nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What did we learn from the boom and bust?

realitykeeper

Did the Irish people become wiser following the demise of the Celtic tiger? For example, should we have voted for a party that was led by a shifty individual like Bertie Ahern for example? Should we - with the benefit if hindsight, have tried to keep up with the Jones`s? I would like to learn from and reflect on the self effacing truths and snippets of wisdom accumulated by others who regret the decisions they made in the years leading up to the demise of the celtic tiger.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Corinthian

What should we have learned?

Summer doesn't last forever. Economies rise and fall - sooner or later booms slow or bust and recessions pick up, it's just an inevitable question of time. So the lesson there is to put money aside for the lean times, make sure you're employable for when competition increases (e.g. qualifications) and don't make investments or take on overheads that presume stupid things like never losing your job, or getting a pay cut (let alone that your salary will increase indefinitely), or that taxes will never increase, or inflation and interest rates will remain low. Because they won't.

Bubbles are easy to spot if you want to spot them. The housing bubble was easy to spot, it was commonly referred to as such until after it burst (then suddenly we were all surprised), and once spotted you at least know that if you jump into it you're playing a game of musical chairs, where you may do well, but you may also get badly burnt too. And all bubbles eventually burst - there has never been a 'soft landing' in the history of civilization.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And the answer, in a democracy, is us. Just because things are going well there's no excuse to just blindly vote without asking questions, especially when policies (such as the abolition of stamp duty in an overheated property market) become visibly questionable.

In a democracy, we get the government we deserve, because ultimately we vote for them and it is up to us to keep an eye on them. And if we elect a bunch of drunk monkeys to govern us, then that's because we deserve drunk monkeys governing us.

Credit is a useful but dangerous financial tool. Borrowing makes sense when it allows you to save money in the long term, but it can become a vice when too readily available, encouraging people to live beyond their means and risk what they don't actually have. Indeed, following from my above comment about saving for a rainy day, it's not that people should not live within their means but, in reality, below them - after all, your means today may be better that your means tomorrow.

Be weary of herd mentality and trust your gut. If you're doing something because others are and there appears to be a bit of a bandwagon going on, then this should be sending you warning signals. If your own gut tells you that people are charging silly money for a house or a service or anything else, then there's a good chance it is silly money and thus unsustainable.

There's no such thing as a sure thing. A fundamental part of investment is risk, and risk means that you can lose as well as gain. Always. So if you forget this because someone told you it was a sure thing and you lost money, then don't blame them; blame yourself for forgetting that fundamental truth.

But what have we learned?

Some of the above has sunk in, all right. But the benefit of hindsight has been tempered by a lot of self-justification and blamestorming, whereby we're too busy finding politicians, developers and bankers to blame so as to absolve ourselves from personal responsibility.

Anyhow, such lessons are probably moot. When I was a boy, I knew a man who had worked in stock market investment in New York City in the 1920's. He told me that the biggest lesson he'd learned from the crash of 1929 was that people were living, leveraging and investing beyond their means and presuming that the good times would never end.

He's long dead now.

And that's one of the problems with such lessons, as we're unlikely to see another such boom in our generation or even lifetime, those generations that follow will be just as clueless as our own was, when faced with a simelar situation.

COYW

Twoandahalfmen wrote: »

We learned that Sinn Fein should be in power.

What more republican socialism?

Sleepy

Because the last republican socialist did such good things for the country?

Whatever about the republican angle, is there a politician in Ireland who isn't some form of socialist? I've yet to hear one in favour of less wealth redistribution, of ending the welfare state or scrapping state-funded education, health-care etc.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Because the last republican socialist did such good things for the country?

Republican, socialist, fascist, doesn't matter. It's just a party that offers the promise of radical solutions that will magically solve all our woes. Were we to elect them, we wouldn't be the first or last nation to swallow that promise faster than a $20 blow-job.

Whatever about the republican angle, is there a politician in Ireland who isn't some form of socialist? I've yet to hear one in favour of less wealth redistribution, of ending the welfare state or scrapping state-funded education, health-care etc.

We had the PD's for a while, who would have been the only party that would not have been 'socialist', but they were never to really expand their support base beyond the ABC1 segment of society. They could never sell the idea that through merit you can better yourself, as has been possible in the UK, US or even in much of continental Europe (especially the historically protestant countries).

Ireland will most likely always have a 'socialist' angle, in the sense of wealth redistribution, mainly because of our culture. We call it begrugery, but essentially it is an ingrained suspicion and aversion to those who we feel are wealthier or somehow socially our betters - and I specifically say 'we', because it has nothing to do with the attitudes of those people, but with how they make us feel.

