UCC study on emigration finds evidence of 'brain drain'

Frank Lee Midere

Corinthian - the stats are that most of the emigrants coming to Ireland from 1995-2005 were Irish emigrants returning. The linked report in the OP makes that point in fact.

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd be most interested in hearing some examples, of where politicians have racked up over €200bln of debt in a decade, blown the country's competitiveness, how they came back.

Probably not going to be a popular example, but Germany; both in the 1930's and in the 2950's. It ultimately wasn't natural resources that did it for them.

Another example, this time of a small country, is Luxembourg; it effectively had to rebuild its economy from scratch after World War II. How many natural resources, do you think Luxembourg has?

Another example? Iceland; a backwater rock in the middle of the northern Atlantic, who's only usable resource was fish. Life had been so harsh there that traditionally infanticide (as a means of population control) was practised long after it had become taboo in the rest of Europe. Even now they're doing better than Ireland, after their own banking meltdown and it ultimately has nothing to do with being in the EU or Euro or not - they just have a different attitude and set of ethics twoards community and work.

Indeed, natural resources are not some magic ingredient to national success. Were that the case Africa would be the most successful continent in the World.

I suggest you live abroad for a few years. Try Germany, Norway, Switzerland or the Netherlands. It won't take you long to see the difference between the Irish and other nations if you do, and realize that natural resources is another excuse we use to absolve us from any blame for the mess we keep ourselves in.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am 38 and a previous emigrant (10 years) as were a good percentage of my college class, and most are back. My standard of living here is easily as high as when I was in London. I wouldn't have come back in the boom however when prices were crazy.

In fairness, I'm not entirely sure that the UK, especially London, is exactly a good comparison anymore.

The Corinthian

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Corinthian - the stats are that most of the emigrants coming to Ireland from 1995-2005 were Irish emigrants returning. The linked report in the OP makes that point in fact.

I actually agreed with this in my first post here. Why are you raising this point with me?

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

Probably not going to be a popular example, but Germany; both in the 1930's and in the 2950's. It ultimately wasn't natural resources that did it for them.

Another example, this time of a small country, is Luxembourg; it effectively had to rebuild its economy from scratch after World War II. How many natural resources, do you think Luxembourg has?

Another example? Iceland; a backwater rock in the middle of the northern Atlantic, who's only usable resource was fish. Life had been so harsh there that traditionally infanticide (as a means of population control) was practised long after it had become taboo in the rest of Europe. Even now they're doing better than Ireland, after their own banking meltdown and it ultimately has nothing to do with being in the EU or Euro or not - they just have a different attitude and set of ethics twoards community and work.

Indeed, natural resources are not some magic ingredient to national success. Were that the case Africa would be the most successful continent in the World.

I suggest you live abroad for a few years. Try Germany, Norway, Switzerland or the Netherlands. It won't take you long to see the difference between the Irish and other nations if you do, and realize that natural resources is another excuse we use to absolve us from any blame for the mess we keep ourselves in.

In fairness, I'm not entirely sure that the UK, especially London, is exactly a good comparison anymore.

It's true natural resources isn't everything but it does help. If you have wracked up massive sovereign debts, your population is also maxed up with debts, the government simply have to tax, it's easy to see why people will leave. Varadker said that exact thing today. Finding a solution however, is much more difficult.

It's easy to blame Kenny, but I think that's the last of the solutions people will come up with.

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

It's true natural resources isn't everything but it does help.

Bit of a climbdown from "if you don't have natural resources, you simply don't do what we did and expect to 'roll up the sleeves' and come back".

I never said that having natural resources wouldn't help; I said that not having them does not doom you to never being able to climb out of the pit you've dug yourself. Lots of countries, often smaller and fewer natural resources, have managed it.

SpaceTime

Other EU countries are in as bad or worse situations than we are.

Iceland's comparison isn't quite the same either because the banks mostly owed money to external savers. When they burned their banks they were largely hitting British and Dutch online savings accounts not Icelanders and they had huge levels of external deposits relative to debts too.

Iceland has also had huge inflation and about a 50% cut in real income as a result.

