buy irish..employ irish

O'Morris · 21-12-2008 12:48PM

Since when did use of the word 'we' imply a central planner?

I didn't say it was like that. I said it would be like asking me if it child-labour is a zero-sum game. Mass immigration is as much an economic issue in my mind as slavery or child-labour is.

I would say we have suffered a net loss. Unless you mean economically, in which case I don't know. Maybe you can enligthen me?

Do you assume that state-administered education and health has a future in this country?

Do you have anything to back up that belief?

Does that survey of the literature shows that the arguments put forward in the report by the British Home Office and in the report by the Council of Europe are nonsense?

And I'm happy to accept that the consensus of most economists is that immigration could make a significant contribution to economic growth by making up for a decline in the size of the labour force. I don't think that is in question. What is in question is the contribution that it will make. I don't think the "significant" contribution will be significant enough to justify the claim that it will compensate for the aging of the labour force. According to the 2001 report by the British Home Office, it is widely acknowledged that the contribution will be small. The scale of the immigration required to maintain the existing dependency ratio will need to be so big that it will require a huge increase in the size of the population. It likely cause more problems than it will solve. The idea that mass immigration can compensate for the problem is a myth that (in the words of Aine Ni Chonaill) has been discredited by every authority that has looked into it, authorities which include the UN, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, the UK Government Immigration Advisory Service the Home Office, and the OECD.

I don't believe that the aging of the population will be as big a problem as it's being presented anyway. Longer lives mean better health which will lead to longer working lives. I read that extending the retirement age by five years could offset most of the problems of population aging.

Permabear · 21-12-2008 02:16PM

This post has been deleted.

O'Morris · 21-12-2008 03:17PM

We've lost our share of the population and it's unlikely we'll be able to get it back. Ten years ago well over 90% of the Irish population was made up of Irish people. Now that figure is below 90% (I've heard it could be as low as 85%) and the figure is set to fall further in the years ahead. I don't want that percentage to fall further. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now. I think most Irish people feel the same way.

It's a lot higher now than it was a decade ago because of immigration or in spite of immigration? If the former, how much of that growth in per capita GDP is due to the increase in immigration? 10%, 20%, 50%?

I'm not contradicting myself. I've no reason to doubt the consensus view that mass immigration will contribute to economic growth. What I doubt is that it will come close to adequately compensating for the aging of the population. According to the figures I've seen, the amount of immigration required would need to be so high that it would lead to a massive growth in the population.

What isn't a myth? It isn't a myth that replacement immigration can adequately compensate for the aging of the population?

Áine Ní Chonaill is no more of a xenophobe than 66% of the Irish population and she wasn't just expressing her own opinion on the subject. She was basing her opinion on sources that including reports by the British Home Office and the Council of Europe.

You haven't referred to any peer-reviewed study by any economist that has contradicted the conclusions reached by the British Home Office or the Council of Europe reports.

It doesn't make much difference whether the increase comes from first-generation immigrants or the offspring of those immigrants. It's still relying on a massive increase in the population to be achieved through on an increase in immigration.

And that will do away with the need for high levels of replacement immigration. It will also make it easier to deal with the problem of global warming.

Permabear · 21-12-2008 04:55PM

This post has been deleted.

O'Morris · 22-12-2008 10:58AM

I'm trying to cling to a notion of national identity that has existed for hundreds of years and that most people still value and want to preserve. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now. Do you?

What do you call them?

That's just PC myth. According to this article by Stephen Oppenheimer, the genetic evidence shows that the peoples of the British isles are mostly the descendants of the original paleolithic hunter-gatherers who first came to these islands between 15 thousand and 7 thousand years ago, with the next biggest wave arriving during the neolithic period. Subsequent waves of immigration had very little impact on the gene pool.

There's no doubt that we will change massively if we continue on the path of uncontrolled immigration. Whether the change is necessary or whether we will change for the better is something that I would have doubts about.

