

‘In essence, entrepreneurial activity is about founders getting in, staying in, and then passing the business on at the appropriate time.’

This individualised entrepreneur makes for interesting rags to riches stories, people who navigate the banks, investors and bureaucracies to bring their idea to commercial fruition.  But it is largely a myth.  Cyrine Ben-Hafaïedh notes that the hunt for the single, heroic entrepreneur was like ‘hunting the Heffalump’:

‘ . . . even when it was proven that this quest was vain, entrepreneurship scholars continued to embody entrepreneurship in a single person, a lone and heroic entrepreneur. But  . . . the 'entrepreneur' in entrepreneurship is more likely to be plural, rather than singular’.

Entrepreneurship, driving progressive business activity and innovation, is a social and collective process.  It is achieved through the cooperation between a range of people in supportive activities, both within and outside the company.  The development of new goods and services, new processes of production, emerges out of a social dynamic. 

The literature is full of studies to show that enterprise activity improves as more democracy is introduced into the workplace (here is one example from Finnish local authorities).  From consultation and information, to collective bargaining, employee participation, worker autonomy, co-determination and works councils, co-management  - all the way to labour-managed enterprises:  greater democracy and participation - leads to improved enterprise performance and innovation.  Centralised or individualised models of enterprise risk the opposite as this study shows within SMEs:

‘. . . centralized decision-making, which was found to have direct negative impact on innovation, was found to have negative impact on collaboration and communication.’

In this study, similar results showed for larger enterprises:

‘  . . . decentralization [is] positively connected to employee involvement, absorptive capacity, and firm's innovation performance. Moreover, the results show that employee involvement positively influences innovation performance . . .  The results also suggest that firm's innovation performance positively influence firm's business performance’.

If we want a ‘thriving domestic entrepreneurial economy’ we need a structural transformation that increases democratic participation within enterprises.  This transformation will vary with businesses and sectors.  But a starting point is employees’ right to collective bargaining which the OECD shows improves firm performance.  The more workers are involved, the better it is for innovation and productivity.

But it’s not just about the re-organisation of enterprises along a stakeholder model.  There are two other key elements which are briefly mentioned here:

Education:  when economists refer to the entrepreneurial skills of the labour force, they are referring to the entire population which grows business activity and value.  Education is the foundation.  Investment in education at all levels, including return to education and re-training in adult years, boosts entrepreneurship.   However, Ireland is a major education underfunder. 

We’d have to spend an additional €1.8 billion per year to reach the average of our EU peer group – other high-income EU countries.  How much entrepreneurial activity are we suppressing by under-funding education?

Second, we need new enterprise models.  Private sector business activity is only one type of activity.  We need to expand the range of models to fit the needs and preferences of entrepreneurial engagement.  Public sector models – especially local public enterprise, civil society models, certified B companies (which are legally required to consider all stakeholders, not just shareholders), labour-managed enterprises, networks of own-account workers (self-employed), etc.  This calls for a pluralist approach to business models.

This provides a different perspective and set of demands running into Budget 2022 and beyond.  What support can we provide ‘entrepreneurs’?

• Increase democracy in the workplace, starting with collective bargaining and incentivising democratic activities and structures (e.g. employee participation, works councils, co-determination, etc.)

• Increase education expenditure through a social and industrial consensus on how to best allocate that increase

• Develop new enterprise models and provide specific supports (e.g. Local Enterprise Offices to target local public enterprises, labour-managed enterprises, etc.)

This could be the start of a renewed entrepreneurial drive based on democracy, education and pluralism. 

Business in Ireland is everyone’s business.  Literally.

Reheating JobBridge

It is hard to discern the logic behind the Government’s new Work Placement Experience Programme (the WPEP). 

The WPEP is intended to provide training, education and skill development for the unemployed.   Those who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months can take up a ‘job placement’ with an employer (‘host organisation’).  The placement will last six months and participants will be paid €306 per week for 30 hours work.  Employers who participate in the scheme have to offer training but do not contribute to the pay (i.e. they get free labour).  The scheme’s aim is to give people the ‘opportunity to re-train and get experience in a new role’.

