Eric Cartman wrote: » https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp11eoi/cp11eoi/lfnmfl/ And it indicates that nigerian, indian, bangladesh and arab immigrants have far higher unemployment rates than irish or eu migrants.
There were 347,233 non-Irish nationals in labour force in April 2016 with a participation rate of 73.9 per cent. EU nationals had the highest participation rate at 76.8 per cent, whereas for those from countries outside the EU, it was 64.3 per cent.
Central Statistics Office's Labour Force Survey measures the labour force aged 15-74. Ireland's current LFPR is 62.1 per cent
Boggles wrote: » Jesus, if you go any further with those goal posts you'll be in the car park. :pac:
Eric Cartman wrote: » That stat includes the migrants for ireland though... and in theorywe cant kick out our own wasters but shouldnt let their ones in so the rate should be up around the 90s , for croatian men the participation rate is over 90%
Eric Cartman wrote: » Child benefit is an income stream at the moment, we need to convert it entirely to tax credits to stop the unemployed having kids and encourage only those who work to have children.
Beta Ray Bill wrote: » I get what you're saying completely. But the change needs to be fluid and transparent as opposed to being a blunt instrument. IE we start off by saying something like: In 11 months time, the government will only pay child benefit for the first two children, any 3rd+ child born after today+11 months will no longer be eligible for child support. IE existing people are not affected by this, people who are currently expecting their 3rd+ child are not affected by this. People who want to have 1 or 2 kids are not affected by this. Only those who plan to have 3 or more and currently have less than 3 with no third child on the way are affected by this. This will slowly stem the tide, it will take about 5 years to see the change, but it would be the most effective long term change we've ever had.
Eric Cartman wrote: » We should he saying “in 11 months time we’re not going to be handing out money for kids to the unemployed going forward, heres free condoms” Having a child isnt a right and the unemployed shouldnt be having children
riffmongous wrote: » Why can't the state build the houses themselves? It can be done successfully, *if it's done properly* I've always been a fan of the Viennese approach to housing and only a few months ago there was an exhibition on it in Dublin too. It would require a huge change in practices across society of course (it was achieved in the 20/30s in Vienna) but it is proven to workhttp://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/
Horsebox9000 wrote: » Seriously... I'm baffled by thishttps://twitter.com/ohnofalafel/status/1191471042109284352 What do people think?https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089
bubblypop wrote: » I grew up in social housing & while I'm not opposed to it at all, I believe social housing should stay property of the state. Social housing is needed to house people who cannot house themselves for whatever reasons. It should not be used to allow people to buy those houses at much reduced prices. I say this as someone who grew up in it & my mother bought her council house.
DeconSheridan wrote: » Affordable Housing €310,000 (what a joke) not to mention solicitor fees, taxes, getting the house furnished and gas, esb turned on, house insured etc.
Eric Cartman wrote: » agreed, but the solution is to tell them they can't have dublin. thats what theyre holding out for.
Horsebox9000 wrote: » This x100000000 My partner is German and works in social services here and she couldn't believe how self centred many of the people she encountered here have been. She's worked in this field in a few countries and says Ireland is definitely unique and not for good reasons
markodaly wrote: » Agreed. Social houses should NOT be sold off for a song after 10 or 20 years where a profit can be made on it. It should remain the property of the LA or the state, where when or if the people living there can afford to a) move out or b) buy it for the market price or c) buy elsewhere once their financial position improves. The idea of the state giving people forever homes is a cancer on the minds of the idle. By all means give the people a roof over their heads if they are stuck but dont give them a capital windfall paid for by the taxpayer.