One thing that always horrified me was that, in university, those few that came from really disadvantaged backgrounds (corpo flats, etc), were so often ostracised by their own peers for going to college. A friend, from such a background, once told me that the attitude was that he was accused of considering himself 'better' than his former friends, by them. Being accused of "swallowing a dictionary", because you're educated, is something that you won't find anywhere outside Ireland, at least in my experience.

Meritocracy is irrelevant in Ireland as it is generally presumed by us that success is always the product of dishonesty (or historically collaboration with the British). As such, wealth redistribution is simply seen as moral justice.

nice_guy80

Don't buy something you haven't seen built yourself - it could be made of cardboard type material and be built to the lowest possible standards

If it looks to good to be true, then it probably is

An old car that gets you from A to B is the same as a brand new car.
Just you don't have a huge loan to pay off.

Other countries have plenty of problems too. We're not doing too badly here.

There is plenty of money and wealth in Ireland. Unfortunately it is in the hands of too few people and the government will never try target that.

A huge section of society are prepared to just leech off the system to live. There are jobs out there, if you go looking. But the welfare benefits outweigh the working benefits.

Cash jobs are very widespread, and growing.

OldNotWIse

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What did I learn?
Many things.

Two examples:

A)
I learned that I prefer the bust to the boom.
Life has been better during the bust.

During the boom, inflation and rent increases were outstripping most people's wages. A jar of coffee cost E9. The roads were clogged with people.
If you were born any time after the early 80s, you were too late.

I don't want a boom to return. Some slow and steady growth - German style - would be nice. But no more booms.

I learned there are talkers and doers.
There are a nawful lot of unemployed people who are just plain ol' talkers.

We are 5 years into this crisis and a lot of people could be nearly finished their second degree by now, could be fully retrained and back in work, even if not in this country, they could be back to work somewhere.
But they won't help themselves.

They like the fat women in your office who start a diet every Monday morning and are eating chocolate by lunch. Jam Tomorrow.

lol, a mate of mine said to me before, "d'ye ever notice how the ones who are always talking about diets and looking longingly at your chips and saying things like "oh I couldnt possibly" and giving up bread and wine and air and eating maggot juice slim fast are actually getting biiiiiiiiger?" :P The same people who buy and eat boxes of weight watchers rubbish. Just buy a normal fuucking packet of biscuits and eat one and control yourself like everyone else. Honestly, if talking about dieting burned calories they'd all be skinny b1tches :rolleyes:

carpejugulum

We've learned that Pat Kenny is only worth €630,000 a year.:rolleyes:

...he was on €950,000.

...and that we need a broadcasting charge.

aintgotnomoney

Hindsight is a great thing. Everyone (including me) had their heads in the clouds for so long. We were on this money train and thought the journey would never end. I remember when I was buying my property and my father (survivor of the last recession) asked me what i would do if anything happened with my job etc and my response was "oh i'll just sell it". Like it was that simple. And I thought I would even make a profit. How naive were we to think this would last forever? He was right all along really but like everyone else I was determined to get on the property ladder.

I've never considered myself as being materialistic but I found that when the times were good I splashed out on things like a newer (but still a few years old) car that was costing me a fortune to run each week because of the size of the engine. I learned to get rid of what was not considered a necessity and to shop in cheaper stores and Ive made huge savings to date. 2009 was the first year in my life that I have EVER had to budget ! A bit sad really lol. But I think a lot of people will have learned the value of a euro since the recession hit. I'm grateful for what I have learned so far

goose2005

COYW wrote: »

When has it not been socialist?

The vast majority of factories, farms, and businesses are privately owned and operated, with profits made accruing to the owners. Hence, not socialist. I presume you're going off on one about high welfare rates - they aren't so high considering the cost of living and the poor quality of public services.

Interesting that even now the only things people have learned is to wait a bit longer before having three cars and a half-acre site on a house in the country. So basically just the personal finance bit and no notion that planning and thinking on a large scale might need to change. As if the only lesson learned after the famine was that potatoes were the problem.

The Corinthian

goose2005 wrote: »

The vast majority of factories, farms, and businesses are privately owned and operated, with profits made accruing to the owners. Hence, not socialist.

Not exactly true. Historically we've levied pretty high taxes on anyone who earned not much more above the average industrial wage. This led to a pretty flat pay scale where factory workers were earning less than doctors, but the gap was a fraction of what one would have found in most Western countries.

Corporation tax wasn't all that low either (and was only lowered because it was the easiest way to adjust to the demands of the EEC to abolish the export relief), so again business owners were hit twice - if they took profits as salary or kept it in the business.