Here’s the first problem:  a business expands its payroll when they increase production of their goods or services to meet rising demand.  The Government is projecting a significant increase in a consumer-led recovery, and is projecting net new employment increases to be: 

• 2021: 79,000
• 2022: 225,000
• 2023: 75,000

Service sector companies reported the strongest month-on-month growth in business activity in July since 2000.  Given that so many businesses are ramping up production and employment to meet increasing demand, why would some employers participate in this scheme?  This is where a poorly-designed scheme can be open to abuse.

The WPEP tries to guard against abuse by laying down some conditions.  The employer:

• Must not have job vacancies in the area of activity and at the skills level the placement is offered.
• Must not have made employees redundant from similar roles in the previous 6 months.
• Cannot reduce the hours of work of existing employees to accommodate the placement.

This attempts to stop displacement of current labour.  However, it could be difficult to guard against the displacement of labour that would have been employed if the scheme had not existed.  This is called the ‘deadweight’ effect.   If an employer could not get the WPEP worker, would they have directly employed someone? 

Deadweight is not the only problem.  The scheme could incentivise poor company practices.  First, a company may try to use the scheme to undermine competitors by accessingfree labour.  After the abuse of the JobBridge scheme, companies are limited to the number of participants they can take on.  However, there is still scope to suppress payroll.  In competitive markets with tight margins, some companies may think this could give them an edge.

Secondly, it diverts managerial resources away from productive activity.  Rather than incentivising management to up their game in terms of quality, structured training, customer relations, and marketing, poor schemes merely incentivise management to expend resources on seeking state subsidies.  This will hardly create a competitive enterprise base.

The Government is hoping the scheme will increase in-work training and, so, benefit employees.  This is certainly a worthy goal.  But what is the quality of the training and jobs on offer?  It is hard to imagine six months will produce much in the way of new, enhanced skills.  Apprenticeships offer a far better route for skill development – but this takes time.  Programmes combining both classroom-based and work-based training include:

Bio-pharma * Arboriculture * Construction & Electrical * Engineering * Hairdressers * Hospitality (chefs) * Retail & Sales * Motor * Property Services * Finance & Insurance * ICT * Health * Craft butchers

These apprenticeship modules take 2 – 4 years.  This does not include other training programmes operated by SOLAS. 

The in-work training provision under the WPEP, on the other hand, looks limited.  For instance, a car washing placement offers this training:

 ‘ . . .  the participant will be trained in how to use the car washer and the different settings, i.e. wash, shampoo, rinse, wax and which solutions to be used for each cycle . . . will receive training in how to use the wet/dry vac in order to vacuum and shampoo the upholstery and interior of the vehicles . . what products to use for polishing, cleaning and buffing of the vehicle interior and exterior . . .

No doubt this is necessary to carry out car washing services.  But is this an example of what Minister Heather Humphreys called

‘ . . . innovative learning and development opportunities for participants’?

Such jobs on offer include clothes cleaning, sales assistant, kitchen cleaner (‘cleaning of dishes/utensils’), etc.  Some come with grand titles (e.g. ‘International Business Executive’). 

Particularly concerning is the use of this scheme by childcare crèches and early years services.  This is a sector plagued by low pay, precarious work conditions and high staff turnover (up to 40 percent annually).  It’s not that there is a shortage of trained staff.  Since 2010, 62,000 people have been accredited for the childcare sector but there are only approximately 25,000 actually working in the sector.  Many have left due to low-pay and precariousness.   Providing free labour for childcare and early years’ services can only increase cynicism throughout the sector (this comes from Jennifer Whitmore, TD on foot of a PQ) . 

You can review the job and training descriptions here.

There is an important role for state support for, and incentivising, in-work training.  The Department of Enterprise shows that 79 percent of Irish-owned companies that are agency-supported (essentially, export facing) spend money on ‘formal, structured’ training.  But the average spend per employee was €537 in 2019.  We shouldn’t be surprised if these figures are much lower in non-agency supported businesses – the vast majority of businesses in the state.

