Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

puffishoes

struggling sam wrote: »

For over 30 years I have had a car but getting used to the idea of not having one is seriously being considered. However, I live in a rural area, post office is 5 mile away, town is 15 miles, but there is a community bus which goes into town twice a week.

What I'm reading is correct me if i'm wrong, you have no real need for a car?

struggling sam wrote: »

I was speaking more of landline costs, but I do take your point re as a couple might require 2 mobiles but can share one landline and internet.

I understand what you meant, my point was if you have a mobile, you don't need a landline or internet access. these are extra costs that are not _essential_

struggling sam wrote: »

Insurance is required by the terms of my lease. I have worked hard all of my life, and the only luxuries I have is a good 35mm camera and accessories, an elaborate stereo, and a 32" telly, and of course my pc!

Maybe you can find somewhere to live that doesn't have such awkward restrictions easing your financial burden as this as far as i can tell is not a tempory situation for you? again, the point really is that there a lots of things we can say the SW don't do right, but we should generally look at what we can do to help ourselves.

struggling sam wrote: »

I am from the old school, when I was married, all of our money/income was pooled and jointly spent together. I know times have changed,

Yes they have. they're allowed into pubs and everything now ;)

struggling sam wrote: »

The major costs in a household are food/heat & light, and rent. Two of the three do not increase substantially when another person is added to the household.

Yes and it's cheaper to feed one person heat i guess we can't really quantify and also as has been pointed out a few times the couple _individually_ get a lot less money than single person. so it's much of a muchness i would have thought?

puffishoes

dchris wrote: »

No, that is a stupid statement. And a massively ignorant one at that. It's people like you that I had in mind when I made the OP. So ignorant of what is really happening, in the real world, then come on to places like this and spread your ill-informed little opinions. The banks and the government bankrupt the country, yet you choose kick the real victims, who are the people that have lost their jobs? Institutionalised and conformist comes to mind..

what part of my post was ill-informed?

so far all you have done is insulted me would you mind reading my posts and addressing any parts that are "ill-informed" instead of being personal abusive?

miss.aok

its extremly hard for the unemployed. i have been to the jobs club-every person in the room wanted work. everyone in the room stressed or depressed at some stage in there jobseeking.

theres people out there working (internships) for only the social welfare and some dont even get 188 plus 50. in my case 100 plus 50 with 50 goin on petrol to get to work.

slaging people unemployed sayn there lazy is awful. id like to see the slagers unemployeed and see how they feel.

i feel working for free isnt attractive to employers anymore.

CamperMan

username123 wrote: »

If this is what you really think, then why dont you close your business, get your wife or partner to quit their jobs, and go and claim your entitlements? If people on welfare have it so easy - then why wouldnt you want to be one of them?

I tried last year and got told to feck off by the welfare so had to keep plodding on.. doing my own little business

the only thing I could get was a medical card, no rent allowance, do dole, nothing.. some weeks in business I earn zilch, not a cent

username123

CamperMan wrote: »

I tried last year and got told to feck off by the welfare so had to keep plodding on.. doing my own little business

the only thing I could get was a medical card, no rent allowance, do dole, nothing.. some weeks in business I earn zilch, not a cent

Well then you must be failing the means test somehow.

Gurgle

dchris wrote: »

yet you choose kick the real victims, who are the people that have lost their jobs?

Its not as simple as 'lost their jobs'. Its not even as simple as can't work / won't work.

There are those who have lost their jobs, and those who never had jobs. There are entire career fields which have been decimated, but 5 years into recession that excuse is wearing thin. 5 years is long enough to go from leaving cert to masters degree.

There are those who can't work for various reasons: Health, education (lack of or non-marketable), disability, criminal record.

There are those who won't work for various reasons: Lifestyle choice, laziness, inflated sense of their own value, sticking doggedly to their unfortunate career choice as though it defined their existence. (-edit- left out 'can't afford to work', but that's a whole 'nother debate)

Its very easy to blame the government / recession / society / foreigners.
But how long can you stay on welfare before you have to look in the mirror?

struggling sam wrote:

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance.

