43 -63% of Africans in Ireland are unemployed

Donald Trump

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Please post a link where I say that there is just enough so that it is spent in its entirety almost immediately. I haven't said that.

Dude. I posted it in the last post. If you didn't post it yourself, then someone else has access to your account! I'll post it again below.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Every penny paid out on the dole gets spent within days.

Edited to add:
For the remainder of your post, please do not forget that dole is not the only expense the state incurs by having an additional person unemployed and on social welfare. In fact, it is probably not even half the expense. Halving dole does not halve the total cost

Sleeper12

pinkyeye wrote:

Have to admit Sleeper, I've like some of your posts but you're totally contradicting yourself all over the place here just to score points or something.

Do you believe that someone who's only income is social welfare should be able to afford to go to Disney in Florida for 10 days every year with her 4 kids? Honestly?

Sleeper12

Donald Trump wrote: »

I don't mean to pick on you but I seriously can't believe you are still trying to argue two contradictory things.




But at the same time you complain that it is too high.



Which is it? Is it too high or is it just enough so that it is spent in its entirety almost immediately?

This is what you said I said. I NEVER said that & you still haven't posted where I said that.



I said

Every penny paid out on the dole gets spent within days.

I never said

it just enough so that it is spent in its entirety almost immediately

I have NEVER claimed that the dole is just enough for anything. I'll go one further, I have suggested that lower dole would have the same effect. These are your words. You wont put words in my mouth. The whole "just enough" part are your words & trying to insert them into what I have said distorts what I have said.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Dude. I posted it in the last post. If you didn't post it yourself, then someone else has access to your account! I'll post it again below.









Edited to add:
For the remainder of your post, please do not forget that dole is not the only expense the state incurs by having an additional person unemployed and on social welfare. In fact, it is probably not even half the expense. Halving dole does not halve the total cost

There isn't much truth in the above statement. When you have over 250,000 unemployed already pretty much the only extra cost for another few 1000 is their dole payments. It's doubtful if one or two more staff would be required but even if they were you are taking these off the dole to fill the roll



You miss the point. The cost to the government is irreverent. It's the cost to the local economy that is important not the cost to the government.



You are going to great lengths to try deflect from the fact that it's better for the local economy to pay the dole & have the dole payment in circulation.

na1

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

We need around 20,000 in IT. I'm sure we could train a boatload of the lads above to become Python developers, SQL Developers, Big Data engineers........

Or we could just allow skilled workers in from India,China etc who would immediately take on those roles and pay into the tax take straight away.

Our company have many skilled IT positions open, but we couldn't find many good candidates even from abroad (EU or outside EU). The thing is Ireland is no longer an attractive place to work for IT, due to the high taxes, bad public health services, bad transport, high rents & high retail prices etc (due to €10/h minimal wage). More people prefer working remotely, paying local taxes an enjoying low cost of living.

recedite

HailSatan wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen here we have it, Schrodingers South African.

You can pull him out for any occasion and then deny he was or wasn't any nationality or none.

He's a useful rhetorical device alright, he can be pulled out and used to win any argument.
One minute he's an African, the next minute he's not.
Justifies skilled immigration, but also was born here and delivers pizza.
He's the ace in the pack, or maybe the joker. You just don't know what he'll be until you open that pizza box :pac:

Donald Trump

Sleeper12 wrote: »

<snipped because I don't want to fill peoples screen with that waffle again>

Right. For the above semantics which there is no point in trying to argue with you. You apparently believe that everyone on the dole is a spendthrift who can't allow money to sit in their pocket for more than a few days and they all feel compelled to spend it within a few days...even though they don't have to. None of them save (for holidays in Florida for example). It's all spent within a few days even though they don't need to spend half of it.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are going to great lengths to try deflect from the fact that it's better for the local economy to pay the dole & have the dole payment in circulation.

So your point appears to be that it is better to have more dole in circulation by having more people on the dole. But it would also be better for the economy to cut the dole so that there is less in circulation.



Giving 10 people 200 Euro dole a week means that 2000 Euro is spent within days (or whatever words you used) and that is a boon to the economy. But what would be a better boon for the economy would be for another 5 emigrants not to have left, and instead give the now 15 on the dole 100 Euro each. Because then there'd be 1500 Euro to boost the local economy instead of 2000. I just can't get my head around the logic :-)





And, just FYI and you don't seem to be aware, unemployed people get more benefits, and incur more costs to the state, than just 200 quid into their hand and an administrator working in the office.




