Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What recession?
Comments
-
After cursory reading, you need a deep bore contractor for boring the tunnel, or you can dig up the ground at certain areas, and then cover over again.Nope. But you're the one trying to convince us of your masterplan to get the unemployed in Ireland working again. So what makes you think that all these people can be trained to build (for example) and underground rail line in a reasonable period of time?
And how is all this going to work in practice anyway? The government puts a project out to tender with the attached conditions that unemployed workers must be employed on the project and any necessary training is to be provided?
For deep bore you need specialists for the tunnel, then the remainder is close to bog-standard construction, with specialists needed for parts of the railway like high-voltage lines.
With all the idle construction industry capacity all over the EU and world, there's no reason why the specialists would be hard to find, and then you've got plenty of the less specialist construction work; we even have much of this already figured out form our previous infrastructure plans.0 -
You think you’re ready to manage the construction of an underground rail line after a little “cursory reading”?KyussBishop wrote: »After cursory reading...
I’m beginning to see the problem here – you don’t have a terribly high opinion of the construction industry, do you? Sure anyone can dig a tunnel, can’t they?
You didn’t answer my question – how will this work in practice? You want the state to decide who gets hired and retrained and who doesn’t?KyussBishop wrote: »With all the idle construction industry capacity all over the EU and world, there's no reason why the specialists would be hard to find, and then you've got plenty of the less specialist construction work; we even have much of this already figured out form our previous infrastructure plans.0 -
You haven't even shown retraining of people is needed, because you haven't shown a shortage of any specialist workers.You think you’re ready to manage the construction of an underground rail line after a little “cursory reading”?
I’m beginning to see the problem here – you don’t have a terribly high opinion of the construction industry, do you? Sure anyone can dig a tunnel, can’t they?
You didn’t answer my question – how will this work in practice? You want the state to decide who gets hired and retrained and who doesn’t?
I've even explained exactly what is needed to bore the tunnel, of which there are private contractors available, so you can quite the stupid caricatures of my views; too lazy to even read the post you're replying to, just looking to throw out rhetoric (why on earth would I spend more time searching out info, when you have zero interest in the response anyway; just looking to ridicule the idea. You need to show the problem exists in the first place).
The original planning for these projects wasn't just put together with the required workers/skills being an afterthought; if you claim any shortage of the necessary specialist workers, which would be rather extraordinary considering the massive shortfall in construction all over the EU, then you need to show that.0 -
How many people (never mind unemployed people) in Ireland have ever worked on an underground rail project before? You think you could just grab some lad from any building site in the country and tell them "you're working on metro north now - get cracking"?KyussBishop wrote: »You haven't even shown retraining of people is needed...
Eh, no. No you have not.KyussBishop wrote: »I've even explained exactly what is needed to bore the tunnel...
You really think construction is a piece of piss, don't you?
Sure what do we need private contractors for when you already know exactly what needs doing?KyussBishop wrote: »...of which there are private contractors available...
Really? The Dart Interconnector and Metro North were planned with the collapse of the property bubble in mind?KyussBishop wrote: »The original planning for these projects wasn't just put together with the required workers/skills being an afterthought...
There again is the problem – you’re assuming all construction workers are equal. And doesn’t recruiting from other EU countries kind of defeat the purpose of your proposal? And you still haven’t explained how this recruitment process is going to work?KyussBishop wrote: »...if you claim any shortage of the necessary specialist workers, which would be rather extraordinary considering the massive shortfall in construction all over the EU, then you need to show that.
But, anyway, the onus is not on me to demonstrate that your idea is not feasible. The onus is on you to show that it is.
For example, what ratio of "specialist" to "bog standard" (to use your terms) construction workers would be required to build the DART interconnector?0 -
Good loser wrote: »...What I do say is that if 1,000 nurses are offered a job at €22,000 per annum - the same as trainee accountants, who have much higher entry standards....
