Cutting overseas aid

neris

The MD of Glen Dimplex has said today that the government needs to cut the overseas aid budget. Surely its a logical move for the country to make. Its 600 million a year which could be used to pay off our debts or put towards running the country. If you were on the dole you wouldnt borrow from the bank to give to vincent de paul. It might be morally wrong to cut it but we need to look after ourselves 1st. On the other hand were giving the money away so perhaps we can lend it to the 3rd world and charge interest. At least we might get somthing back her hen ut givingand outs.

tenchi-fan

neris wrote: »

The MD of Glen Dimplex has said today that the government needs to cut the overseas aid budget. Surely its a logical move for the country to make. Its 600 million a year which could be used to pay off our debts or put towards running the country. If you were on the dole you wouldnt borrow from the bank to give to vincent de paul. It might be morally wrong to cut it but we need to look after ourselves 1st. On the other hand were giving the money away so perhaps we can lend it to the 3rd world and charge interest. At least we might get somthing back her hen ut givingand outs.

Lending is no different than giving aid for the simple reason we'd never get it back. Improving trade is always a good option. Charity is another. But personally I would not be happy taking a tax hike only for the money to be blown on some backward foreign regime.

RichardAnd

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Lending is no different than giving aid for the simple reason we'd never get it back. Improving trade is always a good option. Charity is another. But personally I would not be happy taking a tax hike only for the money to be blown on some backward foreign regime.

I'm pretty sure that's how the Germans feel about us Sorry, couldn't resist.

As to the matter of aid for the 3rd world, I've never been a fan of it. There are people right here in our own country starving and living on the streets. Better to help ourselves and our own before we look outside the box.

Kiki10

There is another option which is good for us and the poor of the 3rd world. We are still worlds apart from the people who have nothing. I think we should buy the aid here in Ireland and ship it to the third world. It might be a useful stimulus for us right now. Most of the NGO's working overseas also think just putting cash is some despots swiss bank account is probably the reason people are still starving in the same country's!

Amhran Nua

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Lending is no different than giving aid for the simple reason we'd never get it back.

On the contrary, microfinance is proving to be extremely valuable in many impoverished countries. Traditional charities do their best, but the combination of mini loan packages and education that microfinance companies bring seems to be sticking. I'd be in favour of converting much of our foreign aid to that system.

Max Power1

Ive never seen why we give overseas aid, however it makes less sense when we are up to our necks in debt.

John from dublin is sleeping rough in -13 celsius ireland, yet we are sending hundreds of millions abroad to fund some africans? Doesnt make sense imo.

dvpower

RichardAnd wrote: »

There are people right here in our own country starving and living on the streets.

They should visit their Community Welfare Officer and a hostel. There's no need at all for anyone to be starving on the streets in Ireland.

Cannibal Ox

It's a hard sell in times like these. I hope it won't be, despite the faults, Irish Aid does some really great work, and it helps people who are so much very, very worse off, and tries to do it in a lasting way. That's a wonderful way to use money and it's a moral 'thing' even. I can understand why people might want to go after it, but I'd prefer we cut TDs salaries, and generally eliminate waste across the system rather than cut what'd have to be one of the more/few successful elements of the Irish state.

Kiki10 wrote:

There is another option which is good for us and the poor of the 3rd world. We are still worlds apart from the people who have nothing. I think we should buy the aid here in Ireland and ship it to the third world. It might be a useful stimulus for us right now.

The practice of buying and/or sending things over to developing countries doesn't really exist in any meaningful way anymore. Basically, what's the better option, sending clothes over to someone or helping them set up a business to produce clothes?

Oxfam sells gifts, things like goats, pigs, bicycles and the like. These aren't bought and shipped to a country. By using that money to buy in local markets it injects cash into local markets and helps local businesses sell their products. Aid money needs to stimulate long term, sustainable development, and you can't do that by spending it all here.

Amhran Nua wrote:

On the contrary, microfinance is proving to be extremely valuable in many impoverished countries. Traditional charities do their best, but the combination of mini loan packages and education that microfinance companies bring seems to be sticking. I'd be in favour of converting much of our foreign aid to that system.

Micro-finance, not so much the wunderkid of development economics anymore. There's talk of microloan in crisis in India due to people not being able to repay and various shady going ons amongst micro-lenders and rival government programs.

The problem with development economics is that every now and again someone offers a new panacea to solve all poverty, policy makers jump in excitement, and backing from major donors arrives. While some work in some cases, and some don't, the problem is that 'solving' poverty is an extremely complex issue with no single answer.

In other words, micro-fiance might work in some cases in some ways, but if you commit to a single strategy for spending in a complex scenario, it's quite possible that the strategy will fail. Multi-pronged approaches to solving complex cases and all that.

Max Power1 wrote:

John from dublin is sleeping rough in -13 celsius ireland, yet we are sending hundreds of millions abroad to fund some africans? Doesnt make sense imo.

Yes he is, while Dermot Ahern, our former minister for foreign affairs, is currently walking away with a significantly large golden handshake and pension, several thousand houses around the country lie empty, and a variety of other examples of atrocious waste that leave the mind numb and exhaused. Why is John sleeping rough in the cold in these circumstances? I have absolutely no idea.

Amhran Nua

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Micro-finance, not so much the wunderkid of development economics anymore. There's talk of microloan in crisis in India due to people not being able to repay and various shady going ons amongst micro-lenders and rival government programs.

