170 years later and whats different?

Dawnnotloaded

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?



Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Boombastic

We have internet

Cedrus

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?



Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

?????????????????

Mr. McGreg

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?



Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

I'd say my parents would have something to say about that!!

J_E

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were

Most definitely not.

TheShizz

Are we still starving? I just had a pizza and the jalopenos will soon prompt me to sh*t most of it out. Our ancestors could have only dreamed of this scenario way back when.

Boombastic

Mr. McGreg wrote: »

I'd say my parents would have something to say about that!!

My parents walked 12 miles to school, barefoot and up hill both ways. They also had to drink out of jamjars borrowed from the neighbours.

Geuze

In some senses we are poorer than our parents.

In 1980 (approx) my father, aged 35 approx, on one wage, could buy a 4-bed det house on 0.25 acre. This is in a small provincial town.

That same house would now ask 250k.


Could a typical 35yo now, one-earner, with a wife + 3 kids, buy a 250k detached house????

looking_around

we're not starving.
poverty is now based on how materialistic you can be.
We have a pretty health care option..
We have welfare & pensions.


You actually think, things haven't changed? 0o

Dawnnotloaded

Wow, such a quick response.

Granted, my statement of real terms are based on personal experiences... I can't determine that for everyone. I think the point I was making, was made very well by Geuze, my Mother was able to bring us up whilst only my father had to work at a modest job. His wage provided a good enough lifestyle for us. I was emotionally better off given that I was raised by my Mother and not a creche. I'm not measuring wealth materialistically.

But that is just one point on a list?

wonderfullife

For a start back then you had intelligent politicians with strong convcitions, ideology and a sense of direction, the likes of Disraeli, Charles Stewart Parnell....

we're left with Enda Kenny and Joan Burton...

We've infinite more advantages than that generation and if we're messing them up it's probably partly down to the fact we tend to elect centric politicians with no real sense of national ambition whose main goal is to be re-elected, rather than actually improve our country.

the_syco

Back then you had people with great idea but no power.

Now you still have people with great ideas with no power.

The only difference is that those with power now have to try to help everyone.

stmol32

Boombastic wrote: »

.,,,, They also had to drink out of jamjars borrowed from the neighbours.

Your parents drank Jam!!! How does that quench a thirst?

Also a question for the OP, where your parents alive in the time of D'isreali? You must be a hundred and twenty years old at least.

Mr. McGreg

Boombastic wrote: »

My parents walked 12 miles to school, barefoot and up hill both ways. They also had to drink out of jamjars borrowed from the neighbours.

Hipsters love to drink out of jamjars these days, but essentially that's neither here nor there

Boombastic

stmol32 wrote: »

Your parents drank Jam!!! How does that quench a thirst?

Also a question for the OP, where your parents alive in the time of D'isreali? You must be a hundred and twenty years old at least.

No, no there was no jam, just the jars

Mr. McGreg wrote: »

Hipsters love to drink out of jamjars these days, but essentially that's neither here nor there

My parents, the original hipsters :eek:

TheShizz

Boombastic wrote: »

My parents walked 12 miles to school, barefoot and up hill both ways. They also had to drink out of jamjars borrowed from the neighbours.

jank

People need their heads examined if they don't think that life is better in Ireland now than 170 , 100 or even 40 years ago. Does this even have to be a discussion or just typical Irish fatalism and negativity.

Dawnnotloaded

It's an observation of a political speech of the time.

Today we have daily repossessions, more people living homless than 10 years ago, highest unemployment in years, highest emmigration in years. Local industry and commerce is struggling despite popular news bites. The church is more or less gone as an identifiable power. It's an observation of a parallel. I'm not in any way suggesting that we got back 170 years.

I'm not being negative, just pragmatic and realistic. I'm still here and do want to make things better for the future. But I do believe in learning from the past. If things aren't acted on, then they are not leassons, they are just lost memories.

looking_around

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

Wow, such a quick response.

Granted, my statement of real terms are based on personal experiences... I can't determine that for everyone. I think the point I was making, was made very well by Geuze, my Mother was able to bring us up whilst only my father had to work at a modest job. His wage provided a good enough lifestyle for us. I was emotionally better off given that I was raised by my Mother and not a creche. I'm not measuring wealth materialistically.

But that is just one point on a list?

There's different stressors and different indicators of poverty than there was then.
People also have more rights now.(though we prefer to feel "it's all being stripped away".)

Point being, would you really want to live in Ireland 170 years ago?
__
Families can still raise children with one parent staying home. Many do(it's now thankfully not just women who end up as the stay at home parent.)
Those that have both working, is often because both want to work. Creche costs are expensive, one wage is generally all or mostly going towards creche.
Or they want their holidays abroad. (as if thats necessary for a good refreshing/relaxing/fun break). Or the latest console/car/games/tech etc.