You can measure growth there but, they really took one hell of a fall a few years ago so it's growth from a very low base.

Ireland didn't have the spectacular crash and write down of debt. It's been an EU managed show deflation of the economy so obviously it's not even on same cycle as Iceland.

Iceland was put on the quick wash with harsh bleach and boiling water. We're on the EU 9-hour gentle eco bio cycle that dissolves slowly... Bit by bit eating away at the finances.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bit of a climbdown from "if you don't have natural resources, you simply don't do what we did and expect to 'roll up the sleeves' and come back".

I never said that having natural resources wouldn't help; I said that not having them does not doom you to never being able to climb out of the pit you've dug yourself. Lots of countries, often smaller and fewer natural resources, have managed it.

No, whatever chance you have with natural resources, you have none without it if you did what Irl did over the last 10 years.

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

No, whatever chance you have with natural resources, you have none without it if you did what Irl did over the last 10 years.

Sorry, but I've pointed out a number of historical examples in other nations where the situation was often worse and natural resources made little difference. Indeed, suggesting that we had our one chance and that we will never be able to get another is completely hysterical.

So if you want to resign yourself to the traditional Irish role of victimhood, where there's nothing you can do and, for bonus points, t'was someone else to blame, then knock yourself out.

TBH, it's that attitude, which I see here every day, that puts me, and many other expats, off ever returning to Ireland.

SpaceTime

I just wish certain people would stop trying to ascribe an economic crash that had a lot in common with what happened in many US states like Nevada to some kind of Irish genetic or psychological trait.

Many, many, many of us are trying to pick up the pieces & rebuild.

I would suggest that most of the posters here don't know many Irish entrepreneurs but rather they've some kind of fantasy about Irish people blaming external powers.

Actually of the countries in the EU in crisis Ireland is one of the few that hasn't done that. Most of them have seen a sudden rise in extreme xenophobia, random ranting about Germans etc.

I mean many Greeks are claiming that Angela Merkel destroyed their economy!?! Apparently nothing to do with decades of Greek corruption.

The average Irish person is correctly pointing at local bankers, speculators and politicians.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but I've pointed out a number of historical examples in other nations where the situation was often worse and natural resources made little difference. Indeed, suggesting that we had our one chance and that we will never be able to get another is completely hysterical.

So if you want to resign yourself to the traditional Irish role of victimhood, where there's nothing you can do and, for bonus points, t'was someone else to blame, then knock yourself out.

TBH, it's that attitude, which I see here every day, that puts me, and many other expats, off ever returning to Ireland.

You haven't. None of the countries had such massive debt on a government and individual level + competitiveness gone.

That's the problem.

mariaalice

To see if it is really harming Ireland you would have to look at the population of various towns and village's and see if how they have declined or risen or maintained their population. If there is constant depopulation to a point were a community is not viable then yes there is a problem.

Has the population of Ireland gone up or down, have cities grown or declined.

Is emigration always a bad thing.

IMO Ireland population is not big enough to have the critical mass need to have the sort of society, life style, and services some people want.

Frank Lee Midere

The Corinthian wrote: »

Probably not going to be a popular example, but Germany; both in the 1930's and in the 2950's. It ultimately wasn't natural resources that did it for them.

Another example, this time of a small country, is Luxembourg; it effectively had to rebuild its economy from scratch after World War II. How many natural resources, do you think Luxembourg has?

Another example? Iceland; a backwater rock in the middle of the northern Atlantic, who's only usable resource was fish. Life had been so harsh there that traditionally infanticide (as a means of population control) was practised long after it had become taboo in the rest of Europe. Even now they're doing better than Ireland, after their own banking meltdown and it ultimately has nothing to do with being in the EU or Euro or not - they just have a different attitude and set of ethics twoards community and work.

Indeed, natural resources are not some magic ingredient to national success. Were that the case Africa would be the most successful continent in the World.

I suggest you live abroad for a few years. Try Germany, Norway, Switzerland or the Netherlands. It won't take you long to see the difference between the Irish and other nations if you do, and realize that natural resources is another excuse we use to absolve us from any blame for the mess we keep ourselves in.

