How does the government plan to create jobs?

Sandvich

I'm confused as to this one. There's a general insistance in this forum, that despite the IMF's utter failure in such policy, it's a case of slash and burn to get Ireland out of it's special circumstance.

But what about creating jobs? You drop welfare to shove people into jobs (:rolleyes:) but where are they going to come from?

Cutting your way out of a recession doesn't really work. Realistically, what the government should have done at the start of this mess was said **** the banks, and spend a ****load of money on creating all kinds of arseways jobs. We'd have been in a lot of debt, but we'd have worked our way out of it since we'd actually have a reasonable tax intake, and have a good chance to build up infrastructure(Which is also good for the economy).

I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

I also don't understand the complaints about dole being too high, etc., when it's acceptable to piss money into the banks. Why is corporate welfare okay? Libertarians in particular seem to have an issue where some kinds of welfare are okay, the kinds they like, others not so much. Or do they take issue with the bailing out of the banks? If so, why do they focus so much on welfare?

I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?

We won't create any new jobs. They won't be able to spend any more money, since the whole way they're staying afloat is by cutting and slashing. It's a stagnant position, which is why it has tended to stunt growth rate in areas "Helped" by the IMF.

I think the governments main plan is to set public and private sector workers against each other and hope to detract from what a mess they made, and the EU does something or other.

Amhran Nua

Sandvich wrote: »

I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?

I don't think the current government has any particular plans beyond staving off the inevitable until they can retire. Meanwhile, here are a few good ideas.

stepbar

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm confused as to this one. There's a general insistance in this forum, that despite the IMF's utter failure in such policy, it's a case of slash and burn to get Ireland out of it's special circumstance.

But what about creating jobs? You drop welfare to shove people into jobs (:rolleyes:) but where are they going to come from?

Cutting your way out of a recession doesn't really work. Realistically, what the government should have done at the start of this mess was said **** the banks, and spend a ****load of money on creating all kinds of arseways jobs. We'd have been in a lot of debt, but we'd have worked our way out of it since we'd actually have a reasonable tax intake, and have a good chance to build up infrastructure(Which is also good for the economy).

I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

I also don't understand the complaints about dole being too high, etc., when it's acceptable to piss money into the banks. Why is corporate welfare okay? Libertarians in particular seem to have an issue where some kinds of welfare are okay, the kinds they like, others not so much. Or do they take issue with the bailing out of the banks? If so, why do they focus so much on welfare?

I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?

We won't create any new jobs. They won't be able to spend any more money, since the whole way they're staying afloat is by cutting and slashing. It's a stagnant position, which is why it has tended to stunt growth rate in areas "Helped" by the IMF.

I think the governments main plan is to set public and private sector workers against each other and hope to detract from what a mess they made, and the EU does something or other.

Here's an idea... maybe the people THEMSELVES should take responcibility to create jobs themselves? Remind me of a time in college when students gave out about the college not doing enough to secure work placements for people. Those who got placements did the donkey work themselves. You cannot seriously expect the Government to solve absolutely every problem in this country. It's time people took personal responcibility for what happened during the boom years and try to work through it.

And BTW I'm not in any way trying to absolve the Government from their sins but people need to take responcibility as well.

danman

I'm not an economist sandvich, in fact i didn't even get to any economics lectures at Uni (9am start, I worked till 4am the night before).

But even I know that the only way to create jobs is promoting business.

But firstly the deficit must come down. That means cuts.
The money required for the. Things you outline and if we didn't cut, has to come from borrowing. Higher deficit.

The money for NAMA being given at a different rate because it's considered investment. If we used this money for anything else, it goes onto the deficit at higher rates.

Ditto, most of the money for the bailouts.

A simple look at Greece over the past 10 years will explain everything.
We are only 2 years into their 10 year journey.
They used the model you are advocating, they are now completly broke.

We can't rely on borrowing.
We have to cut the deficit.

We have to cut.

(like I explained, economics wasn't my subject. Sorry if I over simplify)

Sandvich

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I don't think the current government has any particular plans beyond staving off the inevitable until they can retire. Meanwhile, here are a few good ideas.

Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

But firstly the deficit must come down. That means cuts.
The money required for the. Things you outline and if we didn't cut, has to come from borrowing. Higher deficit.