May I ask what your disability is?
Does it exclude you from all work, or just your chosen career? Have you looked at retraining?
(I'm only aiming the question at you because you're speaking from 'that side' of the fence, nothing personal intended)

dchris

puffishoes wrote: »

As a country we can't afford to keep people out of work with the luxury of lifestyle they're currently experiencing on SW.

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

To be honest dchris there is something in what he says. We know there are people struggling, that's not in question - but when you delve into a lot of peoples finances you do find that mobile phones, internet, cars and repaying loans, are put as the reason as to why some are struggling.

They are not struggling because SW is too low - they are struggling because it doesn't cover the remnants of when they worked and brought in a decent income.

Cars, mobile phones, internet - these are luxuries and just because people feel "entitled" to them doesn't change that.

dchris

Gurgle wrote: »

Its not as simple as 'lost their jobs'. Its not even as simple as can't work / won't work.

You are picking up an a very small part of what I said and not what the original post was about at all.

To re-iterate my point I am saying peoples attitude to unemployed people is a disgrace. Especially on faceless forums.

Your point about people retraining etc is valid and many have retrained in IT/Science/Pharm sectors. But on the numbers that are unemployed , where or how would you suggest retraining that volume? 300k more people unemployed now than in 2007. A university like Trinity College has c. 10K undergrads. So 30 more Unis/ITs?

Sleepy

To be fair, I think a mobile phone has pretty much become a necessity of life in modern day Ireland: particularly for someone looking for work or with a disability that could put them in a position where they might need to get help after a fall etc... That said, it's not necessary to have an iPhone or the like or more than €20 a month credit (and only that amount because it's the minimum to qualify for free texts / keep the number active).

What drives many of us who are working mad is to see how little we're actually working for: the difference between what I take home and what I'd receive in welfare entitlements would amount to about €50 a week and I've a reasonably decent job.

The boom is over. There is no quick fix. It's tighten the belts and learn to live within our means time until we can grow our way out of this mess. It's going to take a long time and it's going to be painful for everyone.

GarIT

dchris wrote: »

I am sick of unemployed people getting stick on here for being lazy, or cheating the system, or not bothering to look for work.

I think people should make themselves aware of the facts and figures when it comes to social welfare expenditure in Ireland. A lot of people on here say things that are just ignorant of any facts.

Back in 2007 we had what is considered "full employment" which means that the unemployment rate is about 4% or less. This 4% equates to about 157K people. Now unemployment is at 15% almost a 4 fold increase in unemployment. However the amount paid out in Social Welfare Expenditure in 2007 was 15Billion, In 2011 it was 20 Billion

2007
Unemployment 4 % (157k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 15 Billion

2011
Unemployment 15% (440k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 20 Billion

It is clear to me that despite c. 300% increase in the amount of people unemployed, the expenditure only increased by 33%

This would that despite having c.300k more unemployed now ,it does not have a drastic (elastic) affect on Unemployment benefit expenditure. It also suggests that it is other areas, not unemployment benefits that are the huge drain on the Social Welfare Budget, and the same ones that were in existence in 2007

If 1/3 of the SW expenditure goes on paying an additional 300K people, (5 Billion) that would mean that about 7.5 billion in total is going on unemployment benefit. ie 440K people in total (including the c157k who were always unemployed...

So the remainder 12.5 billion of the budget is going on additional payments such as pensions, rent allowances, child benefit, etc .. Not unemployment benefit.

People seem to have the pre-conceived notion that people choose to be on Unemployment Benefit because they are lazy. I think this is ridiculous. There will always be people who scam and cheat the system. But in many cases it is people who are already below the poverty line who feel they have no choice but to cheat the system. Not everyone is powered by greed, in many cases it is through necessity.

I am sick of reading posts where people tar all unemployed people with the same brush. Using terms like lazy, drains on society etc. I also don't think moderators should allow.

