Any future for Spain?

jonniebgood1 · 11-07-2012 11:51AM #1

Spain has 24% unemployment.
Approx 50% of under 25's are unemployed.

What do they do about this?
Answer in this story-

conditions imposed by euro zone partners, widely revealed by Spanish media, will force the government to reform its financial sector in the wake of a banking crisis that is threatening to drag Madrid into a full-blown bailout.

he European Union had demanded a VAT rise along with a series of other tough measures even as it gave Spain an extra year to bring its bulging public deficit back to agreed limits.

Among the new measures announced by Rajoy:

- VAT goes up to 21% from 18%, and the reduced rate on some products such as food goes up to 10% from 8%. A special 4% rate on basic needs such as bread is untouched.

- Public administration is reformed to save €3.5 billion, including a drastic cut in the number of publically owned enterprises and a 30% cut in the number of local councillors.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0711/spain-to-announce-more-austerity-measures-business.html

Will this type of measure help Spain?

oscarBravo · 11-07-2012 12:41PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Will this type of measure help Spain?

Not picking on you, but I'm getting a little tired of that sort of question being posed in isolation, whether it's about Greece, Spain or Ireland.

The question implies that Spain (or Greece, or Ireland) had the option to flip a coin and choose between making ends meet, or continuing to borrow in order to allow a structural deficit to continue to exist.

If you are not collecting enough taxes to fund your public expenditure, you have to increase taxes, cut expenditure and/or continue to borrow the difference. When the point comes where the markets won't lend at a sustainable rate, your list of choices is narrowed by one.

The question of whether or not it will help Spain is moot. It will help Spain get its public finances on a manageable footing. If a country can't finance itself, all its other problems take a back seat. This isn't something Spain is doing in the hope that it might help; this is something Spain has no choice but to do.

jonniebgood1 · 11-07-2012 01:40PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not picking on you, but I'm getting a little tired of that sort of question being posed in isolation, whether it's about Greece, Spain or Ireland.

I would have no problem with being picked on!!

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question implies that Spain (or Greece, or Ireland) had the option to flip a coin and choose between making ends meet, or continuing to borrow in order to allow a structural deficit to continue to exist.

The standard, 'you got yourself into this problem, you get yourself out of it' answer is basically repeating the policy of the leading European nations. Thats the policy that is currently proving unsuccessful incase that implication is missed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question of whether or not it will help Spain is moot. It will help Spain get its public finances on a manageable footing. If a country can't finance itself, all its other problems take a back seat. This isn't something Spain is doing in the hope that it might help; this is something Spain has no choice but to do.

You may be getting tired of the question (as per your stated position) but your answer is pretty trying also in terms of solutions to the problem. Stating the obvious, i.e. that one must only spend what one has, is something that most if not all people would agree with, however it fails to acknowledge that sometimes even in private life people need some legroom to make good their situation. In international finance that would generally have been granted in situations where countries need to address this type of issue with currency devaluation, which they could do themselves before the Euro. Now thats changed and the controllers of this are not democratically responsible in the countries that have the problem hence they have no quangs about harsh measures there. The standard slap on extra VAT so we all dig ourselves out of the hole together does not take regard of the fact that a small (in relative terms) number of people fed the problem in the first place. Take in terms of the Spanish situation many of their problems relate to unsustainable bank loans, similar to here. If the Spanish banks loaned 2 much money they were getting it from somewhere, not from Spanish tax payers. All of which goes against the suggestion that Spain has no choice. They are following the troika roadmap with a few changes if you recall the Irish measures but my initial thoughts are that the government decisions in Spain will not share the problem equally, rather it will widen the divide between the rich and poor.

oscarBravo · 11-07-2012 01:50PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The standard, 'you got yourself into this problem, you get yourself out of it' answer is basically repeating the policy of the leading European nations. Thats the policy that is currently proving unsuccessful incase that implication is missed.

