Nearly 40% labour force on unemployment, one parent(not working),disability payment

xmas14

The labour force is 2.23 million. 40% of the labour force is on either one parent family, illness/disability, unemployment or Supplementary welfare payment. I think the unemployment figures are masked by a huge number of welfare payments. Look at all the other welfare allowances given that are not called unemployment payments and massive numbers of people on them in 2011.The number of recipients are as follows:

Total Widow(er) ,One-Parent families recipient (under age 66 yrs) 216508
total illness disability recipient 243416
total jobseekers recipient 379973
total supplementary welfare recipient 34597
total number welfare recipients 874494

If you add in their dependants the result is a huge number of beneficiaries on welfare. The total number of welfare beneficiaries (recipient and dependants)is 2.3million or 50% of the population. See report
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2011stats.pdf
See page 30 of this report for the table where I got these figures

One Parent family and widow(er) payments to those under 65 and not working are called unemployment payments in other countries.
The number of illness/disability recipients is really high.

No recipient can be on more than one of the above.

This is scandalous. In the Irish labour force it is nearly as common to be on social welfare as working. What I am trying to say is that its extremely common to be on social welfare in Ireland. Its nearly as 'normal' as working. I think the Jobs crisis is not being discussed. Nobody really talks about why these figures are so high.

[Jackass]

I'm not sure I understand what the point the OP is trying to make is.

Yes, there's a lot of people on welfare, but that's more a reflection on the lack of job creation than a slant on Irish people. About 25% of the labour force are in negative equity on mortgages and during boom time / work availability, there's about a 2.5% margin for error of "dead wood", i.e. people who will choose to never work - so it's a scandalous reflection of how fecked we are more than anything imo!! :eek:

kristopher_1

The IMF and ECB policies will do more harm than good over the long term.
Fiscal deficits are not necessarily a bad thing providing the money is invested wisely.

Victor

Your numbers are wrong or rather, added added up wrong, by half a million people.

The labour force is those people who are willing, able and available for work and are either working or seeking work.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile3/Profile%203full%20doc%20for%20web%20sig%20amended.pdf

Economic status

As was reported in This is Ireland Part 2, an analysis of the census question on present principal status showed that the labour force in April 2011 had grown by 122,705 people
since 2006 to 2,232,203. This represented a 5.8 per cent increase.

Among the labour force, the numbers of those at work declined in the 5 years by over 6 per cent to 1,807,369 while the number of people looking for their first job rose by over 16 per cent to 34,166. The number of people who were unemployed increased significantly from 150,084 to 390,677. When combined with people looking for their first job the total number of people who were out of work stood at 424,843 in April 2011.

Total Widow(er) and One-Parent families recipient (under age 66 yrs) - a proportion likely not available for work.

Maternity and guardians payments recipient - likely not available for work.

Illness disability and carers recipient - a proportion likely able for work, others working part-time.

Jobseekers recipient - quite a few of these have part-time or intermittent work

Supported employment e.g. CE scheme - at work

Supplementary welfare recipient - I imagine this tends to apply for a relatively short period.

Number welfare recipients - not so clear cut

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

OP, where are you going with this? The figures don't seem to add up, and you're not giving us much to work with here. At this rate, I don't foresee this thread remaining open for long.

ezra_pound

kristopher_1 wrote: »

The IMF and ECB policies will do more harm than good over the long term.
Fiscal deficits are not necessarily a bad thing providing the money is invested wisely.

What do you mean fiscal deficits are not necessarily bad?

What money are you talking about which should be invested wisely? - the money that doesn't exist ie the deficit?

antoobrien

kristopher_1 wrote: »

The IMF and ECB policies will do more harm than good over the long term.

Job creation figures and the types of jobs that are being created belie that statement as we are starting to see the investment in the kind of lower cost lower qualification requirement jobs that we will need for a full economic recovery to take place.

kristopher_1 wrote: »

Fiscal deficits are not necessarily a bad thing providing the money is invested wisely.

Only when the deficit is being used to fund viable strategic capital projects, our current deficit spending does not fall into that category.

Mr Benevolent

Those numbers don't make sense. Why are you including maternity, illness disability and carers allowance? These people are not working for a good reason.

seamus

Immediately when I saw your list, the first thing I wondered is whether you're counting each payment as a "recipient". Many people are in receipt of multiple benefits, so straightforward addition of the numbers won't work.