I don't want to freeze-frame history. Ireland has changed as much during the course of the twentieth century than it has at any other period in history. I, along with most Irish people, believe that it has changed for the better. I would like to see Ireland continue to change for the better during the next century but I would like Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now, in the same way that we remained an Irish country during the changes of the twentieth century. I want us to be open to new technology and new ideas and to trade and work with our neighbours and I think we can do all of these things while remaining an Irish country.

You seem to think there's a trade-off between economic progress and preserving our ethnic identity. I don't see any compelling economic reason for us to sacrifice our culture or our identity.

I'm fairly sure China will still be a Chinese country in a hundred years from now. In fact, I'm confident that most of Africa, Asia and South America will still be culturally and ethnically the same places that they are today. It's really only the white countries of the world who seem intent to continue down the path to oblivion.

I would be very surprised if the evidence shows that immigration has made any signficant contribution to per capita GDP over the last few years.

It would be like asking me if I think the world is a dangerous place. I have a severe aversion to platitudes and so I tend to ignore them.

The Council of Europe, the British Home Office and the OECD are all opposed to mass immigration from underdeveloped countries? Do you have any reason to believe that the figures they have produced are innacurate?

Maybe she looked and couldn't find any? Maybe there aren't any economists whose analysis points to a different conclusion?

I don't think they do represent the views of 66% of the Irish people. I think at least 66% of the Irish people (see here) would agree with the ICP's view that immigration needs to be better controlled though.

Any one in particular?

And I don't think it really makes much of a difference. It's just replacing first-generation immigration with second-generation immigration.

djpbarry · 22-12-2008 12:56PM

:rolleyes: You certainly employ them often enough, when it suits you.

O'Morris · 22-12-2008 01:00PM

Example?

mountainyman · 22-12-2008 01:02PM

So if I understand you correctly OscarBravo you hold that the law of the state you live is superior to any personal moral conviction?

mountainyman · 22-12-2008 01:03PM

As long as they are Irish platitudes.

Permabear · 22-12-2008 01:52PM

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 22-12-2008 02:21PM

Here you go:

I could go on…

oscarBravo · 22-12-2008 06:41PM

Holding personal moral convictions as superior to the law of the land is a fairly reliable way to end up behind bars.

What was the point of the question? Did you have anything of substance you wanted to contribute to the discussion?

diddley · 22-12-2008 06:56PM

I think, going by immigration trends in European countries, whether better or worse, ethnic Europeans will eventually be a minority, however long that will take.

Permabear · 22-12-2008 07:05PM

This post has been deleted.

O'Morris · 22-12-2008 07:27PM

I fear that that's the way we're heading and I think it would be a great tragedy to see it happen. After all that the European people have contributed to the world, it would be a real shame to see them go the way of all other great civilisations of the past.

Just the notion of Ireland being a distinct nation with a distinct identity based on a distinct and a shared historical, cultural and geographical heritage.

You're putting me on the spot. I wouldn't be able to give an exact definition of national identity. It's just something I feel in my heart, I can't explain it.

It's a matter of debate how far you could go back to find the origins of the Irish nation. I think you could go back as far as the dark ages to find evidence of an Irish national consciousness but some historians might disagree. There is evidence of an Irish national identity at the time of Brian Boru and so that would give the Irish nation a thousand years of history.

It's the greatest honour in the world. You have to be Irish to understand it.

Not at all, that's not the point I was making. I was responding to your claim that the Irish are descended mainly from Celts, Vikings, Normans, Scots and English. The modern genetic evidence has debunked that myth. The Irish people are mostly descended from the paleolithic hunter-gatherers who first settled here many thousands of years ago.

You missed the point. The reason why immigration hasn't historically had much of an impact on the gene-pool is because, unlike today's immigration, previous waves of immigration were never high enough to make an impact on the gene pool. Read that article I linked to again and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I think he would. I think we're mostly the same people (85%) today that we were in the 19th century. For as long as Irish people make up more than 85% of the population I believe Ireland can still call itself an Irish country.