The inherent logical fallacy is that if the current policy isn't working, then a different policy automatically will. There's little point criticising a country for taking steps to balance its budget unless you can convincingly demonstrate that an alternative policy - involving not balancing the budget - will have a better outcome.

Stating the obvious, i.e. that one must only spend what one has, is something that most if not all people would agree with, however it fails to acknowledge that sometimes even in private life people need some legroom to make good their situation.

And even in private life, if you borrow yourself into a black hole, you're not going to be able to borrow your way out of it unless you can convince your creditors that you're serious about living within your means.

In international finance that would generally have been granted in situations where countries need to address this type of issue with currency devaluation, which they could do themselves before the Euro. Now thats changed and the controllers of this are not democratically responsible in the countries that have the problem hence they have no quangs about harsh measures there.

Yet again, you're implying that there's a way out of this that involves a country having the luxury of continuing to spend way beyond its means. I'm not saying there is no such way out; I'm saying that those who criticise the current approach really ought to start explaining how borrowing your way out of a debt crisis is more sustainable than austerity.

The standard slap on extra VAT so we all dig ourselves out of the hole together does not take regard of the fact that a small (in relative terms) number of people fed the problem in the first place.

Not buying that narrative, sorry. The electorates of Ireland, Spain, Greece et al voted for governments who promised high-quality public services with a narrow tax base, and we're reaping what we have sown.

Take in terms of the Spanish situation many of their problems relate to unsustainable bank loans, similar to here. If the Spanish banks loaned 2 much money they were getting it from somewhere, not from Spanish tax payers. All of which goes against the suggestion that Spain has no choice.

Great. Now all you have to do is explain how Spain can continue to fund public services that cost vastly more than they're taking in tax, without having to close that structural deficit through spending cuts and tax increases.

Permabear · 11-07-2012 03:10PM

This post has been deleted.

jonniebgood1 · 11-07-2012 03:35PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The inherent logical fallacy is that if the current policy isn't working, then a different policy automatically will. There's little point criticising a country for taking steps to balance its budget unless you can convincingly demonstrate that an alternative policy - involving not balancing the budget - will have a better outcome.

Surely the inherent logical fallacy is pursuing a policy that has never worked in the past. I don't suggest not balancing the budget as an alternative policy. What I would suggest is doing so over a longer period of time.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And even in private life, if you borrow yourself into a black hole, you're not going to be able to borrow your way out of it unless you can convince your creditors that you're serious about living within your means.

At which point the bank gets sensible and works out a way where it can realistically work out a solution with its debtor.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yet again, you're implying that there's a way out of this that involves a country having the luxury of continuing to spend way beyond its means. I'm not saying there is no such way out; I'm saying that those who criticise the current approach really ought to start explaining how borrowing your way out of a debt crisis is more sustainable than austerity.

Take examples from history and you usually have devaluing of currency. Debtors won't consider that as they stand to lose out- this is the dreaded break up of the euro. Well fine then if they won't contemplate this they should be willing to put more into saving the currency. If there was a series of countries that devalued then it would make the good produced by the richer countries unaffordable to the devalued countries. At the same time the products of the poorer countries gets more affordable and therefore also more popular. This boosts unemployment and allows them to grow. Not straightforward or painfree I know but more equitable on a pan european basis.

oscarBravo · 11-07-2012 06:28PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Surely the inherent logical fallacy is pursuing a policy that has never worked in the past.

As opposed to all the tried and tested solutions to global debt crises in the context of a monetary union? We're in uncharted waters here; I don't think there's a useful historic precedent anyone can point to and say "that worked; let's do that".

I don't suggest not balancing the budget as an alternative policy. What I would suggest is doing so over a longer period of time.

In the meantime, they continue to have to borrow to fund the deficit. The markets won't lend to them at a sustainable rate, and the lenders of last resort have imposed these conditions.

The idea that a country should be able to continue to run up a massive deficit while still borrowing at a favourable rate is all too reminiscent of the idea that a country can have a narrow tax base while still maintaining high levels of public expenditure. It's an appealing thought, but it doesn't add up.