This a choice, I'm not sure it's the right one, tbh though.

I think tech has brought equally alot of positives and negatives. (but I guess thats a different discussions.)
bottomline, things are better now than they were 170 years ago, we'll they continue that way? ..I can't say.

But I ask would you really want to live here 170 years ago?

I wouldn't. Though there's alot I'd like. That society, is not one I'd want to go back to.

Irish Guitarist

My parents were born in 1932 and 1933. I'm certainly not poorer than they were.

We just have more things we think we need now. Years ago your primary concern was having a roof over your head and enough food to eat. Now people say things like "I couldn't live without my mobile phone" or buy a new car every couple of years. If people still survived on the bare necessities there would be less debt.

I remember when I was about nine years old I went to visit my granny in the nursing home and I brought a pocket calculator with me to play with. She couldn't believe that you could do sums on this little box. I don't know what she'd think if she could see the laptop I'm typing this on. Even at the time I showed her the calculator there was already far more advanced inventions around but she hadn't seen the outside world in years.

Dawnnotloaded

I have no desire to go back in time, unless its to give myself the winning lotto numbers. Also I have no gender issues towards what parent raises their child. I do believe its a team effort.

However I understand were you are coming from with the childcare vrs work situation. If I can expand on that, I have friends that as you've explained work solely to pay for childcare, but they do this in fear of falling out of the working system.

Returning to work after parenting for a number of years is very difficult and will almost always result in a loss of overall career prospects. What I'm trying to say is that it is not for the current desire for holidays or extras, but more for the fear of future financial constraints that some people give up the opportunity to raise their children by staying at work.

I have no doubt on the factor that working has on mental independance and well being. I've been at home all day with kids, and love them dearly, but I do believe you need the adult interaction that work brings for sanity.

Boombastic

TheShizz wrote: »

things were a lot tougher then, kids these days don't know how easy they have it

KyussBishop

Comparing as to whether, overall, life was better/worse in the past is never going to be a valid comparison, because for starters technology is always improving, and our technological improvement is built upon literally every single technological improvement in past history.

So by that standard alone, the future is always getting better, and the knock-on effects of technological improvement affect everyone.

So really, you've got to measure whether specific things are getting better/worse, and the entire point isn't whether things are getting better/worse anyway, it's whether or not things can be better, and if things can be better, then you should never stop striving for better/more-fair standards.


If you start thinking "ok, looking at 'x', things are better than they've ever been before - no need to improve things anymore" - then that is going to lead to eroding standards, and is the kind of thinking that can potentially lead to 'a race to the bottom' in standards.

Never stop demanding better standards.

banquo

Dentistry.

TheShizz

Boombastic wrote: »

things were a lot tougher then, kids these days don't know how easy they have it

It was the fact your parents had to walk uphill to and from school which puzzled me.

coolbeans

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?



Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

All this is a bit high brow for After Hours one would've thought. Just watch it degenerate into **** slinging OP, any minute now...

Disraeli indeed, pfft!!

sawdoubters

free love

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Geuze wrote: »

In some senses we are poorer than our parents.

In 1980 (approx) my father, aged 35 approx, on one wage, could buy a 4-bed det house on 0.25 acre. This is in a small provincial town.

That same house would now ask 250k.


Could a typical 35yo now, one-earner, with a wife + 3 kids, buy a 250k detached house????

When you say "buy" do you mean buy or get a mortgage for? In any case, I don't think housing prices are a fair indication of progress.

We want more. And we can not have more. Therefore, we view what we do not have and think we are poorer.

MadsL

What's changed? Well Opium, Cocaine and Cannabis are illegal for one...

everdead.ie

We are worse off then we were at the end of a boom that's not surprising but I don't think we are worse off then we were in the last recession(80s).

Now there are new nessecities that never existed before mobiles, cable/sky tv, internet.

We are in awful lot of a better situation then we were and we will come back stronger again it just takes a bit of time.

Arthur Beesley

What a load of ****e, OP.

Did they have social welfare and rent allowance and children's allowance and all the other welfare schemes back then?

No, they had the poorhouse and they took your children off you of you couldn't afford to feed and clothe them.

You'd be lucky to be able to read and write back then, instead of having a high chance of continuing to third level education now.

Michael D Not Higgins

Geuze wrote: »

In some senses we are poorer than our parents.

In 1980 (approx) my father, aged 35 approx, on one wage, could buy a 4-bed det house on 0.25 acre. This is in a small provincial town.

That same house would now ask 250k.


Could a typical 35yo now, one-earner, with a wife + 3 kids, buy a 250k detached house????

It always comes back to property in talking about wealth in Ireland.

This is what scuppered the economy in the first place.

kippy

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?



Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Christ, comparing how things are now to how things were before the famine, based on a simple statement?
Are you serious?
You've no appreciation for either part of history if you dont realise we are infinetly better off now in any number of ways........
Yeah, there are different challenges but those challenges for the most part dont generally involve life or death scenarios.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Never stop demanding better standards.

You will be a Capitalist yet KB.

Menas

Jeez OP.You would need to be pretty clueless about what life was like 170 years ago to think that we are worse off now.

No self government.
No woman's votes and limited rights.
Not a true democracy.
No'welfare state. The workhouse or death were the options.
No electricity or gas.
Heating was open fire only.
No contraception.
No cheap clothing.
Limited diet.
Poor transport infrastructure.
Low life expectancy.
More incurable diseases.
Most kids in the country were barefoot.
Pre land reform tiny rented landholdings meant most farms were substinance only.
Personal hygine was limited so everyone stank.

etc...etc.

doolox

I would say that my worklife is better than my parents. Both had to work very hard for anything they got and did not have any ease up in that my father was self-employed and my mother was in a temporary nursing position for 10 yrs and ran a guesthouse for the other 15 yrs of her working life. No pension no increments no unions no protections etc which was typical for 50% of the working population at the time.

The reductions of wages and increases in workloads etc that you are now seeing in the various agreements in the public service were the typical lot of many workers in the temporary, contract and much of the private sector even during the boom time. The difference now is a sustained reduction in working conditions, pay and benefits in the face of increasing costs for a lot of basics such as lodgings, energy, medical and transport. I think the only notable reduction in the last 30 yrs has been clothing, it is now possible to be decently dressed for work and other essential tasks at a lot less money than in our parents time. In fact casual clothes are now a lot more expensive that formal clothes.

What I think is happening is that parents are subsidising the working costs of their adult children and this is allowing employers to reduce wages and increase workload even in the face of increasing costs for their workers. When all the accrued capital is gone and there is no more money left to do this people will resort to personal borrowing to make up the difference then they will have to leave their jobs unless a pay rise is obtained to cover the real costs of working. Another big stressor on jobs is childcare, again many parents are doing this for free to allow adult children out to work taking care of their grandchildren. People with no parents willing or able to look after their grandchildren, or people with no access to assistance from their parents are at a severe competitive disadvantage in the workplace especially with 14% unemployment.

We are much better off in terms of access to information than our parents, we have the freedom of information law to stop secret agreements, unfair or restrictive practices etc. Back in the old times most people weren't even aware how much was earned by the rich or how to negotiate etc. At least now we have access to that information so as to make an attempt at getting out fair share.

kippy

doolox wrote: »

I would say that my worklife is better than my parents. Both had to work very hard for anything they got and did not have any ease up in that my father was self-employed and my mother was in a temporary nursing position for 10 yrs and ran a guesthouse for the other 15 yrs of her working life. No pension no increments no unions no protections etc which was typical for 50% of the working population at the time.

The reductions of wages and increases in workloads etc that you are now seeing in the various agreements in the public service were the typical lot of many workers in the temporary, contract and much of the private sector even during the boom time. The difference now is a sustained reduction in working conditions, pay and benefits in the face of increasing costs for a lot of basics such as lodgings, energy, medical and transport. I think the only notable reduction in the last 30 yrs has been clothing, it is now possible to be decently dressed for work and other essential tasks at a lot less money than in our parents time. In fact casual clothes are now a lot more expensive that formal clothes.

What I think is happening is that parents are subsidising the working costs of their adult children and this is allowing employers to reduce wages and increase workload even in the face of increasing costs for their workers. When all the accrued capital is gone and there is no more money left to do this people will resort to personal borrowing to make up the difference then they will have to leave their jobs unless a pay rise is obtained to cover the real costs of working. Another big stressor on jobs is childcare, again many parents are doing this for free to allow adult children out to work taking care of their grandchildren. People with no parents willing or able to look after their grandchildren, or people with no access to assistance from their parents are at a severe competitive disadvantage in the workplace especially with 14% unemployment.

We are much better off in terms of access to information than our parents, we have the freedom of information law to stop secret agreements, unfair or restrictive practices etc. Back in the old times most people weren't even aware how much was earned by the rich or how to negotiate etc. At least now we have access to that information so as to make an attempt at getting out fair share.

My dad left home at 12 to go to Scotland to pick potatoes.......
End of discussion for me.

Stojkovic

Trigger Happy wrote: »

No welfare state. The workhouse or death were the options.

I'd like to see this return for all those lazy, sponging, entilted to, thieving scrotes who've never worked a day in their Track Suit wearing Dutch Gold drinking Johnny Blue smokin lives.

UCDVet

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Jeez OP.You would need to be pretty clueless about what life was like 170 years ago to think that we are worse off now.

