Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

dchris · 25-06-2012 5:34am #1

I am sick of unemployed people getting stick on here for being lazy, or cheating the system, or not bothering to look for work.

I think people should make themselves aware of the facts and figures when it comes to social welfare expenditure in Ireland. A lot of people on here say things that are just ignorant of any facts.

Back in 2007 we had what is considered "full employment" which means that the unemployment rate is about 4% or less. This 4% equates to about 157K people. Now unemployment is at 15% almost a 4 fold increase in unemployment. However the amount paid out in Social Welfare Expenditure in 2007 was 15Billion, In 2011 it was 20 Billion

2007
Unemployment 4 % (157k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 15 Billion

2011
Unemployment 15% (440k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 20 Billion

It is clear to me that despite c. 300% increase in the amount of people unemployed, the expenditure only increased by 33%

This would that despite having c.300k more unemployed now ,it does not have a drastic (elastic) affect on Unemployment benefit expenditure. It also suggests that it is other areas, not unemployment benefits that are the huge drain on the Social Welfare Budget, and the same ones that were in existence in 2007

If 1/3 of the SW expenditure goes on paying an additional 300K people, (5 Billion) that would mean that about 7.5 billion in total is going on unemployment benefit. ie 440K people in total (including the c157k who were always unemployed...

So the remainder 12.5 billion of the budget is going on additional payments such as pensions, rent allowances, child benefit, etc .. Not unemployment benefit.

People seem to have the pre-conceived notion that people choose to be on Unemployment Benefit because they are lazy. I think this is ridiculous. There will always be people who scam and cheat the system. But in many cases it is people who are already below the poverty line who feel they have no choice but to cheat the system. Not everyone is powered by greed, in many cases it is through necessity.

I am sick of reading posts where people tar all unemployed people with the same brush. Using terms like lazy, drains on society etc. I also don't think moderators should allow.

I have seen on one thread whereby a guy was offered a "job" working for free. He refused to take it, and was berated by people with abuse for being a waster. People would seriously want to get a grip and see what's in front of them.

Schemes like Jobsbridge are extensions of what FAS and its predecessor The Anco. It has been statistically proven that anyone who jobhunt through FAS, is 17% LESS likely to find a job..

http://www.thejournal.ie/looking-for-work-dont-go-through-the-states-back-to-work-plan-report-finds-135800-May2011/
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3144

My view on Jobsbridge is that it be a much fairer system if the employer had to match the contribution of 50 euro by the state. Or go one further and bring the individual up to the minimum wage. I am sure it is humiliating for individuals to enter companies on a Jobsbridge scheme when they are working alongside other employees doing the same Job , but for twice the pay. Furthermore travel expenses etc may leave the individual financially worse off for an extended period with no guarantees . The employer is receiving free labour. A further dis-incentive for employers to advertise for positions. It would be much more rewarding for unemployed people to approach New Business Start Ups and offer their time there. The experience one would get from working at the start up stage of a business is vast and there is a real potential that a paid role could be created. It's a potential Win-Win the , whereas the only ones who Win with Jobsbridge is employer. Business people , by nature are exploitative and I have no doubt that is what will happen to these people. Of the 6840 internships on Jobsbridge schemes, 797 interns got a job at the end of it? What happened to the other 90% ? Back on the dole perhaps, and better off? Maybe .

http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/business/opportunities-in-longford-as-jobbridge-extended-1-3872944

Maybe I am a massive cynic, but I hate seeing people bitching and back biting people of being unemployed. The majority of people are good people and want to work. I am sure people unemployed are doing the best in their situation and the last thing they need is to be kicked when they are down. No ones job is that safe, so remember before you post that you could be on the receiving end one day.

Lets not forget that it is not the unemployed peoples faults that the economy went the way it did. You can blame that on the government you voted for. Maybe your bitchy comments and back biting be better focused in their direction than individuals struggling to get by.

Rasheed · 25-06-2012 5:56am

Well I do agree with what you are saying. I don't think there is any family not touched by unemployment now.

The people I have a problem with are that 4% that were unemployed in the boom times. Papers were filled with jobs, grants galore for further education, back to work schemes and still 150k plus on the dole. Completely unacceptable.

Also I totally disagree with your point that people are on the bread line and are forced to con the state. The welfare system are very generous in this country compared to the UK. Three times more generous. With single parent, rent allowance, money for uniforms and books etc, I find it very hard to believe anyone is 'poor' on the welfare system. And anyone that cries they are and try to justify ripping the state off, needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

dchris · 25-06-2012 6:54am

You see this is where the misconception lies. 4% unemployment in any economy no matter how big of a boom you are in is considered Zero unemployment. It is hard to do any better than 4%. With the exception of Cuba and Monaco, I don't know of any country with lower levels than about 3 %. In economic terms, you will always have some people on unemployment benefit to allow for people waiting to leave one job and entering a new one, college graduates who have just started looking. Plus, a lot of people who are older ie 60-65 are technically job seekers until pensionable age, yet tend to struggle to find employment because of there age. (There are lots of factors. And not all of the 157k unemployed are the same people)

I do think some people are on the breadline. I know quite a few people who stuggle to pay their bills, who are in receipt of unemployment benefit and no other allowances. Not everyone, but many are living or at risk of living in poverty in Ireland. For example, 16 % of all Lone Parents in Ireland live in consistent poverty. Yet Lone Parents are forever getting slated because it is perceived they get huge amounts of money from social welfare. People forget living in Ireland is bloody expensive. Trying to raise a child on your own, on benefits, is hardly a lifestyle choice. Granted Increasing or decreasing their income will not change their situations.