That would be largely the result of extortionate interest terms being applied by dodgy dealers though, something I couldn't imagine would be an issue with an Irish government run programme. They have had similar problems in the Philippines with something called five-six, small loans which are put out on the basis that you pay one peso in interest for every five of the loan, ongoing, basically 16% interest. The sharks handing out the loans never even heard of sustainability, leading to something like what's happening in India, with politicians calling for mass defaults.

Note the public anger is about abuses in the industry, not the underlying concept, which is quite successful.

I mean look at this:

Government officials in the state say they had little choice but to act, and point to women like Durgamma Dappu, a widowed laborer from this impoverished village who took a loan from a private microfinance company because she wanted to build a house.

She had never had a bank account or earned a regular salary but was given a $200 loan anyway, which she struggled to repay. So she took another from a different company, then another, until she was nearly $2,000 in debt. In September she fled her village, leaving her family little choice but to forfeit her tiny plot of land, and her dreams.

The loans are means for business and enterprise, the services for saving and capital growth, not as shoehorned mortgages - of course if you loan money to people at insane interest rates without paying attention to the ability of the recipient to pay, it will be a disaster.

From wikipedia, in his latest study, the famous two time pulitzer prize winner, Nicholas Donabet Kristof states that there is no evidence of any negative influence of micro financing but countless examples of people now looking at the bigger picture and saving for better things have surfaced. The example of BancoSol(Bolivia), where the number of savers has grown to twice as much as the number of borrowers, further strengthens his theory.

The main criticism is of abuse by lenders, again not something I can see being an issue with directly controlled lending. For example the IPO of the Mexican MFI Banco Compartamos in 2007, which was able to generate very high profits by increasing interest rates on their micro-loans, which at one point reached 86% per year.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

In other words, micro-fiance might work in some cases in some ways, but if you commit to a single strategy for spending in a complex scenario, it's quite possible that the strategy will fail. Multi-pronged approaches to solving complex cases and all that.

This is quite true, however I still stand by microfinance as a majority strategy.

Dannyboy83

Fianna Fail got us into this mess, and it's lack of political will, primarily on behalf of Fianna Fail, which is preventing us getting out of it.

Many of those countries to which the aid will be sent do not necessarily have such a straightforward escape.

Also, 600million would just about pay the social welfare bill here for a week, whereas it could have enormous positive consequences in the recipient country, the money could go a lot further.

Dannyboy83

dvpower wrote: »

They should visit their Community Welfare Officer and a hostel. There's no need at all for anyone to be starving on the streets in Ireland.

This is incorrect.
The Community Welfare Officer turned my girlfriend away less than 4 weeks ago.

Perhaps this isn't making it into the papers, but it's a lot more common than you may be led to believe.

Amhran Nua

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Perhaps this isn't making it into the papers, but it's a lot more common than you may be led to believe.

What I am getting from people would support this. Please be aware you have the right to appeal on at least two levels.

Dannyboy83

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What I am getting from people would support this. Please be aware you have the right to appeal on at least two levels.

Thanks, we currently have an appeal underway but we have been advised by the DSW that it will take months, up to 12, in order to process the appeal.

I am probably going to elevate to the ombudsman, depending on the outcome or length of delay of the current appeal, as I believe it is racism, although my father maintains it's simply gross incompetence.

I wrote about it here if you would like to read further:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68915747

The Community welfare office turned my girlfriend away in the knowledge that she would be homeless, with no money and probably raped.
I'm not sure why this stuff is not making it into the papers.

dvpower

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The Community welfare office turned my girlfriend away in the knowledge that she would be homeless, with no money and probably raped.

You'd allow your girlfriend to become homeless, broke and be at risk of rape?
What a catch.

cavedave

Instead of overseas aid I think we should reduce trade restrictions with the third world and allow in more poor migrant workers from the third world. Both of these have been shown to help us and the third world unlike aid that has a much more marginal benefit.

Max Power1

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Yes he is, while Dermot Ahern, our former minister for foreign affairs, is currently walking away with a significantly large golden handshake and pension, several thousand houses around the country lie empty, and a variety of other examples of atrocious waste that leave the mind numb and exhaused. Why is John sleeping rough in the cold in these circumstances? I have absolutely no idea.

So we should divert money (that we borrow at somewhat exorbitant rates) from irish homeless organisations and send it to africa, just because we have some overpaid fatcat politicians getting a big payoff? Logic fail there.

dvpower wrote: »

You'd allow your girlfriend to become homeless, broke and be at risk of rape?
What a catch.

Im sure he meant that she would have been, if she didnt have the option of living with him :rolleyes:

wolfpawnat

Our government donated €600,000,000 yet we are one of the most generous nations in the world. That is because we, the people of Ireland, are the people giving the most money! Haiti, our gov gave only something like 2million, we the people gave €5million (http://philanthropy.ie/index.php/news_and_events/news_item/how_donations_for_haiti_relief_operations_are_spent/)

We are always doing more than our government!

If they cut aid, even in these times I still give a euro here and there!

pissants

cavedave wrote: »

Instead of overseas aid I think we should reduce trade restrictions with the third world and allow in more poor migrant workers from the third world. Both of these have been shown to help us and the third world unlike aid that has a much more marginal benefit.

this would directly impact the standard of living for those in the west, hence nobody will support it. Never mind that the first world is built on the back of the third, we're suffering a recession - better withdraw aid while maintaining trade policies that ensure economic colonialism. Let the poors die of starvation/easily preventable disease but don't tread on me!

djpbarry

RichardAnd wrote: »

There are people right here in our own country starving and living on the streets.

And there always will be, regardless of the prevailing economic conditions. Postponing international aid until everyone in Ireland has obtained a good standard of living entails cutting off international aid for good (but then, I think you know that).

cavedave wrote: »

Instead of overseas aid I think we should reduce trade restrictions with the third world and allow in more poor migrant workers from the third world.