We do require an overhaul of the monitoring of OPFA and illness benefit payments, but you seem to have been very liberal and disingenuous with your figures in making your proclamations.

xmas14

Yes the numbers are huge but they are real. I got them out of the report listed.
Victor you said Total Widow(er) and One-Parent families recipient (under age 66 yrs) is a proportion likely not available for work. I disagree as in other countries one parent families who are unemployed are considered unemployed not classed as One parent families.

Maternity and guardians payments recipient - likely not available for work. This is a fair point.

Illness disability and carers recipient - a proportion likely able for work. Over 244,000 on illness social welfare payments.
Jobseekers recipient -They still receive benefits.

Supported employment e.g. CE scheme - This is still social welfare. Many of these people would still prefer to be working in the real economy.
Supplementary welfare recipient -Yes, but one gets this while awaiting another payment e.g. Jobseekers

Seamus said some people are probably receiving more than one payment. This is not true as only carers/child payment recipient receive more than one payment.

Conclusion:A very high percentage of our working age population is on benefits.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Seamus said some people are probably receiving more than one payment. This is not true as only carers/child payment recipient receive more than one payment.

Not true - people with children can benefit from both of CB & FIS.

There are 597,333 families in receipt of CB in 2011, there are (according to the summary doc) there were 1,467,129 recipients of weekly SW payments last year (this does not include CB).

There are 28,876 families also in receipt of family income supplement, which is paid to people in employment with children.

The total no. payments made in each class to individuals across all classes of payment >> total no. people in receipt of benefits.

xmas14

Hi antoobrien. I am only referring to the 40% of the labour force on unemployment, one parent(not working) and disability/illness and supplementary welfare payments social welfare payments. Someone can only be on one of these payments. Yet 874,494 seem to be on them which is nearly 40% labour force.

I wasn't referring to child benefit or FIS which you are right can be multiple payments.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Hi antoobrien. I am only referring to the 40% of the labour force on unemployment, one parent(not working) and disability/illness and supplementary welfare payments social welfare payments. Someone can only be on one of these payments. Yet 874,494 seem to be on them which is nearly 40% labour force.

I wasn't referring to child benefit or FIS which you are right can be multiple payments.

And you're still wrong/misunderstanding what you're looking at - some of those are available to those in work, specifically disability, JB & JSA have clauses that allow (at least partial) payments to be made to those in employment. I don't know the ins and out sof it, but take a look here:
citizensinformation.ie->social welfare->social welfare payments -> SW payments and work/

xmas14

Hi antoobrien. Yes, those on Jobseekers Payments may work part time but they still receive Jobseekers, but they still seem to be reliant on social welfare.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Hi antoobrien. Yes, those on Jobseekers Payments may work part time but they still receive Jobseekers, but they still seem to be reliant on social welfare.

That depends on your definition of reliant. Not all of those will be reliant (I remember my brother's situation two years ago, his top up was worth about 1 day's wage to him) so he most definitely was not reliant on it. There will be some that will claim it to be true, but I think you are misrepresenting the figures that are available and now trying furiously to dig your way out of the hole.

You should remember that the partial payments are valuable to the economy, in that they allow employers to keep staff in work that they would otherwise have to make redundant - costing a full JSA/JB claim, instead of about half of one.

To give an example, instead of laying off one (of two), cutting the wages by 50%, employers can keep both while cutting the bill by 40% with higher productivity than one person can provide. The wages of both individuals can then be partially topped up meaning that they do not lose 40%.

xmas14

Hi antoobrien. 40% of the labour force is on either one parent family, illness/disability, unemployment or Supplementary welfare payment. I am saying these figures are shocking. Also, the fact that you say people qualify for Jobseekers while working means that they are earning not too much (little) as its means tested.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Hi antoobrien. 40% of the labour force is on either one parent family, illness/disability, unemployment or Supplementary welfare payment. I am saying these figures are shocking.

No they are not shocking.

Your op mentions Widow(er) ,One-Parent families.

Not many people chose to be a widower or a single parent, so bringing them into it is disingenuous. As payments they're also also non-exclusive - somebody on these can be getting other payments - which will be means tested - thus further reducing the validity of your figure.

The only figure that has some claim on "shocking" would be disability - those who can do little/no work due to illness/injury/disability/disfigurement. Do we really have 1/4 million people that fall into that category?

