ERSI: Cost of working 'too high'

steddyeddy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

May I suggest that some people are not spending their money on the things they should? Cigarettes, drugs, drink - these things should be bought after you feed your kids.

The view isn't that people on the dole are better off in general - the view (and the research demonstrates) that some people are better off on the dole.

You may of course suggest what you like. May I suggest coming from a position where one discriminates against certain people based on class, race or religion isnt hugely insightful or progressive. The idea that 1 in five Irish people choose drink, drugs or cigarettes over food for their children would be laughable if the attitude that fostered it werent so disturbing.

RaRaRasputin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I couldn't afford the holiday home either. Anyways these sprogs will be working to pay your pension. They'll probably piss in your soup when you get to the nursing home aswel

All those children who should be treated like royalty working in nursing homes? They will surely all be all the dole because they remember their parents' great speeches about the futility of working and how much more you earn being on the dole.

I don't have a holiday home, but you are right...maybe I should try and get the government to buy me one because I have a cat.

hatrickpatrick

*sigh*
Why do these threads always propose reducing the dole to solve the problem?
What about reducing the cost of living and the cost of working instead?
IF it's cheaper to live on social welfare, it doesn't just mean social welfare is too high it also means the cost of living is also too high, and every single one of these threads ignores this.

smash

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

*sigh*
Why do these threads always propose reducing the dole to solve the problem?
What about reducing the cost of living and the cost of working instead?

well that is why the thread was started.

BattleCorp

I think that the ESRI have just gotten their knuckles severly rapped by the Government as they have just had to retract this report.

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

*sigh*
Why do these threads always propose reducing the dole to solve the problem?
What about reducing the cost of living and the cost of working instead?
IF it's cheaper to live on social welfare, it doesn't just mean social welfare is too high it also means the cost of living is also too high, and every single one of these threads ignores this.

Yes, bring down the cost of living. That means that the price we pay for goods and services needs to come down. Which means that the money made by businesses and individuals will come down. Which means that wages need to be reduced. Which means that the minimum wage needs to be reduced. So in order to keep people working, the dole would need to be reduced........ perhaps that's why people propose it, eh? Not necessarily as a solution but more of a first necessary step! Do you not understand the link?

If you can't understand that logic, then consider an extreme example in the opposite direction...the dole for some reason is increased to 1000 Euro a week. What happens then? People go on the dole unless they make significantly more than 1000 a week. So that becomes a floor for a minimum wage which means that when you go to the shop to buy yourself a sandwich, the person making it for you is getting paid at least a grand a week. Part of the money to pay them must be added to the cost of your sandwich. The price of your sandwich will increase too!
Absolute levels do not matter within a country itself, only relative levels! The absolute levels come into play when you trade with external entities.

Pottler

I'm an employer but I'm rapidly backing away out of that. One guy who works for me has a brother on the dole - between rent allowance and dole etc for him and his "single mother" partner he has €2800 a month. The Brother who works full time has €2400 for him and his partner. Hmm.

My PRSI bill combined with all the other employment costs has soared recently and despite being busy(actually very busy) I am cutting numbers radically and letting work pass by rather than deal with the headache and huge cost of more employees and all the red tape I will have to go through to employ them.

My attitude now is "do what can be done with the men we have rather than take on new work and have to hire more people". I'd rather buy a machine to get work done than hire someone as it's just too much of a hiding to nothing. That's a nuts situation for a country that is supposed to be trying hard to get people off the dole and into work. It's too hard, and too dear to hire new people - almost as though the state wants to make your life a misery if you employ someone.

hatrickpatrick

smash wrote: »

well that is why the thread was started.

Yes but everyone is talking about cutting welfare, the usual response.
What about taking action on the rip off republic instead? Is it so outrageous to suggest that the government should do something to curb the ridiculously high rents in this country, or the insanely high fees people have to pay for things across multiple sectors?

If the cost of living is too high, reduce the cost of living. Clamp down on rampant overcharging across the board for a start, particularly in subsidised areas. I realize that may offend some of the extreme right's "unfettered free market" principles, but the free market in this country was dead the day Brian Lenihan decided that private companies which screwed themselves should be bailed out by you and me.

General prices in this country compared to other EU countries are a disgrace.
Hell, prices in Dublin city are a disgrace when you compare them to prices down the country. I remember when I was a kid I used to be amazed at how much further my pocket money would go when I'd go over to Limerick or Kerry to visit relatives there (living in Dublin most of the time). Why can't anything be done about rip off Ireland?

