Unemployment total falls by 9.3% in Q1

maninasia

We have a good idea how many would be unemployed in a lot of sectors because there are simply no jobs in those sectors...almost anything to do with public service employment or construction or most trades for a start.

If they weren't working before they left you can definitely nail them down as being very unlikely to have been employed now.

Whatever way you want to spin it, all the surveys of emigrants indicate the majority left for employment reasons AND their rate of emigration strongly correlate with the financial crisis.

maninasia

They look pretty limited to me. The economy is dominated by the financial services sector. There are a whole host of job types that don’t exist in any great number (or even at all).

You keep showing your ignorance, Singapore actually has quite a diverse economy, which is one of the secrets of it's impressive success with regards employment rates and incomes.

They have a very diversified economy in terms of logistics, shipping, oil refining, pharma, biomedical manufacturing and services, regional operations hubs, academic institutes, electronics manufacturing, legal services, finance and most recently have been very successful in promoting tourism and gambling. Of course you would know that if you paid attention to what I wrote earlier.

2% unemployment. Small country. 4.5 million people.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

You keep showing your ignorance, Singapore actually has quite a diverse economy, which is one of the secrets of it's impressive success with regards employment rates and incomes.

I'm well aware of Singapore's efforts to reinvent itself.

But if it's so wonderful, why do so many people leave?

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

My point is obvious, the youth unemployment and graduate unemployment figures should be worse that they are, it's emigration which is removing large numbers of the people who would be listed as unemployed.

What's hard to understand about that? 41% of the 300,000 people who left over the last 4 years are 15-24 years old. That's 120,000 people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22689189
A recent survey by the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI) found that little more than half of 18 to 24-year-olds had considered emigrating.

But...your point is not obvious if the statistics do not back you up.

I could say that it is obvious from the congested M50 that Ireland is overpopulated and that there must be ten million people living in Ireland but I would be wrong because the statistics would show different.

So while to you it might be obvious that the youth and graduate unemployment should be worse than they are, it might not be obvious to the rest of us without hard statistics and analysis to back it up.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

You keep showing your ignorance, Singapore actually has quite a diverse economy, which is one of the secrets of it's impressive success with regards employment rates and incomes.

They have a very diversified economy in terms of logistics, shipping, oil refining, pharma, biomedical manufacturing and services, regional operations hubs, academic institutes, electronics manufacturing, legal services, finance and most recently have been very successful in promoting tourism and gambling. Of course you would know that if you paid attention to what I wrote earlier.

2% unemployment. Small country. 4.5 million people.

Singapore is a strange country. There is huge exploitation of immigrant domestic workers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/9128243/Singapores-foreign-maids-to-get-day-off.html

In some ways it is akin to slavery. When the job is over, you are thrown out of the country. Saying that there is only 2% unemployment among slave-owners is not a reliable guide.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

But...your point is not obvious if the statistics do not back you up.

I could say that it is obvious from the congested M50 that Ireland is overpopulated and that there must be ten million people living in Ireland but I would be wrong because the statistics would show different.

So while to you it might be obvious that the youth and graduate unemployment should be worse than they are, it might not be obvious to the rest of us without hard statistics and analysis to back it up.

IMF:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1025365.shtml

ESRI:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/true-number-of-jobless-would-be-27pc-without-emigration-29025138.html

Godge

noodler wrote: »

IMF:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1025365.shtml

ESRI:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/true-number-of-jobless-would-be-27pc-without-emigration-29025138.html

Those analyses ignore increased participation in education and also ignore that emigration was happening anyway prior to the crisis.

Look at the CSO figures:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/


The size of the Labour Force peaked at 2,278.3 before falling to 2,159.1. This was a drop of 119.2 which when added to the unemployment rate of 323.0 gives a total of 442.2 which as a percentage of 2,278.3 is 19.4%. So even on the worst interpretation of the CSO data, you can only get 19.4%. That gives the IMF figures some comfort (they were 20%) but those figures (and mine) ignore other factors (return to education being one, early retirement being another) that reduced the labour force, meaning that 19.4% is an absolute max when the real figure would be a max of 18%.

Where the ESRI got the 27% from I have no idea.


P.S. Even so, neither the IMF nor the ESRI present compelling evidence of a newly high 50% graduate unemployment rate

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Those analyses ignore increased participation in education and also ignore that emigration was happening anyway prior to the crisis.

Look at the CSO figures:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/


The size of the Labour Force peaked at 2,278.3 before falling to 2,159.1. This was a drop of 119.2 which when added to the unemployment rate of 323.0 gives a total of 442.2 which as a percentage of 2,278.3 is 19.4%. So even on the worst interpretation of the CSO data, you can only get 19.4%. That gives the IMF figures some comfort (they were 20%) but those figures (and mine) ignore other factors (return to education being one, early retirement being another) that reduced the labour force, meaning that 19.4% is an absolute max when the real figure would be a max of 18%.

Where the ESRI got the 27% from I have no idea.


