"Austerity" in Ireland this past decade

Creative83

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained. And sure, we paid a bit more tax and some services curtailed. But is it right to be termed 'austerity' or is it just a rallying cry from the left here in Ireland?

I mean, consider what happened in Greece and Italy... I would argue they know what true austerity is better then we do here in Ireland.

Fr Tod Umptious

Creative83 wrote: »

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained. And sure, we paid a bit more tax and some services curtailed. But is it right to be termed 'austerity' or is it just a rallying cry from the left here in Ireland?

I mean, consider what happened in Greece and Italy... I would argue they know what true austerity is better then we do here in Ireland.

What happened in this country was that the trokia dictated what had to be done and the country (government of the day) stuck by it.

We all saw tax increases and our take home pay drop, but it was short term pain.

The likes of Greece agreed to one thing and went ahead and did the opposite, thus prolonging their pain.

And it was a ralling cry for the left, Greece were their poster boys.

The stoppage in infrastructure development for the best part of a decade is leading to "suffering" and will continue to for a good while. Building anything now will cost twice as much as it would have during "austerity" and will come along 10 years later than it should have.
There's also "wage scars" where people my age (around 30) had several years out of employment or in a sector with few prospects earning a good bit less than people "should" be at our age. How much austerity can be directly blamed for that is another issue.

smurgen

Creative83 wrote: »

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained. And sure, we paid a bit more tax and some services curtailed. But is it right to be termed 'austerity' or is it just a rallying cry from the left here in Ireland?

I mean, consider what happened in Greece and Italy... I would argue they know what true austerity is better then we do here in Ireland.

A bit more tax?my USC since the banking crash is probably in the tens of thousands at this stage.

Geuze

Creative83 wrote: »

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained.

This is incorrect.

All welfare rates, except the State Pension, were cut twice.

Geuze

Creative83 wrote: »

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly.

I am taking austerity as meaning a fiscal contraction, a reduction in the fiscal deficit.

Then the answer is yes, of course we suffered.

People had to pay more tax.

And all PS took at least two paycuts.

Yes, compared to Greece, we didn't suffer as much.

James Brown

Creative83 wrote: »

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained. And sure, we paid a bit more tax and some services curtailed. But is it right to be termed 'austerity' or is it just a rallying cry from the left here in Ireland?

I mean, consider what happened in Greece and Italy... I would argue they know what true austerity is better then we do here in Ireland.

You should note, this year, we broke our record for the amount of children homeless since the state began recording such things and we've consistently record breaking, growing crises year on year in health and homelessness in general. We are still in the throws of it.
We have a housing crisis driven by prices the average taxpayer has trouble meeting and policy designed to assist developers finance new builds, with the tax payer looking for hand outs to afford rent or a down payment.

Why do the Irish still owe more than the Greeks? (2017)
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-do-the-irish-still-owe-more-than-the-greeks-1.3001026

I assume you personally had nothing too bad happen, have a reasonable quality of life?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You should note, this year, we broke our record for the amount of children homeless since the state began recording such things and we've consistently record breaking, growing crises year on year in health and homelessness in general. We are still in the throws of it.
We have a housing crisis driven by prices the average taxpayer has trouble meeting and policy designed to assist developers finance new builds, with the tax payer looking for hand outs to afford rent or a down payment.



I assume you personally had nothing too bad happen, have a reasonable quality of life?

What is the purpose of your link on debt? Are you arguing that we did not have enough austerity? Bear in mind some politicians proposed increasing this debt to fund current expenditure

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You should note, this year, we broke our record for the amount of children homeless since the state began recording such things and we've consistently record breaking, growing crises year on year in health and homelessness in general. We are still in the throws of it.
We have a housing crisis driven by prices the average taxpayer has trouble meeting and policy designed to assist developers finance new builds, with the tax payer looking for hand outs to afford rent or a down payment.



I assume you personally had nothing too bad happen, have a reasonable quality of life?

Your link on debt only proves that Ireland had less austerity than other countries.

If we had the most austerity, we would have paid the most debt back and would have the lowest outstanding debt. Your link shows the opposite which makes the case therefore that Ireland had the least austerity.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

What is the purpose of your link on debt? Are you arguing that we did not have enough austerity? Bear in mind some politicians proposed increasing this debt to fund current expenditure

The OP mentioned comparisons to Greece.

blanch152 wrote: »

Your link on debt only proves that Ireland had less austerity than other countries.

