The elephant in the room: how do we employ the idiots?

Sleepy

A provocative subject line, I'll agree but it seems to be something we're ignoring in this country.

We can't hope to compete with the far east or even Central / Eastern Europe for low or semi-skilled manufacturing, modern farming techniques have dramatically lowered the manpower required to work a farm, retail is becoming less labour intensive (self-service tills, lower service levels to provide lower prices etc.) and our recent past has dramatically shown us that the construction and personal services sectors can only sustain employment for relatively small numbers.

Not everyone has the intelligence to work in IT, Finance, Legal Services etc. and a much larger percentage of our society are raised to view education or intellectualism with disdain (I'll wager there'll be a post calling me elitest or a nazi of some kind within the first 5 replies).

With our western living standards (which ensure a relatively high cost of living) the only jobs we can compete for in a global economy are the high-skilled ones.

Are we to accept that those capable of finding work in these areas will make up the vast majority of the workforce and that those who can't find work providing them with goods/services will simply be supported by their intellectual superiors (or those who have inherited wealth) via a wealth re-distributing taxation system? Is it realistic to see such a system working long-term as emigration offers the potential for the educated "elite" to enjoy more of the fruits of their labours in less socially conscious countries? Or to expect this class not to eventually vote for further and further economically right-wing parties as the unemployables vote for further and further trotskyist morons?

In order to avoid further destruction of our country, we need to find some form of labour intensive employment and whilst I can't think of anything myself, it worries me that we don't even seem to be discussing this at a national level.

RichardAnd

If you have a job OP, I'd say "we" will be fine ...

Manach

Increase the numbers of TDs and elect them to serve with those other idiots.

gaius c

Sad this before (albeit more diplomatically).
There will be no recovery in this country until we figure out a way to employ all the people not working for Google & Facebook. We're at FDI saturation level and the currently unemployed don't have the skillset for the jobs anyway.

Sleepy

RichardAnd wrote: »

If you have a job OP, I'd say "we" will be fine ...

You can hurl an insult. Well done. Thanks for a great contribution to the discussion.

gaius c wrote: »

Sad this before (albeit more diplomatically).
There will be no recovery in this country until we figure out a way to employ all the people not working for Google & Facebook. We're at FDI saturation level and the currently unemployed don't have the skillset for the jobs anyway.

I deliberately dropped the diplomacy because I wanted a reaction. We really don't seem to be facing up to this at all.

RichardAnd

Sleepy wrote: »

You can hurl an insult. Well done. Thanks for a great contribution to the discussion.

I hurled a insult at a single individual.
You, on the other hand, choose to insult thousands of people by claiming that they are "idiots." Forgive my bluntness but that kind of coloured the tone of my response.

The irony of your post is that one of the most idiotic fallacies an individual can allow themselves to believe is the Victorian ideal that poor people, the unemployed in this case, are stupid or otherwise inferior.

Is there a point to be had by suggesting that there is a skills shortage in Ireland? Absolutely but that's not what you're doing. What you've attempted to do is hold yourself above others and cast yourself as some manner of intellectual. You could find yourself unemployed and out of luck tomorrow. I wonder then if you'll share your musings with the others in the welfare queues.

I am curious what country in the world is less socially conscious that us, while simultaneously being safe, a democracy, not corrupt, a pleasant place to live in, has well embed social institutions etc.

Before you say the USA contrary to popular belief you do have to pay tax and they do have a lot of social supports such as subsidised school meal for the poor ( something we don't have here ) South Africa do you want to live in a gated community, south America Large parts are unsafe after dark even in very wealthy parts.

Sleepy

I've found myself unemployed before and, while it wasn't nice, it was never going to be permanent because I've invested in my education and have skills in areas that are valued highly enough for me to be able to earn a livable salary in this country.

I used the word idiot to describe two kinds of people: those whom are intellectually incapable of upskilling to the necessary level to work in high-level services and those who hold educations in such disdain that whether they're intellectually capable of it or not, won't pursue it. The first group, I'd agree that the word "idiot" is not a nice description for them, it is however, accurate despite it's vulgarity. The second, I'd make no apologies for branding idiots as I can think of nothing so foolish as a disdain for education.

Nowhere in my post did I reference those currently on our unemployment lines btw. I'm simply looking at our society as a realist: the only areas we can compete in internationally are those that require a certain level of intelligence and education. Yet we are always going to have a proportion of our society that can't or won't meet those standards. Since it's preferable for all concerned that those who can't/won't meet that standard can still find gainful employment instead of either wasting their lives on welfare or building roads to nowhere on some government employment scheme, I think we need to address that fact that we need to find a source of labour intensive employment or we're going to end up in serious trouble: either with a minority workforce being fleeced to support an ever growing number of pensioners, the unemployed, our public sector and those unable to work through youth or disability or with a heavily divided society where those that generate the wealth decide they no longer want to share it and vote in a far-right party or (and this being Ireland, the far more likely possibility imo) simply engage in massive scale tax avoidance / evasion.