P.S. Even so, neither the IMF nor the ESRI present compelling evidence of a newly high 50% graduate unemployment rate

Your ability to dismiss reports compiled by economic experts without bothering to read/understand their underlying analysis is absolutely staggering.


You are just churning out vague opposing points now on an ad hoc basis.

tootsy70

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Could it be a factor that Social Protection are changing policy of paying welfare benefits directly to bank accounts and instead people have to turn up and collect payments at post office every week?

When are they doing this ?

maninasia

But the statistics do back it up..the surveys of emigrants reasons for going AND the huge increase in emigration of all ages back it up.

They are statistics too. They just don't get counted in the current unemployment figures.

maninasia

Godge wrote: »

Singapore is a strange country. There is huge exploitation of immigrant domestic workers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/9128243/Singapores-foreign-maids-to-get-day-off.html

In some ways it is akin to slavery. When the job is over, you are thrown out of the country. Saying that there is only 2% unemployment among slave-owners is not a reliable guide.

Ireland is a strange country, we are divided in two and for 30 years there were acts of terrorism everyday. Every twenty years we bust and huge waves of emigration occur. The old keep their jobs and pensions and the younger folk get told tough luck...wait your turn if you are lucky. The people on social welfare often get a better deal than the working taxpayer. In Ireland they don't allow abortion even when it's dangerous to the mother's health and they only recently allowed divorce. Anymore irrelevant and self serving sanctimonious holier than thou political viewpoints you want to hear?

What's your point? It's not slavery, they are called domestic maids and they are common all over the world but especially common in Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa. How they are treated is a separate matter to employment figures or this discussion.

So your relevance to this discussion...you have none. Completely irrelevant waffle about human rights or your own political viewpoints being shoved down peoples throats. Do that in the politics forum. It's boring.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

What's your point? It's not slavery, they are called domestic maids and they are common all over the world but especially common in Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa. How they are treated is a separate matter to employment figures or this discussion.

It really isn’t. You’re holding Singapore up as an example that Ireland should aspire to, while completely overlooking the fact that Singapore has a very questionable human rights record. The two are obviously related – you can achieve a lot if you treat a chunk of your workforce like ****. Ireland, being a member of the EU, (thankfully) cannot do likewise.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Your ability to dismiss reports compiled by economic experts without bothering to read/understand their underlying analysis is absolutely staggering.


You are just churning out vague opposing points now on an ad hoc basis.

Sorry, you are quoting extrapolations by so-called economic experts (the ESRI have had to change a number of reports over the last few years, the IMF have admitted they got things wrong in Greece) while I go back to the hard bare statistics and find some support for one of them (IMF) which I acknowledge and no support for the other (which I implicitly criticise). The only way the ESRI figures make sense is if they count retirees, people in higher education and people on disability both as part of the Labour Force and as part of the unemployed portion of the Labour Force. If that was the case, the 27% would be comparable to a norm in the good times of 20% similar to comparing 13% with 4%.

Again, sorry for not just swallowing the word of experts here. I have often told people that if you don't like an independent report on something, the easiest way to do something about it is to change the terms of reference slightly, hire someone else to do one, and wait for the result to come in. Bingo, job done, there are plenty of consultants out there who can deliver that for you.

I have little of no regard for the likes of IMF or ESRI as independent commentators because just like you or I they have ideological built-in bias. It is actually very hard to find an independent commentator without bias - Seamus Coffey is the closest as he tends to just analyse the hard figures behind reports - on Irish economic affairs.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

Ireland is a strange country, we are divided in two and for 30 years there were acts of terrorism everyday. Every twenty years we bust and huge waves of emigration occur. The old keep their jobs and pensions and the younger folk get told tough luck...wait your turn if you are lucky. The people on social welfare often get a better deal than the working taxpayer. In Ireland they don't allow abortion even when it's dangerous to the mother's health and they only recently allowed divorce. Anymore irrelevant and self serving sanctimonious holier than thou political viewpoints you want to hear?

What's your point? It's not slavery, they are called domestic maids and they are common all over the world but especially common in Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa. How they are treated is a separate matter to employment figures or this discussion.

So your relevance to this discussion...you have none. Completely irrelevant waffle about human rights or your own political viewpoints being shoved down peoples throats. Do that in the politics forum. It's boring.

My point is:

- no minimum wage
- little or no social support
- no worker protection
- little in the way of worker rights
- some people treated akin to slavery

Is it any wonder unemployment is so low?

maninasia

djpbarry wrote: »

It really isn’t. You’re holding Singapore up as an example that Ireland should aspire to, while completely overlooking the fact that Singapore has a very questionable human rights record. The two are obviously related – you can achieve a lot if you treat a chunk of your workforce like ****. Ireland, being a member of the EU, (thankfully) cannot do likewise.

They are not related. Lots of other countries around the world have large numbers of women and migrants in domestic 'servitude' and their unemployment rates and levels of development all vary enormously. In the case of Singapore these women come in from neighbouring countries willingly. That's the harsh reality of the poverty that they come from. This is the choice they make. They can get jobs in their home countries but the pay and conditions are worse there!