The problem generated back during the boom times, when no provision was made for Lone Parents in addressing the issue of massive childcare costs. As a result, the welfare system created a monster whereby the cost of working for a lone parent was so high, that they were financially better off staying home. A poverty trap ensued. There was no foresight by government at the time to implement a proper childcare scheme, as it was seen as more cost effective to pay out more in welfare, than to invest childcare provision. This meant that lone parents became long term unemployed.

So it is for this reason that I would not begrudge a lone parent for example, working a shift in a local shop if the opportunity presents itself. They might be able to treat themselves to a pair of shoes...

johnnyskeleton · 25-06-2012 7:34am

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

dchris · 25-06-2012 8:13am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

It is fair to say that some people in society are financially better off being unemployed than they would be if they were employed. The system has many holes. You need to make it equally as "lucrative" for the likes of Lone Parents for example to go to work. By providing provision for Childcare/Early Pre School places etc.

One of the most contradictory cuts in benefits of late has been the cut of the Back to Work Allowance. People cannot get jobs because none exist, yet anyone who is lucky enough to get a job will be cut off of their benefit immediately and have to survive for a month or more before their first pay cheque arrives. Which would mean that in order to take a job , that pays monthly, an individual would have to save up a months worth of living expenses and the additional travel expenses. A lone parent could not for an instance take the chance of returning to work in fear their benefits would be cut and would have no food for there children. It's a poverty trap.

I don't have any problem with people saying the system creates this problem. I do have a problem with unemployed people being slated as being lazy dole cheats, when their circumstances is dictated by systems misgivings. . Hence why it is called a "The Poverty Trap" and not "The Poverty Choice"

Generally people want to work, and as many incentives as possible should be in place to bridge the transition from unemployment to employment.

Geuze · 25-06-2012 8:40am

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Pages/2010stats.aspx

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2010stats.pdf

DSP stats above, press release and report.

2010 spending was 20,848m, of which jobseekers supports were 19.6%.

dchris · 25-06-2012 8:46am

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Pages/2010stats.aspx

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2010stats.pdf

DSP stats above, press release and report.

2010 spending was 20,848m, of which jobseekers supports were 19.6%.

Thanks! Was looking for a summary on CSO and ESRI but didn't look hard enough

Cheers

Gurgle · 25-06-2012 8:48am

Rasheed wrote: »

The people I have a problem with are that 4% that were unemployed in the boom times. Papers were filled with jobs, grants galore for further education, back to work schemes and still 150k plus on the dole. Completely unacceptable.

At the best of times there were companies shutting down / relocating and jobs being lost. A fair whack (nope, I don't know the numbers) of that 4% were people genuinely between jobs.

Sin City · 25-06-2012 8:54am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

No jobs availability makes people less likely to work

dchris · 25-06-2012 9:00am

Sin City wrote: »

No jobs availability makes people less likely to work

I should of led with that :rolleyes:

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 9:01am

I think it's difficult to compare the people who were going to work in the boom.

It's one thing going to mix cement for 60-70k a year and working your backside of for minimum wage 6 days a week.

The person who was willing to do the former is now not willing to do the latter, so we can't really claim because they worked in the boom time's they're willing to work.

We created a large amount of non skilled/lowly educated laborers. If it wasn't for the "boom" and paying stupid amount's of money for these low skilled jobs the same work force may not have been working. As said a lot of them are the same one's who now won't get out of bed for less than x y and z.

There's no benefit to "bashing" the unemployed, but a lot of the time when talking to them you can certainly "bash" their little or no effort and finding work and how they badly manage the funds that are provisioned for them.

"but i sent out 200 CV's in the last 6 months" people actually regard this as job hunting. even posts in these forums the sense of entitlement from some is just staggering.

I have no problem with people who are genuinely putting an effort into finding work, I just don't think there's very many of them.

struggling sam · 25-06-2012 9:41am

Interesting stats there dchris. If I may go off on a slight tangent, as far as all benefits are concerned, the "family" in particular but also couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people.

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance. My rate is 188 per week and a 7.70 Living Alone Allowance. A couple would receive the 188 and 124 for the qualifying adult. Heating the home does not cost substantially more for two people. ESB is not substantially more for two people. I have a car (for the time being), there is no added cost for two people. Cooking for two is easier in some ways, but yes, it will cost more to feed two. My telephone/internet cost would not double, my home contents insurance does not double with a 2nd person.

Rent wise, most accomodation is suitable for a minimum of two, perhaps, except some bedsits. Therfore, there would tend to be no real reduction in rent. I must contribute 30.00 a week towards my rent, a couple must contribute a whopping 5.00 more.

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.

However, I am also grateful that we do have a caring society and a Social Welfare System that for the most part, does its job reasonably well, it just needs some tweaking.

daltonmd · 25-06-2012 10:02am

struggling sam wrote: »

Interesting stats there dchris. If I may go off on a slight tangent, as far as all benefits are concerned, the "family" in particular but also couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people.