As for the other figures we've just had a large adjustment of employment out of an area of work that does not require much in the way of advanced education - meaning that pretty much anybody could do it with some training.

No amount of high end jobs - which largely make up the jobs being created - can replace jobs for these people as many of the people that are unemployed will not be capable of the tasks (through lack of education, training or ability). It takes 3/4 years to educate a "graduate" software engineer to a high enough standard to start employment. It can take between 6 months and 2 years for them to become effective. We are 4/5 years into the bust, so the people that have re-trained will only start coming on stream now - assuming they started retraining immediately.

So no the figures are not shocking to anybody with an iota of knowledge and the ability to analyse the situation.

xmas14

Hi antoobrien. 40% of the labour force is on either one parent family, illness/disability, unemployment or Supplementary welfare payment.A person can only be on one of these payments. This is why these figures are so shocking.Yes, we do have nearly 1/4 million on illness/disability payments who are under the age of 66 years. I have not included those in further education in these numbers.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Hi antoobrien. 40% of the labour force is on either one parent family, illness/disability, unemployment or Supplementary welfare payment.

Your figures are still wrong and the amateur theatrics in bold don't make them right. The total number of recipients of working Age Income Supports - or SW payments to those eligible to be in the labour force - is 545,819.

The labour force is approx: 2,096,400

That makes the total proportion of the labour force on the various SW payments that you seem to have a problem with 26% - almost a 40% reduction on your 40%.

For completeness here's the full listing
Type of Payment | 2011
Jobseeker’s Allowance | 283,929
One-Parent Family Payment | 90,307
Widow(er)’s or Surviving Civil Partner’s NC Pension | 1,959
Deserted Wife’s Allowance | 409
Basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance | 34,597
Farm Assist | 11,333
Pre-Retirement Allowance | 4,820
Prisoner’s Wife’s Allowance | 0
Other Supplements(1) | 14,244
Jobseeker’s Benefit | 96,044
Deserted Wife’s Benefit | 8,071
Maternity Benefit | 23,947
Adoptive Benefit | 45
Health & Safety Benefit | 61
Total | 569,766

O.p. debunked.

xmas14

antoobrien.The thread is Nearly 40% labour force are on unemployment, one parent(not working), disability payment. You forgot the illness /disability recipients under the age of 66 years who total 243,416. This is rather a lot of people to forget.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

antoobrien.The thread is Nearly 40% labour force are on unemployment, one parent(not working), disability payment.

Where are you getting the "not working" single parent out of, there's no mention of this class in any of the figures or defitions I've seen - just a single means tested payment.

xmas14 wrote: »

You forgot the illness /disability recipients who total 243,416. This is rather a lot of people to forget.

I didn't forget them it was DSP who didn't include them in their figures, presuably since due to their particular disability/injury/illness (those that are working are supposed to be doing it therapeutically), they are unavailble to work. Therefore they are also not included in the labour force. Making all your figures wrong.

Here's a capture of the page (39) in question:


If you'll look at page 46 of the doc you will find that there were 25,351 people getting the Basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance pending getting other allowances. Of those 6,455 were pending disability, 1,833 illness (or appealing), 208 state pension and 2174 pending various other SW payments.

xmas14

Antoobrien:Single parent who are not working in Ireland are not classed as unemployed.They are classed as single parents. In most other countries they are classed as unemployed. By classing them as single parents the unemployment figures are made artifically lower.

Also, nearly 250,000 on illness/injury benefit is a really high figure as it only deals with people under age 66.

Antoobrien: Why are you implying these figures are acceptable or normal?

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Antoobrien:Single parent who are not working in Ireland are not classed as unemployed.They are classed as single parents. In most other countries they are classed as unemployed.

Prove it - show us where this misclassification takes place.

xmas14 wrote: »

Also, nearly 250,000 on illness/injury benefit is a really high figure as it only deals with people under age 66.

Antoobrien: Why are you implying these figures are acceptable or normal?

Yup - take a look at our nearest neighbours. The uk have 15% of working adults, 4% higher than ours.

xmas14

Antoobrien:one parent family social welfare payments for single parent not working does not exist if the parent is over 3 years in Germany. I never heard of it in the UK. In fact, I don't think it exists anywhere else in the world if the children are over 3 years old. Single Parents with children over 3 years are simply called unemployed if not working.