The discussion on migrant labour rights is a complete distraction...but of course you know that already.

maninasia

Godge wrote: »

My point is:

- no minimum wage
- little or no social support
- no worker protection
- little in the way of worker rights
- some people treated akin to slavery

Is it any wonder unemployment is so low?

Wrong, wrong , wrong. Singapore actually does have huge social supports for it's citizens, with subsidised housing and education and an excellent infrastructure and low corruption and crime rates.
It also offers very fair and competitive pay to migrant white collar workers who flock to it from all over the region, giving them pay and working conditions that are streets ahead of their own countries.

It is in the treatment of some blue collar workers that they fall down. But then again they are not a socialist country in the same style as Catholic holier than thou save the Africans Ireland and they don't follow the mores of a little bankrupt country in Western Europe. Everything they got they built up themselves in a very unstable and hostile region. They have their own history and cultural mores and don't need to be dictated to be you or others.

Singaporean's income on average is also very high.

maninasia

djpbarry wrote: »

It really isn’t. You’re holding Singapore up as an example that Ireland should aspire to, while completely overlooking the fact that Singapore has a very questionable human rights record. The two are obviously related – you can achieve a lot if you treat a chunk of your workforce like ****. Ireland, being a member of the EU, (thankfully) cannot do likewise.

Yeah, you have to leave your country instead, while older people and people who haven't worked all their lives are sorted out by the state. Questionable indeed. Ireland 15% unemployment with large scale emigration. It's great to be from a great country you can't actually live and work in isn't it?

Singapore 2% unemployment with low emigration and large scale immigration. Still glad to be in the wonderful EU, such a successful model for youth employment isn't it?

I didn't say Ireland needs to aspire to be Singapore, what it should aspire to is to a 2% unemployment rate and that full employment can be achieved by small countries as amply demonstrated by Singapore. This puts to bed the lie that small countries can not offer full employment to their citizens.

A large number of Singaporeans are employed by multinationals, are you saying that they don't treat their employees well? Also something like 50% of residents of Singapore are foreign born. If it's so bad why are they flocking there eh?

Get back to the point or open another thread in the politics forum. I don't give a flying fig leaf about your sudden concern from human rights in a discussion about employment, it's ridiculous and your posts should be deleted from this discussion as they are not relevant.

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

I didn't say Ireland needs to aspire to be Singapore, what it should aspire to is to a 2% unemployment rate and that full employment can be achieved by small countries as amply demonstrated by Singapore.

So should low-paid workers in Ireland be treated like **** in order to achieve that goal? Should Ireland introduce caning for minor crimes? Execution for possesion of narcotics, perhaps?

maninasia wrote: »

This puts to bed the lie that small countries can not offer full employment to their citizens.

A "lie" that nobody but you has posted?

maninasia

Ireland has a much worse crime problem than Singapore, it also has a serious unemployment problem, record breaking deficits, a barely functioning health system, part of an IMF bailout program which means it is being dictated to by foreign governments and large scale emigration. But please do go on.

I am intrigued to listen to your lecture about Singapore (a place I know well..and I suspect you have not even visited once) and their canings etc. In fact many countries in Asia have worse human rights records than Singapore and maintain the death penalty. They don't need to follow your social mores, their citizens CHOOSE to implement these policies (the death penalty for serious crimes is not unpopular like in Europe), nor is caning in any way importantly related to their stellar success at generating numerous and well paid working opportunities for their citizens and foreign residents.

Other countries in the region with similar harsh systems of justice such as Vietnam or Taiwan or Malaysia or Indonesia have not seen the level of economic success that Singapore has.  

The reason why Singapore's unemployment rate is so low is that they have successfully attracted massive investment in diverse areas such as logistics, financial services, pharma, medical, electronics, education, tourism and gambling. They have operated a relaxed policy on immigration especially with regards to white collar workers. They develop friendly relations with East and West. They welcome people to purchase property and support their construction industry. Their government has a relatively low tolerance of corruption. Their corporate tax rates are low and they have signed free trade agreements with many countries. When one area looks like it is running out of steam (e.g. electronics) they are smart enough to plan ahead and try to promote other areas with growth potential such as gambling and tourism.


THESE are the reasons that Singapore has been successful, and I will keep repeating them ad infinitum and as necessary to make sure people are not misled by emotional arguments designed to deflect from the core of the discussion.

nesf

maninasia wrote: »

THESE are the reasons that Singapore has been successful, and I will keep repeating them ad infinitum and as necessary to make sure people are not misled by emotional arguments designed to deflect from the core of the discussion.

Seriously, do not do this. Thanks.

maninasia

Seriously you should pay more respect to posters who contribute stuff than one line quotes that ignore WHY I said I will do this.