- Trainee accountants have a much higher entry standard for crunching numbers (not people)
- Nurses have a much higher entry standard for actually looking after people (not numbers)
I think most people would rather have a nurse looking after them when they're sick.0 -
Who do you think government was going to employ to do it in the first place? Do you think they'd have gotten the entire project planned and ready to go, and gone "gee guys, we forgot to train specialists for this, I guess we have to scrap the project".How many people (never mind unemployed people) in Ireland have ever worked on an underground rail project before? You think you could just grab some lad from any building site in the country and tell them "you're working on metro north now - get cracking"?
Eh, no. No you have not.
If there were specialists ready to work the project before, why on earth would there not be now, when the construction industry across the entire EU is tanked.
You're not limited to Ireland either, you can employ specialists from anywhere within the EU, since the program would be EU-wide.
You're going out of your way to mischaracterize my posts, with trite stuff like "You really think construction is a piece of piss, don't you?" and other nonsense, which shows you have no interest in honest engagement.
When your posting crap like that, you show full well that your questions demanding a litanous level of detail, are wholly disingenuous and that you don't give a toss about the answers, but only in manufacturing an excuse for labeling the project impractical, when you get to a level of questioning where finding direct figures for answers becomes so laborious, that it's not practically at hand.
Screw that; if I felt I was debating with someone who wasn't just disingenuously pressing questions without care for the answers, I might look past the burden of proof being flipped, and make a bigger effort than I already have to find figures (on something that is not easy to find data on), but I'm hardly going to do that when I know you're just looking for an opportunity for point-scoring.
I've given plenty of logical reasoning for why specialists would be available (and we've got the entire EU to look through, we're not just limited to Ireland), so unless you can provide good reasoning (preferably with something to back it) as to why those specialists would suddenly become unavailable, you can forgive me for not wasting my time searching out figures, that you're going to rubbish anyway.0 -
How many people (never mind unemployed people) in Ireland have ever worked on an underground rail project before? You think you could just grab some lad from any building site in the country and tell them "you're working on metro north now - get cracking"?
As well as the experienced workers from all over the world, they employ loads of locals anywhere they undertake a project like that, as they did on the Port Tunnel (plenty gained experience there.)0 -
TheRealPONeil wrote: »- Trainee accountants have a much higher entry standard for crunching numbers (not people)
- Nurses have a much higher entry standard for actually looking after people (not numbers)
I think most people would rather have a nurse looking after them when they're sick.
I would too. However what I was discussing was money/pay. Both are paid in the same currency.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Yes except you're trying to argue against the jobs program I laid out by saying people won't take the jobs, that even when kicked off the dole for refusing job offers (this part in particular you like to keep skipping over, as your entire argument depends on the dole), they won't take up the jobs; and now you're backpedaling trying to pretend you were making a completely different argument.
It's a totally stupid line of argument, that people would rather not work and lose their dole, being left with no income, rather than taking a job in the program, that you're now trying to fluff up with rhetoric/condescension, and by selectively ignoring my arguments wherever necessary, in order to clutch on to your own.
It's guaranteed at this stage, your responses will contain no kind of actual arguments addressing the points I make; particularly the point that people will be kicked off the dole and left with no money, meaning you are effectively arguing they will go without any earnings rather than take a job.
You (and your acolyte darkhorse) are pretty thick yourselves.
There is no difference between the nurses situation and your GRAND SCHEME. You don't seem to have any notion of how incompetent the State is at managing any business, let alone the monstrous creature you envisage. Imagine Fas x 100 times.
Colm McCarthy has often said this country currently has no shortage of infrastructure. You want to put up white elephants, and black, and blue and red. It's all so absurd; it would be much cheaper to double the dole.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on this.0 -
Yes pretty much exactly as I thought at the end of the post you quoted; no actual argument, and not even addressing the fact that people will be kicked off the dole for refusing job offers.Good loser wrote: »
You (and your acolyte darkhorse) are pretty thick yourselves.Shambler wrote:Yes except you're trying to argue against the jobs program I laid out by saying people won't take the jobs, that even when kicked off the dole for refusing job offers (this part in particular you like to keep skipping over, as your entire argument depends on the dole), they won't take up the jobs; and now you're backpedaling trying to pretend you were making a completely different argument.