Sleepy

mariaalice wrote: »

I am curious what country in the world is less socially conscious that us, while simultaneously being safe, a democracy, not corrupt, a pleasant place to live in, has well embed social institutions etc.

Before you say the USA contrary to popular belief you do have to pay tax and they do have a lot of social supports such as subsidised school meal for the poor ( something we don't have here ) South Africa do you want to live in a gated community, south America Large parts are unsafe after dark even in very wealthy parts.

The US would be a prime example tbh: yes, you still pay taxes but you'll take home far more of a high salary there than you would here. You don't want to fall sick there though: as flawed as it is, I'd take the HSE over subsidised school meals.

South Africa I'd have no interest in for the same reasons you mentioned.

halkar

Give a man a fish it will feed him for the day. teach him how to fish it will feed him for life. What we seem to be doing is that keep giving the fish. We are not teaching how to fish.

Honey-ec

RichardAnd wrote: »

The irony of your post is that one of the most idiotic fallacies an individual can allow themselves to believe is the Victorian ideal that poor people, the unemployed in this case, are stupid or otherwise inferior.

I have to say, nowhere in his post did I get the impression that he was saying that all poor or unemployed people are stupid.

What he was saying, as I read it, is that we need to accept that not everyone is going to be able to compete in the jobs market of the future, either because they're not at the races intellectually, or because they just haven't bothered educating themselves.

What the answer to this is, I genuinely have no idea.

alastair

Honey-ec wrote: »

I have to say, nowhere in his post did I get the impression that he was saying that all poor or unemployed people are stupid.

What he was saying, as I read it, is that we need to accept that not everyone is going to be able to compete in the jobs market of the future, either because they're not at the races intellectually, or because they just haven't bothered educating themselves.

What the answer to this is, I genuinely have no idea.

The answer should be clear enough from the employment scenario here when we did have money sloshing about - we had pretty much full employment, even those supposed 'idiots' :rolleyes: were, in the main gainfully employed. Now - employment in the construction industry might well have been bloated by the property bubble, but most people worked outside it - so the lesson is that any decent economic recovery will result in decent employment recovery (unless there's been a radical shift in retail and farming technologies in the last 6 years?).

Honey-ec

alastair wrote: »

The answer should be clear enough from the employment scenario here when we did have money sloshing about - we had pretty much full employment, even those supposed 'idiots' :rolleyes: were, in the main gainfully employed.

But it's unlikely that we'll ever get back to anywhere near full employment is, I think, the point he's making.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

The US would be a prime example tbh: yes, you still pay taxes but you'll take home far more of a high salary there than you would here. You don't want to fall sick there though: as flawed as it is, I'd take the HSE over subsidised school meals.

South Africa I'd have no interest in for the same reasons you mentioned.

You have to pay hugely for health care in the US and any where half decent to live in has huge local property tax's. Do you want Ireland to have the same society as the US?.

alastair

Honey-ec wrote: »

But it's unlikely that we'll ever get back to anywhere near full employment is, I think, the point he's making.

Why not? I'm not expecting a boom any time soon - but the fact is that we've just had a scenario of near-full employment - and the key to that near full-employment was nothing more clever than more money in the economy. Unless you think we're doomed to perpetual recession, the economy, and consequently employment are likely to improve - since none of the other variables have changed since 2007.

bbam

alastair wrote: »

Why not? I'm not expecting a boom any time soon - but the fact is that we've just had a scenario of near-full employment - and the key to that near full-employment was nothing more clever than more money in the economy. Unless you think we're doomed to perpetual recession, the economy, and consequently employment are likely to improve - since none of the other variables have changed since 2007.

I suppose they thought the same in Japan a few decades ago. Didn't their recession last 20 years.

It's just not going to go away on its own, it's not a shower of rain that we wait for it to pass. If there is no strategic planning regarding how were going to get people employed, get the GNP figures going again, its going to linger.
I see nothing being done to make any changes to the status quo. My fear is that this recession is hear to stay.

OMD

Sleepy wrote: »

A provocative subject line, I'll agree but it seems to be something we're ignoring in this country.

We can't hope to compete with the far east or even Central / Eastern Europe for low or semi-skilled manufacturing, modern farming techniques have dramatically lowered the manpower required to work a farm, retail is becoming less labour intensive (self-service tills, lower service levels to provide lower prices etc.) and our recent past has dramatically shown us that the construction and personal services sectors can only sustain employment for relatively small numbers.