Such supports, just like apprenticeship and related-programmes, should require a quality rather than quantity approach.  The WPEP does not look like it fits this description.

This scheme is estimated to cost €150 million for 10,000 placements.  This looks to be of poor value – especially considering the state could employ approximately the same number for a whole year. These ‘real’ jobs could integrate training and education into socially valuable and meaningful work, especially for the long-term unemployed with stable, long-term contracts.

The Minister should stand down the Work Placement Experience Programme before too much money is misspent and focus on real training and employment quality initiatives.

We don’t need a re-heated JobBridge. 

More Bank Holidays, Please

Here’s a depressing thought:  it will be nearly three months to the next bank holiday.  This is because Ireland has few public holidays compared to other European countries. 

Calculating public holidays is not always straight-forward.  In some countries, when a public holiday falls on a Sunday, the day isn’t made up.  Some countries have religious holidays (e.g. Good Friday in Ireland) and regional holidays.  Nonetheless, Ireland fares poorly.

People Before Profit has put forward a private members bill that would introduce three new public holidays:  February 1^st, last Monday in September and last Monday in November.  This is a practical proposal to address our lack of public holidays.  But the opposition is already kicking in. Back in June Minister of State for Enterprise, Trade and Employment Damien English said an extra bank holiday could be too costly for employers who are already struggling to stay afloat.

‘Not least we would need to consider the implications and impact of any new public holiday on employment and for the economy at large, in particular the extra costs it would impose on employers already dealing with the COVID-19 crisis and Brexit.’

Would it be ‘too costly’ or even ‘costly’ at all?  There is considerable evidence that more public holidays could be economically beneficial.

• Franceso Maria Esposito finds that: ‘national holidays have a small but positive impact on economic activities or at least no effect on it . . . firms adjust their production during the year to satisfy the whole demand. Positive emotions and tourism can be other reasons which can justify the effect.’

• Joachim Merz and Lars Osberg find that: ‘Public holidays therefore have benefits both in the utility of leisure on holidays and (by enabling people to maintain social contacts more easily) in increasing the utility of leisure on normal weekdays and weekends . . . public holidays have beneficial impacts on social life on normal weekdays and weekends. Since these benefits are additional to the other benefits of holidays, it suggests that there is a case to be made for more public holidays.’

• Voxi Heinrich Amavilah finds there are small, positive economic impacts by public holidays but this is heavily caveated and tentative.

Other studies refer to the loss of production in some firms that is made up by increase in business activity in other sectors; namely, hospitality, retail, recreation, arts and leisure.  There have been some pessimistic studies.  The Centre for Economics and Business Research highlighted the negative impact of additional public holidays back in 2012 (a loss of 0.1 percent of national income per holiday).  However, they changed their mind recently, and estimated a positive impact in the UK from an additional holiday in October.

Why would there be little impact on economic output from additional public holidays?  Firms adapt and adjust their production over the year.  Further, there is the positive impact on employees’ productivity with the additional rest and relaxation – a point that proponents of the four-day working week highlight.  In any evert, even if you treat workers as just so many cogs in the production machine – well, even machines need downtime for maintenance.

However, there is another aspect which was highlighted by Brian Hayes when he was a MEP: 

‘Additional structured bank holidays can generate economic activity and jobs. The October bank holiday is the perfect example. Following its introduction we saw the growth and development of the Jazz festival in Cork and the Dublin City Marathon.’

This is a crucial observation.  Measurements to assess costs are, by their very nature, reduced to static data.  You tot up lost production on one side, gains on the othe, and then add them together to find the balance. 

