11/4/15: 2014 European Labour Costs Comparatives

Ireland's manufacturing is booming, services exploding, unemployment falling, and wages... well, wages...

Here is the latest data for full year 2014 from Eurostat providing some comparatives:

Ireland ranks on par with Italy and below all high income euro area states (ahead of just 'Southern' or 'peripheral' Europe) in terms of hourly labour costs. For the 'most productive' (if measured by returns on FDI booked via Ireland) country, we are amazingly labour cost-competitive. Which, of course, only highlights the questionable nature of our labour productivity, plus lower non-wage costs of labour (such as employer taxation).

Now, recall - Ireland has been aggressively rebuilding its 'competitiveness' by reducing costs of labour. The internal devaluation meme and so on.... Right? Almost:

Over 2008-2014 our labour costs actually rose. Of course, our favourite 'competitiveness' metric - the unit labour costs (cost of labour required to produce a unit of output) fell. But that decline has nothing to do with our gained labour cost 'competitiveness'. Instead, it has to do with increased output 'units' booked per hour of work. Which is, primarily, down to two factors:

• MNCs pushing more and more tax optimising 'activities' via Ireland (superficially increasing units of output per hour of work); and
• Destroying hundreds of thousands jobs in less productive sectors (the unemployment effect).

Hence a paradox: Irish labour costs rose last time in 2012 - not a great year for our economic performance. They stayed static since then, through the stagnation of 2013 and the roaring GDP & GNP growth in 2014. 

And another paradox, the one yet to come: once construction industry and retail sector employment and activity pick up, the unit labour costs in the economy will rise solely due to output in less productive sectors picking up. If wages inflation returns, they will rise even faster, proving again that all this competitiveness story is largely a figment of tax-optimisation-induced imagination.

28/9/2013: Real v Imputed Labour Cost Competitiveness Gains: Ireland v EA17

I wrote recently about the problems with Irish competitiveness and the thesis of significant gains in it since the onset of the crisis:

• The main cover is here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/09/2692013-sunday-times-1592013-what-about.html
• And a bit on labour costs here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/09/2792013-internal-devaluation-picking.html

However, looking closer at Irish data, one discovers several troubling regularities:

1. Given the rate of improvement in our labour cost competitiveness and the timing of gains achieved, most of the improvement is simply due to destruction of jobs in two domestic sectors. Per chart below: half of all competitiveness gains were completed by Q1 2010 and some 64% were completed by the end of Q4 2010 - in other words during the period of mass unemployment increases fuelled by jobs shut downs in domestic services and building & construction sectors. Since then the rate of improvements dropped dramatically.
2. The gap in our competitiveness relative to EA17 when expressed relative to the base of the year 2000 is much more closely reflective of the gap between EA17 and Irish GDP and GDP per capita than for any other base, suggesting that use of any other base is misleading in capturing true relative competitiveness positions between Ireland and euro area average.
3. Even with the 'gains' achieved, in Q1 2013 Irish economy was some 12 percentage points less competitive than the euro area average for EA17 states.

Controlling for the second point above, I rebased the data set from the Central Bank to two more bases: 2000 base, 2002 base, and compared this against Central Bank-reported 2005 base. Here are the details:

As the chart above clearly shows, the gains achieved in the unit labour cost metrics have been large. However, these gains do not mean that we are now significantly more competitive than Euro area 17 average. Instead, the metric is highly sensitive to the choice of the base year. In other words, if we assume that Irish economy costs were roughly on par with those in the euro area 17 in year 2005, then we are now 11.4 points more competitive than euro area 17. In contrast, if you assume that we were cost-wise on par with the euro area in 2002, then in Q1 2013 we were only 1.8 points more competitive than euro area. If we assume that the two economies were running at similar cost bases in 2000, Irish economy is still about 14 points behind the euro area in terms of competitiveness.

To make the right base choice, we have to look at the GDP and GDP per capita comparatives and these suggest that we were closer to euro area average around 2000 and ahead of the euro area in 2002 and 2005.

