What recession?

KyussBishop

JOB93 wrote: »

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.

Well, there's a significant amount of standard construction work in building, e.g. a nuclear power plant, and lots of relatively low-barrier-to-entry work in expanding broadband infrastructure into rural areas, so I'd say there's enough that can be done, which can accommodate them; where there isn't, government should certainly assist in retraining (and will need to anyway, as eventually the infrastructure projects would wind down).

I'd want all the projects to be useful ones too; despite what some claim (usually without any argument provided, just asserted, while feigning ignorance by pretending I'm talking about a new housing boom), there are ample infrastructural projects that can be worked on, which will provide a lasting benefits to the country and society at large.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

...I was saying those workers would be retrained, into roles that the private sector desires.

What kind of roles?

I think you're being very naive here, to be honest. You think that guys in their 30s and 40s, who have worked in construction all their lives, are going to be willing to go and, what, work in office jobs? Some might, sure, but a significant number? I really, really doubt it.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

What kind of roles?

I think you're being very naive here, to be honest. You think that guys in their 30s and 40s, who have worked in construction all their lives, are going to be willing to go and, what, work in office jobs? Some might, sure, but a significant number? I really, really doubt it.

Why, exactly, can people in their 30's and 40's not retrain?

creedp

djpbarry wrote: »

What kind of roles?

I think you're being very naive here, to be honest. You think that guys in their 30s and 40s, who have worked in construction all their lives, are going to be willing to go and, what, work in office jobs? Some might, sure, but a significant number? I really, really doubt it.

Well if not, the upshot is they are content to be on the dole for the rest of their working lives which could be 35 years. Alternatively of course they could immigrate and save the State the bother/expense retraining them.

ChRoMe

djpbarry wrote: »

What kind of roles?

I think you're being very naive here, to be honest. You think that guys in their 30s and 40s, who have worked in construction all their lives, are going to be willing to go and, what, work in office jobs? Some might, sure, but a significant number? I really, really doubt it.

Of course they will, if they have no other option. I'm training a friend of mine who used to be a tiler how to write Java based software.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why, exactly, can people in their 30's and 40's not retrain?

Is that what I said?

If people are so willing to retrain, why does Ireland have long-term unemployed people at all? Surely they should all be working, retraining or emigrating?

KyussBishop

You certainly seem to be implying that many of them wouldn't retrain; right now, long term unemployment is largely down to this:


If enough private industry jobs were available, with unemployed labour offered training to suit available job skillsets (even mandatory retraining if you like, after 'x' months on unemployment), then why would they choose to lose their benefits, instead of retraining and getting a job?

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

If enough private industry jobs were available, with unemployed labour offered training to suit available job skillsets (even mandatory retraining if you like, after 'x' months on unemployment), then why would they choose to lose their benefits, instead of retraining and getting a job?

You tell me.

Why are there so many long-term unemployed people not in retraining right now?

FREETV

djpbarry wrote: »

You tell me.

Why are there so many long-term unemployed people not in retraining right now?

Not enough places or spaces left possibly or the training doesn't suit or interest them? Ageism could be a problem too.

carpejugulum

KyussBishop wrote: »

government is exactly the most efficient way to spend money

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."

Private sector has been grossly inefficient as you mentioned because of government intervention. The more intervention you get, the more inefficient you get. So the government being completely in charge is the most inefficient possibility.

ChRoMe

carpejugulum wrote: »

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."

Private sector has been grossly inefficient as you mentioned because of government intervention. The more intervention you get, the more inefficient you get. So the government being completely in charge is the most inefficient possibility.

There are numerous examples from around the world where government managed projects/infrastructure have been destroyed after privitisation. The reason is obvious, the government's goal is to provide the service a private company's goal is to maximise profit.

The UK rail situation is one of the most glaring examples.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

If enough private industry jobs were available, with unemployed labour offered training to suit available job skillsets (even mandatory retraining if you like, after 'x' months on unemployment), then why would they choose to lose their benefits, instead of retraining and getting a job?