Farming was perhaps the only exception, but for ideological reasons, as FF traditionally saw Ireland as an agricultural nation and wanted to "maintain as many families as practicable on the land".

Combined with a high degree of state monopoly on many industries and protectionism, the Irish economy did behave very much on a simelar level as the economies of such nations as Yugoslavia (it even encouraged cooperatives).

So if you want to look at the facts, there are many things in Ireland's economic history that certainly pointed to a socialist or quasi-socialist approach, and they certainly were not limited to social welfare.

I presume you're going off on one about high welfare rates - they aren't so high considering the cost of living and the poor quality of public services.

Realistically you should be looking not at the cost of living but at comparative wage levels. If social welfare gives an effective wage that is simelar, or even higher, than what someone would likely earn as an employee, then that is your problem - opportunity cost.

maninasia

Something like 1 in 2 individuals in Ireland are taking state handouts.
Then look at the latest Jobsbridge scheme, state sponsored employment.

And people say Ireland isn't socialist. Which political party ISN'T socialist?
They are all left of centre as far as I can see.

FTA69

maninasia wrote: »

Something like 1 in 2 individuals in Ireland are taking state handouts.
Then look at the latest Jobsbridge scheme, state sponsored employment.

And people say Ireland isn't socialist. Which political party ISN'T socialist?
They are all left of centre as far as I can see.

State sponsored employment? Public works schemes are state-sponsored employment, sucking new people into the public clerical sector in order to alleviate unemployment is a similar thing. Sticking people into entry-level jobs where they don't get paid is FAR from socialism, the only benefactor in general from Jobsbridge are employers who are now able to avail of free labour as opposed to paying wages.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Sticking people into entry-level jobs where they don't get paid is FAR from socialism

My understanding is that they do get paid; whatever unemployment assistance or benefit they're entitled to, topped off with an extra amount for participating in the programme.

This is not to say that I think that Jobsbridge is not an ill-conceived mess, but you can demonstrate that it is an ill-conceived mess without having to resort to invention.

As for state-sponsored work programmes being socialist or not; historically these have been employed by both socialist and non-socialist governments.

FTA69

My understanding is that they do get paid; whatever unemployment assistance or benefit they're entitled to, topped off with an extra amount for participating in the programme.

This is not to say that I think that Jobsbridge is not an ill-conceived mess, but you can demonstrate that it is an ill-conceived mess without having to resort to invention.

They don't get paid by their employer in return for the labour that they provide them. Instead they get their social welfare with the equivalent of €1.25 an hour thrown on top. To say this isn't comparable to state-sponsored employment isn't invention, it's just fact.

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote: »

They don't get paid by their employer in return for the labour that they provide them. Instead they get their social welfare with the equivalent of €1.25 an hour thrown on top. To say this isn't comparable to state-sponsored employment isn't invention, it's just fact.

I'd say it's far closer to opinion tbh.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

They don't get paid by their employer in return for the labour that they provide them.

Not what you said; big difference between not getting paid by the employer and not getting paid at all.

Instead they get their social welfare with the equivalent of €1.25 an hour thrown on top. To say this isn't comparable to state-sponsored employment isn't invention, it's just fact.

And irrelevant. As I pointed out work programmes have been used across the ideological spectrum over history; communist states employed them to maintain the illusion of full employment and capitalist states (especially in the nineteenth century) used them because they abhorred the idea of simply 'giving money' to people (Ireland has a good few white elephants built during the Famine that attest to this).

Use of a work programme neither proves nor disproves any 'socialist' thinking.

I repeat, however, that I am by no means defending Jobsbridge. It's a complete joke from what I can see and yet another ill conceived policy rushed in, like the Student Summer Jobs Scheme in the late nineties (which also got completely abused).

FTA69

big difference between not getting paid by the employer and not getting paid at all.

They get paid €50 by the state in return for labour given to someone else. Similarly the value of the payment given to them is a pittance which accounts for less than minimum wage for positions that are often entry-level jobs to begin with. It's more akin to a voluntary workfare position (which may become compulsory if we're not careful) than any meaningful system of public works or state-sponsored employment.

And irrelevant. As I pointed out work programmes have been used across the ideological spectrum over history; communist states employed them to maintain the illusion of full employment and capitalist states (especially in the nineteenth century) used them because they abhorred the idea of simply 'giving money' to people (Ireland has a good few white elephants built during the Famine that attest to this).

Use of a work programme neither proves nor disproves any 'socialist' thinking.