You think I don't have better things to do with my time? It's not cool that people can derail a whole thread with comments that are designed to get away from the focus on employment rates and core economic systems. They throw out a line or two about 'caning' or a link to maids and no argument of substance, no comparison to neighbouring countries economies and human rights systems etc.


The fact remains that Singapore has followed sensible economic policies (see my post on Page 8 in bold) which allows their small country to prosper and offer full employment and a wide range of opportunities to their citizens. It has precious little to do with their arcane habit of caning drug offenders, their poor treatment of domestic servants (which is not right but unfortunately is common around the world) or their use of the death penalty which is widespread around Asia.

I get it, he's a mod, I've been warned for back seat moderation, it's not a level playing field is it. If he's able to continually throw out one or two line snippets with no substantial argument surely I'm able to argue back using economic terms rather than emotive human rights terminology with no context.

Should Ireland introduce caning for minor crimes? Execution for possesion of narcotics, perhaps?

Enough of these deliberate calls to emotion already eh? I've already stated numerous times I don't say Ireland should copy Singapore for everything and the only person alluding to doing such things is the above poster. And this is simply not relevant to the economic debate. It is NOT relevant and does not need to be mentioned. Should I continually bring up Ireland's arcane laws on abortion? Well should I?

This is the ECONOMY forum after all. You do want ECONOMIC debate right from people familiar with these things? Or not?

Scofflaw

maninasia wrote:

This is the ECONOMY forum after all. You do want ECONOMIC debate right from people familiar with these things? Or not?

Obviously we do, but you can't simply ignore labour conditions when considering employment. EU Directives such as the Working Time Directive, policies such as health and safety, social welfare, labour rights, etc, are very frequently argued to be exactly the reason the EU has a higher structural unemployment rate than places like Singapore.

It's great to argue the facts and figures, but to claim that only the facts and figures one wants to use are relevant is usually cherry-picking - labour rights, emotive as they may, are directly relevant to unemployment statistics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardmacha

Should I continually bring up Ireland's arcane laws on abortion? Well should I?

No, you should not. Unless you have some evidence that these have a material influence on the labour market.

The labour market in a country is not only a measure of opportunity, but also of incentive. In Ireland, at the lower end of the market, people contrast the opportunities with the opportunity cost of leaving social welfare. This equation is different in Singapore.

nesf

maninasia wrote: »

Seriously you should pay more respect to posters who contribute stuff than one line quotes that ignore WHY I said I will do this.

No. I am telling you that repeating a position ad infinitum is not acceptable. It's not discussing anything, it's trying to shout down the other guy by turning it into a stamina contest as to who can keep posting longest. You're welcome to draw comparisons to Singapore, you're not welcome to try and win an argument by repeating yourself constantly.

I'm specifically not addressing your main point, I'm only asking you not to do the above when you're making it.

maninasia

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously we do, but you can't simply ignore labour conditions when considering employment. EU Directives such as the Working Time Directive, policies such as health and safety, social welfare, labour rights, etc, are very frequently argued to be exactly the reason the EU has a higher structural unemployment rate than places like Singapore.

It's great to argue the facts and figures, but to claim that only the facts and figures one wants to use are relevant is usually cherry-picking - labour rights, emotive as they may, are directly relevant to unemployment statistics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are labour rights directly related to unemployment statistics? I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. In fact couldn't one argue that working time directives help to create more jobs, at least part-time, than countries with no such directives? In fact this may be the case already if we look at recent trends.

In Ireland we had almost full employment when the economy was 'good'. It's fairly obvious that economic growth and investment is the main impetus to employment trends and not labour rights. When the economy generated economic growth in Ireland (even if temporary and misguided) the unemployment rate reached something like 4%.

It's also a matter of cultures in various countries and the rate of population growth. In the Philippines unemployment runs at 11% and yet working rights and income in the Phillipines is worse than Singapore. Child labour is rampant in the Philippines but is not tolerated in Singapore.

Perhaps you mean social welfare conditions and relative benefits are more important to consider? I would agree that this may act as an impediment to getting people back into the labour force.

maninasia

ardmacha wrote: »

No, you should not. Unless you have some evidence that these have a material influence on the labour market.

The labour market in a country is not only a measure of opportunity, but also of incentive. In Ireland, at the lower end of the market, people contrast the opportunities with the opportunity cost of leaving social welfare. This equation is different in Singapore.

Okay, so please explain how laws dealing with drug abuse or corporal punishment relate to the labour market? THAT is my point. That kind of emotive statement is just as relevant as me bringing up divorce, Catholicism and abortion in Ireland. Thanks for proving my point.

Now if somebody could put together a coherent theory of how domestic maids somehow allow women to work outside the home more and give an economic incentive to do this, I'm all ears, but surely I shouldn't have to put this coherent argument together myself?