I have seen on one thread whereby a guy was offered a "job" working for free. He refused to take it, and was berated by people with abuse for being a waster. People would seriously want to get a grip and see what's in front of them.

Schemes like Jobsbridge are extensions of what FAS and its predecessor The Anco. It has been statistically proven that anyone who jobhunt through FAS, is 17% LESS likely to find a job..


http://www.thejournal.ie/looking-for-work-dont-go-through-the-states-back-to-work-plan-report-finds-135800-May2011/
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3144


My view on Jobsbridge is that it be a much fairer system if the employer had to match the contribution of 50 euro by the state. Or go one further and bring the individual up to the minimum wage. I am sure it is humiliating for individuals to enter companies on a Jobsbridge scheme when they are working alongside other employees doing the same Job , but for twice the pay. Furthermore travel expenses etc may leave the individual financially worse off for an extended period with no guarantees . The employer is receiving free labour. A further dis-incentive for employers to advertise for positions. It would be much more rewarding for unemployed people to approach New Business Start Ups and offer their time there. The experience one would get from working at the start up stage of a business is vast and there is a real potential that a paid role could be created. It's a potential Win-Win the , whereas the only ones who Win with Jobsbridge is employer. Business people , by nature are exploitative and I have no doubt that is what will happen to these people. Of the 6840 internships on Jobsbridge schemes, 797 interns got a job at the end of it? What happened to the other 90% ? Back on the dole perhaps, and better off? Maybe .

http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/business/opportunities-in-longford-as-jobbridge-extended-1-3872944

Maybe I am a massive cynic, but I hate seeing people bitching and back biting people of being unemployed. The majority of people are good people and want to work. I am sure people unemployed are doing the best in their situation and the last thing they need is to be kicked when they are down. No ones job is that safe, so remember before you post that you could be on the receiving end one day.

Lets not forget that it is not the unemployed peoples faults that the economy went the way it did. You can blame that on the government you voted for. Maybe your bitchy comments and back biting be better focused in their direction than individuals struggling to get by.

Its a bit quick of you to say blame the government for everything after you say don't tar everyone with the same brush. Most economists will tell you that the crash was caused by building contractors, planning offices, banks and mortgage holders. So just stop with the blame the government its a simpletons arguement.

I agree with what you are saying but having been living on one parent family payments and nothing else for extended periods of time I know it is easy to get by without coning the system, we budgeted down to the last penny and got by without any hastle. Things are getting tighter mainly with the price of petrol going up but over the years we have been able to buy a new car, new windows and were trying to go on a holiday to the west in the next few weeks, so in reality the welfare payments are too much even without coning the system.

puffishoes

Sleepy wrote: »

To be fair, I think a mobile phone has pretty much become a necessity of life in modern day Ireland: particularly for someone looking for work or with a disability that could put them in a position where they might need to get help after a fall etc... That said, it's not necessary to have an iPhone or the like or more than €20 a month credit (and only that amount because it's the minimum to qualify for free texts / keep the number active).

What drives many of us who are working mad is to see how little we're actually working for: the difference between what I take home and what I'd receive in welfare entitlements would amount to about €50 a week and I've a reasonably decent job.

The boom is over. There is no quick fix. It's tighten the belts and learn to live within our means time until we can grow our way out of this mess. It's going to take a long time and it's going to be painful for everyone.

I don't think anyone would begrudge someone access to a mobile phone.

puffishoes

dchris wrote: »

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

I'll take this response as you have nothing to suggest my posts are IL-informed and just throwing the lazy "troll" tag.

If you're going to start a thrad on SW don't start calling everyone that suggests you're wrong a troll.

What's the point?

Take my posts and explain to me why their il-informed or retract your troll statement

daltonmd

Sleepy wrote: »

To be fair, I think a mobile phone has pretty much become a necessity of life in modern day Ireland: particularly for someone looking for work or with a disability that could put them in a position where they might need to get help after a fall etc... That said, it's not necessary to have an iPhone or the like or more than €20 a month credit (and only that amount because it's the minimum to qualify for free texts / keep the number active).