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance. My rate is 188 per week and a 7.70 Living Alone Allowance. A couple would receive the 188 and 124 for the qualifying adult. Heating the home does not cost substantially more for two people. ESB is not substantially more for two people. I have a car (for the time being), there is no added cost for two people. Cooking for two is easier in some ways, but yes, it will cost more to feed two. My telephone/internet cost would not double, my home contents insurance does not double with a 2nd person.

Rent wise, most accomodation is suitable for a minimum of two, perhaps, except some bedsits. Therfore, there would tend to be no real reduction in rent. I must contribute 30.00 a week towards my rent, a couple must contribute a whopping 5.00 more.

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.

However, I am also grateful that we do have a caring society and a Social Welfare System that for the most part, does its job reasonably well, it just needs some tweaking.

I personally wouldn't agree with you Sam, as an aside, do you not qualify for the household package? Maybe you should check it out?

dchris · 25-06-2012 10:02am

struggling sam wrote: »

I

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.
.

I defo agree living alone is a much greater financial burden. There is no added extras at all, plus no bill sharing etc If you're running a car I'd imagine there be very little left for you at the end of a week. Plus, if anything needed replacing or if the car needed work, it would be a massive set back. I had forgotten that they took 30euro for rent every week before the supplement kicks in- good point!.

dchris · 25-06-2012 10:08am

daltonmd wrote: »

I personally wouldn't agree with you Sam,

Which bit do you not agree on?

struggling sam · 25-06-2012 10:12am

daltonmd wrote: »

I personally wouldn't agree with you Sam, as an aside, do you not qualify for the household package? Maybe you should check it out?

I do get the household benefit package, yes, and I am very grateful for it. It is very difficult adjusting from being a working man with a reasonable wage to being on DA even with the extra benefits.

What may I ask do you disagree with? That a single person does not fare as well as a couple?
Or my comments on how certain major household expenditure is only marginally more for two people?

EchoO · 25-06-2012 10:17am

Rasheed wrote: »

The people I have a problem with are that 4% that were unemployed in the boom times. Papers were filled with jobs, grants galore for further education, back to work schemes and still 150k plus on the dole. Completely unacceptable.

The long term unemployment rate at the time was just 1.3%, or 28,000 people. As has already been stated, even in a period of full employment there will be people between jobs and there will be those who do not have the skills to apply for job vacancies in economy i.e., structural unemployment.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

During the boom when people had the choice to work or claim the dole, people chose to work. The problem is not that our unemployment benefits are too generous, its the fact that we currently had 26 unemployed people for every job vacancy in the country.

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 10:18am

struggling sam wrote: »

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance. My rate is 188 per week and a 7.70 Living Alone Allowance. A couple would receive the 188 and 124 for the qualifying adult. Heating the home does not cost substantially more for two people. ESB is not substantially more for two people. I have a car (for the time being), there is no added cost for two people. Cooking for two is easier in some ways, but yes, it will cost more to feed two. My telephone/internet cost would not double, my home contents insurance does not double with a 2nd person.

I understand it can be a struggle, but sometimes people don't do much to help themselves.

The payment I imagine by the SW is not expected to take into consideration to cost of running a car/insurance/tax/petrol/diesiel/NCT/

Unless your disability stops you from walking/cycling/public transport I don't see a need for it and is a sustantial burden on your financial situation. Telephone costs? if you have a mobile ready to go at 20e a month or so couple's generally have idependant phones so would have the same costs here? with the internet is it something you _must_ have? it is, maybe you can get of the phone and use free services? like skype etc cutting down on phone costs.

regarding home contents insurance, personally if I'm in a situation were i'm struggling financially if i have anything of worth i'm more than likley selling it and wouldn't really have much need for content insurance again another burden on the finances that's not really designed to be covered by SW payments.

struggling sam wrote: »

Rent wise, most accomodation is suitable for a minimum of two, perhaps, except some bedsits. Therfore, there would tend to be no real reduction in rent. I must contribute 30.00 a week towards my rent, a couple must contribute a whopping 5.00 more.

Not sure why we're hung up on couples in this posts a couple is not a single entitiyy and both should be finanically dependant from the other.

so on one hand it's slightly cheaper with certain things, on the other they get a lot less money individuality which could be regarded as discrimination towards couples?

struggling sam wrote: »

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.

As stated I'm not sure anyone can call discrimination when the state takes you on financially. I agree in looking after everyone but there's pro's and cons for all sides.

daltonmd · 25-06-2012 10:19am

dchris wrote: »

Which bit do you not agree on?

That couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people.

If both received 188 then there would be a point, but they don't.

The second person actually receives 111.30 euro pw (take away the living alone allowance and the 5 euro extra for rent).

Add to that as Sam says, most property is geared towards couples, and this is advantageous to single people in my opinion.

Both these people may have paid full stamps - they live together and this is fairly taken into account given the reduction the second person takes.

bee_keeper · 25-06-2012 10:20am

dchris wrote: »

It is fair to say that some people in society are financially better off being unemployed than they would be if they were employed. The system has many holes. You need to make it equally as "lucrative" for the likes of Lone Parents for example to go to work. By providing provision for Childcare/Early Pre School places etc.