At which point the bank gets sensible and works out a way where it can realistically work out a solution with its debtor.

Yes. That's what's happened here. The debtor may be unhappy about not being able to maintain the lifestyle to which he is accustomed, but that's not the creditor's primary concern.

Take examples from history and you usually have devaluing of currency. Debtors won't consider that as they stand to lose out- this is the dreaded break up of the euro. Well fine then if they won't contemplate this they should be willing to put more into saving the currency. If there was a series of countries that devalued then it would make the good produced by the richer countries unaffordable to the devalued countries. At the same time the products of the poorer countries gets more affordable and therefore also more popular. This boosts unemployment and allows them to grow. Not straightforward or painfree I know but more equitable on a pan european basis.

I wonder why the Germans - the ones everyone wants to foot the bill - don't see it in quite those terms?

KINGVictor · 11-07-2012 06:40PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

While I am not offering any opinion about the need for a gradual reduction of unemployment benefit in Ireland, it is important that we understand the difference between the system in Ireland and Spain.

AFAIK, in Spain, you get 3/4 of your last salary as unemployment benefit which is unlike Ireland where there is a standard unemployment benefit rate irrespective of your previous income. I would imagine that the Spanish would have a minimum rate but applicants are dealt with on a case by case basis.

jonniebgood1 · 11-07-2012 07:29PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Take examples from history and you usually have devaluing of currency. Debtors won't consider that as they stand to lose out- this is the dreaded break up of the euro. Well fine then if they won't contemplate this they should be willing to put more into saving the currency. If there was a series of countries that devalued then it would make the good produced by the richer countries unaffordable to the devalued countries. At the same time the products of the poorer countries gets more affordable and therefore also more popular. This boosts unemployment and allows them to grow. Not straightforward or painfree I know but more equitable on a pan european basis.

I wonder why the Germans - the ones everyone wants to foot the bill - don't see it in quite those terms?

Do you think they don't. I would contend that they do see it like this and that is why they are drip feeding the poorer nations in the hope that they can retain their economic strength. The alternative where devalued currency nations can't buy their goods would bring the type of problems that Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain have to Germany.

poeticseraphim · 12-07-2012 02:20PM

Spain has a banking crisis and had one before it had a deficit crisis.

It exprienced a property bubble and it's baning regulations became ridiculously lax and over relaxed.

It has unusual accounting standards that hide the volatilty of losses and earnings. Theses standards were apparantly supposed to spread earnings over the ntir business cycle. But thy misled regulators and analysts. It's caused 'Dynamic Provisioning' it violated accounting standards. It obscured capital and gave the impression of solvency as th problems mounted.

Most of their senior politicians have like twenty properties in the industry. All major political partis are heaviloy indebted to banks and there is an alliance between the Govt and banks.

The employment situation is weird.. It's a two tier system the privelged permannt workers have 'Iron clad contracts' and the secon tir are temps which get contracts renewed and they are usually young they are fired whilst the other class of workr legally has to still get raises etc.

The labour market did not crat the crisis the banking sector and property sector did but the labor market did not help. They have much much more rigid labour laws than us.

The deficit was fine in the early 2000's ..but when the property boom ended they lost a lot of tax revenue and the banking sector soaked up a lot of pubic funding. And their bond yeilds rose.

Th problem with the EU solutions and national solutions is that they do not correct the problems causing the crisis.

Their needs to b a separation between bank Govt and th property sector and a total redo of accounting standards and banking regulation.

It is one thing that annoys me with this crisis they do not tackle the actual problems in the systm that caused the figures ..they just aim to get the figures looking healthy.

But it does not tackle the issues at the ruut cause.

And what happened it ach country is different

It differs from Ireland's situation..what is appropriat for one is not necessarily going to solve a different problem in th other.

Italy's problem's are different and maybe worse even.

McDave · 14-07-2012 04:46PM

I think Spain is serious enough about its future. It sees its future very much within the EU and most probably within the EZ. After a couple of decades of pretty lax politics and economics, it's starting to tackle its problems head on. From that perspective, it very much has a future.