What they find difficult to measure is the impact on social capital and civil society – whether that be the productivity benefit of reduced stress, management innovation, or activities that might emerge within and outside the formal market.  Activities that improve life quality have a real, if at times unmeasurable, impact on activity, especially as economies are dynamic.  White and Wynne find that:

‘One of the areas most overlooked when comparing competing metro areas is a livability factor, or quality of life, that makes certain areas more attractive to individuals and thus businesses.  One of the most often cited reasons for the location of a new business, especially a small business, is quality of life, yet it is one of the areas policymakers most often overlook in attracting entrepreneurs and the highly skilled people who most often work for them . . . Quality of life . . . can be the X factor that differentiates two competitive metro areas.’

Public holidays can add to that quality of life – not just in allowing people to have a day of doing what they want, but incentivising activities that add to increased social, cultural and ‘fun’ capital.

These are persuasive arguments for additional public holidays.  To ensure that there is no negative impact there could be a phasing-in of the holidays to allow firms to adjust – an additional holiday annually over three years.

But if we’re going down that route, can we at least call the Oireachtas back from recess for a day and introduce a public holiday in time for the end of September this year?  If we need an historical rationale we could celebrate Joe Hill’s birthday.  Ok, it’s a few days into October but who’s counting the days?

Cheats and Layabouts

Employer representatives in the restaurant sector are claiming difficulties in finding people to work.  The Restaurants Association of Ireland stated:

‘What we’re hearing on the ground is that people who were working in the sector moved on to the PUP payment – and rightly so during Covid – and now won’t return to hospitality because they’re on the PUP payment and claiming cash in hand in other jobs.’

When employers’ representatives refer to people as cheats and layabouts, it’s not exactly an advertisement for working in that sector.  But to what extent are the sector’s problems due to people refusing to move on from PUP (Pandemic Unemployment Payment)?  Or are there other, more long-standing problems in the sector which the pandemic has exacerbated.

The ESRI recently published ‘COVID-19 and the Irish Welfare System’  which examined the extent to which employees were financially better off not working during the pandemic due to unemployment benefit and the PUP.  They found very few were.  Only five percent of employees would have had income from social protection that exceeded their previous earnings.  85 percent of employees would have had unemployment payments that were less than 75 percent of their previous earnings.

While the study did not detail the impact on particular economic sectors, with the small numbers having a ‘financial incentive’ to remain on social protection payments it is not likely to be a major factor in hospitality recruitment.

But there’s an even more provocative finding.  The paper quotes previous ESRI research that shows that, even where income from unemployment payments exceeded previous earnings, people still return to work.

‘It is important to bear in mind that not all those with weak financial incentives to  work will opt for unemployment or inactivity . . . of those that would have had a higher disposable income out of work than in work . . . 90 per cent were actually in employment.’ 

So even when they could get more from social protection, people still opt to work. 

This narrative of layabouts, especially among young workers, is not new.  Back in 2009, when young people’s Jobseekers Benefit was slashed, it was justified on the basis that they had to be ‘incentivised’ to work.  Otherwise, they’d just lie around all day in their underwear, drinking Red Bull and watching repeats of Friends on obscure digital channels.

Yet, in 2007 - the year before the crash - the employment rate among 20-24 years was the highest in the EU.  The highest:  at 81 percent while the EU average was 52 percent.  But within two years these same people had to be penalised for fear they would turn into a den of sloths. The narrative was as nonsense back then as it is today.

So what might account for alleged staff shortages in the hospitality sectors?  Many migrant workers, who accounted for a large proportion of employees in these sectors, may have gone home and not returned.  Other former employees might have transitioned to other sectors or taken up full-time education or re-training.

But there could be other reasons.  SIPTU conducted a survey of workers in the hospitality sector prior to the pandemic.  The results are extremely concerning:

• 64 percent suffered psychological abuse
• 76 percent reported verbal abuse by managers or owners in their workplaces
• 63 percent witnessed or experienced bullying.
• 52 percent did not get break entitlements
• 70 percent didn’t get a Sunday premium

Many of these findings were replicated in a recent survey by Unite.  These working conditions would actively disincentivise people from entering the sector.

And wages:  hospitality wage levels in Ireland are the lowest in our EU peer group (i.e. other high-income countries). 