You tell me.

Ok, so you're implicitly saying a significant number of people will not retrain in order to take on available jobs, and will not even do that when kicked off unemployment, but will instead just never work again. I don't think that's credible, as it seems obvious they would avail of any offered training (particularly if provided by government), because without a job or any incoming money, they won't have a choice and won't survive without it.

What would you do policy-wise, about resolving such a skills-mismatch problem? You're not arguing for having a permanent set of unemployed people are you?

djpbarry wrote:

Why are there so many long-term unemployed people not in retraining right now?

Due to the lack of jobs of course? 26 unemployed people per job vacancy.

KyussBishop

carpejugulum wrote: »

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."

Private sector has been grossly inefficient as you mentioned because of government intervention. The more intervention you get, the more inefficient you get. So the government being completely in charge is the most inefficient possibility.

Two extremely obvious failures of private industry:
- Recklessly lax (and even fraudulent) lending, leading to the housing bubble and economic crisis.

- Unemployment. Private industry is failing to employ all available workers, and not only is private industry now incapable of resolving this problem in any acceptable timeframe (four years running now and no improvement), but government (with the help of the ECB) is the only fast way to fix this unemployment problem.

Nobody really believes the 'government is the source of all economic problems' argument, because it's very obvious blame-shifting; it's the "efficient markets hypothesis" in economic theory, that really lies at the base of that argument, and that is wholly debunked.

carpejugulum

ChRoMe wrote: »

There are numerous examples from around the world where government managed projects/infrastructure have been destroyed after privitisation. The reason is obvious, the government's goal is to provide the service a private company's goal is to maximise profit.

The UK rail situation is one of the most glaring examples.

That is the advertised goal, not reality. Also, to maximise profit, private companies have to - unlike the government - maximise service.

Projects you mentioned were tainted by the fact that they were set up and previously run by governments and other public and civil service overlords, which also heavily intervened during and after privatisation.

Regarding British Rail, railway companies were doing just fine before nationalisation in the first place. Despite this, the railway service is generally much better now.

JOB93

If people are so willing to retrain, why haven't many Irish picked up a European language and emigrated there?

According to the article below, of the 87,000 that left between April 2011 and April 2012, 63,200 went to the US, the UK or "Rest of the world" which I'm assuming is mostly made up of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other English speaking places. This figure includes the foreign nationals who left Ireland too so you can be sure they made up the bulk of people going to the rest of Europe. Apart from the UK, these places all need visas and have stricter rules with regard to what kind of work you're allowed to do, how much money you must have saved etc, whereas you could leave for Poland tomorrow if you learned basic Polish, plenty of construction jobs there at the moment.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0928/1224324535042.html

KyussBishop

Peoples (un)willingness to emigrate isn't a measure of their willingness to retrain; the original question, is why, if Ireland had a lot of surplus jobs (after government pumping up the economy through years of being an 'employer of last resort'), why would a significant number of people avoid retraining and getting a job, even when kicked off unemployment, with no money?

maninasia

KyussBishop wrote: »

Peoples (un)willingness to emigrate isn't a measure of their willingness to retrain; the original question, is why, if Ireland had a lot of surplus jobs (after government pumping up the economy through years of being an 'employer of last resort'), why would a significant number of people avoid retraining and getting a job, even when kicked off unemployment, with no money?

It's chicken and egg isn't it. There's no point retraining if there are not enough jobs here for them. At the same tine creating jobs that are only suitable for foreign skilled workers doesn't help the situation a huge amount either. The two policies, job creation and training, need to work hand in hand.

And as I have mentioned, the construction industry is almost dead at the moment, it is far below average in terms of activity and there are many useful infrastructure projects on hold at the moment.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ok, so you're implicitly saying a significant number of people will not retrain in order to take on available jobs, and will not even do that when kicked off unemployment, but will instead just never work again.

