Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Rioting in Dublin
-
25-02-2006 5:55pm#1Hey... was anyone in Trinity when the rioting started?
I was thinking about heading down with my camera... and then realised how idiotic that would be...
So did anyone witness the violence? How bad was it?
Shame that after so many years there are still people who think that violence is the only way forward... 0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I walked down O'Connell St. this evening, long after the trouble. A few smashed windows near the bridge, just shoe shops and fast food joints bizarrely. Lots of blood about too. A friend of mine from Berlin was coming to meet me on Grafton St. when the riot happened. She was on O'Connell St. and kept maintaining that it wasn't a real riot as there was no water cannon nor tear gas and that we Irish just don't know how to riot properly
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Your statement of 0% LTU is very misleading. It's not necessarily that they get jobs, but stop claiming benefit.Right_Side wrote:1.6% LTU in Ireland as a matter of fact. America LTU=0% not classified as unemployed after 1 year.
You also failed to mention that the US's unemployment rate is 50% higher than ours.
As I said, have you any personal experience of this? I agree with in the general sense. In fact I'd agree with you approximately 99.3% of the time. About 0.5% (educated guess) of the LTU are abusing the system. I'm sure you can do the subtraction, that means that 1.2% are LTU for non-abusive reasons; such as failures in other elements of the social welfare system. Case in point: a recovering cancer patient can't claim, in cases outside of the norm, disability benefit/sick leave etc. Nor can they work. Case in point: a young adult with a very disturbing childhood (where the State failed, as a matter of point) who has social problems as a result thereof and who has tried several times to work but failed deserves, imo, benefit. Case in point: adult children of the mentally-ill elderly, who cannot afford nursing home care, nor are eligible for it, who work purely out of the home. If you'd like to go into home-carer's payments go ahead but that's a far trickier land-mine than LTUWe are a full employment economy the use of active labour market policies by the Irish government means that if anyone wants to get retrained etc. its possible and there is a job waiting for them.
.
Sweden is one country and only have a population of 9m. ALthough it is a good reference point, it's hardly a necessarily transferable system of governance - not least because of the cultural differences. As a matter of point, again, they have a far higher unemployment rate, a lower GDP per capita and a far greater level of suicideInstead of the USA model perhaps we should utilise the Swedish model whereby if a job is available you must take it otherwise no welfare. In the Swedish case they pay very generous welfare payments..
Our sentences are actually pitiful. Case in point: the average time spent in jail for rape is three years. It should also be noted that the crime:conviction ratio for rape stands (estimated) at 50:1. There's a 2% chance of conviction of rape, and a average sentence of three years. Three years in jail for fifty rapes. It is not longer sentences.Our crime rates/incarceration rates are on the increase and way below the USA due to their longer sentences, better enforcement etc.
The USA also have far more police per population than us. It's not enforcement.
It's that America has more crime. You didn't do the analysis I asked you to.
Ask any victim of crime would they rather the crime had not been commited in the first place. It's about forty times more expensive to keep someone in jail than to pay them benefit.If they turn to crime they should be locked up.
You haven't done the analysis I asked you to. Nor have you stated your personal experience (or lack thereof) of the system. You've also changed your tone significantly since my last post (not something I'd like to see reversed, mind).0 -
Source?You also failed to mention that the US's unemployment rate is 50% higher than ours.As I said, have you any personal experience of this? I agree with in the general sense. In fact I'd agree with you approximately 99.3% of the time. About 0.5% (educated guess) of the LTU are abusing the system. I'm sure you can do the subtraction, that means that 1.2% are LTU for non-abusive reasons; such as failures in other elements of the social welfare system. Case in point: a recovering cancer patient can't claim, in cases outside of the norm, disability benefit/sick leave etc. Nor can they work. Case in point: a young adult with a very disturbing childhood (where the State failed, as a matter of point) who has social problems as a result thereof and who has tried several times to work but failed deserves, imo, benefit. Case in point: adult children of the mentally-ill elderly, who cannot afford nursing home care, nor are eligible for it, who work purely out of the home. If you'd like to go into home-carer's payments go ahead but that's a far trickier land-mine than LTU.
