Education, health and housing and the free market

steddyeddy

Just starting off with housing because it's in the news. As many of you will know Dublin's housing situation is getting worse. More and more families and students are relying on emergency accommodation.

Now of course I'm required to give my views on this. Obviously it's bad situation but looking at some of the views expressed on this site and others there's a certain view that some people don;t have the sympathy they should. Some people think it's a natural symptom of the free market and that's the way it should be.

Article from the Journal.ie below:

THE NUMBER OF families living homeless in Dublin has increased by 100% over the last year according to figures from the Dublin Region Homeless Executive.
The issue of homelessness is one that isn’t going away, with the news that at least five families have been sleeping rough in the capital during July.
Yesterday, it emerged that a Romanian family with three children under the age of five had been forced to sleep in a Dublin park after being evicted by their landlord (the executive has confirmed to TheJournal.ie that temporary accommodation is now being provided for the family in question).
Separately, the former lord mayor of Dublin and chair of Inner City Helping Homeless (ICHH) Christy Burke described to TheJournal.ie the case of Lorraine Wolfe and her 15-year-old son Carlos who had been sleeping in the A&E department of the Mater Hospital in recent times.
Burke has said that he believes the Dáil should be recalled from its recess to deal with the issue.
“If this isn’t a crisis then I don’t know what is,” he told TheJournal.ie yesterday.
The number of families currently registered as requiring emergency accommodation per the homeless executive is 531, totalling 729 adults and 1,122 dependent children.

Currently, the average nightly placements by Dublin’s local authorities into emergency accommodation total 228.
Crucially however, the number of families registered as being in such accommodation has increased from 264 in June 2014 to 531 just 12 months later.
Similarly, the number of dependents living in emergency accommodation has exploded from 567 in June 2014 to 1,122 as of June 2015 in what an executive spokesperson has described as an “unprecedented demand” for their services.


We believe if the Government is serious they would go out and purchase 1,000 apartments, they would then end the misery of hotels and B&Bs,” Christy Burke told RTE’s Liveline yesterday afternoon.

There is also an €18 million shortfall from the Department of the Environment to homeless services, and the elephant in the room is the landlords who are continuously evicting families without any rights, and nobody is addressing the landlord issue.

Now I'm wondering should state intervention come into play when there's a genuine humanitarian need. Should the market alone dictate everything or should things like health, education and housing be in some way separate from that? In my view yes.

If we allow health to be related to income we become like America. A land that still sees outbreaks of the black death and the increase of superbugs like TB during reagonomics era.

If we allow education to be dictated mostly by those who received inherited wealth then we create a situation were social mobility becomes non existent, we draw from a smaller gene pool and therefore minimise the collective intelligence of our graduates.

And we've already seen what happens with housing!

The_Valeyard

Journal.ie


Sorry OP, its a struggle to read after that! Will give it a go though, but I would not trust TheJournals, facts, figures, stats, views, information or journalists.



Edit: Gave it a read, the USA model is not the best example, but State intervention is fine when a genuine humanitarian need, but id allow a free market with tight regulation to control rent prices.

steddyeddy

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Journal.ie


Sorry OP, its a struggle to read after that! Will give it a go though, but I would not trust TheJournals, facts, figures, stats, views, information or journalists.



Edit: Gave it a read, the USA model is not the best example, but State intervention is fine when a genuine humanitarian need, but id allow a free market with tight regulation to control rent prices.

I think there needs to be a cap on rent prices TBH. I don't see anything wrong with putting a ceiling on rent.

The_Valeyard

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there needs to be a cap on rent prices TBH. I don't see anything wrong with putting a ceiling on rent.

Either do I, but the type of accommodation needs to be addressed, say bedsits for temp techies in Grand Canal Dock, etc. Or decent large spaced apartments in which families could live and grow in, but as you know, were are pretty obsessed with a front and back garden.

Del2005

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there needs to be a cap on rent prices TBH. I don't see anything wrong with putting a ceiling on rent.

The problem here is that the government pushed extra charges onto landlords by adding USC to rental income, so landlord costs went up. They also sold off most of the council housing stock and took cash instead of homes in new developments. So now you want the people who increased costs and removed selection to reduce the money that private individuals who rent can make, all that'll happen is more homelessness as landlords sell up. This will have a short term impact on house prices but won't help renters in the cities.

Johnny Cage

Each of those sectors have high regulation and are anything but economically free.

Arsemageddon

Our state pays out billions of tax payers money every year in social welfare rent supplements/rent allowance but spends feck all on building social housing. The real function of these payments is to artificially support the 'buy to let' sector. Yet again it's an indirect bailout of the relatively wealthy by the state over the needs of the less well off. There's an old cliché about money spent on rent being dead money, if that's true for the individual then it is true for the state.

