What did we learn from the boom and bust?

realitykeeper

Did the Irish people become wiser following the demise of the Celtic tiger? For example, should we have voted for a party that was led by a shifty individual like Bertie Ahern for example? Should we - with the benefit if hindsight, have tried to keep up with the Jones`s? I would like to learn from and reflect on the self effacing truths and snippets of wisdom accumulated by others who regret the decisions they made in the years leading up to the demise of the celtic tiger.

Max Power1

We learned nothing

We are still governed by idiots at our own free will. Volunteering to be raped by tax increases.

Lucena

I'd say on an individual basis, people should learn to save money while things are good. The nation as a whole probably won't learn anything, waiting for the next boom.

foxy06

Ive learned not to keep up with the Jones's. Was very silly for a while during the boom and although I didn't bite with the housing market I was just lucky that I missed it before crash happened. I did end up with masses of debt though that I have only recently cleared. Car packed it in just last week and rather than going and buying a new one I have started walking! Lots of lessons learned and I will never get into debt again (with exception of a very small mortgage)

PyeContinental

Nothing was learned by anyone.

Frank Lee Midere

PyeContinental wrote: »

Nothing was learned by anyone.

except the poster above you.

Jawgap

I think on an individual level people have re-learned that you have to save for certain things (cars, holidays, consumer goods) before you buy them, rather than buy them on credit.

Politically, we've learned nothing. We still elect the same type of person to represent us in the Dail, we still practice the same parochial, parish pump politics and we still hold no one, anywhere in the system accountable for their actions.

Corkbah

realitykeeper wrote: »

Did the Irish people become wiser following the demise of the Celtic tiger? For example, should we have voted for a party that was led by a shifty individual like Bertie Ahern for example? Should we - with the benefit if hindsight, have tried to keep up with the Jones`s? I would like to learn from and reflect on the self effacing truths and snippets of wisdom accumulated by others who regret the decisions they made in the years leading up to the demise of the celtic tiger.

Doesn't matter who you vote for in politics..... the politicians always get in !!
(and to be fair - no matter which political group are in charge they will tell "mistruths" to the electorate to get their vote)

PyeContinental

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

except the poster above you.

Anyone +/- 0.001% of the population so.

donegal_road

learned that €300k @ 4.4% over 30 years = €540k





*didnt borrow this much, its just an example

Jawgap

Most people still never learned what a tracker mortgage is:D

RichardAnd

I learned that there is no "we"...

Morrisseeee

Jawgap wrote: »

I think on an individual level people have re-learned that you have to save for certain things (cars, holidays, consumer goods) before you buy them, rather than buy them on credit.

Politically, we've learned nothing. We still elect the same type of person to represent us in the Dail, we still practice the same parochial, parish pump politics and we still hold no one, anywhere in the system accountable for their actions.

Yes saving for certain things is the ideal scenario. I was talking to a guy the other day who just bought his first house, with his own money, he had saved up for years and was now reaping the benefits. Of course it comes at a certain cost, ie. living at home, no car, single.

But I don't think we've re-learned about borrowing. The way I see it is that the lender had cheap rates and they gave out loans/mortgages like confetti.
That's why I think the lenders should have suffered, they gave out loans/mortgages/credit very unprofessionally/unregulated, so if the borrower can't repay the money, then tough shiit sherlock!
So the obvious Q is, who comes up with the shortfall, the answer shouldn't be the ordinary man/woman/child on the street, it should be the mega rich of the world, ie. the small minority who have the majority of the wealth.

That's what's wrong about our elected Gov, they should stand up for US, not the mega rich of the world. Why should the elderly, the handicapped or the special needs person take a hit as the mega rich get richer.

Jawgap

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Yes saving for certain things is the ideal scenario. I was talking to a guy the other day who just bought his first house, with his own money, he had saved up for years and was now reaping the benefits. Of course it comes at a certain cost, ie. living at home, no car, single.

But I don't think we've re-learned about borrowing. The way I see it is that the lender had cheap rates and they gave out loans/mortgages like confetti.
That's why I think the lenders should have suffered, they gave out loans/mortgages/credit very unprofessionally/unregulated, so if the borrower can't repay the money, then tough shiit sherlock!
So the obvious Q is, who comes up with the shortfall, the answer shouldn't be the ordinary man/woman/child on the street, it should be the mega rich of the world, ie. the small minority who have the majority of the wealth.