One of the most contradictory cuts in benefits of late has been the cut of the Back to Work Allowance. People cannot get jobs because none exist, yet anyone who is lucky enough to get a job will be cut off of their benefit immediately and have to survive for a month or more before their first pay cheque arrives. Which would mean that in order to take a job , that pays monthly, an individual would have to save up a months worth of living expenses and the additional travel expenses. A lone parent could not for an instance take the chance of returning to work in fear their benefits would be cut and would have no food for there children. It's a poverty trap.

I don't have any problem with people saying the system creates this problem. I do have a problem with unemployed people being slated as being lazy dole cheats, when their circumstances is dictated by systems misgivings. . Hence why it is called a "The Poverty Trap" and not "The Poverty Choice"

Generally people want to work, and as many incentives as possible should be in place to bridge the transition from unemployment to employment.

the back to work allowance was cut so as to encourage young people to head to australia and canada , in tough times you try and force out those most likely to rail against the status quo

washman3 · 25-06-2012 10:21am

To go back to the OPs topic regarding the unemployed getting abuse, it is clear at this stage that this abuse is orchestrated in different ways in order to prepare them for what is coming down the line. The controlled media, ie RTE and the Irish Indo are the biggest sinners here. we also have areas like here on Boards.ie and Politics.ie where political parties have their lapdogs constantly on "keyboard duty" to peddle their spin and waffle.
The hidden agenda here is that while they can bad-mouth those on various social welfare allowances they are free to continue untouched on their very own gravy train.

P.S. i await the attacks here from the usual vested interests.

CamperMan · 25-06-2012 10:21am

social welfare expenditure for 2011 €20 billion

Income tax receipts came in at the grand total of €13.798 billion..

so you tell me how the feck Ireland can sustain such a large welfare expense??

get it cut, force people to live back home with mummy and daddy, get a job..

I can't get dole because I am self employed, I pay my taxes and get nothing in return,

If I could get on the dole, I would be able to double my income overnight.

People on welfare have it easy!

bee_keeper · 25-06-2012 10:32am

washman3 wrote: »

To go back to the OPs topic regarding the unemployed getting abuse, it is clear at this stage that this abuse is orchestrated in different ways in order to prepare them for what is coming down the line. The controlled media, ie RTE and the Irish Indo are the biggest sinners here. we also have areas like here on Boards.ie and Politics.ie where political parties have their lapdogs constantly on "keyboard duty" to peddle their spin and waffle.
The hidden agenda here is that while they can bad-mouth those on various social welfare allowances they are free to continue untouched on their very own gravy train.

P.S. i await the attacks here from the usual vested interests.

you think their are political operatives at work on boards.ie ?

dchris · 25-06-2012 10:43am

CamperMan wrote: »

social welfare expenditure for 2011 €20 billion

Income tax receipts came in at the grand total of €13.798 billion..

so you tell me how the feck Ireland can sustain such a large welfare expense??

get it cut, force people to live back home with mummy and daddy, get a job..

I can't get dole because I am self employed, I pay my taxes and get nothing in return,

If I could get on the dole, I would be able to double my income overnight.

People on welfare have it easy!

With that attitude we would be right to close the hospitals down too.

If you set up your own business you can keep your social welfare for 2 years. 100% in the first year, 75 % in the second year. If you close your business, you can apply for social welfare allowance the same as anyone who is unemployed. I am not sure where the confusion over being self employed and not entitled to social welfare came from but I heard it before.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

People on Welfare have it easy? I am not going to bother debating comments like that.

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 10:46am

dchris wrote: »

With that attitude we would be right to close the hospitals down too.

No one died because they didn't have a sky package and the ntl 100MB

It's a stupid statement. As a country we can't afford to keep people out of work with the luxury of lifestyle they're currently experiencing on SW. The point he was making clearly is when the SW is taken over so much of GDP we have to reduce it.

struggling sam · 25-06-2012 10:51am

puffishoes wrote: »

I understand it can be a struggle, but sometimes people don't do much to help themselves.

The payment I imagine by the SW is not expected to take into consideration to cost of running a car/insurance/tax/petrol/diesiel/NCT/

For over 30 years I have had a car but getting used to the idea of not having one is seriously being considered. However, I live in a rural area, post office is 5 mile away, town is 15 miles, but there is a community bus which goes into town twice a week.

Unless your disability stops you from walking/cycling/public transport I don't see a need for it and is a sustantial burden on your financial situation. Telephone costs? if you have a mobile ready to go at 20e a month or so couple's generally have idependant phones so would have the same costs here? with the internet is it something you _must_ have? it is, maybe you can get of the phone and use free services? like skype etc cutting down on phone costs.

I was speaking more of landline costs, but I do take your point re as a couple might require 2 mobiles but can share one landline and internet.

regarding home contents insurance, personally if I'm in a situation were i'm struggling financially if i have anything of worth i'm more than likley selling it and wouldn't really have much need for content insurance again another burden on the finances that's not really designed to be covered by SW payments.

Insurance is required by the terms of my lease. I have worked hard all of my life, and the only luxuries I have is a good 35mm camera and accessories, an elaborate stereo, and a 32" telly, and of course my pc!

Not sure why we're hung up on couples in this posts a couple is not a single entitiyy and both should be finanically dependant from the other.

I am from the old school, when I was married, all of our money/income was pooled and jointly spent together. I know times have changed,

so on one hand it's slightly cheaper with certain things, on the other they get a lot less money individuality which could be regarded as discrimination towards couples?

