I am convinced that Ireland is in Serious trouble

chrysagon · 26-02-2015 02:49PM

Bad news filtering through about Cadburys, seemly going to move their operation to Poland!

Idbatterim · 26-02-2015 02:58PM

So what would make everyone happy.

A job for everyone who needs one even if it is min wage.

possibly increase the minimum wage and reduce employers PRSI on low income workers, paid for by not increasing welfare rates. We need more jobs and with the cost of living in Dublin particularly so high, I think it is time the minimum wage was reviewed, maybe put an extra 40-50c an hour onto it...

We need more jobs and we need the lower level jobs to compensate fairly and make working more worthwhile...

Wompa1 · 26-02-2015 03:39PM

Ravenid wrote: »

I cant wait until FG are out and we get back our 100% employment rate Ireland has always had.

We are a laughing stock world wide where every other country has 100% employment rate and no one else has any problems with not having enough jobs.

Cant you blind sheep see its only this government that has ever had a unemployment rate in this country (It doesnt matter if it is decreasing thats a moot point.)

You mean when 100% of the people who wanted to work, did work?

Icepick · 26-02-2015 03:59PM

Ravenid wrote: »

I cant wait until FG are out and we get back our 100% employment rate Ireland has always had.

We are a laughing stock world wide where every other country has 100% employment rate and no one else has any problems with not having enough jobs.

Cant you blind sheep see its only this government that has ever had a unemployment rate in this country (It doesnt matter if it is decreasing thats a moot point.)

Bad sarcastic joke?

Because Ireland is historically a high-unemployment country.

fiachr_a · 26-02-2015 04:26PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Maybe it might sink in now...

Except in software but thanks to our feminised dumbed-down education system the unemployed aren't bright enough to work in that area.

super_furry · 26-02-2015 08:00PM

fiachr_a wrote: »

Except in software but thanks to our feminised dumbed-down education system the unemployed aren't bright enough to work in that area.

Ahhh so it's the wimmins fault? Good to know.

fiachr_a · 26-02-2015 08:11PM

Jawgap wrote: »

......so like the 1980s then?

All we need to do now is win the Eurovision and it really will seem like we've slipped back in time.

That was the 1990s.

KomradeBishop · 26-02-2015 08:38PM

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Number of jobs is growing
Number of unemployed is falling

Not enough jobs YET but movement is in the right direction.

And, as repeated again for the 10th+ time probably: When QE fails, we return to deflation and then the figures go back in the wrong direction...

andrew · 26-02-2015 08:55PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And, as repeated again for the 10th+ time probably: When QE fails, we return to deflation and then the figures go back in the wrong direction...

Look, you're asserting that QE WILL fail with far too much certainty.

a) There's no hard point at which QE either 'fails' or 'succeeds.'

b) QE can be kept going until it 'succeeds', if 'succeeds' means inflation increases

c) QE works via more than just the lending channel - think inflation expectations and the exchange rate and the wealth effect

d) Ireland is heavily, but not entirely reliant, on Eurozone growth. E.g. the USA, and the wealth effect from higher house prices.

e) Eurozone deflation doesn't necessarily mean deflation in Ireland

f) A Eurozone deflation may trigger fiscal intervention, finally

g) Consensus forecasts for Ireland predict low (but not negative) inflation but not no growth. What do you know that the people making these forecasts don't?

KingBrian2 · 26-02-2015 09:09PM

A lot of the real problems in the Irish economy is not about the Irish economy at all. Stories could be told from around the country of job creation, that's not really what is angering the population. Ireland has not been kind to its workforce. Employees work long hard hours, they are not appreciated by the establishment and most of all do not want to be patronised. They feel this is all for nothing. Employees are vital to the running of the state. They have to be treated rightly and paid accordingly.

Tony EH · 26-02-2015 09:13PM

So, loads of jobbridge shite for everyone!

Yaaaaaay...

What a great solution.

jank · 26-02-2015 09:14PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There are not enough jobs - 24 people per job vacancy; ignoring this and just saying "there are jobs" is an obvious attempt to crap out some positive spin.

Not this crap again. Anyway, those figures are out of date by years...

