What recession?

djpbarry

darkhorse wrote: »

With Lies.

I would call them unrealistic promises, but who’s to blame for that?

Maura74 wrote: »

The problem is that sense is not 'common' in the land of politician...

Oh you can be quite sure that it is. For example, the common sense approach to getting elected in Ireland is to tell the electorate exactly what they want to here, regardless of whether or not it is realistic.

Works every time.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

...it looks like government is exactly the most efficient way to spend money...

The Irish government isn’t spending enough already?

RainyDay

darkhorse wrote: »

What about these guys, if they stand. Can't be any worse.

New political party 'Direct Democracy Ireland' launched in Dublin

Yes, they could be worse.

mariaalice

The recession is also being blamed for thing that have noting to do with the recession, for example new technologies have changed local banking to on line banking so bank branches are being closed down all over the place. When I use to visit my local bank branch( which is now closed ) I would have usual gone for a coffee, got the paper and maybe got some other shopping locally, now I rarely go down the town where I live because I have no need because of on line banking. A lot of young people are changing to on line shopping( my youngest daughter got a table from her boyfriend for Christmas which he researched and purchased on line )

Maura74

mariaalice wrote: »

The recession is also being blamed for thing that have noting to do with the recession, for example new technologies have changed local banking to on line banking so bank branches are being closed down all over the place. When I use to visit my local bank branch( which is now closed ) I would have usual gone for a coffee, got the paper and maybe got some other shopping locally, now I rarely go down the town where I live because I have no need because of on line banking. A lot of young people are changing to on line shopping( my youngest daughter got a table from her boyfriend for Christmas which he researched and purchased on line )

I agree, also as the UK supermarket has got self-services check-out no need to have any more staff as these machines does the job therefore no staff to pay, which leave the companies with the bulk of their profits. No jobs, but the job seekers are still being called lazy and penalized for not working, as being out of work is a mortal sin.

darkhorse

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, they could be worse.

I take it that you're happy enough with the performance of the present government, in that case.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

The Irish government isn’t spending enough already?

Not nearly enough; private industry has failed to bring in adequate money and jobs into the economy (hence widescale unemployment), so that means government has to step in (with assistance from the EU) to provide that, or the social and economic damage from the crisis gets worse.

Silentcorner

djpbarry wrote: »

GDP, but GNP has been on a general upward trend over the last 3 years, albeit a pretty erratic one.

To suggest that GNP has been on a general upward trend, is incorrect, we are witnessing a bottoming out, after we suffered the worst economic fall in the OECD, hardly an achievment

Honestly, that’s not my experience at all. I remember having both Richard Bruton and Brody Sweeney at my door in Killester for 5 – 10 minutes each. Likewise, any time I’ve written to TD’s, I’ve almost always received a proper response. I’ve even had questions raised in the Dáil on my behalf. It’s really not that difficult - TD’s will literally jump through hoops to secure votes.

Fair enough, you probably displayed some semblance of intellect, but I can assure you their handlers would have been doing their nut, the modus operandi would be to get through as many housing estates as is possible during the canvass, you are correct TDs will literally jump through hoops to secure votes, many of them would stop at nothing to secure one


And who do you suppose is going to secure the most transfers/No 1s? The guy who has taken absolutely no time to speak to anyone, or the guy who people have heard always has an open door at his/her constituency office?

The guy who promises as much as he/she can to as many people as he can?

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not nearly enough; private industry has failed to bring in adequate money and jobs into the economy (hence widescale unemployment)...

That’s a rather trite assessment. Private industry is creating jobs, the problem is that they’re not the kind of jobs that long-term unemployed construction workers are going to be able to fill.

So unless you’re advocating that the government fuel another construction boom (which really doesn’t strike me as a good idea), I’m not really seeing how government-sponsored job creation is going to help anyone.

djpbarry

Silentcorner wrote: »

To suggest that GNP has been on a general upward trend, is incorrect...

I should have said slight upward trend. The point is economic indicators do not suggest that Ireland is currently in recession.

Silentcorner wrote: »

The guy who promises as much as he/she can to as many people as he can?

We're going 'round in circles here.

If such a guy were to be elected, it would be the fault of those who elected him/her.

Good loser

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, they could be worse.

No, they would be worse.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not nearly enough; private industry has failed to bring in adequate money and jobs into the economy (hence widescale unemployment), so that means government has to step in (with assistance from the EU) to provide that, or the social and economic damage from the crisis gets worse.