The major costs in a household are food/heat & light, and rent. Two of the three do not increase substantially when another person is added to the household.

struggling sam · 25-06-2012 10:53am

Apologies, formatting went wonky and lost connection at same time!

puffishoes wrote: »

I understand it can be a struggle, but sometimes people don't do much to help themselves.

The payment I imagine by the SW is not expected to take into consideration to cost of running a car/insurance/tax/petrol/diesiel/NCT/

Unless your disability stops you from walking/cycling/public transport I don't see a need for it and is a sustantial burden on your financial situation. Telephone costs? if you have a mobile ready to go at 20e a month or so couple's generally have idependant phones so would have the same costs here? with the internet is it something you _must_ have? it is, maybe you can get of the phone and use free services? like skype etc cutting down on phone costs.

regarding home contents insurance, personally if I'm in a situation were i'm struggling financially if i have anything of worth i'm more than likley selling it and wouldn't really have much need for content insurance again another burden on the finances that's not really designed to be covered by SW payments.

Not sure why we're hung up on couples in this posts a couple is not a single entitiyy and both should be finanically dependant from the other.

so on one hand it's slightly cheaper with certain things, on the other they get a lot less money individuality which could be regarded as discrimination towards couples?

As stated I'm not sure anyone can call discrimination when the state takes you on financially. I agree in looking after everyone but there's pro's and cons for all sides.

dchris · 25-06-2012 10:54am

puffishoes wrote: »

No one died because they didn't have a sky package and the ntl 100MB

It's a stupid statement.

No, that is a stupid statement. And a massively ignorant one at that. It's people like you that I had in mind when I made the OP. So ignorant of what is really happening, in the real world, then come on to places like this and spread your ill-informed little opinions. The banks and the government bankrupt the country, yet you choose kick the real victims, who are the people that have lost their jobs? Institutionalised and conformist comes to mind..

washman3 · 25-06-2012 10:59am

bee_keeper wrote: »

you think their are political operatives at work on boards.ie ?

Dont just think it, im absolutely certain. While i'm just a registered member for over a year, i've been reading posts for 6-7 years and can identify instantly the "usual suspects" from the various political parties.
its funny really that most have changed their views entirely over the years to suit the particular political agenda at the time.
A quick example is those FG/LAB apologists who are now lampooning those on social welfare, but who continously complained 5-6 years ago that the then FF/GREEN/CORRUPT INDs government were
"victimising" the very same recipients.:)

I rest my case....

username123 · 25-06-2012 11:00am

CamperMan wrote: »

People on welfare have it easy!

If this is what you really think, then why dont you close your business, get your wife or partner to quit their jobs, and go and claim your entitlements? If people on welfare have it so easy - then why wouldnt you want to be one of them?

daltonmd · 25-06-2012 11:00am

struggling sam wrote: »

I do get the household benefit package, yes, and I am very grateful for it. It is very difficult adjusting from being a working man with a reasonable wage to being on DA even with the extra benefits.

What may I ask do you disagree with? That a single person does not fare as well as a couple?
Or my comments on how certain major household expenditure is only marginally more for two people?

Sorry, your argument was: "couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people. "

You spoke about heating/esb/phone charges not being double for a couple - yet failed to disclose that you don't pay these on your own - your other half is "the state".

Your argument is completely wrong and you were a little more than disingenuous, when you left out this important piece of information.

Edit to add - "The major costs in a household are food/heat & light, and rent. Two of the three do not increase substantially when another person is added to the household. "

Sam, you get help with 3 of those costs, you get rent allowance, units of your Gas/ESB and a generous allowance off your phone. You are treated like this because you are single and living alone - I know it's not an easy place to be - but looking enviously on couples and incorrectly believing that "they have more than you" - is wrong.

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 11:03am

struggling sam wrote: »

For over 30 years I have had a car but getting used to the idea of not having one is seriously being considered. However, I live in a rural area, post office is 5 mile away, town is 15 miles, but there is a community bus which goes into town twice a week.

What I'm reading is correct me if i'm wrong, you have no real need for a car?

struggling sam wrote: »

I was speaking more of landline costs, but I do take your point re as a couple might require 2 mobiles but can share one landline and internet.

I understand what you meant, my point was if you have a mobile, you don't need a landline or internet access. these are extra costs that are not _essential_

struggling sam wrote: »

Insurance is required by the terms of my lease. I have worked hard all of my life, and the only luxuries I have is a good 35mm camera and accessories, an elaborate stereo, and a 32" telly, and of course my pc!

Maybe you can find somewhere to live that doesn't have such awkward restrictions easing your financial burden as this as far as i can tell is not a tempory situation for you? again, the point really is that there a lots of things we can say the SW don't do right, but we should generally look at what we can do to help ourselves.

struggling sam wrote: »

I am from the old school, when I was married, all of our money/income was pooled and jointly spent together. I know times have changed,

Yes they have. they're allowed into pubs and everything now

;)

struggling sam wrote: »

The major costs in a household are food/heat & light, and rent. Two of the three do not increase substantially when another person is added to the household.

Yes and it's cheaper to feed one person heat i guess we can't really quantify and also as has been pointed out a few times the couple _individually_ get a lot less money than single person. so it's much of a muchness i would have thought?