Desolation Of Smug · 26-02-2015 09:16PM

Anyone want one of the last few Pink Snacks? Another triumph on the ordinary jobs front, but don't fear - they can all redeploy to Apples new venture...

jank · 26-02-2015 09:18PM

jimgoose wrote: »

There is no comparison between the cost of living here and that in places like Poland and Slovakia. There may be a certain amount of work going on - I personally am seeing a lot of young and not so youngfellas without work and without a sniff of a hope of work, but be that as it may - but there is an awful lot of running-to-stand-still going on as well. In the case of someone earning €380 for a 40-hour week, assuming a five-day week that presents a "gross profit", if you will, of €38 per-working day over the dole. Deduct from that the cost of working - yes, it costs money to work, think of it as the Cost of Goods Sold in accounting terms - which comprises the costs associated with being up early, making yourself clean and presentable, transporting yourself to and from where you need to be, feeding yourself, and probably one or two other bits-and-pieces that elude me at the moment. Your €38 is starting to look a bit skinny. If you live in one of the cities, you might as well stay in bed! :pac:

I thought the dole was 180 a week for a young person, or is it even less? Sounds like a good argument that the dole is too high, especially when you look up North and see what the dole is there.

jank · 26-02-2015 09:26PM

Tony EH wrote: »

There's a difference between honest anecdotal evidence and easily demonstrable lies.

Honest anecdotal evidence. What like the stuff you hear on liveline or down the pub?

AlekSmart · 26-02-2015 09:55PM

jank wrote: »

You know you can go to the dole office and get 5 free prams, a free car and a cleaner for your house. I heard it in the pub, honest!

All pure true...except for the "Dole Office" bit,however the DSP does maintain an "Exceptional Needs Scheme" which in 2014 had a total budget of €30.1 Million.
107,000 individual Payments were made to 57,800 claimants in 2014.
Buggies/Prams accounted for €378,000 in 2014,whilst Cots took €412,700
(It is noteworthy that amounts paid under these headings do not normally require reciepts once the Case Officer is satisfied as to the veracity of the claim)

Now,I'm off down the pub for some tonic-water.....:o

Tony EH · 26-02-2015 09:59PM

jank wrote: »

What like the stuff you hear on liveline or down the pub?

Well, that explains where you're getting your crap from.

:pac:

dxhound2005 · 26-02-2015 10:05PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're just ignorant of our economic history, in claiming that we've never had <=5% unemployment outside of the last two decades - go back and look at the long-term historical stats - and ignorant of economics in general, by assuming our astronomically high unemployment rates are 'normal'.

No economist thinks that you can determine what unemployment rate is 'normal', just by picking an average of a countries unemployment rate over almost half a century - that's one of the dumbest arguments I've heard in any economic discussion, and it's obvious you're being facetious for the sake of spin.

Since 1981 the only years in which unemployment was below 10% were 1998 to 2008. It went as low as 3.7% in 2001. This period has skewed the average lower. To me, not taking account of the long term average is economic illiteracy. In the years 1981 to 1997 and from 2009 to the present the rate was over 10%.

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/unemployment_rate.html

You will note that the time of low unemployment was the Bertienomics period. So if your economist friends are saying that the natural order for employment is what pertained in the Bertie years then I am happy to be out of kilter with them.

They will have to explain how this economy is going to have 95% employment when it was only ever achieved in the last 35 years by creating an artificial property and credit bubble. I asked you before what is the plan.

And to repeat from earlier, 4% unemployment is full employment so the real rate at present is about 6%. Because it was still 4% when hundreds of thousands were arriving here from abroad to work.

KomradeBishop · 26-02-2015 11:06PM

andrew wrote: »

Look, you're asserting that QE WILL fail with far too much certainty.

a) There's no hard point at which QE either 'fails' or 'succeeds.'

b) QE can be kept going until it 'succeeds', if 'succeeds' means inflation increases

c) QE works via more than just the lending channel - think inflation expectations and the exchange rate and the wealth effect

d) Ireland is heavily, but not entirely reliant, on Eurozone growth. E.g. the USA, and the wealth effect from higher house prices.

e) Eurozone deflation doesn't necessarily mean deflation in Ireland

f) A Eurozone deflation may trigger fiscal intervention, finally

g) Consensus forecasts for Ireland predict low (but not negative) inflation but not no growth. What do you know that the people making these forecasts don't?