In fairness, I'm not entirely sure that the UK, especially London, is exactly a good comparison anymore.

You've picked the 4 best countries in the world then instead? Irish people tend to emigrate to English speaking countries.

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

You haven't. None of the countries had such massive debt on a government and individual level + competitiveness gone.

Germany did - a debt so large they actually only finally paid it off a few years ago. Natural resources wasn't ultimately what solved their problems. Twice.

Luxembourg and Monaco both have higher debts, per capita, and natural resources aren't behind their ability to overcome it.

Iceland has a lower per capita debt (USD 362,942) than Ireland (USD 512,083), but not exactly a tiny fraction of ours. Additionally, their debt represents 999% of GDP, while ours is only slightly higher at 1,008%.

Stop making excuses.

The Corinthian

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

You've picked the 4 best countries in the world then instead? Irish people tend to emigrate to English speaking countries.

Speak for yourself.

Also I chose those countries for the attitude or ethical outlook they have, not as examples of popular destinations for Irish emigrants.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

Germany did - a debt so large they actually only finally paid it off a few years ago. Natural resources wasn't ultimately what solved their problems. Twice.

Luxembourg and Monaco both have higher debts, per capita, and natural resources aren't behind their ability to overcome it.

Iceland has a lower per capita debt (USD 362,942) than Ireland (USD 512,083), but not exactly a tiny fraction of ours. Additionally, their debt represents 999% of GDP, while ours is only slightly higher at 1,008%.

Stop making excuses.

I'm making 0 excuses. I believe we have a great country. If the Germans were managing us, it would be one of the best countries in the world.

But when the likes of ahern & mcalesse won't give anything back to the state it sums up our situation'

You are the 1 who is making excuses, what's stopping you from rolling up your sleeve and sorting out our problems?

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm making 0 excuses. I believe we have a great country. If the Germans were managing us, it would be one of the best countries in the world.

You are making excuses - even in your last statement you claim that if only the Germans were managing us we'd be fine, as if the citizens ourselves are powerless bystanders. You're just transferring responsibility to someone else.

This is ultimately why Ireland is screwed; not FF, not the debt, but because we are still looking for someone to bail us out, to solve our problem when in reality the power is within ourselves to do it rather than sit around blaming others for our misfortunes and convincing ourselves that otherwise we're doomed.

Seriously, you claimed that we blew our 'one chance', as if we could never climb out of the pit and get back on top again. Total nonsense.

You are the 1 who is making excuses, what's stopping you from rolling up your sleeve and sorting out our problems?

If you ever gave us expats the impression that you're not simply hoping that we'll return to bail you losers out, and instead roll up your sleeves, then maybe so. Otherwise, stop pan-handling.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

You are making excuses - even in your last statement you claim that if only the Germans were managing us we'd be fine, as if the citizens ourselves are powerless bystanders. You're just transferring responsibility to someone else.

This is ultimately why Ireland is screwed; not FF, not the debt, but because we are still looking for someone to bail us out, to solve our problem when in reality the power is within ourselves to do it rather than sit around blaming others for our misfortunes and convincing ourselves that otherwise we're doomed.

Seriously, you claimed that we blew our 'one chance', as if we could never climb out of the pit and get back on top again. Total nonsense.

If you ever gave us expats the impression that you're not simply hoping that we'll return to bail you losers out, and instead roll up your sleeves, then maybe so. Otherwise, stop pan-handling.

You've given a few examples of countries that have made comebacks, like Germany, well done. But, none of them had our 3 big problems.

Out of control sovereign debt, massive private debt and competitivess gone.

1 or 2 can be overcome, not all 3. The ex pats are right to move imo and this current government can do little to nothing about our situation...apart from bring in cheaper workers from less well off countries and try and bring labour costs down, so that they'll be able to enjoy the multiple pensions.

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

Out of control sovereign debt, massive private debt and competitivess gone.

Our debt is large, but not out of control - if anything even the debt agencies have recently reported positively twoards our control of our debt - so you're seriously just making up things now. As to competitiveness, Ireland has a massive balance of trade surplus! How uncompetitive is that?