It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

"We can't rely on borrowing, we have to cut". People keep saying this, yet many economic models hold the opposite. That the only way is to bear with it and keep borrowing, then raise taxes when we have another boom to pay for it.

danman

But is that not exactly what Greece did for the past 10 years, borrow?

Amhran Nua

Sandvich wrote: »

Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

Not a bother, and not a mention of borrowing in there either.

Sandvich wrote: »

It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

We're into the Keynesian neoclassical synthesis these days, pure Keynesian theory is a bit outdated. What many governments are doing is dipping into their own reserves in order to provide stimulus packages, like the Germans and Chinese, although neither are free of debt either. The important difference to draw is between borrowing to pay persistent costs like public sector wages, and borrowing for investment. The former is bad (Greece) the latter can be good (most businesses or infrastructural investment), as recognised by the markets. The chancers in the Dáil managed to get our sovereign debt reclassified as an investment, but that won't last long.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Regulation can stimulate entrepreneurship if its done right, take a look at Song dynasty China.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Business and investment funds aren't paid out of the national coffers.

stepbar

Sandvich wrote: »

Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.




It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

"We can't rely on borrowing, we have to cut". People keep saying this, yet many economic models hold the opposite. That the only way is to bear with it and keep borrowing, then raise taxes when we have another boom to pay for it.

So what do you propose our next "boom" will be based on? Property again eh? The country took their eye of the ball during the last boom... and by that I mean the likes of the IDA etc were concentrated on attracting business to the country. Fair enough that's their remit. But in the mean time we forgot about creating our own export environment and the sustainable jobs that could be created from engaging in real exporting and not from depending on the likes of Microsoft exporting billions worth of software every year. The likes of Microsoft will only remain in this country as long as it's worth their while economically. As least an Irish company who engages in export "might" have some sort of loyalty to the country.

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people can't see the connection, including people who have an unwarrented excess of power in determining the economic future of this country, Jack O Connor and friends

Count Dooku

Sandvich wrote: »

I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating.

Keeping welfare benefits and public sector wages untouched through increased taxes will not increase amount of circulating money, but will destroy motivation in private sector to earn more

zootroid

Sandvich wrote: »

Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.




It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

"We can't rely on borrowing, we have to cut". People keep saying this, yet many economic models hold the opposite. That the only way is to bear with it and keep borrowing, then raise taxes when we have another boom to pay for it.

That's too simplistic an argument. Surely the debate should be about the inefficient use of government resources, ie taxpayers money. If cuts were made to the public sector wage bill and social welfare, we would have to borrow less and pay less interest (which is not only a leakage to the economy, but a very unproductive use of money). It might also free up funds that could be invested in infrastructure. Improved infrastructure will help businesses become more competitive, which will lead to more employment, more taxes being raised, and the government then makes a return on its investment.

Simple example, if someone earns 30k in the public sector, and 20k in the private sector for the exact same job, then the state is being ripped off to the tune of 10k, which could be put to more productive uses. Multiply that by the numbers employed in the public sector and it becomes a huge amount of money. That money could be put to much more productive uses.

It also creates a disincentive for people to stay in the private sector, which is where risks are taken, and wealth is generated. How many public sector organisations do you know of that provide consumer goods/services? And how many do so on a competitive basis, ie not subsidised by the state or subject to favourable regulations? The role of the public sector should be to provide services for the public that can't be provided by the private sector, or would be undesirable to be provided by the private sector (eg law enforcement). It should also be the aim of the state to create an environment where enterprise thrives. But governments have no business trying to run businesses that can just as easily be run by private sector organisations (eg airlines).

Back to my original point, the opposite to cutting would be to continue borrowing, which is akin to taking out a loan and thinking you're suddenly rich. In any basic economics class you are taught that governments should only borrow for capital purposes. Similarly, a business would not fund its day to day operations with long term borrowings. Long term loans should only be sought for capital projects as they will provide a return on the investment. So while the government is trying to cut its public sector wage bill and social welfare bill, doing so will help ensure its resources are going to a more productive use.

Sandvich

Which libertarians on this forum are complaining about welfare while supporting corporate bailouts? I personally support neither.

Come on, which do you bitch about more? At the end of the day what's more important to your ideology is that the workers get a kick in the teeth. If people end up dying in the streets for libertarian principles, who gives a ****? Just make up some excuse as to how people would be magically better and more capable without a government. I'm sick of people moaning about welfare which some people actually need yet the far more wasteful uses of money go ignored.