It's a totally stupid line of argument, that people would rather not work and lose their dole, being left with no income, rather than taking a job in the program, that you're now trying to fluff up with rhetoric/condescension, and by selectively ignoring my arguments wherever necessary, in order to clutch on to your own.
It's guaranteed at this stage, your responses will contain no kind of actual arguments addressing the points I make; particularly the point that people will be kicked off the dole and left with no money, meaning you are effectively arguing they will go without any earnings rather than take a job.
There is no difference between the nurses situation and your GRAND SCHEME. You don't seem to have any notion of how incompetent the State is at managing any business, let alone the monstrous creature you envisage. Imagine Fas x 100 times.
Colm McCarthy has often said this country currently has no shortage of infrastructure. You want to put up white elephants, and black, and blue and red. It's all so absurd; it would be much cheaper to double the dole.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on this.
No, apparently a temporary jobs program, for building infrastructure for power (nuclear power plants for instance), transport, and improved rural broadband, among much else, where the program can be setup so the dole isn't an option, is exactly like hiring 1000 nurses in our present economy; have to be willingly ignorant to make that comparison.
The main thing I suspect at this stage, is that some posters have a fervently ideological opposition to the idea, or are just disagreeing for the sake of it, because it draws a lot of attempts at dishonest methods of argument, usually aimed at just rubbishing it without finding anything substantive to disagree with.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well now, see, the construction of the Dublin Port Tunnel, for example, involved (among others) Tokyo-based Nishimatsu Construction. The project was managed by Brown & Root, based in Houston, Texas.KyussBishop wrote: »You're not limited to Ireland either, you can employ specialists from anywhere within the EU, since the program would be EU-wide.
One of the main contractors involved in the construction of the Luas was MVM, based in Brisbane, Australia.
Arup, the firm responsible for managing the construction of Terminal 2 at Dublin Airport, is a global company with offices all over the world.
All of this suggests to me that you may need to look beyond the EU for the best “specialists”.
Did you or did you not state that you had “explained exactly what is needed to bore the tunnel”?KyussBishop wrote: »You're going out of your way to mischaracterize my posts, with trite stuff like "You really think construction is a piece of piss, don't you?" and other nonsense, which shows you have no interest in honest engagement.
Exactly what was needed?
Dude, absolutely nothing you have posted has given me any reason to believe that what you are suggesting is practical - you seem to be basing everything on a series of assumptions and best-case scenarios.KyussBishop wrote: »When your posting crap like that, you show full well that your questions demanding a litanous level of detail, are wholly disingenuous and that you don't give a toss about the answers, but only in manufacturing an excuse for labeling the project impractical…
This statement is completely meaningless because you don’t even know what you mean by “specialists”, do you?KyussBishop wrote: »I've given plenty of logical reasoning for why specialists would be available…
But that’s not a fact. You keep on stating it repeatedly, but it’s not a fact. People in Ireland are claiming welfare indefinitely, but you keep insisting that they’ll be kicked off the dole for refusing job offers. Why?KyussBishop wrote: »…not even addressing the fact that people will be kicked off the dole for refusing job offers.
I have stated several times now that I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of investing in infrastructure – the DART interconnector, for example, is something that is well worth pursuing.KyussBishop wrote: »The main thing I suspect at this stage, is that some posters have a fervently ideological opposition to the idea, or are just disagreeing for the sake of it, because it draws a lot of attempts at dishonest methods of argument, usually aimed at just rubbishing it without finding anything substantive to disagree with.
However, what you are proposing goes way beyond that. You want to build masses of infrastructure to create jobs for the unemployed, which necessitates finding projects to work on in order to create a sufficient number of jobs. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that Ireland might be better off investing that money elsewhere (ignoring for a moment that the money isn’t actually available), such as scientific research, for example.
You suggest above that Ireland should be building a nuclear power plant - does Ireland even need a nuclear power plant? Because I've yet to see a sound economic argument for one.