I see. Good news so that they are going to have to give € 400m to those who appeared before the Moriarity and Mahon tribunals.

That should jump start some builders/developers.

thebman

djpbarry wrote: »

But it shouldn’t be about “belief”, it should be about common sense. For example (and this is an example I’ve been trotting out a lot lately), if a Labour candidate had said to me before the last general election that a reintroduction of third-level fees was completely out of the question, the first question that would come to my mind would have been “so how do you intend to fund third-level education?”

Belief doesn’t come into it.

It should be but people don't have the time to do up the trial national budget to see if politicians figures add up.

If you question how they will fun education they will say by taxing the rich or by cutting child benefit or public sector pay depending on what they know about your or the background they figure you might be from when on your doorstep.

Generally the people depend on the media for scrutiny on that kind of level and if every politician in the country feels they have to lie their way into power, it doesn't say much for the level of scrutiny/questioning being done by our media.

Doesn't help that a good proportion of them are working in a state owned media company.

darkhorse

Good loser wrote: »

No, they would be worse.

Wow, 2 civil servants on 1 page.

JOB93

thebman wrote: »

It should be but people don't have the time to do up the trial national budget to see if politicians figures add up.

When Sinn Fein did their alternative budget, I read some of it, the wealth tax interested me. Their wealth tax is modelled on the French version of the tax and would would generate €800m they say. The Washington Post wrote an article in 2006 saying that even though the French government raised $2.6bn a year (A relatively small figure compared to Sinn Fein's, considering France is so much larger and that was before the financial crisis, don't you think?) the tax caused a capital flight of $125bn from the country. Considering the openness and global nature of our economy, I don't think their budget wasn't very well thought out. The article is below.

I contacted Sinn Fein (Actively looking for a reason to vote for them I suppose) about what I thought was an overestimation in their wealth tax and got no reply. Needless to say I won't be voting SF in future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010_2.html

darkhorse

JOB93 wrote: »

When Sinn Fein did their alternative budget, I read some of it, the wealth tax interested me. Their wealth tax is modelled on the French version of the tax and would would generate €800m they say. The Washington Post wrote an article in 2006 saying that even though the French government raised $2.6bn a year (A relatively small figure compared to Sinn Fein's, considering France is so much larger and that was before the financial crisis, don't you think?) the tax caused a capital flight of $125bn from the country. Considering the openness and global nature of our economy, I don't think their budget wasn't very well thought out. The article is below.

I contacted Sinn Fein (Actively looking for a reason to vote for them I suppose) about what I thought was an overestimation in their wealth tax and got no reply. Needless to say I won't be voting SF in future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010_2.html[/QUOTE]

We should send some of our politicians to France on loan, the rich would have nothing to worry about, it just the middle class and low earners that our politicians dont like.

CollardGreens

Interesting thread, I hadn't any idea that this was such a problem in Ireland. Reading made me think it could just have been written by writers in the States, same exact issues/problems.

JOB93

My point is Darkhorse, whether you agree with a wealth tax or not, Sinn Fein have way overestimated (Deliberately I assume) how much their tax will take in. I'm sure other parties do the same aswell.

How anybody can trust any figures/statements a politician quotes them is beyond me

darkhorse

JOB93 wrote: »

My point is Darkhorse, whether you agree with a wealth tax or not, Sinn Fein have way overestimated (Deliberately I assume) how much their tax will take in. I'm sure other parties do the same aswell.

How anybody can trust any figures/statements a politician quotes them is beyond me

Yeah, I know what ya mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE_-Fp7lGSk&feature=player_detailpage

Now, show me why SFs figures are wrong.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a rather trite assessment. Private industry is creating jobs, the problem is that they’re not the kind of jobs that long-term unemployed construction workers are going to be able to fill.

So unless you’re advocating that the government fuel another construction boom (which really doesn’t strike me as a good idea), I’m not really seeing how government-sponsored job creation is going to help anyone.

So business is ready to employ the entire stock of unemployed people, but those people just happen to be lacking the right skills?

Where is business going to get the enormous amount of money from, that it requires for hiring all these people?

A little over a year ago, there were 26 people for every job vacancy out there; seems to indicate a pretty large shortfall of jobs:


Since we're facing higher electricity costs, and an upcoming energy crisis due to oil, it would seem perfectly sensible for government to fund construction on energy infrastructure, that moves us away from oil; nuclear power plants, renewable energy sources, etc..