In Ireland the free market is little more than a fiction pedalled by those who profit from the status quo.

KomradeBishop

One long-term solution, which won't solve our immediate needs, but would prevent excessive rent rises in the future, would be large-scale co-op housing, where the buildings are collectively owned by the people living there, and everyone has a stake/share in the overall co-op:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative

These would be far less subject to excessive rent rises, as they wouldn't be based on a for-profit model - they could reduce the cost of both buying a house, as well as the cost of renting, due to not being based on profit motive.

I don't see any reason why these should not be far more prevalent across the city, or why they shouldn't become the primary form of housing development - they would help greatly curtail and potentially eliminate the problems of property speculation and excessive rent, and so could even help to prevent future property bubbles from occurring, if this form of housing is promoted on a large enough scale - i.e. could help prevent the worst of our future economic crises, since the housing market is the one which can blow up the most damaging bubbles, bigger than any other market.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SEPT 23 1989

amazing how the state could build thousands of social houses in the 40's,50's and 60's when we really were a basket case

If you walk around Dublin the spaces above lots of shops is not used and often appears run down rotten window's etc. why don't the government provide incentives to return them to habitable space which would be rented out. That would be a neat solation to the problem as well as improving the landscape.

Education the OP need to get over that one fee paying school are a minor issue in Ireland for example there are no fee paying schools in Galway.
Middle class people marry each other and produce middle class children shock horror its always been like that although you could argue society is getting more stratified.

In a civilised society every one should be entitled to basic health care.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good piece though I wish they'd cite the original studies.

anncoates

KomradeBishop wrote: »

One long-term solution, which won't solve our immediate needs, but would prevent excessive rent rises in the future, would be large-scale co-op housing, where the buildings are collectively owned by the people living there, and everyone has a stake/share in the overall co-op:
.

While it's not the same thing, many multi-unit developments built during the boom run on a management company model with the owners/houses are registered collectively as an actual company with democratically elected directors and control of expenditure (and the services usually provided by the local authority) in the hands of the company, all financed by annual service charges, agreed upon when the property is purchased.

Let's just say when a mass of people are expected to operate on a goodwill basis like that, the reality is often somewhat different to the rosy coadjuvant fantasy that you would initially - and mistakenly - envisage.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's pretty facetious to compare third-world education systems with first-world education systems; the results of Sweden's privatization attempt, shows that such privatization is a dysmal failure when applied to developed nations:
http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/swedish-privatization-of-education-fails.html

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's pretty facetious to compare third-world education systems with first-world education systems; the results of Sweden's privatization attempt, shows that such privatization is a dysmal failure when applied to developed nations:
http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/swedish-privatization-of-education-fails.html

That article just links to a Guardian piece which doesn't say anything more descriptive than "results fall abruptly". Given the Guardian's political stance, this is something which would have merited significant coverage from them IMO.

KomradeBishop

anncoates wrote: »

While it's not the same thing, many multi-unit developments built during the boom run on a management company model with the owners/houses are registered collectively as an actual company with democratically elected directors and control of expenditure (and the services usually provided by the local authority) in the hands of the company, all financed by annual service charges, agreed upon when the property is purchased.

Let's just say when a mass of people are expected to operate on a goodwill basis like that, the reality is often somewhat different to the rosy coadjuvant fantasy that you would initially - and mistakenly - envisage.

Ya that's true, it still has to be implemented right, with a model for ownership/management that is sustainable - and this isn't necessarily easy - though the private management company in that situation, would be quite a lot different to a co-op.

I'd support more of both really - it would be good to see the rental market, populated more with management companies renting out large-scale lots of apartments, and with the market running closer to mainland Europe standards.

I think in Ireland though, there's probably a large unstated emphasis politically, on not actually changing things - keeping things as they are, relatively dysfunctional - because a dysfunctional/exploitable property market, can be one of the most incredibly profitable ways to make money, in a large variety of ways, so it'd be a natural objective for the corrupt, to not want much real reform here.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That article just links to a Guardian piece which doesn't say anything more descriptive than "results fall abruptly". Given the Guardian's political stance, this is something which would have merited significant coverage from them IMO.

It links to multiple articles, which go into a detailed breakdown of the PISA scores plummeting since privatization, of the increasing inequality within Sweden's school system, of the decrease in public confidence in the school system, describing how private schools cut corners on teacher quality, while spending excessively on consultants, among more.

You really didn't read any of the links - just set out to pan it, by trying to trivialize it in an easily rebutted way.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You really didn't read any of the links - just set out to pan it, by trying to trivialize it in an easily rebutted way.

