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

Why are dole bashing threads allowed?

Clampdown

Seriously fcuk these threads why are they not just locked straight away. Most of us on the dole are having a hard enough time and can be very down and isolated from being stuck in the house, struggling with bills, being looked down on, etc. I am not on the dole because I'm lazy, I'm on the dole because there is so little jobs in the Northwest where I live and I can't afford to get the money together to move to Dublin or out of Ireland where there is more work.

Any other condition that people couldn't control would not be deemed fair game for online abuse, why do boards allow constant dole bashing threads when many of us are not on the dole by choice?

And in fairness, it's not as if we are going to cover any new ground with these threads, they all go the same way. Even if I thought all dolies were lazy scum (and sure some are, but so are some people who have jobs!), I'd be bored of these threads. Though when I had work I never begrudged anyone their dole, even the lifers, because I know how crap of a life it is.

Does anyone else think maybe it's time we just stopped having these threads? It makes me not want to use boards any more at all when I see them all the time. Or if you still want to have them around so you can stick the cyber-boot into the Dutch Gold drinking bums, would you be okay with just having a separate forum all about dole bashing and leave it out of the other parts of the site?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KomradeBishop

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

When you look at unemployment statistics from the past few decades it is really strange how people all of a sudden decided to get a job in the 90s until after 2008 where a bunch of people quit their jobs. Similar idea in the 80s when everyone decided to stay at home instead of working. Have yet to hear an explanation for this from people who say there's loads of jobs.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

26 unemployed for every vacancy in March 2013. Things have probably improved since then but I have been unable to find anything more up to date that's a bit higher standard than a guy I know got a job.

http://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/qef_spring_2014_section_2.pdf

Here's the rate from a year and a half ago 24:1 ratio of Unemployed vs Job Vacancies:
http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2014/09/02/latest-data-on-the-vacancy-rate/

Some posters have a habit of taking issue with the source as well, but I know how to find the direct stats and how to process them into the vacancy rate, so if anyone tries to pull that here I'll be able to verify them - and show that the value in that graph is actually conservative

Another good figure for debates like this:
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/graph-of-the-day-people-available-to-work-but-not-seeking-a-job/

Ireland has the lowest number of people "available to work but not seeking a job", next to just a few countries, such as e.g. Germany - debunking another widely regurgitated claim.

No though, no matter how many verifiable stats you show in debates like this (and I think I have a legitimate claim to doing this more than most other posters - I have dozens upon dozens of stats I've searched out and saved, from past discussions), there's a band of posters who just don't give a toss about the stats/facts/evidence - and keep regurgitating the same nonsense.

KomradeBishop

AngryHippie wrote: »

I love the way this has been studiously ignored.

OP is not happy about dole bashing, not happy about being on the dole, but ignores a very valid point offering a shot at redeeming themselves from a very unpopular position.

Dole is a necessary evil to avoid abject poverty.

Dole is being abused in pretty much every country that offers it.

Dole should not be given unconditionally. The same criteria that apply to collecting a wage should be applied....*snip*

Then why not pay them a wage and get them doing actual work, like Joan Burton advocates:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/joan-burton-wants-a-job-guarantee-for-everyone-on-dole-30176171.html

As I said about this in another thread:

There's only one way to actually solve unemployment, and that's with jobs - better off sections of society, that don't have to worry about becoming unemployed benefit from unemployment because it increases their power in society and politics, as well as their ability to crush worker bargaining power - so these groups/industries have a strong interest in actually keeping unemployment around.

Increasing Public Debt is only a problem when the interest is unsustainable, and when GDP Growth fails to grow the 'GDP' portion of 'Public Debt vs GDP' faster than than Public Debt grows - and we have the lowest public debt yield in years, and fastest growing economy.

That means we can fund a Job Guarantee through the current unemployment benefits + by increasing Public Debt, which will spur Aggregate Demand in our economy, and will make our economy grow even faster.

