Media: 39% of Under 25s unemployed

Degsy

not1but4 wrote: »

What is wrong with an IT degree?

Utterly useless for anything outside of It and tends to be held by a certain kind of person with no other skills.

Not slagging or anything,just an observation.

RATM

djpbarry wrote: »

To what end?

Anything is possible- just look at the protests in Ukraine, more recently Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. The populations just said enough is enough and they hit the streets till they got regime change. Wheather that is or the better or not remains to be seen but I was just making the point that if 250,000 under 25's took to a long term protest on the streets of Dublin they could (with organisation) collapse the government, in a peaceful manner too.

I don't believe for one minute that they'll actually get organised and do it but it is not outside of the realms of possibility. To what end? 200,000 jobs aren't going to pop out of no-where thats for sure. But if the current lot were stopped wasting money on bailing dead banks there might be a good bit more in the pot to create some. We're going in totally the wrong direction at the moment and they only people who don't realise it are FG?Lab, this crises is getting worse in 2012, not better so something has to give if the young are to get back into work.

ChRoMe

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it isn’t. Taking third level as an example, the registration fee (or whatever it’s called) represents a tiny fraction of the actual cost of the course.

Thats great, doesn't refute the fact there is a sizeable amount of money required to attend

djpbarry wrote: »

And finally, given that you are from a “middle-class” background and I am (apparently) from a “working class” background, perhaps you could outline for me some of the difficulties I may have faced in making the ascent to “middle class” that you did not have to contend with in your life?

Well as I've said I don't think you are working class. However in a general sense the dynamic of the relationship is demonstrated by proximity and access to capital.

djpbarry wrote: »

But generally speaking, there is little stopping anyone from, for example, pursuing a degree, regardless of background.

Sure, everything except, financial and culturual/societal pressures and expectations.

djpbarry wrote: »

Genuine question: define “disadvantaged” in this context.

Eh... really? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=disadvantaged&l=1

ChRoMe

If you're interested in learning more about the rigid class structure in Ireland. There is an excellent report here http://www.tascnet.ie/upload/file/MtGC%20ISSU.pdf

Its called Mapping the Golden Circle.

In addition there is also a reasonably level headed discussion of the issue on politics.ie http://www.politics.ie/forum/culture-community/178515-modern-ireland-its-rigid-social-class-system.html

djpbarry

Degsy wrote: »

Utterly useless for anything outside of It and tends to be held by a certain kind of person with no other skills.

Not slagging or anything,just an observation.

It's not just an observation - it's a stupid, baseless generalisation.

djpbarry

RATM wrote: »

Anything is possible- just look at the protests in Ukraine, more recently Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. The populations just said enough is enough and they hit the streets till they got regime change.

I'm going to ignore for now the ridiculous comparison being made between Ireland and Libya, for example.

What would "regime change" accomplish in Ireland?

djpbarry

ChRoMe wrote: »

Thats great, doesn't refute the fact there is a sizeable amount of money required to attend

Well, “sizeable” is a relative term, isn’t it? Relative to the total cost of the course, it’s not all that sizeable at all.

ChRoMe wrote: »

Well as I've said I don't think you are working class.

I am from a working class background. Outline the obstacles I have encountered please.

ChRoMe wrote: »

However in a general sense the dynamic of the relationship is demonstrated by proximity and access to capital.

That’s a pretty loose definition? For example, the average tradesman in London unquestionably earns more than I do, yet they would classified as “working class”, but I’m middle class?

ChRoMe wrote: »

Sure, everything except, financial...

That’s what grants are for.

ChRoMe wrote: »

...and culturual/societal pressures and expectations.

Meaning what exactly?

ChRoMe wrote: »

Eh... really? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=disadvantaged&l=1

Yes, really. It may surprise you to learn that different words mean different things to different people.

ChRoMe wrote: »

If you're interested in learning more about the rigid class structure in Ireland. There is an excellent report here http://www.tascnet.ie/upload/file/MtGC%20ISSU.pdf

Its called Mapping the Golden Circle.

It’s a report on Ireland’s “golden circle”? Is that really representative of the “middle class” in Ireland?

ChRoMe

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, “sizeable” is a relative term, isn’t it? Relative to the total cost of the course, it’s not all that sizeable at all.
I am from a working class background. Outline the obstacles I have encountered please.
That’s a pretty loose definition? For example, the average tradesman in London unquestionably earns more than I do, yet they would classified as “working class”, but I’m middle class?
That’s what grants are for.
Meaning what exactly?
Yes, really. It may surprise you to learn that different words mean different things to different people.
It’s a report on Ireland’s “golden circle”? Is that really representative of the “middle class” in Ireland?

The golden circle (along with the p.ie thread) is a good description of the class based system at work. Its a bit naive to think that such structure does not perpetuate throughout all levels of society. In addition someone's class is not directly attached to their salary/wages, its a far more complex system than that. Which you don't appear to have any interest in learning about or acknowledging .