With the poor state of public transport infrastructure as well, there are a significant number of places government could beneficially put money, on construction projects.

Good loser wrote: »

I see. Good news so that they are going to have to give € 400m to those who appeared before the Moriarity and Mahon tribunals.

That should jump start some builders/developers.

Why on earth would money be going into private hands? The housing bubble has already shown, how reckless and inefficient private industry can be, when choosing construction investments on credit.

Construction projects that provide a lasting benefit to the country, like transport and energy, are a blindingly obvious place to invest money; that's an area in particular, where private industry has failed to invest adequately, due to inability to focus on long-term goals like supporting population growth, and avoiding inflation due to increased fossil fuel costs.

JOB93

Aside from the reasons I pointed out above, that introducing a tax will cause a flight of wealth which will significantly decrease the tax take (The rate in France is between .25% and .5% and SF want to introduce a rate of 1%) they even admit on their own webpage that estimates may be off by as much as 50%.



On their budget web page they say

In a Dáil debate in 2011, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan estimated that a French-type wealth tax implemented here would raise between €400million and €500million in a full tax year.

And Michael Noonan is in better position to estimate the tax income so he is probably closer to the right figure (He has more resources and info from being in govt. than SF)

FREETV

I will never understand why companies prioritise paper qualifications when in every office/company there is some on the job training? If one has the average intelligence and concentration then they will be able to do the job and if they want to keep their job and earn the money then one can be bloody sure that the diligent person will get it done efficiently.
I could understand somewhat if the job was of a very technical nature why employers would insist on qualifications, surely experience and a willingness to do a job is more important in the long run?
I blew people out of the water performance wise before in jobs who had more qualifications than me, they got sacked while I was kept on time after time. They got the gig, had the qualifications but weren't up to job.
Give the unemployed a chance Employers and help the economy too.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not nearly enough; private industry has failed to bring in adequate money and jobs into the economy (hence widescale unemployment), so that means government has to step in (with assistance from the EU) to provide that, or the social and economic damage from the crisis gets worse.

Just like they stepped in to help out that September night 2008.... Less government is whats needed, not more.

djpbarry

thebman wrote: »

It should be but people don't have the time to do up the trial national budget to see if politicians figures add up.

Sure, but we’re talking pretty simple arithmetic here, not complex macroeconomics. Most people are capable of performing a quick back-of-an-envelope tot to verify an argument - see plenty of it on boards.

djpbarry

darkhorse wrote: »

We should send some of our politicians to France on loan, the rich would have nothing to worry about, it just the middle class and low earners that our politicians dont like.

That’s an interesting conclusion given that, in Ireland, high-earners contribute most of the tax take, while low earners contribute virtually nothing.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

So business is ready to employ the entire stock of unemployed people, but those people just happen to be lacking the right skills?

That is clearly not what I said. You said that private industry is failing to create jobs – that is clearly not the case:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0107/breaking18.html

I never said the private sector had created 300,000 jobs.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Where is business going to get the enormous amount of money from, that it requires for hiring all these people?

Where is the state going to get the enormous amount of money from that it requires for hiring all these people?

KyussBishop wrote: »

With the poor state of public transport infrastructure as well, there are a significant number of places government could beneficially put money, on construction projects.

Sure, to some extent. But as you allude to above, there is a very large number of ex-construction workers in Ireland – are you suggesting the state creates jobs for all of them?

More to the point, why should the state create jobs for them? Ireland clearly has far more construction workers than it needs.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

That is clearly not what I said. You said that private industry is failing to create jobs – that is clearly not the case:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0107/breaking18.html

I said "Not nearly enough; private industry has failed to bring in adequate money and jobs into the economy (hence widescale unemployment)..."; that is the direct quote you were replying to, now you're trying to move the goalposts, as it's quite obvious I was saying private industry is failing to provide adequate jobs, and pointing to unemployment as evidence of that.

djpbarry wrote: »

Where is the state going to get the enormous amount of money from that it requires for hiring all these people?

As I already said in a previous post, Europe.

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure, to some extent. But as you allude to above, there is a very large number of ex-construction workers in Ireland – are you suggesting the state creates jobs for all of them?

More to the point, why should the state create jobs for them? Ireland clearly has far more construction workers than it needs.