I'm not getting personal.
Of course all of these people deserve social welfare but these cases involve people who are not seeking work and are therefore not classified as unemployed. They should not claim unemployment benefit (jobseekers allowance) they should claim a disability benefit etc. Therefore, your 1.2% are back in as abusers/not actively seeking work.Sweden is one country and only have a population of 9m. ALthough it is a good reference point, it's hardly a necessarily transferable system of governance - not least because of the cultural differences. As a matter of point, again, they have a far higher unemployment rate, a lower GDP per capita and a far greater level of suicide.
The have a 1.8% higher UE rate... but whats there LTU rate? This is what really matters at the end of the day.
As economics student you should know at this stage all the measurement problems associated with Ireland's GDP for comparsions!!! Transfer pricing etc. GNP comparsion please.
Suicide... source?Our sentences are actually pitiful. Case in point: the average time spent in jail for rape is three years. It should also be noted that the crime:conviction ratio for rape stands (estimated) at 50:1. There's a 2% chance of conviction of rape, and a average sentence of three years. Three years in jail for fifty rapes. It is not longer sentences.
The USA also have far more police per population than us. It's not enforcement.
It's that America has more crime. You didn't do the analysis I asked you to.
Ask any victim of crime would they rather the crime had not been commited in the first place. It's about forty times more expensive to keep someone in jail than to pay them benefit.
You just proved my point about the stats, which country is going to have a higher amount of people in prison per million of pop at a given time:
A: Gives 3 year rape sentences
B: Gives life for rape.
Obviously B! Therefore, the crime rate may be the same but just B punishes it harder. (I'm not claiming our rate is as high as the USA, I am claiming the gap may not be as a high as you think.)
Cost of putting people in prison. Yes it is expensive but:
1. There will be scale economies if the whole country turns into criminals as your suggesting.
2. Perhaps less coldheartly, the gain to society will see increased rule of law which will shift the production function upwards on the Solow Growth model and allow increased output per person. Africa- no rule of law-no economic growth.
Therefore, again not as expensive as you might think.You haven't done the analysis I asked you to. Nor have you stated your personal experience (or lack thereof) of the system. You've also changed your tone significantly since my last post (not something I'd like to see reversed, mind).
Care to explain?0 -
-
My apologies. The US's rate has fallen recently. However, it still stands at 21% higher than Ireland's rate.Right_Side wrote:Source?doing a job that the scum who beat them up won't do because its too easy to claim social welfare and steal, deal etc.
Right.I'm not getting personal.
For the record, there's nothing in economics that says you can't get personal. By all means one must be scientific and not let emotion interfere with analysis; but economics above all other subjects requires emotion. You're dealing with people's livelihoods.
Statistically, I agree they should not be claiming. But if I were to advise them on a personal basis, I'd tell them to claim. Equally, if I were a politician in charge of this, I'd turn a blind-eye. There are failings in the system, and the benefit should land on the individual. UB is the method the State recognises its own failings, tbh. The point stands that the 1.7% figure which is so often flouted by the "they're thieving scum" gang is very mis-leading. Linking the LTE to the rioters, or even the inverse, is very disingenuous. That's the point I'm making, and although I don't speak for him, I presume that's the point Andrew_83 was making.Of course all of these people deserve social welfare but these cases involve people who are not seeking work and are therefore not classified as unemployed. They should not claim unemployment benefit (jobseekers allowance) they should claim a disability benefit etc. Therefore, your 1.2% are back in as abusers/not actively seeking work.
I can't find the LTU rate for Swedent. I will accept an assumption that it's lower without blinking, but that's because they're so strict on the unemployment benefit. They're also far less strict on disability benefit however. Another case in point: Britain. I'm sure I don't have to go into the details of their disability benefit?The have a 1.8% higher UE rate... but whats there LTU rate?
I vehemently disagree! Are you really saying that a high, albeit fluid, unemployment rate is so negligable? Please! I have two main assertions. The first is that our actual long-term unemployment is nothing to worry about and is actually beneficial relative to the alternative.This is what really matters at the end of the day.