I think my point is fair. I'm at work so I don't have time to read the report so I merely gave my first impressions. I limited my opinion to the blog entry and the Guardian article accordingly.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think my point is fair. I'm at work so I don't have time to read the report so I merely gave my first impressions. I limited my opinion to the blog entry and the Guardian article accordingly.

In other words, you didn't read the links it was referencing (only one selectively picked), and panned it with an incomplete impression of what the article was about, thus misrepresenting it.

No, not exactly a 'fair point' - even less so, when I've described how your trivialization of the article is wrong in may ways, by pointing out the full breadth of what the links in the article address - yet you still maintain it as a 'fair point' despite that.

If I pan an article myself, I usually at least make the effort, to hunt-down discreditable information about facts/data cited in the article, or about the authors of the article - or if I'm too busy, hold off until I can do so later - the above was just very 'hit-and-run' style.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In other words, you didn't read the links it was referencing (only one selectively picked), and panned it with an incomplete impression of what the article was about, thus misrepresenting it.

No, not exactly a 'fair point' - even less so, when I've described how your trivialization of the article is wrong in may ways, by pointing out the full breadth of what the links in the article address - yet you still maintain it as a 'fair point' despite that.

If I pan an article myself, I usually at least make the effort, to hunt-down discreditable information about facts/data cited in the article, or about the authors of the article - or if I'm too busy, hold off until I can do so later - the above was just very 'hit-and-run' style.

You only put up one link; to a blog post. In that post were 2 links; one to a Guardian article and one to another blog.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's an opinion piece without sources backing it up. It's partly why I stopped reading the Economist's science articles.

I worked in private school in Tanzania. It was a secondary school which charged ~ 30,000 shillings or 15 euro a month (at the time). It seemed successful enough in that a lot of the kids went onto secondary school. Which kids? Mostly the men and ~5% of girls.

You see the parents made a difficult choice to send their kids to school here so they mainly send the boys. Boys are more likely to get jobs so it's a sounder financial investment.

This of course is sexism but it's no different than singling out children based on another circumstance of birth such as financial income of parents.

I want the intelligence of the child and the child's ability to work hard to be the exclusive drivers.

There are other free primary schools in Tanzania. The kids who go here are taught by teachers who aren't as qualified as teachers in the private schools and end up with a worse education, relatively speaking. So both free and fee paying students compete for the same secondary schools. Guess who gets in? It's not the most intelligent nor is it the hardest working. It's the kids born to richer parents.

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission were involved in a study which determined that dimmer children were 35% more likely to succeed than more intelligent children (performed higher on cognitive tests).

I've seen that as a PhD here, as a teacher in Africa and by Christ did I see it in my brief time as an exchange student as an American undergrad.

steddyeddy

mariaalice wrote: »

If you walk around Dublin the spaces above lots of shops is not used and often appears run down rotten window's etc. why don't the government provide incentives to return them to habitable space which would be rented out. That would be a neat solation to the problem as well as improving the landscape.

Education the OP need to get over that one fee paying school are a minor issue in Ireland for example there are no fee paying schools in Galway.
Middle class people marry each other and produce middle class children shock horror its always been like that although you could argue society is getting more stratified.

In a civilised society every one should be entitled to basic health care.

That's nothing to do with education. You're insinuating some middle class gene rather than a series of variables associated with being the child of two professional adults.

Children can rise out of their social economic group (if offered the same opportunities as other kids) so based on that they go onto have middle class kids or something?? If there's a genetic link surely it's epigenetic?

Taco Chips

I think we are fortunate in Ireland to have an education system that is quite equitable and accessible. While it's not perfect in those respects it is a lot fairer than many other models. Class systems don't exist really in this country. Sure we have loose definitions of working and middle earners but there is a lot of social mobility and the almost free access to education at third level plays an important part in this.

In terms of housing I totally agree with the OP. The situation is bananas in Dublin at the moment. We need more new builds, a higher standard of accommodation, high rise buildings and better transport links across the whole city. Rents are outrageous in Dublin at the moment and I definitely attribute a lot of it to greed and opportunism by landlords. Rents rocketed upwards around 2012 and have been climbing since. Many landlords will complain about their negative equity, their USC and blah blah as if these charges dont apply to everyone in the state. Too many cowboys and shysters. Anyone who wants to take a look at some of the rent in Dublin Facebook groups can see it. 3-4 Brazilians being stuffed into single rooms in apartments in the city centre paying €300 per month each. If you want basic privacy you can expect to pay at least €600.

steddyeddy

Taco Chips wrote: »

I think we are fortunate in Ireland to have an education system that is quite equitable and accessible. While it's not perfect in those respects it is a lot fairer than many other models. Class systems don't exist really in this country. Sure we have loose definitions of working and middle earners but there is a lot of social mobility and the almost free access to education at third level plays an important part in this.