Then the allowance should be for 20 euro pm - not the generous package that is paid now.

Sleepy wrote: »

The boom is over. There is no quick fix. It's tighten the belts and learn to live within our means time until we can grow our way out of this mess. It's going to take a long time and it's going to be painful for everyone.

It sure is - so why hasn't the SW rates reflected that fact? And the fact is that more people depending on such packages have power - why don't the SW say to the ESB and other companies - we hae x amount of people relying on the state for this help - give me your best low offer and we'll give you the contract?

Same with the phones?

GarIT

dchris wrote: »

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

I could really tell you different, 42 inch 3D smart tv with sky+ HD and sky sports and multiroom, 3 phones in the house, fast broadband, 4 xboxes, 4 laptops a Wii and a 3ds. All paid for be social welfare and careful budgeting.

daltonmd

GarIT wrote: »

I could really tell you different, 42 inch 3D smart tv with sky+ HD and sky sports and multiroom, 3 phones in the house, fast broadband, 4 xboxes, 4 laptops a Wii and a 3ds. All paid for be social welfare and careful budgeting.

Says more about the system than the recipients.

dchris

puffishoes wrote: »

I'll take this response as you have nothing to suggest my posts are IL-informed and just throwing the lazy "troll" tag.

If you're going to start a thrad on SW don't start calling everyone that suggests you're wrong a troll.

What's the point?

Take my posts and explain to me why their il-informed or retract your troll statement

Complete was of time me trying argue with you. Someone who believes people on Social Welfare are living in luxury is a lost cause and not worth the effort.

Have a swell day

puffishoes

dchris wrote: »

Complete was of time me trying argue with you. Someone who believes people on Social Welfare are living in luxury is a lost cause and not worth the effort.

Have a swell day

Ok,

so you only want to hear people who agree with you and the hardship of the unemployed? :rolleyes:

why didn't you mention this in the opening post?

Gurgle

dchris wrote: »

You are picking up an a very small part of what I said and not what the original post was about at all.

I'm picking on nothing and nobody, just trying to add a little colour to a black and white argument.

dchris wrote: »

To re-iterate my point I am saying peoples attitude to unemployed people is a disgrace. Especially on faceless forums.

I agree, 'the unemployed' is a wide and varied group.

dchris wrote: »

Your point about people retraining etc is valid and many have retrained in IT/Science/Pharm sectors. But on the numbers that are unemployed , where or how would you suggest retraining that volume? 300k more people unemployed now than in 2007. A university like Trinity College has c. 10K undergrads. So 30 more Unis/ITs?

This problem is too big for a single fix, it has to be broken down into smaller fixes.

Many people (employed or not) aren't cognitively capable of getting themselves a professional 3rd level qualification. But many people on the dole have 3rd level qualifications in fields which are currently no use for getting jobs.

In that situation, they can:
a) Sit and wait for their chosen sector to go back to boom times (construction: approx 30 years)
b) Sit and wait for the recession to end, so they can get an unskilled / semi-skilled job that doesn't require qualifications.
c) Give up, dole for life
d) Re-train, completely change their career field.

The exact same applies to plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, plasterers. Whats to stop them becoming welders, mechanics, farmers?

My point is that the job / career you chose when you left school at 18 does not have to be the only thing you can do for the rest of your life.

Insects specialize, people adapt.

AlekSmart

dchris wrote: »

You see this is where the misconception lies. ........

.........People forget living in Ireland is bloody expensive.

......The problem generated back during the boom times, when no provision was made for Lone Parents in addressing the issue of massive childcare costs.....

......So it is for this reason that I would not begrudge a lone parent for example, working a shift in a local shop if the opportunity presents itself. They might be able to treat themselves to a pair of shoes...

Im afraid that whilst all of dchris's points do have a relevance the core question of "Expensive Ireland" can be answered,at least in part,by pointing to the cost of maintaining the caring,sharing society so necessary to the likes of Struggling Sam...

Struggling Sam: However, I am also grateful that we do have a caring society and a Social Welfare System that for the most part, does its job reasonably well, it just needs some tweaking.

