Are they alot of young people not trying hard enough for work?

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 5:10pm

Limerick Bandit wrote: »

And take it off the people who cant afford to pay rent and buy food too?

I think they call it means testing.

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 5:13pm

junipergreen wrote: »

Who are you to judge what's an acceptable way for people to spend their money? I found out not an hour ago that I didn't get a job because I was overqualified - if I decided that I would like to go out and spend the remainder of this week's dole money on drowning my sorrows, who are you to tell me that I shouldn't? If I decided to go shopping for new clothes instead - just as useless in the grand scheme of things - would that be acceptable? Or paying for a car that I don't really need because I live in the city and there's public transport - would that be acceptable?

No it wouldn't be acceptable and if the SW payments were adjusted accordingly most people wouldn't be able to afford to make those choices.

I don't mind what people spend their SW payments on really, as long as they don't whine when it's been reduced as they're obviously "overpaid"

junipergreen · 26-01-2011 5:36pm

ntlbell wrote: »

No it wouldn't be acceptable and if the SW payments were adjusted accordingly most people wouldn't be able to afford to make those choices.

I don't mind what people spend their SW payments on really, as long as they don't whine when it's been reduced as they're obviously "overpaid"

Are you ok with people having their wages slashed left, right and centre even though the cost of living has hardly changed at all?

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 5:43pm

junipergreen wrote: »

Are you ok with people having their wages slashed left, right and centre even though the cost of living has hardly changed at all?

I think if you look at the increases over the years and inflation the SW has always been well ahead of the curve.

Even with the decreases when taken deflation into account over all they're probaly about 2-3% better off this year than previous ones. A lot of costs hav reduced depending on your individial circumstances.

If we're talking about SW "wages" I'm happy for them to be slashed to a point where they do what they're designed to do. provide people as a stop gap with a very basic standard of living.

foot/shelter/clothes

junipergreen · 26-01-2011 5:54pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I think if you look at the increases over the years and inflation the SW has always been well ahead of the curve.

Even with the decreases when taken deflation into account over all they're probaly about 2-3% better off this year than previous ones. A lot of costs hav reduced depending on your individial circumstances.

If we're talking about SW "wages" I'm happy for them to be slashed to a point where they do what they're designed to do. provide people as a stop gap with a very basic standard of living.

foot/shelter/clothes

So basically you want to prevent people from being homeless and not to starve? After working and paying taxes until the recession kicked in, I think I'm entitled - yes that's right, entitled - to expect a little more than to avoid being homeless and starving.

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 6:03pm

junipergreen wrote: »

So basically you want to prevent people from being homeless and not to starve? After working and paying taxes until the recession kicked in, I think I'm entitled - yes that's right, entitled - to expect a little more than to avoid being homeless and starving.

Sense of entitlement seems to be the main problem, you look like a good example of it.

People seem to think that because they paid taxes they're entitled to them. You don't pay tax so you can take it back at a later point, people seem to think the the I in PRSI is their own personal Income protection plan they can dip into.

If someone has been working for many years I would expect they were prudant enough to have 6-12 months wages saved in an emergency fund. I'm also more than happy for people who have worked X amount of years to have a % of their earnings as part of their SW payment for x amount of months.

But people whining about the amount of money they're getting when the complaints are they can no longer throw away money on drink/smokes/late's etc people need to get a grip and have a look at what's going on in this country. we can no longer fund ourselves and people want to be pampered while they're out of work?

come of it.

Dale Parish · 26-01-2011 6:08pm

I'm 18 and I agree with OP in a majority of cases. I know a fair amount of people 4-5 years older than me and being honest, most of them are just layabouts using the "recession" as an excuse to not bother and get a job. Not interested in getting work experience either. They spent most of their time at the moment drinking, smoking weed, playing Xbox (which tax payers pay for btw) all day long or floating around town. There is 3 people in my 6th year group who work part time and 5 others (including myself) who do work experience in our spare time. Over the last 2 years numerous people have dropped out of school so they can collect "their" €200/week and follow the collective.

junipergreen · 26-01-2011 6:28pm

ntlbell wrote: »

Sense of entitlement seems to be the main problem, you look like a good example of it.

