When was social equality sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed ?

Rabidlamb · 11-08-2011 09:36AM #1

Sorry to go a bit Michael Moore on you but this is something I've really noticed growing in the past 30 years.
When I started school in the late 70's every family had 4 or more kids, the mother stayed at home & the father worked.
Through his earnings alone they could fund their mortgage, a decent family car, the large family & 2 weeks in Salthill every year.
There were rich people who were mostly self made business owners but they still lived, worked & socialised in their local community.

Fast forward 30 years to the late 00's & couples need 8+ times their salaries to get on the humblest step of the housing ladder.
The mortgages were affordable as long as both parties stayed in well paying jobs & never entertained the thought of having children.
How did society so freely accept this re-engineering of human will & instinct ?.
Corporate wealth was given precedence over the good of society & we stood back & accepted it.
We watched as the share of wealth continued to be transferred to the top of the pyramid.

I'm not saying we should be erecting guillotines on College Green but this recession gives us time & space to redesign society for the better.
This will mean an average man, on an average wage must be to provide for his family as he would have a generation ago.
This thinking is a bit left wing even for my liking but I've come to the realisation it's the only way forward for this country.

prinz · 11-08-2011 09:42AM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

How did society so freely accept this re-engineering of human will & instinct ?..

Simple, because if you tried to resist it you were.. and still are... automatically labelled as conservative, backward, ignorant, sexist, etc etc. We've had decades of change that was rushed through without a second thought for the consequences.

Corporate greed is only part of the reason. Individualism was also given precedence over the good of the society. Strangely enough so-called 'social equality' itself is a major factor.

I wouldn't call your ideal left wing at all tbh. A lot of the so-called 'left wing' are busy falling over themselves to make sure your idea of social equality is sacrificed.

11-08-2011 09:52AM

Your solution to "re-engineering" is more re-engineering. Okay. I disagree...

hooradiation · 11-08-2011 10:01AM

prinz wrote: »

Simple, because if you tried to resist it you were.. and still are... automatically labelled as conservative, backward, ignorant, sexist, etc etc. We've had decades of change that was rushed through without a second thought for the consequences.

Yes, I to believe we have strayed from the traditional model of change in society which a slow gradual process that was carefully evaluated and the consequences known well in advance.

Frank Black · 11-08-2011 10:03AM

The fact is that for the vast majority of people of this country (and dispite all the moaning that goes on), life is much better than it was 30years ago - both in terms of average disposable incomes and life expectancy.
You're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:05AM

black francis wrote: »

... both in terms of average disposable incomes....

The be all and end all.

mackg · 11-08-2011 10:06AM

My parents are around the same age as yours, my father worked so did my mother. They struggled to pay the mortgage and would haver lost the house at one point except my uncle stepped in and saved them, they were not the only ones who struggled either. At all times in human history there have been rich people and people who struggled, maybe you remember people having an easier time because they hadn't become spoiled by the celtic tiger era back then and expected no more than the essentials.

Frank Black · 11-08-2011 10:13AM

prinz wrote: »

The be all and end all.

Hardly that.
But OP seems to consider that the society of 30years ago was some sort of social nirvana compared to now.
It wasn't - there was more poverty and life was generally ****ter.

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:16AM

black francis wrote: »

Hardly that.
But OP seems to consider that the society of 30years ago was some sort of social nirvana compared to now.
It wasn't - there was more poverty and life was generally ****ter.

Yet I wonder if you surveyed a selection of average Joes how many would declare themselves to be satisfied with what they had and with their quality of life compared to now.

It was no social nirvana (is there ever one?) but a hell of a lot of things were better.

mackg · 11-08-2011 10:17AM

prinz wrote: »

Yet I wonder if you surveyed a selection of average Joes how many would declare themselves to be satisfied with what they had and with their quality of life compared to now.

It was no social nirvana (is there ever one?) but a hell of a lot of things were better.

Like what? Genuine question.

11-08-2011 10:17AM

prinz wrote: »

Yet I wonder if you surveyed a selection of average Joes how many would declare themselves to be satisfied with what they had and with their quality of life compared to now.

It was no social nirvana (is there ever one?) but a hell of a lot of things were better.

like what

Guill · 11-08-2011 10:19AM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Sorry to go a bit Michael Moore on you but this is something I've really noticed growing in the past 30 years.
When I started school in the late 70's every family had 4 or more kids, the mother stayed at home & the father worked.
Through his earnings alone they could fund their mortgage, a decent family car, the large family & 2 weeks in Salthill every year.
There were rich people who were mostly self made business owners but they still lived, worked & socialised in their local community.

Fast forward 30 years to the late 00's & couples need 8+ times their salaries to get on the humblest step of the housing ladder.
The mortgages were affordable as long as both parties stayed in well paying jobs & never entertained the thought of having children.
How did society so freely accept this re-engineering of human will & instinct ?.
Corporate wealth was given precedence over the good of society & we stood back & accepted it.
We watched as the share of wealth continued to be transferred to the top of the pyramid.