Not everyone has the intelligence to work in IT, Finance, Legal Services etc. and a much larger percentage of our society are raised to view education or intellectualism with disdain (I'll wager there'll be a post calling me elitest or a nazi of some kind within the first 5 replies).

With our western living standards (which ensure a relatively high cost of living) the only jobs we can compete for in a global economy are the high-skilled ones.

Are we to accept that those capable of finding work in these areas will make up the vast majority of the workforce and that those who can't find work providing them with goods/services will simply be supported by their intellectual superiors (or those who have inherited wealth) via a wealth re-distributing taxation system? Is it realistic to see such a system working long-term as emigration offers the potential for the educated "elite" to enjoy more of the fruits of their labours in less socially conscious countries? Or to expect this class not to eventually vote for further and further economically right-wing parties as the unemployables vote for further and further trotskyist morons?

In order to avoid further destruction of our country, we need to find some form of labour intensive employment and whilst I can't think of anything myself, it worries me that we don't even seem to be discussing this at a national level.

Well many people are employed in manufacturing in Ireland despite our costs. There is still agriculture and tourism.

By the way speaking from personal experience I have always felt the idiots seem to get employed in IT and I suppose recent experience has shown us that plenty of idiots were employed in Finance

Sleepy

The near full employment came about through an economic bubble creating lots of jobs in labour intensive sectors such as construction, retail, hospitality, beauty salons etc. Much of it was also based at the 'luxury' end of the market and it was all being paid for with cheap credit the likes of which we're unlikely to see again within our lifetimes. A huge amount of these jobs were never sustainable and even a resounding recovery in the areas we can currently compete in (which seem to be far less labour intensive) would only see a minority of them come back. Particularly when one factors in the increased savings levels we're likely to see over the next couple of decades.

From purely an anecdotal perspective, I'm noticing that many of those I know of that are emigrating seem to be doing so not because they can't find work at home but because the opportunities to enjoy the fruits of their labours are better abroad. We're not just exporting our welfare lines, we're driving out quite a number of our best and brightest too. We saw a similar brain drain in the 80's and it was, in part, their return in the early 90's that fueled the tiger years pre-2004.

L1011

OMD wrote: »

By the way speaking from personal experience I have always felt the idiots seem to get employed in IT

IT is suffering from an absolute lack of skilled people and a need to fill positions. Hence there are an awful lot of extremely poorly skilled people working in frontline roles, and situations such as Facebook where they've had to send some development work to the UK - as those are roles you just can't fill with fodder.

Its higher-end but lower skilled manufacturing we need to be targeting, but our lack of cheap energy due to no nuclear seriously limits us here.

alastair

bbam wrote: »

My fear is that this recession is hear to stay.

I give it no more than two more years. And that allows for the usual lack of strategic planning. We're not Japan.

El_Dangeroso

Sleepy wrote: »

I've found myself unemployed before and, while it wasn't nice, it was never going to be permanent because I've invested in my education and have skills in areas that are valued highly enough for me to be able to earn a livable salary in this country.

I used the word idiot to describe two kinds of people: those whom are intellectually incapable of upskilling to the necessary level to work in high-level services and those who hold educations in such disdain that whether they're intellectually capable of it or not, won't pursue it. The first group, I'd agree that the word "idiot" is not a nice description for them, it is however, accurate despite it's vulgarity. The second, I'd make no apologies for branding idiots as I can think of nothing so foolish as a disdain for education.

Nowhere in my post did I reference those currently on our unemployment lines btw. I'm simply looking at our society as a realist: the only areas we can compete in internationally are those that require a certain level of intelligence and education. Yet we are always going to have a proportion of our society that can't or won't meet those standards. Since it's preferable for all concerned that those who can't/won't meet that standard can still find gainful employment instead of either wasting their lives on welfare or building roads to nowhere on some government employment scheme, I think we need to address that fact that we need to find a source of labour intensive employment or we're going to end up in serious trouble: either with a minority workforce being fleeced to support an ever growing number of pensioners, the unemployed, our public sector and those unable to work through youth or disability or with a heavily divided society where those that generate the wealth decide they no longer want to share it and vote in a far-right party or (and this being Ireland, the far more likely possibility imo) simply engage in massive scale tax avoidance / evasion.

I work in IT (supposedly desired skill-set) and I wouldn't feel as complacent about my job prospects long term as you seem to do about yours, what is so special about your job that some smart guy in India can't take it in a few years.

Heck, IT is getting so modular at this point that we are writing code now that will put developers out of a job in the future.

I think a more reasonable question (and frankly one that doesn't reek so much of snobbery) would be how are we going to change our economy so we can stop being a multinational outsourcing stepping stone from the US to Asia?

The idea that clever staff prevent multinationals from moving out of this country is so naive to make the irony of calling people who may have more of a penchant for working in the service industry over writing C# idiots all the more hilarious.