This growth of our economy even increases tax intake, helping to pay off a greater raw number of € of Public Debt, than now.

People in the thread earlier, were talking about making people on the dole work, and suggested various things they could be made do - watch as some of them spoof now, and state that it's suddenly impossible to think of jobs for such a program.

Graces7

Superhorse wrote: »

Don't mind the begrudgers the site seems to be full of people who have a sense of entitlement to look down on others. Good luck with the job search.

Perfect post for this thread and the one on entitlement which I have JUST QUIT in utter...Begrudgery, judgemental, negativity... NEED COFFEE! Or am I begrudged even that!

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are wrong. I have provided substantial backing, you just tried to restrict the standard of 'valid' backing, to your very limited request.

You don't get to set the standards of what is counted as valid. You attempt to do so, to try and dismiss the evidence put forward so far.

Permabear wrote: »

One could just as easily point out that the Irish government gives pride of place in the national curriculum to subjects like religion and Irish, rather than the marketable foreign language and STEM skills that employers are demanding. It has implemented one of the highest minimum wages in Europe, which has a negative impact on unskilled and inexperienced workers, especially younger people; it has maintained high welfare rates that create poverty traps, where people are better off not working than working; and it has imposed high marginal tax rates that the Taoiseach himself acknowledges are a "disincentive to work."

Therefore, the government must "actively want" higher unemployment!

Of course, this would be a conclusion that rivals your own for sheer silliness (even if one can marshall an impressive array of evidence to support the thesis that higher unemployment is an inevitable consequence of the high-tax regulatory welfare state). Bringing down unemployment rates is high on the policy agenda for practically every political party, since unemployment creates fiscal instability, political unrest, and a host of social problems, as well as (the crucial factor) reducing the government's chances of being returned to power.

Practically everyone, whether in the public or private sector, can agree that government should strive to shorten the dole queues. For those in power, employment leads to economic prosperity, fiscal stability, and higher approval ratings for political leaders. For businesses, employment leads to higher spending on goods and services, and greater profitability. For the finance industry, employment leads to greater demand for mortgages, business loans, and consumer credit, and reduces the chances of default.

When unemployment is low, everyone is happy. Suggesting that there are people out there in business and finance longing for higher unemployment is a complete myth -- as evidenced by the fact that you can't show one solitary example of anyone saying any such thing.

Yes actually, Fine Gael (and Fianna Fail mirroring a lot of this) are openly appealing to the better off sections of society in their campaigning, and their 'recovery' seems to disproportionately channel the benefits of any 'recovery' to better off sections of society.

They are an inherently right-wing party, who seem to be very amenable to the lobby groups I discussed, who have a preference for high unemployment - even Ireland's supposed 'Full Employment' rate, hovers around 5% (which I highly doubt is entirely 'structural' or due to job churn - it should be far lower) - so yes, I think it's perfectly plausible that for a government working in the interests of better off sections of society, maintaining either high unemployment or a persistent enough level of unemployment to put a scare in workers, is likely.

That's a very sudden turnaround to your usual cynicism towards government PB, had a change of heart about your anti-government views? Guess I've finally found an argument where I display a higher cynicism towards government, than yourself.

I've already disproved many of the claims you're repeating there - I've shown that in the US, corporate profits are hovering around an all time high:
http://i.imgur.com/W7bv464.jpg

High unemployment is good for the rich/wealthy, and the businesses/industries they control - it helps explosively increase income/wealth inequality in society.

Finance and much of the wealthy are benefiting from effectively free money, through the effects of QE - they love economic crisis, it's when they're at their most profitable:

Growth, it turns out, is not all that good for the rich (or the 1 percent). This idea is proposed by Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler in a post on LSE's website called "Profit from Crisis: Why capitalists do not want recovery, and what that means for America." By examining job and income data over the past 100 years, they found periods of low growth and high unemployment are also periods when the rate at which wealth heads upwards increases.

Unemployment affects distribution mainly through the impact it has on relative prices and wages. If higher unemployment causes the ratio of price to unit wage cost to decline, capitalists will fall behind in the redistributional struggle, and this retreat is sure to make them eager for recovery. But if the opposite turns out to be the case – that is, if higher unemployment helps raise the price/wage cost ratio – capitalists would have good reason to love crisis and indulge in stagnation.

In principle, both scenarios are possible. But as Figure 1 shows, in America the second prevails: unemployment redistributes income systematically in favor of capitalists.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2015/01/02/high-unemployment-and-low-growth-is-good-for-the-rich

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're an ultra-right-wing Libertarian - just because something isn't as extremely to the right as you are, doesn't make it 'left'.

There is not a single thing here that describes Fine Gael as 'left' - only things describing them as falling on the 'right':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael

Hell, you yourself have even noted how Fine Gael have fascist origins.

Permabear wrote: »

Not at all. I'm as cynical as ever about government acting in the best interests of society. Government acts in its own self-interest. But I also know that it's in the politicians' own self-interest to decrease unemployment, because higher unemployment reduces their chances of winning elections.

Not when parties act in the interests of societies better-off established powers - the ones who provide all of the lucrative board positions, kickbacks and other perks/rewards (paid speeches seems a favoured one lately), when the politicians leave public service - parties would prefer to stay in power, but are more than happy to trade position with a second large/dominant, yet establishment-serving party, like Fianna Fail.

That's why it's often said that Republicans and Democrats are pretty much two sides of the same coin - and the same when it comes to Fine Gael and Fianna Fail (hell, we could see a coalition between them after tomorrow...).

That's why the most powerful private institutions/people tend to donate to both major parties, there in the US.

Permabear wrote: »

Yes, and the unemployment rate here in the USA is 5.5%. Saying that corporate profits are high while unemployment is low doesn't "prove" anything, let alone that business and financial leaders "actively want" unemployment to be higher.

The US unemployment rate is not 5.5% though

Europe uses the U6 measure of the unemployment rate, and the U6 unemployment for the US is presently 9.9% (higher than Irelands) - that's the only rate which is a valid comparison to Ireland/Europe.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Permabear wrote: »

Nonsense. High unemployment means that fewer people have money to buy iPhones, new cars, and Starbucks lattes. Unemployment hurts businesses -- it's not "good" for anyone.

It hurts people lower-down in society - high unemployment is a massive boon for the most well-off in society.

I mean you're clearly wrong, I've already shown you that in the US, corporate profits are hovering around an all-time high, and that wealth/income inequality has absolutely skyrocketed, and that the financial industry and much of the wealthy even get effectively free money because of the effects of QE, and even the London School of Economics has put out research meeting the same conclusion as me.

Is it just a coincidence then, that the most well off people in society, happen to be benefiting the most - at a time when many of the biggest transfers of wealth in history, going to these better-off portions of society, have happened - all of this when unemployment has skyrocketed, economic crisis has hit and landed countries in what looks like permanent stagnation (the anaemic 'recovery' seems about to be derailed by yet more economic crisis).

Is it all just a coincidence then, that the most well off sections of society, are benefiting so enormously from all of this? Just a coincidence that practically all of their policy lobbying seems to aim to perpetuate this for as long as possible?

Fact is, it's in their self-interest, to hold the rest of society down like this - it's when they are at their most powerful/profitable/dangerous status. The evidence for all of this is, frankly, overwhelming.

KomradeBishop

Actually, even though it's just an ancillary point unrelated to the main arguments, I retract this specific claim:

The US unemployment rate is not 5.5% though

While I do think the unemployment rates are calculated differently between the EU and US - with great variability depending on the exact stat you look at - Europe does not use the U6 definition.

The U6 unemployment for Ireland would be, roughly, 18.3% vs 9.9% for the US - finding the stats for calculating this is non-trivial.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AngryHippie

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So...
- people on the dole need redemption...
- should have to be sober...
- should have their lives closely monitored with severe penalties for breaching whatever narrow definition of acceptable behaviour and expenditure you chose...
- And the state should forcibly sterilise the poor...