Long story short - do not be deceived by the claims of huge competitiveness gains in Ireland. Some 50%+ of these are probably due to jobs losses here, and the rest is due to base year choice and strong performance of Germany during the crisis... Oh, and that is before we start accounting for productivity 'gains' from transfer pricing by the ICT services exporters...

27/9/2013: Internal Devaluation: Picking a Right Target?

Conventional wisdom of the 'internal devaluation' theory goes as follows: if a country like Ireland were to experience a structural shock, the path of adjusting to this shock lies via reduction in the cost of doing business (improving efficiency). Since adjusting the cost of Government or quangoes or Social Partners in the economy is an impossible task to undertake in a corporatist economy, then the only two things that can adjust to effect the 'internal devaluation' are capital costs (interest rates) and labour costs. In reality, however, capital costs are no longer responsive to interest rates since Ireland is in a major asset bubble bust and banking sector collapse. So we are left with deflating labour costs.

Aside from the knock-on effects such policies might have on aggregate demand and household investment, there is a nagging question of: can they be effective in reducing functional costs faced by businesses? In other words, are reduced labour costs associated with economic efficiency gains?

Logic suggests that even if successful, reductions in labour costs can only be as effective as labour costs' share in total output of the economy. How so? Suppose labour costs fall 10% and labour costs share in the economy is 50%, then, assuming freed resources are used somewhere more efficiently, the output boost can be substantial. If, however, labour costs are only 10% of the economy, then the impact will be smaller.

Now, here's a chart from the Robert Schuman Foundation research paper on Labour Costs and Crisis Management in the Eurozone:

According to this chart, Ireland was the second / third (to Greece and Italy) worst candidate in the euro area to implement internal devaluation policies along the lines of labour costs adjustments. And today Ireland is the second worst candidate (after Greece - the unlabelled purple line).

Yes, Ireland was the best candidate to apply these policies as the place with the worst labour costs competitiveness during the pre-crisis period.

But the adjustments, even though only partially successful, may be not impacting significant enough proportion of the economy to make much of the real difference.

15/4/2013: Irish Labour Costs: IDA spin and reality

IDA presentation claims loudly & boldly that Ireland is one of 3 countries where nominal wages have dropped (slide 5).

This raises two questions.

1. An existential one: are dropping nominal wages a good thing? Well, not really. For a number of reasons. Firstly, declining wages = declining domestic demand and investment. Now, IDA - focused on MNCs and FDI - might not give a damn about these two aspects of the economy, but sadly they are more important to Ireland than IDA-sponsored multinationals, as the last 6 years of the Great Recession clearly show. Secondly, declining nominal wages = lower incentives to locate talent into Ireland and develop human capital here. Now, that is something IDA should care about, since this cuts the ability of its MNCs to continue creating the illusion of productivity here. Thirdly, declining nominal wages may mask loss of efficiency and productivity in some sectors and superficial gains in efficiency in other sectors. How so? Ok, suppose wages in a less productive sector, like construction or retail fall, while wages in more productive sector, like ICT rise. Average or median wages across economy might fall, but competitiveness might also decline where it matters - in higher growth sectors. Sadly, IDA seem to have no clue that this is what appears to have been happening in the economy, presumably because it would put a bit of a brake on the IDA spin. But see table below to verify that the above factor 3 does indeed apply to Irish data.
2. A factual one: is this claim true. Now, here's Paul Krugman's article saying it is not true: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/dnwr-in-the-ea/ . But what about raw, direct data from Ireland? CSO provides: http://cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q42012.pdf and the end game is: average hourly earnings in Ireland in Q4 2012 were +0.6% y/y and +0.7% q/q in the private sector, and down -0.4% y/y and +0.6% q/q in public sector. So unless IDA cares about labour costs in the public sector (presumably because IDA have discovered a treasure cave full of MNCs in Irish public sector), Irish nominal earnings are up, not down.