The latter, in particular, will meet with major objections, but a fairer trading platform would certainly be a step in the right direction. The problem is obviously that we in Europe don’t want to be paying fair prices for third-world produce.

As for replacing aid with fair trade, emergency relief (as opposed to developmental aid) is always going to be required and can’t be done away with.

cavedave

pissants
this would directly impact the standard of living for those in the west, hence nobody will support it.

Which one? If the free trade part almost all economists believe free trade would improve the wests standard of living. The Lerner symmetry theorem for example says pretty much this.

If you mean allowing in migrant workers again (as the Caplan podcast linked to goes through) most economists agree it would overall improve the wests standard of living. Borjas the most negative mainstream economist on immigration to the west comes out with it as only a slight loss for certain groups with the immigration of the poor to the US.

I saw the advantages of allowing in immigrants from the third world this morning visiting an elderly neighbour. She has a carer from the Philipines who lives with her. This means she does not have to move into a home and can rely on food, heat and help.

Your point about colonialism is well made. But all I can do here is try convince people of the merits of free transfer of goods and people and home that makes these changes more likely.

cavedave

djpbarry

The latter, in particular, will meet with major objections..
As for replacing aid with fair trade, emergency relief (as opposed to developmental aid) is always going to be required and can’t be done away with.

Fair point on emergency relief. Even Ireland could be hit with a natural disaster and if we were I would hope others would help us.

If I hear the objections to increased immigration of the poor of the third world to this country I will try and argue against them.

Amhran Nua

cavedave wrote:

If you mean allowing in migrant workers again (as the Caplan podcast linked to goes through) most economists agree it would overall improve the wests standard of living. Borjas the most negative mainstream economist on immigration to the west comes out with it as only a slight loss for certain groups with the immigration of the poor to the US.

Half a million people on the dole, more emigrating, and you want to bring yet more people into the country to scrabble for whatever make-work dregs might be out there? This is not the US, we aren't a continent, and there is a limit to what we can absorb.

As for free trade, the tarriffs on for example food produce/CAP subsidies are there to ensure that we don't end up dependent on the likes of Gadaffi's slave farms (or whichever tinpot dictator you like) for our daily bread. Its not just a question of economics, and "most economists" certainly don't agree that completely open borders and trade are to anyone's advantage. You've already got far right anti immigrant parties springing up all over Europe, how much worse would it get in this borderless utopia? Realities must be taken into account here.

Japer

neris wrote: »

Its 600 million a year which could be used to pay off our debts or put towards running the country. If you were on the dole you wouldnt borrow from the bank to give to vincent de paul.

+1 and well said. We are not just borrowing from the bank, we are borrowing from the lender of last resort, the moneylender, the IMF, as normal banks will not lend to us anymore.

ninty9er

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Our government donated €600,000,000 yet we are one of the most generous nations in the world. That is because we, the people of Ireland, are the people giving the most money! Haiti, our gov gave only something like 2million, we the people gave €5million (http://philanthropy.ie/index.php/news_and_events/news_item/how_donations_for_haiti_relief_operations_are_spent/)

We are always doing more than our government!

If they cut aid, even in these times I still give a euro here and there!

2009 Annual Report:
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/uploads/AnnualReport2009/Irish%20Aid%20Annual%20Report.pdf

I know the Minister for ODA quite well. Irish Aid goes to great lengths to ensure the maximum effectiveness is achieved. Ireland has also moved from an aid model to a development assistance model. The effectiveness is continuously monitored. The goals of Irish Aid are set out in the report and Ireland is jointly driving the fight against hunger with the US.

Much of what is spent on ODA goes towards providing people with a sustainable way of providing for themselves rather than giving them a handout on a one-off basis that provides nothing for the long run.

Trade links are being built with many of the countries we provide with development assistance. There are a number of Irish companies benefitting from this, but it is also very important that it is as a result of those companies being competitive. NO assistance provided by Irish Aid is tied. Tied aid corrupts.

Dannyboy83

Max Power1 wrote: »

Im sure he meant that she would have been, if she didnt have the option of living with him :rolleyes:

Indeed, Thank you.
She's actually living with my parents until she can find a job or get assistance because if we chose to live together again, her claim would be closed immediately.
I am of course supporting her financially, to the best of my ability, but wouldn't be able to afford to pay two separate rents.
It's a nice little catch-22 trap they have set up for people.

And then you have kids living with mammy and daddy who have never had a job, yet are getting €150 per week for booze.
Madness.
I guess that's how you buy votes!

I've often seen on this forum how people claim that all immigrants should be kicked out and get social in their own country.
This ignores the fact that they have worked and paid taxes here for years - so they are excluded from the social welfare system in their native country - duh!.
The obligation is Ireland's, as Ireland benefited from their labour and taxes.
Several of the Irish people on my girlfriend's FAS course have returned from places such as Australia after a 3 year gap - same rule applies, they are not entitled to social welfare and are living off friends/family.

Given the amount of dodgey cases I've seen now tho, I'm almost certain that there is some kind of discrimination being enforced.
The newspapers claimed it was Deciding Officers were misunderstanding the habitual residence rule, but I don't buy it - it's not very complex - but it's a handy tool for refusing people and disguising it.
And given the nature of the appeal system in Ireland, up to 12 months, a person would have starved to death before their appeal was ever heard, so if they don't have friends or family to fall back on - then you're on the streets or go to St.Vincent De Paul and hope for the best.
I used to help out one SVDP branch in Cork and the man leading it was telling me they had little funds left to help the homeless as they had to help so many people with mortgages!!