And you can't complain about me saying something like that when you continually make chidlish insults like "Oh this is the heart of the issue - statists just LOVE to be controlled!". ****ing pathetic.

You don't see the connection between the national debt and the collapsing economy? If we didn't have any debt, how would we be collapsing?

Because, get this, there aren't any jobs. 15+% unemployment isn't great for the economy, you know?

astrofool

We can't spend our way out because we are in the Euro. We could have done like the UK if we had the punt, decrease our value (and worth of every citizen in the country by 35%), printed money until the punt collapsed, and turn into Zimbabwe, or we can cut the costs and make ourselves more competitive internationally so that we attract businesses here, and increase our exports (and money coming in). We are paying ourselves more than every other western country in the world, this is not in any way sustainable.

Which would you prefer, everyone to lose 30%+ of their net worth due to currency devaluation, or make cuts?

murphaph

Sandvich wrote: »

Because, get this, there aren't any jobs. 15+% unemployment isn't great for the economy, you know?

Why do you think people are being made redundant and factories moving to Poland?

We are still far too expensive a country to do business in. Costs need to come down to stop the loss of jobs and reverse the tide.

The only real way out of a recession for a small open economy is to export your way out. We must get exports up. How do we do that with high costs for exporters though? We must redce the burden on exporters by reducing minimum wages, social welfare and public sector pay to Eurozone average levels at most and let businesses and individuals work, without taxing the hell out of them, thus creating jobs.

How would you create export led jobs without cutting business costs, primarily wages?

Head The Wall

Sandvich wrote: »

Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

So if you can't tax your way out of a recession and you can't cut your way out of a recession whats the solution so? Are we just to do nothing so?

alias141282

murphaph wrote: »

The only real way out of a recession for a small open economy is to export your way out. We must get exports up. How do we do that with high costs for exporters though? We must redce the burden on exporters by reducing minimum wages, social welfare and public sector pay to Eurozone average levels at most and let businesses and individuals work, without taxing the hell out of them, thus creating jobs.

Murphaph do you know how many jobs will be created in Ireland if exports grow, lets say by 3% a year over the next five years?

Sleepy

Sandvich wrote: »

Come on, which do you bitch about more?

I can explain why I focus more on the welfare systeom and wage bill and waste of the public sector than on the corporate bailouts: we're in a position to do something about them.

From everything I'm reading, the government have driven us down a course where we can no longer allow our banks to fail without causing far more expensive/damaging results than the expensive/damaging results of their current course of action. i.e. we're damned if we continue but we're worse damned if we change course.

The public sector unions have become so incredibly arrogant after a decade of being felated by Messr's Ahern and Cowen that they've lost all touch with reality and, to a large degree, their own membership. They're politically weak and financially without the resources for a meaningful strike. Speaking in generalities, their members aren't in a position to go without wages for more than a few days / weeks at best and have no better alternatives in the private sector so when push comes to shove are better off accepting a 15/20% paycut than joining the thousands already on the dole.

Our social welfare system is overly generous. There is no way we need to be giving out *THREE* times the level of unemployment benefit of our nearest neighbour who, in terms of cost of living etc. are *reasonably* comparable to us (based on my having spent the past 6 months over here - the main cost differentials are on luxuries like alcohol and supermarkets being about 10-20% cheaper). Rent allowance levels being dropped would have an almost immediate effect on rent levels around the country and would lead to a minimum of suffering for those in receipt of it (the pain being suffered by their landlords instead).

All a politician needs in order to make drastic improvements to our defecit is the willingness to put the good of the country ahead of his desire to be re-elected. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen in this banana republic.

Spudmonkey

Sandvich wrote: »

Because, get this, there aren't any jobs. 15+% unemployment isn't great for the economy, you know?

Why not get out and create some jobs. There are a few on boards who have taken it upon themselves to get up of their ****s and get out and do something. And not just setting up a coffee shop or hair-dressing salon, but companies which actually exports services abroad, which guess what... are exactly what we need!!

