IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

djpbarry

antoobrien wrote: »

Revenue's checks & audits of cash business yielded a total of about €520m in 2011. Theow in counterfeit goods (9m), cigarette and oil smuggling etc, ISMEs figures might be optimistic, but wildly so.

Well, I did qualify it with it “may be some way off the actual figure”.

EchoO wrote: »

It's interesting that you are now say when jobs are created because up to now you have been contending that the root cause of the current high long term unemployment rate is down to ex-construction workers "sitting on the dole, and waiting for salaries to recover", instead of taking up the jobs currently available in the economy...

...or going back into education. Or emigrating.

EchoO wrote: »

Now if they are not taking these jobs up then it follows that there most be all these job vacancies still out there.

See, what you’ve done there is create a false dichotomy.

EchoO wrote: »

I have repeatedly asked you to back this up with some kind of factually based evidence...

The evidence is that there are a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications. That number is growing, because they have very little incentive to get themselves off welfare.

I’m curious. If an unemployed construction worker comes to you looking for career advice, what do you say to them? Sit tight, there ain’t no jobs?

antoobrien

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, I did qualify it with it “may be some way off the actual figure”.

Sorry my post as intended to support your point, I meant not wildly inaccurate. It's a bit late now, but I've gone back and fixed it.

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

The evidence is that there are a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications. That number is growing, because they have very little incentive to get themselves off welfare.

Just to look at the craft field, which in the case below would be heavily influenced by the labour surplus in the construction industry.

In July 2011, there were 15, 323 men who had last worked at a craft < 25 on the live register.
In July 2012, there were 11, 511 men who had last worked at a craft < 25 on the live register
This constitutes a fall of 3, 812 men < 25 on an annual basis.

The decrease is not limited to the under 25s.

In July 2011, there were 89, 725 men who had last worked at a craft > 25 on the live register.
In July 2012, there were 84, 989 men who had last worked at a craft > 25 on the live register.
This constitutes a fall of 4,736 men> 25 on an annual basis.

Altogether, there was a drop of 8, 548 men on the live register who had last held a craft occupation from all age groups.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the labour surplus in craft, in this case, mainly construction and related vocations, is being dealt with by emigration, as is our traditional way of dealing with a labour surplus.

I am interested in hearing the evidence, which you said existed, that the number of young, uneducated men on the live register is increasing.

Furthermore, I'd be interested to understand why you suggest that there is little financial incentive for young men in particular to get themselves off welfare, especially in light of the rates which apply to jobseekers under the age of 25.

EchoO

See, what you’ve done there is create a false dichotomy.

You have a point, I realised that to be the case after I posted it.

djpbarry wrote: »

The evidence is that there are a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications. That number is growing, because they have very little incentive to get themselves off welfare.

Yes there is evidence of the of a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up the second statement.

The biggest job losses were in the construction sector, so it stands to reason that they would make up the bulk of the long-term unemployed. Our weak domestic demand means relatively few unskilled jobs have been created in the economy since the start of the recession. So of the 1 job vacancy for every 26 unemployment person that there presently is in the country a much smaller amount of them would be jobs an ex-construction worker would have the skills to apply for(The ratio of job vacancies to unemployment would have been even greater in first few years of the recession). This would further explain the large number of construction workers who are long-term unemployed i.e., lack of low skilled jobs being created and structural unemployment.

I'm still awaiting your evidence.

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

I am interested in hearing the evidence, which you said existed, that the number of young, uneducated men on the live register is increasing.

No, I said the number of long-term unemployed men is increasing.

later12 wrote: »

Furthermore, I'd be interested to understand why you suggest that there is little financial incentive for young men in particular to get themselves off welfare, especially in light of the rates which apply to jobseekers under the age of 25.

I would consider “young” to encompass ages above 25.

I have already explained why I think there is a lack of incentive several times. First of all, available salaries are likely to have dropped considerably. Secondly, welfare is essentially available at a flat rate indefinitely, in contrast to most of Europe.