As I already explained in my previous post, find useful infrastructure projects, and put them to work; undertake the rail transport improvements that have been planned for ages (like the DART upgrades), construct new power plants based on nuclear/renewables and others to fight the inflationary effects of energy prices, upgrade power infrastructure in general to support the eventual switchover to electric cars, as well as for homeowners returning energy to the grid (via solar etc.), roll out proper broadband to areas where private industry is failing to invest, or even just outright provide a national broadband grid to give private industry a kick up the ass, since they are just settling with data caps and high bills instead of upgrades, and same with the telecoms in general, could do both by providing a national wireless broadband network, with an online service for telephone calls/texts/etc. (which are all miniscule amounts of 'data' over broadband, which private industry is keeping the price massively jacked up on).

There are an endless number of infrastructural upgrades that can be done, and as money from worker wages helps private industry recover, eventually the entire program of government providing temporary jobs, would shutdown when private industry re-absorbs all jobs.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

...it's quite obvious I was saying private industry is failing to provide adequate jobs...

Fair enough.

KyussBishop wrote: »

As I already explained in my previous post, find useful infrastructure projects, and put them to work; undertake the rail transport improvements that have been planned for ages (like the DART upgrades), construct new power plants based on nuclear/renewables and others to fight the inflationary effects of energy prices, upgrade power infrastructure in general to support the eventual switchover to electric cars, as well as for homeowners returning energy to the grid (via solar etc.), roll out proper broadband to areas where private industry is failing to invest, or even just outright provide a national broadband grid to give private industry a kick up the ass, since they are just settling with data caps and high bills instead of upgrades, and same with the telecoms in general, could do both by providing a national wireless broadband network, with an online service for telephone calls/texts/etc. (which are all miniscule amounts of 'data' over broadband, which private industry is keeping the price massively jacked up on).

This is pie in the sky stuff. You expect the EU to fund all of this? Why the hell would they? What happens when the rest of Europe decides they want the same kind of investment? How much is this all going to cost?

Ireland has too many construction workers. It's really that simple. Some could be employed in infrastructural projects, but there's simply no way there will be enough work for all of them. They have two options: emigrate or retrain. Unfortunately, I think many will do neither.

RainyDay

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s an interesting conclusion given that, in Ireland, high-earners contribute most of the tax take, while low earners contribute virtually nothing.

Would you like to clarify if you're really referring to the overall tax take here, or are you referring to just income tax?

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

This is pie in the sky stuff. You expect the EU to fund all of this? Why the hell would they? What happens when the rest of Europe decides they want the same kind of investment? How much is this all going to cost?

Ireland has too many construction workers. It's really that simple. Some could be employed in infrastructural projects, but there's simply no way there will be enough work for all of them. They have two options: emigrate or retrain. Unfortunately, I think many will do neither.

The EU, as the sovereign controller of the money supply, has a de-facto responsibility to do this, to achieve economic recovery across the entire EU.

The rest of Europe should want and get the same kind of investment; it's exactly what is needed to bring economic recovery.

The EU can spend as much as it wants on this, limited only by inflation and full employment/economic-productivity.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

The EU, as the sovereign controller of the money supply, has a de-facto responsibility to do this...

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't follow. The EU (or more precisely, the ECB) controls the money supply, so they must therefore create jobs for the unemployed in badly managed states such as Ireland?

KyussBishop wrote: »

The rest of Europe should want and get the same kind of investment; it's exactly what is needed to bring economic recovery.

Is it? Infrastructure projects are guaranteed to bring economic stability to Ireland?

KyussBishop wrote: »

The EU can spend as much as it wants on this, limited only by inflation and full employment/economic-productivity.

The EU obviously cannot spend "as much as it wants". I doubt the entire reserves of the ECB would be sufficient to fund the kind of investment you're talking about.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't follow. The EU (or more precisely, the ECB) controls the money supply, so they must therefore create jobs for the unemployed in badly managed states such as Ireland?

Ability to fund programs through money creation, within the bounds of inflation, is an essential part of a countries sovereignty, so of course they need to do this, and there is no economic reason not to; Ireland would likely have to submit the programs for approval with the EU, to adequately show they would be within inflationary bounds, and the EU could the fund them.

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it? Infrastructure projects are guaranteed to bring economic stability to Ireland?

Unemployed people reemployed on infrastructure projects, earning money from that, and spending that money in the private economy, promoting a recovery within private industry, which then hires those workers back away from the infrastructure programs until full private sector employment is reached.