We should thank our lucky stars these people are still here willing to pay taxes in a country which actively seems to discourage any kind of entrepreneurship (what with no safety nets for those who are actually willing to take a chance)

Even those who are involved in wealth generation in this country, how reliant are we on FDI? Even I am guilty of it. We always seem to expect someone to come in and set up a company and start employing people. Never taking it upon ourselves.

alias141282

Sleepy wrote: »

I can explain why I focus more on the welfare systeom and wage bill and waste of the public sector than on the corporate bailouts: we're in a position to do something about them.

From everything I'm reading, the government have driven us down a course where we can no longer allow our banks to fail without causing far more expensive/damaging results than the expensive/damaging results of their current course of action. i.e. we're damned if we continue but we're worse damned if we change course.
.

Actually I heard on the radio this morning that Lenihan had hinted for the first time that anglo may have to be wound down. Of course I'm open to correction on that.

Sleepy wrote: »

The public sector unions have become so incredibly arrogant after a decade of being felated by Messr's Ahern and Cowen that they've lost all touch with reality and, to a large degree, their own membership.
.

Sleepy wrote: »

They're politically weak and financially without the resources for a meaningful strike. Speaking in generalities, their members aren't in a position to go without wages for more than a few days / weeks at best

So people who can't afford to go more than a few days without pay are "arrogant" and "out of touch".

ei.sdraob

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

For the Keynesian model to work
money has to be saved during the good times
needless to say that wasnt done

look at UK to see an example of failure of Keynesian economics


anyways borrowing 20billion a year and handing it over is a stimulus

Dazzler88

the government are doing the same as they did in the Eighties.Let the youth leave and hopefully it will relieve social welfare. who cares if 80,000 or so have to move abroad? You wont see any ministers sons or daughters going. Then these youth might comeback to retire and we'll give them an easy pension. Sure we didnt help them 40/50 years ago when they left,its the least we could do. History is repeating itself.

alias141282

Obviously the government would prefer if there was full employment in the country but employment is not the priority. The priority is fixing the banks, to get lending again, so the economy can return to growth. During the recession of the 1980's there was growth for something like 8 out of 9 years but there was still massive unemployment. When the Finnish economy returned to growth after its recession in the early 90's it was 5 years before there was any growth in employment.

Most of the unemployment is among the youth and they don't vote in big numbers - so the govt is hoping the world economy picks up and they will have places to emigrate to. If that doesn't happen then we are in trouble.

Nody

alias141282 wrote: »

So people who can't afford to go more than a few days without pay are "arrogant" and "out of touch".

Yes because if a person in PS is paid 10% or more then someone in a similar private company AND still have spent that much money that they can't afford even losing a few days of wage they are going to be royally screwed once the interest rate starts to rise; and that is even before we add in the next budget cuts in to the picture.

danbohan

Dazzler88 wrote: »

the government are doing the same as they did in the Eighties.Let the youth leave and hopefully it will relieve social welfare. who cares if 80,000 or so have to move abroad? You wont see any ministers sons or daughters going Then these youth might comeback to retire and we'll give them an easy pension. Sure we didnt help them 40/50 years ago when they left,its the least we could do. History is repeating itself.

agreed , and they also borrowed money to placate the public service in the 80s as they are doing now

jmayo

Ireland is in a much worse position now than ever it was in the 80s.

Not alone do we have a huge current deficit due to years of pandering to unionised public servants and welfare recipients, we have huge collosal cost fo bailing out insolvent useless banks.

Add in the fact that we don't have the luxury of having healthy world economies to offload our young unemployed.
Add in the fact that our labour and business costs are now very high and we have to compete with all the much cheaper Eastern European former Soviet block countries and Asia for FDI from Japan, Europe, US and Korea.
There is a worldwide recession meaning FDI is down anyway.

Add in the huge level of personal debt being carried by a huge chunk of our population in the age groups above 20 and below 50.

All of these mean that we are facing a much bigger uphill task than in the 80s.

The only way the government can directly create jobs is through wholesale infrastructure jobs which means capital expenditure.
It would be a kinda New Deal type affair but remember machines do much of the work that mankind once did.
I believe shoving people on Fás training courses is just massaging the figures.

The big thing the government can do is create an environment, so that it is attractive to set up business here and thus hope to create jobs that way.

Of course that means they cut the cost of doing business here by cutting minimum wages (and by extension welfare), cutting cost of services provided by the state to private sector (water, power, transport) and cutting state taxes (rates, prsi).

alias141282

jmayo wrote: »

Ireland is in a much worse position now than ever it was in the 80s.