I spent a lot of time in Sunderland. Lots of people were on Disability. In the UK unemployment is only 60quid a week while disability is 180 quid a week roughly. The UK government have been trying to get people off disability.

antoobrien

xmas14 wrote: »

Antoobrien:one parent family social welfare payments for single parent not working does not exist if the parent is over 3 years in Germany. I never heard of it in the UK. In fact, I don't think it exists anywhere else in the world if the children are over 3 years old.

Different issues than the one at hand. That our welfare system is pretty much till 65 or child is 18 (with some exceptions) or we pay things that other countries pay is beside the point.

xmas14 wrote: »

Single Parents with children over 3 years are simply called unemployed if not working.

Where? Links!

xmas14 wrote: »

I spent a lot of time in Sunderland. Lots of people were on Disability. In the UK unemployment is only 60quid a week while disability is 180 quid a week roughly.

Again payment amounts and policies in other countries are irrelevant.

xmas14 wrote: »

The UK government have been trying to get people off disability.

I see you've ignored the facts
a) we have a lower adult disability rate than the UK
b) the amounts payable here are the same for JB & disability

kristopher_1

ezra_pound wrote:

What do you mean fiscal deficits are not necessarily bad?

What money are you talking about which should be invested wisely? - the money that doesn't exist ie the deficit?

When the economy is performing poorly and private sector cannot support it, the government should step in and stimulate demand by investing areas that will help it grow.

The government should invest in education, healthcare, infrastructure, transportation and communications, basic research and development into areas like alternative energies...this all helps the private sector in the long term.

Unfortunately the IMF/ECB control the purse strings and they're demanding cuts to education and healthcare, privatization of state assets, property taxes....all of these neo liberal policies are prescription for disaster.

Do you really want to live in servitude to foreign bankers represented by IMF?

Bear in mind, all that money Ireland receives comes from thin air..since they (US banks) have the ability to issue their own money, Ireland no longer has that ability since joining the Euro and has to beg from ECB/IMF, how long can it last?

antoobrien wrote:

Job creation figures and the types of jobs that are being created belie that statement as we are starting to see the investment in the kind of lower cost lower qualification requirement jobs that we will need for a full economic recovery to take place.

Only when the deficit is being used to fund viable strategic capital projects, our current deficit spending does not fall into that category.

Why do we need lower skilled jobs for full economic recovery?
What type of low skilled jobs?

Godge

I think there is an interesting point to be explored here in relation to the statistics without labelling or targetting anyone. The question that interests me is what is the number of 18-65 year olds who are not participating in employment? In essence, they are being supported by the rest of the population who are in employment. While some categories (e.g. student, homemaker, private pension over 60) are receiving little help directly from the state, they are receiving help directly from others who are employed, mainly relatives. If that help wasn't being provided, maybe more could be collected in taxes. So the number of economically inactive and the sub-category number of those who are receiving a state payment (should we include the numbers getting a grant at third-level and/or the amount paid by the state to third-level providers by students?) is important in estimating the burden falling on those in work.

Rather than arguing about who falls into what category of social welfare recipient, data from the Census in 2011 might give some answers about these questions. I would guess that our figures would currently show a pretty high dependency ratio (for 18-65s) given the number out of the workforce and those in full-time higher education.

AlekSmart

Godge wrote: »

I think there is an interesting point to be explored here in relation to the statistics without labelling or targetting anyone. The question that interests me is what is the number of 18-65 year olds who are not participating in employment? In essence, they are being supported by the rest of the population who are in employment.

Xmas14 may not be making his/her point as diplomatically as some might like,however Godge manages to paraphrase it somewhat clearer.....;)

Although,perhaps Xmas14 is Ruari Quinn in disguise....?

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/jobseekers-in-benefits-halt-warning-3331413.html

Farmer Pudsey

Op I must congradulate you on tacking to a very fine line your diplomacy is to be admired. We have a huge issue in this country because of the way our welfare system is structured we have created asitutation where the reward for the risk attached to working is (especially for low-medium wage employees) is reduced

The father of the modern welfare state Willian Beverage who was of the opinion that it should keep body and soul togeather as well as do awaw with the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. It seems to have failed not because of the amount of money spend on welfare (remember the spending during the Boom) but rather if the rates are too high it removes the impetus to improve oneself. His other opinion is that welfare should be as above enought to keep body and soul togeather but little enough that anyone on it would take the first available job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge

The other issue we face is the amount of childern living in jobless households
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1211/esri-jobless-households-.html

Are we creating a generation that will be born with a sence of entitlment that cannot be borne by the state. I do not disagree that some on welfare have it tough but others work the system. Take Diability if you are on it you can still work but there is a limit to the amount that you can earn 120 euro/week and still recieve full benifit and from 120-350 only half will be disregarded for means testing purposes. I wonder how many are getting Disability and working parttime longterm.