If we had the most austerity, we would have paid the most debt back and would have the lowest outstanding debt. Your link shows the opposite which makes the case therefore that Ireland had the least austerity.

The article cites rates of debt. My point is we are still suffering in many ways.

Creative83 wrote: »

we don't seem to have suffered too badly

The case is far from closed. And IMO, the OPS blasé references to it does a disservice to society and it's suffering.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The OP mentioned comparisons to Greece.



The article cites rates of debt. My point is we are still suffering in many ways.

The OP mentioned Greece in terms of austerity, what point are you making with the debt levels?

If we are suffering in terms of debt, (in the context of a discussion on austerity) would that not imply we did not have enough austerity?

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

The OP mentioned Greece in terms of austerity, what point are you making with the debt levels?

If we are suffering in terms of debt, (in the context of a discussion on austerity) would that not imply we did not have enough austerity?

Also referenced welfare rates and tax. You can't blithely pass off austerity in a vacuum, which was the point of my posts. We are still suffering consequences.
No. It would imply we borrowed a lot of money.

Do you have an opinion of your own on this?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Also referenced welfare rates and tax. You can't blithely pass off austerity in a vacuum, which was the point of my posts. We are still suffering consequences.
No. It would imply we borrowed a lot of money.

Do you have an opinion of your own on this?

I still don't see the link you are making with austerity and debt levels. You say we borrowed a lot of money, true, but that seems to be a separate discussion to the one in the OP.

I do have an opinion, but with a lot of things on boards, I prefer to read rather than post. All I'm doing here is asking you a question

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

I still don't see the link you are making with austerity and debt levels. You say we borrowed a lot of money, true, but that seems to be a separate discussion to the one in the OP.

I do have an opinion, but with a lot of things on boards, I prefer to read rather than post. All I'm doing here is asking you a question

I've answered it, possibly not to your satisfaction.
Welfare rates, taxation, national borrowings, the many crises and debt are connected to austerity.
The OP suggests we didn't have it as bad as Greece, I posted a link to an article comparing debt rates between Ireland and Greece. I've little interest in explaining a point to someone with no intention of discussing it for themselves.

Roger_007

The problem with the term 'austerity' in the fiscal sense is that it is always relative to the conditions that prevailed immediately before the 'austerity' period. What preceded the so-called austerity period in Ireland was a period of profligate spending of windfall tax revenue, ( much of which was related to a crazy housing bubble).
If you compare the last decade to any other decade prior to the 'naughties', you could argue that there wasn't really any austerity at all, just a row-back from a unique period of unsustainable borrowing and spending.
I would argue that what we had was not austerity but a restoration of economic sanity.

Creative83

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You should note, this year, we broke our record for the amount of children homeless since the state began recording such things and we've consistently record breaking, growing crises year on year in health and homelessness in general.

With all due respect this has nothing to do with austerity and all to do with government ineptitude. This could easily be solved but the political will just isn't there. Sure how could it be?!?! 30 TD's in the dail are landlords

James Brown

Roger_007 wrote: »

The problem with the term 'austerity' in the fiscal sense is that it is always relative to the conditions that prevailed immediately before the 'austerity' period. What preceded the so-called austerity period in Ireland was a period of profligate spending of windfall tax revenue, ( much of which was related to a crazy housing bubble).
If you compare the last decade to any other decade prior to the 'naughties', you could argue that there wasn't really any austerity at all, just a row-back from a unique period of unsustainable borrowing and spending.
I would argue that what we had was not austerity but a restoration of economic sanity.

With that very narrow view, maybe. But as you allude to, there's more to a country than it's books. I don't see how looking after one aspect of running a country to the detriment of another is any sanity at all. Case in point, growing economy, high employment, growing crises.
What's the point of a good/growing economy? Are we still looking for the trickle down myth to kick in? Austerity is a broad catch all because it has broad reaching effects.

Creative83 wrote: »

With all due respect this has nothing to do with austerity and all to do with government ineptitude. This could easily be solved but the political will just isn't there. Sure how could it be?!?! 30 TD's in the dail are landlords

That makes no sense. What's austerity if not policy and how it's metered out and to whom?