More generally, as a country it has a lot going for it. And a positive attitude to life. Once they get their economic basics right, and deal with vested interests and anti-competitive practices, I think Spain will slowly claw its way back to normalcy.

Of course there's the other issue of the regions. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or more regions might break away from Spain. Were the Basque Region and Catalonia to become independent, that would impoverish the other regions somwhat and would constitute a real challenge for a Castillian dominated rump.

The Corinthian · 15-07-2012 10:48AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The employment situation is weird.. It's a two tier system the privelged permannt workers have 'Iron clad contracts' and the secon tir are temps which get contracts renewed and they are usually young they are fired whilst the other class of workr legally has to still get raises etc.

This is not uncommon in continental Europe, as Italy, France and even Germany have similar employment protection that are designed to protect the ideal of 'a job for life' and can lead to situations whereby you cannot fire someone no matter how incompetent they are and to get a job, either you have to be 'recommended' and/or wait for someone to retire (some of the ridiculously low retirement ages were designed to tackle unemployment).

This is further tied into social welfare and how unemployment is dealt with.

Broadly speaking there are four models for security of occupation versus unemployment benefits, that have developed for various social and historical reasons:

The Southern Model. Typically low unemployment benefits and high employee protection. Generally considered to be the worst of all Worlds as it more often than not ends up leading to bloated public sectors. Found in countries like Spain, Greece and Italy.
The Scandinavian Model. Typically high unemployment benefits and low employee protection. People can get hired and fired easily, but there's a good safety net. Downside is it's expensive and leads to high taxes. Found in countries like Sweden and Denmark.
The Central European Model. A mix of typically medium to high unemployment benefits and high employee protection. Very expensive, leading to high taxation. Found in countries like Germany, France and Belgium.
The Anglo-Saxon Model. Typically low unemployment benefits and low employee protection. What Ireland and (especially) the UK have.

Of all of these, the Southern Model is the one most recognized as the worst and most difficult to reform, while the EU is split on whether the Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon models are best to pursue.

With regards to employee protection reform, Germany has done the most to reform this over the last decade, as have Italy and France, to a much lesser extent. Spain, AFAIK, only started to do so fairly recently. Greece has done SFA.

poeticseraphim · 16-07-2012 12:05AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is not uncommon in continental Europe, as Italy, France and even Germany have similar employment protection that are designed to protect the ideal of 'a job for life' and can lead to situations whereby you cannot fire someone no matter how incompetent they are and to get a job, either you have to be 'recommended' and/or wait for someone to retire (some of the ridiculously low retirement ages were designed to tackle unemployment).

This is further tied into social welfare and how unemployment is dealt with.

Broadly speaking there are four models for security of occupation versus unemployment benefits, that have developed for various social and historical reasons:
The Southern Model. Typically low unemployment benefits and high employee protection. Generally considered to be the worst of all Worlds as it more often than not ends up leading to bloated public sectors. Found in countries like Spain, Greece and Italy.

The Scandinavian Model. Typically high unemployment benefits and low employee protection. People can get hired and fired easily, but there's a good safety net. Downside is it's expensive and leads to high taxes. Found in countries like Sweden and Denmark.

The Central European Model. A mix of typically medium to high unemployment benefits and high employee protection. Very expensive, leading to high taxation. Found in countries like Germany, France and Belgium.

The Anglo-Saxon Model. Typically low unemployment benefits and low employee protection. What Ireland and (especially) the UK have.

Of all of these, the Southern Model is the one most recognized as the worst and most difficult to reform, while the EU is split on whether the Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon models are best to pursue.

With regards to employee protection reform, Germany has done the most to reform this over the last decade, as have Italy and France, to a much lesser extent. Spain, AFAIK, only started to do so fairly recently. Greece has done SFA.