I would also disagree with Dchris on the basic issue of every unemployed person being denigrated by posters...by far and away most of the ire I have read in such posts tends to be very specifically directed at the sizeable number of the "Proffessionally Unemployable" who have made the Social Welfare system their own playground.

I'm also concerned that Dchris may still have a somewhat poorly defined sense of priorities contributing to his upset...

Dchris:I defo agree living alone is a much greater financial burden. There is no added extras at all, plus no bill sharing etc If you're running a car I'd imagine there be very little left for you at the end of a week. Plus, if anything needed replacing or if the car needed work, it would be a massive set back. I had forgotten that they took 30euro for rent every week before the supplement kicks in- good point!.

General Atomic

There's a bit of a misconception here about belt-tightening and 'living within our means'. We're in a recession right now, what do you think would happen if we suddenly started paying out less money in social welfare or even cut off a substantial portion of welfare recipients from payments?

People on social welfare do not have enough money to make any real savings, everything gets spent into the economy. If we suddenly remove billions in spending power from the economy I can guarantee that we'll regret it. Social welfare is the only major form of stimulus being performed on our economy right now. Anyone looking at our deficit and shaking their heads needs to have a real think about what belt-tightening would do to our already anemic economy.

daltonmd

AlekSmart wrote: »

Im afraid that whilst all of dchris's points do have a relevance the core question of "Expensive Ireland" can be answered,at least in part,by pointing to the cost of maintaining the caring,sharing society so necessary to the likes of Struggling Sam...

I think the "Ireland is expensive" is the core issue that hasn't been addressed - it's "expensive" because it has to be, as we pay ourselves too much.

Head The Wall

GarIT wrote: »

Its a bit quick of you to say blame the government for everything after you say don't tar everyone with the same brush. Most economists will tell you that the crash was caused by building contractors, planning offices, banks and mortgage holders. So just stop with the blame the government its a simpletons arguement.

I agree with what you are saying but having been living on one parent family payments and nothing else for extended periods of time I know it is easy to get by without coning the system, we budgeted down to the last penny and got by without any hastle. Things are getting tighter mainly with the price of petrol going up but over the years we have been able to buy a new car, new windows and were trying to go on a holiday to the west in the next few weeks, so in reality the welfare payments are too much even without coning the system.

You mention lone parent allowance and use "we" in your post a few times. If you are on about a live in partner you were conning the system i.e welfare fraud

puffishoes

General Atomic wrote: »

There's a bit of a misconception here about belt-tightening and 'living within our means'. We're in a recession right now, what do you think would happen if we suddenly started paying out less money in social welfare or even cut off a substantial portion of welfare recipients from payments?

People on social welfare do not have enough money to make any real savings, everything gets spent into the economy. If we suddenly remove billions in spending power from the economy I can guarantee that we'll regret it. Social welfare is the only major form of stimulus being performed on our economy right now. Anyone looking at our deficit and shaking their heads needs to have a real think about what belt-tightening would do to our already anemic economy.

the mis conception is that such a small tight economy as ireland can "spend" it's way out of recession by borrowing german money (again) and instead of building houses this time we give it to the SW so they can generate jobs?

Are you serious?

daltonmd

General Atomic wrote: »

There's a bit of a misconception here about belt-tightening and 'living within our means'. We're in a recession right now, what do you think would happen if we suddenly started paying out less money in social welfare or even cut off a substantial portion of welfare recipients from payments?

You see this is the strawman argument. If we pay less SW then people will spend less in the economy right? And if they spend less then business's will fold and jobs will be lost right? Tax take will fall right?

Do you not see the problem? No?

General Atomic wrote: »

People on social welfare do not have enough money to make any real savings, everything gets spent into the economy. If we suddenly remove billions in spending power from the economy I can guarantee that we'll regret it. Social welfare is the only major form of stimulus being performed on our economy right now. Anyone looking at our deficit and shaking their heads needs to have a real think about what belt-tightening would do to our already anemic economy.

