Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

1101113151628

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In the private sector, certainly. In the public sector, not so much. That's not a piece of PS-bashing - the salient point is that it could be done in 9 months, but that assumes a lot of efficiencies that aren't there (such as the ability to hire expertise, non-restrictive licensing, fewer privacy concerns, greater fault tolerance and flexible working practices), a relatively narrow spread of both stakeholder engagement and project responsibility, neither of which are likely to be the case in the public sector, and a more agile approach compared to the 'document everything and only do what the documents say' approach of the PS.

    I recall the example of a meeting which the consultants assumed was to determine a common vocabulary for two systems, but which the PS clients approached as an exploratory meeting to determine who the relevant stakeholders were in order to set up a working group to report on options for developing a common vocabulary.

    In my experience with the public sector, the possibilities of agile IT development bow to the realities of highly inclusive working practices.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Having worked in change management in both private and public I've experienced first-hand some of the issues that could well face this kind of project. The main one being the fact that structured project management was (and often still is) missing. The prevalence of the dreaded "work-arounds" or manual processes where automated ones could exist is another huge issue. I'd bet both systems have been chugging along independently for years with multiple work-arounds being put in place that are akin to holding the thing together with sticky tape. Trying to integrate 2 system like that isn't exactly pretty.

    As for the meeting point above, I've never seen so many meetings with such little tangible outcome as I have in the public sector. At times when resources should be actually getting something done, instead they arrange a meeting to talk about it, make no decisions and arrange another meeting to try and wrap it up. And then decisions are made in meetings and not fully documented leading to huge confusion 6 months down the line.

    While in the private sector you may estimate 9-12 months for a job like this depending on the complexity, the same rules just don't apply to the public sector. In some instances they'll get it done in 3 months and make a balls of it. In others they'll take years and might just get there in the end.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Or not get there at all e.g. PPARS and e-voting


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Interesting discussion on matt cooper regarding young unemployed

    all described it as financially very difficult and tough


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,207 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    And? I found the first few years of employed life to be very tough financially speaking. What are they comparing to?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Stark wrote: »
    And? I found the first few years of employed life to be very tough financially speaking. What are they comparing to?

    There is no "and" - the point is that welfare entitlements, for these people are not excessive.

    They were not explicitly comparing it to anything as such. They were just saying its factually difficult to manage.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In the private sector, certainly. In the public sector, not so much. That's not a piece of PS-bashing - the salient point is that it could be done in 9 months, but that assumes a lot of efficiencies that aren't there (such as the ability to hire expertise, non-restrictive licensing, fewer privacy concerns, greater fault tolerance and flexible working practices), a relatively narrow spread of both stakeholder engagement and project responsibility, neither of which are likely to be the case in the public sector, and a more agile approach compared to the 'document everything and only do what the documents say' approach of the PS.

    I recall the example of a meeting which the consultants assumed was to determine a common vocabulary for two systems, but which the PS clients approached as an exploratory meeting to determine who the relevant stakeholders were in order to set up a working group to report on options for developing a common vocabulary.

    In my experience with the public sector, the possibilities of agile IT development bow to the realities of highly inclusive working practices.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    odear wrote: »
    Good points and I agree fully.
    Fact remains that this could be done in a fraction of the time.

    Inhibting factor is the Public Sector work practices

    As regards lack of flexible work practices in the public service, section 1.10 of the Croke Park Agreement (CPA) contains a lot of aspirational “verbage” about fixing this problem. It’s almost as if it such fundamental change could be implemented effortlessly, without incurring additional costs associated with bringing in the necessary external expertise (in business transformation, etc.). Moreover, AFAIK, there no provision in the budget for such external expertise costs or any evidence of such change actually happening across all government departments.

    Result: benefits are delivered to staff in terms of preserved pay and conditions plus generous payoffs for early retirement. But benefits to the state in terms of transformed “fit for purpose” work practices are undeliverable, meaningless words on paper (or take years and more money to deliver).

