The Increasingly Depressing Financial Crisis Thread

Aoibheann

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

The TD's are in the Dáil on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, think thats the reasoning for it.

I think the actual reasoning is to cause the ultimate disruption. There'll be huge traffic hold-ups etc.. But remember when the taxi drivers protested and got in everyone's way? It didn't really get a whole lot of public approval. I'm worried that this sort of thing will just isolate the cause further.

Like I mentioned before, the "Tell Your TD" campaign is actually quite clever. It doesn't take more than a couple of clicks and typing in a few words, and the the TDs are obliged to respond! Also, any colleges holding voter registration drives will get a lot of respect for actually trying to make a difference. I honestly think that sort of thing will be taken more seriously.

EuropeanSon

Peaceful protests are useless, so I won't be going. If there was a chance to smash up Leinster House and maybe grievously injure a few TDs, I'd be well up for it, but this sounds way too dull.

amacachi

Aoibheann wrote: »

Like I mentioned before, the "Tell Tour TD" campaign is actually quite clever. It doesn't take more than a couple of clicks and typing in a few words, and the the TDs are obliged to respond! Also, any colleges holding voter registration drives will get a lot of respect for actually trying to make a difference. I honestly think that sort of thing will be taken more seriously.

Those damn TDs with their touring.


The local TC I've emailed responded ridiculously quickly and gave me his mobile number if I had any further queries, unfortunately I was asking him a proper politcal question (a FG TD so I really wanted a good answer) so there was no way he could reply adequately.

amacachi

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Peaceful protests are useless, so I won't be going. If there was a chance to smash up Leinster House and maybe grievously injure a few TDs, I'd be well up for it, but this sounds way too dull.

It's Halloween and you're from Meath, I'm sure you can entertain yourself over the next while.

Chuchoter

Personally I think massive cuts could and should be made, because there is a lot of waste going on at 3rd level. As opposed to having several small ITs all over the country we should have 2 or 3 super ITs. 14 is too many.

As for the main universities, I think they could do with phasing out a lot of their quite frankly useless degrees.

bythewoods

crayolastereo wrote: »

Personally I think massive cuts could and should be made, because there is a lot of waste going on at 3rd level. As opposed to having several small ITs all over the country we should have 2 or 3 super ITs. 14 is too many.

As for the main universities, I think they could do with phasing out a lot of their quite frankly useless degrees.

Where do you propose we locate these "super ITs"? I think one of the best things about having smaller ITs scattered around the country is that it gives more people the chance to get a 3rd level education. Not everyone can afford to/ want to move away from home, and not everyone is close to Cork/ Limerick/ Galway/ Dublin.

Also, what constitutes a "useless" degree?

DáireM

bythewoods wrote: »

Where do you propose we locate these "super ITs"? I think one of the best things about having smaller ITs scattered around the country is that it gives more people the chance to get a 3rd level education. Not everyone can afford to/ want to move away from home, and not everyone is close to Cork/ Limerick/ Galway/ Dublin.

Also, what constitutes a "useless" degree?

His 4 "super" ITs idea is pretty extreme but it's a fair point. Do we really need both a Sligo and a GMIT? Is there really a need Tralee IT given that Limerick IT, Cork IT, UL and UCC are also relatively nearby? I'm not just bashing rural ones either, the amount of third level institutions in Dublin is excessive too: 3 universities (plus DIT arguably) and IADT, NCAD, BlanchIT, ITT etc. Why not amalgamate some of these ITs? A lot of them offer the same type of courses as each other anyway.

We need to get out of this idea that every career path and everyone requires a third level education. If everyone was doing engineering and science degrees (or PLCs leading to these) then that's great and multinationals would be jizzing FDI into the country but a lot of the courses these ITs run are just replacing what would've been on-the-job training for entry level employees years ago. What companies used to pay for is now being paid for by the state and it's a total waste. Graduates are getting the same jobs as school leavers would've 20 years ago only now it's after having lost a few years and a few grand.

jumpguy

Meh, ITs bring a lot of business and soul (young students) to towns and places and removing them would be a massive upset in many places. What TCD is to one person might be DIT, CIT or LIT to another. That's not the way forward...

DáireM

jumpguy wrote: »

Meh, ITs bring a lot of business and soul (young students) to towns and places and removing them would be a massive upset in many places. What TCD is to one person might be DIT, CIT or LIT to another. That's not the way forward...

That's nice and all but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay through the nose so that someone can have a college experience when it isn't needed or so that small towns can be a bit more lively.

Lawliet

DáireM wrote: »

His 4 "super" ITs idea is pretty extreme but it's a fair point. Do we really need both a Sligo and a GMIT? Is there really a need Tralee IT given that Limerick IT, Cork IT, UL and UCC are also relatively nearby?

