Ireland: fastest growing property market & food banks

Scofflaw

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:

Ireland is home to the fastest growing property market in the world, according to a global property index from estate agent Knight Frank. Thanks to an annual growth rate of 15 per cent in the 12 months to end-September 2014, Ireland has out-performed Turkey (+14%); Dubai (+12.5%); and the UK (+10.5%) to place first out of 54 countries.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-fastest-growing-property-market-in-the-world-1.2030003

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:

Last week, Ireland opened a giant food bank to cope with the 600,000 people living in food poverty. According to data on Material Deprivation published by the European Commission, Ireland comes in at number three on the list of most deprived countries in the EU-15 – just after Greece and Italy. This means that one million people, or 28 percent of the Irish population, struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills.

28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kermit.de.frog

I actually don't believe that 28% of the Irish population are struggling to feed themselves.

Scofflaw

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I actually don't believe that 28% of the Irish population are struggling to feed themselves.

Sure, but then it does say they're struggling to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food, and pay their bills, rather than that they just can't feed themselves.

I'm not sure they'd be setting up food banks, or having them opened by Joan Burton, if there was no real need for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Satriale

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I actually don't believe that 28% of the Irish population are struggling to feed themselves.

Neither do i, but of course it says, "heat, shelter, food and bills".

For Forks Sake

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I actually don't believe that 28% of the Irish population are struggling to feed themselves.

Definition of food poverty can be found here: http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/dspfoodpovertypaper.pdf

http://www.thejournal.ie/study-10-per-cent-of-irish-population-living-in-food-poverty-636917-Oct2012/

The study examined food poverty between 2004 and 2010, employing a system of measuring using three key factors already included in the Central Statistics Office’s consistent poverty measure – plus one additional factor:

1.
Not being able to afford a meal containing meat or vegetarian equivalent every second day
Rationale:
This indicator suggests severe food deprivation. The recommended daily allowance is to consume two servings of protein per day. This item is also asked of all EU member states in the EU SILC survey. This item is one of the 11 deprivation items used for the consistent poverty measure.

2.
Not being able to afford a roast dinner (or vegetarian equivalent) once a week
Rationale:
This indicator refers to the affordability of food and additionally, in referring to a weekly roast, it refers to affordability of a cultural norm. Though the reference to a weekly roast may be slightly outdated, the indicator refers only to those who cannot afford this.
This item is one of the 11 deprivation items used for the consistent poverty measure.

3.
Missing at least one substantial meal over a two-week period due to lack of money
Rationale:
This indicator refers specifically to the respondent not being able to afford a substantial meal on at least one day, during the last fortnight, due to affordability. This item, in its reference to the affordability of food but not to the quality or adequacy of the food, refers to severe food deprivation. This item is not one of the 11 deprivation items used for the consistent poverty measure.

4.
Inability to have family or friends for a meal or drink once a month
Rationale:
This indicator refers to the social participatory aspect of food poverty. This is when people may restrict their social patterns due to not being able to afford certain products, or to participate in certain events considered a norm by society. This indicator could be considered a somewhat limited measure of food deprivation as it refers to ‘a meal, or a drink’. This item is one of the 11 deprivation items used for the consistent poverty measure.

Icepick

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:



http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-fastest-growing-property-market-in-the-world-1.2030003

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:



28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ComReg estimates over 73% of Irish households subscribe to services such as Sky and UPC.

the dark phantom

We'll have a soft landing..

Kermit.de.frog

Satriale wrote: »

Neither do i, but of course it says, "heat, shelter, food and bills".

Is beer not included in the list? Or does that go down as food in these surveys?

washman3

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:
28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Figures being massaged and manipulated just like they were when Fianna Fail,Greens and Corrupt Independents were in power.
No great mystery about it really...!!

hmmm

If people can't afford to feed themselves on what is a relatively generous dole, we should be paying part of the dole in the form of food vouchers. You can't eat Sky Sports.

Satriale

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is beer not included in the list? Or does that go down as food in these surveys?

I'm sure alcoholism does contribute to food poverty in this country, but it's not really a joking matter, if that's what you are trying to do.

Kermit.de.frog

Satriale wrote: »

I'm sure alcoholism does contribute to food poverty in this country, but it's not really a joking matter, if that's what you are trying to do.

Your right it's not but I do wonder how many judged to be in poverty actually do spend Friday night in the pub and do have Sky Sports.

