When was social equality sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed ?

Rabidlamb

Sorry to go a bit Michael Moore on you but this is something I've really noticed growing in the past 30 years.
When I started school in the late 70's every family had 4 or more kids, the mother stayed at home & the father worked.
Through his earnings alone they could fund their mortgage, a decent family car, the large family & 2 weeks in Salthill every year.
There were rich people who were mostly self made business owners but they still lived, worked & socialised in their local community.

Fast forward 30 years to the late 00's & couples need 8+ times their salaries to get on the humblest step of the housing ladder.
The mortgages were affordable as long as both parties stayed in well paying jobs & never entertained the thought of having children.
How did society so freely accept this re-engineering of human will & instinct ?.
Corporate wealth was given precedence over the good of society & we stood back & accepted it.
We watched as the share of wealth continued to be transferred to the top of the pyramid.

I'm not saying we should be erecting guillotines on College Green but this recession gives us time & space to redesign society for the better.
This will mean an average man, on an average wage must be to provide for his family as he would have a generation ago.
This thinking is a bit left wing even for my liking but I've come to the realisation it's the only way forward for this country.

prinz

Rabidlamb wrote: »

How did society so freely accept this re-engineering of human will & instinct ?..

Simple, because if you tried to resist it you were.. and still are... automatically labelled as conservative, backward, ignorant, sexist, etc etc. We've had decades of change that was rushed through without a second thought for the consequences.

Corporate greed is only part of the reason. Individualism was also given precedence over the good of the society. Strangely enough so-called 'social equality' itself is a major factor.

I wouldn't call your ideal left wing at all tbh. A lot of the so-called 'left wing' are busy falling over themselves to make sure your idea of social equality is sacrificed.

Your solution to "re-engineering" is more re-engineering. Okay. I disagree...

hooradiation

prinz wrote: »

Simple, because if you tried to resist it you were.. and still are... automatically labelled as conservative, backward, ignorant, sexist, etc etc. We've had decades of change that was rushed through without a second thought for the consequences.

Yes, I to believe we have strayed from the traditional model of change in society which a slow gradual process that was carefully evaluated and the consequences known well in advance.

Frank Black

The fact is that for the vast majority of people of this country (and dispite all the moaning that goes on), life is much better than it was 30years ago - both in terms of average disposable incomes and life expectancy.
You're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

prinz

black francis wrote: »

... both in terms of average disposable incomes....

The be all and end all.

mackg

My parents are around the same age as yours, my father worked so did my mother. They struggled to pay the mortgage and would haver lost the house at one point except my uncle stepped in and saved them, they were not the only ones who struggled either. At all times in human history there have been rich people and people who struggled, maybe you remember people having an easier time because they hadn't become spoiled by the celtic tiger era back then and expected no more than the essentials.

Frank Black

prinz wrote: »

The be all and end all.

Hardly that.
But OP seems to consider that the society of 30years ago was some sort of social nirvana compared to now.
It wasn't - there was more poverty and life was generally ****ter.

prinz

black francis wrote: »

Hardly that.
But OP seems to consider that the society of 30years ago was some sort of social nirvana compared to now.
It wasn't - there was more poverty and life was generally ****ter.

Yet I wonder if you surveyed a selection of average Joes how many would declare themselves to be satisfied with what they had and with their quality of life compared to now.

It was no social nirvana (is there ever one?) but a hell of a lot of things were better.

mackg

prinz wrote: »

Yet I wonder if you surveyed a selection of average Joes how many would declare themselves to be satisfied with what they had and with their quality of life compared to now.

It was no social nirvana (is there ever one?) but a hell of a lot of things were better.

Like what? Genuine question.

prinz

prinz wrote: »

Yet I wonder if you surveyed a selection of average Joes how many would declare themselves to be satisfied with what they had and with their quality of life compared to now.

It was no social nirvana (is there ever one?) but a hell of a lot of things were better.

like what

Guill

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Sorry to go a bit Michael Moore on you but this is something I've really noticed growing in the past 30 years.
When I started school in the late 70's every family had 4 or more kids, the mother stayed at home & the father worked.
Through his earnings alone they could fund their mortgage, a decent family car, the large family & 2 weeks in Salthill every year.
There were rich people who were mostly self made business owners but they still lived, worked & socialised in their local community.

