170 years later and whats different?

Michael D Not Higgins · 16-02-2014 10:08AM

Geuze wrote: »

In some senses we are poorer than our parents.

In 1980 (approx) my father, aged 35 approx, on one wage, could buy a 4-bed det house on 0.25 acre. This is in a small provincial town.

That same house would now ask 250k.

Could a typical 35yo now, one-earner, with a wife + 3 kids, buy a 250k detached house????

It always comes back to property in talking about wealth in Ireland.

This is what scuppered the economy in the first place.

kippy · 16-02-2014 10:18AM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?

Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Christ, comparing how things are now to how things were before the famine, based on a simple statement?
Are you serious?
You've no appreciation for either part of history if you dont realise we are infinetly better off now in any number of ways........
Yeah, there are different challenges but those challenges for the most part dont generally involve life or death scenarios.

jank · 16-02-2014 10:18AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Never stop demanding better standards.

You will be a Capitalist yet KB.

Menas · 16-02-2014 10:32AM

Jeez OP.You would need to be pretty clueless about what life was like 170 years ago to think that we are worse off now.

No self government.
No woman's votes and limited rights.
Not a true democracy.
No'welfare state. The workhouse or death were the options.
No electricity or gas.
Heating was open fire only.
No contraception.
No cheap clothing.
Limited diet.
Poor transport infrastructure.
Low life expectancy.
More incurable diseases.
Most kids in the country were barefoot.
Pre land reform tiny rented landholdings meant most farms were substinance only.
Personal hygine was limited so everyone stank.

etc...etc.

doolox · 16-02-2014 10:39AM

I would say that my worklife is better than my parents. Both had to work very hard for anything they got and did not have any ease up in that my father was self-employed and my mother was in a temporary nursing position for 10 yrs and ran a guesthouse for the other 15 yrs of her working life. No pension no increments no unions no protections etc which was typical for 50% of the working population at the time.

The reductions of wages and increases in workloads etc that you are now seeing in the various agreements in the public service were the typical lot of many workers in the temporary, contract and much of the private sector even during the boom time. The difference now is a sustained reduction in working conditions, pay and benefits in the face of increasing costs for a lot of basics such as lodgings, energy, medical and transport. I think the only notable reduction in the last 30 yrs has been clothing, it is now possible to be decently dressed for work and other essential tasks at a lot less money than in our parents time. In fact casual clothes are now a lot more expensive that formal clothes.

What I think is happening is that parents are subsidising the working costs of their adult children and this is allowing employers to reduce wages and increase workload even in the face of increasing costs for their workers. When all the accrued capital is gone and there is no more money left to do this people will resort to personal borrowing to make up the difference then they will have to leave their jobs unless a pay rise is obtained to cover the real costs of working. Another big stressor on jobs is childcare, again many parents are doing this for free to allow adult children out to work taking care of their grandchildren. People with no parents willing or able to look after their grandchildren, or people with no access to assistance from their parents are at a severe competitive disadvantage in the workplace especially with 14% unemployment.

We are much better off in terms of access to information than our parents, we have the freedom of information law to stop secret agreements, unfair or restrictive practices etc. Back in the old times most people weren't even aware how much was earned by the rich or how to negotiate etc. At least now we have access to that information so as to make an attempt at getting out fair share.

kippy · 16-02-2014 10:41AM

doolox wrote: »

I would say that my worklife is better than my parents. Both had to work very hard for anything they got and did not have any ease up in that my father was self-employed and my mother was in a temporary nursing position for 10 yrs and ran a guesthouse for the other 15 yrs of her working life. No pension no increments no unions no protections etc which was typical for 50% of the working population at the time.

The reductions of wages and increases in workloads etc that you are now seeing in the various agreements in the public service were the typical lot of many workers in the temporary, contract and much of the private sector even during the boom time. The difference now is a sustained reduction in working conditions, pay and benefits in the face of increasing costs for a lot of basics such as lodgings, energy, medical and transport. I think the only notable reduction in the last 30 yrs has been clothing, it is now possible to be decently dressed for work and other essential tasks at a lot less money than in our parents time. In fact casual clothes are now a lot more expensive that formal clothes.