Not alone do we have a huge current deficit due to years of pandering to unionised public servants and welfare recipients, we have huge collosal cost fo bailing out insolvent useless banks.

Add in the fact that we don't have the luxury of having healthy world economies to offload our young unemployed.
Add in the fact that our labour and business costs are now very high and we have to compete with all the much cheaper Eastern European former Soviet block countries and Asia for FDI from Japan, Europe, US and Korea.
There is a worldwide recession meaning FDI is down anyway.

Add in the huge level of personal debt being carried by a huge chunk of our population in the age groups above 20 and below 50.

All of these mean that we are facing a much bigger uphill task than in the 80s.
).

Totally agree.

jmayo wrote: »

The big thing the government can do is create an environment, so that it is attractive to set up business here and thus hope to create jobs that way.

Of course that means they cut the cost of doing business here by cutting minimum wages (and by extension welfare), cutting cost of services provided by the state to private sector (water, power, transport) and cutting state taxes (rates, prsi).

Yes to make Ireland attractive to foreign companies, given the competition we face now and given the shrinking pie of foreign direct investment, you would basically have to destroy democracy and divert almost all of the states resources away from core areas of social investment and instead give that money (through grants, investment and tax breaks) to private companies.

RichardAnd

stepbar wrote: »

Here's an idea... maybe the people THEMSELVES should take responcibility to create jobs themselves? Remind me of a time in college when students gave out about the college not doing enough to secure work placements for people. Those who got placements did the donkey work themselves. You cannot seriously expect the Government to solve absolutely every problem in this country. It's time people took personal responcibility for what happened during the boom years and try to work through it.

And BTW I'm not in any way trying to absolve the Government from their sins but people need to take responcibility as well.

Agreed. But alot of people DO expect the government to solve all their problems. I'm actually surprised that Joe Duffy didn't do a few shows where people could call up and ask what FF are going to do to stop that volcano erupting.

Would have been entertaining; "Joe, I pay me taxes like what them germans does, why can't me and me mates fly to Spain and get s**tfaced?"

BluePlanet

Which would you prefer, everyone to lose 30%+ of their net worth due to currency devaluation, or make cuts?

Why not take a bit of both?
Obviously we need cuts to the government bill, but that's self evident.
I thought the idea of a deflationary cycle was that it was going to make Ireland a cheaper place to do business adn therefor attract jobs?
And the only hitch was we can't do that the easy way by devaluing currency.

Why not push toward lower wages, reduce costs, mandate job-sharing, maybe a 3.5 day week (the goal being the one position is filled by 2 people) etc etc.
Surely it's better to get people working rather than idyling on the dole.

This "laissez faire" do-nothing isn't creating jobs.

Sandvich

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Why not get out and create some jobs. There are a few on boards who have taken it upon themselves to get up of their ****s and get out and do something. And not just setting up a coffee shop or hair-dressing salon, but companies which actually exports services abroad, which guess what... are exactly what we need!!

We should thank our lucky stars these people are still here willing to pay taxes in a country which actively seems to discourage any kind of entrepreneurship (what with no safety nets for those who are actually willing to take a chance)

Even those who are involved in wealth generation in this country, how reliant are we on FDI? Even I am guilty of it. We always seem to expect someone to come in and set up a company and start employing people. Never taking it upon ourselves.

Where are you going to get the loans for this? Also not everyone can run a business. People should absolutely do something about it - but what and how? There's something deeper wrong here, and it's not public servants and welfare recipients.

RichardAnd wrote: »

Agreed. But alot of people DO expect the government to solve all their problems. I'm actually surprised that Joe Duffy didn't do a few shows where people could call up and ask what FF are going to do to stop that volcano erupting.

Would have been entertaining; "Joe, I pay me taxes like what them germans does, why can't me and me mates fly to Spain and get s**tfaced?"

Expecting the people on their own to take any kind of organised action especially in Ireland is pretty unrealistic.

One of the Libertarian's rather assways excuse for bitching about welfare and not bailouts was that we could do something about it - it's possible to do something about the government, but getting everyone to fix the economy isn't going to work.

As per your comment; I heard a much better one; "Irish taxpayers pay for Volcano - sure why not, they're paying for everything else."