And just to be clear. I'm not giving out about the dole. I'm just perplexed at your conflicting arguments that we'd be better off with more people on the dole (rather than emigrating) but also that people on the dole get too much and it should be cut




I think it comes back to the begrudgery thing if I'm honest. You don't want people to go away and do well for themselve. You want them to stay and for their dole to be reduced.

Sleeper12

Donald Trump wrote:

Right. For the above semantics which there is no point in trying to argue with you. You apparently believe that everyone on the dole is a spendthrift who can't allow money to sit in their pocket for more than a few days and they all feel compelled to spend it within a few days...even though they don't have to. None of them save (for holidays in Florida for example). It's all spent within a few days even though they don't need to spend half of it.

I don't know everyone on the dole. Some might be able to squirrel away money but most don't. You seem to want everything to be black and white. You want me to say all people on the dole do this or that & I won't say that because it's not true. All day you have been trying to make out I said stuff that I didn't. You insirt words into my sentences to alter their meaning to suit you arguments.

Donald Trump wrote:

Giving 10 people 200 Euro dole a week means that 2000 Euro is spent within days (or whatever words you used) and that is a boon to the economy. But what would be a better boon for the economy would be for another 5 emigrants not to have left, and instead give the now 15 on the dole 100 Euro each. Because then there'd be 1500 Euro to boost the local economy instead of 2000. I just can't get my head around the logic :-)

The above is not my belief. I have never said that & they are not figures I used today. Again you are using your words as mine. Why can't you just quote what I say instead of saying i said stuff I didn't say?

Donald Trump wrote:

And just to be clear. I'm not giving out about the dole. I'm just perplexed at your conflicting arguments that we'd be better off with more people on the dole (rather than emigrating) but also that people on the dole get too much and it should be cut

I don't have conflicting arguments. First off we are talking about 8 to 10 years ago when I say the economy would have been better off with more living in the country. It would have been far better for the economy

Donald Trump wrote:

I think it comes back to the begrudgery thing if I'm honest. You don't want people to go away and do well for themselve. You want them to stay and for their dole to be reduced.

I never said I didn't want people to immigrate. Not once did I say that. Almost all of my friends immigrated in the 80s. From the mid 80s to 1990 I spent most weekends picking up & dropping off friends to the airport. If someone needs to go then they need to go. I might have left myself in the 80s if I had no work but I had my own business. I didn't need to go.

I made two points about people immigrating 10 years ago. 1. It would have been better for the local economy if they stayed. This is a fact 2. It was very wrong of the government to suggest giving tax breaks to people who haven't contributed to the recovery of our country. Its a slap in the face to the people who suffered here. Not all of the 10,000 homeless are scamming. Some have genuinely tried to do everything right but still lost their homes and became homeless. Some of these have jobs. They do work but can't get a place to live in. It's an insult to the men and women who struggled here over the last 10 years & all the while helping the country to recover. The government were shocked at the public reaction to the suggestion of paying/bribing these to come back.

Every Irish person has a right to come home and I genuinely welcome each & everyone of them home but we shouldn't bribe them to come back. They either want to or they don't want to. Make it attractive by providing good education & health services but it's plain wrong to pay them to come back. To let them pay less tax than someone who helped Ireland over the last 10 years

HailSatan

recedite wrote: »

Justifies skilled immigration, but also was born here and delivers pizza.

Yeah, how long are we going to be waiting for these lads to level up to jobs paying average or above average wages?

Is there anything to be said for making Ireland a more attractive place for our own to stay here and if they do, to have one or two more children than they would currently be expected to?

chicorytip

Sleeper12 wrote: »

chicorytip wrote:

FG are doing exactly what FF did with risky budgets. They willl get away with it for awhile but eventually there will be forces outside Irelands control & their risky budgets will catch up on us all. It's hard to believe that they haven't learned from budget mistakes only 10 years before. We haven't had a safe budget since troika left

I don't begrudge somebody in receipt of welfare payments going on a foreign holiday once a year or owning a car used to drive the kids to school or to do the weekly shop. These "luxuries", you would find, are funded by means of credit union loans. Credit Unions are quite willing to lend to those who don't work for a living. In fact, there is even a specific, reduced rate of interest Social Welfare loan. A single mother with five mouths to feed who is claiming is not going to have anything left for extras once the monthly bills have been paid.

One of the most ridiculous statements I've read.

No one living totally on social welfare should be able to afford 10 days in florida any year let alone every year.

Do you suppose that the credit union expects her to repay the loan or do you think that they gift her the money every few years to replace the car? The point I'm getting to here is that saving up for the car or borrowing the money for the car doesn't really make much difference. She is still buying the car.