What I think is happening is that parents are subsidising the working costs of their adult children and this is allowing employers to reduce wages and increase workload even in the face of increasing costs for their workers. When all the accrued capital is gone and there is no more money left to do this people will resort to personal borrowing to make up the difference then they will have to leave their jobs unless a pay rise is obtained to cover the real costs of working. Another big stressor on jobs is childcare, again many parents are doing this for free to allow adult children out to work taking care of their grandchildren. People with no parents willing or able to look after their grandchildren, or people with no access to assistance from their parents are at a severe competitive disadvantage in the workplace especially with 14% unemployment.

We are much better off in terms of access to information than our parents, we have the freedom of information law to stop secret agreements, unfair or restrictive practices etc. Back in the old times most people weren't even aware how much was earned by the rich or how to negotiate etc. At least now we have access to that information so as to make an attempt at getting out fair share.

My dad left home at 12 to go to Scotland to pick potatoes.......
End of discussion for me.

Stojkovic · 16-02-2014 11:09AM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

No welfare state. The workhouse or death were the options.

I'd like to see this return for all those lazy, sponging, entilted to, thieving scrotes who've never worked a day in their Track Suit wearing Dutch Gold drinking Johnny Blue smokin lives.

UCDVet · 16-02-2014 12:55PM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Jeez OP.You would need to be pretty clueless about what life was like 170 years ago to think that we are worse off now.

No self government.
No woman's votes and limited rights.
Not a true democracy.
No'welfare state. The workhouse or death were the options.
No electricity or gas.
Heating was open fire only.
No contraception.
No cheap clothing.
Limited diet.
Poor transport infrastructure.
Low life expectancy.
More incurable diseases.
Most kids in the country were barefoot.
Pre land reform tiny rented landholdings meant most farms were substinance only.
Personal hygine was limited so everyone stank.

etc...etc.

I've taken the crowded 46a/145 in the summer coming home from city centre. I'm not sure we've progressed much.

Boombastic · 16-02-2014 12:55PM

TheShizz wrote: »

It was the fact your parents had to walk uphill to and from school which puzzled me.

Downhill wasn't invented until 1953

smcgiff · 16-02-2014 01:12PM

TheShizz wrote: »

It was the fact your parents had to walk uphill to and from school which puzzled me.

Well, it made as much sense as the OP.

Blowfish · 16-02-2014 01:17PM

Geuze wrote: »

In some senses we are poorer than our parents.

In 1980 (approx) my father, aged 35 approx, on one wage, could buy a 4-bed det house on 0.25 acre. This is in a small provincial town.

That same house would now ask 250k.

Could a typical 35yo now, one-earner, with a wife + 3 kids, buy a 250k detached house????

Well the average household NET income in Ireland is €2,707 (which for a married 35 year old is just under 40k p/y Gross, definitely achievable) and the repayments on a 250k mortgage (with 10% deposit) is around €1,200. That'd leave €1,500 per month for the rest which I reckon should be doable, especially living at the same quality of life as in 1980 with less spent on cars, holidays, gadgets etc.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 16-02-2014 01:29PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Downhill wasn't invented until 1953

And even then most families couldn't afford it!:D

WesternZulu · 16-02-2014 03:35PM

Honestly, some people don't realise that although things could be better living in Ireland, they're nowhere near as bad as the doom and gloom merchants would like you to believe.

The Economist ranked Ireland No.12 of best places in the world to be born in 2013 in terms of opportunities and what not (only one place behind the much lauded Finland).

http://www.economist.com/news/215664...3-lottery-life

Ahead of countries like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Japan, USA, Britain, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal etc.

This was very much not the the case 170 years ago, where many of the above countries were colonial powers.