Much the same for one parent families the first 130 is disregarded, however there is a move to limit one parent family payment the qualifying age is being reduced to 7 years by 2014/15 depending on first year of application.

However when you look at it accross all sectors of welfare it seems we have a longterm issue that needs to be addressed

Silentcorner

The other issue we face is the amount of childern living in jobless households
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1211/esri-jobless-households-.html

Are we creating a generation that will be born with a sence of entitlment that cannot be borne by the state. I do not disagree that some on welfare have it tough but others work the system. Take Diability if you are on it you can still work but there is a limit to the amount that you can earn 120 euro/week and still recieve full benifit and from 120-350 only half will be disregarded for means testing purposes. I wonder how many are getting Disability and working parttime longterm.

Much the same for one parent families the first 130 is disregarded, however there is a move to limit one parent family payment the qualifying age is being reduced to 7 years by 2014/15 depending on first year of application.

However when you look at it accross all sectors of welfare it seems we have a longterm issue that needs to be addressed[/QUOTE]

Excellent point, I have noticed this has seen very little mainstream attention, why I don't know, this has received even less attention from politicians, why I don't know...surely this is an issue that has huge social implications but not a whisper from the establishment.

What is the cost to the taxpayer, not just in social welfare payments, but in every single facet of the establishment ie how many will come into contact with the different social structures, and at what cost...this can only be political failure

coolshannagh28

The economic model is broken ,the fallacy of depending on FDI to provide jobs and tax to support a welfare state and rolls royce pay and pensions is over . The cost of welfare and pensions is unsustainable ,we are finding this out early in the cycle because of the massive uncorrected structural imbalances in our economy, one of which this thread addresses.
Eventually all western capitalist nations will discover the same truth ,as we lose competitiveness and borrow to mask this ,the borrowing becomes unsustainable.
The UK has a similar problem ,a massive welfare state and bloated public expenditure reliant on revenue generated by the city of london ,which has created a two tier nation,a wealthy London and relatively poor rest of UK .This model is similar to ours and is failing as well.

Victor

xmas14 wrote: »

Antoobrien:Single parent who are not working in Ireland are not classed as unemployed.They are classed as single parents. In most other countries they are classed as unemployed.

To be classed as "unemployed" for statistical purposes, you need to be available for work. Many single (and indeed married) parents are not available for work and are outside the workforce.

There are 2.3m in the workforce, 1.8m of which work. There are many other adults outside the workforce for various reasons - over 66, parenting, education, disability, etc.

Separately, there are 4,588,252 people in the country* 535,393 over 65 and 979,590 under 15, leaving a working age population of 3,073,269. Taking the 2.3m in the workforce, this leaves 770,000 who are outside the workforce, some of whom are the ones receiving benefits.




* http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Tables%20and%20Appendices.pdf

barrackali

XMAS 14,

You have failed miserably to prove anything other than that your numbers don't add up. No amount of waffling can massage the true details.

Godge

Victor wrote: »

To be classed as "unemployed" for statistical purposes, you need to be available for work. Many single (and indeed married) parents are not available for work and are outside the workforce.

There are 2.3m in the workforce, 1.8m of which work. There are many other adults outside the workforce for various reasons - over 66, parenting, education, disability, etc.

Separately, there are 4,588,252 people in the country* 535,393 over 65 and 979,590 under 15, leaving a working age population of 3,073,269. Taking the 2.3m in the workforce, this leaves 770,000 who are outside the workforce, some of whom are the ones receiving benefits.




* http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Tables%20and%20Appendices.pdf

That is an interesting statistic.

We all acknowledge that we must support those over 65 who have retired and those 15 and under who cannot support themselves. It is one of the key values of a western democracy.

However, it is quite shocking to find that there are nearly 1.3m people between the ages of 15 and 65 who are being supported in one way or another by the 1.8m who are working.

There are a number of policy implications for this.

(1) Obviously we need to support those in second-level education
(2) We also need to support those who are unable for any kind of work because of disability.