My comments were in response to someone who said the Job Bridge is a hallmark of socialism. I'm aware of the fact that public works isn't limited to any ideology, rather that Job Bridge has in effect proved to me more beneficial to businesses as opposed to ordinary people.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

They get paid €50 by the state in return for labour given to someone else. Similarly the value of the payment given to them is a pittance which accounts for less than minimum wage for positions that are often entry-level jobs to begin with. It's more akin to a voluntary workfare position (which may become compulsory if we're not careful) than any meaningful system of public works or state-sponsored employment.

Sorry, but that still remains very different to what you said originally.

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but that still remains very different to what you said originally.

I said they constitute free labour for private companies, they don't get paid in a meaningful sense for the work they do. If you want to get bogged down in semanticist bullsh*t then knock yourself out.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

I said they constitute free labour for private companies, they don't get paid in a meaningful sense for the work they do. If you want to get bogged down in semanticist bullsh*t then knock yourself out.

No, I'm getting bogged down in what you actually said, which turned out to be bullsh*t.

Idbatterim

Bear in mind we have never had a boom to bust before, as opposed to most other countries! Obviously taking so many workers out of the tax net and generating revenue from unsustainable temperamental sources was also a big mistake. As was thinking the party could go on forever and no one would have to pick up the tab...

The Corinthian

Idbatterim wrote: »

Bear in mind we have never had a boom to bust before, as opposed to most other countries!

Actually we have; late seventies we saw another boom crash (two actually), which essentially gave us a decade of recession (commonly known as the eighties).

Even more recently, and more industry focused, we had the dotcom bubble burst, which saw a deep recession for anyone employed in the IT sector between 2001 and about 2003. Many retrained and left IT altogether - ironically into property, in many cases.

This is something that I could never understand about the property bubble - we'd had bubbles and crashes in the, often not-so-distant, past. Yet few bothered to read up that past to see if it had happened before.

FTA69

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I'm getting bogged down in what you actually said, which turned out to be bullsh*t.

If you want to consider a token payment of €50 for a full-week's work as a "wage" constituting state-sponsored employment then you can; I however, don't consider a pound an hour as any sort of adequate remuneration. Piping up and saying "they do get paid!" in reference to a "wage" that would barely cover the petrol involved is engaging in semantics in my eyes.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

If you want to consider a token payment of €50 for a full-week's work as a "wage" constituting state-sponsored employment then you can; I however, don't consider a pound an hour as any sort of adequate remuneration. Piping up and saying "they do get paid!" in reference to a "wage" that would barely cover the petrol involved is engaging in semantics in my eyes.

So they do get paid, but you prefer to ignore it because you consider it derisory?

On top of which, you're now again coming out with a further falsehood - that all they receive is a "token payment of €50" - ignoring that they also retain their previous benefits.

Of course, from the mindset that those benefits are a divine right to be paid money for doing nothing, then you'd be right, but they're not. Even as a jobseeker, you are 'employed' to work full-time to seek employment; it's not free money. In JobsBridge you are largely released from this obligation for the duration of the internship - so are they still paying you simply for nothing?

For all your claims of semantics you're still desperately attempting to cover up that you came out with a clearly false claim and now creating convoluted justifications for why the money that is being paid out should somehow be ignored. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong, you exaggerated, and deal with it rather than continue to try and convince people that black is just a strange shade of white?

FTA69

So they do get paid, but you prefer to ignore it because you consider it derisory?

The reason I brought up Job Bridge was in response to someone who said it was a socialist state-employment scheme when in fact they get paid a pound an hour by the state to work for a private company (in most cases.) €50 a week doesn't constitute a wage. Even if you buy into the ridiculous notion that social welfare magically transforms into a wage because they're "interning" as a shelf-stacker for Super Valu, or a lorry-loader for Curry's; it still works out as a payment that is lower than the minimum wage.

In JobsBridge you are largely released from this obligation for the duration of the internship - so are they still paying you simply for nothing?

They're paying standard social welfare rates which you would be getting anyway, the only direct benefit you get from working a 40 hour week for someone else is €50; which is a nominal payment considering it consists of €1.25.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

The reason I brought up Job Bridge was in response to someone who said it was a socialist state-employment scheme when in fact they get paid a pound an hour by the state to work for a private company (in most cases.) €50 a week doesn't constitute a wage.

I don't care why you brought it up, only that you came out with a falsehood. Stop attempting to change the subject
€50 a week doesn't constitute a a decent wage, or remuneration, but it is remuneration, which you patently denied was supplied at all.
€50 a week is not the wage, or remuneration; their existing benefits plus €50 a week does. That you continue to ignore this is frankly dishonest.