Please check your facts before coming out with all this nonsense, as you don't appear to know what you're talking about.

1 or 2 can be overcome, not all 3.

Even if your points were true, why not? Your opinion or anything more informed?

Seriously, you're making excuses. You're wallowing in self pity. And if that is how those left in Ireland feel, then you're right; you're not going to overcome it all and neither do you deserve to.

SpaceTime

I'd point out that despite all the evangelising of Finland it has unemployment of over 10% at the moment.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/finland-s-unemployment-rate-jumps-to-four-year-high-of-10-8-1-.html

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

Our debt is large, but not out of control - if anything even the debt agencies have recently reported positively twoards our control of our debt - so you're seriously just making up things now. As to competitiveness, Ireland has a massive balance of trade surplus! How uncompetitive is that?

Please check your facts before coming out with all this nonsense, as you don't appear to know what you're talking about.

Even if your points were true, why not? Your opinion or anything more informed?

Seriously, you're making excuses. You're wallowing in self pity. And if that is how those left in Ireland feel, then you're right; you're not going to overcome it all and neither do you deserve to.

These are the same rating agencies that Irl a AAA as Anglo was facing ruin.
The same rating agencies that downgraded Lehmans 1 day before it went bust, the same rating agencies that gave worthless subprime AAA ratings. I tend to take what they say lightly, at best.

We're uncompetitive in terms of high costs, but for the low Corp tax our budget surplus would be gone in smoke. Our domestic economy is in tatters.

The Corinthian

Rightwing, honestly I give up. Every time I point out that you're coming out with factual falsehoods you make something else up. We're at the point where debt agencies have no clue according to you and instead your personal opinion is more valid.

You're doing nothing other than making excuses as to why the people of Ireland cannot solve our own problems (which were of course caused by other people). It's all soooo difficult and we need someone to come in and solve them for us. Boo hoo.

As I said, if your view is the prevalent view in Ireland, then you're quite right and Ireland is fùcked. On that level we can agree.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

Rightwing, honestly I give up. Every time I point out that you're coming out with factual falsehoods you make something else up. We're at the point where debt agencies have no clue according to you and instead your personal opinion is more valid.

You're doing nothing other than making excuses as to why the people of Ireland cannot solve our own problems (which were of course caused by other people). It's all soooo difficult and we need someone to come in and solve them for us. Boo hoo.

As I said, if your view is the prevalent view in Ireland, then you're quite right and Ireland is fùcked. On that level we can agree.

On the contrary, most people in Irl think Kenny can wave a magic wand and bingo, we're back. I can't see that happening but...

On your other point, I don't think we can solve our own problems and I for one welcomed the troika into the country with open arms. I hope they stay.

The Corinthian

Rightwing wrote: »

On the contrary, most people in Irl think Kenny can wave a magic wand and bingo, we're back. I can't see that happening but...

That is the view I'm talking about; that someone else can solve all our problems, be it Angela or Kenny or whomever. Or is the current government something we accept responsibility for, while the one that preceded it isn't?

On your other point, I don't think we can solve our own problems

As I said; with that attitude, I'd agree.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is the view I'm talking about; that someone else can solve all our problems, be it Angela or Kenny or whomever. Or is the current government something we accept responsibility for, while the one that preceded it isn't?

As I said; with that attitude, I'd agree.

So in a perverse way, we are sort of agreeing!

We have to take responsibility for who we vote in, no question about that.

Rented Mule

cosbloodymick wrote: »

Masses have to pay their loans back, banks get bailed out.

While I'm not going to defend the bail outs, the truth of the matter is that the banks wouldn't need to be bailed out if people paid back their loans,

maninasia

Rightwing wrote: »

You haven't. None of the countries had such massive debt on a government and individual level + competitiveness gone.

That's the problem.

Really, I would like to hear more about emigration from people who know something about it.


As for natural resources..it's pretty much irrelevant to what we are talking about here, and you just seem capable of repeating the same thing which nobody takes any interest in.