There are other problems with claims IDA makes. Wages might fall, but cost of labour might still go up due to increased cost of Government related to payroll and income taxes. Conveniently, CSO provides raw data on this too. Total labour costs in Ireland as of Q4 2012:

• Increased in the private sector +2.6% q/q and +1.3% y/y
• Compared to 2008, these were down from EUR23.51/hour to EUR23.31/hour - a massive decline of 0.86% in 4 years, cumulative.

Judge for yourselves as to what the dynamics in Irish wages (earnings and total labour costs, to be more precise) are (for all sectors reported by CSO):

No comment needed.

10/11/2012: 'Special' case redux?

Just in case Angela Merkel reads EU Commission research... here's a chart summarizing the 'structural' adjustments to-date courtesy of JMP Research:

And the chart shows that 'special' Ireland:

• Delivered second largest drop in unit labour costs in the periphery (much of that, as in Greece's case and Spain due to massive spikes in unemployment)
• Produced 4th largest (or second lowest) improvement in current account dynamics and had 3rd highest increase in unemployment.

In other words, as with fiscal adjustments, our 'structural' gains are far from being 'special' or exemplary, but rather represent below average levels of achievement compared to other 'peripheral' economies.

And in case you need more, here's a bit on wages 'moderation' in Ireland:

The chart above shows pretty clearly that while Ireland claims to have achieved tremendous gains in labour costs competitiveness, in reality our gains are only spectacular if we forget the rapid inflation experienced in 2000-2009. Let's run some maths: between 2000 and 2012:

• Greek nominal labour costs relative to EU average fell 0.37%
• Irish rose 7.69%
• Portuguese fell 4.21%
• Spanish rose 6.4%
• Dutch rose 8.9%
• Italian rose 1.97%
• French rose 1% and
• German fell 16.36%

In other words, Ireland's labour costs still are up more than for any other peripheral state and, in fact, are only lower relative to the EU average against the Netherlands. Spot anything 'special' here?

29/8/2012: Some facts about Irish average earnings: Q2 2012

Q2 2012 earnings and working hours data for Ireland has been released today by the CSO. Here are top changes and trends:

• Average hourly earnings were €21.91 in Q2 2012 compared with €21.90 in Q1 2011, representing no real change over the year. [Note: either CSO has not heard of inflation, or there was no inflation in Ireland Q2 2011-Q2 2012]
• Average weekly paid hours were 31.4 in Q2 2012, which was the same as those recorded in Q2 2011.
• Public sector numbers were 380,800 in Q2 2012, a fall of 25,800 (-6.3%) from Q2 2011 when the total was 406,600 (including temporary Census field staff).

The above are straight from CSO analysis. Excluding census workers, public sector (including semi-states) employment stood at 380,800 in Q2 2012 down on 401,300 in Q2 2011 and on 421,400 in Q2 2008 - a decline of 20,500 y/y of which 17,600 came from outside semi-state bodies.

Table below lists changes in earnings in broad sectors:

However, on aggregate, year on year to Q2 2012, per CSO:

• Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 0.5% annually, compared with an increase of 2.8% in the public sector (including semi-state organisations) over the year, bringing, average weekly earnings in Q2 2012 to €611.66 and €918.99 respectively. 
• In the three years to Q2 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €27.10 (-2.9%). This compares with a decrease of €24.95 (-3.9%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the four years since Q2 2008.

Here's the chart showing decomposition / breakdown of declines in public sector employment:

In Q2 2009, the peak year for average weekly earnings in the public sector, the gap between private sector average weekly earnings (€618.08) and public sector average weekly earnings (€946.09) was 53.07% in favour of the latter. In Q2 2012 the gap was 50.3% - slightly smaller, but not significantly so and factoring in that between 2009 and 2012 many more senior (higher paid and more experienced) public sector employees have retired (including via incentivized early retirement schemes), leaving the workforce in the public sector less skilled and experienced than it was in 2009, the gap has probably increased, like-for-like. Also, the same is exacerbated by the heavy younger workers losses of jobs in the private sector, which has left private sector workforce on average probably more experienced and senior in tenure than prior to the crisis.