First world problems.

Manach

Perhaps using one end of scale property, which does not have a primary function as being a wealth generator (Capital in the 21st book notwithstanding) but as a means of shelter and subject to market bubble, is a not an ideal anchor point. As for food banks, being an agricultural economy, perhaps government should take second place to more community efforts to alivate the problem. For example the allotment system in the UK had worked well to grow encourage food growth and take pride in personal work.

Rightwing

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:



http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-fastest-growing-property-market-in-the-world-1.2030003

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:



28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Both sets of figures are probably misleading.

The rise in property is partly as a consequence of fund managers searching for a yield. Properties are being bought up by large Chinese/US funds not just here but in other distressed areas of Europe and US.

The food poverty, I can only assume it is down to people who lost their jobs and are paying the mortgage in a desperate bid to keep the house.

Icepick

Irish consumers will be highest spenders in Europe this Christmas

But let's blame others anyway.

jank

hmmm wrote: »

If people can't afford to feed themselves on what is a relatively generous dole, we should be paying part of the dole in the form of food vouchers. You can't eat Sky Sports.

88% of households have PayTV.... yet 28% of households live in poverty?

20 something % of every household in the Australia also live in poverty, yet the country is very very wealthy and has one of the highest standards of living in the world... Those figures I totally dismiss as its a relative mean index. You may as well say that 50% of the population are below average...

Godge

Relative measures of poverty are essentially meaningless.

If the top twenty billionaires on the planet moved to Ireland tomorrow, everyone else in the country would be below the poverty line including the likes of Michael O'Leary.

Measurements of absolute poverty also present difficulties. You ask the question "can you afford a winter coat?" or "can you afford a decent hot meal every day?" and people answer no, but they forget to add that the reason is they are paying for Sky Sports instead or they drank or injected all their money.

When it comes to poverty, the questions are like asking how long is a piece of string. This makes it very difficult to know what is the right answer.

andrew

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:

Where's the source for that one? Saw it mentioned in a Vice article but couldn't find the referenced report. Also, any idea why it's 'EU-15' given there aren't 15 countries in the EU?

Icepick

Godge wrote: »

Relative measures of poverty are essentially meaningless.

If the top twenty billionaires on the planet moved to Ireland tomorrow, everyone else in the country would be below the poverty line including the likes of Michael O'Leary.

Measurements of absolute poverty also present difficulties. You ask the question "can you afford a winter coat?" or "can you afford a decent hot meal every day?" and people answer no, but they forget to add that the reason is they are paying for Sky Sports instead or they drank or injected all their money.

When it comes to poverty, the questions are like asking how long is a piece of string. This makes it very difficult to know what is the right answer.

The other big problem with it is welfare.
Some people have 0 assets and still live as comfortably as working peopke thanks to welfare.

andrew

I wouldn't agree that measures of poverty are meaningless. All data/surveys have some degree of uncertainty, but I don't see how you can conclude that surveys mentioned by Scofflaw or other posters are completelymeaningless.

Godge wrote: »

If the top twenty billionaires on the planet moved to Ireland tomorrow, everyone else in the country would be below the poverty line including the likes of Michael O'Leary.

Sure - that's why they're not using average wealth as a measure of poverty here. They use actual consumption.

Measurements of absolute poverty also present difficulties. You ask the question "can you afford a winter coat?" or "can you afford a decent hot meal every day?" and people answer no, but they forget to add that the reason is they are paying for Sky Sports instead or they drank or injected all their money.

When it comes to poverty, the questions are like asking how long is a piece of string. This makes it very difficult to know what is the right answer.

How do those difficulties completely invalidate the surveys though?

Anyway, either you assume that people in general are foregoing hot meals to pay for trivial crap, or you assume that that's a thing that people in general don't do. In the absence of data to the contrary, it seems a lot more realistic to me, that people in general don't spend their money on stupid crap when they're starving. Would you do that? Would most of the people you know do that?

In any case, even if these people are spending money on trivial things - if the difference between you being in poverty and not in poverty is €70 a month, then no matter how you look at it you're still pretty damn poor. And to the extent that these surveys are cross country, they give a good measure of just how many pretty poor people there are.

Icepick wrote: »

The other big problem with it is welfare.
Some people have 0 assets and still live as comfortably as working peopke thanks to welfare.