So yea, after all my waffle, if you think there is no reason for people to be homeless in Ireland 2010 and the homeless are simply choosing to be - then think again!!

djpbarry

cavedave wrote: »

Your point about colonialism is well made. But all I can do here is try convince people of the merits of free transfer of goods and people and home that makes these changes more likely.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you – trade (of goods or services) is the most sustainable way out of poverty for developing nations – I’m just stating that, realistically, there would be tremendous opposition to such a move in Europe as people would fear personal losses, either real or perceived.

Japer wrote: »

We are not just borrowing from the bank, we are borrowing from the lender of last resort, the moneylender, the IMF, as normal banks will not lend to us anymore.

But, in a global context, our standard of living is still very high.

I’m in Karachi at the moment. You think the global recession has hit Ireland hard, you should read up on the situation here – it might provide a little perspective.

cavedave

Amhran Nua

Half a million people on the dole, more emigrating, and you want to bring yet more people into the country to scrabble for whatever make-work dregs might be out there? This is not the US, we aren't a continent, and there is a limit to what we can absorb.

Those emigrating that I know (and am related to) are skilled workers (mainly in construction) they would not be competing with low skilled third world workers with limited English language. Why would this be make-work?
We have one of the lowest population densities in the west and we have thousands of empty homes and you think we cannot absorb anymore people?

You do not have to have free borders you could be highly selective. And have fairly draconian rules about deporting people who misbehaved.

This would
1. Reduce labour costs for semi skilled work
2. Increase demand for property
3. Spread the national debt over more people

You can allow people in with authoritarian rules about deporting those who break rules. Ireland with these rules would be better than their current situation or they would not come here.
Allowing in immigrants when we have 13% unemployment is counterintuitive but our builders are only going to work here again when more people demand houses etc. Also these workers will need Irish people fluent in English to supervise them and sell the products they produce

As for free trade, the tarriffs on for example food produce/CAP subsidies are there to ensure that we don't end up dependent on the likes of Gadaffi's slave farms (or whichever tinpot dictator you like) for our daily bread.

But we are ok being dependent on these guys for oil? Are these farmers and others better off having the ability to sell or not? We cannot do much about their tinpot ruler but that is not a great excuse for abandoning them

You've already got far right anti immigrant parties springing up all over Europe, how much worse would it get in this borderless utopia? Realities must be taken into account here.

If someone wants to put forward a far right anti immigrant argument I will attempt to debate them. Saying "this will annoy the crazies" is not a great argument against something.

pissants

cavedave wrote: »

Which one? If the free trade part almost all economists believe free trade would improve the wests standard of living. The Lerner symmetry theorem for example says pretty much this.

If you mean allowing in migrant workers again (as the Caplan podcast linked to goes through) most economists agree it would overall improve the wests standard of living. Borjas the most negative mainstream economist on immigration to the west comes out with it as only a slight loss for certain groups with the immigration of the poor to the US.

I saw the advantages of allowing in immigrants from the third world this morning visiting an elderly neighbour. She has a carer from the Philipines who lives with her. This means she does not have to move into a home and can rely on food, heat and help.

Your point about colonialism is well made. But all I can do here is try convince people of the merits of free transfer of goods and people and home that makes these changes more likely.

genuinely fair trade would probably benefit everyone in the long run: however, this would mean paying more for the labour, raw materials, and goods the west extracts from the developing world - our own standard of living would, in the intermediate term, drop. Unfettered 'free trade' as it exists now is just going to add to the worst affects of globalisation.

I have no reservations about immigration - it's hypocritical for the irish, of all people, to complain about.

Amhran Nua

cavedave wrote: »

Those emigrating that I know (and am related to) are skilled workers (mainly in construction) they would not be competing with low skilled third world workers with limited English language.
Why would this be make-work?
We have one of the lowest population densities in the west and we have thousands of empty homes and you think we cannot absorb anymore people?

You do not have to have free borders you could be highly selective. And have fairly draconian rules about deporting people who misbehaved.

This would
1. Reduce labour costs for semi skilled work
2. Increase demand for property
3. Spread the national debt over more people

This is way off the chart, not to put too fine a point on it. Lowest population densities in the west? So what, we just pack a bunch of immigrants into a bog in Westmeath, maybe set up a shantytown in Connemara, right?

Reducing labour costs comes at a huge price to those who are at or below median wage, which is the majority of the country, does not serve to improve the economy, which is a seperate entity from businesses or tax revenues, and only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. You can't just put everyone on the lowest wages possible, because that turns you into one of those developing countries faster than you can say "trickle down economics are nonsense".

Then you go on to say that the demand for property will increase, apparently sponsored by these faceless unskilled masses on minimum wage. Tell us, what sort of property do you think they'll be buying on €7 an hour?

As for spreading the national debt over more people, if immigration could create jobs all we'd need to do is as you are saying. But immigration doesn't create jobs, it just (sometimes) takes advantage of the jobs that are there. Lets try that again - immigration does not create jobs. You aren't spreading the national debt over more people, just creating more people who can't enjoy an adequate standard of living and will need to be supported just to survive.

cavedave wrote: »

Also these workers will need Irish people fluent in English to supervise them and sell the products they produce

I don't even know what to say here. Do you seriously envision a world where droves of little brown people toil in the factories while the Irish stand over them with a clipboard?

cavedave wrote: »

But we are ok being dependent on these guys for oil?