In Q2 2008, the gap was 46.2% which was lower than what we are observing today.

Remember, we are being told that everyone should take proportional 'pain'...

29/7/2012: Irish Competitiveness

Unedited version of my Sunday Times article from July 22.

These days, with nearly 15 percent unemployment, and almost 530,000 currently in receipt of some unemployment supports, the minds of Irish policymakers and analysts are rightly preoccupied with jobs creation. Every euro of new investment is paraded through the media as the evidence of regained confidence in the economy. This week, even the insolvent Irish Government got into the game of ‘creating jobs’ with an ‘investment stimulus’.

Alas, economics of jobs creation is an entirely different discipline from the political PR accompanying it. In the real world, some private and public jobs are created on the basis of sustainable long-term demand for skills. Others are generated on the foot of tax advantages and subsidies, including stimulus. In the short run, the latter types of jobs can still yield a positive boost to economic activity. But in the longer run, they are not sustainable and drain resources that can be better allocated to other areas. The ultimate difference between the two types is found in productivity growth associated, or the competitiveness gain or loss generated in the economy.

The prospects of Irish economic recovery have been rhetorically coupled with the improvements in our cost competitiveness since early 2008. And for a good reason. Rapid deterioration in competitiveness in years before the crisis is what got us into the situation where structural collapse of the economy was inevitable.

During the Celtic Garfield era of 2001-2007, Irish Harmonized Competitiveness Indicators (HCIs) have deteriorated by some 26%. Our productivity growth, stripping out effects of MNCs transfer pricing and tax arbitrage, has been running well below the rate of the advanced economies average. In years of the property bubble, Ireland was the least competitive economy in the entire euro area.

Structurally, our lack of competitiveness was underpinned by the labour costs inflation in relation to producer and consumer prices. Consumer costs-related competitiveness indicator for Ireland deteriorated by 38 percent between the end of 2001 and mid-2008, more than one-and-a-half times the rate of deterioration in producer costs-linked measure. Another, even more pervasive and long-term force at play was creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the sectors, like building and construction, domestic retail and finance that lagged in value-added well behind the exporting sectors.

This was not a model of sustainable jobs creation. Instead of incentivising investment in real skills and aptitude to work and entrepreneurship, we taught our younger generation to expect a €40-45,000 starting gig in a ‘professional’ occupation or laying bricks at a construction site. Not surprisingly, uptake of degrees in harder sciences and more mathematically intensive fields of business studies slumped, while degrees in ‘softer’ social and cultural studies were booming. The workforce we were producing had a rapidly expanding mismatch between pay expectations, career prospects, and reality of an internationally competitive economy.

Placated by the opportunity to locate in the corporate tax haven, our MNCs were drumming up the myth of the superior workforce with great skills and education. The Government and its quasi-official mouthpieces of economic analysis in academia, banks, and financial and professional services were only happy to repeat the same line.

The crisis laid bare the truths about our fabled competitiveness outside the corporate tax arbitrage opportunities.

Since then, the focus of the Government labour market reforms, in rhetoric, if not in real terms, has been on regaining cost competitiveness. Sadly, this process so far replicates, rather than corrects the very same errors of judgement we pursued before the crisis erupted.

In terms of headline metrics, things are looking up. Our harmonised competitiveness indicator (HCI) has improved by 5% between January 2009 and April 2012 – the latest data available. However, these gains are accounted for by two drivers. Firstly, jobs destruction in the construction and retail sectors has led to rapid elimination of less productive – from economic value-added point of view – activities. Secondly, domestic business activity collapse added price deflation to the equation, distorting gains from any real productivity improvements. Thus, our HCI deflated by producer prices has fallen 7.7% over the above period of time, while consumer prices-deflated HCI dropped 12.5%.