    S 1.10 of the CPA: “In order to maximise productivity gains, both from how work is organised and from streamlining procedures, processes and systems to allow for shared services and e-government developments, a substantial commitment to the redesign of work processes will be necessary. The Parties will co-operate with the drive to reduce costs through organisational rationalisation and restructuring and by service delivery organised in different ways or delivered by different bodies. The aim is to minimise duplication of effort, reuse data within the public system and reduce information demands on the citizens and business. The introduction of new or improved technology, service provision online and electronic funds transfer will be regarded as the norm. Processes and service delivery will be improved by better collation and re-use of data and personal information and by centralising transaction and certain sectoral data handling support functions. Inter-operability and standardisation of specifications and systems (hardware and software) will be mandatory both to achieve cost savings and facilitate integrated approaches”.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    They were not explicitly comparing it to anything as such. They were just saying its factually difficult to manage.
    If no frame of reference was provided, it can't really be considered "factual", can it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    If no frame of reference was provided, it can't really be considered "factual", can it?

    Sue it can. They were saying its tough to survive financially on the dole (as in, thats their fact). So thats relevant as the title of the thread is IMF say social welfare is too high.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Sue it can. They were saying its tough to survive financially on the dole (as in, thats their fact).
    No, that’s their opinion. A fact is independently verifiable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 Napoleon 101


    I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Sue it can. They were saying its tough to survive financially on the dole (as in, thats their fact).
    No, that’s their opinion. A fact is independently verifiable.

    I dont agree with this. They are saying that they found it difficult. Thats a fact in itself.

    Unless you just plain dont believe them, but if you take them at their word then this was difficult for them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.

    Agree with this.

    There is a huge democratic deficit in Europe. Basically a entity (the IMF) who are in no way accountable to the Irish people are making key decisions (or at least heaping the pressure on) which affect us.

    Its grossly offensive to our right to self determination.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    I dont agree with this. They are saying that they found it difficult. Thats a fact in itself.
    That they said it was difficult is a fact, yes. That it actually is difficult to survive on the dole is highly debatable, but unfortunately you seem unwilling to debate the issue.

    It is easily demonstrable that the basic rate of jobseekers allowance will comfortably cover the essentials. If a particular individual is finding it difficult to survive on this provision, then they need to assess their spending habits. If they are in genuine need of further assistance, then they can apply for additional benefits.
    Unless you just plain dont believe them, but if you take them at their word then this was difficult for them.
    I’m not in the habit of taking anyone “at their word”. If someone tells me they found something difficult, my response is going to be “relative to what?”


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Basically a entity (the IMF) who are in no way accountable to the Irish people are making key decisions (or at least heaping the pressure on) which affect us.
    No they’re not? The IMF are loaning money to Ireland, with certain conditions regarding deficit reduction attached. However, how Ireland goes about reducing the general government deficit is entirely up to Ireland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That they said it was difficult is a fact, yes. That it actually is difficult to survive on the dole is highly debatable, but unfortunately you seem unwilling to debate the issue.

    It is easily demonstrable that the basic rate of jobseekers allowance will comfortably cover the essentials. If a particular individual is finding it difficult to survive on this provision, then they need to assess their spending habits. If they are in genuine need of further assistance, then they can apply for additional benefits.
    I’m not in the habit of taking anyone “at their word”. If someone tells me they found something difficult, my response is going to be “relative to what?”

    I fully agree that it is debatable in that anyone can have an opinion on it. The only reason I used the word “fact” was that just because the caller didn’t say “it was difficult relative to [SOMETHING ELSE]” did not mean that they did not find it difficult. Which I think is fair enough and I may be wrong here, but I think you would give me that much.
    Anyway we may be getting way too detailed here for what is a basic point.
    There are many people out there who find it difficult on the dole.
    Regarding it being easily demonstrable that people can live comfortably on the dole, I don’t know if people have posted on here a weekly budget that would show how easy it is to get by on the necessities alone. The problem with these type of assertions that “it easily covers the essentials” is that in the real world there is more to life than just buying milk and bread. People have to live too. Repairs may need to be done. Machines may break down etc. And in fact, people may in fact disagree on what the necessities are.
    Regarding saying simply that these people need to reevaluate their spending habits. There are probably two different contexts in which you could take that statement: 1: they are finding it difficult so it would be advisable to review spending as would any person or business. However you may have meant it in the context of 2: Because you believe it is easily demonstrable that the dole should cover the essentials then these people must be doing something wrong.
    And if it is the latter, I would think thats a little unfair and indeed would probably be evidence that your thesis of it "easily covering the essentials" is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No they’re not? The IMF are loaning money to Ireland, with certain conditions regarding deficit reduction attached. However, how Ireland goes about reducing the general government deficit is entirely up to Ireland.