I do of course! For your benefit, I spared you the relevant GNI/PPP calculationsAs economics student you should know at this stage all the measurement problems associated with Ireland's GDP for comparsions!!!.
World Bank - Ireland's PPP is over €33,000 while Sweden lingers beneath €30,000.
457 people took their lives in Ireland in 2004: (reference). Taking 4m as our population, that's 11.4 per 100k. Taking Sweden's population as 9m, with 1196 suicides in 2001 (which I believe has risen since), that's 13.3 per 100k.Suicide... source?
Yeah, ironically my rant about rape didn't suit my argument very much! Point taken on incarceration; but the crime rate is substantially higher. That point, the main one I was getting at, still stands. I'm of the opinion that American conservatism, and frankly ignorance, with regard to unemployment and poverty is the determining factor in its crime-rate. I think empirical analysis (take just about any) of poverty and crime is pretty over-whelming.You just proved my point about the stats, which country is going to have a higher amount of people in prison per million of pop at a given time:
A: Gives 3 year rape sentences
B: Gives life for rape.
Obviously B! Therefore, the crime rate may be the same but just B punishes it harder. (I'm not claiming our rate is as high as the USA, I am claiming the gap may not be as a high as you think.)
I'm not suggesting we remove the rule of law or try diminish any effects on an over-simplistic, not empirically-proven economic modelCost of putting people in prison. Yes it is expensive but:
1. There will be scale economies if the whole country turns into criminals as your suggesting.
2. Perhaps less coldheartly, the gain to society will see increased rule of law which will shift the production function upwards on the Solow Growth model and allow increased output per person. Africa- no rule of law-no economic growth.
Therefore, again not as expensive as you might think.. I'm explicity stating that being "personal" with our benefit is actually beneficial. Opportunity cost and all that.
Now I'm not suggesting we should let people run riot. As I said, I'm a bastard. But I definitely think, from both personal experience and "anecdotal" empirical analysis, it's in everyone's benefit to be somewhat compassionate with unemployment benefit (unless of course someone is doing nothing, but I think that's taken care of); and additionally, the sort of tar-with-the-same-brush effect of mentioning the rioters and unemployment benefit in the same sentence is very ignorant. I don't think I've ever met anyone with personal experience of unemployment benefit who feels this way. It tends only to come from:- Economists who see only the figures
- Non-economists who see nothing but their tax bill
You're far more reasonable!Care to explain?
. Your first comment, that you were taken to toe on, was out of line. I don't think anyone has any problem with you questioning our welfare system, although perhaps a little off-topic on this thread/board I'd encourage it! However the comment linking the rioters to the LTE is ignorant and offensive to those on LTE and who are not the scum who rioted.
It's the same sort of association of "tax-dodging millionaires" or "landed gentry" that I find repulsive and ignorant.
Out of interest, are you in the department? If so, isn't Sébastian Wälti the best thing since sliced bread?. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Angry Banana wrote:My apologies. The US's rate has fallen recently. However, it still stands at 21% higher than Ireland's rate.
Which in reality is ~4%(Ireland) to ~5% (U.S.A.). Not the biggest gap in the world... far smaller than your 21% higher would infer (even though it is correct). The hiring and firing rules in the USA facilitate a much higher temporary (transitional) STU rate. But a lower natural rate of unemployment.Right.
For the record, there's nothing in economics that says you can't get personal. By all means one must be scientific and not let emotion interfere with analysis; but economics above all other subjects requires emotion. You're dealing with people's livelihoods.
I just don't want to discuss personal details on the internet... i think thats fair enough.Statistically, I agree they should not be claiming. But if I were to advise them on a personal basis, I'd tell them to claim. Equally, if I were a politician in charge of this, I'd turn a blind-eye. There are failings in the system, and the benefit should land on the individual. UB is the method the State recognises its own failings, tbh.
Well we are not talking about the individual we are talking about whats good for society. Every individual seeks to maximise their income and minimise their tax burden. This is why everyone moans about their own tax burden (and seeks to reduce it) but as a society we realise that reducing the tax levy in one place increases it somewhere else. E.g. VRT goes - then tax on petrol increases.