The only point there that is likely to ward off deflation EU-wide, is 'f' - that's pretty much the only option left for Europe.

None of the other points are all that convincing, seeing as a success (avoiding deflation) for QE, will be very hard to achieve as subsequent efforts at QE have diminishing returns (which is how the previous US based QE programs went down); more QE doesn't mean you're going to successfully avoid deflation in the long term. Deflation, once set in, also begets more deflation.

If we don't see 'f' undertaken, then any deflation in Europe that is allowed to linger over time, is going to pull Ireland down as well - since Europe are one of our main export partners, and would be experiencing gradually worsened deflation and worsened growth.

I really hope that 'f' happens (which is effectively what Yanis Varoufakis' 'Modest Proposal' does) - as that will avoid every single negative in my claims - but I'm not optimistic that the political dysfunction within Europe, would allow it.

KomradeBishop · 26-02-2015 11:11PM

jank wrote: »

Not this crap again. Anyway, those figures are out of date by years...

You're directly lying about those figures, as you are perfectly aware they are not years old, having responded to them in debate before.

You're taking on your usual habits, of just making crap up in debates now, to try and smear.

jank · 26-02-2015 11:15PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're directly lying about those figures, as you are perfectly aware they are not years old, having responded to them in debate before.

You're taking on your usual habits, of just making crap up in debates now, to try and smear.

OK, lets play a game. How old are those figures and where do they come from....

KomradeBishop · 26-02-2015 11:21PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Since 1981 the only years in which unemployment was below 10% were 1998 to 2008. It went as low as 3.7% in 2001. This period has skewed the average lower. To me, not taking account of the long term average is economic illiteracy. In the years 1981 to 1997 and from 2009 to the present the rate was over 10%.

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/unemployment_rate.html

You will note that the time of low unemployment was the Bertienomics period. So if your economist friends are saying that the natural order for employment is what pertained in the Bertie years then I am happy to be out of kilter with them.

They will have to explain how this economy is going to have 95% employment when it was only ever achieved in the last 35 years by creating an artificial property and credit bubble. I asked you before what is the plan.

And to repeat from earlier, 4% unemployment is full employment so the real rate at present is about 6%. Because it was still 4% when hundreds of thousands were arriving here from abroad to work.

Yea you're deliberately picking the start of your stats to co-incidence with one of our worst economic recessions :rolleyes: I guess 1981 was the beginning of time, and no Irish economy existed before then...

As I said:
You're just ignorant of our economic history, in claiming that we've never had <=5% unemployment outside of the last two decades - go back and look at the long-term historical stats. (and that doesn't mean cherry-picking your stats either...)

It's also precisely economic illiteracy, to go averaging unemployment figures across several decades (including over massive economic recessions), and to call that the 'normal' unemployment figure - no economists do that.

You're '10% is really 6%' figure is also laughable spin.

KomradeBishop · 26-02-2015 11:24PM

jank wrote: »

OK, lets play a game. How old are those figures and where do they come from....

So you've just admitted you don't actually know how old they are, i.e. you were bullshítting.

No jank, I'm not playing your game, where you try to tank debates by completely making crap up (as you've just done here) - be that through smears, perpetual straw-men, or other arguments riddled with fallacies so obvious, they seem deliberate.

jimgoose · 26-02-2015 11:30PM

jank wrote: »

I thought the dole was 180 a week for a young person, or is it even less? Sounds like a good argument that the dole is too high, especially when you look up North and see what the dole is there.

€188 per-week for an adult. €0 per-week in India which, like Northern Ireland and Texas, is a different jurisdiction with a different cost-of-living.

Smidge · 26-02-2015 11:35PM

I find it incredible that people STILL compare the UK rate of SW to the Irish rate. Surely the must get sick of being seen as stupid? Maybe not?
Again, apples and oranges(I cant be bothered to spell this kind of thing out again tbh as its overlooked every time as it doesnt suit peoples agendas)

dxhound2005 · 26-02-2015 11:36PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea you're deliberately picking the start of your stats to co-incidence with one of our worst economic recessions :rolleyes: I guess 1981 was the beginning of time, and no Irish economy existed before then...