Beta Ray Bill wrote: » I'm sorry, but that is a disgusting way to refer to children. They're just kids, it's not their fault they were born into that. Childcare is so expensive in Ireland because of insurance, it's nothing to do with the wages of childcare workers themselves, they are paid sweet f**k all. That's a good idea. But it needs to be incentivised. IE keep child benefit at X but make available a tax credit valued at X+Y, so you get more if you're working. The childcare model in Ireland is a remnant of a time when the Catholic church ruled. IE It's the woman's job to look after the kids and it's the mans job to work and there is to be no kids outside of marriage. This doctrine is completely incompatible with the way Ireland is today. The way we think about parenting has to change. In Nordic countries for example everything is usually (50/50) If a couple have kids and a house and the relationship breaks down, what they usually do is rent a 2nd 1 bed apartment between them, and rotate parenting duties, so the kids stay in their home. This is so different to what we do here which is: Man goes and works, has the kids on the weekend. Woman goes on the HAP, or council house or homeless list or what ever you want to call it, because there is no way she can earn enough to pay for childcare, a house, food etc I think it's also important to remember that there isn't a €50k P/A job for everyone. There are jobs out there that just don't pay that, yet the middle class use the service they provide heavily (Fast food is a great example of this)
Matt Barrett wrote: » That's not quite true. You get three options when you apply. Too many refusals, you lose your spot. Of course they want to live where they are from. People availing of social services are doing so because they are eligible. What they do or want to do within that criteria is natural and legal. If you or her have issues it's with the system. The big problem, as visible on this thread and many like it is people are looking to blame the most vulnerable or the chancer of the week in the Indo over and above the policy makers and government we have who created the need and are completely responsible. We are responsible for our own actions but we can only move within the criteria and environment they have set. All, IMO, to protect their interests while placating paddy. Any tax payer with a problem is looking at Margret Cash or who ever, perfect for the lads.
Horsebox9000 wrote: » You completely misread my point. Nothing against people who avail of the services
maxsmum wrote: » Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location. Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing. There is no inviolable right to be 'housed' where you grew up. I for one will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, let alone be given one.
Boggles wrote: » That isn't how it works. Anyway do you think or boom bust housing market is good practice?
Matt Barrett wrote: » People who buy are living in those homes. We don't have an extra family looking for social housing because the house gets sold. The whole point is it's for people who can't afford the market rate, (I know you get confused at this bit). How can you be idle and buying a house from anyone? You need a mortgage. The housing crisis effects everyone, mostly, the majority, working tax payers on low incomes.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Prime city centre location. Right beside the Pheonix park / Luas / Heuston. Short walking distance to O'Connell street. Its the bargain of a lifetime.
99nsr125 wrote: » What about the paramedics and firefighters and doctors ? Or maybe public lands should be used for the public good. Providing security for the people that are not as lucky as us.
Deleted User wrote: » This might sound a bit 'futuristic/police state' etc. but considering pretty much every legitimate service or product can be purchased without cash, would it not make more sense to swap the entire Social Welfare system over to a card-based system? This would knock a lot of the illegal activities on the head, as you can't buy drugs or pay someone to do dodgy stuff or nixers without some explanation as to why they'd be receiving money off you, and you could review people's spending, so when they rock up to the Community Welfare Officer looking for money for a communion dress or new Fridge, the Officer can say "but hang on, you have enough money to buy that already" or "but you've spent €x on alcohol this month, and a fridge will only cost €y, so we'll only give you €z towards it, get your act together". (and so forth). Naturally the scheme would become redundant as people would figure ways around it, or if you could simply withdraw cash from a bank it'd be spoiled, but nonetheless it'd make things more traceable and stamp out certain illegal activities.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Time limited food stamps as the main welfare distribution in the USA seems to make people very motivated to get work for some bizarre reason.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » They don't put up with cradle to grave welfare sh!t there. Mrs Cash would be actually street homeless (or quite possibly dead) over there and that's no exaggeration! You are just not allowed live that lifestyle without the consequences.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Flawed baloney as per MarkO. People who buy are living in those homes. We don't have an extra family looking for social housing because the house gets sold. The whole point is it's for people who can't afford the market rate, (I know you get confused at this bit). How can you be idle and buying a house from anyone? You need a mortgage. The housing crisis effects everyone, mostly, the majority, working tax payers on low incomes.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Mrs Cash would be actually street homeless (or quite possibly dead) over there and that's no exaggeration! You are just not allowed live that lifestyle without the consequences.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5029bac657ae68f2ca4b7fa18994db0d.svg)