Instead people go for the easy emotional option 'ah but sure they have caning and put drug dealers to death'. And my answer is, so what? Yes it's boring, but the mods haven't acknowledged that this was going on.

ardmacha

I actually think that Ireland can learn from some policy initiatives in Singapore, but we have to acknowledge the differences also and avoid getting sidetracked into chewing gum bans, flogging, abortion and the like.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

. Singapore actually does have huge social supports for it's citizens, with subsidised housing and education and an excellent infrastructure and low corruption and crime rates.
It also offers very fair and competitive pay to migrant white collar workers who flock to it from all over the region, giving them pay and working conditions that are streets ahead of their own countries.

It is in the treatment of some blue collar workers that they fall down. But then again they are not a socialist country in the same style as Catholic holier than thou save the Africans Ireland and they don't follow the mores of a little bankrupt country in Western Europe. Everything they got they built up themselves in a very unstable and hostile region. They have their own history and cultural mores and don't need to be dictated to be you or others.

Singaporean's income on average is also very high.

The key word in your first sentence is the word citizen. The difference being that in Ireland we offer the same (well, better) supports to all, citizen, EU citizen, refugee and immigrant. Singapore do not.

While the comparison of slave-owner and Singapore citizen is over-the-top, it illustrates the reality that social supports for Singapore citizens is like social supports for slave-owners - it does nothing for the slaves or for immigrants and lower-class workers in Singapore.

maninasia wrote: »

Are labour rights directly related to unemployment statistics? I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. In fact couldn't one argue that working time directives help to create more jobs, at least part-time, than countries with no such directives? In fact this may be the case already if we look at recent trends.

In Ireland we had almost full employment when the economy was 'good'. It's fairly obvious that economic growth and investment is the main impetus to employment trends and not labour rights. When the economy generated economic growth in Ireland (even if temporary and misguided) the unemployment rate reached something like 4%.

It's also a matter of cultures in various countries and the rate of population growth. In the Philippines unemployment runs at 11% and yet working rights and income in the Phillipines is worse than Singapore. Child labour is rampant in the Philippines but is not tolerated in Singapore.

Perhaps you mean social welfare conditions and relative benefits are more important to consider? I would agree that this may act as an impediment to getting people back into the labour force.

Labour rights are directly related to statistics. If Ireland had a law that every non-citizen could not claim social support and had to return to their country of origin if they lost their job, we could halve the unemployment rate. It would reduce the structural unemployment rate as well.

[Jackass]

maninasia wrote: »

Are labour rights directly related to unemployment statistics? I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. In fact couldn't one argue that working time directives help to create more jobs, at least part-time, than countries with no such directives? In fact this may be the case already if we look at recent trends.

In Ireland we had almost full employment when the economy was 'good'. It's fairly obvious that economic growth and investment is the main impetus to employment trends and not labour rights. When the economy generated economic growth in Ireland (even if temporary and misguided) the unemployment rate reached something like 4%.

It's also a matter of cultures in various countries and the rate of population growth. In the Philippines unemployment runs at 11% and yet working rights and income in the Phillipines is worse than Singapore. Child labour is rampant in the Philippines but is not tolerated in Singapore.

Perhaps you mean social welfare conditions and relative benefits are more important to consider? I would agree that this may act as an impediment to getting people back into the labour force.

Seriously?

Ok, a few examples of how Labour rights effect employment.

Minimum Wage - You can't have sweat shops.

Health & Safety - Cost of having a fully qualified "safe" building is massive, even in initial build, most places forfeit a large chunk of floor space to stair wells of sufficient size for amount of people employed there. See here if you want an example from the region of the world you're making comparisons from.

Social Welfare Rates - It's livable in Ireland, some might say comfortably so. Also social housing conditions are of a high quality (in most cases)

Industry Conditions - Low Skilled vs High Skilled industry. There aren't any major textile plants and the like in Ireland due to the very fact that very few low skilled major suppliers would ever locate here because of the very reasons you don't wish to acknowledge.

etc. etc.

maninasia

Do you know of sweat shops or textile factories in Singapore? I don't. Labour rights tend to follow economic development, not come before economic development. Now if you mean Bangladesh vs Ireland I get your point (Bangladesh has a minimum wage and supposedly labour rights, doesn't mean anything when if you don't work you don't eat).

Minimum wage doesn't mean no sweat shops, it's the amount that minimum wage is set at that is important, relatively.

Again it comes down to whether you are generating investment and economic growth rather than the application of labour rights. Salaries in Singapore are very high compared to the region and yet they consistently do well, so they obviously avoid the race to the bottom.

Health & safety can be seen as an impediment but it also creates jobs too and an industry around it. Japan is notorious for having a 'safety man' at every construction site, this is pretty much unknown in the rest of Asia. Safety men are usually people around pensionable age.

Social welfare rates are not labour rights, two different things.

In Ireland we do not support 'everybody' equally. For instance if I return to Ireland I am not entitled to any dole money or assistance. They even make me jump through a couple of hoops if I want to bring my family over to live too. Employers who go bankrupt are entitled to very little. Refugees live on very low levels of subsistence money. Youth get very little too which encourages them to emigrate. So yes there are more people on social welfare, but it's not easy to get unless you worked there recently or have some sort of obvious disability.