But people are not being kicked off unemployment? And clearly, large numbers of people are not retraining, hence the swelling numbers of long-term unemployed.

KyussBishop wrote: »

What would you do policy-wise, about resolving such a skills-mismatch problem? You're not arguing for having a permanent set of unemployed people are you?

I’m not arguing for it, but I think it is likely to be a reality. I’ve said before several times on this forum that long-term unemployment is the greatest socio-economic problem facing Ireland at present and I honestly don’t know what to do about it. Welfare reform would be a start, I suppose – too many people are receiving benefits indefinitely, with absolutely no incentive to retrain or find work.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Due to the lack of jobs of course? 26 unemployed people per job vacancy.

Two things on this statistic that you keep bringing up. First of all, 26 applicants is not a particularly large number for any job. Where I work, several hundred applicants for a job vacancy is commonplace.

Secondly, you’re treating this as an over-simplified numbers game. For example, stating that there are, on average, 26 unemployed persons per job vacancy is entirely meaningless if none of those 26 are in any way suitable for the vacancy in question.

The fact of the matter is that there are vacancies (many of which are going unfilled) and if those vacancies are filled, this will likely lead to further job creation due to an increased demand for services.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Peoples (un)willingness to emigrate isn't a measure of their willingness to retrain; the original question, is why, if Ireland had a lot of surplus jobs (after government pumping up the economy through years of being an 'employer of last resort'), why would a significant number of people avoid retraining and getting a job, even when kicked off unemployment, with no money?

If they’re not retraining now, why do you assume they’ll do so in the future? That doesn’t make any sense.

thebman

The thing is our retraining centres run by the government are a total disgrace and not fit for purpose.

Anyone that ends up in one says so and yet they don't reform it.

Ask for training in IT and you'll likely be sent on an ECDL course still.

djpbarry

thebman wrote: »

The thing is our retraining centres run by the government are a total disgrace and not fit for purpose.

I'm not going to disagree because I don't know enough to comment, but I do know there are alternatives to "government run" retraining centres.

KyussBishop

maninasia wrote: »

It's chicken and egg isn't it. There's no point retraining if there are not enough jobs here for them. At the same tine creating jobs that are only suitable for foreign skilled workers doesn't help the situation a huge amount either. The two policies, job creation and training, need to work hand in hand.

And as I have mentioned, the construction industry is almost dead at the moment, it is far below average in terms of activity and there are many useful infrastructure projects on hold at the moment.

Agreed, though there seems to be the idea that even after temporary government provided infrastructure jobs, that there would still be significant amounts of unemployed people after that, who won't bother retraining, despite having no income (after being kicked off the dole).

That idea is what doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

But people are not being kicked off unemployment? And clearly, large numbers of people are not retraining, hence the swelling numbers of long-term unemployed.

We're not talking about now, we're talking about after the temporary government provided infrastructure jobs, which you say even when they wind down, will leave significant unemployment and nobody bothering to retrain, despite loss of benefits and ample availability of jobs.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not arguing for it, but I think it is likely to be a reality. I’ve said before several times on this forum that long-term unemployment is the greatest socio-economic problem facing Ireland at present and I honestly don’t know what to do about it. Welfare reform would be a start, I suppose – too many people are receiving benefits indefinitely, with absolutely no incentive to retrain or find work.

If you view that as a potential problem regardless of whether or not government provides temporary infrastructure jobs, how is that an argument against undertaking those infrastructure projects?

It seems that, if it would be a problem (I generally don't agree it would, as I don't see an impediment to retraining), then it would be a problem regardless of any infrastructure projects.

djpbarry wrote: »

Two things on this statistic that you keep bringing up. First of all, 26 applicants is not a particularly large number for any job. Where I work, several hundred applicants for a job vacancy is commonplace.