EchoO wrote: »

I'm still awaiting your evidence.

You’re awaiting evidence of what exactly?

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I said the number of long-term unemployed men is increasing.
I would consider “young” to encompass ages above 25.

Ok, can you show me the evidence you referred to which suggests that the number is growing?

The evidence is that there are a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications. That number is growing, because they have very little incentive to get themselves off welfare.

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

Ok, can you show me the evidence you referred to which suggests that the number is growing?

I compiled this from data on the CSO website:

waltermc

A single person on welfare of 188 a week cannot survive. Everything is getting expensive and people think that is too high. Reduce it and people are living in poverty. Welfare benefits are too high and the people who do enjoy a goo lifestyle out of it are the ones who milk the system and get rent allowance and any other allowance available. Reducing welfare benefits wont get people back to work if employers wont hire and there are no jobs available.The government need to put in place a proper scheme that actually gets people off the dole and into a job instead of putting them into a crap FAS course.

They wont do that because they dont care about anyone else as long as they get their salaries.

All of you here who give out about it being too high what about our TDs who are getting a tax write off for their laundry and getting a fee for attending every Dail session. They are the one's who must suffer as they have lots of money in back accounts and can take the hit.

There are 35000 civil servants too many and they need to be gotten rid of. The majority of people would glady get off the dole and go back to work but businesses are closing every day so that is not possible

I am also aware of the fact that some long term unemployed people in the country are out of work because they stand up for themselves against work place bullying and that is frowned upon and as such they have been ruined and wont ever work again

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

I compiled this from data on the CSO website:

That's not what I asked you for; specifically 'few qualifications' please.

The evidence is that there are a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications. That number is growing, because they have very little incentive to get themselves off welfare.

Furthermore, the under 25s overall seem to be flattening off, not growing; just like the significant fall in those unemployed men under 25 (and of all age groups) last spotted working in construction and related disciplines as demonstrated earlier.

antoobrien

later12 wrote: »

the under 25s overall seem to be flattening off, not growing

Not meaning to be sarcastic here but that will happen as 25 year olds turn 26. Most workers would have finished apprenticeships/college courses by 21/22. That gives them 3/4 years in the "young" bracket.

Anecdotally there are more jobs in IT, so the graduates of the past few years will have not been adding to the total jobless pool and as the unemployed get older they move out of the "young" bracket.

So it's natural that the unemployment in the young bracket will level off - not because of any great level of job creation, but due to changing demographics.

touts

waltermc wrote: »

A single person on welfare of 188 a week cannot survive. Everything is getting expensive and people think that is too high. Reduce it and people are living in poverty. Welfare benefits are too high and the people who do enjoy a goo lifestyle out of it are the ones who milk the system and get rent allowance and any other allowance available. Reducing welfare benefits wont get people back to work if employers wont hire and there are no jobs available.The government need to put in place a proper scheme that actually gets people off the dole and into a job instead of putting them into a crap FAS course.

They wont do that because they dont care about anyone else as long as they get their salaries.

All of you here who give out about it being too high what about our TDs who are getting a tax write off for their laundry and getting a fee for attending every Dail session. They are the one's who must suffer as they have lots of money in back accounts and can take the hit.

There are 35000 civil servants too many and they need to be gotten rid of. The majority of people would glady get off the dole and go back to work but businesses are closing every day so that is not possible

I am also aware of the fact that some long term unemployed people in the country are out of work because they stand up for themselves against work place bullying and that is frowned upon and as such they have been ruined and wont ever work again

That's only because we have a strange relatively modern notion that when a person reaches 18 they have a god given right to be out completely on their own without assistance from their family but with assistance from strangers (i.e. the taxpayer). In countries such as Singapore welfare exists as the final safety net not the automatic bonus straight from school or college. There the first safety net (and here up to very recently) is the family. There the idea that the 21 year old college graduate son of a Barrister with a 5 bed mansion should suddenly be entitled to a free apartment, free medical card and a few hundred in cash into his hand each week just because he finished the free college course we gave him for the last 4 years would be considered stand up comedy.