I have family who have experienced the Danish and Swedish system. They seem to be of he opinion that over there most people on top of going to Uni after secondary school will at one point need to return later in life to train for something else as careers change so much and at a rapid pace and the career enviroment evolves quickly. People end up with mutiple degrees and are encouraged to study when they become unemployed by the Govt.

I have a few relatives in the uk and there it very much seems to be dependant on your employer and your individual contract. It is more to do with the way that business and company does i and how much they want you and value you. If you have been head hunted they may want to keep you etc. It is to do with keep valued senior people whilst leaving flexibilty to deal with
less skilled workers. I get the impression though that they have a tradition of strong trade unions in the UK and what happens oftendepends on what can be negotiated.

The upside in Sweden is that there is good social mobiliy and poplprogrss upwards through change in their job as they gain qualifications, experience and more senority. Also people are rarely 'fired'as such, i think it is more that their contract runs out etc.

But it is interesting to compare models and business cultures. The EU should do more of this and really look at differences in EU countries.

daesu · 16-07-2012 02:31AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Anglo-Saxon Model. Typically low unemployment benefits and low employee protection. What Ireland and (especially) the UK have.

Low unemployment benefits ? In Ireland ?

I've been out of the country since well before the economy took a nosedive but from accounts of people back home I know it hasn't changed that much. What is low about unemployment benefits in Ireland ? They are not low, they are ridiculously high.

Unemployment benefits in Ireland, and to a lesser extent the UK, have bred a culture of life-long dole junkies who have no intention of ever dreaming about working. Add to that people who are pretty much better off on the dole when other benefits are taken into account and I'd say we have one of the worst systems. I'm not saying there aren't genuine people on welfare so don't throw that at me.

I'm speaking as someone who had to live on the dole and who has family currently on the dole because they cannot find work. The Irish unemployment benefits system is funtamentally flawed, it doesn't need reform, it needs a complete overhaul.

poeticseraphim · 16-07-2012 04:23AM

daesu wrote: »

[/LIST]
Low unemployment benefits ? In Ireland ?

I've been out of the country since well before the economy took a nosedive but from accounts of people back home I know it hasn't changed that much. What is low about unemployment benefits in Ireland ? They are not low, they are ridiculously high.

Unemployment benefits in Ireland, and to a lesser extent the UK, have bred a culture of life-long dole junkies who have no intention of ever dreaming about working. Add to that people who are pretty much better off on the dole when other benefits are taken into account and I'd say we have one of the worst systems. I'm not saying there aren't genuine people on welfare so don't throw that at me.

I'm speaking as someone who had to live on the dole and who has family currently on the dole because they cannot find work. The Irish unemployment benefits system is funtamentally flawed, it doesn't need reform, it needs a complete overhaul.

In what way ??? Do you think it should be lower ?

I have never been on it ..so what was your experience on it like? And what in your experience needs to be changed?

People say this but are never specific.

Apart from separating out longterm unemployed and getting rid of fraud what should be done?

daesu · 16-07-2012 05:32AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

In what way ??? Do you think it should be lower ?

There should be a system to discourage long-term reliance on it like they have in other countries. For example;

Payments should continuously decrease every 6 months or so from a high level (the current payment) to a low level, perhaps half or less of what it currently is. As actual monetary payments decrease, a 'food stamp' system could provide the difference.

I should take account of people in differing circumstances; single people, families, younger vs older, etc.

It should also take into account people who have worked and paid taxes in the past. The longer you worked, the longer you stay on the high level.

I'm not talking about getting rid of welfare for anyone, including long-term beneficeries. I'm talking about trying to nudge people away from state reliance and towards providing for themselves by making welfare an uncomfortable position to be in.

I know many people who turn up their noses at certain kinds of jobs, fastfood for example, and a large factor involved is that the dole is comfortable for them.

jonniebgood1 · 16-07-2012 08:29AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

In what way ??? Do you think it should be lower ?

I have never been on it ..so what was your experience on it like? And what in your experience needs to be changed?

People say this but are never specific.

Apart from separating out longterm unemployed and getting rid of fraud what should be done?