In the mid 19th century the Duke of Welington commented:

There never was a country in which poverty existed to the extent that it exists in Ireland.

And a German visitor to the country remarked:

Now I have seen Ireland, it seems to me that the poorest among the Letts, the Estonians and the Finlanders lead a life of comparative luxury.

So to answer the OP, we are not without our problems, but in the last 170 years Ireland has in almost every way improved across all metrics in comparable terms.

For a relatively new country we've come a long way since, and all things considered we're not doing too bad at all for ourselves.

Kilgore__Trout · 16-02-2014 03:40PM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Winged, two headed monkeys, armed with pitchforks attacking anyone whose name begins with a vowel.

Stavros Murphy · 16-02-2014 03:47PM

Boombastic wrote: »

We have internet

Yeah. Keeps everyone inside, e-banging their keyboards.

It's a governments dream. Benefits are - no-one cares, they see what you think and have a record of it, the streets are clear and there's less stones and broken windows to clear up.

Writes paragraph on net, feels better, forgets.

Oh look, Football..

moxin · 16-02-2014 03:50PM

Blowfish wrote: »

Well the average household NET income in Ireland is €2,707 (which for a married 35 year old is just under 40k p/y Gross, definitely achievable) and the repayments on a 250k mortgage (with 10% deposit) is around €1,200. That'd leave €1,500 per month for the rest which I reckon should be doable, especially living at the same quality of life as in 1980 with less spent on cars, holidays, gadgets etc.

That person on 40k pa will not get a mortgage of 225k in todays climate especially with a live at home wife and 3 dependent kids. Ain't gonna happen!

Femme_Fatale · 16-02-2014 03:53PM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?

Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

Jeez, what are we? Fortune-tellers? :pac:

I know you're drawing an equivalence and not actually saying things are similar now to then, but... I don't think even an equivalence can be drawn. The two are just too far apart. Yes, 170 years of progress. It would be madness to think otherwise.

catallus · 16-02-2014 03:58PM

I suppose it is easy to get into a bad mood about the state of the economy but by any realistic measure things have changed so amazingly in the past 170 years that it almost hard to believe.

The level of technological advancement is so great, we live in a time of marvels.

relax carry on · 16-02-2014 04:40PM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

It's an observation of a political speech of the time.

Today we have daily repossessions.

Seriously, daily repossessions? Any statistics to back that up at all?

Dawnnotloaded · 16-02-2014 05:26PM

The most recent statistics that I can find are from Q3 2012 according to the Central Bank of Ireland.

"During the third quarter of 2012, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt/security on a mortgage in 466 cases. Court proceedings concluded in 119 cases during the quarter, and in 79 of these cases the Courts granted orders for possession or sale of the property.

There were 944 properties in the banks’ possession at the beginning of Q3. A total of 154 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 47 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 107 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

During the quarter 153 properties were disposed of, while one property in possession was reclassified as a BTL property. As a result, lenders were in possession of 944 PDH properties at end-September 2012."

looking_around · 16-02-2014 07:08PM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

A total of 154 properties [/I]

Doesn't say how many of those were rentals. And how many were lived in by the owner.

There were/are ALOT of rentals where people got a second mortgage to rent that house. (crazy thing for the banks to allow.... ) ..But with rents having to come down, and jobs lost, people aren't able to keep up repayments on 2 houses.

Most people so long as they keep paying a little towards their mortgage they will not be sent to court.

I know someone who only after 4 years of NOT paying a penny is dealing with court now.
I know another who has been paying 20 quid a week for the last 3/4 years. (should be paying 500/month). I'm not sure how long banks can keep this going. But people aren't being made homeless left right & centre.

The majority of homeless, sad to say, are addicts and mentally ill. (Meaning, not homeless because of monetary issues, but life management and coping.)
They're also not going to kick families out onto the street.

It just means more people are going to end up renting, and thats not a bad thing. (just hopefully laws will improve for those renting long term..)