Eh, it is an enormous number of applicants per job? It means that there are only enough jobs, to solve 4% of the unemployment, i.e. there are not nearly enough jobs.

djpbarry wrote: »

Secondly, you’re treating this as an over-simplified numbers game. For example, stating that there are, on average, 26 unemployed persons per job vacancy is entirely meaningless if none of those 26 are in any way suitable for the vacancy in question.

? It's not filling the job vacancies that is the problem, it's the enormous lack of jobs.

djpbarry wrote: »

If they’re not retraining now, why do you assume they’ll do so in the future? That doesn’t make any sense.

Because they will need jobs...people can't just stop working, lose benefits, have no income and never work again; all they will be doing is running down savings, which is totally unsustainable.

Tea drinker

KyussBishop wrote: »

Agreed, though there seems to be the idea that even after temporary government provided infrastructure jobs, that there would still be significant amounts of unemployed people after that, who won't bother retraining, despite having no income (after being kicked off the dole).

That idea is what doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Agreed, it is likely someone who is unwell that would be in the not training and not subsidised section (unless filthy rich, and there isn't many fitting either category IMHO.

As regards fella's who won't retrain, many leave and use same skillset elsewhere, or get a job in unrelated field (which they couldn't here)
I have to agree there is a section of society who refuse to entertain the notion of lifelong learning. We are "lucky" the first crew emigrate and aren't a drain on welfare, while at the same time unfortunately we may miss out on future economic input from them. Given that they have spent 14+ years under tuition, this is quite a loss.
The problem with long recessions is they can ingrain poor work ethic, where children get the example of unemployment. Potentially sending more people to the "untrainable" section. The thing that might fix that is welfare reform, job bridge programmes.
I'm not touching on the issue of more unfortunate unemployed sectors, where any of us could end up at the end of the week.

Quick point: there is sense to supporting infra projects - they have a larger effect on the economy than their cost through spin off jobs and spending, apart from any efficiency gains. We really need to stop "oversaving" in the infra project cutbacks.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

We're not talking about now...

I am.

KyussBishop wrote: »

...we're talking about after the temporary government provided infrastructure jobs, which you say even when they wind down, will leave significant unemployment and nobody bothering to retrain, despite loss of benefits...

You keep carping on about people losing benefits. Look around you - nobody is losing their benefits.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you view that as a potential problem regardless of whether or not government provides temporary infrastructure jobs, how is that an argument against undertaking those infrastructure projects?

It isn't - I'll say again, I'm not dismissing the idea of investing in infrastructure.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It seems that, if it would be a problem (I generally don't agree it would, as I don't see an impediment to retraining), then it would be a problem regardless of any infrastructure projects.

Bingo - now you're getting it.

It clearly is a problem, but you're assuming this problem will just disappear after the state provides some temporary employment? Why?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, it is an enormous number of applicants per job?

It really isn't. A lot of job vacancies will receive at least 10 - 20 applications, regardless of the prevailing economic climate.

Furthermore, I think it's disingenuous to consider a ratio that takes into consideration all the unemployed - even at the height of the boom, there were still approximately 100,000 unemployed in Ireland. Taking that into consideration, we drop from 26 applicants per job down to about 18.

KyussBishop wrote: »

? It's not filling the job vacancies that is the problem, it's the enormous lack of jobs.

Actually, it's both and the two are related. Employers have been complaining for quite some time now about the lack of suitable candidates applying for jobs in certain sectors (ICT in particular). Companies who can't fill positions can't expand and this is stifling growth. If measures are taken to help get those positions filled (such as revising Ireland's ridiculously stringent criteria for obtaining a work permit), it is likely more jobs will be created as a result.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Because they will need jobs...people can't just stop working, lose benefits, have no income and never work again; all they will be doing is running down savings, which is totally unsustainable.

Why are you assuming that people are currently losing their benefits?

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

We're not talking about now...

I am.