That's what's wrong about our elected Gov, they should stand up for US, not the mega rich of the world. Why should the elderly, the handicapped or the special needs person take a hit as the mega rich get richer.

I returned to Ireland in the middle of the boom so perhaps wasn't as 'indoctrinated' on the whole lifestyle credit funding thing that seemed to be going on - the lenders were negligent in their lending, no doubt about that and I was shocked (shocked, I say:)) at some of the things the banks were suggesting I do to bump up my borrowing capacity, especially in relation to a mortgage.

Saying that it takes two to tango - so while the banks were lending negligently, a lot of people (and by no means everyone) were borrowing recklessly, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

You're right that the government should stand up for us, and not just to the banks and international financial institutions, but also, to be honest, to the strategic defaulters and the other freeloaders in our society- protect the weak and vulnerable - especially the elderly, the handicapped or the special needs person (and their carers) to the maximum, but the government should also have the balls to relentlessly pursue those trying to pass themselves of 'special cases.'

A lot of people see themselves as special cases because they took a punt (anyone for a holiday home in Bulgaria or a buy-to-let in Leitrim) and it didn't work out, now they want the rest of us to underwrite them - I wonder if the punt had worked would they be as interested in contributing a little bit extra?

Morrisseeee

Jawgap wrote: »

Saying that it takes two to tango - so while the banks were lending negligently, a lot of people (and by no means everyone) were borrowing recklessly, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

Also alot of people did suffer & are still suffering because of these two tango-ers! ie. the people who tried to get on the property ladder as the other two tangoed.
If you did manage to get a property & a big mortgage then you are suffering again now as the fallout from their reckless tango has been lumped on your dancefloor/shoulders !!

MissyFit

I learned that the it's true what they say - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer . And that Irish people have no shame , having stood by and allowed the Catholic Church to physically abuse our children , we are now allowing the Government to financially abuse our children's futures . Fighting Irish my a**

Jawgap

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Also alot of people did suffer & are still suffering because of these two tango-ers! ie. the people who tried to get on the property ladder as the other two tangoed.
If you did manage to get a property & a big mortgage then you are suffering again now as the fallout from their reckless tango has been lumped on your dancefloor/shoulders !!

Yes, but people were not forced to get mortgages, or change their car every year or have two holidays or send their kids to private schools or a whole host of other things.

The amount of work involved in getting a mortgage is not inconsequential so people had to make conscious decisions about what information they provided, what they were going to fudge (or downright lie about) and what they were going to keep back.

Also, while the banks should have been much more discriminating, you don't have to be a genius to work out whether you could afford your mortgage in the event of one or other of you losing your job, having your hours cut, becoming ill, having an extra kid etc - "what if" is a simple enough question.

Plus you're not compelled to go on the property ladder, it's a choice, as is taking on a big mortgage - if you could service it properly you wouldn't regard it as a 'big' mortgage.

I've nothing but sympathy for people who borrowed sensibly and have just been unlucky, as for anyone else, not so much.

COYW

MissyFit wrote: »

I learned that the it's true what they say - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer . And that Irish people have no shame , having stood by and allowed the Catholic Church to physically abuse our children , we are now allowing the Government to financially abuse our children's futures . Fighting Irish my a**

I learned that socialism sucks as I always suspected. I also learned that you are looked up as an idiot if you are a responsible, hard working, law abiding person who pays their taxes. Far more protection is given to those who chose to take the welfare path as career.

As a country, I truly believe that we have learned nothing and things will go back to the way they were during the boom given half the chance. The banks will lend at the same levels and once the credit is available the same old bodies will happily take all the credit they can get and act like big shots again. The same bodies will be off playing the 'victim' and 'austerity' card when it all collapses again.

I feel sorry for the few who genuinely got stung after borrowing but I believe most took advantage of the credit flow to show off. Eg: Buying 2nd homes in foreign countries that they never viewed, buying new his and her cars every year.

thebman

Realistically, we got confirmation today that FF and FG are up to their necks in dodgy behaviour and if they weren't actually running the show still would probably be illegal organisations to be members of at this point.