Just to put what you are suggesting in context, the construction of the Dublin Port Tunnel, which was a colossal project in Irish terms, employed approximately 5,000 people. You want to embark on a series of projects employing, what, 20 times that number?!? All of whom will somehow magically not revert to claiming the dole when these projects have been completed?
Can you not see any potential drawbacks to what you are suggesting? Because there are an awful lot of assumptions in there.0 -
Yes and how many European contractors did you omit mentioning, which you found during searches? (the Port Tunnel was mixed Irish, British and Japanese contractors); for the Dublin Metro, there were several contractors competing for the job, including European ones:Well now, see, the construction of the Dublin Port Tunnel, for example, involved (among others) Tokyo-based Nishimatsu Construction. The project was managed by Brown & Root, based in Houston, Texas.
One of the main contractors involved in the construction of the Luas was MVM, based in Brisbane, Australia.
Arup, the firm responsible for managing the construction of Terminal 2 at Dublin Airport, is a global company with offices all over the world.
All of this suggests to me that you may need to look beyond the EU for the best “specialists”.
http://www.build.ie/construction_news.asp?newsid=68400
We're suddenly to believe there are now no suitable contractors in Europe for this?
This is nonsensical nitpicking at this stage; you'll be asking me for the blueprints next.
Did you or did you not state that you had “explained exactly what is needed to bore the tunnel”?KyussBishop wrote:You're going out of your way to mischaracterize my posts, with trite stuff like "You really think construction is a piece of piss, don't you?" and other nonsense, which shows you have no interest in honest engagement.
Exactly what was needed?
Mischaracterizing my posts is not a justification for the trite condescending crap you're throwing out.
Yes pretending like you have any actual interest in discussing it; you pick at it purely for point-scoring at this stage, as you've long given up any hint at honest argument.Dude, absolutely nothing you have posted has given me any reason to believe that what you are suggesting is practical - you seem to be basing everything on a series of assumptions and best-case scenarios.
You're being deliberately obtuse here, playing dumb and being demanding in detail/explanation for the sake of condescension.
This statement is completely meaningless because you don’t even know what you mean by “specialists”, do you?KyussBishop wrote:I've given plenty of logical reasoning for why specialists would be available…
Again being deliberately obtuse, to keep wringing the same tired argument, demanding answers to utterly stupid, nitpicking questions.But that’s not a fact. You keep on stating it repeatedly, but it’s not a fact. People in Ireland are claiming welfare indefinitely, but you keep insisting that they’ll be kicked off the dole for refusing job offers. Why?
Invest money there as well; no reason you can't roll scientific research into the job guarantee program.I have stated several times now that I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of investing in infrastructure – the DART interconnector, for example, is something that is well worth pursuing.
However, what you are proposing goes way beyond that. You want to build masses of infrastructure to create jobs for the unemployed, which necessitates finding projects to work on in order to create a sufficient number of jobs. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that Ireland might be better off investing that money elsewhere (ignoring for a moment that the money isn’t actually available), such as scientific research, for example.
You're again obviously obtusely ignoring my past arguments, since the entire project would be run with the help of the ECB, where there definitely would be money available.
Again obtuse, demanding questioning; with a looming energy crisis and rising fuel prices, you wonder why we might want to build non-fossil-fuel power sources?You suggest above that Ireland should be building a nuclear power plant - does Ireland even need a nuclear power plant? Because I've yet to see a sound economic argument for one.
Don't even bother pretending you didn't know that was the reasoning behind advocating it, because I've only repeated it probably a dozen or more times in this thread, regularly every other time I mention the program; you're nitpicking and being obtuse for the sake of point-scoring.
And if you were engaging in honest argument, with any actual interest in the policy, you wouldn't be obtusely ignoring that it is expressly for the purpose of helping pump private industry back up, in order to take on workers.Just to put what you are suggesting in context, the construction of the Dublin Port Tunnel, which was a colossal project in Irish terms, employed approximately 5,000 people. You want to embark on a series of projects employing, what, 20 times that number?!? All of whom will somehow magically not revert to claiming the dole when these projects have been completed?