Fast forward 30 years to the late 00's & couples need 8+ times their salaries to get on the humblest step of the housing ladder.
The mortgages were affordable as long as both parties stayed in well paying jobs & never entertained the thought of having children.
How did society so freely accept this re-engineering of human will & instinct ?.
Corporate wealth was given precedence over the good of society & we stood back & accepted it.
We watched as the share of wealth continued to be transferred to the top of the pyramid.

I'm not saying we should be erecting guillotines on College Green but this recession gives us time & space to redesign society for the better.
This will mean an average man, on an average wage must be to provide for his family as he would have a generation ago.
This thinking is a bit left wing even for my liking but I've come to the realisation it's the only way forward for this country.

You're thinking of the 'Goood aul' Days'.


And as my Grandfather always says "what the **** was good about them?"

Words of wisdom right there.

bigneacy

Rabidlamb wrote: »

When was social equality sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed ?

Last tuesday... were you not there? Everyone else was invited.

Rabidlamb

bluewolf wrote: »

like what

Didn't have to worry about a poor 3G signal on my iPhone, I dunno.

Less cars on the road, more people cycled, less obesity.

seamus

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Through his earnings alone they could fund their mortgage, a decent family car, the large family & 2 weeks in Salthill every year.

...and very little else.
You say it yourself - one car. Most families had one family car. Some were lucky enough to have one large car (that the Dad drove to work) and a small runabout (that the mother took the whole family in ). And the car had to run for about ten years before it was replaced. The AA this week said that in 2010 it cost an average of €11,000 to run a car for the year (though I'm skeptical). And most families have two. There's €22k gone before you even do anything.

How many weekends away were there? New clothes? Not that often, didn't see anyone's mother heading down to the shopping centre for anything new unless she really needed it. Expensive runners? Nah, St. Bernard is adequate. Most things you bought and you used it until it broke for the 3rd time and was utterly unfixable.

Very few people had credit cards, most used their overdraft as their only credit facility.

Fact of the matter is, we spend our money on a lot more things these days, because there are more things to spend your money on. Strip yourself right back to the essentials - basic web package, basic TV package, one car (to hold onto for at least ten years), one phone (that you only upgrade when it dies), one night out in a local pub, twice a month, no taxis, no eating out, all food shopping in Lidl/Aldi, etc etc etc.

You'll find out that the average industrial wage of €30k-odd will stretch very far for a family of six in those circumstances.

The real problem is that lots of people are still trying to maintain a high standard of living and discovering that their paypackets don't match up to it.

prinz

mackg wrote: »

Like what? Genuine question.

Like the fact that my old fella on one average salary could support a wife, family of six kids, mortgage on a nice house, etc who never actually needed for anything. I'd like to see one average wage these days, amply providing for a family of eight.

Nephinbeg

black francis wrote: »

The fact is that for the vast majority of people of this country (and dispite all the moaning that goes on), life is much better than it was 30years ago - both in terms of average disposable incomes and life expectancy.
You're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

My dad still tells me stories about the 70s and how things are still so much better now. He had to go to America every summer for 5 years to work as a painter to pay his way thru college. No free education then. In fact he started secondary school just as fees for that were phased out. They didn't get running water in their house till the mid 70s. There was one phone in the village (the post office's). They had a tv, fair enough, but it was sh1te. All this and they were fairly well off. His father only got a car after my dad.

Whatever about negative equity, high unemployment, ghost estates and bail outs, if you offered a 70s man a taste of modern Ireland, they'd bite your hand off

prinz

seamus wrote: »

...The real problem is that lots of people are still trying to maintain a high standard of living and discovering that their paypackets don't match up to it.

Except now it often takes two paypackets, then of course you have to add in the cost of childcare for any children while the parents are working. How much is childcare for six kids these days? A mortgage on a comfortable house to sleep 8? School costs? Saving for third level education for six kids? All this on one gross income of €30,000?

Then of course if you talk about a stay at home mother (or father) you get scoffed at.