If managed properly, then yes, that's guaranteed to bring economic recovery.

djpbarry wrote: »

The EU obviously cannot spend "as much as it wants". I doubt the entire reserves of the ECB would be sufficient to fund the kind of investment you're talking about.

The ECB has a printing press; economically, it can create and spend as much as it wants, and the limit to that is inflation.

maninasia

I mostly agree that the EU could be more imaginative in how it intends to print money and support economic growth. Instead of using it to support banks and governments which continue to run deficits they should have an external scheme which works on infrastructure projects directly.

Of course we have benefited from EU grants for many years previously, we used most of them to build motorways, useful, but not enough (we needs subways/power plants/better rail etc.). Our country should have done this itself, but as a scheme whereby employment is created and infrastructure is increased I don't think it is a bad idea. The EU (EBC) will have to print money in some fashion anyway as far as I can see.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ability to fund programs through money creation, within the bounds of inflation, is an essential part of a countries sovereignty, so of course they need to do this, and there is no economic reason not to...

I disagree. You’re arguing that the state has a responsibility to provide jobs for the unemployed. So where does that leave the unemployed? What are they responsible for?

Furthermore, if kids see that the state is creating employment for unemployed construction workers (and, therefore, offering perpetual job security), won’t that simply encourage another generation of teenage boys to put down their school books and pick up their shovels?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Unemployed people reemployed on infrastructure projects, earning money from that, and spending that money in the private economy, promoting a recovery within private industry, which then hires those workers back away from the infrastructure programs until full private sector employment is reached.

Well, first of all, I think you’re over-simplifying things to a large extent. But secondly, even if this works in practice, you’re essentially arguing for a new construction boom. Right?

djpbarry

RainyDay wrote: »

Would you like to clarify if you're really referring to the overall tax take here, or are you referring to just income tax?

Total tax take.

EDIT: Analysis here from Ronan Lyons: http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay

maninasia

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't follow. The EU (or more precisely, the ECB) controls the money supply, so they must therefore create jobs for the unemployed in badly managed states such as Ireland?

Is it? Infrastructure projects are guaranteed to bring economic stability to Ireland?
The EU obviously cannot spend "as much as it wants". I doubt the entire reserves of the ECB would be sufficient to fund the kind of investment you're talking about.

Well KB is correct as the ECB has the ability to create more money and allocate it accordingly to the member states at preferential interest rates. It's what they are doing for Spain by buying their bank bonds directly (instead of the crap deal Ireland got by nationalising the banks, taking on their debt, then the EU loaning the money to Ireland for this, but Ireland getting it lumped on to our national debt which costs us EVEN more money to service then).

The state already supports many people, the unemployed, pensioners, children, public workers.
If they are doing to do that why not help construction workers by at least getting some investment going again in construction, but productive construction projects, like DART connector or the Dublin subway line.
The state is shelling out 10s of billions in social welfare anyway.

Unfortunately the state has prioritised certain sections of society over others, and has used the capital budget to cover gaps in social welfare and the government workers pay.

We should sort out our own house first, and that is the message that ECB/IMF is giving us, but they can also help countries like Ireland by using a better method than loaning money to us directly so we can get into even bigger debt due to poor governance!

SupaNova2

maninasia wrote: »

The state already supports many people, the unemployed, pensioners, children, public workers.
If they are doing to do that why not help construction workers by at least getting some investment going again in construction, but productive construction projects, like DART connector or the Dublin subway line.
The state is shelling out 10s of billions in social welfare anyway.

Many construction workers have retrained, many have emigrated and then not all construction skills are transferable. Constructing a railway line requires a much different set of skilled labour, machinery and raw materials than those required for constructing housing. The idea that we have an output gap or excess capacity that is going unused by not pursuing such projects brushes over such intricacies.

Then we have the ecb obsessed with their inflation target already hitting 2% and then a little, such projects on an EU scale would require them dropping this, and putting their independence in danger. I don't think its going to happen.

KyussBishop

maninasia wrote: »

I mostly agree that the EU could be more imaginative in how it intends to print money and support economic growth. Instead of using it to support banks and governments which continue to run deficits they should have an external scheme which works on infrastructure projects directly.

Of course we have benefited from EU grants for many years previously, we used most of them to build motorways, useful, but not enough (we needs subways/power plants/better rail etc.). Our country should have done this itself, but as a scheme whereby employment is created and infrastructure is increased I don't think it is a bad idea. The EU (EBC) will have to print money in some fashion anyway as far as I can see.