I'm not saying we should be erecting guillotines on College Green but this recession gives us time & space to redesign society for the better.
This will mean an average man, on an average wage must be to provide for his family as he would have a generation ago.
This thinking is a bit left wing even for my liking but I've come to the realisation it's the only way forward for this country.

You're thinking of the 'Goood aul' Days'.

And as my Grandfather always says "what the **** was good about them?"

Words of wisdom right there.

bigneacy · 11-08-2011 10:20AM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

When was social equality sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed ?

Last tuesday... were you not there? Everyone else was invited.

Rabidlamb · 11-08-2011 10:22AM

bluewolf wrote: »

like what

Didn't have to worry about a poor 3G signal on my iPhone, I dunno.

Less cars on the road, more people cycled, less obesity.

seamus · 11-08-2011 10:22AM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Through his earnings alone they could fund their mortgage, a decent family car, the large family & 2 weeks in Salthill every year.

...and very little else.
You say it yourself - one car. Most families had one family car. Some were lucky enough to have one large car (that the Dad drove to work) and a small runabout (that the mother took the whole family in

). And the car had to run for about ten years before it was replaced. The AA this week said that in 2010 it cost an average of €11,000 to run a car for the year (though I'm skeptical). And most families have two. There's €22k gone before you even do anything.

How many weekends away were there? New clothes? Not that often, didn't see anyone's mother heading down to the shopping centre for anything new unless she really needed it. Expensive runners? Nah, St. Bernard is adequate. Most things you bought and you used it until it broke for the 3rd time and was utterly unfixable.

Very few people had credit cards, most used their overdraft as their only credit facility.

Fact of the matter is, we spend our money on a lot more things these days, because there are more things to spend your money on. Strip yourself right back to the essentials - basic web package, basic TV package, one car (to hold onto for at least ten years), one phone (that you only upgrade when it dies), one night out in a local pub, twice a month, no taxis, no eating out, all food shopping in Lidl/Aldi, etc etc etc.

You'll find out that the average industrial wage of €30k-odd will stretch very far for a family of six in those circumstances.

The real problem is that lots of people are still trying to maintain a high standard of living and discovering that their paypackets don't match up to it.

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:23AM

mackg wrote: »

Like what? Genuine question.

Like the fact that my old fella on one average salary could support a wife, family of six kids, mortgage on a nice house, etc who never actually needed for anything. I'd like to see one average wage these days, amply providing for a family of eight.

Nephinbeg · 11-08-2011 10:24AM

black francis wrote: »

The fact is that for the vast majority of people of this country (and dispite all the moaning that goes on), life is much better than it was 30years ago - both in terms of average disposable incomes and life expectancy.
You're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

My dad still tells me stories about the 70s and how things are still so much better now. He had to go to America every summer for 5 years to work as a painter to pay his way thru college. No free education then. In fact he started secondary school just as fees for that were phased out. They didn't get running water in their house till the mid 70s. There was one phone in the village (the post office's). They had a tv, fair enough, but it was sh1te. All this and they were fairly well off. His father only got a car after my dad.

Whatever about negative equity, high unemployment, ghost estates and bail outs, if you offered a 70s man a taste of modern Ireland, they'd bite your hand off

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:26AM

seamus wrote: »

...The real problem is that lots of people are still trying to maintain a high standard of living and discovering that their paypackets don't match up to it.

Except now it often takes two paypackets, then of course you have to add in the cost of childcare for any children while the parents are working. How much is childcare for six kids these days? A mortgage on a comfortable house to sleep 8? School costs? Saving for third level education for six kids? All this on one gross income of €30,000?

Then of course if you talk about a stay at home mother (or father) you get scoffed at.

AhSureTisGrand · 11-08-2011 10:26AM

If anyone in this thread is happier with less money then I would be more than willing to help relieve them of the burden

SEPT 23 1989 · 11-08-2011 10:27AM

I think women were sold a pup with womens liberation

mackg · 11-08-2011 10:29AM

prinz wrote: »

Like the fact that my old fella on one average salary could support a wife, family of six kids, mortgage on a nice house, etc who never actually needed for anything. I'd like to see one average wage these days, amply providing for a family of eight.

What exactly did your dad do?

zyxwvu · 11-08-2011 10:29AM

Charlie McCreevy giving tax incentives for families where both parents worked in the late 90's led to more women going out to work; so because the average household wage increased due to an increase in the occurrence of both adults working, the average house price to average salary ratio increased to a level almost double that seen a generation ago. So it's because women work that society has changed for the worse! ... only messing

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:37AM

mackg wrote: »

What exactly did your dad do?

Frontline public servant.

seamus · 11-08-2011 10:42AM

prinz wrote: »

Except now it often takes two paypackets, then of course you have to add in the cost of childcare for any children while the parents are working. How much is childcare for six kids these days? A mortgage on a comfortable house to sleep 8? School costs? Saving for third level education for six kids? All this on one gross income of €30,000?