We were talking about the government providing temporary jobs for the unemployed, and the aftermath of that; you're attempting to move the goalposts here.

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

...we're talking about after the temporary government provided infrastructure jobs, which you say even when they wind down, will leave significant unemployment and nobody bothering to retrain, despite loss of benefits...

You keep carping on about people losing benefits. Look around you - nobody is losing their benefits.

This isn't just moving the goalposts now, this is you deliberately and dishonestly ignoring the context of the very sentence you're replying to, and doing it a blindingly obvious way, as I was talking about after the infrastructure projects, which will have boosted the private economy to recovery.

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

If you view that as a potential problem regardless of whether or not government provides temporary infrastructure jobs, how is that an argument against undertaking those infrastructure projects?

It isn't - I'll say again, I'm not dismissing the idea of investing in infrastructure.

Previously you said:

djpbarry wrote:

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.

You are arguing against reemploying all unemployed workers, in these temporary projects, and you have been trying to use the argument "what will they do afterwards?" as an argument against it.

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

It seems that, if it would be a problem (I generally don't agree it would, as I don't see an impediment to retraining), then it would be a problem regardless of any infrastructure projects.

Bingo - now you're getting it.

Which means even if I agreed that there was a problem here (which I don't), then this line of argument is totally irrelevant anyway, and could be treated as an entirely separate problem.

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

Eh, it is an enormous number of applicants per job? It means that there are only enough jobs, to solve 4% of the unemployment, i.e. there are not nearly enough jobs.

It really isn't. A lot of job vacancies will receive at least 10 - 20 applications, regardless of the prevailing economic climate.

You're being deliberately obtuse here, especially as you only quote half of that line, and totally ignore the context of the other half (which I've put back in bold); you know that I'm not talking about people applying for jobs, you know that statistic means there are only enough jobs for 1 out of 26 people.

You position is totally ridiculous as you're basically tip-toeing around the issue, to avoid acknowledging that there aren't enough private sector jobs to make up for the unemployed, and that this lack of jobs is the reason for the current state of welfare.

djpbarry wrote: »

Furthermore, I think it's disingenuous to consider a ratio that takes into consideration all the unemployed - even at the height of the boom, there were still approximately 100,000 unemployed in Ireland. Taking that into consideration, we drop from 26 applicants per job down to about 18.

Wow that's a big improvement; enough to solve 5-6% of the unemployment problem instead of 3-4%.

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, it's both and the two are related. Employers have been complaining for quite some time now about the lack of suitable candidates applying for jobs in certain sectors (ICT in particular). Companies who can't fill positions can't expand and this is stifling growth. If measures are taken to help get those positions filled (such as revising Ireland's ridiculously stringent criteria for obtaining a work permit), it is likely more jobs will be created as a result.

Even if I ignore the ridiculousness of this argument, and accept it as true, it still means waiting many years before private sector incrementally recovers, when government can provide that in a very short amount of time with ECB help.

djpbarry wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

Because they will need jobs...people can't just stop working, lose benefits, have no income and never work again; all they will be doing is running down savings, which is totally unsustainable.

Why are you assuming that people are currently losing their benefits?

Another ridiculous moving of the goalposts, saying I'm talking about now when I've made extensively clear that I'm talking about after government infrastructure programs.

You're trying to draw out the discussion as much as you can, using as many obtuse arguments as you can, to avoid dealing substantially with any points, which is a ridiculous and dishonest position to take; since this has already drawn on long enough, I'll leave you there.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

This isn't just moving the goalposts now...

No, I’m trying to get an answer to a very straightforward question: why are you assuming people are going to be faced with losing their benefits?

KyussBishop wrote: »

You are arguing against reemploying all unemployed workers, in these temporary projects, and you have been trying to use the argument "what will they do afterwards?" as an argument against it.

Actually, I’ve been using the cost of such an initiative as an argument against it. I have also stated that it essentially just kicks the problem a few years down the road. I have also questioned whether all the unemployed have the necessary skills to work on such infrastructure projects – I seriously doubt they do.