Monty Burnz

steddyeddy wrote: »

You may of course suggest what you like. May I suggest coming from a position where one discriminates against certain people based on class, race or religion isnt hugely insightful or progressive. The idea that 1 in five Irish people choose drink, drugs or cigarettes over food for their children would be laughable if the attitude that fostered it werent so disturbing.

And I find it laughable that you think the state doesn't provide enough cash to those who are unemployed, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Ropey claims based on ropey research by organisations with a particular agenda aside, my own personal experience tells me that certain people prioritise their own 'needs' ahead of their children, regardless of race, class or religion. But the wealthier ones have enough left over to look after secondary concerns like their children - the poorer ones don't.

Get off your PC high-horse and look at the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.

steddyeddy

Domo230 wrote: »

I currently work part time.

I am in the process of applying for back to education assistance that will allow me to go to college, get a degree and one day hopefully get a good job.

I am in a weird situation whereby I would not be able to afford to go to college if I worked full time.

Sad but true.

Good for you. I know many people on the back to education and its a great system. Best of luck with college.

hatrickpatrick

yore wrote: »

Yes, bring down the cost of living. That means that the price we pay for goods and services needs to come down. Which means that the money made by businesses and individuals will come down. Which means that wages need to be reduced. Which means that the minimum wage needs to be reduced. So in order to keep people working, the dole would need to be reduced........ perhaps that's why people propose it, eh? Not necessarily as a solution but more of a first necessary step! Do you not understand the link?

I do, but it's a question of the chick and the egg, and which came first. Wages coming down won't be a problem if the cost of living is already lower. What we've tried in this country is to induce deflation by cutting people's incomes and hoping the cost of living comes down to meet them. It hasn't.

hatrickpatrick

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And I find it laughable that you think the state doesn't provide enough cash to those who are unemployed, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Ropey claims based on ropey research by organisations with a particular agenda aside, my own personal experience tells me that certain people prioritise their own 'needs' ahead of their children, regardless of race, class or religion. But the wealthier ones have enough left over to look after secondary concerns like their children - the poorer ones don't.

Get off your PC high-horse and look at the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.

And what about the government clamping down on how much people have to pay for essential things such as food and healthcare?
Can anyone explain the discrepancy I mentioned earlier with regard to Dublin prices vs. country prices? If it's all to do with rent then high rents must be tackled, with legislation if necessary. Blaming high wages for the rip off republic will only get you so far.

hatrickpatrick

yore wrote: »

the dole would need to be reduced........ perhaps that's why people propose it, eh? Not necessarily as a solution but more of a first necessary step!

This is the part I disagree with. Force the cost of living down before reducing the dole, so the reduction doesn't lead to hell for the people who are already up against the wall. We've tried inducing deflation from the other end. It hasn't worked.

sock puppet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And what about the government clamping down on how much people have to pay for essential things such as food and healthcare?
Can anyone explain the discrepancy I mentioned earlier with regard to Dublin prices vs. country prices? If it's all to do with rent then high rents must be tackled, with legislation if necessary. Blaming high wages for the rip off republic will only get you so far.

Why should prices in Dublin and the country be the same?

Monty Burnz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And what about the government clamping down on how much people have to pay for essential things such as food and healthcare?

Price controls? Don't work. That's a solution that would come straight out of Zimbabwe. I honestly don't see how people can't feed themselves either - you could feed someone a healthy diet for about €30 per week. I find that two thirds of what I spend on food is for things like Lindt chocolate, beer, wine, olives and salsas and fancy stuff I don't even need - and I still only spend about €60 on food.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can anyone explain the discrepancy I mentioned earlier with regard to Dublin prices vs. country prices? If it's all to do with rent then high rents must be tackled, with legislation if necessary. Blaming high wages for the rip off republic will only get you so far.

I don't know about rent controls - it's a short-term solution, but if you reduce returns on property, you also reduce the investment in it, leading to shortages in the longer term. Perhaps there is a way around that though.

It's also the case that Irish people are very price-insensitive. It took a severe recession to get many people to even consider shopping in Lidl and Aldi. This means that supermarkets can get away with charging premium prices for ordinary goods.

hatrickpatrick

sock puppet wrote: »

Why should prices in Dublin and the country be the same?

Why shouldn't they? What's causing them to be so much higher in Dublin?

libra02

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good for you. I know many people on the back to education and its a great system. Best of luck with college.