    I would certainly accept that that is how it is on the face of it.

    But when one looks a little closer one sees evidence of it interfering with the democratic process (and leaving the methodology of reducing the deficit to the govt):

    1: They come over quarterly and only release money when they are happy with what has been done. These meetings are behind closed doors and as far as I know there are no minutes which could be obtained say under FOIA so Im not sure exactly what criteria they are using? How do we know there is not unwritten pressure on Noonan to reduce welfare in the next few months or no more money?

    2: A draft of our budget (from last year/year before) was found floating around the German parliament.

    3: Making comments like "welfare is too high" is certainly pressurising the government

    4: Other European entities have made certain "policy decisions" on our behalf - ie the ECB saying that no European bank should fail.

    Im conscious that this is going a little off topic so apologies and let me make it more relevant to the op:

    Making comments like "welfare is too high" is un democratic and taken together with others factors means it becomes offensive to certain notions of modern democracy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Aka Ishur


    Making comments like "welfare is too high" is un democratic and taken together with others factors means it becomes offensive to certain notions of modern democracy.

    I think telling people they can't say certain things is pretty offensive to my notion of modern democracy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.
    Tell politicians do not borrow from IMF


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Aka Ishur wrote: »
    Making comments like "welfare is too high" is un democratic and taken together with others factors means it becomes offensive to certain notions of modern democracy.

    I think telling people they can't say certain things is pretty offensive to my notion of modern democracy.

    I absolutely agree


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    People have to live too. Repairs may need to be done. Machines may break down etc.
    That’s what savings are for.
    However you may have meant it in the context of 2: Because you believe it is easily demonstrable that the dole should cover the essentials then these people must be doing something wrong.
    And if it is the latter, I would think thats a little unfair and indeed would probably be evidence that your thesis of it "easily covering the essentials" is wrong.
    There you go again conflating opinion with fact. If a single person with no dependents cannot manage on €188 per week, then I would say that they are most definitely doing something wrong. Whether they believe it to be difficult or otherwise is irrelevant. The simple fact is that welfare rates should be based on the current cost of living. Based on current prices, €100 – 110 per week should cover rent and bills for one person (and that’s being generous), leaving €80 – 90 for food and whatever else. If someone cannot feed themselves on that amount then they either have a serious eating disorder and should seek medical advice, they’re wasting colossal amounts of food, or else they’re eating out a little too much.

    But, all this is missing the point somewhat – there are forms of welfare other then the dole. Even if the rate of jobseekers assistance is left as is, there are still plenty of savings that could be made elsewhere.
    But when one looks a little closer one sees evidence of it interfering with the democratic process (and leaving the methodology of reducing the deficit to the govt):.
    The EU/IMF made a conditional offer of assistance. The Irish government accepted. They were under absolutely no obligation to do so. Simple as.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.

    Nobody votes for the IMF - they vote for people who run the country in such a way that it can no longer borrow from the markets and must tap official lenders to fund its deficit. That money comes with conditions, which the government is free to reject - along with the money. That's what freedom is - willingness to take the consequences.

    What gives the IMF the right to comment on our social welfare rates is exactly what gives the markets the right to pass judgement on us - we want to borrow their money, and they don't have to lend it to us.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    There is no "and" - the point is that welfare entitlements, for these people are not excessive.

    They were not explicitly comparing it to anything as such. They were just saying its factually difficult to manage.

    A lot of employed people find it difficult to manage, yet you seem to want them to take a higher cut to spare those on welfare.

    I'll readily admit I've been lucky to have kept my job and have been lucky enough to have been on enough before the recession to be able to take the various hits I've had to take (pay cuts, increased taxes etc) and still be reasonably comfortable. I currently live off approx €900 to cover the day-to-day costs like food, bills etc (doesn't include mortgage and luxuries such as Sky). And I consider myself lucky to have that. With it I get to afford more than just the basics and don't really find myself counting every last cent. I've been able to (as a big rugby fan) follow Leinster to France twice and England once as well as the Irish team to England once in the season just gone. I'm a season ticket holder with Leinster and go to every home game too, and manage a couple of pints at each. Plus I'm not long back from a holiday to Lanzarote. The point being that on that €900 or so I've been able to afford a good amount of luxuries.