As another poster said, I look forward to you getting a taste of emigration one day and becoming a bit wiser to the world.

maninasia

mariaalice wrote: »

To see if it is really harming Ireland you would have to look at the population of various towns and village's and see if how they have declined or risen or maintained their population. If there is constant depopulation to a point were a community is not viable then yes there is a problem.

Has the population of Ireland gone up or down, have cities grown or declined.

Is emigration always a bad thing.

IMO Ireland population is not big enough to have the critical mass need to have the sort of society, life style, and services some people want.

Ireland is under populated compared to many successful and small countries in Europe and Asia. The lack of stability long-term causes emigration to hive off young people periodically and causes the population to be much smaller than it could be, which dampens demand and investment locally.

robp

maninasia wrote: »

Ireland is under populated compared to many successful and small countries in Europe and Asia. The lack of stability long-term causes emigration to hive off young people periodically and causes the population to be much smaller than it could be, which dampens demand and investment locally.

Just as many successful countries are huge sparely populated nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Sweden. A bigger population is going to create a richer country. Its true a young population or a growing population increases growth but being simply big is not valid strategy imho. If anything land area is better correlated to wealth. Yet that doesn't mean sending Cork to the UK will increase Ireland's wealth.

gaius c

I have a handy counter to the "we have limited natural resources" crew and it's that we spend only 0.59% of GDP on "defence", an activity even more economically useless than buying & selling houses to each other. That's the second lowest level of spending in all the EU and well below the levels of the PIGS so that's a big cost that they have and we don't.

It's nothing to do with limited resources but rather a failure to manage the resources that we do have.

gaius c

robp wrote: »

Just as many successful countries are huge sparely populated nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Sweden. A bigger population is going to create a richer country. Its true a young population or a growing population increases growth but being simply big is not valid strategy imho. If anything land area is better correlated to wealth. Yet that doesn't mean sending Cork to the UK will increase Ireland's wealth.

How's Sub-Saharan Africa doing then?

mariaalice

Ireland is not a poor country, the problem seem to be the inability to manage the country very well and it is not exactly bad management either, its just never good enough, as far as I can see we seem to go from crises to crises with various lengths of stability in between.

Did any one see the RTE news and he reports form the the public account committee about the OPW and complete waste of public money.

The Corinthian

maninasia wrote: »

Ireland is under populated compared to many successful and small countries in Europe and Asia.

That Ireland is underpopulated is no surprise, given our history of emigration.

However, I've long believed that a major reason for this is that Ireland has a very poor population and economic distribution. The Republic, for example, has a population of 4.6m people, of which 1.2m (26%) are concentrated in urban (not even metropolitan) Dublin. If you compare this to other European nations, their largest cities will make up much lower proportions of the total population; London (15.5%), Paris (16.4%), Rome (4.4%), Berlin (4.1%), Madrid (13.1%).

As a result of this, you tend to find not only a concentration of population of economic power, and thus opportunities, in Dublin (and to a lesser extent in the other major urban centres), but conversely fewer opportunities and industry outside. Essentially, unless you're lucky to have a job or a farm waiting for you, you have to move to Dublin (or Cork or Limerick) to find one. As there's a practical limit to how many a city economy can accommodate, the overspill is further pressured to move abroad. Greece (Athens makes up 37% of the Greek population) has simelar demographic and economic issues.

How Ireland developed this way is largely historical - most other countries were created as a result of the unification of independent states, each with it's own economies and urban centres - nonetheless, we've never managed to engage any effective policy to fix this issue (tax breaks will tend to get one major employer to a region) and so it probably remains the single biggest reason why Ireland's population density is so low, IMHO.

Dannyboy83

Varadkar blames high taxes for brain drain

Mr Varadkar said: "People calling for more tax hikes for the successful need to consider the effect that would have."

He added that young people moving up the career ladder are seeing almost half their extra earnings taken in tax.

He also pointed out that not only has the economic crisis reduced salaries, but workers were being moved into the higher rate of tax – at 52pc – when they are earning average wages.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance Brian Hayes has said the Government has almost reached the limit of how much taxation it will impose on the public.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, he said: "I think we've reached virtually the end of the income taxation side, on the basis that 40% of all the taxes we take in are on the income side.
"If we are going to get into a better position in terms of the domestic economy, in trying to ensure that we get greater growth within the domestic economy, we can't tax the hell out of people."