Ya exactly; they can even fund a large part of such an investment fund using bonds centralized within the EU, for recycling surplus savings (the third policy in the 'modest proposal' by Yanis Varoufakis, which can be undertaken almost immediately), which money creation can compliment later on as as well.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

I disagree. You’re arguing that the state has a responsibility to provide jobs for the unemployed. So where does that leave the unemployed? What are they responsible for?

Furthermore, if kids see that the state is creating employment for unemployed construction workers (and, therefore, offering perpetual job security), won’t that simply encourage another generation of teenage boys to put down their school books and pick up their shovels?

States, to my knowledge, already have a mandate to provide full employment, but this has usually been aimed at the private sector (which is not possible to achieve all the time due to recurring economic trouble), it's not explicitly been implemented as an 'employer of last resort' yet though, where temporary public workers, work on infrastructure and other socially useful projects.

The government won't provide guaranteed jobs to people when the private sector has recovered either though; people will be moved back out of the program, into the private sector, and some will have to retrain (which government can provide programs for).

It's not going to provide wages comparable to the private sector either, as the program will need to be run at the bottom end of the wage scale, since it will also play a role as an inflation-control mechanism (which includes putting a floor on wages), which is a role unemployment takes now.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, first of all, I think you’re over-simplifying things to a large extent. But secondly, even if this works in practice, you’re essentially arguing for a new construction boom. Right?

Yes; except this construction boom is not wasted on housing development/speculation, which the private sector inefficiently and disastrously over-invested in, this one would be developing useful infrastructure, including infrastructure which can help us avoid inflation and economic trouble, from the upcoming energy crisis (which is imminently needed everywhere).

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Many construction workers have retrained, many have emigrated and then not all construction skills are transferable. Constructing a railway line requires a much different set of skilled labour, machinery and raw materials than those required for constructing housing. The idea that we have an output gap or excess capacity that is going unused by not pursuing such projects brushes over such intricacies.

Then we have the ecb obsessed with their inflation target already hitting 2% and then a little, such projects on an EU scale would require them dropping this, and putting their independence in danger. I don't think its going to happen.

I'm sure a lot of workers can be brought back to Ireland if it recovers, and new workers can be trained as well to meet the shortfall (such infrastructure projects are going to be years-long anyway), and a lot of the material needed for the even bigger construction projects for power infrastructure (nuclear/renewables and the like), seems like it has a big enough output gap (and again with years-long projects, industry has time to scale-up production to meet new demand).

We won't just be drawing resources from Ireland alone, because since the policy would be centralized within the EU, it would be an EU-wide redevelopment project, meaning skills and surplus potential for production all over the EU will be getting used.

The EU can even trade a slight relaxation of inflation limits now (though I'm not sure this would even be necessary, as fiscal policy/taxes could be used to maintain inflationary bounds), to achieve a net-fall in inflation later on, by reducing our dependency on oil/fossil-fuels, with the new power infrastructure; it's win-win all around.

With the massive societal/economic damage happening around Europe at the moment, it's madness that this isn't happening already.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

The state already supports many people, the unemployed, pensioners, children, public workers.

I think it's fair to say the general consensus is that the state already supports too many people.

maninasia wrote: »

If they are doing to do that why not help construction workers by at least getting some investment going again in construction, but productive construction projects, like DART connector or the Dublin subway line.

I’m not dismissing the idea of investing in infrastructure out of hand – I think the DART interconnector, in particular, would be fantastic for Dublin and well worth pursuing.

What I am questioning is the scale of what is being proposed. Artificially creating a shed-load of jobs in construction because there are a shed-load of unemployed construction workers doesn’t strike me as sustainable.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

The government won't provide guaranteed jobs to people when the private sector has recovered either though; people will be moved back out of the program, into the private sector...

But this doesn’t make any sense? Where are they going to work in the private sector?

I should also state, as has been alluded to above, that I’m not at all convinced that plasterers can build railway lines.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not going to provide wages comparable to the private sector either, as the program will need to be run at the bottom end of the wage scale...

Isn’t that going to make it extremely difficult to shift people off the dole?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes; except this construction boom is not wasted on housing development/speculation, which the private sector inefficiently and disastrously over-invested in, this one would be developing useful infrastructure...

Ok, so how long is this boom going to last? What happens all the construction workers when it’s over?

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

But this doesn’t make any sense? Where are they going to work in the private sector?