    Someone on Social Welfare gets €752 a month. Based on my experience that is more than enough to cover the basics. It may limit people to a certain degree if they want to afford the few pints here and there, but it more than covers the basics. And that's all it's there for. In my experience it can be reduced without forcing people to starve. Issues may exist with other Social Welfare payments (Matt Cooper had people on yesterday re disability allowance and there seems to be serious issues there) but in terms of Job Seekers it's an amount that can be reduced.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That’s what savings are for.

    Certainly. However:
    (i) Savings usually come from income (so if the income in inadequate, so too will the savings),
    (ii) By definition vulnerable people may not have as much savings as more financially secure people,
    (iii) Also long term unemployed people may not have savings.

    djpbarry wrote: »
    There you go again conflating opinion with fact. If a single person with no dependents cannot manage on €188 per week, then I would say that they are most definitely doing something wrong. Whether they believe it to be difficult or otherwise is irrelevant. The simple fact is that welfare rates should be based on the current cost of living. Based on current prices, €100 – 110 per week should cover rent and bills for one person (and that’s being generous), leaving €80 – 90 for food and whatever else. If someone cannot feed themselves on that amount then they either have a serious eating disorder and should seek medical advice, they’re wasting colossal amounts of food, or else they’re eating out a little too much.

    Im not sure what conflation you are referring to. Lets look at a simplified chronology of the argument:

    You: Welfare is too high
    Me: Well I heard people who are in receipt of welfare say it is difficult to manage
    You: But thats just their opinion, its not a fact because I have this thesis that welfare well covers the basics
    Me: Im not sure I agree with that. I mean on one hand I have you who doesnt earn welfare (making an assumption), but on the other hand I have people on national radio explaining that it is tough.

    So I would say the assertion that is closer to fact is the one which is NOT made by you. But again this is a very formal argument of fact versus opinion. I am willing to accept them both as arguments.

    But what I do have issue with is your methodology. You have a theory that it covers the basics, so if people struggle with it then they are doing something wrong (like over eating or whatever) but the normal methodology for evaluation theories is to see IF the evidence supports the theory. And generally if the evidence doesnt support the theory, then the theroy is rejected.

    So maybe, whatever model you have used has to re evaluated in light of this evidence.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    But, all this is missing the point somewhat – there are forms of welfare other then the dole. Even if the rate of jobseekers assistance is left as is, there are still plenty of savings that could be made elsewhere.

    Thats a fair enough point but maybe we'll stay clear of that argument as it will end up being circular again as I will pull the morality card which we wont agree on
    djpbarry wrote: »
    The EU/IMF made a conditional offer of assistance. The Irish government accepted. They were under absolutely no obligation to do so. Simple as.

    Thats an oversimplification. This implies it was arms-length/bilateral transaction. But it wasnt. We were brought to our knees through following ECB policy and had to be rescused.

    Anyway it doesnt really negate any of my points where it appears on the face of it to be prim and proper but in reality it is something more offensive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    We were brought to our knees through following ECB policy and had to be rescused.

    While this is somewhat off-topic, I have to point out that this is very much a pub-talk claim, which has no evidence behind it. On the contrary, all the evidence points to us having brought ourselves to disaster through our own actions between 1997 and 2007, and then capped it off with a unilateral gamble that went wrong.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    molloyjh wrote: »
    A lot of employed people find it difficult to manage, yet you seem to want them to take a higher cut to spare those on welfare.

    Well yes and no to be honest. There are other places I would like to see the money come from first, but assuming thats not enough, i have to be really honest here and say that "yes we should tackle every other class in society first before we go to the unemployed."

    ONE of the rationales for this is, GENERALLY speaking, cutting higher earning classes causes the least social misery than cutting welfare. As you said yourself you arent on the breadline by any measure. And I am not saying you should be punished for doing well but if cuts need to be made then lets make the least misery-causing adjustments.