Any chance we could incorporate some kind of compulsory youth camps or groups, you know, so the future generations of Irish men and maidens can be reared properly and instructed in the values of the Republic?

- people on the dole need redemption....
People that can't support themselves need a long term plan to become self supporting and independent of welfare. Anything short of this as a goal is just allowing people to feel sucked into being permanently dependent.

- should have to be sober....
If I have to work my arse off and be fit for work for 40-60 hours per week in order to earn a wage and pay taxes, I don't see how me doing so should enable someone to spend that same amount of time sipping away on cans or peddling some dope to fund their own use (Having a great time or in a pit of depression or anywhere in between has no bearing on it) during the working day is what has created this rift between "dole people" and the workforce in the first place.
A level playing field in terms of what you can do with your time.
Thinking of the dole not as being a "wage" (Albeit a low one) that people are "entitled" to, starting to consider it as being state funds that have been given to people to help them back on their feet between employment.

- should have their lives closely monitored with severe penalties for breaching whatever narrow definition of acceptable behaviour and expenditure you chose...
Should have some social fcuking responsibility. Having kids without a secure job or source of income is not responsible adult behavior.

- And the state should forcibly sterilise the poor...
Would you get a dog that you cannot afford to feed and look after ?
Would you expect someone else to feed it ?
Why the bloody hell would it be any different for children ?
As above, social responsibility, personal responsibility, informed decisions and plans. If the state is paying the piper, let the state call the tune.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fair enough, though to end as well, I would contrast this with all of the stats and research I have shown - they very solidly show how such better off sections of society are enormously benefiting from these conditions, and end up lobbying for policies that keep such conditions - and it doesn't take much of a leap of cynicism/skepticism/logic, to take all of that as evidence of an active desire for such conditions, in a "say one thing, do another" fashion.

Maximus Alexander

AngryHippie wrote: »

- And the state should forcibly sterilise the poor...
Would you get a dog that you cannot afford to feed and look after ?
Would you expect someone else to feed it ?
Why the bloody hell would it be any different for children ?
As above, social responsibility, personal responsibility, informed decisions and plans. If the state is paying the piper, let the state call the tune.

I've been gainfully employed my entire adult life, and yet I'd still be out on the streets rioting if the government tried to impose this. Or, indeed, joining the inevitable rebellion. What a wonderfully horrifying dystopian world you want to live in.

222233

AngryHippie wrote: »

Would you get a dog that you cannot afford to feed and look after ?
Would you expect someone else to feed it ?
Why the bloody hell would it be any different for children ?
As above, social responsibility, personal responsibility, informed decisions and plans. If the state is paying the piper, let the state call the tune.

I personally think it's very wrong to knowingly bring children into a situation where you simply know you can not offer them a good means of living. Having said that accidents do happen and there must be supports for when these do occur.

Having children should really be planned, getting pregnant whilst on the dole is another while on the dole if you can't afford childcare, just another gap on the CV and more incentive to not go looking for work.

Nomis21

Ally Dick wrote: »

I couldn't give two fiddler's f@cks about dole bashers. I collect my dole money once a week, and have a good laugh signing on once a month. I worked for over 30 years before my employer decided to seek cheaper alternatives. I paid a lot of tax. I'm in the process of looking for a job and I intend to enjoy myself until I do

Good Luck to you my friend. I hope you enjoy every minute of it!

daveyeh

Sam Kade wrote: »

It's called tax planning and guess what you have to spend money in the business to reduce your tax bill contrary to the baloney in your post.

Yeah, well you're wrong sponger

The Wandering Jew

Should bring in EBT system so dole lifers can't blow our tax euros on booze, fags and the bookies.

Billy86

The Wandering Jew wrote: »

Should bring in EBT system so dole lifers can't blow our tax euros on booze, fags and the bookies.

I'm not too familiar with the system, but isn't it similar to food stamps?