Thus, much still remains to be done on the competitiveness front, especially since deflationary pressures in the economy are no longer rampant. The momentum of gains in competitiveness experienced in 2008-2010 has slowed dramatically and is likely to continue declining.

On the one hand, jobs destruction has moderated markedly, while across the economy overall earnings are rising. Wages inflation in several sectors where skills shortages are present, such as ICT and internationally traded services, now complements declining competitiveness of individual tax policies.

Year on year, Q1 2012 saw average weekly earnings rising in Ireland by 0.7%. Weekly earnings in the private sector went up 1.5% annually, while there was an increase of 2.0% in the public sector over the year. Between Q1 2008 and Q1 2012, average weekly earnings fell 3.5% in the private sector and rose 0.8% in the public sector.

The skills crunch is evident both via the earnings inflation within the larger size enterprises and by occupational categories. earnings of Managers, professional and associated professionals rose 5.7% y/y in Q1 2012 and are now 1.1% ahead of where they were in Q1 2009. Earnings for clerical, sales and service employees are up 2.4% y/y and down almost 2% on 2009.

The real problem with our labour costs competitiveness is that with rising tax burdens it is becoming increasingly difficult to import skills and our system of training and education simply cannot deliver on the growing demand for specialist knowledge. The former problem has been repeatedly highlighted by the indigenous exporters. The latter has been a major talking point for the larger MNCs. The latest example of this is PayPal, whose global operations vice-president Louise Phelan warned this week that Ireland needs to focus on language skills, especially in German, Dutch and Nordic languages “to protect our status as a European gateway”.

Sadly, the Government is listening to the latter more than to the indigenous entrepreneurs.

Reforming education system is a long-term process and should not be tailored to the current demand for narrow skills. Instead, it should aim to provide broad and diversified education base, including leading (not obscure) modern languages, proper teaching of core subjects, such as history, philosophy, arts and sciences.

Such reforms will not have a direct impact on the likes of PayPal’s ability to hire people with very narrow skill sets. Which means that Ireland will have to systemically reduce the costs of importing human capital.

To derive real competitive advantage anchored in sustainable jobs creation and productivity growth, we need to focus on creating the right mix of tax incentives, educational supports and immigration regulations to lower the cost of employing highly skilled workers and increase returns to individual investments in education and training. Let us then leave the job of selecting which areas of study should be pursued to those who intend to succeed in the market place.

Box-out

The CMA Global Sovereign Credit Risk Report for the second quarter 2012 shows Ireland improving its ranking position from the 7^th highest risk sovereign debt issuer in the world in Q1 2012 to the 8^th – a gain that is, on the surface, should signal that the country Credit Default Spreads (CDS) were improving compared to its peers. While Ireland’s CDS have indeed improved during the quarter falling below 600 basis points (bps) in the last two days of June for the first time since the first week of May, in effect Ireland ended Q2 2012 pretty much where it started it in terms of CDS levels. What really propelled Irish rankings gain was the return of Greece to the CDS markets few weeks after the country ‘selective default’. In fact, Ireland’s rate of improvement (by 1 notch) is identical to that of Cyprus and marks below average performance for the group of the highest risk sovereigns. Perhaps even more revealing is the comparative between Ireland and Iceland. The latter is ranked 20^th in the risk league table, improving in Q2 2012 by two ranks. At the end of June, Icelandic 5 year CDS were trading at 290 bps, with implied cumulative probability of country default over the 5 years horizon of 22.9%. Ireland’s CDS were trading at 554 bps with implied cumulative probability of default of 38.6%.

13/5/2012: Sunday Times 06/05/2012: Irish labour costs competitiveness

This is my Sunday Times column from May 6, 2012 (last week), unedited version.