If people whose only income is social welfare can afford these things then we are obviously over paying them. Don't get me started on how she can have 4 kids and the social welfare can't recover any costs from the fathers[/quote]


I think social welfare rates in general in this country are pretty measly particularly the old age pension. Those whose sole income is dole or whatever are hard pressed financially. Perhaps the woman in the case you refer to is assiduous and manages to save a few bob and repay her debts. I don't know but for most I imagine this would be difficult. There is no law that prevents somebody owning a motor car or taking a foreign holiday. If they are making a dishonest claim and attempting to defraud the state then by all means throw the book at them.

yoke

Donald Trump wrote: »

The only "bollocks" are the quotes you make up in your own head and attribute them to someone else to try to move the goalposts in a vain attempt to not feel a bit silly.


I'm glad that you know, and have surveyed, all the Africans in Ireland. And that you have been appointed as their official spokesperson. Good for you. And you really should get onto Leo for being discriminatory and forcing certain categories of immigrants into certain types of jobs. It's very unfair that they'll give works visas to Africans to drive taxis, work in security in shops etc. but not give them ones that would allow them to work in construction. Even for the ones who have status to remain here - they need to remove that small print condition forbidding them to work in construction.




Facts are facts dude. No amount of talking out one's hole, or trying to virtue signal your way into Heaven via boards.ie will change that.

More bollocks. Paragraphs of sh!te and yet you're still not able to answer the simple "yes" or "no" question that was asked.

kildare lad

All the Africans that came here did so because of our generous welfare system. They didn't come here to work or be a benefit to the country . Most were either pregnant or soon to be when they got here. Straight down to the social welfare office , free housing , medical cards , have more kids means more money it's a great system what's not to like. Most came when when the economy was flying here and yet you'd have struggled to see any working except maybe driving taxis .

I don't have a problem with immigrants as I know and work with some who are benefit to the country , they work hard and don't claim . My parent both went to England to work when they were younger , my dad worked two jobs over there to get by . How many Africans would do that here . I've friends still in Oz since 2008 , they're going staying there for good now, they work hard and only in the last few years started having kids as they wanted to get set up financially before starting a family . How many Africans did that here, none I'd say .

Sleeper12

yoke wrote: »

More bollocks. Paragraphs of sh!te and yet you're still not able to answer the simple "yes" or "no" question that was asked.

He has no interest in serious debate. All day Sunday he misquoted me. He even add in words to my original comment to alter the meaning of what I had said. You are better off ignoring him. I'm sorry I didn't juse say Troll on & hit the ignore switch.

HailSatan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has no interest in serious debate. All day Sunday he misquoted me. He even add in words to my original comment to alter the meaning of what I had said. You are better off ignoring him. I'm sorry I didn't juse say Troll on & hit the ignore switch.

The south African / not south African.

Did you get yourself together on that one yet?

Donald Trump

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has no interest in serious debate. All day Sunday he misquoted me. He even add in words to my original comment to alter the meaning of what I had said. You are better off ignoring him. I'm sorry I didn't juse say Troll on & hit the ignore switch.

Lol. Your position apparently is that you know that every single penny that is handed to people in dole payments is spent in the local economy within days. You are certain of this. You also know that they do not do this out of necessity - but still none of them can desist from spending it in it's entirety.

What you are also certain of is that people get too much on dole. In fact, they can go and spend it on holidays to Florida. If there are more people on the dole then it is good because more gets spent in the local economy but it would be better if dole was lowered (which would mean less to spend in the local economy)......All over the shop dude and it's kinda quite funny







Here's a question for you then, but you probably won't answer it. Suppose you take a group of 100 Africans in Ireland, 60 of whom are on the dole (take 60 who are reasonably settled on the dole - I'm not talking about 60 doctors who are moving between hospitals and only have a week on the SW in between. These 60 might be looking for work or might not. There might be pictures of them on google wearing construction,or any other village people you like, outfits.). Presumably they are all living in houses in Ireland. 30 of them are deciding, in a group, whether to stay in Ireland on the dole or to sign off and go home. What scenario do you think is better for the Irish economy? For them to stay in Ireland on the dole or to sign-off and move to Africa.

Sleeper12

HailSatan wrote:

The south African / not south African.

HailSatan wrote:

Did you get yourself together on that one yet?

It's a very uneducated person that can't see that he can be both.

Here is new concept for you. Dual citizenship. A holder of two passports or none. Why you feel the need to pigeon hole someone is beyond me.

