Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

"Austerity" in Ireland this past decade

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 610 ✭✭✭Andy Magic


    It all depends on what age you are, certain generations have done well from the recession and others haven't. An example being people in there 50's and 60's getting redundancies and paying off the remainder of their mortgage while people in there 20's and 30's can't afford to buy a house or have a child.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You don't define it as a political slogan?

    Yet you use it out of context as a political slogan twice in the same post, not to mention the same old tired 2009 political slogans that you also repeat in that post.

    Austerity has a particular economic definition. You are not using it accurately in that regard, but are using it as a political slogan. Either that, or you don't understand its economic context.

    As much a political slogan as the word 'fiscal' is.
    You, my friend, are throwing up chaff and fudging as is your want when there's a sniff of anything critical of government policy in the air.

    Policies are brought in by governments. Policies of a certain ilk are known as austerity measures. Such measures can cause hardship, including but not limited to rising debt. You dodged my questions, which might aid you in understanding my point. The OP suggested we didn't have it too bad. I suggested many did. Maybe you have trouble seeing how austerity figures into tough times for people.
    You can choose to try move the discussion into the purely economic meaning of austerity and how it relates to economics till the cows come home, we, the OP and I, and others, are relating austerity to how bad we felt it, (the OP cited taxation and welfare).
    Despite how the economy is often spun it is not an even keel measurement for how good or bad 'we' have it, which is the premise of this thread as well you know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,157 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    As much a political slogan as the word 'fiscal' is.
    You, my friend, are throwing up chaff and fudging as is your want when there's a sniff of anything critical of government policy in the air.

    Policies are brought in by governments. Policies of a certain ilk are known as austerity measures. Such measures can cause hardship, including but not limited to rising debt. You dodged my questions, which might aid you in understanding my point. The OP suggested we didn't have it too bad. I suggested many did. Maybe you have trouble seeing how austerity figures into tough times for people.
    You can choose to try move the discussion into the purely economic meaning of austerity and how it relates to economics till the cows come home, we, the OP and I, and others, are relating austerity to how bad we felt it, (the OP cited taxation and welfare).
    Despite how the economy is often spun it is not an even keel measurement for how good or bad 'we' have it, which is the premise of this thread as well you know.

    For a start, the current FG/Ind government has not brought in any austerity measures. The use of the word "austerity" to refer to current fiscal decisions is a complete nonsense. Full stop, end of story, so if we are in a historical analysis thread, then so be it.

    However, the social welfare bill is above 2008, the public service pay bill is above 2008. Within that, there are pockets that may not be above 2008, but that can be put down to reform measures more than austerity i.e. Government Ministers are paid less than 2008, restrictions on lone parent allowance are more sensible now etc.

    While there are some people who are worse off than 2008, the vast majority of people are now back to 2008 levels or well above. The ones who continue to lose out fall into two categories - higher paid civil servants and those who lost their jobs in 2008 and didn't find any since.

    In other cases, where jobs don't pay as much as 2008, or in sectors that don't have as many jobs as 2008, the reason is economic reform, not austerity per se. Previous economic crises eliminated blacksmiths and saddliers from the economy, the last economic crisis did the same. That is a bad thing for the individuals, but a good thing for the economy and society as we move to a higher standard of living. If you are the modern day equivalent of a blacksmith, you may well fall into the category of those who lost out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,757 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Some people seem to confuse ill-effects of the crisis as being ill-effects of the treatment


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    For a start, the current FG/Ind government has not brought in any austerity measures. The use of the word "austerity" to refer to current fiscal decisions is a complete nonsense. Full stop, end of story, so if we are in a historical analysis thread, then so be it.

    However, the social welfare bill is above 2008, the public service pay bill is above 2008. Within that, there are pockets that may not be above 2008, but that can be put down to reform measures more than austerity i.e. Government Ministers are paid less than 2008, restrictions on lone parent allowance are more sensible now etc.

    While there are some people who are worse off than 2008, the vast majority of people are now back to 2008 levels or well above. The ones who continue to lose out fall into two categories - higher paid civil servants and those who lost their jobs in 2008 and didn't find any since.

    In other cases, where jobs don't pay as much as 2008, or in sectors that don't have as many jobs as 2008, the reason is economic reform, not austerity per se. Previous economic crises eliminated blacksmiths and saddliers from the economy, the last economic crisis did the same. That is a bad thing for the individuals, but a good thing for the economy and society as we move to a higher standard of living. If you are the modern day equivalent of a blacksmith, you may well fall into the category of those who lost out.

    For a finish, I couldn't give tuppence ha'penny who's in as regards austerity. You are changing the discussion to suit your agenda, that being 'nothing to see here, move along', as it always is.
    I'm aware the OP is referring to the last ten years. The key word is 'decade'.
    You try drag me off down a rabbit hole and when I respond, I get accused of going off the mark. Now you're getting all Adam Smith up in here.

    Do you agree austerity, in the context of the OP, relates to how, people had it, good or bad?
    If not, we are talking at cross purposes and I bid you good day sir.
    The OP suggests we didn't have it too bad, I suggest some certainly had it bad. What team was/is in isn't really the point despite any allegiances.


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Some people seem to confuse ill-effects of the crisis as being ill-effects of the treatment

    The crises are a symptom of government policy. Austerity relates to a policy type. Both relate to the OP and his belief 'we didn't have it too bad'. A national crisis is a reasonable gauge on how good or bad we have it in a certain area, IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,757 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The crises are a symptom of government policy.

    The crisis was caused by a range of factors.

    We can compare ourselves to other countries that had similar situations, likewise can compare the results of the actions we took


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭NinetyTwoTeam


    First of all, welfare rates were not maintained. Where on earth did you get that idea? They were cut so much that even with 2 consecutive rises the dole is still lower than it was in 2006.

    Fuel allowance they cut down the amount of time you can get it for.

    Rent allowance they lowered the amount your rent could be to be eligible to the point that in some areas there simply wasn't any place that was low enough to qualify. Tenants were told to 'negotiate' with their landlord to get the rent down, ie: lie on the form and pay the difference out of your dole.

    Student grants slashed in half, fees brought in. back to education allowance instead of fees paid plus the dole it was either or.

    We literally had people working 40 hrs a week for the dole plus 50 euro due to the recession. A slave labor scheme so unsuccessful and abused it got scrapped. Unless you were stuck doing that don't dare tell me there was no austerity.

    Those already on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder were the ones who got hit by austerity. The middle class or higher people I know barely felt it and are already convinced it's all turned around while those who really got hit either left or are still suffering.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The last 10 years split this country in two. The difference between the have & have nots has increased.

    No, our Gini coefficient stayed flat right through the crash. We survived it without hitting the poor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    No, our Gini coefficient stayed flat right through the crash. We survived it without hitting the poor.

    Fair enough with the GC, but still those on low incomes were hit hardest by the recession.
    Affordability of things in life are not covered by the GC, and despite attempts to hide the facts, the lower income you were on during the recession the harder it was to overcome it.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/those-on-lowest-incomes-suffered-most-in-the-recession-1.2186880?mode=amp


Advertisement