Britian's poorest going hungry: Are we heading the same way?

smcgiff

ireland.man wrote: »

This is the only post I've never asked sources to back up...

You REALLY need to work on your Ninja skills

ireland.man

smcgiff wrote: »

You REALLY need to work on your Ninja skills

Even the edited version is wrong... I'm giving up for the night. Good night!

mikemac1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm in the quantum end of biophysics as opposed to the mechanical end, Look up Biological Nuclear magnetic resonance for my area.

Can you make nucluer bombs and release horrible diseases into the water supply? :eek:

*note to self, don't cross steddyeddy*

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

This . Is completely different to what you implied.

How?

Counties with poverty rates of >35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties

Counties with poverty rates greater than 35% (i.e. those counties with a lot of poor people) have obesity rates that are 145% greater than wealthier counties.

In other words poorer counties have more and fatter people than richer counties. How is that different to what I originally implied?

Here educate yourself, it can be called the obesity paradox.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=0

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

I succeeded but as I am a capitalist at heart and cannot stand those given unearned advantage. It's uncompetitive. You mention background. If education were equal why would background be important? Were you given unearned advantage or did you earn it through scholarship?

Well I never went to a private school or to a grind school. I went to a normal community school. I did have some grinds though. Does that make me or my parents a social Darwinist. Can you not stand the fact that I had some grinds? Does it irk you as much as say someone who went to Blackrock College?

Background is important but THE most important thing for a child is the type of parent you have. If you have a parent that does not give a **** then you are off to a bad start. If you have a parent that pushes you to achieve and values education, requires a certain standard then you are off to a good start. The money in your parents pocket is only a small factor to the above.

Case in point? Well, my Mother came from nothing. She was a heartbeat away from an orphanage in the 1940's. However, she had drive and she was clever. She got a part-scholarship to go to secondary school (in those days most left school at 12 and one had to pay to go secondary school). With the leaving done, she wanted to go to University. Of course one had to pay a pretty penny for that. Anyway, she goes to work for the civil service in an OK ish job, saves money and goes to UCD at night, first to do an arts degree then a H'Dip. It took a few years but got there in the end.....
Roll on a few years she was in a position (as well as my dad) to pay for a few grinds. Another social Darwinist I suppose.. :roll eyes:

The ironic thing, say your own kid has learning difficulty and you send them for a number of grinds to help them along the way. Is your own kid having an unearned advantage now? Does someone who needs a Special Needs Assistant having an unearned advantage by the state helping them?

Highflyer13

steddyeddy wrote: »

I succeeded but as I am a capitalist at heart and cannot stand those given unearned advantage. It's uncompetitive. You mention background. If education were equal why would background be important? Were you given unearned advantage or did you earn it through scholarship?

Its the nature of life. Many people get something or become wealthy for nothing while some of us who come from nothing have to work our asses off to succeed and still might never become successful.

smcgiff

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Its the nature of life. Many people get something or become wealthy for nothing while some of us who come from nothing have to work our asses off to succeed and still might never become successful.

But if you do succeed are you going to pass more opportunities onto your offspring than you had? Would you have a problem with that or would you be worried you'd be giving them an advantage over someone not connected to you?

Soft Falling Rain

smcgiff wrote: »

Unless government totally take over the running of peoples lives there will be some that cannot take care of themselves.

How many of these people prioritise food over other expenditure, such as alcohol. That may not account for everybody, but I suspect a lot.

Should government intervene when more affluent eat enough to make themselves obese?

How many do you reckon are spending more an alcohol than food?

I'm not saying this directly to you smcgiff but every time a social problem is raised there seems to be a tendency to deflect the causes of the problem back onto those who are suffering.

No-one wants to be nannied by their government but perhaps if there's a genuine problem where people are struggling, it might be worth looking into instead of just dismissing it as being the fault of the person and nothing more.

And just to illustrate the hypocrisy, the government in Britain has no problem in getting "hands on" in controlling the lives of people in getting them "back to work", yet in this situation you seem happy enough to let the same government sit on their hands.

Highflyer13

smcgiff wrote: »

But if you do succeed are you going to pass more opportunities onto your offspring than you had? Would you have a problem with that or would you be worried you'd be giving them an advantage over someone not connected to you?