Gradually reducing benefits for a start.

Currently a person just unemployed gets paid from their RSI payments, a person that is 20 years unemployed gets paid by others. Both people get same amount. I understand it reduces in some other european countries. I don't expect Burton has the gumption or courage to sort that out.

The Corinthian · 16-07-2012 10:15AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But it is interesting to compare models and business cultures. The EU should do more of this and really look at differences in EU countries.

They've been doing so for a long time; my previous post is actually based largely on an excellent article that the Economist did about the debate that's been taking place in the EU on this, from back in 2005.

daesu wrote: »

What is low about unemployment benefits in Ireland ? They are not low, they are ridiculously high.

You're confusing unemployment benefits with assistance; that is long term payments with the shorter term payments of fully insured employees.

In both Ireland and the UK there's very little difference between the two; in Ireland about the only difference is one is means tested and the other is not. Beyond that a person who's just lost their job after paying tax for twenty years will essentially be entitled to much the same as some scumbag who's never worked a day in their lives.

Unemployment insurance in countries like Germany, on the other hand, are a very different story; you get 60% (more, with dependents) of your previous salary for 12 months when you lose your job and are paid up, for example. Once you are unemployed beyond this, you'll fall back to a level comparable to Ireland or the UK.

I'm speaking as someone who had to live on the dole and who has family currently on the dole because they cannot find work. The Irish unemployment benefits system is funtamentally flawed, it doesn't need reform, it needs a complete overhaul.

There are various problems with the Dole in Ireland, but I honestly don't think they're principally to do with how much is paid, but with a combination of Irish culture and lack of political will.

That there is no real unemployment insurance doesn't help the culture though; you can pay tax for years, lose your job and find that you're not any better off than someone who never paid a penny of tax is unlikely to reenforce the Hobsian contract.

poeticseraphim · 16-07-2012 11:11AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

They've been doing so for a long time; my previous post is actually based largely on an excellent article that the Economist did about the debate that's been taking place in the EU on this, from back in 2005.

Interesting ...erm Linky? :P

I actually think psychogical cultural studies in the EU need to be done in general.

The Corinthian · 16-07-2012 11:23AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Interesting ...erm Linky? :P

Can't say if there's an online copy - I read it in the actual magazine; old fashioned, I know.

If memory serves, Germany, Benelux and France favoured the Scandinavian model while the UK, predictably, and Ireland preferred the Anglo-Saxon model.

I actually think psychogical cultural studies in the EU need to be done in general.

European writers have been trying to do that for centuries. I suggest you read 'The Europeans' by Luigi Barzini; a bit dated now, but still has some good insights.

jonniebgood1 · 16-07-2012 01:09PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unemployment insurance in countries like Germany, on the other hand, are a very different story; you get 60% (more, with dependents) of your previous salary for 12 months when you lose your job and are paid up, for example. Once you are unemployed beyond this, you'll fall back to a level comparable to Ireland or the UK.

What rate do you fall back to?

The Corinthian · 16-07-2012 02:33PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What rate do you fall back to?

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

jonniebgood1 · 16-07-2012 02:42PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

The German rate translates as €84 per week (with housing and medical expenses considered separately). This is €104 less than the Irish rate which also considers housing and medical expenses separately.

The Corinthian · 16-07-2012 03:05PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The German rate translates as €84 per week (with housing and medical expenses considered separately). This is €104 less than the Irish rate which also considers housing and medical expenses separately.

Firstly Rent Allowance in Ireland is a supplement; it does not cover the full rent, Sozialhilfe does. Secondly (AFAIK, although I could well be wrong), an Irish medical card won't cover a visit to a GP, the German system will. Third of all, with the exception of perhaps a few cities like Frankfurt, cost of living in Germany is a lot lower than in Ireland.

Which is besides the point, because it is the unemployment insurance that I was citing and this is considerably better than what you'll get in Ireland.

jonniebgood1 · 16-07-2012 05:50PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly (AFAIK, although I could well be wrong), an Irish medical card won't cover a visit to a GP, the German system will.