You may have missed that series of wars in the Middle East there...

cavedave wrote: »

If someone wants to put forward a far right anti immigrant argument I will attempt to debate them. Saying "this will annoy the crazies" is not a great argument against something.

Crazies, yes.

cavedave

Amhran Nua

So what, we just pack a bunch of immigrants into a bog in Westmeath, maybe set up a shantytown in Connemara, right?

No they like everyone else would live where there was work. If a supply of cheap housing and labour in Leitrim meant it was worth setting up a factory there that is where they would live.

Reducing labour costs comes at a huge price to those who are at or below median wage, which is the majority of the country, does not serve to improve the economy, which is a seperate entity from businesses or tax revenues, and only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Citation? Even Borjas says immigration only has a small effect on the wages of high school dropouts. BTW by definition less than half of people are below the median wage.

Then you go on to say that the demand for property will increase, apparently sponsored by these faceless unskilled masses on minimum wage.Tell us, what sort of property do you think they'll be buying on €7 an hour?

Not sponsored but demanded by. And there should be nothing faceless about human beings. Even at those wages you could rent a ghostly house in Leitrim for more than the 0 it is currently making.

But immigration doesn't create jobs, it just (sometimes) takes advantage of the jobs that are there

Reducing the cost of labour increases the demand. Who says otherwise?

just creating more people who can't enjoy an adequate standard of living and will need to be supported just to survive.

If there standard of living was not better here than there they would have no reason to come here

Do you seriously envision a world where droves of little brown people toil in the factories while the Irish stand over them with a clipboard?

Basically yes. There is nothing wrong with working in a factory. There is nothing wrong with being brown. There is nothing wrong with being a supervisor to people who are improving their lot in life of their own free will. Most factories in Ireland that I have seen recently match your description with both the Irish people and the immigrants benefiting.

Amhran Nua

cavedave wrote: »

No they like everyone else would live where there was work. If a supply of cheap housing and labour in Leitrim meant it was worth setting up a factory there that is where they would live.

Okay, so you want to set up factories near to ghost estates, without worrying about services, schools, hospitals, industrial supply routes, logistics, any of that stuff. And no their taxes won't pay for all of the above, you've shovelled them in on minimum wage, remember. Labour follows the jobs. Jobs don't follow the labour.

cavedave wrote: »

Citation? Even Borjas says immigration only has a small effect on the wages of high school dropouts. BTW by definition less than half of people are below the median wage.

The laws of supply and demand apply to labour the same as everything else, including property. If you flood the labour market with desperate labourers, of course the price of labour drops. Its crazy to suggest otherwise. And thats even before we get to automation and unit costs for labour.

As for the rest, in simple terms, poor people haven't got money to spend in the economy, and rich people didn't get that way by spending lots of money. You need to build the middle classes to keep the economy healthy.

cavedave wrote: »

Not sponsored but demanded by. And there should be nothing faceless about human beings. Even at those wages you could rent a ghostly house in Leitrim for more than the 0 it is currently making.

Am I to understand this entire mad scheme is basically a wheeze to get property prices back up? Wasn't that already tried in 2004, when people thought they could get the accession state immigrants to buy overpriced flats in Tallaght?

cavedave wrote: »

Reducing the cost of labour increases the demand. Who says otherwise?

So Mongolia, most of Africa, and so on, these are all thriving industrial megaplexes because their labour costs are so low, I see.

cavedave wrote: »

If there standard of living was not better here than there they would have no reason to come here

So you'll magnanimously offer them indoor plumbing, great.

cavedave wrote: »

Basically yes. There is nothing wrong with working in a factory. There is nothing wrong with being brown. There is nothing wrong with being a supervisor to people who are improving their lot in life of their own free will. Most factories in Ireland that I have seen recently match your description with both the Irish people and the immigrants benefiting.

Which factories were these? We have around half a million people directly employed by FDI, and another probably the same indirectly employed, so at an absolute maximum you have a ratio of 2:1 Irish to immigrant employed in these sectors, purely based on working population.

I'm quite surprised by the level of misunderstanding your post displays to be honest, never mind the assumption that all immigrants from developing countries would be unskilled with poor English. The health services would have collapsed long ago if it weren't for support from skilled labour from developing countries. There's a kind of offhand assumption of superiority in what you're saying, along with some sort of a vague idea about filling ghost estates with them.

I'm married to an immigrant myself, and do a lot of work to help immigrants in Ireland, whether its accommodation, officialdom or employment they are having trouble with, as well as speaking several languages most people probably never even heard of, but I have no illusions, things are not going to be made any better by pushing an agenda of mass immigration.

Quite the opposite.

Count Dooku

djpbarry wrote: »

But, in a global context, our standard of living is still very high.

Only because we borrowed future from our kids

cavedave

Amhran Nua

Okay, so you want to set up factories near to ghost estates, without worrying about services, schools, hospitals, industrial supply routes, logistics, any of that stuff

No the people who want to use the cheap labor will have to decide where to put their factories.

If you flood the labour market with desperate labourers, of course the price of labour drops

That is zero sum game thinking. The price of their labour will be low but other benefit according to the research.

Am I to understand this entire mad scheme is basically a wheeze to get property prices back up? Wasn't that already tried in 2004, when people thought they could get the accession state immigrants to buy overpriced flats in Tallaght?

No the scheme is to help people more than our incompetent government giving 600 million to their incompetent government every year does.

So Mongolia, most of Africa, and so on, these are all thriving industrial megaplexes because their labour costs are so low, I see.