We are not in "wink and elbow" country of 20-30-40 years ago.The point stands that the 1.7% figure which is so often flouted by the "they're thieving scum" gang is very mis-leading. Linking the LTE to the rioters, or even the inverse, is very disingenuous. That's the point I'm making, and although I don't speak for him, I presume that's the point Andrew_83 was making.
Fair enough it was a generalisation but how many of these people are working full time/will every work?I can't find the LTU rate for Swedent. I will accept an assumption that it's lower without blinking, but that's because they're so strict on the unemployment benefit. They're also far less strict on disability benefit however. Another case in point: Britain. I'm sure I don't have to go into the details of their disability benefit?
Sweden is isn't the perfect system (and I never said it was). But there are points that we could take from it and use.
Britain is actively seeking to tackle their burden.I vehemently disagree! Are you really saying that a high, albeit fluid, unemployment rate is so negligable? Please! I have two main assertions. The first is that our actual long-term unemployment is nothing to worry about and is actually beneficial relative to the alternative.
LTU is the root of all evil when it comes to unemployment. They are a constant burden on the state, generate negative externalities, correlated to increased crime etc. Germany, France and Italy have whopping LTU rates and it is crippling them. They pay too much benefit... whats the incentive to work it your getting the same for doing nothing?
In my opinion, the benefits to the unemployed should start off very high and constantly decrease to 0 within a year and also incorporate the Swedish "job available you must take it system". This way the unemployed aren't punished for losing their job and have a strong incentive to act quickly.I do of course! For your benefit, I spared you the relevant GNI/PPP calculations.
World Bank - Ireland's PPP is over €33,000 while Sweden lingers beneath €30,000.
I'm not claiming Sweden is prefect. I am suggesting I like the policy mentioned above. Although I would venture to say that gap is significantly smaller then the GDP difference.
Hardly a mind boggling difference now in fairness. Anyway, have any stats been produced confirming a correlation between UE and suicide?
Even if they have:
TRADEOFF- poor Ireland but great community spirit and less suicides V. rich Ireland but less community spirit and higher suicides. What would you choose?Yeah, ironically my rant about rape didn't suit my argument very much! Point taken on incarceration; but the crime rate is substantially higher. That point, the main one I was getting at, still stands. I'm of the opinion that American conservatism, and frankly ignorance, with regard to unemployment and poverty is the determining factor in its crime-rate. I think empirical analysis (take just about any) of poverty and crime is pretty over-whelming.
You could argue that America has a problem a higher crime rate due to its higher population. The sharing of info, ideas, copycats, acceptability etc. between criminals will dramatically increase it.I'm not suggesting we remove the rule of law or try diminish any effects on an over-simplistic, not empirically-proven economic model. I'm explicity stating that being "personal" with our benefit is actually beneficial. Opportunity cost and all that.
Your going to have a explain what you mean by "being personal with our benefit."Now I'm not suggesting we should let people run riot. As I said, I'm a bastard. But I definitely think, from both personal experience and "anecdotal" empirical analysis, it's in everyone's benefit to be somewhat compassionate with unemployment benefit (unless of course someone is doing nothing, but I think that's taken care of); and additionally, the sort of tar-with-the-same-brush effect of mentioning the rioters and unemployment benefit in the same sentence is very ignorant. I don't think I've ever met anyone with personal experience of unemployment benefit who feels this way. It tends only to come from:- Economists who see only the figures
- Non-economists who see nothing but their tax bill
Compassion... sounds like socialism... sounds like Germany, France, Italy... sounds like a high LTU rate... sounds like economic stagnation... sounds like 1980's Ireland... sounds like 15+% UE rate... sounds like 40,000 of our best and brightest emigrating every year.
See point above about tarring the rioters.You're far more reasonable!. Your first comment, that you were taken to toe on, was out of line. I don't think anyone has any problem with you questioning our welfare system, although perhaps a little off-topic on this thread/board I'd encourage it! However the comment linking the rioters to the LTE is ignorant and offensive to those on LTE and who are not the scum who rioted.