Agreed that if Ireland changed the dole policy to end at a certain date it would push more non citizens to emigrate (and locals too), although I doubt it would have as big as an effect that the recession has had in encouraging them to emigrate.

I'll just wrap up by saying it's been very interesting to read definitions of full employment in Ireland and how expectations changed from year 2000 onwards, I encourage people to google it. According to the government definition we had full employment up until the year 2008. Ireland's baseline of full employment was approx 5%, Singapore's is 2%, so I would use a rough estimate that 15% unemployment rate in Ireland is equivalent to 12% in Singapore.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

I'll just wrap up by saying it's been very interesting to read definitions of full employment in Ireland and how expectations changed from year 2000 onwards, I encourage people to google it. According to the government definition we had full employment up until the year 2008. Ireland's baseline of full employment was approx 5%, Singapore's is 2%, so I would use a rough estimate that 15% unemployment rate in Ireland is equivalent to 12% in Singapore.

You could just as easily mathematically argue that the 5%:2% ratio means that 15% unemployment in Ireland is equivalent to 6% in Singapore.

gurramok

Back to the original topic, the IMF has today supported the argument that unemployment is indeed being helped by a reduction in the workforce and a reduction in full time employment with workers who are looking for full time employment forced to work part time instead.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/forget-parttime-jobs-real-unemployment-rate-is-24pc-says-imf-29358808.html

UNEMPLOYMENT would be over 24pc if "discouraged" workers and those forced to work part-time were taken into account, the International Monetary Fund has said.

The Washington-based body poured cold water on the fall in the unemployment rate to 13.7pc in the first three months of the year, claiming it was due in large part to a shrinking labour force.

And it claimed most new jobs were part-time roles for employees looking for full-time work.

Dr Nic

Scofflaw wrote: »

EU Directives such as the Working Time Directive... are very frequently argued to be exactly the reason the EU has a higher structural unemployment rate than places like Singapore.

Funny to read that since Ireland has spent 16 years breaking it EWTD. So nil difference with Singapore

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

Back to the original topic, the IMF has today supported the argument that unemployment is indeed being helped by a reduction in the workforce and a reduction in full time employment with workers who are looking for full time employment forced to work part time instead.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/forget-parttime-jobs-real-unemployment-rate-is-24pc-says-imf-29358808.html

What's a "discouraged" worker?

maninasia

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously we do, but you can't simply ignore labour conditions when considering employment. EU Directives such as the Working Time Directive, policies such as health and safety, social welfare, labour rights, etc, are very frequently argued to be exactly the reason the EU has a higher structural unemployment rate than places like Singapore.

It's great to argue the facts and figures, but to claim that only the facts and figures one wants to use are relevant is usually cherry-picking - labour rights, emotive as they may, are directly relevant to unemployment statistics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yet we are not talking about EU vs Singapore but Ireland vs Singapore. I've used relevant facts and figures to support my case just like anybody else does, isn't that what debate is about?

You claim that labour rights are relevant to unemployment statistics but its obvious that they are a minor component and that economic growth and investment are the main factors contributing to employment rates. In fact one could argue that labour rights boost employment by making it difficult to fire people during periods of economic distress.

I haven't seen anybody do a comparison of Singapore to neighboring countries or to Ireland at various periods except for me, so to call me out for using logic against emotion is pretty laughable, big thumbs down.

Godge

Dr Nic wrote: »

Funny to read that since Ireland has spent 16 years breaking it EWTD. So nil difference with Singapore

more than a little disingenuous. Ireland has not complied with the EWTD in one small area only - junior doctors. The vast overwhelming part of the workforce is required to be compliant with the working time directive. So a huge difference to Singapore.

maninasia

Godge wrote: »

more than a little disingenuous. Ireland has not complied with the EWTD in one small area only - junior doctors. The vast overwhelming part of the workforce is required to be compliant with the working time directive. So a huge difference to Singapore.

If you are going to say a huge difference to Singapore dig up the numbers first. I guess there is a difference in working hours but how much is it? In the end I don't see this as being a real factor though do you? Lots of countries have no working time directives and **** economies and high unemployment.

I mean Singapore has always moved with the times and never bet the bank on one industry like Ireland, that's the real difference.

Dr Nic

Godge wrote: »

more than a little disingenuous. Ireland has not complied with the EWTD in one small area only - junior doctors. The vast overwhelming part of the workforce is required to be compliant with the working time directive. So a huge difference to Singapore.

Ha ha - sure just like the catholic church and their intolerance of Paedophilia...

You do know that junior doctors lives have been destroyed, and are continuing to be destroyed by non compliance with EWTD?
But sure a few suicides dont matter do they? They're only doctors...

Godge

Dr Nic wrote: »

Ha ha - sure just like the catholic church and their intolerance of Paedophilia...

You do know that junior doctors lives have been destroyed, and are continuing to be destroyed by non compliance with EWTD?
But sure a few suicides dont matter do they? They're only doctors...