It might not be a big different if you actually live in these places but if you have to commute it is. For instance a huge number from my school go to Sligo over GMIT because -given the state of public transport in the Midlands- it's so much quicker, cheaper and easier to get to Sligo than it is to get to Galway.
Sure amalgamating a bunch of ITs sounds like a good idea in principle, but in fairness there wouldn't be so many if there wasn't a demand for them.

Grindylow

DáireM wrote: »

That's nice and all but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay through the nose so that someone can have a college experience when it isn't needed or so that small towns can be a bit more lively.

That's not the point. IT's provide a third level education in areas where it may be impossible for a person to go to another area to receive it due to lack of funding/personal difficulties.

jumpguy

DáireM wrote: »

That's nice and all but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay through the nose so that someone can have a college experience when it isn't needed or so that small towns can be a bit more lively.

No really, most ITs spread out the student population and make 3rd level education more widely available. It's not about the "college experience", it's about providing an education. Cutting ITs just so people going to universities can have free fees would be grossly unjust in my opinion.

unknown13

DaireM: IADT & NCAD are art college's not IT's.

Lawliet

DáireM wrote: »

That's nice and all but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay through the nose so that someone can have a college experience when it isn't needed or so that small towns can be a bit more lively.

It's not about making somewhere more lively, think about it, if you lose thousands of students from a community the local economy is going to lose a lot of money. Shops and other businesses would close down, loads of jobs would be lost, more people would be on the dole.
The taxpayer is covering the cost either way.

DáireM

Lawliet wrote: »

It might not be a big different if you actually live in these places but if you have to commute it is. For instance a huge number from my school go to Sligo over GMIT because -given the state of public transport in the Midlands- it's so much quicker, cheaper and easier to get to Sligo than it is to get to Galway.
Sure amalgamating a bunch of ITs sounds like a good idea in principle, but in fairness there wouldn't be so many if there wasn't a demand for them.

I sympathise that public transport is long and commuting times are long but going to college shouldn't be easy. Moving to Galway isn't going to kill you if you're from Sligo.

Your claim that the demand for the courses justify the ITs is wrong. See the last few lines of my first post.

@unknown13: I realise that IADT and NCAD are art colleges but IADT run business courses, Ballyfermot and IADT both run media-type courses and I'm sure IADT and NCAD offer similar courses. It makes no difference to the point I was making.

@Noel: Claiming it's impossible for someone from Kerry to move to Limerick to go to college is laughable. If someone really wanted to they'd have no problem doing it. How come so many people from rural areas go to city universities as it stands? This despite the fact that there's ITs much nearer to their homes.

DáireM

jumpguy wrote: »

No really, most ITs spread out the student population and make 3rd level education more widely available. It's not about the "college experience", it's about providing an education. Cutting ITs just so people going to universities can have free fees would be grossly unjust in my opinion.

The point is that a lot (although not, by any means, all) of the education these ITs provide used to be provided by employers/apprenticeships/training etc. They're not needed.

Grindylow

DáireM wrote: »

@Noel: Claiming it's impossible for someone from Kerry to move to Limerick to go to college is laughable. If someone really wanted to they'd have no problem doing it. How come so many people from rural areas go to city universities as it stands? This despite the fact that there's ITs much nearer to their homes.

So say the situation is:

One child heading to college, the family has 3 children and is €1000 above the income threshold for gaining a grant for their child. Where's the money going to come out of to pay for accommodation/food/fees for the year?

DáireM

Lawliet wrote: »

It's not about making somewhere more lively, think about it, if you lose thousands of students from a community the local economy is going to lose a lot of money. Shops and other businesses would close down, loads of jobs would be lost, more people would be on the dole.
The taxpayer is covering the cost either way.

First off you're trying to make out that these ITs are located in tiny towns that couldn't possibly bear the ITs closing down. They're in big towns around the country that, while it wouldn't be nice, could absorb the hit without the town grinding to a halt. A few nightclubs shutting down in Athlone isn't going to bring the town to its knees.

It's awful that people will lose their jobs but those jobs were created artificially in the first place. I might sound like a cold bastard here but thousands of people are losing their jobs every day because it's no longer economical to employ them. Why should these workers be any different?

jumpguy wrote: »

No really, most ITs spread out the student population and make 3rd level education more widely available. It's not about the "college experience", it's about providing an education. Cutting ITs just so people going to universities can have free fees would be grossly unjust in my opinion.

I'd favour cutting ITs alongside paying fees with some sort of graduate tax/loan repayable upon employment. If you value your third-level education you should be willing to pay for it.