AhSureTisGrand

If anyone in this thread is happier with less money then I would be more than willing to help relieve them of the burden

SEPT 23 1989

I think women were sold a pup with womens liberation

mackg

prinz wrote: »

Like the fact that my old fella on one average salary could support a wife, family of six kids, mortgage on a nice house, etc who never actually needed for anything. I'd like to see one average wage these days, amply providing for a family of eight.

What exactly did your dad do?

zyxwvu

Charlie McCreevy giving tax incentives for families where both parents worked in the late 90's led to more women going out to work; so because the average household wage increased due to an increase in the occurrence of both adults working, the average house price to average salary ratio increased to a level almost double that seen a generation ago. So it's because women work that society has changed for the worse! ... only messing

prinz

mackg wrote: »

What exactly did your dad do?

Frontline public servant.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

Except now it often takes two paypackets, then of course you have to add in the cost of childcare for any children while the parents are working. How much is childcare for six kids these days? A mortgage on a comfortable house to sleep 8? School costs? Saving for third level education for six kids? All this on one gross income of €30,000?

A house for 6 kids == 3 bedrooms. Get a nice 3-bed somewhere for €150k, about €700/month. Back in the "good old days", children didn't get their own rooms. Saving for 3rd level? Really? Nope, that didn't happen. Childcare? Well if you've got one wage, you don't need to pay for that. School is free, overall. Uniforms and books aren't, but 90% of it can be handed down from the older to younger children. How much child benefit do you get with 6 kids?

You have to compare like with like. How much would a 1970's standard of living cost you in 2011? The average industrial wage would cover it.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

A house for 6 kids == 3 bedrooms. Get a nice 3-bed somewhere for €150k, about €700/month..

So parents in one room, then three kids to a room in the other two?

seamus wrote: »

Back in the "good old days", children didn't get their own rooms. Saving for 3rd level? Really? Nope, that didn't happen. Childcare? Well if you've got one wage, you don't need to pay for that. School is free, overall. Uniforms and books aren't, but 90% of it can be handed down from the older to younger children. How much child benefit do you get with 6 kids?..

90% of it can be? Unifroms never need to replaced? You can't have six kids in school at once for instance, all of whom need uniforms and shoes and books?

seamus wrote: »

You have to compare like with like. How much would a 1970's standard of living cost you in 2011? The average industrial wage would cover it.

Except you're not comparing like with like. Say an gross income of €30k, that would give you a net income of roughly €26,500 in 2011. You honestly think it no problem to feed, clothe, house, run a car, and pay for all the other crap that crops up for a family of 8 on that?

seamus

prinz wrote: »

So parents in one room, then three kids to a room in the other two?

Yep. Sounds about right.

90% of it can be? Unifroms never need to replaced? You can't have six kids in school at once for instance, all of whom need uniforms and shoes and books?

You have six kids in school at once, but all at different ages. You only need to buy clothes for the eldest kid (or eldest boy & girl) and pay for any repair or replacements of the hand-me-downs. Are you trying to say that all of the kids will need new clothes and books every year?

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Yep. Sounds about right.

..and when the kids get into their teens? Three full sized beds fitting in the bedroom of a regular three bed semi-d? ..and three sets of clothes, etc etc.

seamus wrote: »

You have six kids in school at once, but all at different ages. You only need to buy clothes for the eldest kid (or eldest boy & girl) and pay for any repair or replacements of the hand-me-downs. Are you trying to say that all of the kids will need new clothes and books every year?

Absolutely not, but to say that 90% of it is hand-me-down is total nonsense. Especially when school books alone are being updated constantly, and using the 'workbook' format often times, which basically renders a book useless in terms of re-use.

Frank Black

In the 1960's the average family in Ireland spent about 35% of thier household income on food.
Today that figure is around 10%.

Pride Fighter

Things were better back then if you were lucky enough to work. The employment levels were so much lower back then, most had to emigrate.

Now the employment levels are generally higher, but not the high quality, well paid jobs society needs. Generally jobs pay a lot worse now. You only have to look at the pubs around the country. Years ago, the aul lad would have enough disposable income to go to the pub and have 7 or 8 pints twice a week. Not the case now, for most.

In essence how I see it, there are less well paid jobs and more low paid jobs. It should not be that way, but it'll be a while before the balance can be re-addressed.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Yep. Sounds about right.
You have six kids in school at once, but all at different ages. You only need to buy clothes for the eldest kid (or eldest boy & girl) and pay for any repair or replacements of the hand-me-downs. Are you trying to say that all of the kids will need new clothes and books every year?

I understand these days they change the book editions most years to stop kids passing them down

seamus

prinz wrote: »

..and when the kids get into their teens? Three full sized beds fitting in the bedroom of a regular three bed semi-d? ..and three sets of clothes, etc etc.

Well, yeah. My mother shared a room with 3 sisters (in a double bed) until she was in her late teens (mid-late 60's) and moved into dorms to do nursing.
And her father was a frontline civil servant, providing a decent home and standard of living for his family.

Just because it sounds impractical and ridiculous nowadays, doesn't mean that it wasn't the done thing.

Especially when school books alone are being updated constantly, and using the 'workbook' format often times, which basically renders a book useless in terms of re-use.

...these days. When I was in school in the 80's/90's, very few books were in a workbook format and a lot of the time students would get away with using a version 2 or even 3 times behind the current one. I know I did. I can even remember cases where some kids' mums rubbed out all of the answers from workbooks so they could be used again.
I imagine back in the 60's and 70's a schoolbook would last even longer.

Again, you have to compare like with like. I understand that the schoolbook publishers conspire these days to constantly update their books, but a school can't oblige a parent to buy new versions and a child isn't going to lose out because their books has slightly different illustrations and a page less.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Well, yeah. My mother shared a room with 3 sisters (in a double bed) until she was in her late teens (mid-late 60's) and moved into dorms to do nursing. And her father was a frontline civil servant, providing a decent home and standard of living for his family.
Just because it sounds impractical and ridiculous nowadays, doesn't mean that it wasn't the done thing..

I didn't have a room to myself until I was well into my teens and the olders ones were moving out. That was two sharing. It was also a decent sized room, the type you wouldn't get in your €150k three bed semi.

seamus wrote: »

...these days...

Er, yes these days. That's the whole point, these days you can't do the same things you could a few years ago to save on costs. I could inherit my brothers jackets/books and what not. People thought nothing of it, because it's not normal. Nowadays that kind of things raises eyebrows.

seamus wrote: »

Again, you have to compare like with like..

But you're not doing it. You are comparing a great life when I was growing up in the 80's only in a four bed bungalow with a large garden, with over-crowding in a three bed semi, corner-cutting when it is not as acceptable to do now as it once was, etc etc... As for the child not losing out, I'd say the chances of a child being bullied over wearing hand-me-downs, reusing books, homemade lunches and whatnot is a lot higher today than it would be say 20 years ago... because back then the majority were in the same or similar boat. Not today.

Wicklowrider

black francis wrote: »

The fact is that for the vast majority of people of this country (and dispite all the moaning that goes on), life is much better than it was 30years ago - both in terms of average disposable incomes and life expectancy.
You're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

If anyone doubts that, in general, the ORDINARY person didn't have things better then they weren't around to experience it.

We didn't get to spend a week on a trolley if we got injured. I had to go to casualty in the '70's and was in and out in an hour.Teenagers were able to walk to and from their social engagements. Kids played outdoors and ran and cycled. There was less serious crime. There was a hell of lot less obesity.If anyone remembers that time, can they remember a single incident of road rage? No? thats because people weren't stressed out of their heads. Were there gyms? No? thats because people ate better, exercised without even realising.As late as '87 I bought my semi in a decent area for twice my annual gross salary and had it paid off within 10 years (I was uneducated and unskilled during those times) My wife & I took turns off work during that time to raise our 2 sons. I've news for people who think they need all the latest toys - it gets old fast and when it does you need the real things in life to fall back on.
I'm not looking back through rose tinted glasses either. I worked hard, loved my community and its people. They knew who I was and I knew them. As a child growing up they looked out for me, knowing when to have a word with my father if they thought I was going wrong ( try doing that today and see what happens).

prinz

Wicklowrider wrote: »

As late as '87 I bought my semi in a decent area for twice my annual gross salary and had it paid off within 10 years..

Just on this. I went to daft to find a similar house to the one I grew up in, same bedrooms, same bathrooms, same town etc. The asking price on Daft is 17 times my current annual gross salary :pac: despite the fact that I am now only a few years off the age my parents were when they bought theirs, I doubt it cost them 17 times their annual gross salary back in the day.

Frank Black

Wicklowrider wrote: »

If anyone doubts that, in general, the ORDINARY person didn't have things better then they weren't around to experience it.

We didn't get to spend a week on a trolley if we got injured. I had to go to casualty in the '70's and was in and out in an hour.Teenagers were able to walk to and from their social engagements. Kids played outdoors and ran and cycled. There was less serious crime. There was a hell of lot less obesity.If anyone remembers that time, can they remember a single incident of road rage? No? thats because people weren't stressed out of their heads. Were there gyms? No? thats because people ate better, exercised without even realising.As late as '87 I bought my semi in a decent area for twice my annual gross salary and had it paid off within 10 years (I was uneducated and unskilled during those times) My wife & I took turns off work during that time to raise our 2 sons. I've news for people who think they need all the latest toys - it gets old fast and when it does you need the real things in life to fall back on.
I'm not looking back through rose tinted glasses either. I worked hard, loved my community and its people. They knew who I was and I knew them. As a child growing up they looked out for me, knowing when to have a word with my father if they thought I was going wrong ( try doing that today and see what happens).

I can hear the Hovis music playing in the background as I read this - where to start?
Health Service - life expectancy and infant mortality have increased significantly since the time you fondly remember.
Road Rage - maybe there wasn't as much but the road fatality statistics show nearly twice as many people were being killed on roads 20 years ago despite the fact there were far less cars around - it was not a golden age of driving on Irish Roads.
There was less serious crime? - bollox, crime rates have been steadily reducing per head of population in the developed world over the decades.

mackg

When talking about passing clothes along to each sibling I was wondering how much the need for this has deteriorated with shops like pennies selling cothes for practically nothing?

Happy Monday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

And you tell the current generation this and they won't believe you!

Wicklowrider

black francis wrote: »

I can hear the Hovis music playing in the background as I read this - where to start?
Health Service - life expectancy and infant mortality have increased significantly since the time you fondly remember.

Have you a source re longevity pre '80's to today specific to Ireland? I could find none despite trying and am genuinely interested. You do realise we are discussing quality of life and not longevity either way?

black francis wrote: »

Road Rage - maybe there wasn't as much but the road fatality statistics show nearly twice as many people were being killed on roads 20 years ago despite the fact there were far less cars around - it was not a golden age of driving on Irish Roads.

Road Rage was given as an example of reaction to stress in modern irish society. Are you seriously going to argue that stress is not more prevalent and dangerous today in Ireland than it was pre '80's? That this stress isn't a result of our lifestyle choice?

black francis wrote: »

There was less serious crime? - bollox, crime rates have been steadily reducing per head of population in the developed world over

Again, I am talking about Ireland.
So, in '95 when the Dept of justice revised their estimates for extra prison places required up to 2000 extra places ( in 1980 it was just 200 extra required...) they were just playing around? When they doubled the number of Gardai from the early '70's it was just good fun?
Do you seriously contest that the "bomb squad" were called out weekly in the'70's? That there were 2-3 kidnappings a year? That there were gangland shootings several times a year? That we had a legion of gang leaders living abroad whilst ordering extortion, murder and robbery here? That the big criminals we do get locked up were able to command their gangs from within our jails? How many eldery people worried about home invasion in the '70's? Would a self appointed "Property Developer" have got a bank loan secured on thin air in the '70's? Would an ordinary person been allowed a mortgage of several times their salary? Would a mugger have walked out of court without a sentence........ It goes on and on.We had huge challeges back then and all was far from perfect. We had a chance to develop a greater country but instead we bought into the material dream life. It did not work out and depression, drug dependency, ill health and anger are the results.Disenchantment among our young is on on the rise, as is suicide. The choice is to try something else or just go ahead and rot away.