Latest research from ESRI shows that, contrary to the prevalent opinion in the media and official circles labour earnings in Ireland have been rising, not falling, during the early years of the crisis. This trend, on the surface, appears to contradict claims of wages moderation in the private sector, the very same claims that have been repeatedly used to argue that structural reforms and changes in Ireland during the crisis have seen a dramatic return of productivity growth.

The ESRI research, carried out by Adele Bergin, Elish Kelly and Seamus McGuinness used data from the National Employment Surveys on the changes in earnings and labour costs between 2006 and 2009. Per authors, “despite an unprecedented fall in output and rise in unemployment, both average earnings and average labour costs increased marginally over the period.”

Surprising for many outside the economics profession, these findings actually confirm what we know from Labour Economics 101.

Firstly, wages and earning are sticky when it comes to downward adjustment. In other words, while wages inflation can be rampant, wages deflation is a slow and economically painful process. This is precisely why currency devaluations are always preferred to cost deflation (or internal devaluations) as the means for correcting recessionary and structural imbalances.

Secondly, wages deflation  is even slower in the economies where collective bargaining is stronger. Ireland is a strong candidate for this with its Social Partnership and tenure-linked pay structures.

Thirdly, average earnings movements reflect not only changes in wages, but also changes in the composition of the national and sectoral employment. More specifically, as the ESRI study concludes, the core drivers of rising earnings during 2006-2009 period were “increases in both the share of and returns to graduate employment and a rising return to large firm employment”. Of course, both of these factors are correlated with the destruction of lower-skilled and less education-intensive construction and domestic services jobs.

Lastly, increases in part-time employment also drove up average earnings. In fact, the latest figures from the Eurostat show that a total of 7.4% of our currently employed workers are classified as part-time employees willing to work longer hours, but unable to secure such employment. This is the highest proportion in the entire EU27, and well above the 3.9% reading for Greece.

Overall, ESRI researchers concluded that “a good deal of the downward wage rigidity observed within Irish private sector employment since the onset of the recession has largely been driven by factors consistent with continued productivity growth.”

In my opinion, this is not a foregone conclusion. Irish labor productivity may have risen during the period of the crisis, but much of that increase is probably accounted for by the very same four forces that drove increases in earnings. Higher proportion of jobs in the economy within the MNCs-dominated exporting sectors, higher survival rate for jobs requiring higher skills, and the nature of the early stages of public sector employment cuts most likely simultaneously explain changes in both earnings and productivity.

The latter aspect is worth explaining. In the early part of the crisis, all public sector employment reductions took place out of cuts to part-time and contract positions, thus most heavily impacting lower earning younger workers. This would simultaneously increase the proportion of higher paid public employees and the average productivity in the sector. Post-2009, cost reductions have been running via early retirement schemes, but these are not reflected in the 2009 data.

In other words, on the surface, it might appear that Irish labour productivity has grown over time, but in reality, it is the reduction in less productive workers’ employment that has been driving these ‘improvements’. Incidentally, this story, not the ESRI conclusion, is consistent with the situation where domestic economic activity has contracted more than domestic employment.

In brief, our ‘productivity gains’ outlined by the ESRI might be a Pyrrhic victory in the Irish economy’s war for internal devaluation.

And the said victories continued since 2009 – the period not covered in the ESRI study.

Since January 2010, earnings have been falling in Ireland as jobs contraction became less pronounced and as public sector entered the stage of early retirement exits. Irish average hourly labour costs peaked at €28.0 per hour in 2009, 5.7% above the Eurozone average. In 2011, however, the average hourly labour cost in Ireland stood at €27.4 per hour, 0.7% below Eurozone average. If in 2009 Ireland had the eighth highest average hourly cost of labour in EU27, by 2011 we were 11^th most expensive labour market.