Both have been caught having funny conversations and caught with members getting loans it cash from dodgy sources, being perfectly happy to screw over the rest of the country for their own personal gain.

Really hope, both these political parties die a horrible death!!

Damien360

thebman wrote: »

Realistically, we got confirmation today that FF and FG are up to their necks in dodgy behaviour and if they weren't actually running the show still would probably be illegal organisations to be members of at this point.

Both have been caught having funny conversations and caught with members getting loans it cash from dodgy sources, being perfectly happy to screw over the rest of the country for their own personal gain.

Really hope, both these political parties die a horrible death!!

The names might die but the members will form a new party and everyone will believe the bull about how different they are......and they will still get elected.

Same fools different name

Damien360

Jawgap wrote: »

I've nothing but sympathy for people who borrowed sensibly and have just been unlucky, as for anyone else, not so much.

My thoughts exactly. If you are up the creek without a paddle on a holiday home pension/investment then I have no sympathy whatsoever. My taxes are covering your ass through the billions we gave the banks.

Twoandahalfmen

We learned that Sinn Fein should be in power.

Lucena

COYW wrote: »

I learned that socialism sucks as I always suspected. I also learned that you are looked up as an idiot if you are a responsible, hard working, law abiding person who pays their taxes. Far more protection is given to those who chose to take the welfare path as career.

Socialism? In Ireland? Since when?

As for people leeching off the welfare state, that definitely exists. But I'd rather that happened than having people living under bridges. I've personally benefited from the dole from time to time, but I've now been working full-time for five years. Without the dole to get me through the rough patches, where would I be now? Most people will need a helping hand at some stage in their 40-year working life.

Every system will be abused to some extent, that isn't a reason to scrap it. Careful monitoring to limit the abuse is required.

COYW

Lucena wrote: »

Socialism? In Ireland? Since when?

When has it not been socialist?

DarkDusk

We actually didn't have a proper "bust". The bust was avoided by increasing the debt exponentially. This is reflected in the US, where massive amounts of money to the tune of trillions has been printed to increase debt and prevent the bust that was experienced in the 1930's.

We are in yet another credit bubble. This time the debtors are COUNTRIES, not property developers, which is why bonds (sold to increase funds and at the same time debt) are at 300 year highs in the UK, over 230 year highs in the US. The business cycle of booms and busts occur naturally, the actions of central banks across the world since 2008 was not natural and created an artificial recovery. We have probably seen the top in bonds, they are dropping right now and interest rates rising with them, along with inflation. Look at how oil prices have reacted since the pullback in bonds, there is a long way to go I'm afraid.

Of course people haven't woken up to this yet... :rolleyes:

Jawgap

Twoandahalfmen wrote: »

We learned that Sinn Fein should be in power.

God, no!

DarkDusk wrote: »

We actually didn't have a proper "bust". The bust was avoided by increasing the debt exponentially. This is reflected in the US, where massive amounts of money to the tune of trillions has been printed to increase debt and prevent the bust that was experienced in the 1930's.

We are in yet another credit bubble. This time the debtors are COUNTRIES, not property developers, which is why bonds (sold to increase funds and at the same time debt) are at 300 year highs in the UK, over 230 year highs in the US. The business cycle of booms and busts occur naturally, the actions of central banks across the world since 2008 was not natural and created an artificial recovery. We have probably seen the top in bonds, they are dropping right now and interest rates rising with them, along with inflation. Look at how oil prices have reacted since the pullback in bonds, there is a long way to go I'm afraid.

Of course people haven't woken up to this yet... :rolleyes:

When you say that "bonds (sold to increase funds and at the same time debt) are at 300 year highs in the UK, over 230 year highs in the US" - I presume you mean the volume of bonds or their total face value? That's to be expected - both economies are substantially bigger than they were 200 years ago.

Also the face value of the bonds may be at an historic high, but in the UK's case their national debt as a proportion of GDP has been much higher in the past - as high as 250% of GDP during the Napoleonic Wars.

Finally, if bond yields are dropping doesn't that indicate increasing market confidence that the governments in question will pay on them?

I'm not sure how bonds and oil prices are causally linked - plus oil futures are up, despite the US increasing it's production, which suggests someone thinks demand is increasing and will increase.

sarumite

Twoandahalfmen wrote: »

We learned that Sinn Fein should be in power.