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 11:04am

dchris wrote: »

No, that is a stupid statement. And a massively ignorant one at that. It's people like you that I had in mind when I made the OP. So ignorant of what is really happening, in the real world, then come on to places like this and spread your ill-informed little opinions. The banks and the government bankrupt the country, yet you choose kick the real victims, who are the people that have lost their jobs? Institutionalised and conformist comes to mind..

what part of my post was ill-informed?

so far all you have done is insulted me would you mind reading my posts and addressing any parts that are "ill-informed" instead of being personal abusive?

miss.aok · 25-06-2012 11:05am

its extremly hard for the unemployed. i have been to the jobs club-every person in the room wanted work. everyone in the room stressed or depressed at some stage in there jobseeking.

theres people out there working (internships) for only the social welfare and some dont even get 188 plus 50. in my case 100 plus 50 with 50 goin on petrol to get to work.

slaging people unemployed sayn there lazy is awful. id like to see the slagers unemployeed and see how they feel.

i feel working for free isnt attractive to employers anymore.

CamperMan · 25-06-2012 11:05am

username123 wrote: »

If this is what you really think, then why dont you close your business, get your wife or partner to quit their jobs, and go and claim your entitlements? If people on welfare have it so easy - then why wouldnt you want to be one of them?

I tried last year and got told to feck off by the welfare so had to keep plodding on.. doing my own little business

the only thing I could get was a medical card, no rent allowance, do dole, nothing.. some weeks in business I earn zilch, not a cent

username123 · 25-06-2012 11:14am

CamperMan wrote: »

I tried last year and got told to feck off by the welfare so had to keep plodding on.. doing my own little business

the only thing I could get was a medical card, no rent allowance, do dole, nothing.. some weeks in business I earn zilch, not a cent

Well then you must be failing the means test somehow.

Gurgle · 25-06-2012 11:16am

dchris wrote: »

yet you choose kick the real victims, who are the people that have lost their jobs?

Its not as simple as 'lost their jobs'. Its not even as simple as can't work / won't work.

There are those who have lost their jobs, and those who never had jobs. There are entire career fields which have been decimated, but 5 years into recession that excuse is wearing thin. 5 years is long enough to go from leaving cert to masters degree.

There are those who can't work for various reasons: Health, education (lack of or non-marketable), disability, criminal record.

There are those who won't work for various reasons: Lifestyle choice, laziness, inflated sense of their own value, sticking doggedly to their unfortunate career choice as though it defined their existence. (-edit- left out 'can't afford to work', but that's a whole 'nother debate)

Its very easy to blame the government / recession / society / foreigners.
But how long can you stay on welfare before you have to look in the mirror?

struggling sam wrote:

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance.

May I ask what your disability is?
Does it exclude you from all work, or just your chosen career? Have you looked at retraining?
(I'm only aiming the question at you because you're speaking from 'that side' of the fence, nothing personal intended)

dchris · 25-06-2012 11:16am

puffishoes wrote: »

As a country we can't afford to keep people out of work with the luxury of lifestyle they're currently experiencing on SW.

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

daltonmd · 25-06-2012 11:22am

dchris wrote: »

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

To be honest dchris there is something in what he says. We know there are people struggling, that's not in question - but when you delve into a lot of peoples finances you do find that mobile phones, internet, cars and repaying loans, are put as the reason as to why some are struggling.

They are not struggling because SW is too low - they are struggling because it doesn't cover the remnants of when they worked and brought in a decent income.

Cars, mobile phones, internet - these are luxuries and just because people feel "entitled" to them doesn't change that.

dchris · 25-06-2012 11:32am

Gurgle wrote: »

Its not as simple as 'lost their jobs'. Its not even as simple as can't work / won't work.

You are picking up an a very small part of what I said and not what the original post was about at all.

To re-iterate my point I am saying peoples attitude to unemployed people is a disgrace. Especially on faceless forums.

Your point about people retraining etc is valid and many have retrained in IT/Science/Pharm sectors. But on the numbers that are unemployed , where or how would you suggest retraining that volume? 300k more people unemployed now than in 2007. A university like Trinity College has c. 10K undergrads. So 30 more Unis/ITs?

Sleepy · 25-06-2012 11:33am

To be fair, I think a mobile phone has pretty much become a necessity of life in modern day Ireland: particularly for someone looking for work or with a disability that could put them in a position where they might need to get help after a fall etc... That said, it's not necessary to have an iPhone or the like or more than €20 a month credit (and only that amount because it's the minimum to qualify for free texts / keep the number active).

What drives many of us who are working mad is to see how little we're actually working for: the difference between what I take home and what I'd receive in welfare entitlements would amount to about €50 a week and I've a reasonably decent job.

The boom is over. There is no quick fix. It's tighten the belts and learn to live within our means time until we can grow our way out of this mess. It's going to take a long time and it's going to be painful for everyone.

GarIT · 25-06-2012 11:37am

dchris wrote: »

I am sick of unemployed people getting stick on here for being lazy, or cheating the system, or not bothering to look for work.

I think people should make themselves aware of the facts and figures when it comes to social welfare expenditure in Ireland. A lot of people on here say things that are just ignorant of any facts.