People seem to think that because they paid taxes they're entitled to them. You don't pay tax so you can take it back at a later point, people seem to think the the I in PRSI is their own personal Income protection plan they can dip into.

If someone has been working for many years I would expect they were prudant enough to have 6-12 months wages saved in an emergency fund. I'm also more than happy for people who have worked X amount of years to have a % of their earnings as part of their SW payment for x amount of months.

But people whining about the amount of money they're getting when the complaints are they can no longer throw away money on drink/smokes/late's etc people need to get a grip and have a look at what's going on in this country. we can no longer fund ourselves and people want to be pampered while they're out of work?

come of it.

You must be quite the ascetic if you think that asking for a little more than your food and shelter is asking to be pampered.

Let's take it to the next level:

'Can you believe those unemployed people? They want to eat meat. Can you believe that? They should consider themselves lucky that they can afford potatoes. If I had my way they'd eat nothing but porridge and stale bread.'

How far do you want to take it with your "basic" level?

junipergreen · 26-01-2011 6:36pm

ntlbell wrote: »

Sense of entitlement seems to be the main problem, you look like a good example of it.

People seem to think that because they paid taxes they're entitled to them. You don't pay tax so you can take it back at a later point, people seem to think the the I in PRSI is their own personal Income protection plan they can dip into.

If someone has been working for many years I would expect they were prudant enough to have 6-12 months wages saved in an emergency fund. I'm also more than happy for people who have worked X amount of years to have a % of their earnings as part of their SW payment for x amount of months.

But people whining about the amount of money they're getting when the complaints are they can no longer throw away money on drink/smokes/late's etc people need to get a grip and have a look at what's going on in this country. we can no longer fund ourselves and people want to be pampered while they're out of work?

come of it.

And what exactly do you think the point of PRSI is if not to help people out in this kind of situation? It's shared risk. I lose my job, you help me out. And when you need to have a heart transplant because the one you have has turned to stone, then I help you out.

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 7:07pm

junipergreen wrote: »

You must be quite the ascetic if you think that asking for a little more than your food and shelter is asking to be pampered.

Let's take it to the next level:

'Can you believe those unemployed people? They want to eat meat. Can you believe that? They should consider themselves lucky that they can afford potatoes. If I had my way they'd eat nothing but porridge and stale bread.'

How far do you want to take it with your "basic" level?

You can eat very healthily on very little, food is one thing that has dropped a lot over the last two years with lidl/aldi/tesco basically in a race to the bottom you can well very cheaply. butchers a doing enough meat that would last a single person over a month for 20e. that's 5e a week.

So no need for rediclous porridge and stale bread comments.

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 7:09pm

junipergreen wrote: »

And what exactly do you think the point of PRSI is if not to help people out in this kind of situation? It's shared risk. I lose my job, you help me out. And when you need to have a heart transplant because the one you have has turned to stone, then I help you out.

Exactly, to help out, a stop gap, it's not to keep the standard of living you're used to while out of work. No one minds helping others out. and if someone is willing to help me with out with a few meals a day keep me warm and a place to sleep. I'm more than happy.

Currently the country is pretty much bankrupt, so as much as ?i'd like to keep pampered spoiled idiots who lived through nothing but the good times of the celtic tiger in late's,mocha's and the latest uggs. we cannot afford it anymore.

junipergreen · 26-01-2011 7:40pm

ntlbell wrote: »

You can eat very healthily on very little, food is one thing that has dropped a lot over the last two years with lidl/aldi/tesco basically in a race to the bottom you can well very cheaply. butchers a doing enough meat that would last a single person over a month for 20e. that's 5e a week.

So no need for rediclous porridge and stale bread comments.

There's nothing ridiculous about it, it's a perfectly logical extension of what you're saying. It's just a matter of scale.