A house for 6 kids == 3 bedrooms. Get a nice 3-bed somewhere for €150k, about €700/month. Back in the "good old days", children didn't get their own rooms. Saving for 3rd level? Really? Nope, that didn't happen. Childcare? Well if you've got one wage, you don't need to pay for that. School is free, overall. Uniforms and books aren't, but 90% of it can be handed down from the older to younger children. How much child benefit do you get with 6 kids?

You have to compare like with like. How much would a 1970's standard of living cost you in 2011? The average industrial wage would cover it.

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:48AM

seamus wrote: »

A house for 6 kids == 3 bedrooms. Get a nice 3-bed somewhere for €150k, about €700/month..

So parents in one room, then three kids to a room in the other two?

seamus wrote: »

Back in the "good old days", children didn't get their own rooms. Saving for 3rd level? Really? Nope, that didn't happen. Childcare? Well if you've got one wage, you don't need to pay for that. School is free, overall. Uniforms and books aren't, but 90% of it can be handed down from the older to younger children. How much child benefit do you get with 6 kids?..

90% of it can be? Unifroms never need to replaced? You can't have six kids in school at once for instance, all of whom need uniforms and shoes and books?

seamus wrote: »

You have to compare like with like. How much would a 1970's standard of living cost you in 2011? The average industrial wage would cover it.

Except you're not comparing like with like. Say an gross income of €30k, that would give you a net income of roughly €26,500 in 2011. You honestly think it no problem to feed, clothe, house, run a car, and pay for all the other crap that crops up for a family of 8 on that?

seamus · 11-08-2011 10:53AM

prinz wrote: »

So parents in one room, then three kids to a room in the other two?

Yep. Sounds about right.

90% of it can be? Unifroms never need to replaced? You can't have six kids in school at once for instance, all of whom need uniforms and shoes and books?

You have six kids in school at once, but all at different ages. You only need to buy clothes for the eldest kid (or eldest boy & girl) and pay for any repair or replacements of the hand-me-downs. Are you trying to say that all of the kids will need new clothes and books every year?

prinz · 11-08-2011 10:57AM

seamus wrote: »

Yep. Sounds about right.

..and when the kids get into their teens? Three full sized beds fitting in the bedroom of a regular three bed semi-d? ..and three sets of clothes, etc etc.

seamus wrote: »

You have six kids in school at once, but all at different ages. You only need to buy clothes for the eldest kid (or eldest boy & girl) and pay for any repair or replacements of the hand-me-downs. Are you trying to say that all of the kids will need new clothes and books every year?

Absolutely not, but to say that 90% of it is hand-me-down is total nonsense. Especially when school books alone are being updated constantly, and using the 'workbook' format often times, which basically renders a book useless in terms of re-use.

Frank Black · 11-08-2011 11:01AM

In the 1960's the average family in Ireland spent about 35% of thier household income on food.
Today that figure is around 10%.

Pride Fighter · 11-08-2011 11:05AM

Things were better back then if you were lucky enough to work. The employment levels were so much lower back then, most had to emigrate.

Now the employment levels are generally higher, but not the high quality, well paid jobs society needs. Generally jobs pay a lot worse now. You only have to look at the pubs around the country. Years ago, the aul lad would have enough disposable income to go to the pub and have 7 or 8 pints twice a week. Not the case now, for most.

In essence how I see it, there are less well paid jobs and more low paid jobs. It should not be that way, but it'll be a while before the balance can be re-addressed.

11-08-2011 11:09AM

seamus wrote: »

Yep. Sounds about right.
You have six kids in school at once, but all at different ages. You only need to buy clothes for the eldest kid (or eldest boy & girl) and pay for any repair or replacements of the hand-me-downs. Are you trying to say that all of the kids will need new clothes and books every year?

I understand these days they change the book editions most years to stop kids passing them down

seamus · 11-08-2011 11:09AM

prinz wrote: »

..and when the kids get into their teens? Three full sized beds fitting in the bedroom of a regular three bed semi-d? ..and three sets of clothes, etc etc.

Well, yeah. My mother shared a room with 3 sisters (in a double bed) until she was in her late teens (mid-late 60's) and moved into dorms to do nursing.
And her father was a frontline civil servant, providing a decent home and standard of living for his family.

Just because it sounds impractical and ridiculous nowadays, doesn't mean that it wasn't the done thing.

Especially when school books alone are being updated constantly, and using the 'workbook' format often times, which basically renders a book useless in terms of re-use.

...these days. When I was in school in the 80's/90's, very few books were in a workbook format and a lot of the time students would get away with using a version 2 or even 3 times behind the current one. I know I did. I can even remember cases where some kids' mums rubbed out all of the answers from workbooks so they could be used again.
I imagine back in the 60's and 70's a schoolbook would last even longer.

Again, you have to compare like with like. I understand that the schoolbook publishers conspire these days to constantly update their books, but a school can't oblige a parent to buy new versions and a child isn't going to lose out because their books has slightly different illustrations and a page less.

When was social equality sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed ?

Comments