You have just gotten dull and boring at this stage, I have no interest in continuing this cyclical discussion. However I'll leave it on one thing, words generally don't mean different things to different people. Language has standardised definitions to enable communication.

Scofflaw

ChRoMe wrote: »

You have just gotten dull and boring at this stage, I have no interest in continuing this cyclical discussion. However I'll leave it on one thing, words generally don't mean different things to different people. Language has standardised definitions to enable communication.

OK, two things:

1. warning for being uncivil - the above and the LMGTFY.

2. words like 'disadvantaged' are either meaninglessly subjective in political debate, or are defined in some particular way - that is, they're either defined as "on <50% of average industrial wage" or the like, or they mean "people I personally think are disadvantaged according to some subjective criteria". In neither case do your smart-alec remarks apply.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ChRoMe

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, two things:

1. warning for being uncivil - the above and the LMGTFY.

2. words like 'disadvantaged' are either meaninglessly subjective in political debate, or are defined in some particular way - that is, they're either defined as "on <50% of average industrial wage" or the like, or they mean "people I personally think are disadvantaged according to some subjective criteria". In neither case do your smart-alec remarks apply.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Meaninglessly subjective? it refers to someone lacking money or external economic supports. There is a dictionary definition as the third link, how on earth could it be any more specific?

RATM

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm going to ignore for now the ridiculous comparison being made between Ireland and Libya, for example.

What would "regime change" accomplish in Ireland?

I wouldn't usually answer a question with a question but in this case it is appropriate. What would not having regime change accomplish in Ireland? Simple, it would doom us to repeating the mistakes of the past.

And we're pretty good at repeating the mistakes of the past. Case in point- AIB. 2008 was not the first time the Irish public bailed them out, we had already done it twice before. Quinn Insurance- also not the first time an insurance company had been bailed out- we had to do it for PMPA and continue to pay the price to this day in the form of a levy.

There is a fundamental problem with the way Ireland has been governed since the foundation of the State. And it has never been tackled and as a result we make the same mistakes over and over again. There is a cancer at the very heart of Irish society and the consequences of it are 450,000 being unemployed. Throw in all those who have emigrated and are on training courses and the figure is closer to 600,000. That is a monumental failure of governance.

Our whole mess was created by less than 1000 people in this country. Remove them and replace them with people who have the nations interest at heart and then regime change would accomplish something. But the fact you asked the question seems to suggest that there is nothing that can be done to change the status quo. Which is exactly what those 1000 people who wrecked this country want you to think.

djpbarry

RATM wrote: »

I wouldn't usually answer a question with a question but in this case it is appropriate. What would not having regime change accomplish in Ireland?

Didn’t Ireland recently hold a democratic election?

RATM wrote: »

There is a cancer at the very heart of Irish society and the consequences of it are 450,000 being unemployed.

That’s an overestimate of about 150,000.

RATM wrote: »

Our whole mess was created by less than 1000 people in this country.

I think that’s incredibly naive. Ireland created Ireland’s mess. You can apportion different levels of blame to different people, or different groups of people, but ultimately, Irish society as whole is a responsible for where the country is today.

I should of course qualify that statement by saying that I don’t believe things in Ireland are really all that bad.

Anyways, this is getting off-topic.

the_syco

Blowfish wrote: »

It seems there's an issue where young males just out of school are either not managing to get into entry level jobs or are not pursuing third level education as much as their female counterparts. This is a problem.

In the past, those that were better with their hands left school early, or at the very least finished school (not caring about their grades) and walked into an apprenticeship.

Hill Bicks wrote: »

Look at how angry people get when it comes to S/W payments on boards.ie. nearly 10,000 views.

I'd say 90% of the people who are angry work, and thus wouldn't be able to get a day off to protest. And probably another 90% of those that get S/W don't care enough to protest against getting it...

RATM wrote: »

Our whole mess was created by less than 1000 people in this country.

The mess was created by the builder, the developer, those at the top as well as those at the bottom. A few may have started it, but once started everyone jumped on the bandwagon and rode the tiger until it died suddenly.

RATM wrote: »

Remove them and replace them with people who have the nations interest at heart and then regime change would accomplish something.

No-one has the nations interest at heart. They only have their own wallet at heart. Regime change would accomplish nothing without throwing those in the job at the moment, and killing them. And then hoping that the 100,000 people who you replace them with have a clue how to run the country without a handbook telling them how it was ran before.

Stabshauptmann

ardmacha wrote: »

As was pointed out on Irisheconomy, it is not as simple as that. This is is 39% of those not in education, and a substantial number of this group are in education. Of those not in education, there are graduates (mostly employed) and those with little education (most of the figure above).

Thanks for pointing this out; link for anyone whos is interested
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/category/unemployment/

NEET = Not in employment, education or training.