Assets don't come into the poverty definitions mentioned in this thread at all

Godge

andrew wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that measures of poverty are meaningless. All data/surveys have some degree of uncertainty, but I don't see how you can conclude that surveys mentioned by Scofflaw or other posters are completelymeaningless.



Sure - that's why they're not using average wealth as a measure of poverty here. They use actual consumption.



How do those difficulties completely invalidate the surveys though?

Anyway, either you assume that people in general are foregoing hot meals to pay for trivial crap, or you assume that that's a thing that people in general don't do. In the absence of data to the contrary, it seems a lot more realistic to me, that people in general don't spend their money on stupid crap when they're starving. Would you do that? Would most of the people you know do that?

In any case, even if these people are spending money on trivial things - if the difference between you being in poverty and not in poverty is €70 a month, then no matter how you look at it you're still pretty damn poor. And to the extent that these surveys are cross country, they give a good measure of just how many pretty poor people there are.



Assets don't come into the poverty definitions mentioned in this thread at all

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/measuringpoverty.pdf

This is a better explanation of it.

The media often use either the "at-risk-of poverty" measure. That is the one that I showed would be skewed by the arrival of a number of multi-billionaires.

The material deprivation measure has the flaw I mentioned of not including the fact that the person may spend income or wealth elsewhere - e.g. can't afford to buy presents but can afford to buy Sky Sports. It is also self-reported which makes it inaccurate.

The combined measure - consistent poverty - is probably the most accurate as it smooths out the inconsistencies in the other two. If you are low income and you can't afford a roasting joint every week, then you are in consistent poverty. It excludes categories like those who have money and spend it elsewhere, those who are cash rich but low income etc.

Saipanne

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:



http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-fastest-growing-property-market-in-the-world-1.2030003

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:



28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exogeniety.

Icepick

andrew wrote: »

Assets don't come into the poverty definitions mentioned in this thread at all

Of course they do when perception is such a strong factor.
Have you ever listened to the water charges protesters?
They believe they are 3rd world country poor.

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:

Dublin has ....outside Dublin not so much

Dr.Constantin Gurgdiev wrote:

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/10/23102014-irish-residential-property.html
So once again, data is showing troubling developments in the rate of price increases in Dublin[/URL] and below-trend price levels. Based on historical evidence, real price bubble concerns are still outside the scope of index readings by some 25-30 percent. But we are closing that gap very fast.

Scofflaw wrote:

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:

And also 3rd highest inactive population of younger people as proportion of total population, I wonder if there is a connection ?

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/art1_mb201410_pp49-68.en.pdf

jank

If we are talking on poverty I prefer to look at the bigger picture.



Those that live on under $1.25 a day.

The number of people living on less than $1.25 per day has decreased dramatically in the past three decades, from half the citizens in the developing world in 1981 to 21 percent in 2010,

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY/countries?page=6&display=map
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-remain



Clearly lots more progress to be done but hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty over the past 3 decades as countries embrace more liberal markets, foreign investment, capitalism, transparency and strong institutions.

porsche959

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:



http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-fastest-growing-property-market-in-the-world-1.2030003

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:



28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Another property bubble has commenced, is in progress, and will probably continue, given recent indications that the eurozone interest rate will remain low, due to economic slowdown in the countries that influence the ECB.

We have learned nothing.

cordially,
Porsche959

porsche959

the dark phantom wrote: »

We'll have a soft landing..

Haha. I suspect we have seen this movie before.

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

Another property bubble has commenced, is in progress, and will probably continue, given recent indications that the eurozone interest rate will remain low, due to economic slowdown in the countries that influence the ECB.

We have learned nothing.

cordially,
Porsche959

Yes and no - it seems that the Central Bank may have done so, even if the politicians, media, and buyers haven't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

andrew wrote: »

How do those difficulties completely invalidate the surveys though?

Because if some has 200 quid a week and spends 180 of it on drink or drugs then the fact that they can't afford a winter coat is actually irrelevant. Their problem is not a lack of money, it is an addiction or mental illness or whatever and just giving them more money will just see them drink or use more.