Start a thread about junior doctors

AlekSmart

Dr Nic wrote: »

Ha ha - sure just like the catholic church and their intolerance of Paedophilia...

You do know that junior doctors lives have been destroyed, and are continuing to be destroyed by non compliance with EWTD?
But sure a few suicides dont matter do they? They're only doctors...

No ha-ha about it Dr Nic.

Godge is quite correct in that your sector is the only one to have been allowed to flout the WTD,for a variety of reasons.

As an example,my own sector,Public Transport,had a derogation from this nonsensical directive for several years,simply because Public Transport workers (defined as Mobile Workers) hours are wildly fluctuating and generally require attendance when everyone else is off.

The WTD directive,however was devised by 9 to 5'ers to suit 9 to 5'ers and remains,to this day,a virtual impossibility to effectively and effeciently administer across a shift-work scenario.

The situation with Junior Doctors pre-dates the WTD and is significantly more complex than a simple working-hours only issue.

For sure it has been identified as an unhealthy and dangerous practice,and should never have become the norm within the Health Sector,but as suggested that is for a very specific area of debate.

As long as we have Governmens peddling a regulation which makes criminals of those workers who actually WANT to work,then the Country is forever mired in the ethos of failure.

Fining an employer and employee,with Jail Time also possible for wanting to work longer is, to my view,lunacy,unless of course you are a bureaucrat with a windowless office in the middle of Brussels.

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

What's a "discouraged" worker?

It's a tricky one. Basically it's someone who would like to work but who isn't in the labour force (i.e. looking for work) because they don't think there are any jobs out there. To be in the labour force you need to have gone and looked for work in the last month, people who stop doing this but who don't adopt roles that take them out of the labour force voluntarily (e.g. becoming the primary caregiver to young children) are considered discouraged. They're not included in the headline unemployment figure.

An example would be a married man or woman whose partner works (no kids) who has given up on trying to find work again but who would happily work if a suitable job was offered to them.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

I have been saying for a while on here (and being ridiculed for it) that all of the signals are showing that pay levels and employment are on the rise in the private sector.

Unfortunately, myopic public-sector haters tend to drown out the message.

This really is good news and well done to the government for providing the environment to ensure that things have not got worse.

This is what I said last May. A few others shared the optimism.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Bit early to be pitching the tents and uncorking the champagne. Unless of course you have already emigrated to Australia and Canada and are doing well. This country is light years away from doing well.

This is the general type of response that was given from the doommongers.

Yet here we are today.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/finally-jobs-news-worth-shouting-from-the-rooftops-30048566.html


http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0227/506954-quarterly-household-survey/

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/number-of-people-employed-in-ireland-grows-3-3-1.1706802


The signs were there last year.

noodler

It is far too early to celebrate anything.

The unemployment rate in Ireland has been above 10% for FIVE years straight.

It has peaked at 15% and is now down to 12%.

The furthest out Government projections go are to 2016 and even by they they still envisage an annual average of 11.4%.


It is certainly a very desperate poster who uses such a slow and gradual improvement from a point of absolute dispair as a motive/justification for protecting one specific area of public expenditure.



Of greater concern is the % of people unemployed as a perecentage of those of working age (Rather than simply
the labour force). This was 41% in 2012 compared to 30% in the UK and 25% in the Netherlands and Norway).

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/long-term-unemployment-a-bigger-problem-than-emigration-1.1704360

Godge

noodler wrote: »

It is far too early to celebrate anything.

The unemployment rate in Ireland has been above 10% for FIVE years straight.

It has peaked at 15% at is now down to 12%.

The furthest out Government projections go are to 2016 and even by they they still envisage an annual average of 11.4%.


It is certainly a very desperate poster who uses such a slow and gradual improvement from a point of absolute dispair as a motive/justification for protecting one specific area of public expenditure.

Sometimes we should just celebrate the good news.

noodler wrote: »

Of greater concern is the % of people unemployed as a perecentage of those of working age (Rather than simply
the labour force). This was 41% in 2012 compared to 30% in the UK and 25% in the Netherlands and Norway).

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/long-term-unemployment-a-bigger-problem-than-emigration-1.1704360

That is an issue relating to social welfare disability payments, participation in higher education, early retirements and female participation in the labour force.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Sometimes we should just celebrate the good news. .

I am definitely happy with the current rate of progression. Just not confident enough the same rate will continue.

Godge wrote: »

That is an issue relating to social welfare disability payments, participation in higher education, early retirements and female participation in the labour force.

The disability % seems to be the odd one out when it comes to comparing to EU/OECD norms. Dan O'Brien had a similar article in the Irish Times about a year or so ago, said there was no medical evidence that Irish people are suffering from worse medical situations than in other countries.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

The disability % seems to be the odd one out when it comes to comparing to EU/OECD norms. Dan O'Brien had a similar article in the Irish Times about a year or so ago, said there was no medical evidence that Irish people are suffering from worse medical situations than in other countries.