KyussBishop wrote: »

...there aren't enough private sector jobs to make up for the unemployed...

Stating the obvious really.

KyussBishop wrote: »

...and that this lack of jobs is the reason for the current state of welfare.

I would argue that the collapse of the construction sector is the main reason.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Another ridiculous moving of the goalposts, saying I'm talking about now when I've made extensively clear that I'm talking about after government infrastructure programs.

Yes, that's been your answer to pretty much everything. What I want to know is what difference does it make?

People are not retraining now, so why the hell are you assuming they will retrain after a few years of temporary employment? It doesn’t make any sense.

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're trying to draw out the discussion as much as you can, using as many obtuse arguments as you can, to avoid dealing substantially with any points, which is a ridiculous and dishonest position to take....

Actually, I’m just trying to get an answer to the above (rather straightforward) questions.

Going Forward

1000 jobs on offer for graduate nurses, and they cant be bothered........................

darkhorse

Going Forward wrote: »

1000 jobs on offer for graduate nurses, and they cant be bothered........................

I was going to give a smart arse reply to you, but the last time I did that on another thread, I got a yellow card, so I wont go there.
Just put yourself in the position of a graduate nurse. You find yourself working alongside a person that maybe would not have anywhere near the qualifications that you might have, and you have to work for 20% less than that person. Would you be bothered, bearing in mind, if you went abroad, you would be paid what you are worth.

tenton

JOB93 wrote: »

If people are so willing to retrain, why haven't many Irish picked up a European language and emigrated there?

According to the article below, of the 87,000 that left between April 2011 and April 2012, 63,200 went to the US, the UK or "Rest of the world" which I'm assuming is mostly made up of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other English speaking places. This figure includes the foreign nationals who left Ireland too so you can be sure they made up the bulk of people going to the rest of Europe. Apart from the UK, these places all need visas and have stricter rules with regard to what kind of work you're allowed to do, how much money you must have saved etc, whereas you could leave for Poland tomorrow if you learned basic Polish, plenty of construction jobs there at the moment.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0928/1224324535042.html

because Irish people are badly educated when it comes to foreign languages, and the English speaking nations of the world have a lot going for them. (compared to many which are not ). You cannot change the marketplace.

creedp

darkhorse wrote: »

I was going to give a smart arse reply to you, but the last time I did that on another thread, I got a yellow card, so I wont go there.
Just put yourself in the position of a graduate nurse. You find yourself working alongside a person that maybe would not have anywhere near the qualifications that you might have, and you have to work for 20% less than that person. Would you be bothered, bearing in mind, if you went abroad, you would be paid what you are worth.

But sure we never hear the end about the fact that Irish nurses are the best paid in the world so working for 80% of full Irish rate must compare very favourably with what's available abroad. Why do you think that recently qualified nurses would be much better qualified than fully trained and experienced nurses?

Good loser

Going Forward wrote: »

1000 jobs on offer for graduate nurses, and they cant be bothered........................

Funny that, isn't it - or sad?

Wonder what this would do to KyussBishop's grand scheme where the Govt gives jobs to 100,000 or so people on the dole, to build 'infastructure' etc.

Imagine going to the expense of setting up the structures, getting the planning permits, buying the equipment and then finding the 'workers' want what they (or their unions) feel are their 'entitlements' rather than what the business can afford. Scandal, incompetence or (my choice) daft?

Going Forward

Good loser wrote: »

Funny that, isn't it - or sad?

Wonder what this would do to KyussBishop's grand scheme where the Govt gives jobs to 100,000 or so people on the dole, to build 'infastructure' etc.

Imagine going to the expense of setting up the structures, getting the planning permits, buying the equipment and then finding the 'workers' want what they (or their unions) feel are their 'entitlements' rather than what the business can afford. Scandal, incompetence or (my choice) daft?