Back in 2007 we had what is considered "full employment" which means that the unemployment rate is about 4% or less. This 4% equates to about 157K people. Now unemployment is at 15% almost a 4 fold increase in unemployment. However the amount paid out in Social Welfare Expenditure in 2007 was 15Billion, In 2011 it was 20 Billion

2007
Unemployment 4 % (157k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 15 Billion

2011
Unemployment 15% (440k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 20 Billion

It is clear to me that despite c. 300% increase in the amount of people unemployed, the expenditure only increased by 33%

This would that despite having c.300k more unemployed now ,it does not have a drastic (elastic) affect on Unemployment benefit expenditure. It also suggests that it is other areas, not unemployment benefits that are the huge drain on the Social Welfare Budget, and the same ones that were in existence in 2007

If 1/3 of the SW expenditure goes on paying an additional 300K people, (5 Billion) that would mean that about 7.5 billion in total is going on unemployment benefit. ie 440K people in total (including the c157k who were always unemployed...

So the remainder 12.5 billion of the budget is going on additional payments such as pensions, rent allowances, child benefit, etc .. Not unemployment benefit.

People seem to have the pre-conceived notion that people choose to be on Unemployment Benefit because they are lazy. I think this is ridiculous. There will always be people who scam and cheat the system. But in many cases it is people who are already below the poverty line who feel they have no choice but to cheat the system. Not everyone is powered by greed, in many cases it is through necessity.

I am sick of reading posts where people tar all unemployed people with the same brush. Using terms like lazy, drains on society etc. I also don't think moderators should allow.

I have seen on one thread whereby a guy was offered a "job" working for free. He refused to take it, and was berated by people with abuse for being a waster. People would seriously want to get a grip and see what's in front of them.

Schemes like Jobsbridge are extensions of what FAS and its predecessor The Anco. It has been statistically proven that anyone who jobhunt through FAS, is 17% LESS likely to find a job..

http://www.thejournal.ie/looking-for-work-dont-go-through-the-states-back-to-work-plan-report-finds-135800-May2011/
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3144

My view on Jobsbridge is that it be a much fairer system if the employer had to match the contribution of 50 euro by the state. Or go one further and bring the individual up to the minimum wage. I am sure it is humiliating for individuals to enter companies on a Jobsbridge scheme when they are working alongside other employees doing the same Job , but for twice the pay. Furthermore travel expenses etc may leave the individual financially worse off for an extended period with no guarantees . The employer is receiving free labour. A further dis-incentive for employers to advertise for positions. It would be much more rewarding for unemployed people to approach New Business Start Ups and offer their time there. The experience one would get from working at the start up stage of a business is vast and there is a real potential that a paid role could be created. It's a potential Win-Win the , whereas the only ones who Win with Jobsbridge is employer. Business people , by nature are exploitative and I have no doubt that is what will happen to these people. Of the 6840 internships on Jobsbridge schemes, 797 interns got a job at the end of it? What happened to the other 90% ? Back on the dole perhaps, and better off? Maybe .

http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/business/opportunities-in-longford-as-jobbridge-extended-1-3872944

Maybe I am a massive cynic, but I hate seeing people bitching and back biting people of being unemployed. The majority of people are good people and want to work. I am sure people unemployed are doing the best in their situation and the last thing they need is to be kicked when they are down. No ones job is that safe, so remember before you post that you could be on the receiving end one day.

Lets not forget that it is not the unemployed peoples faults that the economy went the way it did. You can blame that on the government you voted for. Maybe your bitchy comments and back biting be better focused in their direction than individuals struggling to get by.

Its a bit quick of you to say blame the government for everything after you say don't tar everyone with the same brush. Most economists will tell you that the crash was caused by building contractors, planning offices, banks and mortgage holders. So just stop with the blame the government its a simpletons arguement.

I agree with what you are saying but having been living on one parent family payments and nothing else for extended periods of time I know it is easy to get by without coning the system, we budgeted down to the last penny and got by without any hastle. Things are getting tighter mainly with the price of petrol going up but over the years we have been able to buy a new car, new windows and were trying to go on a holiday to the west in the next few weeks, so in reality the welfare payments are too much even without coning the system.

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 11:40am

Sleepy wrote: »

To be fair, I think a mobile phone has pretty much become a necessity of life in modern day Ireland: particularly for someone looking for work or with a disability that could put them in a position where they might need to get help after a fall etc... That said, it's not necessary to have an iPhone or the like or more than €20 a month credit (and only that amount because it's the minimum to qualify for free texts / keep the number active).

What drives many of us who are working mad is to see how little we're actually working for: the difference between what I take home and what I'd receive in welfare entitlements would amount to about €50 a week and I've a reasonably decent job.

The boom is over. There is no quick fix. It's tighten the belts and learn to live within our means time until we can grow our way out of this mess. It's going to take a long time and it's going to be painful for everyone.

I don't think anyone would begrudge someone access to a mobile phone.

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 11:42am

dchris wrote: »

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

I'll take this response as you have nothing to suggest my posts are IL-informed and just throwing the lazy "troll" tag.

If you're going to start a thrad on SW don't start calling everyone that suggests you're wrong a troll.

What's the point?