1. Anyone who rioted is scum.
2. I fail to see how I was more reasonable I simply compared two systems of UE benefit both of which, in my opinion, encourage work more then here.
3. Ignorant?- would anyone care to argue that the rioters yesterday are hard working tax paying productive member of society?It's the same sort of association of "tax-dodging millionaires" or "landed gentry" that I find repulsive and ignorant.
These guys are entrepreneurs who deserve their earnings and if they exploit a legal loophole to decrease their tax burden that is hardly their fault. Against the fradusters who are illegally claiming benefit.Out of interest, are you in the department? If so, isn't Sébastian Wälti the best thing since sliced bread?. 0 -
-
really if it's not a job looking after kids and supporting them why are single mothers most prone to poverty and social exclusion in our society? Most modern women end up doing two jobs, working to support their family and then going home to do the dishes/ look after the kids. Kids don't feed themselves, women have being doing that job for centuries and to be honest it's pretty telling on your part not to consider it good enough to be called a job.e]Clearly it is not a job. One of the main reasons of Ireland's increased economic growth is that married females with children are coming back into the labour force where they should be... not at home minding the children as you are suggesting.!
If you knew your social policy you would know that a lot of our economic growth was down to social partnership and the Programe for National Recovery (1986) which devised by the employers, TUs and farming interests as a result of the recession. In it offered centralised wage aggreements, a commitment to keeping inflation low (and prevent devaluation of our curreny), also to adivse the government on complementary policies that would faciltate social and economic growth. Ireland being a relatively small and open economy the SPs of the day sought to open it up and to do this they reduced corporate tax and in doing some attracted investment from lots of american firms seeking to invest in Ireland eg pharmaceuticals, IT etc, the CAP (common argicultural policy provided by the eu) also sought to protect framing interests. NESC and NESF set up implementation and advisory bodies to protect against future recessions like the one in the 80s.
women have been in the labour market for a long time before the market analysts dubbed our most recent boom the celtic tiger so attributing one factor to our economic boom is more of a casual attribution then a logical deduction. Bearing in mind many women are often in lower paid jobs(secetaries and such) and do not earn the equivilant of their male colleagues and many are forced to take part time jobs as they have a more important role/ job in looking after their kids and affording them the best opportunities in terms of growth and development (social, physical and emotional health can at best in part be attributed to a child's close environment ie their home and their social environment, notably their parents and siblings) in doing so and help them form good attachments and relationships for their future (is this not an important role?). Parallel play and cooperative play would be impossible with out the help of time spent by their parents/ mother with them, and by them providing opportunities in the environment for thier growth eg types of toys and modelling, learning by watching thier parents/ mother do it first. Play is essential to a child's development, and not just their social but also their cognitive devlelopment and i am prepared to expand on this to include Piaget's theory of cognitive development if you want me to.
Bowlby's mother deprivation hypothesis states that "motherly care is as important to a child's growth and development as are vitamins and minerals".
so in answer to your assumptino that looking after kids isn't a job and isn't important for a kids development i suggest you read up on developmental psychology
and they lose their benefits when they start working, most work is vocational that is offered to disabled people. mainstream work often involves employers paying less then a person without a disability.Of course there a social benefits to this but if they were working the Gov. would have a higher tax yield to increase spending on education, child care etc.
if a disabled person works in the public sector it is certainly a lot easier to get their job back and the modifications necessary to their environment, in the private sector this doesn't always happen as you are more dispensible even though technically if it is illegal to discriminate under the equality acts (how can you prove it? they can just say you failed the interview stage..)
[/quote] to be perfectly honest you made a huge generalisation about disabled people being unable to work in your previous post, as if they didn't count in the labour force. maybe you should have made your last post clearer if you didn't mean to generalise as that's what you did.If a disabled person is seeking work or in work they are part of the labour force... if they aren't they are not part of the labour force. Same as anyone else.
E.g. the people you are talking about are part of the labour force as they are seeking work in contrast the ones Angry Banana was talking about who are not seeking work.
on another point Many disabled people look for work but people won't employ them. It is wrong to assume that becuse someone has some kind of physical or mental disability they don't deserve a job .0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement