It's great to be unemployed...

jungleman

jungleman wrote: »

That's not to mention during the sunny spell we had, when two women (one of whom was pushing a buggy) were laughing and joking about how they'd hate to have a job and miss out on the weather we were having. There are so many more examples I could give, but I'm not going to justify my original post by quoting any more of them.

Did they actually say to you that they were unemployed? For all you know they could be housewives.

jungleman

jungleman wrote: »

This has really made my blood boil. Yeah I'm in a crap job, and yes I'm angry at welfare recipients who couldn't be arsed getting a job because they're having a cushy time receiving every benefit under the sun. But you're accusing me of bull**** because of your own personal experiences?

On Thursday, two women came strolling into my place of work with pushing buggies, picked up pairs of Ray-Bans, and after trying them on said that when they get their next children's allowance payment they would come back and buy them. They didn't say it directly to me, I overheard them as they were only a couple of feet away. Why would I bull**** or make anything up? It would be a waste of my time and effort typing out lies just to publish them here.

Obviously you don't have a "pathetic" job, so congratulations on that one. Really, well done. Now why don't you take your condescending tone with you and troll around elsewhere? Thanks.

NewsFlash

Every mother in the state gets child benefit, including Millionaires.

Its obvious you dont know your facts and just a very bitter person.

If you think life is great on the dole you go live on €188 per week.

Delancey

This thread is peppered throughout with talk of the dole and other benefits removing the incentive to work , etc and so on and so forth......

It seems to have escaped the attention of many here that we have a serious unemployment crisis in this country ( ESRI forecast yesterday the rate will rise to 14.9%) and that there are not 400,000 minimum wage jobs available out there.

During the boom there was a case to be made for drastic cuts to benefits - sadly that time has now passed.

lmimmfn

Delancey wrote: »

This thread is peppered throughout with talk of the dole and other benefits removing the incentive to work , etc and so on and so forth......

It seems to have escaped the attention of many here that we have a serious unemployment crisis in this country ( ESRI forecast yesterday the rate will rise to 14.9%) and that there are not 400,000 minimum wage jobs available out there.

During the boom there was a case to be made for drastic cuts to benefits - sadly that time has now passed.

dont you think with benefits so high( i mean relatively ) that theres a complete disincentive to work in the first place? as it stands more and more people will be joining the dole queue because its too expensive to work. If childcare costs 800euro a month, 250euro a month commute to work + 200 food at work + 600euro rent then a single person with a kid would need to earn 1850 + 855( 190 * 4.5 weeks in the month ) which is probably about 35k a year to just break even, in which case whats the point? being away from your kid all day with nothing to show for it? Ok +/- figures can be argued on not getting rent allowance to cover the rent completely etc. but factor in VHI at around 1500-2000 euro a year for the person + kid, 60 charge every time visiting the my doc or whatever its called vs everything free on the medical card.

Youre much much better on the dole having loads of kids, no childcare costs because youre at home, free school clothes, school books and what not, and free medical care( which to some like myself costs an absolute fortune ), vs's working your hole off and barely getting to see your kid.

Family life is orientated towards welfare recepients, working life is orientated towards being a good little citizen paying your taxes and paying most of your earnings to have other people look after your kids while you never see them and the number of kids you can have is limited by kid X 800 euro a month that you can afford to pay for creche or childminder.

Eventually workers will be outbred by welfare receipents so the work ethos is eventually going to die anyway.

NakedNNettles

old hippy wrote: »

What you need is switch to a quasi stasi style state, encourage a culture of grassing on suspected cheats, carrying out surveillance etc. Think of all those jobs that could be created as professional informers. I'm pretty sure the mentality for such an undertaking is already there.

Exactly, caught you old hippy before you deleted. What goes on the net stays on the net, know what I mean.

.............and get the prison population out fixing the roads, building infrastructure and building more prisons. We can then lock more people up to fix more roads and provide more security and prison guard jobs.

As it is we could have a rotation system in the prisons, night shift and day shift, shared bunks, double the prison population, have them working round the clock and get this country back on its feet.

AlekSmart

Delancey wrote: »

This thread is peppered throughout with talk of the dole and other benefits removing the incentive to work , etc and so on and so forth......

It seems to have escaped the attention of many here that we have a serious unemployment crisis in this country ( ESRI forecast yesterday the rate will rise to 14.9%) and that there are not 400,000 minimum wage jobs available out there.

During the boom there was a case to be made for drastic cuts to benefits - sadly that time has now passed.

My perspective is that over the past 20 years successive Administrations consistently used the cloak of developing a "caring,sharing" society to allocate ever greater budgets to Social Welfare related Departments and Schemes.

Thus,the original and desireable ethos of Social Welfare being a State provided INSURANCE based safety net for WORKERS who lost their jobs was dispensed with.

The concept of an individual in employment paying into a Pay Related Social Insurance scheme surely remains desirable to most ?

The better the job one can secure and retain,the greater the benefits to the individual concerned,is this somehow now a forbidden belief to hold in modern Ireland ?

The literal good sense of the German term "Arbeit Macht Frei" is surely behind the entire essence of paid labour or the willingness to better oneself by genuine productive labour in any field ?

What is exactly wrong with a Social Welfare claimant,who has paid in the maximum number of contributions over a long employment record,being therefore entitled to a greater benefit level over a longer time than a claimant with little,or no,employment history,who,under present rules may still be entitled to substantial payments under more than one heading ?

The greater one's contribution level the greater level of benefit is therefore due....this is generally the principle applied by Insurance companies in the commercial world,and is based upon somewhat sound rules governing basic liquidity and solvency,rather than the need to "keep the lid" on a potentially explosive Social Situation.

The arguement for greater Social Welfare Fraud Detection and Punishment methods does indeed sound good in a vaguely populist way.

However much of that arguement falls when the reality of the byzantine nature of this small State's Social Welfare Machine becomes apparent.

Fraud Detection and the appropriate level of Punishment in a tightly run,well administered Social Insurance based system is indeed realtively easy to administer and execute.

Attempting to do the same within the constraints of a Politically overseen,Universal Entitlement based Social Support system is well nigh impossible....Unless a Government is prepared for serious resistance and perhaps Civil Unrest should it decide to switch from an Entitlement based system to a Contribution based one.

Once Ireland's administrators took the decision to redefine the entire notion of Social Insurance from restricted availability contribution based to a universally available entitlement based then the die was cast.

At this moment in time the Country's "Contributing Class" are struggling to fund a bare-bones,rudimentary Social Support system,yet those in charge persist with the idea that they can continue to administer and deliver an all encompassing support system to to every claimant,irrespective of their contributory history.

The notion of paying direct cash allowances accompanied by various add-on payments is problematic enough,before the total costs of schemes such as Free Medical Card,Free Travel,Free TV Licence,Free Telephone,Free Winter Fuel and assorted other "Discretionary Payments" made through the HSE,Local Authorities and Quango like agencies is taken into consideration.

The answer...? .....sheesh...it's WAAY above my pay-grade i'm afraid,but I sure as hell know that this time around our little IRISH problem will most likely NOT be solved by an IRISH answer but rather a series of replies from less exhuberant Mittel Europa.....:mad: :mad:

Laminations

AlekSmart wrote: »

should it decide to switch from an Entitlement based system to a Contribution based one.

Disagree that we should move to a contribution based system. There should be a support a system recognising that not all people can work. Mental and physical disabilities can exclude people from the workplace and contributing in that way. As for people who contribute more getting more it should be taken care of in terms of savings and the extra assets acquired by high earners which would buffer their time in unemployment. These people are also likely to be generally more employable.

A system distinguishing between people who can't work with people who won't work is necessary. People can't work for many reasons but should only be supported long-term if these are throigh disability or special circumstance. If you can't work through poor labour market opportunities then you can still contribute through voluntary work (after an initial [2 year] period of support)

jased10s

can u walk talk and count and think = work.

Not hard.

I dont blame the claimer i blame the system, same as everyting in ireland it's half arsed.

Most garda's are part time farmers...

Thats why they take hours doing anything..

Every gouverment dept seems to be inefficent.

Markcheese

NakedNNettles wrote: »

old hippy wrote: »

What you need is switch to a quasi stasi style state, encourage a culture of grassing on suspected cheats, carrying out surveillance etc. Think of all those jobs that could be created as professional informers. I'm pretty sure the mentality for such an undertaking is already there.

Exactly, caught you old hippy before you deleted. What goes on the net stays on the net, know what I mean.

.............and get the prison population out fixing the roads, building infrastructure and building more prisons. We can then lock more people up to fix more roads and provide more security and prison guard jobs.

As it is we could have a rotation system in the prisons, night shift and day shift, shared bunks, double the prison population, have them working round the clock and get this country back on its feet.

Brilliant, we could get the bigger more forceful inmates to be the guards... in return for perks ect.that way it won't even cost more in prison officers to run the system.... Who better than a bunch of violent thugs to keep order for their own benefit .... ( don't laugh this has been done in the states, with predictable results)

Markcheese

Alecsmart , agree with lots, not with all... Hard to start change in a country with 14 % unemployment (most who'd love to work,if it payed/ was available....
The reason we have a long term welfare system is cos historically we had a long term unemployment problem (think 80s ) . When work was out there we bolstered the system because the money was there and we didn't weed out the "won't works". Small though the numbers may be .
We have a sense of entitlement, those who paid loads of tax in the 80's, think they should have pensions based on the 00's ... Those with young kids on low income and dole are broke... Those in the middle feel like they're paying out all the time...the top have expensive accountants and if tax get's too much higher will move overseas.(or go bust in uk) .....
Can you just pull the financial rug out from under the 14% unemployed , those on sick benefit ( some sicker than others....) the carers ... Those on state provided pensions ... Those getting childrens allowance...that's most of the population who aren't far off nett receivers from the state.... Athens would look like a tea party if u stopped it all ....
How do you devalue an economy if you can't devalue the currency , this is an expensive country to live, work and employ in....

Answers on a postcard please

golfwallah

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread is all over the place with attacks left right and centre...

Anyway.

Here's the thing.

The country's broke. WE HAVE NO MONEY

This aspect of "free labour taking up a job that could be advertised" is an absolute load of poppycock. We can't afford it. Suck it up and get someone WHO IS ALREADY GETTING PAID and get them to do it. I am talking graffitti cleaning, civic duties etc. And single parents should not be exempt. State creches staffed by volunteers (properly supervised too).

I don't care if you were a MD of a company. You don't have a job now and are bleeding off the state. You can clean the roads like everyone else.

You have a point and I'd like to see some action along the lines you suggest being implemented.

But do you think our Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and his colleagues have the stomach for this kind of approach or anything remotely like it?

At the very least there should be a government prompted public debate on the issue of social welfare, entitlement and costs or maybe we just have to wait until access to borrowed money runs out and there is no other choice.

Farmer Pudsey

There is no political will to change the welfare system. We have the nearly highest rate of benifit in europe if not the highest. Long term unemployed do very well. The biggest issue is that if a married person and there spouse are on welfare it is unenomical for them to take work because of the loss of benifits and the cost of going to work.

The reality is that you need to be hungry ( metophorically)to have to change livestyles. If you can have a good house, afford all the luxurys, have the price of a few pints why would you change ( there are some who will) but not the majority. Alot of recipents will tell you they wold love to work however they often will tell you with the same breath of the sh##e money they were offered by johnny down the road to work for him.

In the eighties a lot of people on welfare worked on the side for small money, they do not now as they are very comfortable with the lifestyle.

AlekSmart

Markcheese wrote: »

Alecsmart , agree with lots, not with all... Hard to start change in a country with 14 % unemployment (most who'd love to work,if it payed/ was available....
The reason we have a long term welfare system is cos historically we had a long term unemployment problem (think 80s ) . When work was out there we bolstered the system because the money was there and we didn't weed out the "won't works". Small though the numbers may be .

We have a sense of entitlement, those who paid loads of tax in the 80's, think they should have pensions based on the 00's ... Those with young kids on low income and dole are broke... Those in the middle feel like they're paying out all the time...the top have expensive accountants and if tax get's too much higher will move overseas.(or go bust in uk) .....
Can you just pull the financial rug out from under the 14% unemployed , those on sick benefit ( some sicker than others....) the carers ... Those on state provided pensions ... Those getting childrens allowance...that's most of the population who aren't far off nett receivers from the state.... Athens would look like a tea party if u stopped it all ....
How do you devalue an economy if you can't devalue the currency , this is an expensive country to live, work and employ in....

Answers on a postcard please

Postcard from the edge....:)

No answers writ upon it though Markcheese.

However,the question about whether or not the rug can be pulled from under the 14% is very much a live issue.

I would suggest that this rug could and probably will be pulled,but the current Irish government policy is to slowly tug at it and hope those lying on it don't take too much notice.

Your comparison with the Athenians is spot-on and is,IMO,the single biggest issue occupying the mindss of the Irish political mind.

However it's not the Pensioners,Children or Disabled which cause the head-scratching,but rather the significant number of those aged between 22 and 54,the able-bodied male population,if you like,who currently are up for grabs in the battle for Irish hearts and minds.

There is general agreement,on boards and elsewhere,that Ireland has c.100,000 of these long-term recipients,some now second-generation,who currently enjoy a degree of status and protection not available to large numbers of workers occupying manual or blue-collar jobs.

Each bout of local or national politics now sees the more extreme wings of certain political parties making substantial gains as they cultivate and harvest the fields of entitlement to produce some very ripe crops of anger and potential violence.

Currently the very real issue is of the lower and middle ends of the Labour market being panhandled for every cent,with these contributors then finding it very difficult to understand why their own level of benefit falls below what they expected their contributions would provide.

I rather suspect the Postcard with the answer will drop through the letterbox bearing a German postmark and after the translators do their work we will hear a collective GULP !!! from Leinster House.....:o

Laminations

Hi Markcheese. 14% is not the figure for long term unemployed, which is who I at least have been referring to. Also pulling rugs sounds drastic and immediate. Gradual reductions only with failure to volunteer a day to the community is less harsh.

Kinski

Laminations wrote: »

Gradual reductions only with failure to volunteer a day to the community is less harsh.

That wouldn't work. They want to spend less on social welfare, not more, and coercing (it's hardly "volunteering" if refusing carries a penalty) unemployed people to participate in community projects would cost more - they'd need to be insured at least, and probably trained and supervised as well. It would cost a fortune to run a scheme like that.

secretambition

Kinski wrote: »

That wouldn't work. They want to spend less on social welfare, not more, and coercing (it's hardly "volunteering" if refusing carries a penalty) unemployed people to participate in community projects would cost more - they'd need to be insured at least, and probably trained and supervised as well. It would cost a fortune to run a scheme like that.

The cost would be offset by the number of people who would magically leave the dole if they had to do it for a significant amount of time each week. And I'm not saying everyone on the dole avoids work by choice, I'm saying I think some do.

ChRoMe

secretambition wrote: »

The cost would be offset by the number of people who would magically leave the dole if they had to do it for a significant amount of time each week. And I'm not saying everyone on the dole avoids work by choice, I'm saying I think some do.

Right so to deal with a minority, you want the punish the majority.

Great plan.

Laminations

ChRoMe wrote: »

Right so to deal with a minority, you want the punish the majority.

Great plan.

Why is donating time to the community / public good seen as punishment? After 2 years relying on state support why not give back what you can? your time - and a few hours of one day isn't asking a lot. Not for the purpose of improving yourself, training, getting a job but just simply to contribute. And it matters not what circumstances led to to be unemployed or finds you still unemployed after 2 years - once you can contribute you should contribute.

Imagine sitting at home in your parents house unemployed (as many people are) - your parents are providing your shelter, food, support and you do nothing, you sit on the internet looking for jobs, and when your parents ask for some help around the house you reply 'why am I being punished?' You tell them you need to spend your time looking for a job. They ask how it is going and you reply 'there are no jobs'. So should you still sit there not contributing until you stumble across a job? Couldn't you leave out the bins, wash up, mow the lawn, paint the house?

Now replace the house with the state and your parents with welfare. The state is here to support you, I don't begrudge people getting help to get back on their feet, but the state cant support you forever, what if a job doesn't turn up, should you get 188 per week for the rest of your life? Or should the support be contingent (after a grace period) on you contributing something, just a little, giving back to the community that supports you, not out of self-interest but because you can.

Laminations

Kinski wrote: »

That wouldn't work. They want to spend less on social welfare, not more, and coercing (it's hardly "volunteering" if refusing carries a penalty) unemployed people to participate in community projects would cost more - they'd need to be insured at least, and probably trained and supervised as well. It would cost a fortune to run a scheme like that.

Supervision / training would happen under the council / charity that you volunteer for. You do realise that volunteer schemes work all over thew world despite insurance worries and training?

Gurgle

Laminations wrote: »

Why is donating time to the community / public good seen as punishment?

Why even refer to it as donating?

It would be easy to spin it as a fantastic opportunity for improvement in mental and physical well-being for long-term unemployed.

Small print: +20% for those who opt in, -20% for those who don't.

Kinski

Laminations wrote: »

Supervision / training would happen under the council / charity that you volunteer for. You do realise that volunteer schemes work all over thew world despite insurance worries and training?

You're not proposing a voluntary scheme. You're proposing that the govt coerce unemployed people into taking part in community programs - completely different, and thus there would be implications re: insurance etc.

Laminations

Gurgle wrote: »

Why even refer to it as donating?

It would be easy to spin it as a fantastic opportunity for improvement in mental and physical well-being for long-term unemployed.

Small print: +20% for those who opt in, -20% for those who don't.

It should be in return for maintaining benefit at current levels. We need a gradual reduction in welfare the longer people are on it. After a 2 year grace period, payments should start to reduce and requirements for retraining and increased contact with state services etc should increase. If you want to avoid this, you donate a day a week to community projects.

Laminations

Kinski wrote: »

You're not proposing a voluntary scheme. You're proposing that the govt coerce unemployed people into taking part in community programs - completely different, and thus there would be implications re: insurance etc.

Under a new scheme payments would start to reduce after two years. You have a choice, take the welfare payment and keep your own time to yourself or donate some time and get a top up. It is as coercive as overtime. People would still volunteer with whatever organisation is overseeing the work in the community. Insurance costs would be offset by savings in other areas.

secretambition

ChRoMe wrote: »

Right so to deal with a minority, you want the punish the majority.

Great plan.

Loads of laws work that way to prevent people breaking the rules. Most people don't drink and drive yet anyone can be subject to random breath-testing.

Kinski

Laminations wrote: »

People would still volunteer with whatever organisation is overseeing the work in the community. Insurance costs would be offset by savings in other areas.

Easy to say that, but you're talking about "increased contact" with the State for the long-term unemployed, and "retraining" requirements kicking in too. All of that would cost more. The only saving you seem to suggest is the lower level of welfare payment - which people can avoid by just "volunteering" to pick up litter or whatever; so what if the vast majority of long-term recipients decide this "top-up" is worthwhile, and do just that?

Laminations

Kinski wrote: »

Easy to say that, but you're talking about "increased contact" with the State for the long-term unemployed, and "retraining" requirements kicking in too. All of that would cost more. The only saving you seem to suggest is the lower level of welfare payment - which people can avoid by just "volunteering" to pick up litter or whatever; so what if the vast majority of long-term recipients decide this "top-up" is worthwhile, and do just that?

Then we don't save much but we have very tidy towns, thriving community and sports programs, improved maintenance and reduced costs for public community facilities and plenty of engagement with charity.

So the state does receive some benefit from the welfare bill it pays to the long term unemployed, and the long term unemployed contribute to the state that supports them, upholding their side of the social contract.

Gurgle

Kinski wrote: »

people can avoid by just "volunteering" to pick up litter or whatever; so what if the vast majority of long-term recipients decide this "top-up" is worthwhile, and do just that?

Then there will be no litter, onto a winner already. :cool:

Anyway, why would you assume 'pick up litter or whatever'?
There are a thousand jobs that could be done in community employment, where people doing them learn new skills, possibly even find useful and constructive things they like doing, go on to getting a job or even starting a business.

ChRoMe

secretambition wrote: »

Loads of laws work that way to prevent people breaking the rules. Most people don't drink and drive yet anyone can be subject to random breath-testing.

Comparing apples and bowling balls tbh.

Kinski

Gurgle wrote: »

There are a thousand jobs that could be done in community employment, where people doing them learn new skills, possibly even find useful and constructive things they like doing, go on to getting a job or even starting a business.

Because I just assume that if there is some good social or economic reason for this work to be done, then someone would be being paid (or at least volunteering)to do it already.

As for a way of getting the hardcore unemployed doing something productive, I know someone who works in a dole office in Dublin. Many of the long-term unemployed he deals with (not those made redundant as a result of the recent downturn) refer to the dole as their "wages." I see some of these guys drinking their "wages" in the park near my house almost every day. Tbh, I don't hold out much hope that making them do anything in the community is going to have much benefit.

Laminations

Kinski wrote: »

Because I just assume that if there is some good social or economic reason for this work to be done, then someone would be being paid (or at least volunteering)to do it already.

When you have limited money - like a country with a budget, especially in recessionary times - some things get prioritised and others neglected. Are you saying that volunteers who go and build houses in Haiti confer no social or economic benefit? because they don't get paid.

As for a way of getting the hardcore unemployed doing something productive, I know someone who works in a dole office in Dublin. Many of the long-term unemployed he deals with (not those made redundant as a result of the recent downturn) refer to the dole as their "wages." I see some of these guys drinking their "wages" in the park near my house almost every day. Tbh, I don't hold out much hope that making them do anything in the community is going to have much benefit.

Grand. For this minority, their 'wages' will get gradually reduced.