In terms of housing I totally agree with the OP. The situation is bananas in Dublin at the moment. We need more new builds, a higher standard of accommodation, high rise buildings and better transport links across the whole city. Rents are outrageous in Dublin at the moment and I definitely attribute a lot of it to greed and opportunism by landlords. Rents rocketed upwards around 2012 and have been climbing since. Many landlords will complain about their negative equity, their USC and blah blah as if these charges dont apply to everyone in the state. Too many cowboys and shysters. Anyone who wants to take a look at some of the rent in Dublin Facebook groups can see it. 3-4 Brazilians being stuffed into single rooms in apartments in the city centre paying €300 per month each. If you want basic privacy you can expect to pay at least €600.

I should have pointed out that the education system in this country is fairly equitable. I was really thinking about housing and maybe education in America and the UK.

Landlords need a major kick up the backside when it comes to regulations. The amount chancer landlords out there is unreal.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's nothing to do with education. You're insinuating some middle class gene rather than a series of variables associated with being the child of two professional adults.

Children can rise out of their social economic group (if offered the same opportunities as other kids) so based on that they go onto have middle class kids or something?? If there's a genetic link surely it's epigenetic?

No not at all some children are more closely aliened with the value of education that other its has very little to do with academic ability.


This is from a piece called

Education as an agent of cultural reproduction.


The concept of education as an agent of cultural reproduction is argued to be less directly explained by the material and a subject taught, but rather more so through what is known as the Hidden curriculum. This refers to the socialization aspect of the education process. Through this, an adolescent acquires ‘appropriate attitudes and values’ needed to further succeed within the confines of education. An adolescent’s success or failure within the formal education system is a function of both their ability to demonstrate both measures of formal educational qualifications, as well as the attainment of the aforementioned qualities acquired through socialization mechanisms. This nature of education is reproduced throughout all stages of the system; from primary to post secondary.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

I worked in private school in Tanzania. It was a secondary school which charged ~ 30,000 shillings or 15 euro a month (at the time). It seemed successful enough in that a lot of the kids went onto secondary school. Which kids? Mostly the men and ~5% of girls.

You see the parents made a difficult choice to send their kids to school here so they mainly send the boys. Boys are more likely to get jobs so it's a sounder financial investment.

This of course is sexism but it's no different than singling out children based on another circumstance of birth such as financial income of parents.

I want the intelligence of the child and the child's ability to work hard to be the exclusive drivers.

There are other free primary schools in Tanzania. The kids who go here are taught by teachers who aren't as qualified as teachers in the private schools and end up with a worse education, relatively speaking. So both free and fee paying students compete for the same secondary schools. Guess who gets in? It's not the most intelligent nor is it the hardest working. It's the kids born to richer parents.

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission were involved in a study which determined that dimmer children were 35% more likely to succeed than more intelligent children (performed higher on cognitive tests).

I've seen that as a PhD here, as a teacher in Africa and by Christ did I see it in my brief time as an exchange student as an American undergrad.

Ideally, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. The wealthy have more resources than other people and so can afford to send their children to better schools which can invest in attracting better teachers both domestic and foreign. This is difficult, especially when you have constraining factors such as the sexism you describe but also religion, infrastructure, etc... Private schools don't need to get bogged down in teaching nonsense to children and can instead focus on providing a better education which will benefit the child.

Your experience in Tanzania sounds amazing btw. I'd love to have done something like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

In Ireland, are private schools even exempt from having to teach Irish and Religion? If not, the criticism makes no sense, it's just saying "public schools = bad, because 'x'" while ignoring that private schools are subject to the same conditions.

Same deal with private schools in the US: It's private schools over there, that are avoiding the ban on teaching creationism in some states, and are even receiving public funding while doing this.


Also, private schools are subject to the biases of their investors/owners, when it comes to what they teach - and in third-level education worldwide, financial influence in the administration of colleges, is well known to have helped lead the ideological takeover of their economic departments, and also helps lead to education losing focus on subjects like humanities and the arts, in favour of turning colleges into (essentially) job training centers - i.e. offloading as much of the cost of training workers off of business, onto colleges/students, as is possible.

Government can play a part in placing an ideological agenda onto schools, yet financial control is probably the most easily used way of placing an ideological agenda onto a school/college, that depends on profit for its survival.


Other than that, 'the wealthy can afford better education' isn't exactly a surprising or controversial fact. Doesn't mean that what the wealthy can afford, the rest of society can; so not much point holding up as an example, what private schools with vast resources from wealthy pockets can provide for children, compared to the much more limited resources the rest of society has available for education.