Creative83

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That makes no sense. What's austerity if not policy and how it's metered out and to whom?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with austerity...

Staplor

Creative83 wrote: »

With all due respect this has nothing to do with austerity and all to do with government ineptitude. This could easily be solved but the political will just isn't there. Sure how could it be?!?! 30 TD's in the dail are landlords

Do advise on how to easily solve the children homeless crisis. I'd love to hear it.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With that very narrow view, maybe. But as you allude to, there's more to a country than it's books. I don't see how looking after one aspect of running a country to the detriment of another is any sanity at all. Case in point, growing economy, high employment, growing crises.
What's the point of a good/growing economy? Are we still looking for the trickle down myth to kick in? Austerity is a broad catch all because it has broad reaching effects.




That makes no sense. What's austerity if not policy and how it's metered out and to whom?

Your 'one aspect of running a country' however is not one of a series of equals.

It is the overarching sine qua non from which all Govt largesse is delivered.

Spending depends on revenue.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I've answered it, possibly not to your satisfaction.
Welfare rates, taxation, national borrowings, the many crises and debt are connected to austerity.
The OP suggests we didn't have it as bad as Greece, I posted a link to an article comparing debt rates between Ireland and Greece. I've little interest in explaining a point to someone with no intention of discussing it for themselves.

I don't see how you've answered my question at all, let alone to my satisfaction.

The OP suggests we didn't have austerity as bad as Greece, then you posted a link showing we have a higher debt than Greece. Which as another poster pointed out, would seem to back up the OP's opinion.

Anyway, I'll let others decide whether what you posted is relevant or not

hmmm

Ireland ran out of people willing to lend to it because of our over-spending.

All this stuff about "austerity" is specious nonsense - it's like someone who has hit their credit card limit complaining about how they are being forced to live within their means.

It wasn't austerity - we were given loans by our friends, because no-one else would give us a loan. Real "austerity" would have arrived if we didn't get those loans - schools and hospitals closing with teachers and nurses made redundant, not a slight reduction in social welfare rates.

Sleeper12

Creative83 wrote:

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained. And sure, we paid a bit more tax and some services curtailed. But is it right to be termed 'austerity' or is it just a rallying cry from the left here in Ireland?

Personally I've had my busiest 10 years ever. I have enjoyed low interest rates, almost zero inflation, low fuel prices etc. Despite the extra taxes I made more money so it would be easy for me to say that we didn't suffer much. However people 10 or 20 years younger than me suffered. Lost jobs, overtime, bonus etc. Some of these bought a home at the height of the boom. Many lost their homes, savings & are homeless and penny less. Sure they will be housed but many will never be in a position to buy a home again. Many have put off children so long that they might not be able to have any.

The last 10 years split this country in two. The difference between the have & have nots has increased.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I've answered it, possibly not to your satisfaction.
Welfare rates, taxation, national borrowings, the many crises and debt are connected to austerity.
The OP suggests we didn't have it as bad as Greece, I posted a link to an article comparing debt rates between Ireland and Greece. I've little interest in explaining a point to someone with no intention of discussing it for themselves.

Absolute nonsense.

Austerity is required if you are living beyond your means and your debts are too high.

If you impose austerity, you reduce debt.

If you still have high debt, after a period of "supposed" austerity, then you really didn't impose austerity.

Your link clearly shows therefore that Ireland has had it a lot better than Greece as we were able to maintain a higher level of debt.

It is pretty simple basic economics.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With that very narrow view, maybe. But as you allude to, there's more to a country than it's books. I don't see how looking after one aspect of running a country to the detriment of another is any sanity at all. Case in point, growing economy, high employment, growing crises.
What's the point of a good/growing economy? Are we still looking for the trickle down myth to kick in? Austerity is a broad catch all because it has broad reaching effects.

That makes no sense. What's austerity if not policy and how it's metered out and to whom?

There isn't any logical coherence to this post.

You seem to define "austerity" as a political slogan, as if almost anything the government does is caused by "austerity" or is blamed on "austerity" without it actually in anyway being related to austerity as the rest of us understand it.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

There isn't any logical coherence to this post.