Medical card covers GP visits.

There was a piece on RTE a few weeks ago comparing Irish with several European countries welfare systems. The european systems were all lower than the Irish but it is not comparing like with like. Also comparing Germany with Ireland is false as Germany is not spending more than it has in the same manner as Ireland and say Spain to get back to OP.

The Corinthian · 16-07-2012 06:23PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Medical card covers GP visits.

I stand corrected.

There was a piece on RTE a few weeks ago comparing Irish with several European countries welfare systems. The european systems were all lower than the Irish but it is not comparing like with like.

Only if you ignore cost of living and, more importantly, unemployment insurance.

Also comparing Germany with Ireland is false as Germany is not spending more than it has in the same manner as Ireland and say Spain to get back to OP.

I was not attempting any comparison on that basis.

jonniebgood1 · 16-07-2012 06:28PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1
There was a piece on RTE a few weeks ago comparing Irish with several European countries welfare systems. The european systems were all lower than the Irish but it is not comparing like with like.

Only if you ignore cost of living and, more importantly, unemployment insurance.

Do you contend that the European systems are more beneficial to their unemployed. For example would working parents in Germany be better off on the welfare than by working as reported in the suppresed ESRI report?

The Corinthian · 16-07-2012 07:37PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you contend that the European systems are more beneficial to their unemployed. For example would working parents in Germany be better off on the welfare than by working as reported in the suppresed ESRI report?

I never contended anything of the sort; pro or against.

I put forward the broad models that are used in Europe to deal with unemployment benefits and employment protection and suggested that a large measure of Ireland's problem in this regard is due probably to a combination of culture and lack of political will. Nothing else.

jonniebgood1 · 16-07-2012 10:22PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never contended anything of the sort; pro or against.

I put forward the broad models that are used in Europe to deal with unemployment benefits and employment protection and suggested that a large measure of Ireland's problem in this regard is due probably to a combination of culture and lack of political will. Nothing else.

Fair enough. It was a question more than trying to make an argument. It seems that the rate of welfare at €188 here is high on the face of it but sometimes people make a case that other services are not provided here. My own opinion having been on it for approx 2 years was that it was easy to manage on it, i.e. I could have managed with less quite easily. I was still keen to work while on it but from a financial point of view I understand how it makes no sense for some to work.

Talking about Welfare on Vincent browne at the moment to anyone who is on now.

daesu · 16-07-2012 11:07PM

There are various problems with the Dole in Ireland, but I honestly don't think they're principally to do with how much is paid, but with a combination of Irish culture and lack of political will.

That there is no real unemployment insurance doesn't help the culture though; you can pay tax for years, lose your job and find that you're not any better off than someone who never paid a penny of tax is unlikely to reenforce the Hobsian contract.

Yes absolutely couldn't agree more regarding it being a problem with culture and political will.

In my experience people in Germany, France & Austria generally view someone on welfare very differently from Irish and people. They seem to view it very negatively, almost shamefully.

What I'd like to see is actual monetary amount drop but there been some kind of voucher system for groceries, maybe even clothes etc to take up the difference.

I want the system to try to nudge people put of the hole that welfare traps them in. They shouldn't be thinking about free money every month that they can use to go on the piss with, they should be thinking about welfare as temporary and undesirable. A way to survive, not a way to live.

poeticseraphim · 17-07-2012 12:36AM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you contend that the European systems are more beneficial to their unemployed. For example would working parents in Germany be better off on the welfare than by working as reported in the suppresed ESRI report?

That is largely because Germany's welfare state extends into the employed for instance they give good child allowance better time off for mothers and father just havinng a baby, money to support childcare. And they give public healthcare policies to all ...not just unemployed.

They offer support accross society that is why taxation is not resented as it is here ...it helps the middle classes as well.

An employed couple is better off compared to an unemployed couple in Germany they also also better off than an employed couple here due to the benefits and social services they recieve.

Any future for Spain?

Comments