As for why those with Pay TV packages who can't afford winter coats should simply be told to get their priorities straight, well, if you can't see that for yourself I don't think anything I say will help matters.

macraignil

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:

28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Government borrows billions of Euros to nationalise property debt and keep overpriced homes from being sold at market prices. Construction of new homes allowed to collapse to levels far less than demand. No control on rent increases as common place in other countries. The basic economics law of supply and demand manipulated by the government like this will see property price rising to levels unaffordable to a large proportion of the population.

andrew

murphaph wrote: »

Because if some has 200 quid a week and spends 180 of it on drink or drugs then the fact that they can't afford a winter coat is actually irrelevant. Their problem is not a lack of money, it is an addiction or mental illness or whatever and just giving them more money will just see them drink or use more.

.

Unless that's the case for a large proportion of people - which it isn't - then the survey isn't invalidated.

Godge

andrew wrote: »

Unless that's the case for a large proportion of people - which it isn't - then the survey isn't invalidated.

How do you know it isn't the case for a large proportion of people?

I provided a link and explanation in the post below. Here is an extract:

"This is the official method used to set the national poverty target in Ireland: the figure for at risk-of-poverty is combined with the material deprivation indicators above to calculate the rate of consistent poverty, which is currently 6.2 per cent of the population."

The fact that the rate of poverty drops from 22% to 6.2% when moving from material deprivation to the consistent poverty suggests that there is something other than mere lack of money behind the poverty figures.

By that analysis, measures to deal with alcoholism, smoking and drug addiction, giving people an education in how to manage money etc. would be much more effective in reducing material deprivation than throwing money at the problem. The failure of these measures to date may explain why a country with such high levels of social welfare has such high measures of poverty on some measures.

Godge wrote: »

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/measuringpoverty.pdf

This is a better explanation of it.

The media often use either the "at-risk-of poverty" measure. That is the one that I showed would be skewed by the arrival of a number of multi-billionaires.

The material deprivation measure has the flaw I mentioned of not including the fact that the person may spend income or wealth elsewhere - e.g. can't afford to buy presents but can afford to buy Sky Sports. It is also self-reported which makes it inaccurate.

The combined measure - consistent poverty - is probably the most accurate as it smooths out the inconsistencies in the other two. If you are low income and you can't afford a roasting joint every week, then you are in consistent poverty. It excludes categories like those who have money and spend it elsewhere, those who are cash rich but low income etc.

andrew

Godge wrote: »

How do you know it isn't the case for a large proportion of people?

I provided a link and explanation in the post below. Here is an extract:

"This is the official method used to set the national poverty target in Ireland: the figure for at risk-of-poverty is combined with the material deprivation indicators above to calculate the rate of consistent poverty, which is currently 6.2 per cent of the population."

The fact that the rate of poverty drops from 22% to 6.2% when moving from material deprivation to the consistent poverty suggests that there is something other than mere lack of money behind the poverty figures.

By that analysis, measures to deal with alcoholism, smoking and drug addiction, giving people an education in how to manage money etc. would be much more effective in reducing material deprivation than throwing money at the problem. The failure of these measures to date may explain why a country with such high levels of social welfare has such high measures of poverty on some measures.

16.3% of people experience 'material deprivation' but aren't 'at risk of poverty.'

There are 2 explanations for this. Either a) 16.3% are (as the poster I was replying to said) idiot alcoholics or druggies who can't manage money in any way - i.e. it's their own fault they're poor or b) are genuinely short of cash.

In the absence of evidence to the otherwise, I'm just saying that to me, b) sounds a lot more likely to me. Obviously, a portion of those people are definitely just crap with money or have different priorities to that survey. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to dismiss the entire thing on the assumption that poor people, on the whole, are just really bad with money;

Firstly, it denies poor people any luxury whatsoever, as though 'luxuries' aren't a valid thing to consume when you're poor. When you're poor, small luxuries are probably some of the only things which make life bearable. You can argue that poor people should be living the life of a monk, but for most people that's not a life worth living. Secondly, I can't think of any reason as to why a poor person is more likely to make systematically bad choices, to the extent that they find themselves unable to afford basic necessities. Basically - why would people be that stupid and bad at managing money?

Sheldons Brain

I wonder about some of these stats. A winter coat in Penneys is €15 and Dunnes has lots of body warmers/fleeces for €8. No need to be cold, these last for 5 seasons or more, or they do for me.

andrew wrote: »

. Secondly, I can't think of any reason as to why a poor person is more likely to make systematically bad choices, to the extent that they find themselves unable to afford basic necessities. Basically - why would people be that stupid and bad at managing money?