    But certainly before we come to take a cut from you, we should cut the super rich, then the rich, then the middle class.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Thats an oversimplification. This implies it was arms-length/bilateral transaction. But it wasnt. We were brought to our knees through following ECB policy and had to be rescused.

    The ECB did not fuel property prices or demand in this country.

    The ECB didn't lend money irresponsibly in this country.

    The ECB didn't fail to properly regulate banking in this country.

    The ECB didn't spend our money at a greater rate than we were earning it.

    And the ECB most certainly didn't continually elect the same Government that oversaw the whole show - despite there being serious question marks around them prior to their last successful election.

    This desperate need for people to shift the blame and/or the responsibility of this whole mess on to anyone else or everyone else but themselves is a sad reflection on where our society is today. It's teenage in it's maturity and it's certainly not helping to resolve anything. Quite the opposite in fact.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    Well I'm from Liverpool, and when I was first told the rates of social welfare payments here, I was shocked. IMF states the obvious.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    While this is somewhat off-topic, I have to point out that this is very much a pub-talk claim, which has no evidence behind it. On the contrary, all the evidence points to us having brought ourselves to disaster through our own actions between 1997 and 2007, and then capped it off with a unilateral gamble that went wrong.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Sorry I will accept this is off topic a little - I hope you can see from the earlier posts where I was going with this - that overallthe whole IMF thing (sorry if that sounds a little like Fr Ted) is a little unpalatable.

    Again my basis for this statement is that we were forced to bail out the Irish banks by the ECB. And my source for that is statements by Coveney and indeed Dan Boyles book.

    Certainly you can make the argument that WHAT CAUSED the need for the bailout was the actions between 1997 onwards in terms of reckless lending. I would say the following to that argument:

    1: Yes that is true, but again, that is primarily the fault of the banks and the ECB. The banks are responsible for managing their risks and any bankruptcy of them

    2: The actual guarantee and bailout is really what pushed us out of the market, nothwithstanding that yes it was caused by 1 above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Well yes and no to be honest. There are other places I would like to see the money come from first, but assuming thats not enough, i have to be really honest here and say that "yes we should tackle every other class in society first before we go to the unemployed."

    ONE of the rationales for this is, GENERALLY speaking, cutting higher earning classes causes the least social misery than cutting welfare. As you said yourself you arent on the breadline by any measure. And I am not saying you should be punished for doing well but if cuts need to be made then lets make the least misery-causing adjustments.

    But certainly before we come to take a cut from you, we should cut the super rich, then the rich, then the middle class.

    Or we could not scape-goat any particular groups and look at what is rational and reasonable. I was okay to take the cuts I've taken (increased taxes, USC, Pensions levy and pay cut). But now I know that Social Welfare payment can be cut, and our SW bill drastically reduced, I'm not willing to take on more cuts to continue to simultaneously fund and protect people who are getting more than they absolutely need. I've taken cuts, and will need to again, but to screw me for everything you can before looking to someone else is completely unfair on me. And it victimises me as a worker.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The ECB did not fuel property prices or demand in this country.

    The ECB didn't lend money irresponsibly in this country.

    The ECB didn't fail to properly regulate banking in this country.

    The ECB didn't spend our money at a greater rate than we were earning it.

    And the ECB most certainly didn't continually elect the same Government that oversaw the whole show - despite there being serious question marks around them prior to their last successful election.

    Yes sir. I agree. But what the ECB DID pursue policies of exceptionally low cost credit and they fulled the money supply.

    But what was really fatal to us was the insistence by the ECB that we bail out the banks.
    molloyjh wrote: »
    This desperate need for people to shift the blame and/or the responsibility of this whole mess on to anyone else or everyone else but themselves is a sad reflection on where our society is today. It's teenage in it's maturity and it's certainly not helping to resolve anything. Quite the opposite in fact.

    I absolutely agree with this. I will declare upfront that I place a huge amount of blame at the EU level (not that I needed to declare that says you). But do you not see that we are now trying to blame social welfare recipients and as I have said in another thread they are almost the most blame-less section of society in that they never took out mortgages and are so distant to the issues which occurred. So dont we owe them some stability Sir?


Advertisement