At those wage levels, combined with poor working conditions (never mind the continued health risks for younger unvaccinated workers) – no wonder some employers are finding it hard to recruit staff. 

Martin O’Rourke, SIPTU Organiser for the hospitality sector stated:

‘Before the pandemic arose at all, the situation was that the Irish hospitality industry had to go abroad looking for chefs and had to seek special provision from the Government to secure work permits for them.  The truth is this: many, many hospitality workers are sick of the precarious nature of the industry and poor treatment. Some were laid off with scant regard, weren’t availing of the wage subsidy scheme and instead were dumped on the PUP. Many have voted with their feet and left the industry.’

So what can be done to address the issues in the hospitality sector to ensure that it is a contributor to economic and social recovery?  A start would be for employer representatives to sit down with employee representatives at a Joint Labour Committee or similar sectoral body to negotiate issues such as pay, working conditions, guaranteed hours, holiday and sick pay, overtime rates and career progression within the sector.  Together employers and employees could start to make the hospitality sector fit for purpose.

Or even something much simpler.  As one pub owner put it:

‘ . . . treat workers well and make sure they are paid “what they’re worth”.’

What a novel idea.

A Participation Income

I will be participating in a seminar hosted by Basic Income Ireland this evening at 6:00 with Guy Standing and NERI's Tom McDonnell to discuss the Labour Movement and Basic Income.  I will be putting forward the proposal outlined below.

The pandemic crisis has understandably increased interest in proposals for a basic income.  Both the Programme for Government and the Arts Recovery Taskforce have both called for a trial of basic income.  And the success of the Pandemic Unemployment Payment in protecting people’s incomes has shown what an invigorated social transfer system can achieve.

One problem we face, however, is that the concept of basic income can a multitude of models from partial payments based on certain conditions, to full unconditional payments provided universally (that is, it is paid to all adults regardless of income or employment status).

The National Economic and Social Council have entered this debate with a suggestion:  to trial a version of basic income known as Participation Income.  Participation Income was first proposed by Tony Atkinson as a type of bridge between the current system and a full blown universal basic income.  It was particularly designed to overcome the ‘moral hazard’ objection – the risk that people would drop out of the labour market and live ‘off the state’ – and the issue of cost.

Participation Income is a basic income payment but with certain conditions; namely, that the recipients must be ‘participating in society’.  Proposed categories of participation are:

• Employment
• Caring (e.g. for a child, older person, a family member with a disability)
• Student in full-time education
• Participating or volunteering in community activities

A full Participation Income (i.e. paid at the level of the Jobseekers rate - €203 per week) would probably not be feasible on the basis of cost.  It would require considerable increase in tax revenue which would entail opportunity costs.  However, this doesn’t undermine the idea of a Participation Income.  Any move towards a full basic income would be phased in.

In developing any new model of basic income there are three principles we should be mindful.  First, that the new model is based on, and developed from, a current policy practice.  This provides continuity.  Second, that it is cost efficient.  Third that it addresses a particular issue (or set of issues) in the political economy.

Keeping these three principles in mind I would propose transforming tax credits into a basic payment.

The role and character of tax credits in the tax system is not fully appreciated, in large part because they operate below the radar.  A tax credit is a sum of money that is used to reduce a tax liability.  Here is an example:

• I’m a low-paid workers earning €25,000 per year. I am taxed at 20 percent.  Therefore my tax liability is €5,000.  However, my personal tax credits are worth €3,300 (indeed, everyone in work gets these personal tax credits).  These credits are offset against my tax liability so that my income tax bill is now €1,700.

All those employed get personal tax credits of €3,300 – whether you are low-paid or a senior executive.  However, the tax credit is worth more to the former.  In that sense, it is progressive.

A tax credit is essentially a flat-rate cash subsidy to all people in work.  However there is one major flaw:  people whose income is below the income tax threshold do not benefit from tax credits since they don’t earn enough.  This includes those on low-pay, in part-time work and those on precarious contracts.  How does that happen?