Some people we lose because we're a small country with extremely limited opportunities compared to our next door neighbour.
That cannot really be helped.

But the above two statements are the main contributing factor in the cases of the many of the people I've seen leave stable jobs with average incomes.

We are just too heavily taxed.
The state is a poor provider of services. (e.g. cost of childcare in Ireland vs. Sweden - which has a similar tax rate to Ireland)
Londoners comment on how expensive it is to live here.

But Mr Gilmore was adamant that "taxation isn't the issue" in relation to emigration.

"The issue in relation to emigration, in my view, is much more about the availability of work here rather than the issue of taxation," the Tanaiste said.

And yet again, Gilmore tries to make a political football of the issue - blatantly ignoring that the underscored point of the article was that many of those who leave already have jobs.

Ideology is fine, but not if prevents you from facing reality and responding/governing.

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

Ireland is not a poor country, the problem seem to be the inability to manage the country very well and it is not exactly bad management either, its just never good enough, as far as I can see we seem to go from crises to crises with various lengths of stability in between.

Did any one see the RTE news and he reports form the the public account committee about the OPW and complete waste of public money.

It's desperate management and that's what it makes Irl poor.

We need to be like the arabs and have loads of oil, because the few resources we have we squander them. Our politicians need multiple pensions.

johnr1

The Corinthian wrote: »

That Ireland is underpopulated is no surprise, given our history of emigration.

However, I've long believed that a major reason for this is that Ireland has a very poor population and economic distribution. The Republic, for example, has a population of 4.6m people, of which 1.2m (26%) are concentrated in urban (not even metropolitan) Dublin. If you compare this to other European nations, their largest cities will make up much lower proportions of the total population; London (15.5%), Paris (16.4%), Rome (4.4%), Berlin (4.1%), Madrid (13.1%).

As a result of this, you tend to find not only a concentration of population of economic power, and thus opportunities, in Dublin (and to a lesser extent in the other major urban centres), but conversely fewer opportunities and industry outside. Essentially, unless you're lucky to have a job or a farm waiting for you, you have to move to Dublin (or Cork or Limerick) to find one. As there's a practical limit to how many a city economy can accommodate, the overspill is further pressured to move abroad. Greece (Athens makes up 37% of the Greek population) has simelar demographic and economic issues.

How Ireland developed this way is largely historical - most other countries were created as a result of the unification of independent states, each with it's own economies and urban centres - nonetheless, we've never managed to engage any effective policy to fix this issue (tax breaks will tend to get one major employer to a region) and so it probably remains the single biggest reason why Ireland's population density is so low, IMHO.

Another reason for our bad population spread is the fact that over 40 years (1840-1880) we lost about 3.5 million people largely from the western half of the country, and the cities which are near the west subsequently failed to grow. This can't be underestimated. Also, in 1840, we were one of if not the most highly populated countries in Europe. This despite having had no industrial revolution here (another reason for low historical economic activity and the lack of entrepreneurship we suffer from)

robp

gaius c wrote: »

How's Sub-Saharan Africa doing then?

Here ya go.

BBC:World Bank: Africa's economic growth to outpace average

Economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa should significantly outpace the global average over the next three years, according to the World Bank.

Too many people are so out of touch with sub Saharan Africa, it makes me sad.

The Corinthian

johnr1 wrote: »

Another reason for our bad population spread is the fact that over 40 years (1840-1880) we lost about 3.5 million people largely from the western half of the country, and the cities which are near the west subsequently failed to grow. This can't be underestimated.

That's actually the same reason - it's what I described. Towns and villages in Ireland where there is a demographic collapse between 18 and 40 are commonplace - essentially the moment you finish school, you get out of dodge, because there's no opportunities, no jobs.

So you migrate from your town or village to Dublin (or to a lesser extent Cork, Limerick or Galway), or just emigrate altogether. Meanwhile Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway can't accommodate this migration completely and so a further overspill ends up emigrating altogether.