Where there is demand for labour? Government would likely be offering retraining programs, and business in need enough for workers would facilitate some retraining as well.

djpbarry wrote: »

Isn’t that going to make it extremely difficult to shift people off the dole?

Why would it? Most people are on the dole due to a serious lack of jobs, not due to the quality of available jobs; as I posted above, a little over a year ago there were 26 unemployed people per job vacancy.

If anything, such an availability of jobs would get rid of the small minority of long-term dole scroungers that are always used to bash social welfare, as they'd get kicked off the dole for refusing a legitimate job offer.

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, so how long is this boom going to last? What happens all the construction workers when it’s over?

As long as it takes for private industry to fully recover (with some projects providing longer-term benefits, like avoiding inflation due to coming energy crisis, persisting longer), with all the workers reabsorbed into private industry (with retraining if necessary, potentially provided both publicly and privately).

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Where there is demand for labour?

Specifically, where in the private sector are all these construction workers going to work?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Government would likely be offering retraining programs...

Specifically, what kind of retraining programs?

JOB93

The reason there was a housing collapse was because of a huge over supply of unnecessary housing. Who's to say this new infrastructure is not unnecessary? How much utility will people actually get out of it, how much will it cost the government to maintain? If the government wanted to, it could build a motorway from Belmullet to Ballyshannon to create jobs, but what's the point in that, huge waste of govt. money. I think infrastructure is not the best capital investment option out there. How about more spent on renewable energy or something to reduce our dependence on oil? Much more efficient I think

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

Specifically, where in the private sector are all these construction workers going to work?
Specifically, what kind of retraining programs?

? You split the two quotes you are replying to from the same line, and it answers itself; I was saying those workers would be retrained, into roles that the private sector desires.

KyussBishop

JOB93 wrote: »

The reason there was a housing collapse was because of a huge over supply of unnecessary housing. Who's to say this new infrastructure is not unnecessary? How much utility will people actually get out of it, how much will it cost the government to maintain? If the government wanted to, it could build a motorway from Belmullet to Ballyshannon to create jobs, but what's the point in that, huge waste of govt. money. I think infrastructure is not the best capital investment option out there. How about more spent on renewable energy or something to reduce our dependence on oil? Much more efficient I think

Well, that is infrastructure too; anything from public transport, power infrastructure (including power plants), proper rollout of broadband into rural areas; anything like that basically.

I'd be against piling loads of money into new motorways myself, as we're not short of them now.

JOB93

True, I should have been clearer, by infrastructure I meant buildings, houses and roads. We certainly don't need any more money spent on them by the government for the moment, so any builder who is still left unemployed needs to retrain or leave the country, or else we will always have a surplus of construction workers.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, that is infrastructure too; anything from public transport, power infrastructure (including power plants), proper rollout of broadband into rural areas; anything like that basically.

I'd be against piling loads of money into new motorways myself, as we're not short of them now.

Spending money has to make economic sense in the first place. No use spending $100 billion on a rail link between Cork Waterford if it doesnt make that money back in terms of growing the overall economy. Spending money for the sake of it is what has gotten europe into this mess in the first place, yet some want more of it. Crazy!

maninasia

djpbarry wrote: »

I think it's fair to say the general consensus is that the state already supports too many people.
I’m not dismissing the idea of investing in infrastructure out of hand – I think the DART interconnector, in particular, would be fantastic for Dublin and well worth pursuing.

What I am questioning is the scale of what is being proposed. Artificially creating a shed-load of jobs in construction because there are a shed-load of unemployed construction workers doesn’t strike me as sustainable.

Nor would I advocate throwing money at the solution, it's got to be a win-win in terms of productive infrastructure and employment. I'm well aware that large numbers have emigrated or will need to retrain, but the fact remains a large portion of the unemployed are still in the 'construction game', and with the current BELOW average construction/development in the country this is making a bad situation worse.

This idea may not work well in Spain as they blew a lot of their money on large development projects, to varying results, but we have numerous projects such as the Dart interconnector and the Dublin subway line that are 'shovel ready and planning approved' that are now held up by lack of funds. These projects would support the long-term development of Dublin and it is very hard to see them being classified as a waste of money. Private sector funding can be leveraged in the form of BOT projects once the projects get some cast iron credit guarantees. Some of these projects have been planned since the 1970s and it is a disgrace that they were not initiated in the last decade. Plus as construction is in the tank and wages have decreased now is a good time to get these projects started and completed on budget!