If you're going to enter into demanding questions asking me to explain that, read the posts I've already made on it in this thread, instead of selectively ignoring aspects of everything I post, for the sake of repeating the same demanding questions, and for condescension.0 -
Current UK govt is looking at postcode based wages for public servants, basically extending the "London premium" nationwide: it's nonsense that a teacher in Cumbria should be paid the same as one in Berkshire, similarly for Ireland a teacher in Donegal should not need or get the same pay as one in Dublin or Galway City...but Ireland doesn't even have post codes to start implementing such a system!Totally agree, same as living in Dublin is much more expensive than living in some remote part of Ireland too.0 -
Did I say that? Where did I say that? I was clearly pointing out that all of the necessary “specialists” were obviously not available within the EU. You, on the other hand, are insisting that no matter what white elephants Ireland chooses to build in the future, the necessary expertise will be available from within the EU – that seems extremely unlikely.KyussBishop wrote: »We're suddenly to believe there are now no suitable contractors in Europe for this?
I have asked nothing but perfectly reasonable questions throughout this thread. Since you don’t have the answers to these questions (and rather than admit as much in a rational manner), you dismiss my questions “nonsensical”, “obtuse”, “condescending crap” – kind of undermines your argument.KyussBishop wrote: »This is nonsensical nitpicking at this stage; you'll be asking me for the blueprints next.
Mischaracterizing my posts is not a justification for the trite condescending crap you're throwing out.
Yes pretending like you have any actual interest in discussing it; you pick at it purely for point-scoring at this stage, as you've long given up any hint at honest argument.
You're being deliberately obtuse here, playing dumb and being demanding in detail/explanation for the sake of condescension.
Again being deliberately obtuse, to keep wringing the same tired argument, demanding answers to utterly stupid, nitpicking questions.
If you don’t want your ideas questioned, maybe don’t post them on a discussion forum?
You haven’t even come close to demonstrating that this is the case. You haven’t put a price tag on anything.KyussBishop wrote: »Invest money there as well; no reason you can't roll scientific research into the job guarantee program.
You're again obviously obtusely ignoring my past arguments, since the entire project would be run with the help of the ECB, where there definitely would be money available.
I wonder why Ireland needs, specifically, a nuclear power plant?KyussBishop wrote: »Again obtuse, demanding questioning; with a looming energy crisis and rising fuel prices, you wonder why we might want to build non-fossil-fuel power sources?
That looks like a perfectly reasonable question to me, but no doubt you’ll dismiss it as obtuse or condescending.
I think there are better ways of “pumping up” private industry than investing in infrastructure and hoping for the best. For example, make it easier/less risky for people to start their own businesses.KyussBishop wrote: »And if you were engaging in honest argument, with any actual interest in the policy, you wouldn't be obtusely ignoring that it is expressly for the purpose of helping pump private industry back up, in order to take on workers.
But anyway, you still haven’t explained how this going to work either. As I’ve said repeatedly, construction workers, generally*, are not retraining now, but they’re all going to magically retrain at some unspecified point in the future?
That is a perfectly reasonable question, which I’m sure you’ll dismiss yet again.
You’re argument essentially boils down to this:
1. Spend ****-loads on infrastructure.
2. Private industry recovers.
3. Loads of construction workers retrain to be something else.
There is absolutely no reason why 2 and 3 necessarily follow on from 1 – that is my point.
* Some are, to their credit.0 -
That's what you've been saying all this time; your entire line of argument has been trying to attack projects like the Metro North, in terms of availability of specialists.
Did I say that? Where did I say that? I was clearly pointing out that all of the necessary “specialists” were obviously not available within the EU. You, on the other hand, are insisting that no matter what white elephants Ireland chooses to build in the future, the necessary expertise will be available from within the EU – that seems extremely unlikely.KyussBishop wrote:We're suddenly to believe there are now no suitable contractors in Europe for this?