There are two possibilities to explain this.

(1) We are inbred and prone to more disabilities as a result.
(2) We have laxer standards and more generously allow entitlements.

I would have leaned towards (2) but this issue crops up in more than just the adult disability area. We have more special needs assistants in school as a percentage of the school-going population (or we did up until more recent cuts to this area). We also seem to have some of the highest autism rates in the world. Today is actually Rare Disease Day which sometimes highlights that Ireland has a higher proportion of some of these diseases.

The problem, of course, in discussing this, is that the debate easily gets distracted and taken over by the argument that you are against the weakest in society and/or endless accusations of trying to take something away from my mother/brother/cousin/partner/friend who deserves everything they get.

Focussing on the bigger numbers shows a problem but when you get down into the detail, finding a solution is hard. Perhaps the answer is (1).

noodler

Godge wrote: »

There are two possibilities to explain this.

(1) We are inbred and prone to more disabilities as a result.
(2) We have laxer standards and more generously allow entitlements.

I would have leaned towards (2) but this issue crops up in more than just the adult disability area. We have more special needs assistants in school as a percentage of the school-going population (or we did up until more recent cuts to this area). We also seem to have some of the highest autism rates in the world. Today is actually Rare Disease Day which sometimes highlights that Ireland has a higher proportion of some of these diseases.

The problem, of course, in discussing this, is that the debate easily gets distracted and taken over by the argument that you are against the weakest in society and/or endless accusations of trying to take something away from my mother/brother/cousin/partner/friend who deserves everything they get.

Focussing on the bigger numbers shows a problem but when you get down into the detail, finding a solution is hard. Perhaps the answer is (1).

I haven't gone through the disability data myself but Professor Hagan, and Dan O'Brien's, point seemed to be that an alarming number of people go from being long-term unemployed to being on disability benefit.

Obviously this has an effect an optics as they are no longer included in the labour force and thus aren't unemployed. I am not 100% how this situation occurs in practice, perhaps they are out of work so long that they become mentall scarred or at least claim it.

It is an interesting point of debate but as you say, an absolute political minefield if a politican takes a stance similar to the two aforementioned authors.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

I haven't gone through the disability data myself but Professor Hagan, and Dan O'Brien's, point seemed to be that an alarming number of people go from being long-term unemployed to being on disability benefit.

Obviously this has an effect an optics as they are no longer included in the labour force and thus aren't unemployed. I am not 100% how this situation occurs in practice, perhaps they are out of work so long that they become mentall scarred or at least claim it.

It is an interesting point of debate but as you say, an absolute political minefield if a politican takes a stance similar to the two aforementioned authors.

I have seen some reports of their stuff without reading the original study so I haven't gone through their methods.

It seems clear that there is either a problem with disability definition or a problem with the population's propensity to disability.

One possible explanation I missed earlier is that the country's decentralised clientilist welfare system has lead to this i.e. local T.D.s and councillors ensuring somebody on the borderline gets classified the right way to get benefits. The changes in the student grants last year where despite the recession suggesting more people should get grants, 10% less students in Mayo got grants once the system was centralised in SUSI and the same criteria applied to everyone is evidence of how this can happen.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

I have seen some reports of their stuff without reading the original study so I haven't gone through their methods.

It seems clear that there is either a problem with disability definition or a problem with the population's propensity to disability.

One possible explanation I missed earlier is that the country's decentralised clientilist welfare system has lead to this i.e. local T.D.s and councillors ensuring somebody on the borderline gets classified the right way to get benefits. The changes in the student grants last year where despite the recession suggesting more people should get grants, 10% less students in Mayo got grants once the system was centralised in SUSI and the same criteria applied to everyone is evidence of how this can happen.

Not sure what one has to do with the other to be honest! There is simply a higher demand for education because of the recession, previously high birth rates etc in my view anyway.


There needs to be an honest evaluation of those on disability benefit. I wonder if there is publically available breakdown on claimed (or evidenced) disability by type/class. I would be surprised if you can find me a medical statistic that indicates the large % gap between Ireland and its peers regarding those on disability is fully explained by a greater propensity to disability.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Not sure what one has to do with the other to be honest! There is simply a higher demand for education because of the recession, previously high birth rates etc in my view anyway.


There needs to be an honest evaluation of those on disability benefit. I wonder if there is publically available breakdown on claimed (or evidenced) disability by type/class. I would be surprised if you can find me a medical statistic that indicates the large % gap between Ireland and its peers regarding those on disability is fully explained by a greater propensity to disability.

http://healthupdate.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/VFM-of-Disability-Services-Programme-July-2012.pdf

http://www.socialinclusion.ie/documents/2011-09-21_SocPortraitPWDReportforWebsite.pdf

http://www.ncse.ie/uploads/1/5_ncse_diag_ass.pdf

A couple of links to interesting publications on the issue, haven't time to do anything more than scan them today but might look at them over the weekend.