Ah c'mon. We may have had a massive housing bubble burst and the worst economic crash in our history.....but nothing bad enough happened that wpuld merit putting SF in power.

OldNotWIse

foxy06 wrote: »

Ive learned not to keep up with the Jones's. Was very silly for a while during the boom and although I didn't bite with the housing market I was just lucky that I missed it before crash happened. I did end up with masses of debt though that I have only recently cleared. Car packed it in just last week and rather than going and buying a new one I have started walking! Lots of lessons learned and I will never get into debt again (with exception of a very small mortgage)

Me too. Got myself riddled with debt! Clear it and save is my goal now

Sleepy

There'll always be idiots who'll think it was nothing more than a blip in the ocean and carry on regardless (and we need to make sure we don't elect any of them!) but I'd be very surprised if savings rates don't stay high for the next 20/30 years.

One of the most obvious lessons that can be learned from this recession is the value of an education. Those who are in most trouble are the ones who left school to go work on sites/retail at 15/16. They've got three choices: a life of eternal emmigration, following the booms of the English speaking world providing unskilled labour, go back to education and start their careers 10 - 15 years behind their peers or eek out an existence on the dole. Hopefully they'll see the benefit in getting their own kids to stay in school after suffering so much from a lack of education themselves.

leonidas83

Lucena wrote: »

Socialism? In Ireland? Since when?

As for people leeching off the welfare state, that definitely exists. But I'd rather that happened than having people living under bridges. I've personally benefited from the dole from time to time, but I've now been working full-time for five years. Without the dole to get me through the rough patches, where would I be now? Most people will need a helping hand at some stage in their 40-year working life.

Every system will be abused to some extent, that isn't a reason to scrap it. Careful monitoring to limit the abuse is required.

In fairness, I dont think he was talking about the likes of yourself when he made that post. I for one would be very much in favour of a system that takes into account the length of time someone has been working & the amount of tax they have paid over the course of their lives.

The problem we have in this country is the people who make a career out of it & that has to change.

Dannyboy83

What did I learn?
Many things.

Two examples:

A)
I learned that I prefer the bust to the boom.
Life has been better during the bust.

During the boom, inflation and rent increases were outstripping most people's wages. A jar of coffee cost E9. The roads were clogged with people.
If you were born any time after the early 80s, you were too late.

I don't want a boom to return. Some slow and steady growth - German style - would be nice. But no more booms.


I learned there are talkers and doers.
There are a nawful lot of unemployed people who are just plain ol' talkers.

We are 5 years into this crisis and a lot of people could be nearly finished their second degree by now, could be fully retrained and back in work, even if not in this country, they could be back to work somewhere.
But they won't help themselves.

They like the fat women in your office who start a diet every Monday morning and are eating chocolate by lunch. Jam Tomorrow.

The Corinthian

What should we have learned?

Summer doesn't last forever. Economies rise and fall - sooner or later booms slow or bust and recessions pick up, it's just an inevitable question of time. So the lesson there is to put money aside for the lean times, make sure you're employable for when competition increases (e.g. qualifications) and don't make investments or take on overheads that presume stupid things like never losing your job, or getting a pay cut (let alone that your salary will increase indefinitely), or that taxes will never increase, or inflation and interest rates will remain low. Because they won't.

Bubbles are easy to spot if you want to spot them. The housing bubble was easy to spot, it was commonly referred to as such until after it burst (then suddenly we were all surprised), and once spotted you at least know that if you jump into it you're playing a game of musical chairs, where you may do well, but you may also get badly burnt too. And all bubbles eventually burst - there has never been a 'soft landing' in the history of civilization.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And the answer, in a democracy, is us. Just because things are going well there's no excuse to just blindly vote without asking questions, especially when policies (such as the abolition of stamp duty in an overheated property market) become visibly questionable.

In a democracy, we get the government we deserve, because ultimately we vote for them and it is up to us to keep an eye on them. And if we elect a bunch of drunk monkeys to govern us, then that's because we deserve drunk monkeys governing us.

Credit is a useful but dangerous financial tool. Borrowing makes sense when it allows you to save money in the long term, but it can become a vice when too readily available, encouraging people to live beyond their means and risk what they don't actually have. Indeed, following from my above comment about saving for a rainy day, it's not that people should not live within their means but, in reality, below them - after all, your means today may be better that your means tomorrow.