Pygmalion

DáireM wrote: »

@Noel: Claiming it's impossible for someone from Kerry to move to Limerick to go to college is laughable. If someone really wanted to they'd have no problem doing it.

Wrong, if someone had enough money they'd have no problem doing it, if someone has almost enough money they might be able to find a way to make it work, with a decent amount of hard work and possibly incurring some debt in the process.

As surprising as it may seem to some people money doesn't magically grow on trees just because you "really want" an education.

How come so many people from rural areas go to city universities as it stands? This despite the fact that there's ITs much nearer to their homes.

Through their parent's money, grants, working part-time or (as is usually the case) a combination of all 3, since on their own neither give nearly enough money in most cases.

I'm in a university now, but it's because my parents are willing to (and for the most part able to) partially support me, I qualify for a grant which covers most of my day-to-day expenses and I get an apartment at half the normal cost, and I'm also doing some lab tutoring (and hoping to get some other part time work too).
If any of these sources of money disappeared the fact that I "really want" an education wouldn't mean ****, nor would it pay my rent.

I'm not going to debate what should or shouldn't happen with ITs or whether it's feasible to not bring in fees, but claiming that anyone can afford to move home for full-time education if they "really want to" is just laughable.

DáireM

Noel2k9 wrote: »

So say the situation is:

One child heading to college, the family has 3 children and is €1000 above the income threshold for gaining a grant for their child. Where's the money going to come out of to pay for accommodation/food/fees for the year?

A part-time job? A loan? I have both btw.

DáireM

Pygmalion wrote: »

Wrong, if someone had enough money they'd have no problem doing it, if someone has almost enough money they might be able to find a way to make it work, with a decent amount of hard work and possibly incurring some debt in the process.

As surprising as it may seem to some people money doesn't magically grow on trees just because you "really want" an education.


Through their parent's money, grants, working part-time or (as is usually the case) a combination of all 3, since on their own neither give nearly enough money in most cases.

I'm in a university now, but it's because my parents are willing to (and for the most part able to) partially support me, I qualify for a grant which covers most of my day-to-day expenses and I get an apartment at half the normal cost, and I'm also doing some lab tutoring (and hoping to get some other part time work too).
If any of these sources of money disappeared the fact that I "really want" an education wouldn't mean ****, nor would it pay my rent.

I'm not going to debate what should or shouldn't happen with ITs or whether it's feasible to not bring in fees, but claiming that anyone can afford to move home for full-time education if they "really want to" is just laughable.

I'll concede I was wrong to say it's laughable and I'm sure there would be a few people who'd love to go who'd choose not to go to college if there wasn't a nearby IT, it was insensitive and hyperbolic.

I do think that if there was a proper student loan system in place it would remove much of this obstacle though.

Better make this my last post or I'll be here all night.

Lawliet

DáireM wrote: »

I sympathise that public transport is long and commuting times are long but going to college shouldn't be easy. Moving to Galway isn't going to kill you if you're from Sligo.

And why shouldn't it be easy to travel to college? We're educating people, not testing whether they can overcome geographical obstacles.
Maybe we should start throwing in more levels of difficulty, set up obstacle courses between lecture venues, hire someone in the library to throw sticks at people while they're studying, hold exams at night under enemy gunfire!

On a more serious note you seem to be over looking the cost of all this, sure an extra 350 euro a month might not kill anyone but it'll make the different between being able to go to college or not for a lot of people.

If someone really wanted to they'd have no problem doing it.

Yes. Because if you just want it hard enough the money for it will just appear. That's frankly a ridiculous statement to make.

DáireM wrote: »

First off you're trying to make out that these ITs are located in tiny towns that couldn't possibly bear the ITs closing down. They're in big towns around the country that, while it wouldn't be nice, could absorb the hit without the town grinding to a halt. A few nightclubs shutting down in Athlone isn't going to bring the town to its knees.

Where did I say it would cripple the towns? I just pointed out that losing thousands of people from an area would have a knock on effect on the local economy. In somewhere like Athlone where the population is about 17000, and with 5700 of those being students, the effect would be much worse than just a "few nightclubs shutting down".

DáireM wrote: »

I might sound like a cold bastard here but thousands of people are losing their jobs every day because it's no longer economical to employ them. Why should these workers be any different?

Again you're making a ridiculous argument. Surely when so many people have already lost their jobs we should be trying to converse and create employment, not do the opposite?

randylonghorn

amacachi wrote: »

The trouble is that almost all of the changes to education will be aimed at the students and not at the institutions and workers IMO.

Oh, there have been cuts in both institutional funding and staff.