We need to get to the point where the primary support network is the family and the state is the emergency backup. At the moment it is the other way around and that is unsustainable. If a young person lived at home until they got a job then €88 a week would be more than enough nevermind €188. It may not be their ideal situation (or their parents) but it is where we need to get to for the greater good of society.

The idea that it is some way better to throw 35,000 public servants and their families on to the dole than have young people live with their parents is insane. There are many reasons to reduce the number of public servants and improve costs and efficency in the state but keeping young people on the full dole with all associated perks is a new one on me. Living at home may not be good for their self worth or for their confidence but to be honest there are far more pressing social issues to be dealt with.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

Not meaning to be sarcastic here but that will happen as 25 year olds turn 26. Most workers would have finished apprenticeships/college courses by 21/22. That gives them 3/4 years in the "young" bracket.

Anecdotally there are more jobs in IT, so the graduates of the past few years will have not been adding to the total jobless pool

Oh there are lots of possible reasons as to why the numbers are leveling off there; 18-24 year olds availing of back to education allowances and retraining (as per the Confrey paper I linked to earlier), emigration, shifting focus of school leavers, and so on. That's not really up for debate. What is being requested is the evidence that the numbers of LTU young men with few qualifications is increasing, evidence which djpbarry referred to earlier. That is a simple enough request, don't you think?

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

That's not what I asked you for; specifically 'few qualifications' please.

I think it is reasonable to infer it from the available evidence. For example, most young men in Ireland do not have significant post-leaving cert education and this number has not changed significantly over the last couple of years. Unemployment rates for males without third-level education have increased sharply in the last number of years, while it has held relatively steady for those with third-level qualifications. Meanwhile, the total number unemployed men, across all age groups, has not increased dramatically in the last couple of years (although there have been fluctuations across different age groups). About 50% of unemployed men are in the 15-34 age bracket. Over 70% are in the 15-44 bracket. Long-term unemployment among young men is increasing.

It’s difficult to reach any conclusion from all of the above other than the overwhelming majority of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland probably do not have significant post-leaving cert education.

later12 wrote: »

Furthermore, the under 25s overall seem to be flattening off, not growing...

Nope, since the beginning of 2010, the number of long-term unemployed under 25s has increased by an average of about 1,500 per quarter.

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to infer it from the available evidence. For example, most young men in Ireland do not have significant post-leaving cert education and this number has not changed significantly over the last couple of years. Unemployment rates for males without third-level education have increased sharply in the last number of years, while it has held relatively steady for those with third-level qualifications. Meanwhile, the total number unemployed men, across all age groups, has not increased dramatically in the last couple of years (although there have been fluctuations across different age groups). About 50% of unemployed men are in the 15-34 age bracket. Over 70% are in the 15-44 bracket. Long-term unemployment among young men is increasing.

No, you specifically mentioned evidence. Obviously you are thinking of something, can you provide some sort of link to something better than this to show that the numbers of LTU young men with few qualifications is increasing.

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

No, you specifically mentioned evidence.

Yes, I did, and I have presented said evidence above (all taken from the CSO website, mainly here and here). If you must be pedantic, I will rephrase my earlier statement as:

"The evidence suggests that there are a large number of long-term unemployed young men in Ireland with few qualifications."

Let me ask you this - what do you think is the typical educational level achieved by a young, long-term unemployed man in Ireland and why?

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

Let me ask you this - what do you think is the typical educational level achieved by a young, long-term unemployed man in Ireland and why?

Oh there is simply no doubt but that increased educational attainment is traditionally linked to lower unemployment; that is not in question.

I asked you to clarify the evidence that long term unemployment amongst undereducated men is growing. You didn't do that. It may well turn out to be the case if the relevant data were to be published, but please don't cite evidence which quite clearly is not publicly available and expect it to go unremarked.

Neither did you describe why you feel that the reduced rates of payments for the under 25s whom you refer to above would be "very little incentive" to get off welfare?

The government can only realistically operate on the basis that individuals will respond to a clear financial incentive, and in the case of young single men, especially from the under 25 group to whom you refer in the previous post, there is a clear financial incentive to work.

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

I asked you to clarify the evidence that long term unemployment amongst undereducated men is growing. You didn't do that. It may well turn out to be the case if the relevant data were to be published, but please don't cite evidence which quite clearly is not publicly available and expect it to go unremarked.

So the evidence is inadmissible until such time as someone at the ESRI commits it to paper?

later12 wrote: »

Neither did you describe why you feel that the reduced rates of payments for the under 25s whom you refer to above would be "very little incentive" to get off welfare?

The reduced rates don't apply to people transferring from Jobseeker’s Benefit.

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

So the evidence is inadmissible until such time as someone at the ESRI commits it to paper?

Not at all ; it's perfectly legitimate to wonder aloud about where one might build logical bridges over the data gaps.

What is not legitimate is calling such speculative remarks "evidence". That's a straightforward enough principle, I should think.

The reduced rates don't apply to people transferring from Jobseeker’s Benefit.

Even for an individual on the maximum personal rate, it doesn't make financial sense that he would prefer a wage of €188 per week to even a low paid wage, or even a retraining programme. The Government has little choice but operate on the presumption that when it comes to work incentives, most rational people will do what makes sound financial sense in terms of IRRs, or emigrate.

Perhaps you think there are a growing number of former builders and electricians out there sitting on the dole queues, waiting for the next construction boom, but if you want to be taken seriously at least do try to provide evidence as opposed to more of your conjecture.

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

Not at all ; it's perfectly legitimate to wonder aloud about where one might build logical bridges over the data gaps.

What is not legitimate is calling such speculative remarks "evidence".

Eh ... I gave you whole bunch of figures and a couple of supporting links to plenty of hard numbers. How is that not evidence? Given those numbers, if you were asked to "speculate" as to the typical educational level of a long-term unemployed young man in Ireland, what would your response be?

later12 wrote: »

Even for an individual on the maximum personal rate, it doesn't make financial sense that he would prefer a wage of €188 per week to even a low paid wage, or even a retraining programme.

You see, you're repeatedly overlooking the very obvious fact that this EUR 188 can be claimed every week, indefinitely, in exchange for doing absolutely nothing.

later12 wrote: »

Perhaps you think there are a growing number of former builders and electricians out there sitting on the dole queues, waiting for the next construction boom, but if you want to be taken seriously at least do try to provide evidence as opposed to more of your conjecture.

The most recent evidence suggests that a very large chunk of unemployed men in Ireland were most recently employed in construction and related industries. Given that this was the last known position, given that unemployment rates have not come down and given that long-term unemployment among men has grown considerably, I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate that the number of ex-construction workers on the dole has dropped considerably in recent times.

Cheerful Spring

We can continue to argue all day about social welfare and most would "agree" the social welfare bill is too high anyways to manage long-term.

This isn't a talking point the solution to this is finding more jobs!!

Unemployment is the reason why we borrow so much and its a major reason to why the Irish government will have to increase taxes!! How we ever going to balance the budget with unemployment been so high?

And it is a fact most people on the unemployed roll do not have college degrees.

Early 90's Ireland experienced an influx of America companies setting up in Ireland and providing non skilled workers with jobs. The majority of those companies have to their great credit stayed in Ireland during the recession, but a minority have left, and gone to other countries. If we had shown more of a fuss some of those companies might not have left. Ancient history now.

Were can we get new jobs from, and for me the answer is obvious one.

China and Japan the two largest economies behind the United States, i see there an untapped market for bringing in new jobs to this country.

How many companies belonging to Chinese or Japanese business leaders are now working in Ireland? Very few if any!

I think if we charm them correctly and say the right things, and tell them why it would be in their interest to invest here in Ireland. I do see the potential of Chinese and Japanese companies coming here in the future to set up businesses. Irelands leaders however need to be motivated to push this or it will not happen ever. I am though worried by the lack of leadership shown by our politicians. If we don't see something radical soon things in this country can only get worse not better.

If we are were to cut welfare why not cut money from this to invest elsewhere in a country-wide fibre network? This is a radical idea but the benefit would outway the pain in the long-term!!

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh ... I gave you whole bunch of figures and a couple of supporting links to plenty of hard numbers. How is that not evidence?

Do we really have to go through this again? How is it evidence?If there were evidence that the numbers of young, long term unemployed & undereductaed men were increasing month by month, or quarter by quarter, then you ought to be able to supply a table, or a graph to visibly demonstrate this point. That would be evidence.

Speculating on the basis of what one might consider likely educational profiles is absolutely fine - so long as it isn't erroneously, or misleadingly called "evidence".

I don't know how you cannot be grasping this.

Given those numbers, if you were asked to "speculate" as to the typical educational level of a long-term unemployed young man in Ireland, what would your response be?

I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that the undereducated were disproportionately represented in that statistic - not even remotely. But sooner or later you are going to have to learn the difference between calling something evidence and calling something a likelihood or a probability.

You see, you're repeatedly overlooking the very obvious fact that this EUR 188 can be claimed every week, indefinitely, in exchange for doing absolutely nothing.

And again you're repeating yourself whilst going nowhere. You appear particularly at home when no resort to statistics or data are called for, and you can hide quite cheerfully behind what you deem to be in line with your own preconceptions.

The Government have to operate on the basis that most young unemployed men will behave in a fairly rational manner where IRRs make work financially attractive.

The most recent evidence suggests that a very large chunk of unemployed men in Ireland were most recently employed in construction and related industries.

You're talking about the craft sector right? Where the numbers of unemployed have been consistently falling both for men over and under the age of 25, isn't that correct?

I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate that the number of ex-construction workers on the dole has dropped considerably in recent times.

Oh but I'm not saying that at all; we don't have any data to say that the number of ex-construction workers on the dole is either rising or falling. All we can do is that talk about the Craft sector overall. This is from my earlier post, which I am only to glad to repeat.

In July 2011, there were 15, 323 men who had last worked at a craft < 25 on the live register.
In July 2012, there were 11, 511 men who had last worked at a craft < 25 on the live register
This constitutes a fall of 3, 812 men < 25 on an annual basis.

The decrease is not limited to the under 25s.

In July 2011, there were 89, 725 men who had last worked at a craft > 25 on the live register.
In July 2012, there were 84, 989 men who had last worked at a craft > 25 on the live register.
This constitutes a fall of 4,736 men> 25 on an annual basis.

Altogether, there was a drop of 8, 548 men on the live register who had last held a craft occupation from all age groups.

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that the undereducated were disproportionately represented in that statistic - not even remotely. But sooner or later you are going to have to learn the difference between calling something evidence and calling something a likelihood or a probability.

Because, of course, evidence is never based on likelihoods or probabilities, is it?

later12 wrote: »

You appear particularly at home when no resort to statistics or data are called for...

You want a statistic to tell you that being paid a flat rate indefinitely, in exchange for doing absolutely nothing, is going to be financially attractive to most people?

later12 wrote: »

All we can do is that talk about the Craft sector overall. This is from my earlier post, which I am only to glad to repeat.

Any chance you could provide a source this time?

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

Because, of course, evidence is never based on likelihoods or probabilities, is it?

Look, you made a mistake or else made a deliberately misleading statement. What you provided was not evidence - not even under a liberal interpretation of that word.

Any chance you could provide a source this time?

It's from the live register data, as had been mentioned earlier. I hadn't thought that would need further elaboration. It's on the CSO's website... that's www.cso.ie

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

Even for an individual on the maximum personal rate, it doesn't make financial sense that he would prefer a wage of €188 per week to even a low paid wage, or even a retraining programme.

unless they work in "black economy"

The survey also found that almost 20 per cent of construction companies believe that black-economy activity in the construction sector has grown by more than 100 per cent since the downturn began.

A little over half (52 per cent) of building firms believe they have lost more than five jobs to black-economy operations in the last 12 months and just under one in four construction companies is aware of public contracts being awarded to black economy operations.

'Nixers' rise as anger at tax burden grows

later12

Sure; black economy activity could well be increasing.

I'm sure nobody is opposed to monitoring the validity of social welfare claims and employer complicity in fraud.

But presumably that's going to be a problem whether welfare rates are €50 or €188, so it's unclear what your point is there.

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

Sure; black economy activity could well be increasing.

I'm sure nobody is opposed to monitoring the validity of social welfare claims and employer complicity in fraud.

But presumably that's going to be a problem whether welfare rates are €50 or €188, so it's unclear what your point is there.

Point was that life on 188PW could be not so bad as you are trying to paint

later12

Count Dooku wrote: »

Point was that life on 188PW could be not so bad as you are trying to paint

Am I indeed?

What post were you thinking of specifically?

I don't even recall defending welfare expenditure once in this thread.

I think welfare expenditure needs to be cut, not because it's likely that it's financially attractive to young people, but because of the necessary fiscal consolidation to meet our debt targets.

paddy147

Do politicians take many cuts themselves??

touts

paddy147 wrote: »

Do politicians take many cuts themselves??

They do. But then again when you are on €100K plus unvouched expenses plus magnificant pension plus wink wink nudge nudge payments it isn't too hard to go to €95K plus unvouched expenses plus magnificant pension plus wink wink nudge nudge payments . Either way being elected a TD is still a golden ticket to financial security for life (unless you do something stupid in business like Ivan Yeats or James Reilly).

ahal

touts wrote: »

Either way being elected a TD is still a golden ticket to financial security for life (unless you do something stupid in business like Ivan Yeats or James Reilly).

And therein lies a bit part of the overall problem. Invent a better wheel? - nah, just learn to play the one that's already there. And some wonder why there might be a shortage of home - grown industry?

On the specific subject, we are still as far away from equality of sacrifice as ever. There are still plenty of people who see 2 foreign holidays a year as a "disaster" while the kids of other people go to school with no breakfast.

Tea drinker

ahal wrote: »

And therein lies a bit part of the overall problem. Invent a better wheel? - nah, just learn to play the one that's already there. And some wonder why there might be a shortage of home - grown industry?



On the specific subject, we are still as far away from equality of sacrifice as ever. There are still plenty of people who see 2 foreign holidays a year as a "disaster" while the kids of other people go to school with no breakfast.

But we've known the political system is broken for years, no one really cares, many in fact like it like this. So where does this leave us? We are too beat down a nation to really fight for a better system, the fighters leave.
We have Ivor Callelly jaunting around claiming his allowances, same as the rest of the TD's are claiming huge bucks for mileage driving around talking [EMAIL="cr@p"]cr@p[/EMAIL] to random fools rather than building coherent strategy. No don't worry about your ministerial position it's not important....
No one wants home grown industry here either, as djpbarry says if you can't make it on your own there's no point in assisting people, or having innovation workshops

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, let me put it like this...



An entrepreneur who needs the state to supply them with a premises in which they can thrash out ideas is probably not going to be a terribly successful entrepreneur. People who need to be thrown together in a room in order to network probably don’t have the necessary proactive disposition to start their own business.

darego

Ardent wrote: »

It annoys me that successive governments have failed to tackle the issue of our incredibly generous social welfare benefits. It takes the IMF to come out and state the blindingly obvious.

We might see some action at long last. I hope it's tackled in a way that 1) minimises the impact on those who have recently become unemployed and 2) hits career welfare recipients hardest.

how likely is this to happen? has there been anymore news on it recently? i couldn't agree any more with it tbh

padser12345

darego wrote: »

how likely is this to happen? has there been anymore news on it recently? i couldn't agree any more with it tbh

The problem the government has had over the past couple of years was whether or not to either Inflate the economy or Deflate it.