Be weary of herd mentality and trust your gut. If you're doing something because others are and there appears to be a bit of a bandwagon going on, then this should be sending you warning signals. If your own gut tells you that people are charging silly money for a house or a service or anything else, then there's a good chance it is silly money and thus unsustainable.

There's no such thing as a sure thing. A fundamental part of investment is risk, and risk means that you can lose as well as gain. Always. So if you forget this because someone told you it was a sure thing and you lost money, then don't blame them; blame yourself for forgetting that fundamental truth.

But what have we learned?

Some of the above has sunk in, all right. But the benefit of hindsight has been tempered by a lot of self-justification and blamestorming, whereby we're too busy finding politicians, developers and bankers to blame so as to absolve ourselves from personal responsibility.

Anyhow, such lessons are probably moot. When I was a boy, I knew a man who had worked in stock market investment in New York City in the 1920's. He told me that the biggest lesson he'd learned from the crash of 1929 was that people were living, leveraging and investing beyond their means and presuming that the good times would never end.

He's long dead now.

And that's one of the problems with such lessons, as we're unlikely to see another such boom in our generation or even lifetime, those generations that follow will be just as clueless as our own was, when faced with a simelar situation.

COYW

Twoandahalfmen wrote: »

We learned that Sinn Fein should be in power.

What more republican socialism?

Sleepy

Because the last republican socialist did such good things for the country?

Whatever about the republican angle, is there a politician in Ireland who isn't some form of socialist? I've yet to hear one in favour of less wealth redistribution, of ending the welfare state or scrapping state-funded education, health-care etc.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Because the last republican socialist did such good things for the country?

Republican, socialist, fascist, doesn't matter. It's just a party that offers the promise of radical solutions that will magically solve all our woes. Were we to elect them, we wouldn't be the first or last nation to swallow that promise faster than a $20 blow-job.

Whatever about the republican angle, is there a politician in Ireland who isn't some form of socialist? I've yet to hear one in favour of less wealth redistribution, of ending the welfare state or scrapping state-funded education, health-care etc.

We had the PD's for a while, who would have been the only party that would not have been 'socialist', but they were never to really expand their support base beyond the ABC1 segment of society. They could never sell the idea that through merit you can better yourself, as has been possible in the UK, US or even in much of continental Europe (especially the historically protestant countries).

Ireland will most likely always have a 'socialist' angle, in the sense of wealth redistribution, mainly because of our culture. We call it begrugery, but essentially it is an ingrained suspicion and aversion to those who we feel are wealthier or somehow socially our betters - and I specifically say 'we', because it has nothing to do with the attitudes of those people, but with how they make us feel.

One thing that always horrified me was that, in university, those few that came from really disadvantaged backgrounds (corpo flats, etc), were so often ostracised by their own peers for going to college. A friend, from such a background, once told me that the attitude was that he was accused of considering himself 'better' than his former friends, by them. Being accused of "swallowing a dictionary", because you're educated, is something that you won't find anywhere outside Ireland, at least in my experience.

Meritocracy is irrelevant in Ireland as it is generally presumed by us that success is always the product of dishonesty (or historically collaboration with the British). As such, wealth redistribution is simply seen as moral justice.

nice_guy80

Don't buy something you haven't seen built yourself - it could be made of cardboard type material and be built to the lowest possible standards

If it looks to good to be true, then it probably is

An old car that gets you from A to B is the same as a brand new car.
Just you don't have a huge loan to pay off.

Other countries have plenty of problems too. We're not doing too badly here.

There is plenty of money and wealth in Ireland. Unfortunately it is in the hands of too few people and the government will never try target that.

A huge section of society are prepared to just leech off the system to live. There are jobs out there, if you go looking. But the welfare benefits outweigh the working benefits.

Cash jobs are very widespread, and growing.

OldNotWIse

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What did I learn?
Many things.

Two examples:

A)
I learned that I prefer the bust to the boom.
Life has been better during the bust.

During the boom, inflation and rent increases were outstripping most people's wages. A jar of coffee cost E9. The roads were clogged with people.
If you were born any time after the early 80s, you were too late.

I don't want a boom to return. Some slow and steady growth - German style - would be nice. But no more booms.