You homework for the day is to study dual citizenship.

Sleeper12

Donald Trump wrote:

Lol. Your position apparently is that you know that every single penny that is handed to people in dole payments is spent in the local economy within days. You are certain of this. You also know that they do not do this out of necessity - but still none of them can desist from spending it in it's entirety.

There you go again. I NEVER said all of that. Your words not mine. Troll on

Now where is the ignore switch

Donald Trump

yoke wrote: »

More bollocks. Paragraphs of sh!te and yet you're still not able to answer the simple "yes" or "no" question that was asked.

Dude, other posters were saying that some African's don't want to work certain jobs. You leapt onto your trusty virtue signalling steed and raced to their rescue.


In order to try to calm you down and educate you, I just mentioned that that perception probably has roots in the fact that in some cultures in Africa, that men do not do their fair share of manual labour and it is looked upon as women's work. In order to prevent you from getting excited and jizzing your pants at the thought of another white-knight battle to get you into heaven, I explicitly said that it is not all cultures and probably not uniform within those cultures. I just pointed out that it is a recognized fact and that that is probably where people extrapolate that idea from. (Now they probably extrapolate it too far and misuse it - but as I said, I was only trying to educate you). I posted a link to a UN study and quoted where it says that women bear a disproportionate burden of manual labour.


Then you feel a bit silly. So you go on the offensive. You decide to google "construction workers africa" or some such shitte. You see photographs of humans that look like they have penises and you think "yes, I've proved the UN wrong". It's kind of silly dude. Nobody said that only women work in construction in Africa, or even that any do.



In certain parts of Africa, women bear the majority of the burden of manual labour. That is fact. You see, nobody is saying that no African man ever did a bit of manual labour ever. And I did not say it is a widespread or even accurate to anything beyond a small section. I only pointed out to you where the root of that perception might come from. For your education. But virtue signalling is more important to you. So go ahead and continue.

Donald Trump

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There you go again. I NEVER said all of that. Your words not mine. Troll on

Now where is the ignore switch

Change your passwords then dude. Because someone has access to your account and is posting that stuff under your account. (Unless of course you are being pedantic and maybe I put in a full stop somewhere that you didn't use or something like that)



And you ignored the question in relation to whether it would be better for the economy for the unemployed Africans to stay here on the dole or go home. I suspect that you will continue to do so. I'm just interested as to what your response would be. And it is 100% on topic.

PostWoke

Donald Trump wrote: »

And you ignored the question in relation to whether it would be better for the economy for the unemployed Africans to stay here on the dole or go home. I suspect that you will continue to do so. I'm just interested as to what your response would be. And it is 100% on topic.

The obvious answer here is it would be better if they went home. Let's move on because there's a chance to learn things with this thread and we're not achieving that with this bickering.

Donald Trump

PostWoke wrote: »

The obvious answer here is it would be better if they went home. Let's move on because there's a chance to learn things with this thread and we're not achieving that with this bickering.

Yeah, I'm bored of it. But just FYI, the "bickering" started when I disagreed with the poster. He said that it is better for the economy for an Irish person to stay in Ireland and remain on the dole for 10 years rather than for that person to go abroad and work and return after those 10 years to a job in Ireland (and possibly bring back a nice little sum of cash to spend/invest/inject into the economy). That was all. Given that the thread was about African unemployment in Ireland, I was just seeing if he applied his economically logic consistently to "them" too!



So what you think as "obvious" is obviously not obvious to everyone else

PostWoke

I don't know or care who was trying to get a rise out of who, let's just get back to the data lads. What has been happening in this country as of late is really serious. If there's someone in the thread who isn't impacted but just want to get their jollies and seem all progressive even though they're not affected at all, ignore them.

HailSatan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's a very uneducated person that can't see that he can be both.

Here is new concept for you. Dual citizenship. A holder of two passports or none. Why you feel the need to pigeon hole someone is beyond me.

You homework for the day is to study dual citizenship.

You said there was no South African.


Was there a South African?


Maybe it's you that is having the problem here.

PostWoke

HailSatan wrote: »

You said there was no South African.


Was there a South African?


Maybe it's you that is having the problem here.

No one cares but you. Got anything of value to add to the thread's premise?

HailSatan

PostWoke wrote: »

No one cares but you. Got anything of value to add to the thread's premise?

Hi shower man alt

PostWoke

That's a very weird way to say 'no'.

Your avatar is perfect.