Make no mistake, the googles and facebooks are here for one thing only.

L1011

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I work in IT (supposedly desired skill-set) and I wouldn't feel as complacent about my job prospects long term as you seem to do about yours, what is so special about your job that some smart guy in India can't take it in a few years.

My experience with Indian IT is that they have no smart guys, just cost to compete on. Everyone decent has escaped to get proper money elsewhere including from their universities.

The FDI IT industry we have was based on manufacturing at the start, not outsourced support and backfill which is what India has. Look at where the manufacturing has gone for where will be a risk.

El_Dangeroso

MYOB wrote: »

My experience with Indian IT is that they have no smart guys, just cost to compete on. Everyone decent has escaped to get proper money elsewhere including from their universities.

The FDI IT industry we have was based on manufacturing at the start, not outsourced support and backfill which is what India has. Look at where the manufacturing has gone for where will be a risk.

Not right now they don't, but maybe in a decade or two things will be different. India is changing rapidly. 20 years ago we had less 'smart guys' too.

L1011

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Not right now they don't, but maybe in a decade or two things will be different. India is changing rapidly. 20 years ago we had less 'smart guys' too.

20 years ago we weren't going around undercutting the world in providing shonky unreadable code and customer disservice. India was ten years ago, though.

They're not the risk to be watching out for.

El_Dangeroso

MYOB wrote: »

20 years ago we weren't going around undercutting the world in providing shonky unreadable code and customer disservice. India was ten years ago, though.

They're not the risk to be watching out for.

So, you're missing my main point on purpose, or are you just being pedantic?

L1011

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So, you're missing my main point on purpose, or are you just being pedantic?

Your point was that you thought there was a serious risk of jobs going to India when I believe there is absolutely no risk whatsoever of jobs going to India, particularly as virtually every company that has experimented with it has hauled them back home already.

Did you have another point that you didn't make?

April O Neill

Sleepy wrote: »

Not everyone has the intelligence to work in IT, Finance, Legal Services etc.

I know people working in each of these areas who make me question how intelligent one needs to be to work in them, TBH. Drive and determination seems as important as intellect sometimes.

ILikeFriday

I kind of disagree that the "idiots" really are. I think that most people could undertake some form of higher education or training and find a job in the modern economy if they wanted to. I think that our main problem is cultural. It's seen as really uncool in Ireland to be seen to try too hard. This starts in the primary school classroom and continues. It's a major culture shift that we need. I think that many of our under achievers were victims of this. They would have rather died than be seen to study when they were young, and it's an outlook that has followed them throughout their lives.

L1011

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Whoosh.

So there wasn't then. Good.

If you want to suggest other countries, go ahead. There's issues with most of them, generally political and serious to a level that means that business won't be going there.

andrew

There's an interesting thread to be had about what should be done when a significant number of people in the labour force don't have the kind of skills which the economy requires; when there's a skills mismatch. But you're not going to get that thread if you call everyone with a skills mismatch an 'idiot' and if you assume that everyone employed in a low skill job is an 'idiot.' Idiot is absolutely not a useful descriptor because it implies that people with 'low skill' jobs are incapable of different work, when the reality there are many reasons as to why a person might be engaged in low skilled work. One of those reasons is of course the fact that they're not capable of other work, but that's just one reason of many.

Anyway, I have no idea how the economy will cope with continuing productivity improvements which replace low skilled jobs. History would suggest that we'll just invent new things for low skilled people to do - the industrial revolution didn't kill off low skilled labour, it just moved them off farms and into factories. Who knows what the low skilled person will be doing in 20 years. There are plenty of jobs which exist today which didn't exist 50 or even 20 years ago, and it's possible this trend will continue.

carpejugulum

We don't as half the country happily lives on welfare provided by the other half and burden placed on future generations.
All parties except for FG are socialist so it's impossible to change it from within.

murphaph

Sleepy wrote: »

Not everyone has the intelligence to work in IT, Finance, Legal Services etc.

If I might mention Germany (sorry!) for a moment...

Germany accepts that not everyone is going to be able for university and the system (while not perfect) seeks to direct those not academically inclined towards apprenticeships.

I think Prince Charles made a comment a few years back that basically said the same thing....not everyone can cut academia. He was harangued by a certain section of society/media for speaking the blatant truth.

uberpixie

Not everyone is suited to working in IT just as not everyone is suited to be a nurse or a doctor or a teacher or a lawyer or a pilot or a whatever.....
I have met plenty of idiots in my time some of them worked in IT...

Long term automation will greatly reduce the number of staff required in even IT and in a lot of other fields. What do we do then when there are not enough jobs for all the 'SMART' people......? And robots and advanced computer systems start doing a lot of the day to day work people do now? Lock at stock trading already today a good 70 percent of all stock trading is done by automated systems with little human interaction.