• I’m a low-income worker on €10,000. I am taxed at 20 percent.  My tax liability is €2,000.  My personal tax credit of €3,300 more than offsets my tax bill so I don’t pay any income tax.  However, I have ‘unused’ tax credits – the difference between by personal tax credits and my tax liability.  The unused credit is worth €1,300.  I don’t benefit from this amount.

The main beneficiaries of transforming personal tax credits into a basic payment for all those in work – approximately €65 per week - would be the low-income worker above.  They would get the full payment equal to the tax credit.  They would be €1,300, or 13 percent, better off.  The primary beneficiaries would be those below the income tax threshold (i.e. €16,500) or those with intermittent income such as those on precarious contracts.

Of course, this is limited to those in work.  And you can’t live or €65 per week.  However, once this is established, this Participation Income could be:

• Increased in value over time, and
• Extended to carers, full-time students and those active in civil society

This could be the foundation for the evolution of the Irish social protection state.

This proposal is consistent with the principles outlined above:  it is based on current practice (tax credits). It is cost efficient.  Social Justice Ireland estimates the cost of their refundable tax credits proposals – essentially the same thing as above – at €140 million though this may need to be updated.  It is certainly far more efficient than the Tánaiste’s recent call for income tax cuts. And it addresses a particular issue – that of low and intermittent income.

The great advantage of this proposal is that one does not necessarily have to buy into basic income to support it.  Therefore, it could attract basic income supporters who see it as a first step on the way to a full Universal Basic Income while winning support from those who want a more effective social transfer system.

With the Low Pay Commission due to come up with proposals for a basic income trial, this could be an ideal opportunity for basic income supporters and sceptics to come together and put forward a concrete Participation Income trial proposal.  In doing that, we might find we have more in common than we think.

The Coming Fiscal Battle Lines

The Government’s recently published Stability Programme Update provides economic and fiscal projections out to 2025.  In the best of stable times, such projections should be treated with caution; even more so given the uncertainty of pandemic’s medium-term impact on certain sectors (e.g. how long will it take for international tourism to return to pre-pandemic trends?).  Nonetheless, such projections are useful tools to guide policy. 

These projections are based on no changes to policy.  In other words, this is what would happen if there were no changes to taxation or expenditure.  As always in these type of exercises there is some good news, not so good news and, most importantly, warnings.

 No need for Austerity

It is now official:  there is no need for austerity to repair public finances.  There is no need for tax increases or spending cuts to bring the budget back into balance (though this is not necessarily a good idea – see below). 

We entered the pandemic with a small budget surplus: 0.5 percent.  This will turn into a deficit in 2020.  However, it starts to fall this year until, by 2025, we arrive at (broadly-speaking)  a balanced budget.  Similarly with the debt: it will top out this year and start falling next year.  By 2025 it will be lower than pre-pandemic levels. 

And all those budget fundamentalists should take note:  the debt starts to fall in 2022 and falls every year subsequently – even though the Government is still borrowing.  This shows that one does not have to balance the budget in order to reduce the debt burden.

Trapped in the Low Tax Model

The projections show that, without a change in Government policy, the economy will still be stuck in a low-tax equilibrium.   In 2019, Government revenue was 42 percent of GNI*.  By 2025 this will have fallen to 41.7 percent.  This may appear a fractional difference but, in money terms, it amounts to €2.2 billion.

It also means that we still trail the average revenue levels of other EU countries in our peer group – high income economies such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, etc.  In 2019, we’d have to increase revenue by approximately €10 billion to reach our EU peer group average, factoring in interest payments.  In reality, we wouldn’t need to increase revenue this much given we have fewer pensioners and, so, need to spend less on pensions than other countries.  But we have a much younger population so we need to spend more on education and family supports. 

The big policy challenge for any government serious about boosting public services and income security will be how the revenue can be raised in a progressive manner without damaging growth prospects. 