Together they would account for a small part of the 1.3m.

However, given the situation that the country finds itself in, can we really continue to support

(1) The subsidisation of third-level education
(2) The high levels of disability payment to those who are able to partake to a greater or lesser extent in the workforce
(3) The early retirement provisions in the public service (gardai can go at 50)
(4) The tax support to those who work in the home.
(5) Generous single parent payment and arrangements

These are all controversial issues likely to get various groups on here complaining. But if we are serious about getting people back to work, generating tax revenue to support those over 65 and under 15, these are some of the areas that need to be examined - the numbers above are stark.

AlekSmart

barrackali wrote: »

XMAS 14,

You have failed miserably to prove anything other than that your numbers don't add up. No amount of waffling can massage the true details.

In fairness Xmas14 has started quite a spirited and in-depth trawl through the DSP's Annual Reports,and also appears to have raised awareness of a significant number of individuals who for whatever reason are under-the-radar tuned to prevent the over-reliance on social payments now belatedly being whispered of.

So,on balance thus far,I'd be saying búladh-bós Xmas14.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

That is an interesting statistic.

We all acknowledge that we must support those over 65 who have retired and those 15 and under who cannot support themselves. It is one of the key values of a western democracy.

However, it is quite shocking to find that there are nearly 1.3m people between the ages of 15 and 65 who are being supported in one way or another by the 1.8m who are working.

There are a number of policy implications for this.

(1) Obviously we need to support those in second-level education
(2) We also need to support those who are unable for any kind of work because of disability.

Together they would account for a small part of the 1.3m.

However, given the situation that the country finds itself in, can we really continue to support

(1) The subsidisation of third-level education
(2) The high levels of disability payment to those who are able to partake to a greater or lesser extent in the workforce
(3) The early retirement provisions in the public service (gardai can go at 50)
(4) The tax support to those who work in the home.
(5) Generous single parent payment and arrangements

These are all controversial issues likely to get various groups on here complaining. But if we are serious about getting people back to work, generating tax revenue to support those over 65 and under 15, these are some of the areas that need to be examined - the numbers above are stark.

Nothing is 100% supportable under our restrictive austerity measures, but everything and more is supportable (with the only limitation for use of money being inflation) at an EU level; austerity will lead to bad public services and societal supports at every level, which is going to lead to a lot of deaths and poverty, and is unnecessary.

Cuts are going to happen for social welfare, health, education, everything, and it's all going to be bad; there is no moral argument to support any of it, or for prioritization of cuts to one particular area (except when it comes to inefficiency in the public sector), because the level of cuts required is simply morally wrong on a fundamental level, due to the effect it is having on society.

I'd say we've still got about half a decade of austerity to go (with the potential for even more), so a lot of stuff is going to see further cuts, which will lead to needless suffering/deaths, it's not just going to be restricted to welfare.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

Nothing is 100% supportable under our restrictive austerity measures, but everything and more is supportable (with the only limitation for use of money being inflation) at an EU level; austerity will lead to bad public services and societal supports at every level, which is going to lead to a lot of deaths and poverty, and is unnecessary.

Cuts are going to happen for social welfare, health, education, everything, and it's all going to be bad; there is no moral argument to support any of it, or for prioritization of cuts to one particular area (except when it comes to inefficiency in the public sector), because the level of cuts required is simply morally wrong on a fundamental level, due to the effect it is having on society.

I'd say we've still got about half a decade of austerity to go (with the potential for even more), so a lot of stuff is going to see further cuts, which will lead to needless suffering/deaths, it's not just going to be restricted to welfare.

The level of cuts is not morally wrong on a fundamental level. For example, over €1 bn will still be spent on child benefit. There is nothing fundamentally morally wrong with abolishing child benefit and providing free books to every publicly-funded school instead, using shared procurement to obtain savings. That would be a cut that is fine.

There is nothing morally wrong on a fundamental level with taxing all social welfare payments on the same basis as other income. There is nothing morally wrong on a fundamental level with eliminating most of the subsidy of third-level education. There is nothing morally wrong on a fundamental level with a property tax of an average of €1,000 per house. There is nothing morally wrong on a fundamental level with only providing single-parent payment to the first child and only until that first child is six.

I could go on and on. These are all cuts and taxes that would bring us in line with other European states and you seem to like a Europe-wide solution.