According to the Eurostat, across the Irish economy, labour costs rose 7.7% in 2007-2009 period followed by a drop of 1.6% in 2010-2011. However, over the period of the entire crisis, the labour costs are still up 5.2%. The only good news here is that our euro area competitors have all posted higher labour costs inflation. The same pattern is repeated in Industry, Services and across the Public Sectors. Only ICT and Financial Services broke this pattern, driven by fixed wages in the state-owned domestic banking, robust demand for IFSC and ICT specialists. In Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities, earnings rose 6.3% between 2007 and 2011, with wages moderation kicking in only from 2010 with a relatively strong decline of 4.8%. Still, this is just half the rate claimed in the official promotional brochures extolling the virtues of decreased labour costs in this area in Ireland.

With relative stabilization of unemployment and longer duration of joblessness, our average earnings are now set to decline over time as younger educated workers come into the workforce to replace retiring older workers. In the mean time, our productivity metrics will continue to improve in specific MNCs-dominated exporting-heavy sub-sectors. Competitiveness will improve, but not because real productivity will expand. Instead, continued re-orientation of economy toward MNCs will drive headline numbers as we become more and more a tax haven, rather than indigenous entrepreneurship engine.

These accounting-styled gains in productivity and cost competitiveness are likely to coincide with stagnation of Ireland’s GNP. In the period since 2007, Irish after-tax earnings have actually suffered significant deterioration compared to our counterparts in Europe. This deterioration is strongly pronounced for demographically most productive part of our workforce – those in the 25-45 years of age.

Eurostat data shows that in 2007-2011, after-tax earnings in Ireland have increased only for single persons with no children earning 50% of the average wage (a rise of 2.3%) and households with two parents and two children on 100% of the average wage income and sole earner (up 1.8%). The smallest declines in after-tax earnings occurred for the category of single person households with no children earning 100% of the average wage (down 0.8%), families with two earners and no children bringing in 200% of the average wage in combined earnings (down 0.8%), and families with similar income (down 0.6%). At the same time, the largest declines in after-tax earnings were recorded for single persons and families with no children and earnings of 167% of the average wage (declines in the range of 2.3% and 3.7%). Above-average after-tax earnings drops were recorded for all other types of households, including families with children on combined earnings in excess of 133% of the average wage. In other words – younger households and households with two earners have been the hardest hit by the recent trends.

With decline in net after-tax earnings, Irish economy is now facing a number of pressures. Costs of living, commuting and housing are likely to continue rising in months and years ahead, driven by the state desire to extract more in indirect taxation and the market structure that is largely captured by the less competitive state enterprises and defunct banks. Direct tax burden will also continue to rise, while pre-tax earnings will fall. These pressures will imply further reductions in consumer spending and domestic savings. The latter means, among other things, that we will see renewed pressure on banks (as part of our savings reflects repayment of household debts) and on domestic investment.

CHARTS: 

Box-out:

The latest Community Innovation Survey for Ireland for the period of 2008-2010 has been released by the CSO, detailing some very interesting trends in overall innovation activity in Irish economy. Headline figure shows that 28% of enterprises in the industrial and selected services sectors had product innovations in 2008-2010, with 33% of enterprises engaged in process innovations. However, only 18% of enterprises were engaged in both process and product innovations. Not surprisingly, foreign-owned enterprises led Irish-owned enterprises in terms of product innovation 38% to 25%, in process innovation 40% to 30%, and in dual product and process innovation 25 to 16%. Irish-owned enterprises derived slightly more of their total turnover from adopting innovations new to the firm, while foreign-owned enterprises led strongly (more than 2.5 times) in terms of new to market innovations. This suggests that Irish enterprises strength remained in adopting new innovations developed outside, while foreign-owned enterprises are strong leaders in creating new products, services and processes for the market. Not surprisingly, of €2.5 billion spent on innovation in 2010, just 49% went to finance in-house R&D. The most innovation-intensive sector of the MNCs-dominated economy was, not surprisingly Manufacture of petroleum, chemical, pharmaceutical, rubber and plastic products (72.5% of enterprises with technological innovation activities), while the most intensive traditional sector was Manufacture of beverages and tobacco products (91.7%). Did someone mention booze and pills sciences?