A capable person is much more likely not to be poor, they get a decent job.

andrew

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I wonder about some of these stats. A winter coat in Penneys is €15 and Dunnes has lots of body warmers/fleeces for €8. No need to be cold, these last for 5 seasons or more, or they do for me.
A capable person is much more likely not to be poor, they get a decent job.

There are plenty of capable people born into crappy situations which make it very, very difficult for them to get a 'decent' job.

And winter fleeces don't really cut it when it's snowing and you've got sporadic heating, and your house/apt has pretty bad insulation, and you're not eating great, and it's raining out and maybe you've to walk to work because you can't afford transport. Sure, just buy the cheapest fleece on offer and it'll be grand.

realitykeeper

Scofflaw wrote: »

The juxtaposition of two recent pieces of news struck me - we have, apparently, the world's fastest growing property market:



http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-fastest-growing-property-market-in-the-world-1.2030003

We're also #3 in the EU-15 for material deprivation:



28% of the Irish population "struggle to provide themselves with heat, shelter, food and bills" (bad phrasing, I find other people provide me with plenty of bills), but somehow the property market is once again driving skywards.

How does it work out this way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The property market is supported by loans financed by Irish banks borrowing from abroad just like during the celtic tiger. So, the banks have learned nothing and as such there will be hell to pay, but that is moral hazard for you.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government could have helped the poor directly by way of funding soup kitchens for a fraction of the cost of the bank bailout.

Scofflaw

realitykeeper wrote: »

The property market is supported by loans financed by Irish banks borrowing from abroad just like during the celtic tiger. So, the banks have learned nothing and as such there will be hell to pay, but that is moral hazard for you.

Well, no, they're not borrowing from abroad. Of the domestic banks' current total balance sheets of €423bn, only 17% is non-Irish, according to the CBI figures. 20% if you count ECB borrowings. And the figures have been falling, not rising.

I'll make the point again that banks don't borrow to lend. They create money by lending, and borrow money for day to day operations.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government could have helped the poor directly by way of funding soup kitchens for a fraction of the cost of the bank bailout.

Sure. On the other hand, the cost of the damage to businesses in a suddenly bankless economy would dwarf the bank bailout.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

andrew wrote: »

16.3% of people experience 'material deprivation' but aren't 'at risk of poverty.'

There are 2 explanations for this. Either a) 16.3% are (as the poster I was replying to said) idiot alcoholics or druggies who can't manage money in any way - i.e. it's their own fault they're poor or b) are genuinely short of cash.

In the absence of evidence to the otherwise, I'm just saying that to me, b) sounds a lot more likely to me. Obviously, a portion of those people are definitely just crap with money or have different priorities to that survey. But, it just doesn't make sense to me to dismiss the entire thing on the assumption that poor people, on the whole, are just really bad with money;

Firstly, it denies poor people any luxury whatsoever, as though 'luxuries' aren't a valid thing to consume when you're poor. When you're poor, small luxuries are probably some of the only things which make life bearable. You can argue that poor people should be living the life of a monk, but for most people that's not a life worth living. Secondly, I can't think of any reason as to why a poor person is more likely to make systematically bad choices, to the extent that they find themselves unable to afford basic necessities. Basically - why would people be that stupid and bad at managing money?

Unfortunately, there is evidence to the otherwise. Earlier in the thread, there was the evidence of the high level of pay TV - 88% of households. Apart from that, there is the evidence of the high level of average alcohol consumption by Irish adults, the high level of car ownership, the high level of property ownership as opposed to renting, smartphone ownership and a number of other measures, including access to internet.

So yes, the evidence will show that there are plenty of people who are choosing to run a car, pay a mortgage, drink alcohol, inject drugs or watch Sky Sports rather than spend their money on a roast dinner once a week, or presents for the mother-in-law or good shoes.

Money on social housing, money on treating alcohol addiction, money on adult education will do much more for combating poverty than a "living wage", increasing social welfare or other nonsense like that from the poverty industry.

Sheldons Brain

andrew wrote: »

There are plenty of capable people born into crappy situations which make it very, very difficult for them to get a 'decent' job.

And winter fleeces don't really cut it when it's snowing and you've got sporadic heating, and your house/apt has pretty bad insulation, and you're not eating great, and it's raining out and maybe you've to walk to work because you can't afford transport. Sure, just buy the cheapest fleece on offer and it'll be grand.