They are not due to infrastructure and corruption problems there that we do not have to the same extent

I'm quite surprised by the level of misunderstanding your post displays to be honest, never mind the assumption that all immigrants from developing countries would be unskilled with poor English. The health services would have collapsed long ago if it weren't for support from skilled labour from developing countries. There's a kind of offhand assumption of superiority in what you're saying

I am not assuming that. I am assuming the very poor ,the bottom 2 billion, have on average low levels of skill particularly those involving language skills. Of course high skill people move here and most people accept them. I am arguing for the unskilled as these are the people moving here will help the most. The evidence in America says for unskilled non verbal jobs immigrants are better at them than native born Americans.

As for assumptions of superiority if the average Irish person with 14 years of schooling who speaks English and has had access to health care and the average high quality Irish diet is not more skilled than someone who is in the worlds two billion poorest people whom have little education, healthcare a poor diet and limited English skills there is something very wrong.

Amhran Nua

cavedave wrote: »

No the people who want to use the cheap labor will have to decide where to put their factories.

Wrong. People go where the jobs are.

cavedave wrote: »

That is zero sum game thinking. The price of their labour will be low but other benefit according to the research.

What other benefit? Corporate profits aren't the economy. People thinking they are have no clue what an economy is or how it works, no more than people who believe tax revenues are the economy.

cavedave wrote: »

No the scheme is to help people more than our incompetent government giving 600 million to their incompetent government every year does.

Nonsense. Its yet another elaborate effort to fill houses that should never have been built.

cavedave wrote: »

They are not due to infrastructure and corruption problems there that we do not have to the same extent

Therefore the best solution is to help them with their infrastructure and corruption problems in their own countries.

cavedave wrote: »

I am not assuming that. I am assuming the very poor ,the bottom 2 billion, have on average low levels of skill particularly those involving language skills.

Eh, how are these bottom two billion that you want to fit into Ireland going to afford the plane flight and the cost of living while they look for the minimum wage jobs which aren't here? How are they going to compete with the rest of the people from their country who aren't unskilled or able to speak perfect English? Or are we just locking out anyone above a certain skill level now?

cavedave

Amhran Nua
Eh, how are these bottom two billion that you want to fit into Ireland going to afford the plane flight and the cost of living while they look for the minimum wage jobs which aren't here? How are they going to compete with the rest of the people from their country who aren't unskilled or able to speak perfect English? Or are we just locking out anyone above a certain skill level now?

Ok here is one back of the envelope example. In most third world countries middle class people have a housekeeper. She lives in the house and earns somewhere close to 5 dollars a day cooking cleaning and other jobs. Looking at the average wages in countries you can see that for them this wage makes sense.

Say you allowed 100,000 people to immigrate into Ireland for one year to work in peoples homes as housekeepers. These people would have to be informed of their rights to prevent some of the really nasty exploitation that could go on where people are told they have to work too long hours or do not get paid etc. Say these people had to be paid 20 euro a day plus room and board. The person who employed them would also have to pay for the flights tickets. The tickets allow the immigrant could return home at any time with their already earned wages.

Now 20 euro a day for a year is around 7000 euro which might seem too low but I would be pretty sure most Haitians would jump at the offer as it would be better than the $480 they could expect to earn at home. At the end of the year 700 million will now be owned by people in the third world. I am confident it will be better distributed than our government giving their government 600 million.

Irish people who employ someone gain otherwise they wont employ the housekeeper. The housekeeper gains (once they know their rights to leave and holidays and pay etc). Who loses? Some creches probably and the ready meal makers but overall everyone is better off.

krd

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Eh, how are these bottom two billion that you want to fit into Ireland going to afford the plane flight and the cost of living while they look for the minimum wage jobs which aren't here? How are they going to compete with the rest of the people from their country who aren't unskilled or able to speak perfect English? Or are we just locking out anyone above a certain skill level now?

We're in a very awkward position. With one thing and another - it's getting to a point where the only reason say a young Polish person would come to Ireland would be to improve their English. Pay, opportunity, and standard of living have all increase in places like Poland. I have friends who've gone back to Poland and Czech - and lots of our jobs have gone there too - Their standard of living is much higher than if they were here. A large part of the industrial engine of the last decade was cheap, young, mobile, immigrant labour from Eastern Europe. I remember these people coming in the earlier part of the last decade. The part of the country I'm from had hundreds, if not thousands, of Eastern Europeans sleeping in barns and working for below minimum wage. Them days is gone.

I even know Irish people who've left to work in Eastern Europe. In exchange rate terms, their pay is lower - but in real terms; purchasing power, standard of living. Is much higher.

The problem is very complex. Industrial employers (or more the hiring line managers) are racist. Many Irish line managers would prefer to hire people they look down on, and that they think won't threaten their position, than uppity Irish people who might.

The way we're headed - Ireland will become one of the most unattractive countries to move to. High rents, high taxes, low pay. My friends who've moved to Czech and who are working in what were low paying jobs here are going on skiing trips. Weekends away in resorts. The days of Ireland milking cheap European labour are over.

Hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans have already left Ireland. For many it's not simply unemployment - it's just not worth staying here anymore.

The standard of living in Ireland is actaully very low for many people - even people who are technically wealthy. There are many people in "good jobs", who after mortgage repayments, car repayments, have a pitiful disposable income. Once the austerity measures kick in big time - for many of these people they'll have nothing. They'd be better to scrabble whatever money they have and make a break for Czech and open an Irish pub. There's a huge 'nostaligia for my time in Ireland' market in Czech and Poland.

Amhran Nua

cavedave wrote: »

Ok here is one back of the envelope example. In most third world countries middle class people have a housekeeper. She lives in the house and earns somewhere close to 5 dollars a day cooking cleaning and other jobs. Looking at the average wages in countries you can see that for them this wage makes sense.