Anyway, compare living arrangements now to 170 years ago. People have bigger houses/with less people in them, than they did back then.
People like to focus only on negatives. But Ireland as it is today, is quite good. (yes there's still some things it could do better...and yes things are more difficult than they were 10/15 years ago... but, things are much better than they were even 40 years ago.)

Menas · 16-02-2014 07:21PM

Oh yeah, 170 years ago only the local Lord had running water.....but sure the walk to the well is much better than this tap and water charges malarky.

And tenements.....lets not get in to how they were much better than the social housing we have these days.

Chazz Michael Michaels · 16-02-2014 07:25PM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

I came across this earlier, A statement by Benjamin Disraeli on the 16th of February 1844, 170 years ago today. Thought I'd share it.

“Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question.”

It got me to thinking… how we’ve progressed, given that we are now poorer in real terms than our parents were, with no actual leadership from industry or commerce (the modern aristocracy), the church are suffering the worst hits they've ever seen and our political elite are virtually unsupported and powerless against anyone except those still paying PAYE! 170 years of progress?

Considering back then, the following year they encountered the famine of 1845-49, got me to thinking what's the next four years hold for us?

How can someone say so much, while understanding so little?

pockets3d · 16-02-2014 07:27PM

My father didn't eat an orange until he was 16.
His father owned a grocery shop.

So frankly even those on SW are better off in real terms compared to the middle class 50 years ago.

Pro Hoc Vice · 16-02-2014 07:31PM

Dawnnotloaded wrote: »

The most recent statistics that I can find are from Q3 2012 according to the Central Bank of Ireland.

"During the third quarter of 2012, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt/security on a mortgage in 466 cases. Court proceedings concluded in 119 cases during the quarter, and in 79 of these cases the Courts granted orders for possession or sale of the property.

There were 944 properties in the banks’ possession at the beginning of Q3. A total of 154 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 47 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 107 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

During the quarter 153 properties were disposed of, while one property in possession was reclassified as a BTL property. As a result, lenders were in possession of 944 PDH properties at end-September 2012."

There are upwards of 1 million residential properties in the country over 700000 have mortgages http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ32013.aspx so your point is.

KyussBishop · 16-02-2014 09:39PM

Nobody really says things generally, are worse now than 170 years ago, but it would be wrong to take that and diminish what is wrong with our societies today; the statement you get from people in these threads is usually:
"Yep, we've got things good" - not (except for a few) "Yep, we've got things good - but we still need to improve 'x' and 'y', as people are being harmed due to the way society/politics/economics are run, and we need to fix that."

It comes across (even if that's not the intention) as settling for present standards; things are, generally, pretty good compared to 170 years ago, but some people are still going through quite a hard time - in ways that harm them (in many cases quite significantly) - and this can (and should) be fixed.

Femme_Fatale · 16-02-2014 10:07PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

things are, generally, pretty good compared to 170 years ago

Things are waaaaaaay better than they were 170 years ago. I know the point you're making is: just because things aren't as dreadful as they were 170 years ago, doesn't mean there aren't problems that something should be done about.
But at the same time, no need to minimise how massively better things are today.

Christy42 · 16-02-2014 10:09PM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Oh yeah, 170 years ago only the local Lord had running water.....but sure the walk to the well is much better than this tap and water charges malarky.

And tenements.....lets not get in to how they were much better than the social housing we have these days.

Those wells were also not doused in FLOURIDE killing everyone by the time they were 25. So people 170 years ago had it much better obviously.

This statement may be less than 100% serious.

whupdedo · 16-02-2014 10:12PM

Boombastic wrote: »

My parents walked 12 miles to school, barefoot and up hill both ways. They also had to drink out of jamjars borrowed from the neighbours.

Uphill both ways,How did they manage that???

looking_around · 17-02-2014 03:39AM

whupdedo wrote: »

Uphill both ways,How did they manage that???

:rolleyes:

TheShizz wrote: »

It was the fact your parents had to walk uphill to and from school which puzzled me.

170 years later and whats different?

Comments