Squeezing Public Services and Social Protection

The Government is projecting a significant increase in investment – increasing by 20 percent out to 2025 when inflation and population growth are factored in.  This is good.  What is not so good is that it will be paid, on current projections, by squeezing public services and social protection. 

Current expenditure will fall from 43 percent of GNI* in 2020 to 33 percent by 2025, or a real fall of 12 percent when population is factored in.  Some of this will be due to the fall in unemployment payments such as the Pandemic Unemployment Payment.  However, we will need to spend more to meet the challenge of an older population, especially in health and long-term care – never mind rolling out European level of public services and income security. 

Rejecting a Balanced-Budget Strategy

A big takeaway from these projections is the government’s determination to balance the budget by 2025.  As we saw above, this will occur without any policy changes.  However, a balanced budget is unnecessary.  It will unduly straight-jacket investment strategies, while squeezing public services and income supports.  We can give ourselves breathing room by adopting SIPTU’s proposed target of a 2 percent deficit over the medium-term.

How much fiscal breathing room could we expect?  Here is a static projection – static because it doesn’t factor in increased economic growth arising from the increased social and economic investment.

Whether that 2 percent is expressed in GDP or GNI* terms, the additional resources could be substantial – accumulating between €20 billion and €30 billion over this critical four-year period.  It’s not that we would spend all this money in any one year.  SIPTU has proposed that additional borrowing could be warehoused and spent later in the decade, addressing the necessary investment to tackle climate change, automation and the prospect of a low-growth future.  The point is that it would give any government considerably more flexibility and manoeuvrability in terms of increasing taxation (better to phase it in over the medium-term rather than sharp annual increases) and to maintain investment levels. 

* * *

The Government’s projections show that:

• There is no need for tax increases or spending cuts to bring public finances under control
• However, we will remain stuck in a low-tax model. It’s not enough to bring public finances under control, or to avoid austerity. 
• While investment is rising (good), public services and social protection will be squeezed. We will need to employ growth-friendly strategies to increase revenue in order to implement European-style public services and income security.

Most of all, progressives and trade unionists must challenge the balanced-budget orthodoxy.  This orthodoxy will hamper any government’s ability to address the big challenges coming at us – in particular, climate change and Just Transition.

A progressive alternative is an expansionary one (within the limits imposed by external forces – from international markets, the ECB and a revamped Fiscal Rules).  It is investment-based.  It aspires to best-practice public services, income security and employment conditions.

We got the vision thing.  Now we need a strategy to bring that to reality.  That is one of the big tasks for any government-in-waiting.

Dethroning King Cash

A NERI webinar on 'The Future of the Irish Social Welfare System' takes place on Wednesday, 24th March at 3:00. Dr. Helen Johnston will be presenting the NESC report and I will be responding.  The following blog post refers to one aspect of that report.

The National Economic and Social Council’s recently-published ‘The Future of the Irish Social Welfare System: Participation and Protection’ provides a progressive and coherent framework to ground the debate about transforming social protection in the post-pandemic recovery.  It identifies three overriding issues:

• economic inequality
• the mix of cash versus benefits
• the role of social insurance

The following looks at one particular issue in this framework – the relationship between cash transfers and public services /benefits-in-kind.  There is an over-emphasis on cash as the primary means to deliver social protection. 

Ever since the ESRI’s study of child poverty and child income supports published back in 2006, we should be wary about the near-hegemonic role of cash transfers.  At that time, the ESRI found that, in comparison with other EU countries, Ireland had a very high level of cash supports but still had high levels of child poverty.  Much of this was explained by the low level of public services and non-cash benefits directed at children and families. 

To illustrate our low level of services and in-kind benefits, let’s compare the Irish system with other EU countries in our peer group in two social constituencies:  disability, and families and children.

Disability

Women and men with disabilities face a particularly difficult time in Ireland.  According to the CSO, 37 percent of those unable to work due to permanent sickness/disability are at risk of poverty (compared to a national average of 13 percent); nearly one-in-five, or18 percent, experience consistent poverty (a grimmer benchmark), while 43 percent suffer multiple deprivation experiences – more than twice the national average.