This is where the burden of proof falls on you, because obviously projects like Metro North and such, were not planned without the relevant contractors being available.
Nonsense; you are quite clearly selectively ignoring details of what I lay out, wherever it is convenient for allowing you to demand answers to (repeated) obtuse questions; that doesn't leave any impression of a desire for honest debate.I have asked nothing but perfectly reasonable questions throughout this thread. Since you don’t have the answers to these questions (and rather than admit as much in a rational manner), you dismiss my questions “nonsensical”, “obtuse”, “condescending crap” – kind of undermines your argument.
Yes the latter seems to be what you're pushing for; trying to shut down discussion of the topic through condescension and deliberately fallacious lines of argument, and just outright ignoring stuff I've previously explained, wherever it suits another rhetorical argument.If you don’t want your ideas questioned, maybe don’t post them on a discussion forum?
Perfect example of obtuse nonsense that is selectively ignoring what I've already stated, as I've made perfectly clear repeatedly this is coming from money creation at the ECB; funding that cannot run out until an inflation target is reached.
You haven’t even come close to demonstrating that this is the case. You haven’t put a price tag on anything.KyussBishop wrote:Invest money there as well; no reason you can't roll scientific research into the job guarantee program.
You're again obviously obtusely ignoring my past arguments, since the entire project would be run with the help of the ECB, where there definitely would be money available.
Reiterating already-answered questions, pretending it hasn't been answered, doesn't magically undo the previous answer; you don't just selectively ignore my posts, but even the the parts you quote when replying to them. Read what you've quoted, as you know that is answered.
I wonder why Ireland needs, specifically, a nuclear power plant?KyussBishop wrote:Again obtuse, demanding questioning; with a looming energy crisis and rising fuel prices, you wonder why we might want to build non-fossil-fuel power sources?
I've explained, several times, the entire thing (and welcome re-explaining it, and answering questions, from people who are actually interested) but you have shown you have zero interest in hearing any of it, because you like to keep obtusely parroting the same answered questions, and dealt-with issues, for the sake of 1: rhetorical argument, 2: condescension, 3: ridicule and trying to rubbish the policy (often based on straw-men like above), and I suspect 4: trying to shut-down discussion of it entirely, or just muddy debate enough to avoid others learning the policy.I think there are better ways of “pumping up” private industry than investing in infrastructure and hoping for the best. For example, make it easier/less risky for people to start their own businesses.
But anyway, you still haven’t explained how this going to work either. As I’ve said repeatedly, construction workers, generally*, are not retraining now, but they’re all going to magically retrain at some unspecified point in the future?
That is a perfectly reasonable question, which I’m sure you’ll dismiss yet again.
You’re argument essentially boils down to this:
1. Spend ****-loads on infrastructure.
2. Private industry recovers.
3. Loads of construction workers retrain to be something else.
There is absolutely no reason why 2 and 3 necessarily follow on from 1 – that is my point.
* Some are, to their credit.
I'm more than happy to engage with those genuinely interested in it, but I've been debating this issue and many others, across many forums, long enough to be able to recognize very well when someone is creeping into gradually greater levels of dishonest argument, with only a disingenuous impression of interest.0 -
You're shifting the goalposts. You stated that the necessary "specialists" could be hired from anywhere in the EU. I have simply pointed out that some would likely be required from outside the EU.KyussBishop wrote: »That's what you've been saying all this time; your entire line of argument has been trying to attack projects like the Metro North, in terms of availability of specialists.
This is where the burden of proof falls on you, because obviously projects like Metro North and such, were not planned without the relevant contractors being available.
Ok - off you go. Let's see some numbers.KyussBishop wrote: »Perfect example of obtuse nonsense that is selectively ignoring what I've already stated, as I've made perfectly clear repeatedly this is coming from money creation at the ECB; funding that cannot run out until an inflation target is reached.
Is it not possible that maybe your explanation was less than perfect?KyussBishop wrote: »I've explained, several times, the entire thing...0
Advertisement