Sandvich

Why not push toward lower wages, reduce costs, mandate job-sharing, maybe a 3.5 day week (the goal being the one position is filled by 2 people) etc etc.
Surely it's better to get people working rather than idyling on the dole.

That's interesting, didn't France try something like that? And Germany tried something a bit opposite. Both had their virtues and flaws.

There are things the government can do. The ridiculously high explosion of Libertarians on this board makes everything a bit biased towards one way of thinking.

maninasia

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Why not get out and create some jobs. There are a few on boards who have taken it upon themselves to get up of their ****s and get out and do something. And not just setting up a coffee shop or hair-dressing salon, but companies which actually exports services abroad, which guess what... are exactly what we need!!

We should thank our lucky stars these people are still here willing to pay taxes in a country which actively seems to discourage any kind of entrepreneurship (what with no safety nets for those who are actually willing to take a chance)

Even those who are involved in wealth generation in this country, how reliant are we on FDI? Even I am guilty of it. We always seem to expect someone to come in and set up a company and start employing people. Never taking it upon ourselves.

But why would somebody setup a business in Ireland...high rates, high minimum wage, new energy taxes, restrictive work force practices. It's just not a very attractive place to setup for a small export company in many ways. Foreign companies can come in and get massive grants (100,000s per job) but your local export company will be on his own mostly, he'll have to choose the best place to setup for himself.

Spudmonkey

maninasia wrote: »

But why would somebody setup a business in Ireland...high rates, high minimum wage, new energy taxes, restrictive work force practices. It's just not a very attractive place to setup for a small export company in many ways. Foreign companies can come in and get massive grants (100,000s per job) but your local export company will be on his own mostly, he'll have to choose the best place to setup for himself.

Thats why I said everything in this country seems to actively discourage initiative and entrepreneurship.

What we really want is to be reliant on indigenous industries, not foreign ones.. and the attitude of this people in this country (as well as the govenment) would want to change before this happens!

Amhran Nua

maninasia wrote: »

But why would somebody setup a business in Ireland...high rates, high minimum wage, new energy taxes, restrictive work force practices. It's just not a very attractive place to setup for a small export company in many ways. Foreign companies can come in and get massive grants (100,000s per job) but your local export company will be on his own mostly, he'll have to choose the best place to setup for himself.

We do have some very attractive tax policies though, not just the low corporate rate. No CGT on sale of shares in subsidiary companies, tax free IP transfer rules, no thin capitalisation in many circumstances... Also if the rates are high you are probably in retail anyway, likewise with minimum wage (export businesses are typically highly skilled), so you wouldn't be exporting. Energy is a big one though. EI does provide grants and assistance for companies with high export potential, mind you there is a long list of caveats there.

Spudmonkey

Sandvich wrote: »

Where are you going to get the loans for this? Also not everyone can run a business. People should absolutely do something about it - but what and how? There's something deeper wrong here, and it's not public servants and welfare recipients.

Why not ask ei.sdraob? I know he has started his own business. All you need is an idea, if it's good enough, you'll get finance.

I know not everyone can start a business, some people have technical acumen, others business, others both and a lot of people have neither. Those that have the where-with-all to actual go on and succeed, should be encouraged, not leached off by people who are too lazy to have a go themselves..

We should be saying "Go on, take a chance, if you don't succeed, we'll pick you up, dust you off and start again". Without this kind of attitude, those with ability will have no incentive to get away from the welfare safety net!

Amhran Nua

Sandvich wrote: »

Where are you going to get the loans for this?

You don't need loans if you can get investment, I had a gruelling twelve hour round trip to meet with investors yesterday on an export based business concept. Fingers crossed... Still with that said, its not as easy as all that to start and run a business, I'd never take out a loan to get something new going - either pay it from your own pocket or find partners willing to do that. For reasonable expansion it might be worth considering.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

One of the Libertarian's rather assways excuse for bitching about welfare and not bailouts was that we could do something about it - it's possible to do something about the government, but getting everyone to fix the economy isn't going to work.

See this thread. In particular, see this post.

The costs of the public service and the welfare system far outweigh the costs of the bank bailouts in the long term. In 10 years time we will still be paying for bloated and inefficient public services. Additionally, welfare and public wages are far above what they should be. Take the old age pension: in real terms it went up during 2009 at the same time that thousands of people were losing their jobs.