The BTEA is a great scheme I am just finishing up a postgrad H Dip in Computing.

However I do think Gov needs to be more in the whole retraining people. I left college about 10 years ago with a Honours 1 degree in Business and Marketing. Worked to put myself through never got a grant or anything. Got a job and over the 10 years did various other courses to do with work and other areas I found intersting - leading to another 2 diplomas.

After being made redundant about 2.5 years ago, I jumped at chance last year to go back to college and was lucky to get the BETA as without the €188 there would have been no way I could have gone back.

I would love to go on and do the Master's course even my lecturers are saying I should go onto Masters program and upskill even more and increase chance of getting a job, as I think with my previous work expereience coupled with the new and old qualifications I'd have a better chance, but there is no way I can afford it.

I could apply for a grant and get the reg fees,as there are schemes there for that covered but that not guaranteed. So now I have to sign back on and pray I get a job.
But would it not be better, for people who are serious about upskilling like me, if the Gov kept us on the BETA for the extra year to do Masters and invest rather than paying me €188 for a year where I might not get a job.

up for anything

The ESRI withdraws paper on 'cost of working', saying contents could be 'misleading'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/44-of-those-with-children-better-off-on-dole.html

tayto lover

The C.S.O. constantly say that the cost of living is dropping but I have serious issues with that. I simply don't believe them and am of the opinion that they are doctoring the facts at the governments behest. Hardly anyone getting pay rises but petrol, health care, creches etc prices rising. Who are they trying to kid?
I know that in my case and in plenty of others, who I know, the cost of living is definitely rising.

smash

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

sock puppet wrote: »

Why should prices in Dublin and the country be the same?

Why shouldn't they? What's causing them to be so much higher in Dublin?

Supply and demand. It's the most densely populated city, and it's where most of the jobs are.

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is the part I disagree with. Force the cost of living down before reducing the dole, so the reduction doesn't lead to hell for the people who are already up against the wall. We've tried inducing deflation from the other end. It hasn't worked.

No offence, but this is not in any form a viable suggestion or solution. Whose responsibility is it to "force the cost of living down"Do you think there is a big bad evil person sitting behind a desk somewhere who controls all this at the flick of a switch?

Perhaps your solution requires the government to enforce price ceilings on goods and services...........and hope that the businesses supplying those goods and services continue to do so at a loss?? Is that going to happen? Do you really believe that?

yore

libra02 wrote: »

The BTEA is a great scheme I am just finishing up a postgrad H Dip in Computing.

However I do think Gov needs to be more in the whole retraining people. I left college about 10 years ago with a Honours 1 degree in Business and Marketing. Worked to put myself through never got a grant or anything. Got a job and over the 10 years did various other courses to do with work and other areas I found intersting - leading to another 2 diplomas.

After being made redundant about 2.5 years ago, I jumped at chance last year to go back to college and was lucky to get the BETA as without the €188 there would have been no way I could have gone back.

I would love to go on and do the Master's course even my lecturers are saying I should go onto Masters program and upskill even more and increase chance of getting a job, as I think with my previous work expereience coupled with the new and old qualifications I'd have a better chance, but there is no way I can afford it.

I could apply for a grant and get the reg fees,as there are schemes there for that covered but that not guaranteed. So now I have to sign back on and pray I get a job.
But would it not be better, for people who are serious about upskilling like me, if the Gov kept us on the BETA for the extra year to do Masters and invest rather than paying me €188 for a year where I might not get a job.

You could apply for the grant just like any normal student. Just because you were getting good money through the door for a few years does not mean that you deserve 188 a week into your hand whereas a traditional student, going from school to college and wanting to stay on for an MSc. has no such entitlement

Adyx

Domo230 wrote: »

I currently work part time.

I am in the process of applying for back to education assistance that will allow me to go to college, get a degree and one day hopefully get a good job.

I am in a weird situation whereby I would not be able to afford to go to college if I worked full time as I would not be eligible for the back to education assistance.

Sad but true.

This is my plan too although I think I'm too late to go back to college this year. Can you still get BTEA if you're working part-time? I can't afford college otherwise. It cost me €4000 in fees alone just to get a Higher Cert.

Monty Burnz

up for anything wrote: »

The ESRI withdraws paper on 'cost of working', saying contents could be 'misleading'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/44-of-those-with-children-better-off-on-dole.html

I guess they weren't counting on the sh!tstorm they were about to unleash. Cue lots of political back-pedalling.

My name is URL

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I guess they weren't counting on the sh!tstorm they were about to unleash. Cue lots of political back-pedalling.