No self government.
No woman's votes and limited rights.
Not a true democracy.
No'welfare state. The workhouse or death were the options.
No electricity or gas.
Heating was open fire only.
No contraception.
No cheap clothing.
Limited diet.
Poor transport infrastructure.
Low life expectancy.
More incurable diseases.
Most kids in the country were barefoot.
Pre land reform tiny rented landholdings meant most farms were substinance only.
Personal hygine was limited so everyone stank.

etc...etc.

I've taken the crowded 46a/145 in the summer coming home from city centre. I'm not sure we've progressed much.

Boombastic

TheShizz wrote: »

It was the fact your parents had to walk uphill to and from school which puzzled me.

Downhill wasn't invented until 1953

smcgiff

TheShizz wrote: »

It was the fact your parents had to walk uphill to and from school which puzzled me.

Well, it made as much sense as the OP.

Blowfish

Geuze wrote: »

In some senses we are poorer than our parents.

In 1980 (approx) my father, aged 35 approx, on one wage, could buy a 4-bed det house on 0.25 acre. This is in a small provincial town.

That same house would now ask 250k.


Could a typical 35yo now, one-earner, with a wife + 3 kids, buy a 250k detached house????

Well the average household NET income in Ireland is €2,707 (which for a married 35 year old is just under 40k p/y Gross, definitely achievable) and the repayments on a 250k mortgage (with 10% deposit) is around €1,200. That'd leave €1,500 per month for the rest which I reckon should be doable, especially living at the same quality of life as in 1980 with less spent on cars, holidays, gadgets etc.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Boombastic wrote: »

Downhill wasn't invented until 1953

And even then most families couldn't afford it!:D

WesternZulu

Honestly, some people don't realise that although things could be better living in Ireland, they're nowhere near as bad as the doom and gloom merchants would like you to believe.

The Economist ranked Ireland No.12 of best places in the world to be born in 2013 in terms of opportunities and what not (only one place behind the much lauded Finland).

http://www.economist.com/news/215664...3-lottery-life

Ahead of countries like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Japan, USA, Britain, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal etc.

This was very much not the the case 170 years ago, where many of the above countries were colonial powers.

In the mid 19th century the Duke of Welington commented:

There never was a country in which poverty existed to the extent that it exists in Ireland.

And a German visitor to the country remarked:

Now I have seen Ireland, it seems to me that the poorest among the Letts, the Estonians and the Finlanders lead a life of comparative luxury.

So to answer the OP, we are not without our problems, but in the last 170 years Ireland has in almost every way improved across all metrics in comparable terms.

For a relatively new country we've come a long way since, and all things considered we're not doing too bad at all for ourselves.

Kilgore__Trout

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Winged, two headed monkeys, armed with pitchforks attacking anyone whose name begins with a vowel.

Stavros Murphy

Boombastic wrote: »

We have internet

Yeah. Keeps everyone inside, e-banging their keyboards.

It's a governments dream. Benefits are - no-one cares, they see what you think and have a record of it, the streets are clear and there's less stones and broken windows to clear up.

Writes paragraph on net, feels better, forgets.

Oh look, Football..

moxin

Blowfish wrote: »

Well the average household NET income in Ireland is €2,707 (which for a married 35 year old is just under 40k p/y Gross, definitely achievable) and the repayments on a 250k mortgage (with 10% deposit) is around €1,200. That'd leave €1,500 per month for the rest which I reckon should be doable, especially living at the same quality of life as in 1980 with less spent on cars, holidays, gadgets etc.

That person on 40k pa will not get a mortgage of 225k in todays climate especially with a live at home wife and 3 dependent kids. Ain't gonna happen!

Femme_Fatale

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?



Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Jeez, what are we? Fortune-tellers? :pac:

I know you're drawing an equivalence and not actually saying things are similar now to then, but... I don't think even an equivalence can be drawn. The two are just too far apart. Yes, 170 years of progress. It would be madness to think otherwise.

catallus

I suppose it is easy to get into a bad mood about the state of the economy but by any realistic measure things have changed so amazingly in the past 170 years that it almost hard to believe.

The level of technological advancement is so great, we live in a time of marvels.

relax carry on

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

It's an observation of a political speech of the time.

Today we have daily repossessions.

Seriously, daily repossessions? Any statistics to back that up at all?

Dawnnotloaded

The most recent statistics that I can find are from Q3 2012 according to the Central Bank of Ireland.

"During the third quarter of 2012, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt/security on a mortgage in 466 cases. Court proceedings concluded in 119 cases during the quarter, and in 79 of these cases the Courts granted orders for possession or sale of the property.

There were 944 properties in the banks’ possession at the beginning of Q3. A total of 154 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 47 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 107 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

During the quarter 153 properties were disposed of, while one property in possession was reclassified as a BTL property. As a result, lenders were in possession of 944 PDH properties at end-September 2012."