I have little faith in the recovery of Ireland: it's too expensive to do business here and the cuts that need to be made will not be made due to vested interests and the population's sense of entitlement. It is for these reasons that I plan to emigrate when I finish my undergraduate degree.

maninasia

Amhran Nua wrote: »

We do have some very attractive tax policies though, not just the low corporate rate. No CGT on sale of shares in subsidiary companies, tax free IP transfer rules, no thin capitalisation in many circumstances... Also if the rates are high you are probably in retail anyway, likewise with minimum wage (export businesses are typically highly skilled), so you wouldn't be exporting. Energy is a big one though. EI does provide grants and assistance for companies with high export potential, mind you there is a long list of caveats there.

I agree there are good policies in Ireland for setting up businesses, tax is low and so forth. But the overall business environment is an issue, especially for manufacturing (this is my guess, not personal experience). If you want to employ large numbers of people you'd probably have to have a strong manufacturing sector. Hiring staff in Ireland would make me very wary, wages are still high compared to other countries, planning and environmental laws difficult to get through, firing workers (if neccessary) seems fraught with legal issues. This is not bad per se for the country overall but it just points to Ireland not being an ideal manufacturing location. It might be offset by other factors.

I see the government has instituted free workers from FAS WPP1/WPP2 scheme so maybe it's not so bad, some businessmen will take advantage of this.

BluePlanet

maninasia wrote: »

planning and environmental laws difficult to get through, firing workers (if neccessary) seems fraught with legal issues.

What specifically are you referring to when you cite "planning laws"?
The last 10 years have seen very light touch regulation regarding planning.
Also, what "environment laws" are posing such difficulties?
Are you saying that we are too tough on preserving our environment and those poor businesses should be allowed pollute more easily?

Also, doesn't some of that difficulty "firing workers" come from EU regulations?

I know a business that sliced a percentage of everyone's wages in USA without so much as a please and thankyou, but EU law prevented them from doing the same here.

Amhran Nua

I think its less that the legislation is bad for business in Ireland, its that Ireland has never made an effort to set up domestic manufacturing, whereas many other places have, for example South Korea, which went from a war torn developing country to a major industrial power in only a few decades. Denmark put a national focus on wind turbines back in the 80s, and now they employ 30,000 people and have billions in exports in that sector.

We went straight from attracting FDI to this idea of the smart economy in lieu of proper manufacturing, which was always going to be a bad idea, although it looked good to the government in light of stronger international IP laws and the lack of infrastructure needed. Once the top down political will exists, and you do need that, there is no reason why Ireland should not have a strong domestic manufacturing base.

maninasia

BluePlanet wrote: »

What specifically are you referring to when you cite "planning laws"?
The last 10 years have seen very light touch regulation regarding planning.
Also, what "environment laws" are posing such difficulties?
Are you saying that we are too tough on preserving our environment and those poor businesses should be allowed pollute more easily?

Also, doesn't some of that difficulty "firing workers" come from EU regulations?

I know a business that sliced a percentage of everyone's wages in USA without so much as a please and thankyou, but EU law prevented them from doing the same here.

I could imagine it's vey difficult to get any planning for heavy manufacturing. Look at Shell extraction pipeline to see what happens.

Now I am not saying we should go easier on pollution, YOU are saying that in a typical reflexive and simpleton way. I am saying that that is the way Ireland is setup so it is high cost compared to many other countries. A carbon tax has already been introduced in Ireland and energy is expensive.

Businesses can choose to setup where they please, I am outlining some of the reasons they may not choose Ireland or even the EU.

Most manufacturing is moving out of the EU anyway and if staying moving to Eastern Europe. So Ireland should concentrate on niche manufacturing or added value design or service centres as it is already doing. In this case Ireland would do better to brand itself as 'the green island', take it's advantages and run with it. Ireland is small enough but the world niche market is big enough for green products that it might work well.

dunsandin

I don't know what you are all on about. FF are fantastic at creating jobs. If you are even vaguely connected to them, they will create a job for you, with all the perks you could want. Just look at Celia Larkin, Eoin Harris, all the boys in the senate, all the lads and lasses on the quangos, the Buckos in Nama, (they even found one for Alan Dukes, and that takes a bit of doing, anyone remember the white grandad shirt and leather waistcoat?). They have kept so many Lawyers in jobs that they should start their own Law firm - Spinnit, Connem and Bung, has a certain ring to it. If it wasnt for FF, the entire Lenihan clan along with the Flynns and the Aherns would have to go back to selling Carpet and lino by the meter at car boot sales.
How can anybody doubt FF's job creation drive for even a minute. Oh, if your not one of the club, you can go swivel, but if your in, your Grinnin!