.. and people ignoring the small point about the paper being withdrawn, and continuing on their personal crusades regardless

Monty Burnz

My name is URL wrote: »

.. and people ignoring the small point about the paper being withdrawn, and continuing on their personal crusades regardless

Do you think it was withdrawn because of political pressure, or because they suddenly realised it was a pile of crap?

My name is URL

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Do you think it was withdrawn because of political pressure, or because they suddenly realised it was a pile of crap?

I think the former made them realise the latter more swiftly than they usually might!

The report didn't read as something that was fully considered anyway, imo.

steddyeddy

Domo230 wrote: »

Hopefully I get it but tbh I doubt I will.
They do not take most family debts into consideration so all they will look at is the income my dad technically makes while not considering that with all the debts he has from his business collapsing that most of that money is gone before he ever sees it.

We are too wealthy to get assistance, too poor to afford to pay for it ourselves. Typical middle class trap.
If I work too little I can't afford college, if I work too much then I won't be able to afford it either.

Im trapped in this crappy system.

One of my close friends in college is from a technically well off background and he got the btea. He was told he wasnt definatly going to get it when he applied but when he applied he included a letter detailing the whole story with his family (also in debt) and he was approved. If you get some sort of reference detailing your suitability for the course that would help to! Just try and write down everything you can to highlight why this could help and how your parents arent in a position to help.

yore

My name is URL wrote: »

.. and people ignoring the small point about the paper being withdrawn, and continuing on their personal crusades regardless

This was an academic paper which would have been researched and analysed by it's three authors, who I am assuming are experts in their area of research. It was not an off-the-cuff remark from an individual who doesn't know what they are talking about. Perhaps they just didn't want people jumping to conclusions that were not meant e.g. that people would say that 44% of people on the dole don't want to work because they get more on it. The paper didn't say that (from what I've read), but people reading it might easily come to that conclusion.....plus it wouldn't be very easy politically for a government to explain why this would be the case.

Monty Burnz

My name is URL wrote: »

I think the former made them realise the latter more swiftly than they usually might!

The report didn't read as something that was fully considered anyway, imo.

I'll go with the politicians getting on the phone to quash it. They'd rather ignore a problem than go to any effort to tackle it.

My name is URL

yore wrote: »

This was an academic paper which would have been researched and analysed by it's three authors, who I am assuming are experts in their area of research.

It's an academic paper which the authors peers have now withdrawn. What makes you trust the contents of the paper more than the reasons given by the organisation for withdrawing it?

Monty Burnz

My name is URL wrote: »

It's an academic paper which the authors peers have now withdrawn. What makes you trust the contents of the paper more than the reasons given by the organisation for withdrawing it?

Perhaps he wasn't born yesterday?

Bannasidhe

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps he wasn't born yesterday?

or perhaps he doesn't understand that an academic study that hasn't passed peer review isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Can anyone confirm that the study was based on data several years old?
I have heard that it was based on 2004/5 figures when SW rates were higher.

yore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

or perhaps he doesn't understand that an academic study that hasn't passed peer review isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Can anyone confirm that the study was based on data several years old?
I have heard that it was based on 2004/5 figures when SW rates were higher.

Perhaps I myself have had a few peer reviewed papers published and could claim to know at least a little bit about the process! How about you? Have you any ;-P ?

Monty Burnz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

or perhaps he doesn't understand that an academic study that hasn't passed peer review isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Can you verify that all of the ESRI's papers are peer-reviewed?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have heard that it was based on 2004/5 figures when SW rates were higher.

And before workers were hit with the USC and various new taxes?

yore

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you verify that all of the ESRI's papers are peer-reviewed?

They'd get reviewed for inclusion into a journal. This was a working paper. That doesn't mean that it contains junk.

Bannasidhe

yore wrote: »

Perhaps I myself have had a few peer reviewed papers published and could claim to know at least a little bit about the process! How about you? Have you any ;-P ?

Lashings as a matter of fact. I have also peer reviewed.

Monty Burnz

yore wrote: »

Perhaps I myself have had a few peer reviewed papers published and could claim to know at least a little bit about the process! How about you? Have you any ;-P ?

Bannasidhe is/was a Phd candidate like myself, so she should know something about the process too. I'd just be quite surprised if a think-tank bothered to have its papers externally peer reviewed - they aren't journals after all.

RaRaRasputin

smash wrote: »

Source?