It's the same 'blame the victim' nonsense that always gets spouted. If the dole was a tenner a week there would be plenty of people (you would be among them I'm assuming) arguing that it was too much.

Also, do you understand that slashing the dole to a bare minimum would cause another round of job losses and compound the problem? Your issue with the unemployed would appear to be punative and principle-driven rather than based on economic principles.

Limerick Bandit · 26-01-2011 8:28pm

ntlbell wrote: »

so as much as ?i'd like to keep pampered spoiled idiots who lived through nothing but the good times of the celtic tiger in late's,mocha's and the latest uggs. we cannot afford it anymore.

So are you calling 400K people who are out of work "pampered spoiled idiots"

veryangryman · 26-01-2011 8:39pm

scheister wrote: »

this is one statment i'd go further with and say a good lot of them when they are in work dont try even when they have a job. It seems to be abarely working to make the drink money for the weekend or socialize rather then anything else

110% except for correction

veryangryman · 26-01-2011 8:43pm

Limerick Bandit wrote: »

So are you calling 400K people who are out of work "pampered spoiled idiots"

At least 50% of them...yes. If you want me to back up that statement...

100K have not worked even during the boom
Another 100K or so are either down on their luck or just werent dynamic enough to do something about their situation and looked for government to sort them out

Myself? Got up off arse and did something. Its this survival instinct that i think alot of people just havent got because (shock horror) they have indeed become pampered, spoiled, and indeed, idiots.Country owes them nothing, i repeat, nothing.

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 8:58pm

Limerick Bandit wrote: »

So are you calling 400K people who are out of work "pampered spoiled idiots"

a percentage of them, yes.

JENNYWREN19 · 26-01-2011 9:05pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I think if you look at the increases over the years and inflation the SW has always been well ahead of the curve.

Even with the decreases when taken deflation into account over all they're probaly about 2-3% better off this year than previous ones. A lot of costs hav reduced depending on your individial circumstances.

If we're talking about SW "wages" I'm happy for them to be slashed to a point where they do what they're designed to do. provide people as a stop gap with a very basic standard of living.

foot/shelter/clothes

Social welfare isn't a stop gap for a lot of people any more that's the problem

Westwood · 26-01-2011 10:05pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Speaking as someone who spent the past 4 months commuting 5 hours daily let me add my two cents on the comments people have made on commuting.

I live just outside Waterford City and commuted to Baggot Street in Dublin City for 4 months. I was up at 5am and didn't get home until 9pm. Depending on whether the trains were actually running to schedule, more often than not I didn't get home until nearly 10pm. The bus service was no use to me because I had to be in work at 9am and the bus didn't get to Busaras until around 8.45. My train ticket every week cost nearly €150, add on top of this bus fares and/or taxi fares because the train regularly (and by regularly I mean at least three times a week) got in late and my employer was not very understanding if I was a few minutes late because of something out of my control. When the weather was bad during November and December and the trains were severely effected, I didn't get home until 11pm some nights. This was after being on a freezing cold train for over 4 hours and going home to get straight into bed and up at 5am the next day.

Unfortunately I only have my provisional bike license so I can't travel on the new motorway which means that driving time would be relatively similar to the train as well as petrol costs and the additional costs of wear and tear on my bike.

This is unreal any reason why you cant stay in dublin monday night to thursday and travel back friday after work? €150 a week on trains? surely you can pay for accomadation for 4 nights at least.

I agree with comments about the majority on the dole as pampered. cut it in half and watch them work!!! and it wouldnt be a bad idea to cap immigration they're still focking coming in by the boatload everyday I see it.

daenerysstormborn3 · 26-01-2011 10:21pm

Westwood wrote: »

This is unreal any reason why you cant stay in dublin monday night to thursday and travel back friday after work? €150 a week on trains? surely you can pay for accomadation for 4 nights at least.

I agree with comments about the majority on the dole as pampered. cut it in half and watch them work!!! and it wouldnt be a bad idea to cap immigration they're still focking coming in by the boatload everyday I see it.

Going slightly off topic but no, I wasn't able to stay in Dublin. I'm no longer commuting like that (and hopefully will be able to get a job closer to home) so it's no longer an issue, I was just trying to demonstrate to posters who think people should take any job they can get regardless of location that it's not always doable.

newmug · 26-01-2011 10:31pm

junipergreen wrote: »

Also, do you understand that slashing the dole to a bare minimum would cause another round of job losses and compound the problem? Your issue with the unemployed would appear to be punative and principle-driven rather than based on economic principles.

Haha! You're some tulip. Explain that one will you?

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Going slightly off topic but no, I wasn't able to stay in Dublin. I'm no longer commuting like that (and hopefully will be able to get a job closer to home) so it's no longer an issue, I was just trying to demonstrate to posters who think people should take any job they can get regardless of location that it's not always doable.

You demonstrated perfectly that not only can it be done, but thats the reality nowadays! For those jobseekers who actually are spoiled, take note. THIS is the norm you are expected to deal with.

daenerysstormborn3 · 26-01-2011 10:43pm

newmug wrote: »

Haha! You're some tulip. Explain that one will you?

You demonstrated perfectly that not only can it be done, but thats the reality nowadays! For those jobseekers who actually are spoiled, take note. THIS is the norm you are expected to deal with.

Just because I was able to do it for four months does not mean that it is doable by everyone for an uncertain period of time and it certainly does not make it the norm. Out of a firm of 400 people I was the only one doing this lengthy commute, I think that goes towards proving it is not the norm. People need to lead a proper existence to live healthy lives. Leaving the house at 5am and not getting home until 9/10/11pm is not healthy and it is not sustainable. The reason why a lot of people would not consider doing it is because you have no idea how long you may be doing it for. Yes, you may be able to cope for 3, 4, maybe 5 or 6 months but it certainly is not something a person would be able to do for years.

newmug · 26-01-2011 10:49pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Just because I was able to do it for four months does not mean that it is doable by everyone for an uncertain period of time and it certainly does not make it the norm. Out of a firm of 400 people I was the only one doing this lengthy commute, I think that goes towards proving it is not the norm. People need to lead a proper existence to live healthy lives. Leaving the house at 5am and not getting home until 9/10/11pm is not healthy and it is not sustainable. The reason why a lot of people would not consider doing it is because you have no idea how long you may be doing it for. Yes, you may be able to cope for 3, 4, maybe 5 or 6 months but it certainly is not something a person would be able to do for years.

Well if you were the only one doing that commute in the firm, then the other people were just lucky. I've a newsflash for ya Pixie, it IS the norm! It was during the good times, and it is even moreso now. I've never been on a site around dublin that didnt have some Donegal men working on it, imagine THEIR commute! I do a similar one, and have been doing it for 8 years, on nights aswell! Some people seriously need to toughen the fcuk up.

daenerysstormborn3 · 26-01-2011 10:58pm

newmug wrote: »

Well if you were the only one doing that commute in the firm, then the other people were just lucky. I've a newsflash for ya Pixie, it IS the norm! It was during the good times, and it is even moreso now. I've never been on a site around dublin that didnt have some Donegal men working on it, imagine THEIR commute! I do a similar one, and have been doing it for 8 years, on nights aswell! Some people seriously need to toughen the fcuk up.

Well if you're happy to live to work then that's your choice.

ntlbell · 26-01-2011 11:36pm

JENNYWREN19 wrote: »

Social welfare isn't a stop gap for a lot of people any more that's the problem

as in people are choosing it as a career?

dellas1979 · 26-01-2011 11:47pm

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Speaking as someone who spent the past 4 months commuting 5 hours daily let me add my two cents on the comments people have made on commuting.

I live just outside Waterford City and commuted to Baggot Street in Dublin City for 4 months. I was up at 5am and didn't get home until 9pm. Depending on whether the trains were actually running to schedule, more often than not I didn't get home until nearly 10pm. The bus service was no use to me because I had to be in work at 9am and the bus didn't get to Busaras until around 8.45. My train ticket every week cost nearly €150, add on top of this bus fares and/or taxi fares because the train regularly (and by regularly I mean at least three times a week) got in late and my employer was not very understanding if I was a few minutes late because of something out of my control. When the weather was bad during November and December and the trains were severely effected, I didn't get home until 11pm some nights. This was after being on a freezing cold train for over 4 hours and going home to get straight into bed and up at 5am the next day.

Unfortunately I only have my provisional bike license so I can't travel on the new motorway which means that driving time would be relatively similar to the train as well as petrol costs and the additional costs of wear and tear on my bike.

If I knew/heard your story/read this in your CV, Id hand you the job straight away versus some little jumped up know it all, moaning on about "my degree my degree" and having no experience or any evidence of wanting "A" job i.e. any kind of job at all, as long as you show initiative to work.

Either make the effort people, or stay whinging, wondering why you cant get "a" job. That is life. It isnt going to land in your lap. Sending off 100 CVs by email doesnt equal "I made a huge effort "with my degree" to get a job".

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 12:40am

ntlbell wrote: »

as in people are choosing it as a career?

Who's choosing it as a career?

43,562 - that was the live register figure in Cork for November. Do you think there are 43,562 jobs in Cork?

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 12:48am

newmug wrote: »

Haha! You're some tulip. Explain that one will you?

Tulip? I'm not familiar with that particular insult - can you explain it to me?

Do you think the government are going to lower your taxes because they've slashed the dole? No chance. It would mean even less money in the economy, which would lead to lower revenue, lower profits, more businesses closing, redundancies, more people on the dole, even lower revenue, profits, and the spiral continues - down and down.

newmug · 27-01-2011 2:57am

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Well if you're happy to live to work then that's your choice.

Thats life missus. You cant complain about not being able to get a job when other people are willing to try harder than you.

junipergreen wrote: »

Tulip? I'm not familiar with that particular insult - can you explain it to me?

Nevermind:rolleyes:

junipergreen wrote: »

Do you think the government are going to lower your taxes because they've slashed the dole? No chance. It would mean even less money in the economy, which would lead to lower revenue, lower profits, more businesses closing, redundancies, more people on the dole, even lower revenue, profits, and the spiral continues - down and down.

Nobody ever suggested tax would be reduced if dole was. You have a strange point of view economically, but let me correct it for you:

If person X is "earning" E200 on the dole now, and the govt. reduces that to E50, then the govt. has E150 more in its coffers to pay to the Guards, nurses, teachers, service debt, fix roads, divide out among other jobseekers etc. Not only would this mean MORE money in the economy, but it would also mean we'll need to borrow less, and get the economy back in the black quicker.

I know understand this. Well at least I hope you do.

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 10:04am

junipergreen wrote: »

Who's choosing it as a career?

43,562 - that was the live register figure in Cork for November. Do you think there are 43,562 jobs in Cork?

the "?" would suggest I was asking a question.

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 10:05am

junipergreen wrote: »

Tulip? I'm not familiar with that particular insult - can you explain it to me?

Do you think the government are going to lower your taxes because they've slashed the dole? No chance. It would mean even less money in the economy, which would lead to lower revenue, lower profits, more businesses closing, redundancies, more people on the dole, even lower revenue, profits, and the spiral continues - down and down.

Sure lets use the 400k as a wheel to drive employment, lets borrow a few more billion increase the dole = profit!!

:rolleyes:

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 12:57pm

ntlbell wrote: »

the "?" would suggest I was asking a question.

And yet the snarky tone would suggest otherwise.

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 1:13pm

newmug wrote: »

Nevermind:rolleyes:

Nobody ever suggested tax would be reduced if dole was. You have a strange point of view economically, but let me correct it for you:

If person X is "earning" E200 on the dole now, and the govt. reduces that to E50, then the govt. has E150 more in its coffers to pay to the Guards, nurses, teachers, service debt, fix roads, divide out among other jobseekers etc. Not only would this mean MORE money in the economy, but it would also mean we'll need to borrow less, and get the economy back in the black quicker.

I know understand this. Well at least I hope you do.

I understand what you're saying alright. You would like whatever money there is to be shared out between the people who already have it. But they're not going to pump the money into anything other than servicing the debt, which is money taken out of the economy. If the government were going to slash the dole in order to start a public works programme creating hundreds of thousands of jobs I'd be all for it. But as long as there aren't jobs for us out there - and despite your mad delusions, there are not - then people are entitled (such a dirty word) to something they can actually live on, as opposed to just bare survival.

When you lose your job and people are trying to kick you out of your house because you can't service your debt, I'll have your back: such a shame the likes of me could never count on you.

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 1:57pm

junipergreen wrote: »

And yet the snarky tone would suggest otherwise.

It's called clarification.

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 2:01pm

ntlbell wrote: »

It's called clarification.

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 2:01pm

junipergreen wrote: »

I understand what you're saying alright. You would like whatever money there is to be shared out between the people who already have it. But they're not going to pump the money into anything other than servicing the debt, which is money taken out of the economy. If the government were going to slash the dole in order to start a public works programme creating hundreds of thousands of jobs I'd be all for it. But as long as there aren't jobs for us out there - and despite your mad delusions, there are not - then people are entitled (such a dirty word) to something they can actually live on, as opposed to just bare survival.

When you lose your job and people are trying to kick you out of your house because you can't service your debt, I'll have your back: such a shame the likes of me could never count on you.

You're complaining there's no job creation when something like 40% of our daily borrowing is spent on SW payments

yet scoff at the idea of it been reduced?

Maybe people shouldn't have been borrowing so much money, buying houses on two incomes, loading up on credit card debt and car finance. maybe people should have had an emergency fund if they lost thier job. or had income protection etc.

Everyone else to blame right, where's the personal accountability in all this?

Typical of the tiger generation. everything handed to them on a plate.

borrow a bucket and a sponge and go clean a few windows, do something with your day instead of blaming everyone else for the position you find yourself in.

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 2:14pm

ntlbell wrote: »

You're complaining there's no job creation when something like 40% of our daily borrowing is spent on SW payments yet scoff at the idea of it been reduced?

Maybe people shouldn't have been borrowing so much money, buying houses on two incomes, loading up on credit card debt and car finance. maybe people should have had an emergency fund if they lost thier job. or had income protection etc.

Everyone else to blame right, where's the personal accountability in all this?

Typical of the tiger generation. everything handed to them on a plate.

borrow a bucket and a sponge and go clean a few windows, do something with your day instead of blaming everyone else for the position you find yourself in.

You've got all the buzz words in there. Yawn. Could you possibly sound more like a cliche?

Have you ever considered trying to break out of that box you're in and try a little bit of independent thought? Why would you when it's so much easier to jump on the bandwagon of generalisations about the pampered youth of today and our complete lack of initiative, etc ad nauseum.

Are you familiar with Keynesian economics?

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 2:21pm

junipergreen wrote: »

You've got all the buzz words in there. Yawn. Could you possibly sound more like a cliche?

Have you ever considered trying to break out of that box you're in and try a little bit of independent thought? Why would you when it's so much easier to jump on the bandwagon of generalisations about the pampered youth of today and our complete lack of initiative, etc ad nauseum.

Are you familiar with Keynesian economics?

Why don't you show us some independant thought by addressing many of the posts you have chosen to ignore in the last few pages?

It's not my fault you're not capable of finding a job or don't have the creativity to create you're own. but continue to have a crack at me and ignore every point put to you. I'm sure a head hunter on boards will pick up on your can do,positive,optimistic personality and offer you a job in no time.

Limerick Bandit · 27-01-2011 2:39pm

There are around 400K people without a job in Ireland, how many jobs are out there?

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 2:42pm

Limerick Bandit wrote: »

There are around 400K people without a job in Ireland, how many jobs are out there?

You keep rabbiting on about this. There's more unemployed than jobs.

right, we get that, now what's your point?

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 2:42pm

ntlbell wrote: »

Why don't you show us some independant thought by addressing many of the posts you have chosen to ignore in the last few pages?

It's not my fault you're not capable of finding a job or don't have the creativity to create you're own. but continue to have a crack at me and ignore every point put to you. I'm sure a head hunter on boards will pick up on your can do,positive,optimistic personality and offer you a job in no time.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

Speaking of not addressing issues - I take it that you are not familiar with Keynesian economics.

This is very traditional economic theory, one of the principles of which is that governments can spend their way out of a recession. It's quite similar to the "speculate to accumulate" philosophy that you might be more approving of. I agree with you that borrowing money for SW payments is not the most productive thing the government could be doing? They could be borrowing more money and creating jobs. It's not just spending for the sake of spending mind, it's targeted spending which is something that our government have not been great with. In the 80s they spent ferocious money "creating the conditions for employment" which unfortunately did not work. They could have directly created jobs for everyone who was unemployed with this money, but that would have been counter to the privatisation ideology buzz that was, and still is, dominant.

If the private sector cannot provide the jobs then the government needs to step up. If they're not prepared to do that, then they need to pay a liveable dole. Not pampering, not luxury, just liveable.

junipergreen · 27-01-2011 2:44pm

ntlbell wrote: »

You keep rabbiting on about this. There's more unemployed than jobs.

right, we get that, now what's your point?

You can't accuse people of not trying if there are not enough jobs. Is that not just obvious common sense?

Limerick Bandit · 27-01-2011 2:48pm

ntlbell wrote: »

You keep rabbiting on about this. There's more unemployed than jobs.

right, we get that, now what's your point?

you keep rabbiting on that people are too lazy and should go and get a job

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 2:57pm

junipergreen wrote: »

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

Not at all, I'm a thick Dublin northsider, I'm not intelligent enough to notice.

junipergreen wrote: »

Speaking of not addressing issues - I take it that you are not familiar with Keynesian economics.

This is very traditional economic theory, one of the principles of which is that governments can spend their way out of a recession. It's quite similar to the "speculate to accumulate" philosophy that you might be more approving of. I agree with you that borrowing money for SW payments is not the most productive thing the government could be doing? They could be borrowing more money and creating jobs. It's not just spending for the sake of spending mind, it's targeted spending which is something that our government have not been great with. In the 80s they spent ferocious money "creating the conditions for employment" which unfortunately did not work. They could have directly created jobs for everyone who was unemployed with this money, but that would have been counter to the privatisation ideology buzz that was, and still is, dominant.

If the private sector cannot provide the jobs then the government needs to step up. If they're not prepared to do that, then they need to pay a liveable dole. Not pampering, not luxury, just liveable.

It has nothing to do with not understanding or being familiar with it. No one would agrue that goverment should be doing more to create jobs. AFAIK in France for example a huge amount of job creation is done through the public sector the difference there is the wages for the public sector is a lot lower, I'm all in favour of using the PS to generate jobs by expanding it but something has to be done with current wage levels there.

and on the SW again. I'm sure most people are happy for the SW to be liveable but when a familiy with 3 kids can earn the equivilent of a private sector job of 40k without lifting a finger the payments are far too high. At the moment they do provide people with luxuries that when not working people should not be able to afford unless they have saved the means to do so.

We're arguing away here but I think we both want pretty much the same thing.

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 3:00pm

Limerick Bandit wrote: »

you keep rabbiting on that people are too lazy and should go and get a job

Yes they should.