Self driving cars are on the horizon to put truck drivers out of a job along with taxi drivers.... And driving instructors :-)

Plenty of room on the dole queue of the future for all.

andrew

uberpixie wrote: »

Self driving cars are on the horizon to put truck drivers out of a job along with taxi drivers.... And driving instructors :-)

Here's a hypothetical scenario, to illustrate how productivity advances (such as self driving cars) might lead to more employment for low skilled workers:

So: the technology to have self driving cars becomes widespread. Demand for these systems, to retrofit onto existing cars, surges. Millions of cars and trucks need millions of systems so as to become automated, and these systems will be assembled by low skilled workers.

The quantity of cars and trucks demanded rises, as their price has now fallen. These new vehicles are assembled by low skilled workers.

Very very accurate mapping becomes very very important, and people just can't rely on Google maps. More mapping firms pop up to survey and collect road data via specially equipped human driven cars, driven by low skilled workers.

All these advances and productivity improvements mean that firms have more money to invest. The economy grows and the pie gets bigger. To the extent that firms employ low skilled workers, they invest in more low skilled workers.

Obviously this is all made up, but the scenario illustrates a few things:
1) When there's a technology improvement, it doesn't necessarily change the total amount of jobs in the economy; it might just change who has jobs. When fridges were invented, the men who produced ice were out of a job. But more people were employed producing fridges then there were hauling ice. Similarly, auto-cars will put taxi drivers out of a job, and a different set of people will benefit from the production of self driving cars. So technological change might only be a problem to the extent that it makes peoples skill-sets redundant. As in, it doesn't necessarily harm people who have yet to enter the labour force, or who can re train.

2) Productivity improvements, just because they're high-tech, can still lead to the creation of low skilled jobs. Advances in finance enabled by the internet which enable (for example) micro-lending to people in the Agricultural sector in 3rd world countries, might plausibly increase the demand for low skilled agricultural labour in those countries.

3) The economic growth caused by productivity improvements can plausibly lead to a greater demand for labour to the extent that they induce broader economic growth.

carpejugulum

uberpixie wrote: »

Not everyone is suited to working in IT just as not everyone is suited to be a nurse or a doctor or a teacher or a lawyer or a pilot or a whatever.....
I have met plenty of idiots in my time some of them worked in IT...

Long term automation will greatly reduce the number of staff required in even IT and in a lot of other fields. What do we do then when there are not enough jobs for all the 'SMART' people......? And robots and advanced computer systems start doing a lot of the day to day work people do now? Lock at stock trading already today a good 70 percent of all stock trading is done by automated systems with little human interaction.

Self driving cars are on the horizon to put truck drivers out of a job along with taxi drivers.... And driving instructors :-)

Plenty of room on the dole queue of the future for all.

Smart and educated people easily adapt and retrain. They also have much more to lose.

fly_agaric

andrew wrote: »

Here's a hypothetical scenario, to illustrate how productivity advances (such as self driving cars) might lead to more employment for low skilled workers:

So: the technology to have self driving cars becomes widespread. Demand for these systems, to retrofit onto existing cars, surges. Millions of cars and trucks need millions of systems so as to become automated, and these systems will be assembled by low skilled workers.

The quantity of cars and trucks demanded rises, as their price has now fallen. These new vehicles are assembled by low skilled workers.

Very very accurate mapping becomes very very important, and people just can't rely on Google maps. More mapping firms pop up to survey and collect road data via specially equipped human driven cars, driven by low skilled workers.

All these advances and productivity improvements mean that firms have more money to invest. The economy grows and the pie gets bigger. To the extent that firms employ low skilled workers, they invest in more low skilled workers.

Obviously this is all made up, but the scenario illustrates a few things:
1) When there's a technology improvement, it doesn't necessarily change the total amount of jobs in the economy; it might just change who has jobs. When fridges were invented, the men who produced ice were out of a job. But more people were employed producing fridges then there were hauling ice. Similarly, auto-cars will put taxi drivers out of a job, and a different set of people will benefit from the production of self driving cars. So technological change might only be a problem to the extent that it makes peoples skill-sets redundant. As in, it doesn't necessarily harm people who have yet to enter the labour force, or who can re train.

2) Productivity improvements, just because they're high-tech, can still lead to the creation of low skilled jobs. Advances in finance enabled by the internet which enable (for example) micro-lending to people in the Agricultural sector in 3rd world countries, might plausibly increase the demand for low skilled agricultural labour in those countries.

3) The economic growth caused by productivity improvements can plausibly lead to a greater demand for labour to the extent that they induce broader economic growth.