By the way, projecting much, because I haven't a shaggin clue who you're on about, but you do, inferring that you've been here a while, but your account says you registered within the last 11 days? And you already seem to have knowledge of certain posters? HMMMMMMMM

Pronto63

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We are not producing enough children to support the system. This is fact. Mother, father and two kids isn't increasing the population. Its only keeping it the same or less.



I live in Dublin. I meet different colours and nationalities daily. I don't have a problem with 50 percent. The travelling community are the only group keeping the birth rate up. Irish people have gone away from big families. If Irish can't /won't produce enough children then we have to import them. Latest figures show that average number of children per family in 2016 was 1.38. Do the maths. Two parents having 1.38 children isn't increasing or even keeping the same. It's decreasing. They aren't producing two children to replace the two adults. Factor in the adults that never will have children.



Ireland would be well and truly fecked in the future without immigration.

The problem is that the workers who pay for SW can't afford to have large families.

It's the SW spongers, of all colours, that are popping out 3,4 & 5 kids.

We need more people but the right people. After the first child children's allowance should be by way of some kind of tax credit. That way only workers would get it.

Increase the amount thereby encouraging "workers" to have kids (mini workers!)

HailSatan

PostWoke wrote: »

Your avatar is perfect.

Cheers.


Any thoughts on the non south African with dual Irish South African nationality?

PostWoke

HailSatan wrote: »

Cheers.


Any thoughts on the non south African with dual Irish South African nationality?

Why the **** would I have an opinion on something the thread I chose to partake in has nothing to do with, you strawman creating alt-account?

Pronto63 wrote: »

The problem is that the workers who pay for SW can't afford to have large families.

It's the SW spongers, of all colours, that are popping out 3,4 & 5 kids.

We need more people but the right people. After the first child children's allowance should be by way of some kind of tax credit. That way only workers would get it.

Increase the amount thereby encouraging "workers" to have kids (mini workers!)

100%. We are about to hand off our culture to scangers who tear around council estates on mini-motorcycles, while regular people die off.

HailSatan

PostWoke wrote: »

Why the **** would I have an opinion on something the thread I chose to partake in has nothing to do with, you strawman creating alt-account?
.

Are you a very uneducated person? Do you understand how he can exist and not exist simultaneously? Are any of us safe from dimension hopping pizza delivery doctor/lawyer/architects?

Beasty

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's a very uneducated person that can't see that he can be both.

Here is new concept for you. Dual citizenship. A holder of two passports or none. Why you feel the need to pigeon hole someone is beyond me.

You homework for the day is to study dual citizenship.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Dude, other posters were saying that some African's don't want to work certain jobs. You leapt onto your trusty virtue signalling steed and raced to their rescue.


In order to try to calm you down and educate you, I just mentioned that that perception probably has roots in the fact that in some cultures in Africa, that men do not do their fair share of manual labour and it is looked upon as women's work. In order to prevent you from getting excited and jizzing your pants at the thought of another white-knight battle to get you into heaven, I explicitly said that it is not all cultures and probably not uniform within those cultures. I just pointed out that it is a recognized fact and that that is probably where people extrapolate that idea from. (Now they probably extrapolate it too far and misuse it - but as I said, I was only trying to educate you). I posted a link to a UN study and quoted where it says that women bear a disproportionate burden of manual labour.


Then you feel a bit silly. So you go on the offensive. You decide to google "construction workers africa" or some such shitte. You see photographs of humans that look like they have penises and you think "yes, I've proved the UN wrong". It's kind of silly dude. Nobody said that only women work in construction in Africa, or even that any do.



In certain parts of Africa, women bear the majority of the burden of manual labour. That is fact. You see, nobody is saying that no African man ever did a bit of manual labour ever. And I did not say it is a widespread or even accurate to anything beyond a small section. I only pointed out to you where the root of that perception might come from. For your education. But virtue signalling is more important to you. So go ahead and continue.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Change your passwords then dude. Because someone has access to your account and is posting that stuff under your account. (Unless of course you are being pedantic and maybe I put in a full stop somewhere that you didn't use or something like that)



And you ignored the question in relation to whether it would be better for the economy for the unemployed Africans to stay here on the dole or go home. I suspect that you will continue to do so. I'm just interested as to what your response would be. And it is 100% on topic.

PostWoke wrote: »

No one cares but you. Got anything of value to add to the thread's premise?

HailSatan wrote: »

Hi shower man alt

HailSatan wrote: »

Are you a very uneducated person? Do you understand how he can exist and not exist simultaneously? Are any of us safe from dimension hopping pizza delivery doctor/lawyer/architects?

OK, stop the sniping the lot of you, as otherwise cards and bans will be coming your way