You seem to define "austerity" as a political slogan, as if almost anything the government does is caused by "austerity" or is blamed on "austerity" without it actually in anyway being related to austerity as the rest of us understand it.

I would consider our current govt as being austere at least, maybe not something that affects people in the common sense meaning of austerity, but certainly fiscally austere as regards spending policies.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but if a govt has money available to spend on services that seem to be worsening while tax take is increasing yet hard pressed workers aren't seeing any improvement in their take home pay or in the services their taxes are funding then that to me would certainly be austere.
No scope for tax cuts, still huge debt to be serviced and services seemingly worsening, is that austerity or just bad governing?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/little-or-no-scope-for-income-tax-cuts-in-budget-says-esri-1.3535305?mode=amp

Triangle

Creative83 wrote: »

Did we suffer that badly from "austerity" here in Ireland? The reason I have that in quotes is that compared to other European countries we don't seem to have suffered too badly. Welfare rates for people over the age of 25 were maintained. And sure, we paid a bit more tax and some services curtailed. But is it right to be termed 'austerity' or is it just a rallying cry from the left here in Ireland?

I mean, consider what happened in Greece and Italy... I would argue they know what true austerity is better then we do here in Ireland.

Where I worked before the recession....
At least 4, if not 5 rounds of redundancy
Wages frozen for 10 years.
No bonuses for 10 years
Benefits removed
Longer working hours
Added stress

While at the same time
Increased taxes
New taxes
Removal of benefits
Pensions raided
Services declined
Infrastructure decline
Mass (edit spelling) emigration of youth/skills

It's not called a lost decade for nothing....

On top of all this, alot were unfortunate enough to lose their home.

We were hit bad.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I would consider our current govt as being austere at least, maybe not something that affects people in the common sense meaning of austerity, but certainly fiscally austere as regards spending policies.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but if a govt has money available to spend on services that seem to be worsening while tax take is increasing yet hard pressed workers aren't seeing any improvement in their take home pay or in the services their taxes are funding then that to me would certainly be austere.
No scope for tax cuts, still huge debt to be serviced and services seemingly worsening, is that austerity or just bad governing?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/little-or-no-scope-for-income-tax-cuts-in-budget-says-esri-1.3535305?mode=amp

What you are describing is a government that is fiscally conservative.

A fiscally austere government is imposing stringent cuts in public expenditure and significant rises in taxation. A fiscally conservative government is restraining public expenditure but not cutting it.

We get the services our taxes pay for. There is an awful lot of stuff that we don't tax that other countries do, while we impose too much tax on higher earners. We also spend much more money on social welfare than other countries do and less on services.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Austerity is required if you are living beyond your means and your debts are too high.

If you impose austerity, you reduce debt.

If you still have high debt, after a period of "supposed" austerity, then you really didn't impose austerity.

Your link clearly shows therefore that Ireland has had it a lot better than Greece as we were able to maintain a higher level of debt.

It is pretty simple basic economics.

Not really.
So with austerity measures causing such things as wages cut or freezed or your salary doesn't keep up with the cost of living and you find yourself getting deeper in debt, that's not related to austerity measures?

blanch152 wrote: »

There isn't any logical coherence to this post.

You seem to define "austerity" as a political slogan, as if almost anything the government does is caused by "austerity" or is blamed on "austerity" without it actually in anyway being related to austerity as the rest of us understand it.

No, you are choosing to look at a very high over view of austerity and how it relates to the country's books.
No I don't define it as a political slogan, dismiss it as you like.

You don't think anyone really had it bad, even when we were 'practically eating out of bins'?
How do you account for the worsening crises? They didn't grow on the magic crisis tree. They were exacerbated by government austerity policies coupled with favouring private business over the tax payers needs.

blanch152 wrote: »

We get the services our taxes pay for. There is an awful lot of stuff that we don't tax that other countries do, while we impose too much tax on higher earners. We also spend much more money on social welfare than other countries do and less on services.

Why is that? Would it have anything to do with the cost of living? Do you think if we put more money into the HSE it would improve? Should we tax the working poor more? Would they not need more tax payer dig outs to help with rent? Maybe we shouldn't be loaning NAMA monies to private builders for private profit? Is that a service we paid for?