A more fundamental point is that it is definitely morally wrong and hypocritically self-righteous and selfish for anyone in Ireland to go looking for a European solution if they are not prepared to make cuts and changes that are happening elsewhere. We are protecting social welfare while the UK is cutting it - why should they help us?

I am not saying that the above cuts should be made but that getting on an emotional all-cuts-are-morally-wrong bandwagon (such as the one SF get on until someone points out the measures they introduce up north) is not much help. We should be looking at all of the policy options.

KyussBishop

You've missed the thrust of my argument: The cuts, overall, no matter what you configure them, are going to cause massive destruction to the economy and to society, causing people to die, go into homelessness and poverty, and damage peoples health, and the cuts are not even necessary.

Every cut you propose, necessitates a further cut in the future, because every cut reduces government income even more; you don't get to selectively cut anything, because every cut, necessitates cutting more.

If you want to redistribute funding more efficiently, that is one thing, but overall cutting will just perpetuate more destruction, and is immoral.


The EU is perfectly capable of providing the necessary funding, without it causing a debt for us or expense for anyone else, through funding programs with money creation, restricted by inflation.

Pottler

Any figure for those made unemployed who then chose to emigrate? That number is likly fairly scary and is it included in the "total workforce" number which may well be out of date? Either way, the figures of dependants vs workers is so skewed that it is hard to see how the working numbers can carry the non working numbers for much longer... I am more inclined to agree with the OPs figures than the massaged versions issued by the civil services.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

You've missed the thrust of my argument: The cuts, overall, no matter what you configure them, are going to cause massive destruction to the economy and to society, causing people to die, go into homelessness and poverty, and damage peoples health, and the cuts are not even necessary.

Every cut you propose, necessitates a further cut in the future, because every cut reduces government income even more; you don't get to selectively cut anything, because every cut, necessitates cutting more.

If you want to redistribute funding more efficiently, that is one thing, but overall cutting will just perpetuate more destruction, and is immoral.


The EU is perfectly capable of providing the necessary funding, without it causing a debt for us or expense for anyone else, through funding programs with money creation, restricted by inflation.

You keep suggesting the EU can print money to solve the problem and because Ireland is small it probably can. However, it is not painless. The pain is distributed across the EU and the question I have is why would the EU do anything for us when we continue to enjoy welfare systems and tax arrangements that are more generous than theirs?

KyussBishop

If it doesn't cause inflation, which it would be designed not to, it's painless for everyone. If the EU has control over monetary policy and restricts use of that due to political begrudgery, then that is simply undemocratic.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

If it doesn't cause inflation, which it would be designed not to, it's painless for everyone. If the EU has control over monetary policy and restricts use of that due to political begrudgery, then that is simply undemocratic.

If the EU prints money the currency will fall further against the US dollar and sterling. That will make some goods more expensive and travel abroad more expensive. Someone always pays.

It is not political begrudgery to say get your house in order and fall in line with the rest of us and we will help you - it is common sense and a message to others who might want to do the same in future.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

If the EU prints money the currency will fall further against the US dollar and sterling. That will make some goods more expensive and travel abroad more expensive. Someone always pays.

It is not political begrudgery to say get your house in order and fall in line with the rest of us and we will help you - it is common sense and a message to others who might want to do the same in future.

I said non-inflationary uses; the currency wouldn't devalue, because spending would be inflation-constrained.

Doc Ruby

Those on the minimum wage and welfare spend almost all of their money which in turn helps pay for those "supporting" them. Most of that support gets recycled straight back into the economy. So its not as simple a picture as money getting flushed down the toilet, far from it.

That said there is a tipping point where the problems outweigh the benefits, and we probably passed that a few years back. What's needed above all else though is creative thinking and job creation. Its not for lack of will that unemployment is so high, its for lack of jobs. During the boom the number of long term unemployed was a rounding error.

Farmer Pudsey

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Those on the minimum wage and welfare spend almost all of their money which in turn helps pay for those "supporting" them. Most of that support gets recycled straight back into the economy. So its not as simple a picture as money getting flushed down the toilet, far from it.

That said there is a tipping point where the problems outweigh the benefits, and we probably passed that a few years back. What's needed above all else though is creative thinking and job creation. Its not for lack of will that unemployment is so high, its for lack of jobs. During the boom the number of long term unemployed was a rounding error.