The current technological revolution is I think a bit different to ones of the past though. It is not obsolete human machines, or human/animal physical power being replaced by more complex/better human-created machines (with other human jobs being created). It's human thought being substituted (in still limited ways as yet) by cheaper and faster machine thought - it is the common pattern in the self driving car example above, the automatic assembly line run by cam systems, the algorithms implemented on powerful computers that mine our shopping habits and tell us what we want to buy next etc. The smarter the machines get the more classes of jobs are destroyed or hollowed out. Alot of the substitute labour in your scenario could alternatively be handled by robots and computers and a far smaller number of fairly skilled engineers/technicians to keep the machines whirring. IMO the future we're heading for has a limited number of jobs for the OPs "non-idiot"/educated people also. I really can't see where the jobs are going to come from if computers continue to improve and tackle more and more of these problems of "hard AI " that only humans could do before. Maybe I lack imagination.

Some lower skill jobs that need some sort of human touch may be more resistant to being taken over by machines; maybe the "non-idiots" who've studied hard but aren't quite up to getting one of the reduced number of technocratic jobs might be lucky and secure one of these!

Gone Anon

RichardAnd wrote: »

I hurled a insult at a single individual.
You, on the other hand, choose to insult thousands of people by claiming that they are "idiots." Forgive my bluntness but that kind of coloured the tone of my response.

The irony of your post is that one of the most idiotic fallacies an individual can allow themselves to believe is the Victorian ideal that poor people, the unemployed in this case, are stupid or otherwise inferior.

Is there a point to be had by suggesting that there is a skills shortage in Ireland? Absolutely but that's not what you're doing. What you've attempted to do is hold yourself above others and cast yourself as some manner of intellectual. You could find yourself unemployed and out of luck tomorrow. I wonder then if you'll share your musings with the others in the welfare queues.

There are lazy and stupid dolts swanning about and feasting off our over generous dole. The only way to drive these dolers back to work is reducing payments by at least 75%

spank_inferno

Sleepy wrote: »

The US would be a prime example tbh: yes, you still pay taxes but you'll take home far more of a high salary there than you would here. You don't want to fall sick there though: as flawed as it is, I'd take the HSE over subsidised school meals.

South Africa I'd have no interest in for the same reasons you mentioned.

Whoever posted this hasnt a clue what they are talking about.

johnnyskeleton

I think the idea behind the last wave of world free trade (not to be glib, but china makes everything at a low price and USA/Europe sells the stuff to each other for a high price) is just as flawed as the protectionist, self-sufficiency ideas that it replaced.

In theory, world trade should reach equilibrium whereby every economy has some agriculture, some manufacturing and some services and the massive disparities ie workers earning $1 a day in china or $100 a day in the US will narrow significantly. In theory.

NoNewFriends

The more apt question is "how do we stop producing idiots." A practical suggestion is greatly reduce the number of useless "Arts" courses available at our third level institutions. Or withdraw the free-fees funding for these courses. If feminists want to waste time on "ethnic studies" or some other codology, they can fork out for the costs themselves.

This country imports thousands of young professionals from India and China each year because of a lack of native graduates in science, IT and medicine. Our own youth are wasting their time reading liberal propaganda rubbish such as Women Studies :rolleyes:

Farmer Pudsey

The reality is that we need to encourage unemployed to take low paid work. At present jobs in the low paid sector are either done by students who do not receive a grant or by non nationals. The agri sector is staffed by non nationals in area's that work is labour intensive and cannot be completed from the back of a tractor. Fishing is gone the same look at the stastics about fishermen at present. The tourism sector is the same.

Until the government make a decision on encouraging the unemployed back to work and make it much more attractive to work we are on a hiding to nothing. The other issue is that virtually no trades people have been trained over the last 5 years so when the upturn happens non nationals will again fill these jobs.

thebman

alastair wrote: »

Why not? I'm not expecting a boom any time soon - but the fact is that we've just had a scenario of near-full employment - and the key to that near full-employment was nothing more clever than more money in the economy. Unless you think we're doomed to perpetual recession, the economy, and consequently employment are likely to improve - since none of the other variables have changed since 2007.

There was a massive splurge of building things that weren't required to keep that going until the whole thing collapsed and bankrupted the country though...

Its not that full employment isn't possible but at the moment, we'd settle for less than 10% and then we can focus on why the remainder can't find work.

RichardAnd

Gone Anon wrote: »

There are lazy and stupid dolts swanning about and feasting off our over generous dole. The only way to drive these dolers back to work is reducing payments by at least 75%

Are there lazy people on the dole? Loads, but is everyone on the dole like that? Of course not so why suggest a solution that will only hurt everyone. Besides, I'd bet that you're not on the dole, otherwise I don't think you would be suggesting something like that.