Probably one of the most expensive countries in Europe for childcare.


People do, and they budget for it.


They are the future of the country you know.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0628/1224299677508.html
Recent enough?

Of course it's the most expensive to run with these masses of children running around. Anything else would have surprised me.

Fascinating how other countries manage to sustain themselves with less complaining and demanding. And how many people are leaving Ireland each year? Seems that the trend isn't really improving much:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0322/1224313700724.html

Yeah guess all of those kids will fund Ireland in the future

Monty Burnz

yore wrote: »

They'd get reviewed for inclusion into a journal. This was a working paper. That doesn't mean that it contains junk.

My point exactly. I don't know that any think-tank has their papers peer-reviewed absent journal publication.

Bannasidhe

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you verify that all of the ESRI's papers are peer-reviewed?

And before workers were hit with the USC and various new taxes?

Yes. So even if the calculations are correct - which the ERSI says they are not - all the report could state was the situation at the time the data was collected.

I am disputing the relevance of a report based on data that is apparently 8 years old.

yore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Lashings as a matter of fact. I have also peer reviewed.

Fair play to you. I'm not sure how many "lashings" equate to but it sounds like a lot :-) . You must be a very prolific researcher. Four or five a year would be considered well above average, although I guess it depends on your subject area. I'd reckon the softer wishy washy sciences can pump out more a year :-)

Bannasidhe

yore wrote: »

Fair play to you. I'm not sure how many "lashings" equate to but it sounds like a lot :-) . You must be a vary prolific researcher. Four or five a year would be considered well above average, although I guess it depends on your subject area. I'd reckon the softer wishy washy sciences can pump out more a year :-)

LOL.

yore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. So even if the calculations are correct - which the ERSI says they are not - all the report could state was the situation at the time the data was collected.

I am disputing the relevance of a report based on data that is apparently 8 years old.

The data might be correct. It might also be clearly stated in the paper. It might be idiots reading it for the media that are making the mistakes and that is why it was pulled!

BattleCorp

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the Government the ESRI's paymasters?

Embarrassed their paymasters I think, that's why there was a retraction.

They weren't clowns in the ESRI that wrote this paper so people on here rubbishing its contents are probably off the mark.

My sister-in-law worked it out for herself and her family and they found that they are worse off by having her husband working than if they were both on the dole.

Bannasidhe

yore wrote: »

The data might be correct. It might also be clearly stated in the paper. It might be idiots reading it for the media that are making the mistakes and that is why it was pulled!

Indeed. The report could provide a very accurate study of the situation in 2004/5. However, it is been presented in the media was relevant to the situation now.

There has been an awful lot of changes in the income of both the unemployed and the employed in the intervening years.

I seem to remember petrol being around a euro a litre, basic SW being 200 pw, unemployment no where near where it is now, a lunchtime sammich costing nearly a fiver in the shop near work - and people setting up childcare business' to beat the band as it was seen as a sure-fire way to make money.

I consulted on and wrote the 10 year action plan for one of the County Childcare Companies back in 2005 so I had access to the figures of private childcare providers - some of them were making so much money that I nearly considered opening up a creche myself.

filmbuffboy

I think its really important to remember that most people who are claiming unemployment assitsance from the government now, were working and wanted to work before the recession hit. Most people, given the choice would choose to work over collecting dole payments every week.

Monty Burnz

filmbuffboy wrote: »

I think its really important to remember that most people who are claiming unemployment assitsance from the government now, were working and wanted to work before the recession hit. Most people, given the choice would choose to work over collecting dole payments every week.

I'm certain nobody has any problem with at least 10% of the 15% of people who are unemployed. It's the 5% who were unemployed at the height of the bubble - when we were importing tens of thousands of people from Asia and Eastern Europe to fill posts every year - that grind my gears.

filmbuffboy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm certain nobody has any problem with at least 10% of the 15% of people who are unemployed. It's the 5% who were unemployed at the height of the bubble - when we were importing tens of thousands of people from Asia and Eastern Europe to fill posts every year - that grind my gears.

absolutely. and i agree 100% completely with you.

im just trying to clarify that most people that you and I, and everyone else who has posted on this thread knows who are on welfare now... were working for years before it all went pear shaped. and would work again at the drop of a hat.

there are definatley people on welfare who are abusing the system, but the vast majority are not.

Zamboni

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. The report could provide a very accurate study of the situation in 2004/5. However, it is been presented in the media was relevant to the situation now.

Where is the indication that this paper was based on eight year old data?