The fundmental issue we have are that a core of welfare recipents have little or no skills. The jobs open to them are manual low paid work, such as truck/bus drivers ( this is why we have seen an explosion of taxi drivers since the boom), work in retail, catering or service sector, along with the hope that we can find some sort of low skill employment in the export sector. During the boom these people found work in the building sector and other sectors that benifited from it.

To do this the biggest issue is pay, it is impossible for us as a country to create work at the bottom of the food chain we seem to have an ability (at present) to attract high skilled work but our welfare rates create competition at the lower end of the food chain. Not every body can be a software professional or a engineer.

It is not just the rates of welfare but also the added on benifits, back to school allowance, medical card, 3rd level grants, rent allowance etc etc. If we had a health service like the NHS in GB it might lessen the incentive to remain on welfare but this is the tip of the iceberg. However we not cannot afford to rectify these issue by giving them to low and medium paid workers so this is part of the reason that they have to be reduced.

maninasia

Practical solutions already exists in our neighbouring countries. For instance unemployment benefit should gradually reduce over time to incentivise people to go back into work.
The current situation incentivises people to stay on unemployment benefit and various other benefits. The equation is set up all wrong.

RichardAnd

maninasia wrote: »

Practical solutions already exists in our neighbouring countries. For instance unemployment benefit should gradually reduce over time to incentivise people to go back into work.
The current situation incentivises people to stay on unemployment benefit and various other benefits. The equation is set up all wrong.

Though I appreciate your point, I'm not convinced that argument holds water in the current situation. Unemployment here is high because there is a paucity of jobs to be had that do not require a high level of skill. Certainly, people should work where work is available and in fact, I think most individuals would take work were it to be offered to them but I think that the idea that unemployment is high because of unemployment benefit is fallacious.

murphaph

RichardAnd wrote: »

Though I appreciate your point, I'm not convinced that argument holds water in the current situation. Unemployment here is high because there is a paucity of jobs to be had that do not require a high level of skill. Certainly, people should work where work is available and in fact, I think most individuals would take work were it to be offered to them but I think that the idea that unemployment is high because of unemployment benefit is fallacious.

I wouldn't assume that most people would take work if offered it. I am pretty sure that most would weigh up the finances and decide based on what delivers more to them. I imagine that at least a sizable minority if not an outright majority would decline work that paid slightly lower than their total benefits package. I believe that many would decline work that paid slightly over their total benefits as many would then view the 40 hours worked as "paying" the difference between their welfare and their salary/wages.

I don't think unemployment is high because of the level of benefits but I do think that reducing unemployment is being made harder by that level of benefits and that benefits will have to fall as part of a general falling in the standard of living of the Irish to a level commensurate with a country in the position it is in.

krd

maninasia wrote: »

Practical solutions already exists in our neighbouring countries. For instance unemployment benefit should gradually reduce over time to incentivise people to go back into work.

Unemployment benefit is reduced over time in Ireland. Benefit only lasts a set number of months, then it's means tested. If you're living with a working partner or at home with your parents, you may lose all payments.

Farmer Pudsey

krd wrote: »

Unemployment benefit is reduced over time in Ireland. Benefit only lasts a set number of months, then it's means tested. If you're living with a working partner or at home with your parents, you may lose all payments.

Yes you are right but the reverse of this issue is that if both people in a family unit are unemployed and have a low skill set because of the welafre setup in Ireland there is little or no incentive to try to reenter the labour force unless the economy becomes so strong that both can find employment.
The choice for the couple above is either two jobs or no job.

maninasia

krd wrote: »

Unemployment benefit is reduced over time in Ireland. Benefit only lasts a set number of months, then it's means tested. If you're living with a working partner or at home with your parents, you may lose all payments.

I believe the recent budget cut jobseekers benefit from 12 monts to 9 months.

I get it that there are differing amounts that one may be entitled to. However there does not seem to be any further cut-off period or reductions for unemployment assistance, and as we all know many people are unofficially living with partners and many are single or on single parent allowance.

When unemployment assistance is relatively high, along with top-offs from untaxed off the books income, there is little incentive to go for full-time taxed jobs which may also lose one ancillary benefits such as medical cards, rental allowance etc.

I don't believe that there are no jobs in Ireland as otherwise how come there are still many immigrants coming in every year. In my case my job opportunities are fairly limited in my chosen field, yet I know I could move back and get a job in a fast food joint or in a call centre if I wanted. I just choose not to.