You know now that it is being "sort of" Inflated....not necessarily the way it has been done before ie. Property Tax, Water Charges Etc. While keeping Tax and prices for Goods relatively the same and more pertinently keeping the rates of SW more or less the same too. This in 'my opinion' is the way the Gov is going to literally control how we spend for the future....so it is saying keep your current level of money - but we will get it off you another way!

Social Welfare recipients should be the last to be cut in the argument about 'who gets what' other wise you get a massive difference to the 'Classes'....€10 taken away from SW recipient may probably be the same as €50 from Public or Private Sector.

I am open to correction.....!

Red Crow

darego wrote: »

how likely is this to happen? has there been anymore news on it recently? i couldn't agree any more with it tbh

In fairness Joan Burton has tackled some issues including the ridiculous old system of PRSI and pensions which was widely disproportionate.

They will cut the benefits system but it will penalise people under 25 and they will take most of the pain.

I will be hoping for radical reform especially to the supplementary benefits and allowance system.

Head The Wall

later12 wrote: »

Look, you made a mistake or else made a deliberately misleading statement. What you provided was not evidence - not even under a liberal interpretation of that word.

It's from the live register data, as had been mentioned earlier. I hadn't thought that would need further elaboration. It's on the CSO's website... that's www.cso.ie

It seems as if you don't have thoughts of your own and only believe what bean counters tell you. Paper doesn't refuse ink so don't always believe what's in a report, yes it can be used as a guide but is not always going to be 100% correct

Scofflaw

Head The Wall wrote: »

It seems as if you don't have thoughts of your own and only believe what bean counters tell you. Paper doesn't refuse ink so don't always believe what's in a report, yes it can be used as a guide but is not always going to be 100% correct

If you can show where a source is "not 100% correct" by all means do so - if you can't, that statement becomes merely a convenient way for you to dismiss inconvenient facts without being able to show that they're wrong.

moderately,
Scofflaw

padser12345

later12 wrote: »

Am I indeed?

What post were you thinking of specifically?

I don't even recall defending welfare expenditure once in this thread.

I think welfare expenditure needs to be cut, not because it's likely that it's financially attractive to young people, but because of the necessary fiscal consolidation to meet our debt targets.

I agree with you...but only certain recipients should to be cut....keep in mind the one's that have mortgages. And also young people i think under 25yrs get approx. half the norm.

Head The Wall

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you can show where a source is "not 100% correct" by all means do so - if you can't, that statement becomes merely a convenient way for you to dismiss inconvenient facts without being able to show that they're wrong.

moderately,
Scofflaw

No survey is 100% correct, especially not one where they only survey a sample of people. Because of that I am not dismissing them as inconvenient facts just stating that the facts are not necessarily factually correct.

Scofflaw

Head The Wall wrote: »

No survey is 100% correct, especially not one where they only survey a sample of people. Because of that I am not dismissing them as inconvenient facts just stating that the facts are not necessarily factually correct.

All surveys have margins of error, but stating that "the facts are not necessarily factually correct" without being able to show how they are is indeed just a way of dismissing facts that one can't otherwise challenge.

If you have facts that contradict those cited, you can cite those - if you don't, then you pretty much have to accept the facts cited unless you can show that the probability or range of error renders them worthless. You cannot do that by just waving your arms and saying "no survey is 100% correct". Surveys do not claim to be "100% correct" - they claim to be "95% correct" or similar, according to the rules of statistical confidence. If you're challenging CSO figures, the first thing you would need to do is to show that the range of error in their figures, or the assumptions on which they're based, are such as to render them useless in supporting the other poster's claims - but you haven't even begun such a process, as far as I can see.

People are not entitled to their own personal facts, or to dismiss objective facts because of their personal preferences. To allow that is to accept that all debate is meaningless rehashing of equally baseless opinions - in which case you might as well settle your disagreement with later12 by tossing a coin.