One of the problems is that the latter has not been strategic.

The Croke Park agreement more or less ensures that lecturing staff in courses which have all but died (especially those closely related to the building industry) can't be let go.

So instead the government has imposed a general recruitment embargo, which means that staff who leave or retire can't be replaced.

So where, just to look at an example I know of, two staff retire out of one University Records Office, they're not replaced.

Now Records (like Exams) is very seasonal ... let's say they need 4 staff all year round, but about three times that number from August to ~ the end of October. So they have a full-time staff of 4, and take in temporary people for those 3 months (who generally can be trained up in only the basics, and have to rely on the 4 full-timers for everything else).

Can you imagine what cutting that full-time / knowledgeable / experienced core staff in half does to the efficiency of that office?

And then students wonder why there are glitches ...

Just one example to illustrate really ... my point is that the government insist on cuts, but they're not prepared to face down the unions to make them where they should be made.

Result = poor service and sometimes chaos.

Fad wrote: »

Now people are using the same statement to justify fees, when in reality, fees are just being used to plug a budget hole ... I'm pro-fees if ... we are promised there will be no more cuts in terms of college facilities (Like library opening hours and what not). But, unless there is some changes like that, I'm against them.

I will guarantee you that if they re-introduce fees, or increase the registration fees, any income to the colleges will be matched by a cut in what the government provides in funding.

As far as this government is concerned, filling the bankers' black hole is all that seems to matter.

almostnever

randylonghorn wrote: »

So instead the government has imposed a general recruitment embargo, which means that staff who leave or retire can't be replaced.

So where, just to look at an example I know of, two staff retire out of one University Records Office, they're not replaced.

The Law librarian retired this year. Makes life a whole lot more complicated in a number of ways.

amacachi

Lawliet wrote: »

Again you're making a ridiculous argument. Surely when so many people have already lost their jobs we should be trying to converse and create employment, not do the opposite?

The money isn't there. The best thing the government could do to create jobs is to get the **** out of peoples' way. While growth is important, the most important thing right now is cutting the deficit. Unfortunately our government seems intent on dragging the process out for as long as possible, with the silly things I was complaining about and randylonghorn expanded on. And how could we forget the hilarious Back to Education Allowance and all the other payments there are, at the same rate as the dole but I don't show up as unemployed so the EU will be happy til they realise how bad that is. And the great sponsored internship kinda thing in FAS, where people are getting paid minimum wage, by the government, for jobs that the company would usually have to pay at least twice that. It's all just so stupid, and I apologise for going off on a tangent.

kev9100

amacachi wrote: »

The money isn't there. The best thing the government could do to create jobs is to get the **** out of peoples' way. While growth is important, the most important thing right now is cutting the deficit.

Cutting the deficit is all well and good, but it is being reduced by cutting the wrong things. Why should students and PU sector workers suffer when the people who are responsible for the recession get off scott free?

sock puppet

kev9100 wrote: »

Cutting the deficit is all well and good, but it is being reduced by cutting the wrong things. Why should students and PU sector workers suffer when the people who are responsible for the recession get off scott free?

There is nowhere else to cut. The only other area aside from what you mentioned is welfare. Don't be fooled either by unions. Whatever your views on the bank bailout it isn't the only thing dragging us down.

amacachi

kev9100 wrote: »

Cutting the deficit is all well and good, but it is being reduced by cutting the wrong things. Why should students and PU sector workers suffer when the people who are responsible for the recession get off scott free?

Wait, how do you want to cut the deficit? Because I can't see you putting anything forward.

kev9100

amacachi wrote: »

Wait, how do you want to cut the deficit? Because I can't see you putting anything forward.

Well, I'm no expert on economics and I don't mind some cuts, but I think Ireland is a vastly under-taxed country. 50% of people don't even pay tax and our income tax structures need fundemental reform too. I would have little problem with the 41% tax rate rising to 50%.

amacachi

kev9100 wrote: »

Well, I'm no expert on economics and I don't mind some cuts, but I think Ireland is a vastly under-taxed country. 50% of people don't even pay tax and our income tax structures need fundemental reform too. I would have little problem with the 41% tax rate rising to 50%.

I agree Ireland is under-taxed in some ways, but raising taxes alone isn't enough. The state's income is around 30bn and it's spending 50bn, it's not like we have a little 5-10% deficit.
Also if you tax the minimum wage earners you'll leave a lot of them in a position whereby they'd definitely be better off on the dole, and if you cut the dole then you'll have everyone bitching. Both need to be cut realistically, but that might cover a billion or two of the 15-20bn we're down.
Look at the furore about the suggestion of a property tax ffs.