Result? The socio-economic disparity between Dublin (and to a lesser extent Cork, Limerick or Galway) becomes larger and the rural areas remain depopulated, able to support a small population who essentially 'inherit' their jobs, to a great extent. Local wealth remains stunted and almost all these areas are not self-sufficient, permanently requiring subvention from Dublin, which is profitable.

Why, I cannot say, although I suspect mismanagment both on a national and local level are a major factor. I also suspect that local populations also suffer from short-termism, which might lead to opposing policies that may cost in the short term but bring in long term benefits, especially in infrastructure.

On a personal, practical, level I wouldn't move to one of these rural places, even if a job was available. Infrastructure (especially public transport) is disastrous, but most importantly my lifestyle would suffer under a sword of Damocles as my employer would likely be a monopsony; I've known more than one who settled down in Ballygospittlebackwards, only to lose their job after a few years, only to find that alternative employment was not locally available, leaving them with the options of either packing up, selling the family home, and moving elsewhere or having to deal with a soul destroying commute instead (one I know ended commuting daily to/from Killarney and Cork for work, by car, because public transport... well, you know...).

Anyway economically it's highly inefficient as it makes very poor use of our most basic resources; land and labour. A few hamfisted attempts have been made to deal with this - notably encouraging industry to move in such areas and the largely failed attempt to relocate the civil service - but to date, nothing's worked.

robp wrote: »

BBC:World Bank: Africa's economic growth to outpace average

LOL. That should allow them to catch up with Albania in a few decades. The reality with sub-Saharan Africa, I'm afraid, is that while things are improving, they're overall only doing so in a few countries; the rest are likely to remain basket cases for a long time.

Additionally don't presume that economic growth means good news for them. Economic growth was very high in Africa under European colonial rule, after all.

robp

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, I've long believed that a major reason for this is that Ireland has a very poor population and economic distribution. The Republic, for example, has a population of 4.6m people, of which 1.2m (26%) are concentrated in urban (not even metropolitan) Dublin. If you compare this to other European nations, their largest cities will make up much lower proportions of the total population; London (15.5%), Paris (16.4%), Rome (4.4%), Berlin (4.1%), Madrid (13.1%).

As a result of this, you tend to find not only a concentration of population of economic power, and thus opportunities, in Dublin (and to a lesser extent in the other major urban centres), but conversely fewer opportunities and industry outside. Essentially, unless you're lucky to have a job or a farm waiting for you, you have to move to Dublin (or Cork or Limerick) to find one. As there's a practical limit to how many a city economy can accommodate, the overspill is further pressured to move abroad. Greece (Athens makes up 37% of the Greek population) has simelar demographic and economic issues.

How Ireland developed this way is largely historical - most other countries were created as a result of the unification of independent states, each with it's own economies and urban centres - nonetheless, we've never managed to engage any effective policy to fix this issue (tax breaks will tend to get one major employer to a region) and so it probably remains the single biggest reason why Ireland's population density is so low, IMHO.

Its a product of size. Look at Iceland or Taiwan. I would argue not enough emphasis is given on Dublin economically. Economic growth is concentrated in cities so it should be maximised. Big Irish cities pull their weight but many smaller centres ~10,000 do not.

robp

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. That should allow them to catch up with Albania in a few decades. The reality with sub-Saharan Africa, I'm afraid, is that while things are improving, they're overall only doing so in a few countries; the rest are likely to remain basket cases for a long time.

Additionally don't presume that economic growth means good news for them. Economic growth was very high in Africa under European colonial rule, after all.

Of course sub Saharan Africa is not a role model but there is a wealth of evidence that high economic growth is to large extent product of population growth. This is well established. Of course there are other factors, property bubbles, commodity booms etc.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's actually the same reason - it's what I described. Towns and villages in Ireland where there is a demographic collapse between 18 and 40 are commonplace - essentially the moment you finish school, you get out of dodge, because there's no opportunities, no jobs.

So you migrate from your town or village to Dublin (or to a lesser extent Cork, Limerick or Galway), or just emigrate altogether. Meanwhile Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway can't accommodate this migration completely and so a further overspill ends up emigrating altogether.