And a thousand reasons why we should give third level loans instead of grants.

These graduates if on welfare should have benefits cut for refusing work.

They place far too much value on themselves, wet behind the ears, no experience and want salaries on par with those who have worked for years.

The world does not owe these people a living yet that is what is being offered to them.

Only in Ireland would this be accepted.

Gumbo

Going Forward wrote: »

And a thousand reasons why we should give third level loans instead of grants.

These graduates if on welfare should have benefits cut for refusing work.

They place far too much value on themselves, wet behind the ears, no experience and want salaries on par with those with who have worked for years.

The world does not owe these people a living yet that is what is being offered to them.

Only in Ireland would this be accepted.

Graduates walk straight into 60k salararies in the US. Thats where i would go if i was a nursing graduate.

Going Forward

kceire wrote: »

Graduates walk straight into 60k salararies in the US. Thats where i would go if i was a nursing graduate.

And in the UK which is our closest economy:
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-benefits/agenda-for-change-pay-rates/

where graduates start at 21k sterling. (Band 5)

skellyboy24

iv'e never had more money in my life since the recession started :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

Funny that, isn't it - or sad?

Wonder what this would do to KyussBishop's grand scheme where the Govt gives jobs to 100,000 or so people on the dole, to build 'infastructure' etc.

Imagine going to the expense of setting up the structures, getting the planning permits, buying the equipment and then finding the 'workers' want what they (or their unions) feel are their 'entitlements' rather than what the business can afford. Scandal, incompetence or (my choice) daft?

This is a pretty lazy caricature of the policies I put forward, which implicitly labels all unemployed people as lazy scroungers, which is pretty ignorant.

If you think people on welfare are simply lazy like that, then modify my policies by ending unemployment altogether; the lazy scroungers would all have to work in order to earn their money then (obviously not a caricature of them I hold), so naturally you'd be in favour of that then?

Or perhaps, you don't actually care about that at all, or even the wider policy, and are just using that caricature as an offhand excuse to sneer at the policies put forward, and are incapable of putting together an actually substantive argument, that isn't aimed at denigrating/sneering.

Gumbo

Going Forward wrote: »

And in the UK which is our closest economy:
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-benefits/agenda-for-change-pay-rates/

where graduates start at 21k sterling.

Which is about €25,200 and with the added benefit of lower cost of living, free medical care (NHS), council tax that includes water and waste services, lower insurance premiums, lower motor tax, low car motoring costs etc etc etc

Our closest neighbour yes, but the two countries are miles apart in regards to salaries/purchasing power/cost of living etc etc etc

666irishguy

What about the debt they owe their own country for the 16+ years of education they got? I understand their position but it is slightly infuriating to see people complain about wages and not want to work even for a year or two in the country which has given them the chance to pursue their chosen career at a fairly large cost to the state.

RobbieTheRobber

666irishguy wrote: »

What about the debt they owe their own country for the 16+ years of education they got? I understand their position but it is slightly infuriating to see people complain about wages and not want to work even for a year or two in the country which has given them the chance to pursue their chosen career at a fairly large cost to the state.

This is very unfair to place that responsibility solely on Nurses.
Should others who have also benefited from the free education policy of this state not be similarly held accountable?

666irishguy

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This is very unfair to place that responsibility solely on Nurses.
Should others who have also benefited from the free education policy of this state not be similarly held accountable?

It may seem unfair, but they and certain other professions are virtually guaranteed a job once they qualify, the state that has trained them and given them an education at serious cost needs them. Do you think it's fair on the state and the people who pay taxes to fund it, to not see any benefit in training and educating their citizens if they simply leave straight away for what they think are greener pastures upon qualifying? Without sounding insensitive, do people not get into medicine to care for the sick anymore?