I learned there are talkers and doers.
There are a nawful lot of unemployed people who are just plain ol' talkers.

We are 5 years into this crisis and a lot of people could be nearly finished their second degree by now, could be fully retrained and back in work, even if not in this country, they could be back to work somewhere.
But they won't help themselves.

They like the fat women in your office who start a diet every Monday morning and are eating chocolate by lunch. Jam Tomorrow.

lol, a mate of mine said to me before, "d'ye ever notice how the ones who are always talking about diets and looking longingly at your chips and saying things like "oh I couldnt possibly" and giving up bread and wine and air and eating maggot juice slim fast are actually getting biiiiiiiiger?" :P The same people who buy and eat boxes of weight watchers rubbish. Just buy a normal fuucking packet of biscuits and eat one and control yourself like everyone else. Honestly, if talking about dieting burned calories they'd all be skinny b1tches :rolleyes:

carpejugulum

We've learned that Pat Kenny is only worth €630,000 a year.:rolleyes:

...he was on €950,000.

...and that we need a broadcasting charge.

aintgotnomoney

Hindsight is a great thing. Everyone (including me) had their heads in the clouds for so long. We were on this money train and thought the journey would never end. I remember when I was buying my property and my father (survivor of the last recession) asked me what i would do if anything happened with my job etc and my response was "oh i'll just sell it". Like it was that simple. And I thought I would even make a profit. How naive were we to think this would last forever? He was right all along really but like everyone else I was determined to get on the property ladder.

I've never considered myself as being materialistic but I found that when the times were good I splashed out on things like a newer (but still a few years old) car that was costing me a fortune to run each week because of the size of the engine. I learned to get rid of what was not considered a necessity and to shop in cheaper stores and Ive made huge savings to date. 2009 was the first year in my life that I have EVER had to budget ! A bit sad really lol. But I think a lot of people will have learned the value of a euro since the recession hit. I'm grateful for what I have learned so far

goose2005

COYW wrote: »

When has it not been socialist?

The vast majority of factories, farms, and businesses are privately owned and operated, with profits made accruing to the owners. Hence, not socialist. I presume you're going off on one about high welfare rates - they aren't so high considering the cost of living and the poor quality of public services.

Interesting that even now the only things people have learned is to wait a bit longer before having three cars and a half-acre site on a house in the country. So basically just the personal finance bit and no notion that planning and thinking on a large scale might need to change. As if the only lesson learned after the famine was that potatoes were the problem.

The Corinthian

goose2005 wrote: »

The vast majority of factories, farms, and businesses are privately owned and operated, with profits made accruing to the owners. Hence, not socialist.

Not exactly true. Historically we've levied pretty high taxes on anyone who earned not much more above the average industrial wage. This led to a pretty flat pay scale where factory workers were earning less than doctors, but the gap was a fraction of what one would have found in most Western countries.

Corporation tax wasn't all that low either (and was only lowered because it was the easiest way to adjust to the demands of the EEC to abolish the export relief), so again business owners were hit twice - if they took profits as salary or kept it in the business.

Farming was perhaps the only exception, but for ideological reasons, as FF traditionally saw Ireland as an agricultural nation and wanted to "maintain as many families as practicable on the land".

Combined with a high degree of state monopoly on many industries and protectionism, the Irish economy did behave very much on a simelar level as the economies of such nations as Yugoslavia (it even encouraged cooperatives).

So if you want to look at the facts, there are many things in Ireland's economic history that certainly pointed to a socialist or quasi-socialist approach, and they certainly were not limited to social welfare.

I presume you're going off on one about high welfare rates - they aren't so high considering the cost of living and the poor quality of public services.

Realistically you should be looking not at the cost of living but at comparative wage levels. If social welfare gives an effective wage that is simelar, or even higher, than what someone would likely earn as an employee, then that is your problem - opportunity cost.

maninasia

Something like 1 in 2 individuals in Ireland are taking state handouts.
Then look at the latest Jobsbridge scheme, state sponsored employment.

And people say Ireland isn't socialist. Which political party ISN'T socialist?
They are all left of centre as far as I can see.

FTA69

maninasia wrote: »

Something like 1 in 2 individuals in Ireland are taking state handouts.
Then look at the latest Jobsbridge scheme, state sponsored employment.