StudentDad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4L-fKOZ9Zs

It's all the pixies fault I tell ya.....

SD

northwest100

there was a mention of this before on boards.ie but didnt see it mentioned here yet..this scheme is behind the creation of some jobs.

It is an employment subsidy scheme for eligible enterprises employing 10 or more full time staff that can identify a number of full time (working an average of 35 hours or more per week) and part time (working an average of between 21 or more, but less than 35 hours per week) jobs at risk in their company, as a result of the current economic downturn.

The maximum full time subsidy is €9,100. The maximum part time subsidy is 70% of the full time subsidy, €6,370. The scheme runs for 52 weeks from 2nd November 2009 to 31st October 2010.

BluePlanet

maninasia wrote: »

I could imagine it's vey difficult to get any planning for heavy manufacturing. Look at Shell extraction pipeline to see what happens.

Heavy manufacturing would be expensive to setup in Ireland due to the reality that we have no indigenous iron ore industry, everything must be imported and the high costs of energy (which btw is mostly subsidised by we homeowners/renters; businesses get their ESB at a discounted rate)

maninasia wrote: »

A carbon tax has already been introduced in Ireland and energy is expensive.

Doesn't carbon tax put the tax more on those whom use the most? Makes sense to me. It's progressive and it's only the polluters whom make the most noise about it - The Haulage Industry.

maninasia wrote: »

Most manufacturing is moving out of the EU anyway and if staying moving to Eastern Europe.

Yep, it's usually what occurs when a society becomes more affluent it seems. At least it's an observable trend.
Ireland is not unique in this respect.

Odd that you lump Shell's extraction pipeline in with "heavy manufacturing". It's nothing of the sort.
Shell are expoiting a finite natural resource that we have, but they are cutting costs by running a High Pressure Gas line near people's homes.
It's dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

Amhran Nua

BluePlanet wrote: »

Heavy manufacturing would be expensive to setup in Ireland due to the reality that we have no indigenous iron ore industry

Lack of local resources didn't stop Japan or Korea to be honest...

murphaph

I've often wondered why we smelt Bauxite into alumina (Aughinish) but don't go the whole hog and produce aluminium.

unit 1

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm confused as to this one. There's a general insistance in this forum, that despite the IMF's utter failure in such policy, it's a case of slash and burn to get Ireland out of it's special circumstance.

But what about creating jobs? You drop welfare to shove people into jobs (:rolleyes:) but where are they going to come from?

Cutting your way out of a recession doesn't really work. Realistically, what the government should have done at the start of this mess was said **** the banks, and spend a ****load of money on creating all kinds of arseways jobs. We'd have been in a lot of debt, but we'd have worked our way out of it since we'd actually have a reasonable tax intake, and have a good chance to build up infrastructure(Which is also good for the economy).

I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

I also don't understand the complaints about dole being too high, etc., when it's acceptable to piss money into the banks. Why is corporate welfare okay? Libertarians in particular seem to have an issue where some kinds of welfare are okay, the kinds they like, others not so much. Or do they take issue with the bailing out of the banks? If so, why do they focus so much on welfare?

I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?

We won't create any new jobs. They won't be able to spend any more money, since the whole way they're staying afloat is by cutting and slashing. It's a stagnant position, which is why it has tended to stunt growth rate in areas "Helped" by the IMF.

I think the governments main plan is to set public and private sector workers against each other and hope to detract from what a mess they made, and the EU does something or other.

Mass unemployment is actually government policy, but no government could ever admit it.
We cannot devalue our currency, the euro so our only choice is to devalue our people (workforce) to give us the competitive edge normally done by traditional currency devaluations.
The best way to achieve this is a sustained period of mass unemployment to drive down wages,(costs) hence the governments policy of cutting ps pay to create a dominoe effect, and eventually cave into demands for reduction in minimum wage egged on by its private sector cheerleaders.
Don't be fooled by talk about saving and maintaining jobs, just look around and you will see that this is mostly empty rhetoric, sad but true.