I will certainly pass some of my wealth on to enable them to live comfortably but at the same time they will get nothing easy. I'd still expect them to have a good work ethic and build their own reputation in the world. I do hope to give them more opportunities than I had. More oppurtunities could mean being educated abroad or some travel if they wish. Thats a big motivating factor for me. At the same time if I was a multi millionaire I certainly wouldn't be giving my 18 yr old son or daughter a brand new car for their b-days and unlimited credit cards.

smcgiff

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

How many do you reckon are spending more an alcohol than food?

I'm not saying this directly to you smcgiff but every time a social problem is raised there seems to be a tendency to deflect the causes of the problem back onto those who are suffering.

No-one wants to be nannied by their government but perhaps if there's a genuine problem where people are struggling, it might be worth looking into instead of just dismissing it as being the fault of the person and nothing more.

And just to illustrate the hypocrisy, the government in Britain has no problem in getting "hands on" in controlling the lives of people in getting them "back to work", yet in this situation you seem happy enough to let the same government sit on their hands.

I think it's a factor.

I think an awareness or more education on nutrition would help. However I feel the same about people being obese and overweight. I think a recent study said 7 in 10 men are overweight. 50% of women are overweight.*

That needs to be tackled, and I think the government has an obligation to intervene, but it would not mean making extra direct payments to people.

*I'd link to the study, but I won't because:-

1. It might give Ireland.man a stroke it would be so unexpected
2. I'd hate to set a precedent :pac:

Robroy36

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

How many do you reckon are spending more an alcohol than food?

It would be very difficult to get accurate figures on this. I have worked in some of the most deprived areas in Dublin and alcohol abuse is endemic there, I would deal with people from 9am onwards with significant amounts of alcohol on them.

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I'm not saying this directly to you smcgiff but every time a social problem is raised there seems to be a tendency to deflect the causes of the problem back onto those who are suffering.

Some people are their own worst enemies. Alot of people are perfectly happy to wallow in an alcohol induced haze ad infinitum.

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

No-one wants to be nannied by their government but perhaps if there's a genuine problem where people are struggling, it might be worth looking into instead of just dismissing it as being the fault of the person and nothing more.

If people don't want to be "nannied" by their government then they should not expect them to provide free housing, money and healthcare.

Dan_Solo

Purekino tm wrote: »

You'd be entitled to buy them whatever you want as it's nobody else'so business. Being given such expensive gifts like cars is also a disadvantage as it robs your child if building a healthy work ethic which is an asset for life.

Comedy hour again I see. Why are the children of rich people very likely to be rich themselves then? They must be even better than poor people as they've been handicapped by all that money being spent on them?

Dan_Solo

smcgiff wrote: »

But if you do succeed are you going to pass more opportunities onto your offspring than you had? Would you have a problem with that or would you be worried you'd be giving them an advantage over someone not connected to you?

It doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. Irrelevant to the debate.
It happens and it demonstrates we live in a society with much less social mobility than most I'm alright Jack's are willing to admit to.

TwoShedsJackson

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are 20,000 chronically unemployable people in Ireland. Those that don't want to work and will never willingly take up paid employment while they can rely on the dole and some nixers/petty crime/whatever to top themselves up.

If you cut these people's dole off, what do you think happens? They magically decide 'right, I must go out and get a job then'? No, they'll just start committing a lot more crime to stay alive. There are some people that will never fit into society's view of what constitutes a productive member of society. Benefits are basically hush money to keep the likes of these under control.

Why anyone thinks that slashing their dole will magically change these individuals is beyond me.

Dan_Solo

Purekino tm wrote: »

We live in a society where you can become wealthy if you really want to if you have the work ethic and intelligence. Study hard and get the points you need for a particular course. I think some people just like to have ready made excuses.

That makes a little more sense than your original "do you have any evidence this happens" post at least.
But still, you've gone for anecdote in place of data. I wonder why... are you denying that the average rich kid has more opportunities than the average poor kid?

Robroy36

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are 20,000 chronically unemployable people in Ireland. Those that don't want to work and will never willingly take up paid employment while they can rely on the dole and some nixers/petty crime/whatever to top themselves up.

If you cut these people's dole off, what do you think happens? They magically decide 'right, I must go out and get a job then'? No, they'll just start committing a lot more crime to stay alive. There are some people that will never fit into society's view of what constitutes a productive member of society. Benefits are basically hush money to keep the likes of these under control.

Why anyone thinks that slashing their dole will magically change these individuals is beyond me.

Let them commit the crime then throw them in jail. We need to adopt a New York style zero tolerance policing policy. While in jail they should be forced to work on expanding the motorway network throughout the country.

smcgiff

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Why anyone thinks that slashing their dole will magically change these individuals is beyond me.