What this thread and many others like it demonstrate is how much selfishness and, I dare say, hatred has become ingrained in people. Only last week, I overheard a conversation on the Dart where two middle aged women harped on about "all them junkies and wasters beggin' on the street 'cause they're too lazy to work!" I once had a very close friendship with a young girl who lived homeless in London for a number of years and I was sorely temped to inform those two women of the plaintive circumstances that forced her into that situation. Or indeed, what she had to do to survive.

The point I'm making is that the judgmental attitude that has taken hold here, and I doubt it's an Irish thing, is sickening. People think nothing of making sweeping statements again massive numbers of people based mainly on one simple thing, their monetary worth or their job. I've met people who earn huge salaries who are total and utter a**holes and in some cases, total fools withal. I've also known people who earn very little who are very intelligent and kind, as are plenty of wealthy people.

What we can and do earn has little at all to do with our real worth. The global system of finance and commerce is, in my opinion, nothing more than a fantasy to which we are all indentured. Some people, through sheer luck or through genuine ability, rise up that proverbial latter and end up with a large slice of the pie. Others, for numerous reasons, fall down the ladder and end up poor.

Of course, those at the top of the ladder have a great view of the masses swarming below, all beating the crap out of each other in an attempt to climb the ladder. I wonder whether, one day, those masses will ever think to pull the ladder down. Probably not, but that's a whole discussion unto itself...

Pawwed Rig

I agree with Pudsey below. There is no incentive for someone on benefits to take low paid work. To add to his point there are alot of people in this country that work long hours and do not have time to perform the more mundane jobs such as gardening, house cleaning, basic maintenance etc etc. These services when sourced through a company can be fairly expensive and many will not avail of them due to cost. At the same time there are many on welfare that could do these jobs at a lower cost thereby widening the demand.

maninasia

andrew wrote: »

There's an interesting thread to be had about what should be done when a significant number of people in the labour force don't have the kind of skills which the economy requires; when there's a skills mismatch. But you're not going to get that thread if you call everyone with a skills mismatch an 'idiot' and if you assume that everyone employed in a low skill job is an 'idiot.' Idiot is absolutely not a useful descriptor because it implies that people with 'low skill' jobs are incapable of different work, when the reality there are many reasons as to why a person might be engaged in low skilled work. One of those reasons is of course the fact that they're not capable of other work, but that's just one reason of many.

Anyway, I have no idea how the economy will cope with continuing productivity improvements which replace low skilled jobs. History would suggest that we'll just invent new things for low skilled people to do - the industrial revolution didn't kill off low skilled labour, it just moved them off farms and into factories. Who knows what the low skilled person will be doing in 20 years. There are plenty of jobs which exist today which didn't exist 50 or even 20 years ago, and it's possible this trend will continue.

Low skilled people should do low skilled jobs, but a lot of them don't want to and don't need to with substantial social supports. Is it more complicated than this?

At the same time, there are significant technological changes coming onstream, what are are all these low skilled people to do with the death of many retail jobs and most manufacturing and farming and even many office and service jobs like drivers?

What are the income levels going to be like? What ARE these people going to do? Let's get away from the fuzzy predictions that there will be a demand for unskilled workers..where is this demand going to come from and will they be competing against machines for their jobs..cos machines don't need a salary.

Farmer Pudsey

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I agree with Pudsey below. There is no incentive for someone on benefits to take low paid work. To add to his point there are alot of people in this country that work long hours and do not have time to perform the more mundane jobs such as gardening, house cleaning, basic maintenance etc etc. These services when sourced through a company can be fairly expensive and many will not avail of them due to cost. At the same time there are many on welfare that could do these jobs at a lower cost thereby widening the demand.

Because welfare is at a fairly high rate and is constant. this means that even after 5 years unempployed you still have the same rate (actually better rate) than a newly unemployed you can have a decent liftstyle. There is no incentive to look at self employment unless you go for one of these back to work where you get your welfare and work and it is reduced over time.

If welfare was 70% of present rate more would look at self employment as an option as a small time handy man.

Sleepy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the idea behind the last wave of world free trade (not to be glib, but china makes everything at a low price and USA/Europe sells the stuff to each other for a high price) is just as flawed as the protectionist, self-sufficiency ideas that it replaced.

In theory, world trade should reach equilibrium whereby every economy has some agriculture, some manufacturing and some services and the massive disparities ie workers earning $1 a day in china or $100 a day in the US will narrow significantly. In theory.

Much as I like the idyll of the One World Government, I just can't see this happening without World War 3 tbh. Those of us in the West would have to accept living standards far lower than we currently have. Can you see any political leader surviving telling his electorate that the local hospital had to close / downsize so that one could be build in sub-saharan Africa?

If such an equilibrium is ever to be achieved, I think it's centuries away.