It is perfectly possible to dress warmly for a small fraction of the benefits paid in this country.

jank

Clothing and food has never ever been cheaper in the west. Any long term metric will show that. So tbh nobody should starving or without warm clothes in Ireland given their fairly generous welfare payments. This is not the 50's or even the 80's. How many people give their kids hand me downs today? I wore them in the 80's and my parents both earned an middle class income. Just that people were not so entitled then as now.

Have a listen to some podcast's on RTE. Paddy O'Gorman is hilarious. You have people spending their Christmas bonus on toys for the kids yet can't afford water charges. You have people taking out loans of a few grand so they can buy their kids the latest brand gear. Yet these people would be classed in the 28% of people in 'poverty'.

Oprah Winfrey made similar comments a few years ago about the disparity between the poor in the US and the poor in Africa. In the US, the kids want iPads and Nike Sneakers. In Africa they want food, clean water and some pencils/papers so they can get an education. So, yeah forgive me if my heart does not go out to the 28% of Irish poor. Once you see the $1.25 at first hand you feel like giving the Joe Duffy types a slap.

Icepick

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, there is evidence to the otherwise. Earlier in the thread, there was the evidence of the high level of pay TV - 88% of households. Apart from that, there is the evidence of the high level of average alcohol consumption by Irish adults, the high level of car ownership, the high level of property ownership as opposed to renting, smartphone ownership and a number of other measures, including access to internet.

So yes, the evidence will show that there are plenty of people who are choosing to run a car, pay a mortgage, drink alcohol, inject drugs or watch Sky Sports rather than spend their money on a roast dinner once a week, or presents for the mother-in-law or good shoes.

Money on social housing, money on treating alcohol addiction, money on adult education will do much more for combating poverty than a "living wage", increasing social welfare or other nonsense like that from the poverty industry.

Actually more money needs to be spent on pre school and primary school education, not adult ed. That's where we fail to break the cycle of dependancy and bad role models.

Chips Lovell

Is transaction volume still quite low?

Jim2007

jank wrote: »

Have a listen to some podcast's on RTE. Paddy O'Gorman is hilarious. You have people spending their Christmas bonus on toys for the kids yet can't afford water charges. You have people taking out loans of a few grand so they can buy their kids the latest brand gear. Yet these people would be classed in the 28% of people in 'poverty'.

There is no doubt that Ireland has fallen victim to the consumer society. Every time I visit, I'm shocked at just how much money is wasted! I live in one of the most wealthy countries in the world and there is simply no way people will part with their money so easily!

For example, both my kids have had their communion and confirmation here and the total cost on each occasion was about €60 - €40 of that was for dry cleaning the standard white vestment supplied by the church and the other €20 was a contribution for the party that was held in the church grounds afterwards. Under the vestment most kids just wore jeans, a t-shirt and runners.

As far as I can see what Irish people consider austerity is actually the norm for the rest of us!

jank

I would love to see some research on the spending habits of Irish today versus the spending habits of people in Germany or Holland for example. As I mentioned in another post, if one listens to media and reads websites like this or thejournal.ie (yes I know its an online rag) one would think the economy has collapsed where people are dying of starvation en-mass akin to the great depression, famine or something. When I come home every few years, I see loads of new cars, pubs are packed, restaurants are jointed, people buying brand named items in shops like normal etc.... You generally do not see the same level of frivolous spending in other western countries, NZ being a great example of a contrast of this. Maybe it is something to do with their protestant work-ethic and frugality as much like the status obsessed insecure Irish.

macraignil

Casual observation of spending while on a holiday in Ireland would not count for much in my opinion. Ireland has a very unequal society and while a few in well paid jobs can indulge in "frivolous spending" those caught in jobs with lower pay and still covering the expense of high rent or mortgage payments are far less visible.

Scofflaw

macraignil wrote: »

Casual observation of spending while on a holiday in Ireland would not count for much in my opinion. Ireland has a very unequal society and while a few in well paid jobs can indulge in "frivolous spending" those caught in jobs with lower pay and still covering the expense of high rent or mortgage payments are far less visible.

Ireland has a mid-inequality society by European standards, after tax, and one of the most redistributive tax systems. That is, before taxation we're one of the most unequal in the EU, after taxation we're halfway down/up the list between the most and least equal EU countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Grab All Association

This time last year SVP Thurles. I was at the front of St Mary's health centre waiting for a taxi. Woman walks out with yellow vouchers in her hand and a big bag full of food. Walks very fast up up the railway bridge towards Semple Stadium and I see her throw the bag of food into the CBS hurling grounds. Walks back down the town towards the square to spend the vouchers.