Panem et Circenses.

Perhaps we should build another colosseum ? :pac:

Dan_Solo

Purekino tm wrote: »

I don't know how the opportunities of the average kid compare to the average rich kid, all I'm going to say is the average kid in Ireland has more than enough opportunities to become wealthy if he has the drive and intelligence to do so. Focusing on people who might have an advantage is a p1ss poor way to use your valuable resources, time and mental energy. People are entitled to give their kids whatever advantage they want, moaning about others who have it easier when your own life is privileged ( which most children are in Ireland) is just childish.

None of which even comes close to refuting the fact that your own salary largely is determined by your parents'.
Thanks for the personal insult there too at the end. Really strengthens your case that doesn't it.

Dan_Solo

Robroy36 wrote: »

Let them commit the crime then throw them in jail. We need to adopt a New York style zero tolerance policing policy. While in jail they should be forced to work on expanding the motorway network throughout the country.

You think the average unemployable scumbag has the skills of a trained engineer or builder? Does this mean the workers who would otherwise have been making these roads now go straight to doing it for free as you've made them unemployed?

Dan_Solo

Purekino tm wrote: »

How is your own salary determined by your parents? In most companies you actually have to offer value to get a good salary, you csn'the just tell them what your parents earn.

can't tell if serious...

Robroy36

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think the average unemployable scumbag has the skills of a trained engineer or builder? Does this mean the workers who would otherwise have been making these roads now go straight to doing it for free as you've made them unemployed?

Any moron can break rocks. We only get one shot a life, I'd like to ensure the scum that share the country with me spend theirs in abject misery.

Dan_Solo

Robroy36 wrote: »

Any moron can break rocks. We only get one shot a life, I'd like to ensure the scum that share the country with me spend theirs in abject misery.

And what happens to the guy who used to get paid to break rocks? You've just made him unemployed.
Do you think getting scumbags to hit rocks with hammers will reduce the cost to society of a heroin addict?

Mr. teddywinkles

Limestone1 wrote: »

There was 150,000 unemployed when there was signs on every door in Dublin looking for workers ...................go on have another go Mr 8,000

Dole does not mean everyone is drawing down job seekers benefit. There's various benefits

VinLieger

Dan_Solo wrote: »

None of which even comes close to refuting the fact that your own salary largely is determined by your parents'.
Thanks for the personal insult there too at the end. Really strengthens your case that doesn't it.

Its not determined by your parents salary, the job you get depends on the work ethic taught to you by your parents, whether they put a value on education which both leads to how you did in school and college which determines your ultimate career, it has absolutely zero connection to the salary of your parents

steddyeddy

Purekino tm wrote: »

Why is it your business if someone else is provided an advantage by their parents?

If I'm doing the same test as someone and competing for the same college place how is it not my business if someone has an advantage? The only advantage should be intelligence. Standardise the schools and that will start happening.

steddyeddy

smcgiff wrote: »

But if you do succeed are you going to pass more opportunities onto your offspring than you had? Would you have a problem with that or would you be worried you'd be giving them an advantage over someone not connected to you?

No the parents wouldn't worry but as an academic I would worry that someone got an unfair advantage over me. There are people who get these advantages and get into college and drop out because they're not good enough. It happens in science all the time.

steddyeddy

VinLieger wrote: »

Its not determined by your parents salary, the job you get depends on the work ethic taught to you by your parents, whether they put a value on education which both leads to how you did in school and college which determines your ultimate career, it has absolutely zero connection to the salary of your parents

Sorry but that's a bit offensive. It's one thing to say the best schools offer no advantage but it's quite another to imply only those who can afford them value education.

TwoShedsJackson

Robroy36 wrote: »

Let them commit the crime then throw them in jail. We need to adopt a New York style zero tolerance policing policy. While in jail they should be forced to work on expanding the motorway network throughout the country.

OK, so dole is just under 10,000 in the year, plus maybe another 10,000 for other benefits. Meanwhile keeping a prisoner in jail for a year costs 70,000. Who's paying for that?

jackofalltrades

steddyeddy wrote: »

If I'm doing the same test as someone and competing for the same college place how is it not my business if someone has an advantage?
The only advantage should be intelligence. Standardise the schools and that will start happening.

And I presume by this you mean get rid of private schools?
Based on the previous thread that you started on the topic.

yipeeeee

Benefits and entitlements, two of the worst words this country has gotten used
to since the recession.