Say you allowed 100,000 people to immigrate into Ireland for one year to work in peoples homes as housekeepers. These people would have to be informed of their rights to prevent some of the really nasty exploitation that could go on where people are told they have to work too long hours or do not get paid etc. Say these people had to be paid 20 euro a day plus room and board. The person who employed them would also have to pay for the flights tickets. The tickets allow the immigrant could return home at any time with their already earned wages.

Now 20 euro a day for a year is around 7000 euro which might seem too low but I would be pretty sure most Haitians would jump at the offer as it would be better than the $480 they could expect to earn at home. At the end of the year 700 million will now be owned by people in the third world. I am confident it will be better distributed than our government giving their government 600 million.

Irish people who employ someone gain otherwise they wont employ the housekeeper. The housekeeper gains (once they know their rights to leave and holidays and pay etc). Who loses? Some creches probably and the ready meal makers but overall everyone is better off.

Housekeepers, that's the master plan is it. We need jobs that produce products here for export elsewhere, we need tourism to this country and we need FDI. We need to bring capital into the country from abroad. We do not need maids, which among many other painfully obvious issues, once again brings us back to your assumption of superiority.

I see no further point in dragging this out, your arguments have been demolished and I find the approach you are taking to the discussion distasteful and unpleasant to put it mildly.

krd wrote: »

Pay, opportunity, and standard of living have all increase in places like Poland.

Average wage in Poland is around a third that of Ireland, from what I understand. Minimum wage is €20-€30 a week, and that's before taxes and levies.

krd wrote: »

A large part of the industrial engine of the last decade was cheap, young, mobile, immigrant labour from Eastern Europe.

No, it wasn't. Accession states were only allowed in in 2004, the property, not industrial boom collapsed in 2006. We had our industrial boom long finished with before then.

krd wrote: »

The standard of living in Ireland is actaully very low for many people - even people who are technically wealthy. There are many people in "good jobs", who after mortgage repayments, car repayments, have a pitiful disposable income. Once the austerity measures kick in big time - for many of these people they'll have nothing. They'd be better to scrabble whatever money they have and make a break for Czech and open an Irish pub. There's a huge 'nostaligia for my time in Ireland' market in Czech and Poland.

Eh is there a point regarding immigration.

cavedave

Amhran Nua

Housekeepers, that's the master plan is it.

No its an example of how to better help the third world with 600 million of Irish money

We need jobs that produce products here for export elsewhere, we need tourism to this country and we need FDI. We need to bring capital into the country from abroad.

And which of your suggestions for foreign development aid does any of this?

I see no further point in dragging this out, your arguments have been demolished and I find the approach you are taking to the discussion distasteful and unpleasant to put it mildly.

What about my argument is 'distasteful and unpleasant'? I have worked in the service industry. Many of my ancestors were maids. I do not consider myself superior to them. Or to people who happened to be born in a different country. It seems to be backwards that someone advocating a fairer chance for people from the third world is 'distasteful and unpleasant'.

"When I was young I never expected to be so poor that I couldn't afford a servant, or so rich that I could afford a motor car." Agatha Christie

Amhran Nua

cavedave wrote: »

And which of your suggestions for foreign development aid does any of this?

The one where I was advocating microfinance. Ideally that should be self sustaining however rather than being a source of income - it works out the same way after a few years.

cavedave wrote: »

It seems to be backwards that someone advocating a fairer chance for people from the third world is 'distasteful and unpleasant'.

You aren't advocating a fairer chance for poor people, you're trying to fill ghost estates with desperate immigrants and have them polishing your doorknob to pay the rent. A less savoury combination I find hard to imagine.

cavedave wrote: »

"When I was young I never expected to be so poor that I couldn't afford a servant, or so rich that I could afford a motor car." Agatha Christie

A servant. Would you ever wander off back to the nineteenth century.

krd

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Average wage in Poland is around a third that of Ireland, from what I understand. Minimum wage is €20-€30 a week, and that's before taxes and levies.

I don't think it's as low as €20-€30. And it may be a little more complicated. We tend to think in wages as being a universal standard across a country - it doesn't ever really work like that. A 100k is worth far less to someone working in New York city, than 50k in Athens Georgia.. I have friends working in Krakow. Their pay is a couple of hundred euros less than they were getting in Dublin - but they're doing much better out of that than they had in Dublin.

Rural wages may be different. But I remember a time in Ireland where grocery prices could be radically different from town to town.

No, it wasn't. Accession states were only allowed in in 2004, the property, not industrial boom collapsed in 2006. We had our industrial boom long finished with before then.

There's collapse and then there's collapse. Export and manufacturing is, given the circumstances, doing quite well and will probably expand - nowhere near the rate it would be needed to dig us out of the hole we're in. We had a very irresponsible property boom - take that out of the equation and we'd be doing really well.

Ireland isn't really that screwed - if - big if - if we can get out of the debt situation we're in now.

We have serious political problem. It's not a debt problem - it's a political problem. Had there been a mechanism in place for burning the bond holders of Irish private debt - they would not have lent so recklessly and we would not have had such a reckless property bubble - which has caused suffering all round - most of the idiots who made out like bandits selling their maiden aunt's home, either blew the money on 4X4s or "re-invested" it in property. It's like Romania and Caritas.

But otherwise - we're not really in such a bad position as it looks.

cavedave

Amhran Nua

The one where I was advocating microfinance. Ideally that should be self sustaining however rather than being a source of income - it works out the same way after a few years.