I'm not getting at you personally here, and haven't actually followed the argument in question in detail - this is a general statement about a far too common attitude to facts. Posters cannot dismiss facts with unproven or over-general blanket claims - it renders the entire existence of a discussion forum meaningless.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

It's from the live register data, as had been mentioned earlier. I hadn't thought that would need further elaboration. It's on the CSO's website... that's www.cso.ie

Why data from welfare.ie says that it was 73,840 recipients of unemployment assistance in 2004 and number increased to 75,357 in 2005 ( Table A10)?
https://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2005stats.pdf

seaside911

Leave people on the dole alone . the new world order are the culprits . laughing at the imf :-D

darego

Eli Manning wrote: »

They will cut the benefits system but it will penalise people under 25 and they will take most of the pain.

they should be penalising the career welfare recipients! the people who think it's fine and dandy sitting on their holes for years and years living the easy life, not even moving a muscle looking for a job. how likely is this to happen? why can't they make it like some other countries, after a year or so on jobseekers the payment is reduced

there needs to be some incentive for people to get off jobseekers and back into work. and yes i know some people find it hard to get a job in their specialized field of work but i'm talking about a certain class of people whos main purpose is to stay on jobseekers for as long as possible

later12

Head The Wall wrote: »

No survey is 100% correct, especially not one where they only survey a sample of people. Because of that I am not dismissing them as inconvenient facts just stating that the facts are not necessarily factually correct.

Just to be clear - the live register is not a survey.

The QNHS is a survey.

The live register is an administrative headcount ; computed by a program which is capable of providing fairly detailed statistical breakdowns. There's no legitimate reason to doubt its accuracy.

Count Dooku wrote: »

Why data from welfare.ie says that it was 73,840 recipients of unemployment assistance in 2004 and number increased to 75,357 in 2005 ( Table A10)?
https://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2005stats.pdf

What has this got to do with the post you're quoting? What's your point

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

What has this got to do with the post you're quoting? What's your point

long term unemployment numbers were artificially decreased by unknown to public criteria in order to make statistic look better

later12

Count Dooku wrote: »

long term unemployment numbers were artificially decreased by unknown to public criteria in order to make statistic look better

Unemployment Benefit claimant numbers fell by 8.6% y-o-y and Unemployment Assistance claimant numbers increased by 2.1% y-o-y. That report doesn't give a breakdown of long term unemployment claimants overall.

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting this does not correspond with Live Register data from the CSO? What exactly are you suggesting, and why?

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

Unemployment Benefit claimant numbers fell by 8.6% y-o-y and Unemployment Assistance claimant numbers increased by 2.1% y-o-y. That report doesn't give a breakdown of long term unemployment claimants overall.

Who else was receiving UA at this time?

later12

Count Dooku wrote: »

Who else was receiving UA at this time?

The unemployed who had not built up enough PRSI credits on finding themselves recently/ temporarily jobless? Some of the JB claimants in 2004 would have left the system and re-entered employment, others would have gone onto JA. JA claimants would have been leaving the system too and be replaced by other jobseekers from other benefit types. There are lots of these sorts of interactions going on. If you look at the LR data for Jan 2004 as opposed to Jan 2005, you can see that JB claims fell considerably, but JA claim numbers stayed fairly static.

Seriously, I don't think this is entertaining reading for anyone, can we just get to the point? I still have no idea what point it is you're making.

seaside911

Hold on a mo.

The money given to the unemployed is what keeps our economy going whether they sit on their arses or not. I'd far rather an Irish citizen got a share of my tax than an IMF agent

Head The Wall

Let's give everyone more borrowed money so, problem solved? I don't think so, twisted logic

seaside911

Head The Wall wrote: »

Let's give everyone more borrowed money so, problem solved? I don't think so, twisted logic

No Mate , Im kinda suggesting that we stop giving money to the IMF and the Banks much like Iceland did. And you cannot blame the long term unemployed for going mad borrowing during the boom because as you know the banks have always been choosy about who gets their loans.