Result? The socio-economic disparity between Dublin (and to a lesser extent Cork, Limerick or Galway) becomes larger and the rural areas remain depopulated, able to support a small population who essentially 'inherit' their jobs, to a great extent. Local wealth remains stunted and almost all these areas are not self-sufficient, permanently requiring subvention from Dublin, which is profitable.

Why, I cannot say, although I suspect mismanagment both on a national and local level are a major factor. I also suspect that local populations also suffer from short-termism, which might lead to opposing policies that may cost in the short term but bring in long term benefits, especially in infrastructure.

On a personal, practical, level I wouldn't move to one of these rural places, even if a job was available. Infrastructure (especially public transport) is disastrous, but most importantly my lifestyle would suffer under a sword of Damocles as my employer would likely be a monopsony; I've known more than one who settled down in Ballygospittlebackwards, only to lose their job after a few years, only to find that alternative employment was not locally available, leaving them with the options of either packing up, selling the family home, and moving elsewhere or having to deal with a soul destroying commute instead (one I know ended commuting daily to/from Killarney and Cork for work, by car, because public transport... well, you know...).

Anyway economically it's highly inefficient as it makes very poor use of our most basic resources; land and labour. A few hamfisted attempts have been made to deal with this - notably encouraging industry to move in such areas and the largely failed attempt to relocate the civil service - but to date, nothing's worked.

LOL. That should allow them to catch up with Albania in a few decades. The reality with sub-Saharan Africa, I'm afraid, is that while things are improving, they're overall only doing so in a few countries; the rest are likely to remain basket cases for a long time.

Additionally don't presume that economic growth means good news for them. Economic growth was very high in Africa under European colonial rule, after all.

This problem is then compunded further by the the Government's 1 trick pony IDA policy. Putting so many resources into that, that rural ireland suffers more than it should.

gaius c

robp wrote: »

Here ya go.

BBC:World Bank: Africa's economic growth to outpace average

Too many people are so out of touch with sub Saharan Africa, it makes me sad.

Growth in the bank is worth double that of projections.

The Corinthian

robp wrote: »

Its a product of size. Look at Iceland or Taiwan. I would argue not enough emphasis is given on Dublin economically. Economic growth is concentrated in cities. Big Irish cities pull their weight but many smaller centres ~10,000 are not.

There's quite a few countries, even in Europe, where smaller urban centres (small towns and villages) are responsible for a lot of economic growth.

This is not to say that large urban centres don't still do the bulk of the heavy lifting and that in Ireland the rural centres don't pull their weight, but concentrating all industry only in large urban centres is an inefficient system.

If you don't believe in the economic benefits of what I'm suggesting, feel free to pick a random village or town (of say pop. between 2k - 10k) in Switzerland, then take a look at it's local industry.

robp wrote: »

Of course sub Saharan Africa is not a role model but there is a wealth of evidence that high economic growth is to large extent product of population growth. This is well established. Of course there are other factors, property bubbles, commodity booms etc.

Other factors? I presume when you say other factors, you mean that high population is only one of many possible reasons for high economic growth, which kind of dilutes your point, TBH.

Rightwing wrote: »

This problem is then compunded further by the the Government's 1 trick pony IDA policy. Putting so many resources into that, that rural ireland suffers more than it should.

What is the "Government's 1 trick pony IDA policy"? The IDA is a body, rather than a policy and technically it can pursue multiple policies - so you'll need to be more specific.

robp

gaius c wrote: »

Growth in the bank is worth double that of projections.

Its much more then just projections. Its been happening for years.

[IMG][/img]

Most developed countries don't even aim for high growth anymore. Only moderate growth is realistic in the average mature country.

Rightwing

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's quite a few countries, even in Europe, where smaller urban centres (small towns and villages) are responsible for a lot of economic growth.


What is the "Government's 1 trick pony IDA policy"? The IDA is a body, rather than a policy and technically it can pursue multiple policies - so you'll need to be more specific.

Ir govt seems content to give subsidies and low tax for companies to set up here. This makes it extremely difficult for start ups in the country.