Obviously not.

SW is BORROWED money - not a stimulus to the economy. We are borrowing money that we cannot afford to pay back, to put into the economy for revenue, which we need to pay high rates of SW.

It's called a "debt spiral" and we are in the middle of one. Something has to give.

christmas2012

Generally i dont judge people on the dole,i think there was a poll done recently and i heard a bit about it on the joe duffy show,about how working parents would be better off on the dole,basically it turned into a shitefest full of people going on flinging shit about those who were on the dole..

Then this woman who worked with job bridge phoned in saying everybody should do free labour,when places like FAS and jobbridge suck what could be a paid job advertised,right out of the community,its quangos like this that create unemployment,and we dont need even more unemployment in a recession..

They are an expensive burdend to the tax payer ,if you cut job bridge and fas you would have less expenditure on the dole for a start.Jobbridge and FAS are partially the reason why the dole was cut beacuse they make the dole more expensive..

They also use FAS and jobbridge wrongfully to massage unemployment figures when it suits them..

If people sign up to these schemse they are helping to create unemployment,and keep themselves out of a job also..

Gurgle

christmas2012 wrote: »

i think there was a poll done recently and i heard a bit about it on the joe duffy show,about how working parents would be better off on the dole

It wasn't a poll, it was a report written by ESRI researchers stating that 44% of families would be better of on welfare. After a couple of hours they withdrew the report and blamed its publication on someone not following procedures.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/esri-author-of-flawed-welfare-report-did-not-follow-procedures-555240.html

-edit- clarifying that the ESRI have distanced themselves from the researchers who wrote the report.

KittyG

People need to consider the real difficulties of unemployment, and not bicker about welfare recipients having laptops and mobile phones.

Those in recession-weak sectors like hospitality, retail and construction (especially younger people) may struggle for long, long periods to find work now. Those on benefits may never be able to secure credit or a home loan in the future because unemployment will affect their credit rating. They may have to make sacrifices that employed people, much as we moan about our jobs, will never have to consider.

An old school friend of mine receives unemployment benefit; she waters down her milk to make it last longer.

puffishoes

KittyG wrote: »

People need to consider the real difficulties of unemployment, and not bicker about welfare recipients having laptops and mobile phones.

Those in recession-weak sectors like hospitality, retail and construction (especially younger people) may struggle for long, long periods to find work now

These sector's have been dropping since late 2006 why are they not re-trained in something else at this point?

KittyG wrote: »

. Those on benefits may never be able to secure credit or a home loan in the future because unemployment will affect their credit rating.

This is not a problem, we have a huge rental market. plus taking out loans is a personal choice. what should we do? write off all the debt and have people who didn't take out loans pay it back in increased taxes? what exactly are you suggesting here?

KittyG wrote: »

They may have to make sacrifices that employed people, much as we moan about our jobs, will never have to consider.

An old school friend of mine receives unemployment benefit; she waters down her milk to make it last longer.

I find this hard to belive, 1.25 would generally last a single person about 10 days. this is less than 5e a month a SW is on excess of over 800e a month. this is more disposable income than a lot of professional workers.

I'd just move to black tea, it's nicer anyway.

daltonmd

christmas2012 wrote: »

Then this woman who worked with job bridge phoned in saying everybody should do free labour,when places like FAS and jobbridge suck what could be a paid job advertised,right out of the community,its quangos like this that create unemployment,and we dont need even more unemployment in a recession...

It's not free labour - you get the dole, it's an opportunity for people to train up and maybe secure employment from the scheme.

christmas2012 wrote: »

They are an expensive burdend to the tax payer ,if you cut job bridge and fas you would have less expenditure on the dole for a start.Jobbridge and FAS are partially the reason why the dole was cut beacuse they make the dole more expensive...

No - unemplyed people who don't make the effort to retrain themseles are a burden on the state.

christmas2012 wrote: »

If people sign up to these schemse they are helping to create unemployment,and keep themselves out of a job also..

They are keeping themselves out of a job by not taking ANY opportunity that comes along.