Take my posts and explain to me why their il-informed or retract your troll statement

daltonmd · 25-06-2012 11:48am

Sleepy wrote: »

To be fair, I think a mobile phone has pretty much become a necessity of life in modern day Ireland: particularly for someone looking for work or with a disability that could put them in a position where they might need to get help after a fall etc... That said, it's not necessary to have an iPhone or the like or more than €20 a month credit (and only that amount because it's the minimum to qualify for free texts / keep the number active).

Then the allowance should be for 20 euro pm - not the generous package that is paid now.

Sleepy wrote: »

The boom is over. There is no quick fix. It's tighten the belts and learn to live within our means time until we can grow our way out of this mess. It's going to take a long time and it's going to be painful for everyone.

It sure is - so why hasn't the SW rates reflected that fact? And the fact is that more people depending on such packages have power - why don't the SW say to the ESB and other companies - we hae x amount of people relying on the state for this help - give me your best low offer and we'll give you the contract?

Same with the phones?

GarIT · 25-06-2012 11:56am

dchris wrote: »

A Luxury Lifestyle? Come off it.. Clearly trolling

I could really tell you different, 42 inch 3D smart tv with sky+ HD and sky sports and multiroom, 3 phones in the house, fast broadband, 4 xboxes, 4 laptops a Wii and a 3ds. All paid for be social welfare and careful budgeting.

daltonmd · 25-06-2012 12:01pm

GarIT wrote: »

I could really tell you different, 42 inch 3D smart tv with sky+ HD and sky sports and multiroom, 3 phones in the house, fast broadband, 4 xboxes, 4 laptops a Wii and a 3ds. All paid for be social welfare and careful budgeting.

Says more about the system than the recipients.

dchris · 25-06-2012 12:02pm

puffishoes wrote: »

I'll take this response as you have nothing to suggest my posts are IL-informed and just throwing the lazy "troll" tag.

If you're going to start a thrad on SW don't start calling everyone that suggests you're wrong a troll.

What's the point?

Take my posts and explain to me why their il-informed or retract your troll statement

Complete was of time me trying argue with you. Someone who believes people on Social Welfare are living in luxury is a lost cause and not worth the effort.

Have a swell day

puffishoes · 25-06-2012 12:06pm

dchris wrote: »

Complete was of time me trying argue with you. Someone who believes people on Social Welfare are living in luxury is a lost cause and not worth the effort.

Have a swell day

Ok,

so you only want to hear people who agree with you and the hardship of the unemployed? :rolleyes:

why didn't you mention this in the opening post?

Gurgle · 25-06-2012 12:09pm

dchris wrote: »

You are picking up an a very small part of what I said and not what the original post was about at all.

I'm picking on nothing and nobody, just trying to add a little colour to a black and white argument.

dchris wrote: »

To re-iterate my point I am saying peoples attitude to unemployed people is a disgrace. Especially on faceless forums.

I agree, 'the unemployed' is a wide and varied group.

dchris wrote: »

Your point about people retraining etc is valid and many have retrained in IT/Science/Pharm sectors. But on the numbers that are unemployed , where or how would you suggest retraining that volume? 300k more people unemployed now than in 2007. A university like Trinity College has c. 10K undergrads. So 30 more Unis/ITs?

This problem is too big for a single fix, it has to be broken down into smaller fixes.

Many people (employed or not) aren't cognitively capable of getting themselves a professional 3rd level qualification. But many people on the dole have 3rd level qualifications in fields which are currently no use for getting jobs.

In that situation, they can:
a) Sit and wait for their chosen sector to go back to boom times (construction: approx 30 years)
b) Sit and wait for the recession to end, so they can get an unskilled / semi-skilled job that doesn't require qualifications.
c) Give up, dole for life
d) Re-train, completely change their career field.

The exact same applies to plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, plasterers. Whats to stop them becoming welders, mechanics, farmers?

My point is that the job / career you chose when you left school at 18 does not have to be the only thing you can do for the rest of your life.

Insects specialize, people adapt.

AlekSmart · 25-06-2012 12:30pm

dchris wrote: »

You see this is where the misconception lies. ........

.........People forget living in Ireland is bloody expensive.

......The problem generated back during the boom times, when no provision was made for Lone Parents in addressing the issue of massive childcare costs.....

......So it is for this reason that I would not begrudge a lone parent for example, working a shift in a local shop if the opportunity presents itself. They might be able to treat themselves to a pair of shoes...

Im afraid that whilst all of dchris's points do have a relevance the core question of "Expensive Ireland" can be answered,at least in part,by pointing to the cost of maintaining the caring,sharing society so necessary to the likes of Struggling Sam...

Struggling Sam: However, I am also grateful that we do have a caring society and a Social Welfare System that for the most part, does its job reasonably well, it just needs some tweaking.

I would also disagree with Dchris on the basic issue of every unemployed person being denigrated by posters...by far and away most of the ire I have read in such posts tends to be very specifically directed at the sizeable number of the "Proffessionally Unemployable" who have made the Social Welfare system their own playground.

I'm also concerned that Dchris may still have a somewhat poorly defined sense of priorities contributing to his upset...

Dchris:I defo agree living alone is a much greater financial burden. There is no added extras at all, plus no bill sharing etc If you're running a car I'd imagine there be very little left for you at the end of a week. Plus, if anything needed replacing or if the car needed work, it would be a massive set back. I had forgotten that they took 30euro for rent every week before the supplement kicks in- good point!.

Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

Comments