Majority who go to these soup kitchens/food banks are not poor and are taking advantage.


Oh and the SVP does amazing work throughout the country. Sickens you to see people exploiting them.

Grab All Association

Reported the illegal dumping btw to Thurles Town Council. Was still there three weeks later.

jank

macraignil wrote: »

Casual observation of spending while on a holiday in Ireland would not count for much in my opinion. Ireland has a very unequal society and while a few in well paid jobs can indulge in "frivolous spending" those caught in jobs with lower pay and still covering the expense of high rent or mortgage payments are far less visible.

It is not a mere casual observation though. I have lived in a few countries for an extended period of time elsewhere and of course Ireland. Somethings stick in the memory. Pubs would never ever be as full in NZ as in Ireland for example. New cars there are a rarity (I was genuinely shocked at the amount of 141 cars in Ireland, some owned by people who would be anti water and property tax!). There is a much bigger market for second hand goods in NZ and OZ than here in my experience. People would regularly go to the local depot to look for spare parts for their house, appliances, cars etc.. Not an uncommon feature of Kiwi life and these people would be normal middle class Kiwi's. Its a mindset and culture, its that simple.

It is one of the things that becomes apparent to you when you travel. You realise the good and bad about Ireland and the status obsessed materialistic entitlement culture is something that quickly becomes very self evident after a year or two away from the country.

Godge

Icepick wrote: »

Actually more money needs to be spent on pre school and primary school education, not adult ed. That's where we fail to break the cycle of dependancy and bad role models.

You may well be right, we may have to give up on the current long-term social welfare recipients and focus on the next generation.

macraignil wrote: »

Casual observation of spending while on a holiday in Ireland would not count for much in my opinion. Ireland has a very unequal society and while a few in well paid jobs can indulge in "frivolous spending" those caught in jobs with lower pay and still covering the expense of high rent or mortgage payments are far less visible.

Ireland has one of the more equal societies in Europe. We just have too many people with unrealistic expectations.

You go to the UK or Germany and you will find that there are a lot of working people who cannot afford a holiday abroad every year. Yet in Ireland, there are people on social welfare who have regular holidays abroad.

macraignil

jank wrote: »

It is not a mere casual observation though. I have lived in a few countries for an extended period of time elsewhere and of course Ireland. Somethings stick in the memory. Pubs would never ever be as full in NZ as in Ireland for example. New cars there are a rarity (I was genuinely shocked at the amount of 141 cars in Ireland, some owned by people who would be anti water and property tax!). There is a much bigger market for second hand goods in NZ and OZ than here in my experience. People would regularly go to the local depot to look for spare parts for their house, appliances, cars etc.. Not an uncommon feature of Kiwi life and these people would be normal middle class Kiwi's. Its a mindset and culture, its that simple.

It is one of the things that becomes apparent to you when you travel. You realise the good and bad about Ireland and the status obsessed materialistic entitlement culture is something that quickly becomes very self evident after a year or two away from the country.

I have not been to New Zealand or since working in Ireland since the 1990s been able to put aside enough money to buy a new car. I think your label of a materialistic entitlement culture here is oversimplifying things. The market here particularly for property as been manipulated by government so someting as basic as having a home is pushed out of reach of too many for a healthy society to exist here.

My experience of pubs here is that, while some urban pubs that make an effort to make a good atmosphere for customers are busy, others are not and rural pubs are closing in Ireland regularly. I have recently moved to a rural area and the last pub in the nearest village has been closed for a number of years. If I am going out to socialise I travel to the nearest city and go to a pub that plays music I like and do find them busy. This does not mean all Irish pubs are doing good business.

As for second hand market here for cars and many other goods the cost of maintenance of older goods often outweighs the cost of replacing them. I have bought second hand parts for my car. I have also experience of a number of appliances that stopped working and the cost of repairing them was similar to the price of buying a new one. One of the issues here with cars is the NCT testing which while the economy was colapsing was switched from every 2 years to every year. While I appreciate road safety is important this added to the cost of staying mobile for work in a time when pay and availability of work has been a problem. From what I have heard New Zealand and Australia are much better places to live.