The fact that there's less jobs than unemployed is irrelvant, there is jobs but a lot of people are not bothering their arse. when we were in a position to have 100% or very close to employment we had at times over 125k people not working.

i've seen it here so many times on boards a lone "there's no jobs why bother" etc etc or people who are skilled in a certain area not willing to work in other sectors or lower paid sectors.

people are using the excuse like above to exlain their laziness in finding work

ntlbell · 27-01-2011 3:02pm

junipergreen wrote: »

You can't accuse people of not trying if there are not enough jobs. Is that not just obvious common sense?

The vast majority of people currently on SW are from the building sector and industries related to that a lot of them are low skilled and untrained.

It's not a case of 400k all chasing the same type of job. 150k of them didn't want to work ever. as i said it's an excuse

davey122 · 27-01-2011 3:18pm

Well if anyone knows of a part-time job available in either Galway - Roscommon areas then please let me know. Im in my final year of my Business Degree and will work at anything. Thanks

davey122 · 27-01-2011 3:23pm

scheister wrote: »

this is one statment i'd go further with and say a good lot of them when they are in work dont try even when they have a job. It seems to be a working to make the drink money for the weekend or socialize rather then anything else

Well if anyone knows of a part-time job available in either Galway - Roscommon areas then please let me know. Im in my final year of my Business Degree and will work at anything. Thanks

Shelga · 27-01-2011 4:48pm

Thread seems to have gone a little OT, but anyway, here's my opinion. As regards young people not looking hard enough for jobs- some are, some aren't. I graduated last year and worked in an unrelated field for 6-7 months before being let go, but managed to save a bit of money. In that sense I am more fortunate than a lot of my peers. Since I finished in mid-December I have been constantly looking for work in my field.

As regards to the jobhunting? I do think some grads are not trying hard enough, and I include myself in that at times. All we ever hear is how bad things are, especially for under 25s job-wise, and when you complete 20-25 applications over a couple of weeks and don't even get so much as acknowledgement of receipt from 90% of them, it is disheartening. I looked at a couple of unpaid internships at companies I would love to work for, but was told I have to be on SW for a minimum of 3 months to keep my benefits. Rules like this make me consider emigration more and more every day.

And just because someone is not willing to commute 6 hours a day or work full-time in McDonalds, it does not mean they are lazy. I am more than willing to work ****ty jobs or travel huge distances if it has any chance at all of giving me a career. However, if you're 23 and have no commitments, why would you stay in this country to clean toilets if emigration and better opportunities are possible? Myself, I'm giving it another 4-6 weeks of intensive jobhunting before I book my flight out of here.

dellas1979 · 27-01-2011 8:44pm

You just hit the nail on the head Shelga - A1 to you...

You call A job "****ty"?

Who are you, exactly, to deem a persons job as ****ty?

Where I work, the person cleaning the toilet gets just as much respect from me as the CEO of the company.

Its attitude, confidence, determination, and knowing where you come from that will get you far - no matter what you do.

Seriously, how do ye people function with such high standards?
There is nothing wrong with having high standards, but you have to start small and aim high. Please dont tell me you "deserve" a job in your field...and if you do think that, why? What have you done in your life that makes you think you deserve it?

Have you a good, positive attitude towards work? No, you demonstrated that by calling a job ****ty.

Have you confidence? Well, I dont know you personally but from your reply Id say you are over-confident, but you actually know nothing about nothing.

Determination? You shot down someone who said they travelled 6 hours a day for a job.

Knowing where you come from? Nah - you think you should be working in a particular field because you got a menial qualification/piece of paper, and that you are worth it, but you'll never understand, until maybe you grow older or gain some cop-on, that if you'd taken that ****ty job, as you call it, you might turn out to be a better, more rounded person, and actually have something worth while to contribute to the state of this society.

partyndbs · 27-01-2011 9:34pm

its hard to movitate to go out to look for a part time job coz u feel that if u walk in they will just tear up your cv. i found it hard gettin a job when i was 16 4 yrs ago at the peak of the boom now its soo hard

Are they alot of young people not trying hard enough for work?

Comments