NoNewFriends wrote: »

The more apt question is "how do we stop producing idiots." A practical suggestion is greatly reduce the number of useless "Arts" courses available at our third level institutions. Or withdraw the free-fees funding for these courses. If feminists want to waste time on "ethnic studies" or some other codology, they can fork out for the costs themselves.

This country imports thousands of young professionals from India and China each year because of a lack of native graduates in science, IT and medicine. Our own youth are wasting their time reading liberal propaganda rubbish such as Women Studies :rolleyes:

You've some valid points here I think. The world needs writers, poets, feminists and philosophers but I don't think we should be providing free education in these areas to quite the extent that we are. Personally, I'd be inclined to think that a student loan system or straight up college fees would make people think a little more about the employment prospects afforded by their choice of discipline. I've no experience of the current standard of Career Guidance in our schools but unless it's vastly superior to that which I received in 1997, this would need to be looked at also.

@RichardAnd, what's so wrong in judging someone based on their actions?

Would you want to hire / work alongside anyone who regarded putting an effort into one's education in order to try and better themselves as "having notions about themselves" or "bleedin' stupeh" since the social will give them a house and a weekly hand-out if they just get knocked up? If so, why? And if not, do you not think we need to do something about this mentality? My question is how can we find something gainful for these people to do with limited skills while trying to ensure their children have better ones.

Even if we adopt a communist system, you'll still have idiots doing well based on who their daddy is and genuine talents being wasted to addiction, poor life choices and simple bad luck.

All people are not equal. As much as our laws need to enshrine the equality of opportunity, equality of outcome is impossible to create. My life is worth less to society than that of someone whose legal entrepreneurial efforts provide gainful employment for others, someone whose academic efforts result in a drug that improves the life quality of all who require it or someone who dedicates their working life to rescuing those who fall through the cracks.

The flip side of this point is that my life as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is worth more to society than the life of someone who leeches from society with no intention of ever making a contribution. You may disagree on religious grounds but I fail to see any logical argument that makes the basic statement untrue. If that makes me a snob, so be it.

ardmacha

There is a number of trends in public policy which need to be reversed. European societies can fall into a trap where those who work are increasingly taxed and money handed over to those who do not work. This creates a marginal incentive not to work for both groups. There needs to be greater emphasis placed on those who work consuming more services and circulating money that way. This can mean attention to things like taxes on labour, overly bureaucratic rues that make it hard to hire a service and so on. The likes of Family Income Supplement should be given proirity over payments to those who do no work. Perhaps individuals should get a tax allowance using labour intensive services, for hiring a tax compliant cleaner or gardener, as distinct from a cash in hand one or none at all.

There other trend is for public services to be increasingly composed of bureaucrats rather than those who actually do anything. The health service ends up with more bureaucracy and no home helps. Whereas home helps would be genuinely useful and provide a fulfilling role for people who might not get a job in Google. The bureaucracy should be replaced by IT, as far as possible, and the focus put on the direct provision of service. The ratios of frontline to back office should be continually scrutinised.

andrew

maninasia wrote: »

Low skilled people should do low skilled jobs, but a lot of them don't want to and don't need to with substantial social supports. Is it more complicated than this?

Sleepy wrote: »

The flip side of this point is that my life as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is worth more to society than the life of someone who leeches from society with no intention of ever making a contribution. You may disagree on religious grounds but I fail to see any logical argument that makes the basic statement untrue. If that makes me a snob, so be it.

The idea that there exist a significant amount of people on the dole who simply don't want to work and intend to leech is wrong. What do you think all these people were doing before they were on the dole? The unemployment rate used to be about 4%, now it's nearly 10% higher - do you think all these people magically turned into leeches who are content to live on the dole for the rest of their lives.

It's very easy to just assume that low-skilled workers aren't working because they're lazy and can't be bothered, because it lets you blame them. Which is nice because it absolves anyone of any responsibility to do anything and makes their situation a moral failing on their part. The reality is that there are a huge number of people who simply can't get a job because there aren't any, and re-skilling/up-skilling/gaining any skill requires money many don't have, and some sort of idea as to what skill to pick up. But how is one to know what kind of training to do? There are potentially thousands of people competent enough to do all sorts of jobs, but they just don't even know that that kind of job exists, or if it does exist, how to get it. If you've gone straight from school into a low skill job and are now unemployed, there's a big informational gap there which lends itself well to inertia.

realitykeeper

There is no shortage of work in this country. What is lacking is the will to do it. Work should not be seen as a means to an end but as an end in itself. The mentality of the population has to change and there are ways to make that happen.

Sleepy

St. Lupulin wrote: »

What do you do for a living?

What does it matter?

For the sake of this conversation suffice it to say that my work harms nobody, contributes towards our exports and results in me paying over €1,500 a month in PAYE, PRSI and USC.

If you're just being nosey, search through my posts and you'll get an idea of what it is I do.