Why, would he expect us to be watching Irish television?

I'd be surprised myself if I saw that. I've never seen anyone wearing Chinese clothes in this country, not even the Chinese.

It's just the sense of being a people with a shared history and a common culture.

We can preserve it by not having an immigration policy that will result in the Irish people's share of the Irish population falling below 85% of the total.

Explain what to her, that Irish people have an ethnic identity that they value and want to preserve?

I can't give that kind of advice old boy. You should do whatever you feel in your heart. The worst thing you could is ask for my opinion on this.

You've got it all wrong. I never said anything about not wanting to pollute the "Irish" gene-pool. You're attacking a strawman. It's alright for Irish men to have foreign girlfriends. I just want to preserve the national identity and the ethnic homogeneity of the Irish population and to do that I want us to restrict immigration so that we remain the majority ethnic group on the island for at least an another century. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.

They're not economically or culturally the same but ethnically they are still mainly the same people. We're still the same people we were a century ago as well. I doubt we can say the same about the people living in Ireland a century from now.

It's hard to say. It's like asking how long the parthenon will remain standing. It could be 200 years or it could be 2 thousand years. Regardless of how long though I think we should try to make sure that it stands for as long as possible. It's the same with our national identity. I think we should cling on to it for as long as we have the power to cling on to it. I think we can at least manage another century.

I mean more than just admitting immigrants. I mean having an immigration policy that leads to a consistent fall in the indigenous population's share of the total. It happened in America in the 18th and 19th centuries and in Australia in the 19th. It's happening in Holland and America and England today and it's happening in our country now as well.

You need to read up on the concept of marginal utility. The interior of the United States in 1776 was underpopulated and unexploited economically and so any increase in the population lead to a growth rate that massively boosted the country's GDP. The same cannot be said for Ireland in the 21st century. A scarcity of resources that can be exploited by human labour means that any increase in the population will have only marginal benefits.

Really, the exact opposite conclusion? Name one professional economist who has reached the exact opposite conclusion from the conclusion reached by the Council of Europe and the British Home Office on the question of replacement immigration.

Of course people are going to say that immigration has been good for us. That's because we're constantly being told that immigration is good for us. The politicians and the media have been repeating the "immigration is brilliant" line now for years.

The offspring of first-generation immigrants could be described as second-generation immigrants.

Permabear · 22-12-2008 08:16PM

This post has been deleted.

23-12-2008 10:02AM

I'm somewhat surprised that a native of Donegal is so supportive of large scale immigration into Ireland, considering that the last time this happened it wasn't such a great success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster

RiverWilde · 23-12-2008 10:52AM

And the stirring sh/it/e award goes to Dursey!

What a pointless reply. Plantations indeed!

Why not go further back in time to the first migrations from central europe when the Isles were attached to each other and to the mainland?

Riv

O'Morris · 23-12-2008 12:00PM

It could be argued that the Ulster plantation was good for the economy as it led eventually to the industrialisation of Ulster. Whether it was good for the country is a different question. Few people could argue that the economic positives outweighed the political negatives.

You have to admit that the last time we had mass immigration into this country that the consequences were not pretty.

The communists use to say that a lot. They were proved right in the end.

Are you saying there was a time in the last few centuries when most Irish people didn't identify themselves as Irish? I would find that very to believe.

Maybe it was. It doesn't really change the fact that a strong Irish national identity exists today that most of us value and want to preserve. I believe that Irish national identity has a long history, but even if it was proven otherwise, it would in no way change it's value in our eyes today.

I don't think that's true. I don't think Irish people's self-identity as a nation has ever seriously been questioned.

I think you understand what I mean when I say that we're same people. We're ethnically the same despite our external differences.

To increase utility. I can only speak for myself when I say that I would be much happier living in an Irish Ireland with a GDP per capita of 40 thousand than I would be living in an Ireland with a GDP per capita of 41 thousand in which the Irish people were on the road to becoming a minority. I think most people would probably agree with me.