As I said:
You're just ignorant of our economic history, in claiming that we've never had <=5% unemployment outside of the last two decades - go back and look at the long-term historical stats. (and that doesn't mean cherry-picking your stats either...)

It's also precisely economic illiteracy, to go averaging unemployment figures across several decades (including over massive economic recessions), and to call that the 'normal' unemployment figure - no economists do that.

You're '10% is really 6%' figure is also laughable spin.

OK, forget about the average. The actual rate in 24 of the last 35 years was over 10%. The 11 years outlier was 1998 to 2008 which I think was an artificially generated bubble economy. Yet you persist in saying that economists think than 10% or higher unemployment is abnormal.

When there were hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving to fill the vacancies created in the economic bubble we still had 4% of the workforce not able to make themselves attractive to the employers who were recruiting from abroad. People who had very little English were able to come here and work. Why is it laughable to say that the 4% were just not capable of work or simply did not want to work. And to say that there is always a cohort of this 4%. Nothing from past proves otherwise.

If you are not happy to accept 35 years as a reasonable time to go back you can find some golden eras from 1921 to 1980 to support your contention that 95% employment is the norm. I read from what you posted that you have that information to hand.

KomradeBishop · 27-02-2015 12:07AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

OK, forget about the average. The actual rate in 24 of the last 35 years was over 10%. The 11 years outlier was 1998 to 2008 which I think was an artificially generated bubble economy. Yet you persist in saying that economists think than 10% or higher unemployment is abnormal.

When there were hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving to fill the vacancies created in the economic bubble we still had 4% of the workforce not able to make themselves attractive to the employers who were recruiting from abroad. People who had very little English were able to come here and work. Why is it laughable to say that the 4% were just not capable of work or simply did not want to work. And to say that there is always a cohort of this 4%. Nothing from past proves otherwise.

If you are not happy to accept 35 years as a reasonable time to go back you can find some golden eras from 1921 to 1980 to support your contention that 95% employment is the norm. I read from what you posted that you have that information to hand.

You're still cherry-picking your stats, to try and make it look like the only time we've had <10% unemployment, were within the last two decades...

You're the one suggesting that economists think 10% unemployment is normal - show that, from any credible economist...

Again, you are missing that when 'full employment' at ~4% levels is reached, the remaining unemployed are largely made up out of people between jobs, among other things - not exclusively people unwilling to enter jobs; hence why it's a level considered as full employment.

jank · 27-02-2015 12:14AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you've just admitted you don't actually know how old they are, i.e. you were bullshítting.

No jank, I'm not playing your game, where you try to tank debates by completely making crap up (as you've just done here) - be that through smears, perpetual straw-men, or other arguments riddled with fallacies so obvious, they seem deliberate.

No, I do know how old those figures are. I am just calling you up to prove to me that those figures are NOT a few years old. You made the claim, its up to you to prove it mate.

dxhound2005 · 27-02-2015 12:32AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're still cherry-picking your stats, to try and make it look like the only time we've had <10% unemployment, were within the last two decades...

You're the one suggesting that economists think 10% unemployment is normal - show that, from any credible economist...

Again, you are missing that when 'full employment' at ~4% levels is reached, the remaining unemployed are largely made up out of people between jobs, among other things - not exclusively people unwilling to enter jobs; hence why it's a level considered as full employment.

That link I posted starts in 1980, I didn't cherry pick it. It comprehensively debunks your argument that 10% or higher unemployment is abnormal in that 35 years. You are saying that you have figures from earlier years I think? Put them up and I will be happy to be proved wrong if that is what they show.

jank · 27-02-2015 01:20AM

jimgoose wrote: »

€188 per-week for an adult. €0 per-week in India which, like Northern Ireland and Texas, is a different jurisdiction with a different cost-of-living.

Yes, because Northern Ireland is like India by culture and geographical differences. If people are not willing to work for that extra 40 euro a day extra then that means the dole is too high.

I am convinced that Ireland is in Serious trouble

Comments