Ireland is a low spender on social protection supports for those with disabilities when compared with our peer group in the EU.  In 2018, we’d have had to spend an additional €800 million, an increase of nearly a third (factoring in prices and the prevalence of disability).  But the structure of spending is even more lopsided.

In our peer group, benefits-in-kind make up nearly 40 percent of total social protection expenditure for those with disabilities; in Ireland, it is four percent.  But it gets worse.

Even of our small benefit-in-kind budget, nearly two-thirds of the spending is means-tested.  While it is not as means-tested as Netherlands or Austria, we can see that countries with much larger in-kind benefit expenditure have effectively no means-testing at all:  Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and France.

What makes up benefit-in-kind?  Eurostat gives a broad definition: 

‘ . . . lodging and possibly board provided to disabled persons in appropriate establishments, assistance provided to disabled persons to help them with daily tasks (home help, transport facilities etc.), allowances paid to the person who looks after the disabled person, vocational and other training provided to further the occupational and social rehabilitation of disabled persons, miscellaneous services and goods provided to disabled persons to enable them to participate in leisure and cultural activities or to travel or to participate in community life.’

Home helps, household supports, training to facilitate work, and goods and services that enable those with disabilities to participate in leisure, cultural and community life:  this promotes living standards and life quality.  If people do not have access to such publicly-provided goods and services then they must either purchase them on the private market or do without – both of which can depress living standards and income.

Families with Children

Whereas Ireland has a low level of disability prevalence in the population given its younger demographic, that same demographic means that a larger proportion of the population is made up of children and their families.  Again, using a back-of-the-excel-sheet estimate, we’d have to double spending on social protection supports for families with children to reach our peer group average (factoring in prices and the number of children below the age of 15). That would be about €2 billion.

And, again, within that expenditure we find a low level of services and in-kind support.

In effect, Ireland doesn’t spend money on benefits-in-kind for families with children (according to Eurostat categorisation).  In our peer group, however, over 40 percent of social protection support for families with children comes via benefits-in-kind.

And within our meagre benefits-in-kind budget, 98 percent is means-tested.  In our peer group (with the exception of Germany) means-testing is effectively non-existent. 

Returning to Eurostat’s definition of benefits-in-kind we find that they include:

‘ . . .  shelter and board provided to pre-school children during the day or part of the day, financial assistance towards payment of a nurse to look after children during the day, shelter and board provided to children and families on a permanent basis (orphanages, foster families, etc.), goods and services provided at home to children or to those who care for them, miscellaneous services and goods provided to families, young people or children (holiday and leisure centres).’

* * *

More research is necessary to compare particular programmes (or lack of programmes in Ireland’s case) with other EU countries.  Eurostat categorisation does not necessarily fit national definitions.  So all of the above should be treated indicatively.  However, it is reasonable to assume that

• Ireland spends less on social protection supports than other countries in our peer group
• Benefits-in-kind make up a smaller proportion of social protection expenditure
• Means-testing dominates our in-kind expenditure in contrast with our peer group

People’s experience of the pandemic has raised issues of social security that go beyond just dealing with a particular disease.  Therefore, we have an opportunity to begin a new debate about social protection – or how we protect the social.  This means going beyond poverty-amelioration.  That requires a greater emphasis on social insurance, income protection for low and average income groups, and a more universal approach to services and benefits-in-kind. 

The NESC report provides a number of proposals, ideas and suggestions – many of which people will disagree with.  However, to focus on the disagreements is to miss the point of NESC’s intervention.  They are not presenting a buffet of policies.  The strength of the report is to provide a coherent and logical framework through which we can debate different policies – one that guards against simplicities, rhetoric and meaningless comparisons. 

That is the real value of the NESC report.  That is why it should be the starting point for the debate on the future of our social protection system.

You can register for the NERI seminar on Wednesday, March 24^th at 3:00 pm here:  http://www.nerinstitute.net/events/2021/neri-webinar-future-irish-social-welfare-system