OMD

kceire wrote: »

Which is about €25,200 and with the added benefit of lower cost of living, free medical care (NHS), council tax that includes water and waste services, lower insurance premiums, lower motor tax, low car motoring costs etc etc etc

Our closest neighbour yes, but the two countries are miles apart in regards to salaries/purchasing power/cost of living etc etc etc

Council tax does not include water & waste services. It includes bin collections. Council tax is way higher than property tax here. Also council tax is paid by occupier whether owner or renter.

You have mentioned before about the substantially lower cost of living in the UK. this is of course rubbish and indeed over theChristnas period one if the boosts for Irish retailers was shoppers from the North coming south for cheaper prices. So please back up your statement. Don't just say "everyone knows" or "it was shown before"

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

Don't just say "everyone knows" or "it was shown before"

Putting words in my mouth there, arent we

RobbieTheRobber

666irishguy wrote: »

It may seem unfair, but they and certain other professions are virtually guaranteed a job once they qualify, the state that has trained them and given them an education at serious cost needs them. Do you think it's fair on the state and the people who pay taxes to fund it, to not see any benefit in training and educating their citizens if they simply leave straight away for what they think are greener pastures upon qualifying? Without sounding insensitive, do people not get into medicine to care for the sick anymore?

I see no difference in training health professionals from any other profession.

So you want them to tend the ill and aged and you also want them to accept a pittance for it?

mrkiscool2

ARRRGGGHHH!!! I knew this would descend into a f**k the students thread eventually. No, we don't owe a government that turn their back on us anything! There are not 1,000 nursing jobs in Ireland, lest it be forgotten the public sector has a BAN ON EMPLOYING NEW STAFF!! Student nurses are having to fight to get money for a year of work they do in final year (they still have to pay fees during that year even though they are rarely in college) and then when they do graduate the government turns it's back and they are forced to go to the UK! Where is the fairness in that? We (students) weren't the one who destroyed this country, causing massive deb and unemployment. Nor was it the middle class. It was the Government, and financial people, and head bankers. Not the ordinary person. Lets stop targeting each other with anger and attack them instead!

OMD

kceire wrote: »

Putting words in my mouth there, arent we

That doesn't really back up your statement. Care to back it up that the cost of living is substantially cheaper in UK

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

That doesn't really back up your statement. Care to back it up that the cost of living is substantially cheaper in UK

can you back it up that its not?

OMD

kceire wrote: »

can you back it up that its not?

If you make a statement like you did it is up to you to back it up. You have made the statement a number of times (or similar statements). I continually ask you to back it up. You never do.

Going Forward

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I see no difference in training health professionals from any other profession.

So you want them to tend the ill and aged and you also want them to accept a pittance for it?

€423 p/w is not a pittance.
If they dont want to tend the ill and aged they should have pursued a different career path.

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

If you make a statement like you did it is up to you to back it up. You have made the statement a number of times (or similar statements). I continually ask you to back it up. You never do.

• lower car costs
• lower motor tax
• low insurance premiums
• free NHS
• lower socialising costs
• lower food costs
• lower cost to fly to other countries from the UK
• day to day things : lower life insurance, lower health insurance, lower tv packs, lower house prices (subjective) which lead to lower mortgages.

Show me one thing thats cheaper in Eire and theres another thats cheaper in the UK.

666irishguy

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I see no difference in training health professionals from any other profession.

So you want them to tend the ill and aged and you also want them to accept a pittance for it?

They are the ones that want to tend the aged and ill, otherwise they are in the wrong line of work. Like a previous poster said, their pay is hardly a pittance and if they only stayed in Ireland for a few years and then left it would not be so bad, but to leave straight away without contributing anything back to the system that trained and educated them is more than a bit thankless. The big difference in training medical staff as opposed to other professions is the fact that they are desperately needed in this country and all around the world. At this rate we would be better off not bothering to train anybody in the field of medicine and use the money to hire and train staff abroad then bring them here. There would be plenty of men and women in less fortunate countries who would be glad to take the so called pittance.