And people say Ireland isn't socialist. Which political party ISN'T socialist?
They are all left of centre as far as I can see.

State sponsored employment? Public works schemes are state-sponsored employment, sucking new people into the public clerical sector in order to alleviate unemployment is a similar thing. Sticking people into entry-level jobs where they don't get paid is FAR from socialism, the only benefactor in general from Jobsbridge are employers who are now able to avail of free labour as opposed to paying wages.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Sticking people into entry-level jobs where they don't get paid is FAR from socialism

My understanding is that they do get paid; whatever unemployment assistance or benefit they're entitled to, topped off with an extra amount for participating in the programme.

This is not to say that I think that Jobsbridge is not an ill-conceived mess, but you can demonstrate that it is an ill-conceived mess without having to resort to invention.

As for state-sponsored work programmes being socialist or not; historically these have been employed by both socialist and non-socialist governments.

FTA69

My understanding is that they do get paid; whatever unemployment assistance or benefit they're entitled to, topped off with an extra amount for participating in the programme.

This is not to say that I think that Jobsbridge is not an ill-conceived mess, but you can demonstrate that it is an ill-conceived mess without having to resort to invention.

They don't get paid by their employer in return for the labour that they provide them. Instead they get their social welfare with the equivalent of €1.25 an hour thrown on top. To say this isn't comparable to state-sponsored employment isn't invention, it's just fact.

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote: »

They don't get paid by their employer in return for the labour that they provide them. Instead they get their social welfare with the equivalent of €1.25 an hour thrown on top. To say this isn't comparable to state-sponsored employment isn't invention, it's just fact.

I'd say it's far closer to opinion tbh.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

They don't get paid by their employer in return for the labour that they provide them.

Not what you said; big difference between not getting paid by the employer and not getting paid at all.

Instead they get their social welfare with the equivalent of €1.25 an hour thrown on top. To say this isn't comparable to state-sponsored employment isn't invention, it's just fact.

And irrelevant. As I pointed out work programmes have been used across the ideological spectrum over history; communist states employed them to maintain the illusion of full employment and capitalist states (especially in the nineteenth century) used them because they abhorred the idea of simply 'giving money' to people (Ireland has a good few white elephants built during the Famine that attest to this).

Use of a work programme neither proves nor disproves any 'socialist' thinking.

I repeat, however, that I am by no means defending Jobsbridge. It's a complete joke from what I can see and yet another ill conceived policy rushed in, like the Student Summer Jobs Scheme in the late nineties (which also got completely abused).

FTA69

big difference between not getting paid by the employer and not getting paid at all.

They get paid €50 by the state in return for labour given to someone else. Similarly the value of the payment given to them is a pittance which accounts for less than minimum wage for positions that are often entry-level jobs to begin with. It's more akin to a voluntary workfare position (which may become compulsory if we're not careful) than any meaningful system of public works or state-sponsored employment.

And irrelevant. As I pointed out work programmes have been used across the ideological spectrum over history; communist states employed them to maintain the illusion of full employment and capitalist states (especially in the nineteenth century) used them because they abhorred the idea of simply 'giving money' to people (Ireland has a good few white elephants built during the Famine that attest to this).

Use of a work programme neither proves nor disproves any 'socialist' thinking.

My comments were in response to someone who said the Job Bridge is a hallmark of socialism. I'm aware of the fact that public works isn't limited to any ideology, rather that Job Bridge has in effect proved to me more beneficial to businesses as opposed to ordinary people.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

They get paid €50 by the state in return for labour given to someone else. Similarly the value of the payment given to them is a pittance which accounts for less than minimum wage for positions that are often entry-level jobs to begin with. It's more akin to a voluntary workfare position (which may become compulsory if we're not careful) than any meaningful system of public works or state-sponsored employment.

Sorry, but that still remains very different to what you said originally.

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but that still remains very different to what you said originally.

I said they constitute free labour for private companies, they don't get paid in a meaningful sense for the work they do. If you want to get bogged down in semanticist bullsh*t then knock yourself out.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

I said they constitute free labour for private companies, they don't get paid in a meaningful sense for the work they do. If you want to get bogged down in semanticist bullsh*t then knock yourself out.

No, I'm getting bogged down in what you actually said, which turned out to be bullsh*t.