I disagree, I think we're entering a period of global resource scarcity that will drive up the value and the competition for those resources. Population is becoming a liability, not an asset.

What's going to power that economy? Where is the energy going to come from?

Well then I think we should aim to become the best educated and the freest country in the world. Those would be worthy goals to strive for even if they didn't help give make us a more competitive economy.

No it isn't, just because we have a lower population density relative to most other countries doesn't mean that we're underpopulated even by the standards of those other countries. We have almost double the population density of the United States of America. I haven't heard many people in America complaining about how better things would be if they had a bigger population.

Many people would say that the problem is the other way around. It's not that we're underpopulated, it's the other countries that are overpopulated.

Why is that a bad thing? Is it negatively impacting on our quality of life? Isn't a low population density is a good thing for the environment?

jmayo · 23-12-2008 01:32PM

If I may be so bold as to break up the O'Morris - Donegalfella chatfest.
Do either of you have a job ?
I would say that there might be a danger your employers might be getting one of those "foreign" workers since you both appear to spend so long on this thread

Permabear · 23-12-2008 07:56PM

This post has been deleted.

K4t · 24-12-2008 12:31AM

Apparently there are signs on Polish building sites offering jobs which include "Irish need not apply" or something along those lines. But nobody is reporting that are they :rolleyes:

K4t · 24-12-2008 12:33AM

And for keeping a low crime rate

K-9 · 24-12-2008 01:44AM

Considering that a lot of Irish people don't appear to have wanted them here and thought there was too many here, YES, I do believe it!

Thems the breaks I'm afraid. You reap what you sow!

AnimalRights · 28-12-2008 11:59AM

It is the totally OTT VAT and profit margins that send people across the border. You ever compare Photography items, cameras/lenses etc?

The Corinthian · 28-12-2008 01:56PM

The "I can't back it up, but I feel it" argument is really such snake-oil. I really do hope that you do not consider us all that gullible.

What an arrogant load of BS.

I think you will need to define what you mean by this. One may preserve an ethnic identity to the point that it becomes stagnant and unchanging. This is not a good thing as cultures do need to change and evolve, just like everything else - unless you suggest that the provincial priest-ridden culture that existed in Ireland prior to the early nineties was a good thing?

This is interesting as you actually failed to reply to his question with a non-denial-denial. So let me ask you bluntly: Do you believe that he and other Irish should not (or be discouraged to) intermarry, and have children, with other ethnic or racial groups?

So do you - you're mixing macro and micro-economics.

When do they become Irish then - or is that a genetic question?

"Other people have a nationality. The Irish and the Jews have a psychosis." - Brendan Behan.

Would a larger population be a disadvantage in that aforementioned competition then?

So's reversing the last three hundred years of industrial and technological advances. What's your point? All back to the farm?

Apparently they also worship Satan and drink the blood of Irish children that they kidnap, or something along those lines. But nobody is reporting that either, are they... or maybe you're just spouting unsubstantiated hearsay.

Of course, even if it were true, I would have little sympathy for those Irish turned away from such building sites. After all, the "Murfia" that has long dominated the UK building trade, has being doling out jobs first to Irish in England for decades, so you can hardly complain that someone is doing to us what we've been doing in other countries to others, can you?

There's certainly an element of the rip-off republic involved, but when comparing Irish and Northern Irish prices, you need to also consider relative cost of living (and salaries), and also the GBP-EUR exchange rate.

_Nuno_ · 28-12-2008 03:04PM

Why don't you just come out and call things by their proper name? You speak of national identity and culture, but answer me this, would a black child adopted and raised by Irish parents in Ireland be a part of this national identity of yours? If you were working in a human resources department in a company and received a CV with a picture of this black man would you even care if he lived in Ireland all his life and is every bit a product of Irish culture as any white Irish?