How would microfinance development aid "produce products here for export elsewhere, we need tourism to this country and we need FDI. We need to bring capital into the country from abroad." BTW microfinance in the third world is believed to be much less effective than immigration

"desperate immigrants" who would much rather be here than there. So "much less desperate than they currently are" would be a fairer term.

krd

cavedave wrote: »

How would microfinance development aid "produce products here for export elsewhere, we need tourism to this country and we need FDI. We need to bring capital into the country from abroad." BTW microfinance in the third world is believed to be much less effective than immigration

Because usurious companies like GE Capital have got involved. The original idea of micro-finance was to provide small amounts of capital at a nominal interest rate, to help develop small scale industry in developing countries. Once the big boys got involved, it led to run away inflation in the areas they "serviced". ( The only inflation the IMF never has a problem woth, is inflation that screws poor people. Asset and commodity inflation is fine. Labour inflation they have an aneurysm.) Microfinance has collapsed in the developing world because of inflation and loan sharking.

"desperate immigrants" who would much rather be here than there. So "much less desperate than they currently are" would be a fairer term.

I'd like to see how you'd like it. Would you be chipper and work hard. I'd love if I ever became very wealthy, to use my wealth to hunt someone like you down. Use my noble power to make you poor. Then have you living in my garden shed. Polishing my boots and making my breakfast - and always with a smile. Don't forget to smile, and thank your lucky stars a good person like myself is "helping" you. Some people are just so ungrateful, they don't deserve a job.

Let the market decide...that's what I say. Let the market decide.

cavedave

krd
I'd like to see how you'd like it. Would you be chipper and work hard. I'd love if I ever became very wealthy, to use my wealth to hunt someone like you down. Use my noble power to make you poor. Then have you living in my garden shed. Polishing my boots and making my breakfast

So if you got very wealthy you would rather harm someone then help someone? I think that makes you an unpleasant person and I do not want to communicate with you anymore.

ScissorPaperRock

cavedave wrote: »

So if you got very wealthy you would rather harm someone then help someone?

I think people have different ideas of what it is to help someone. To pull people out of developing countries and to give them jobs in developed countries, regardless of how much skill is involved, is not going to address the systemic roots of the problems.

What needs to be addressed is poor education, poor health, uneven terms of trade, poor governance and corruption. This requires both funding and the right kind of international pressure.

Unfortunately developed countries benefit too much from the uneven terms of trade and corruption, so it is unlikely that this will change. But development aid for health and education, amongst other areas, is making a difference.

Kiki10

krd wrote: »

I'd like to see how you'd like it. Would you be chipper and work hard. I'd love if I ever became very wealthy, to use my wealth to hunt someone like you down. Use my noble power to make you poor. Then have you living in my garden shed. Polishing my boots and making my breakfast - and always with a smile. Don't forget to smile, and thank your lucky stars a good person like myself is "helping" you. Some people are just so ungrateful, they don't deserve a job.

Let the market decide...that's what I say. Let the market decide.

Thanks for your contribution, obviously your some kind of migrant worker here, from your god complex Id say from Poland. All I can say is the first migrants here around the year 2000 were welcomed and paid the same. It was actually your brothers who sold you down the drain by offering to work cheaper and ignore safety rules workers had hard won from employers over the years. The reason Irish workers have no respect for you is not racism, its because your short influence on the economy here has brought us back to 60's standards of employment!
Now that the game is over and your still broke but now nobody likes you is something you might think about before planning your revenge on the world?;)

ScissorPaperRock

Kiki10 wrote: »

Thanks for your contribution, obviously your some kind of migrant worker here, from your god complex Id say from Poland. All I can say is the first migrants here around the year 2000 were welcomed and paid the same. It was actually your brothers who sold you down the drain by offering to work cheaper and ignore safety rules workers had hard won from employers over the years. The reason Irish workers have no respect for you is not racism, its because your short influence on the economy here has brought us back to 60's standards of employment!
Now that the game is over and your still broke but now nobody likes you is something you might think about before planning your revenge on the world?;)

I think you took his/her post completely out of context...

Up de Barrs

I'd like to see a proper analysis of what is actually achieved with the overseas development aid we give, I think we could probably get a far better return on the money, I think there is a lot wasted in administration both here and in the developing countries.

Kiki10

Up de Barrs wrote: »

I'd like to see a proper analysis of what is actually achieved with the overseas development aid we give, I think we could probably get a far better return on the money, I think there is a lot wasted in administration both here and in the developing countries.

Id say thats optimistic, your man in Goal said many times giving cash to countries is a waste of time, cause the dictators receiving the cheque normally cash them in Switzerland??

djpbarry

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only because we borrowed future from our kids

Cut public expenditure by €15 billion and Ireland will still have a high standard of living, relative to the rest of the world.

Euroland

neris wrote: »

The MD of Glen Dimplex has said today that the government needs to cut the overseas aid budget. Surely its a logical move for the country to make. Its 600 million a year which could be used to pay off our debts or put towards running the country. If you were on the dole you wouldnt borrow from the bank to give to vincent de paul. It might be morally wrong to cut it but we need to look after ourselves 1st. On the other hand were giving the money away so perhaps we can lend it to the 3rd world and charge interest. At least we might get somthing back her hen ut givingand outs.

It shold be fully scrapped

Count Dooku

djpbarry wrote: »

Cut public expenditure by €15 billion and Ireland will still have a high standard of living, relative to the rest of the world.

Based purely on borrowing
About half of GNP depends from borrowings to cover deficit
Reduce budget deficit to zero and high living standards will disappear in a minute