Even if you buy into the ridiculous notion that social welfare magically transforms into a wage because they're "interning" as a shelf-stacker for Super Valu, or a lorry-loader for Curry's; it still works out as a payment that is lower than the minimum wage.

Jobseekers allowance/benefit is essentially a 'wage'. It's not free as you are obligated to look for work in return for this money. Get it into your head that it is not designed to be free money.

As has been pointed out, when on JobsBridge the jobseeker ceases to be a jobseeker and becomes an 'intern'. As they are no longer a jobseeker, they're actually no longer eligable for jobseekers benefit/allowance.

However, they retain the same rate of previous benefits, despite no longer being a jobseeker, along with the extra €50 p.w., in remuneration for this labour.

This is not to suggest that JobsBridge works well, or that the entire thing is not an ill-conceived mess. However, your attitude appears to be one whereby jobseekers benefit/allowance is some sort of free money that one should be entitled to without doing anything in return.

It's not, never has been and is only seen as such because it is so badly policed and we've developed a sense of self-entitlement to it.

So stop pretending that people on JobsBridge don't get paid at all. Or that they only get paid €50 p.w. and we should ignore even this. Or that we should ignore that they are still being paid jobseekers benefit/allowance as well, despite no longer qualifying as such. It's ridiculous.

FTA69

Jobseekers allowance/benefit is essentially a 'wage'. It's not free as you are obligated to look for work in return for this money. Get it into your head that it is not designed to be free money.

Nor is it supposed to be used to subsidise private employers who get free labour in return while the workers gets a below minimum wage contribution from the state. When you factor out the benefits they would be getting anyway for being on JSA this results in fifty bucks a week. Even if you did include the total sum of benefits it works out as less than they would get working in Burger King.

This is not to suggest that JobsBridge works well, or that the entire thing is not an ill-conceived mess. However, your attitude appears to be one whereby jobseekers benefit/allowance is some sort of free money that one should be entitled to without doing anything in return.

Eh no. I never said that at all. I said the dole is an entitlement you get while you seek work. It isn't a mechanism whereby it should act as a subsidy for Super Valu and so Fine Gael can pretend unemployment is coming down.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Nor is it supposed to be used to subsidise private employers who get free labour in return while the workers gets a below minimum wage contribution from the state.

No it shouldn't be, but it is because the whole JobsBridge programme is so ill-conceived. Either way, the participants are being remunerated, despite your claims to the contrary.

When you factor out the benefits they would be getting anyway for being on JSA this results in fifty bucks a week. Even if you did include the total sum of benefits it works out as less than they would get working in Burger King.

So what? Why are you constantly trying to change the subject? You claimed that they're not been paid, or what they're being paid should be ignored because it's too low and that's false - stop trying to change the parameters of this discussion to avoid this.

Eh no. I never said that at all. I said the dole is an entitlement you get while you seek work. It isn't a mechanism whereby it should act as a subsidy for Super Valu and so Fine Gael can pretend unemployment is coming down.

I never said you said anything; only that this appears to be your attitude twoards social welfare.

Are you going to give it up and finally admit that you exaggerated and came out with something that was simply false or are you going to continue to try to change the goalposts, claim semantics or a moral right to redefine what a payment is?

FTA69

Either way, the participants are being remunerated, despite your claims to the contrary.

Paid a pittance by the state to work to benefit a private company.

So what? Why are you constantly trying to change the subject?

I said they weren't being paid a proper wage, rather their dole and a token payment of €50 on top of it. So instead of being out there looking for a job, there are poor bastards out there slogging away for supermarket giants thinking they're going to get a permanent position.

I never said you said anything; only that this appears to be your attitude twoards social welfare.

You insinuated that I think the dole should be automatic money for nothing. That isn't my position.

Are you going to give it up and finally admit that you exaggerated and came out with something that was simply false or are you going to continue to try to change the goalposts, claim semantics or a moral right to redefine what a payment is?

The participants don't get anything bar 50 euros; the dole they would get anyway for looking for an actual job. Even in factoring the dole and the top-up, it still constitutes less than minimum wage, i.e. not a proper payment at all.

You can labour the ins and outs of that until the cows come home.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote: »

Paid a pittance by the state to work to benefit a private company.

So because you believe that we should ignore that they continue to receive full benefits and only want to count the €50 p.w. supplement and this, being a "pittance", constitutes a valid reason to come here and tell everyone that they "don't get paid" (by the employer, thus ignoring that they do still get paid), claim they are working for free.

Which is, of course, complete bullsh*t and your attempt to sell such falsehoods as fact are reprehensible.

I give up. Have fun in your reality distortion field.