You wouldn't. His skin would be the wrong colour for you, you would just put his CV aside and justify yourself with this crap that you want to preserve your so called Irish culture, and this man, with his dark skin colour, is obviously not a product of the same "culture" as you.

This would apply to someone with a foreign name as well, it's all the same.

To you, the geographical location where someone is born obviously makes one more or less worthy of certain things. They call this nationalism I believe, I just call it another form of racism.

Thirdfox · 29-12-2008 12:59PM

Yes, indeed - I wonder what O'Morris feels about me, an ethnically Chinese but Irish citizen living in "his" country

(I'd like to think it's as much "my" country as his).

Though if we are going to favour the Irish over these bleedin' foreigners, I'd like to be the first in line

And as for preserving Irish culture/history et al. I have a cupla focal, I know my naturalised country's history (dare I say better than many "real" i.e. white(?) fellow Irish citizens - amongst my peer group anyway). I love spuds (though eat Chinese food everyday - in China we just call it food

) Is that Irish enough for you? Though I do profess to prefer BBC programming.

And as I told the pickpockets in Tunisia after overhearing them speak about pickpocketing me in French: "We live in a globalised world, please don't make assumptions about one's culture/nationality or language ability based solely on their appearance". (Most useful thing to come out of my years of studying French in secondary school.)

But as for the OP's question on immigration - I know it can be difficult to retain an open mind (and open borders) in times of economic downturn but "native" Irish should have no fear about competing against others for a job - the most qualified person wins out...and unless we (I use we to mean we the Irish) have an inferiority complex or something, we shouldn't be afraid of employing the best, whatever colour or creed that person may be.

Permabear · 29-12-2008 01:38PM

This post has been deleted.

rwilson_ie · 29-12-2008 02:42PM

Hi

First of all, I'm not attacking you or your point

Second, apologies because I'm posting on this "old" topic and I've only had time to read through first 7 or so pages, on my lunchbreak - so, maybe my points will have been addressed since.

Anyway, as some people have noted - employers are employing foreign nationals for mostly 1 of 2 reasons -

1) they are better skilled - if this is the case, then do you think it is fair enough that they get the job ? or you could train yourself more to compete against them ? fair enough ?
2) they are equally skilled but, as you say, they will work longer hours and/or cheaper rates ? In this case, you need to get on a level playing field with them - you can report employers etc and so that will mean you can work same hours as them. So, what's left - the cheaper rates. Well, I moved job from one financial services company to another last August and guess what - I had to take a pay cut to stay competitive !

Take a hypothetical example - say the minimum wage was 2.50 euro (I know it was IR£ back then) in 1990 - the economy grows to a stage where min wage is 8 euro. Then the economy shrinks back down - how do you expect to keep the same trade rate. Min wages and trade rates have to be dictated by the economy and market. If someone is willing to work for less than you, then you have to compete and maybe the min wage in construction etc needs to drop.

My other point is a general one on countries looking after their own. There was someone talking recently about the US possibly forcing their huge multi-nationals to re-employ in the US - basically taxing them so much that it makes more sense to do so. So, if the US took all their companies back to the US, then what is Ireland left with ???? No HP, No Intel, No Google, No Creative, No Xerox, the list goes on - Ireland is dependant on other countries. If they all took care of their own, we're left with not a lot - we're back to living off spuds !

Again (I'm not attacking you or your comments) - so, you would like Ireland to take care of it's own first ? Would you then also think that it's fair that UK, US, Australia take care of their own first ? So, they take their companies out of Ireland and then in their countries, they give preference to their nationals first. Irish worldwide would be in deep s^&t ! In an "ideal" world, we should take care of ours first - but if every country adopted that attitude, Ireland would loose out big-time.

What do we do ... ? well, to compete with these foreign nationals, we need to make sure the ones who are working silly 16 hour days are reported (the employers) and I think the harsh reality is that the trade rates will have to come down .... !!!

If they do, they you and the lad from Eastern Europe will be competing on a level basis - then, you can get to keep your job ...

Rob

buy irish..employ irish

Comments