Dohnjoe

Roger_007 wrote: »

The problem with the term 'austerity' in the fiscal sense is that it is always relative to the conditions that prevailed immediately before the 'austerity' period. What preceded the so-called austerity period in Ireland was a period of profligate spending of windfall tax revenue, ( much of which was related to a crazy housing bubble).
If you compare the last decade to any other decade prior to the 'naughties', you could argue that there wasn't really any austerity at all, just a row-back from a unique period of unsustainable borrowing and spending.
I would argue that what we had was not austerity but a restoration of economic sanity.

This

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not really.
So with austerity measures causing such things as wages cut or freezed or your salary doesn't keep up with the cost of living and you find yourself getting deeper in debt, that's not related to austerity measures?



No, you are choosing to look at a very high over view of austerity and how it relates to the country's books.
No I don't define it as a political slogan, dismiss it as you like.

You don't think anyone really had it bad, even when we were 'practically eating out of bins'?
How do you account for the worsening crises? They didn't grow on the magic crisis tree. They were exacerbated by government austerity policies coupled with favouring private business over the tax payers needs.



Why is that? Would it have anything to do with the cost of living? Do you think if we put more money into the HSE it would improve? Should we tax the working poor more? Would they not need more tax payer dig outs to help with rent? Maybe we shouldn't be loaning NAMA monies to private builders for private profit? Is that a service we paid for?

You don't define it as a political slogan?

Yet you use it out of context as a political slogan twice in the same post, not to mention the same old tired 2009 political slogans that you also repeat in that post.

Austerity has a particular economic definition. You are not using it accurately in that regard, but are using it as a political slogan. Either that, or you don't understand its economic context.

Andy Magic

It all depends on what age you are, certain generations have done well from the recession and others haven't. An example being people in there 50's and 60's getting redundancies and paying off the remainder of their mortgage while people in there 20's and 30's can't afford to buy a house or have a child.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't define it as a political slogan?

Yet you use it out of context as a political slogan twice in the same post, not to mention the same old tired 2009 political slogans that you also repeat in that post.

Austerity has a particular economic definition. You are not using it accurately in that regard, but are using it as a political slogan. Either that, or you don't understand its economic context.

As much a political slogan as the word 'fiscal' is.
You, my friend, are throwing up chaff and fudging as is your want when there's a sniff of anything critical of government policy in the air.

Policies are brought in by governments. Policies of a certain ilk are known as austerity measures. Such measures can cause hardship, including but not limited to rising debt. You dodged my questions, which might aid you in understanding my point. The OP suggested we didn't have it too bad. I suggested many did. Maybe you have trouble seeing how austerity figures into tough times for people.
You can choose to try move the discussion into the purely economic meaning of austerity and how it relates to economics till the cows come home, we, the OP and I, and others, are relating austerity to how bad we felt it, (the OP cited taxation and welfare).
Despite how the economy is often spun it is not an even keel measurement for how good or bad 'we' have it, which is the premise of this thread as well you know.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As much a political slogan as the word 'fiscal' is.
You, my friend, are throwing up chaff and fudging as is your want when there's a sniff of anything critical of government policy in the air.

Policies are brought in by governments. Policies of a certain ilk are known as austerity measures. Such measures can cause hardship, including but not limited to rising debt. You dodged my questions, which might aid you in understanding my point. The OP suggested we didn't have it too bad. I suggested many did. Maybe you have trouble seeing how austerity figures into tough times for people.
You can choose to try move the discussion into the purely economic meaning of austerity and how it relates to economics till the cows come home, we, the OP and I, and others, are relating austerity to how bad we felt it, (the OP cited taxation and welfare).
Despite how the economy is often spun it is not an even keel measurement for how good or bad 'we' have it, which is the premise of this thread as well you know.

For a start, the current FG/Ind government has not brought in any austerity measures. The use of the word "austerity" to refer to current fiscal decisions is a complete nonsense. Full stop, end of story, so if we are in a historical analysis thread, then so be it.

However, the social welfare bill is above 2008, the public service pay bill is above 2008. Within that, there are pockets that may not be above 2008, but that can be put down to reform measures more than austerity i.e. Government Ministers are paid less than 2008, restrictions on lone parent allowance are more sensible now etc.

While there are some people who are worse off than 2008, the vast majority of people are now back to 2008 levels or well above. The ones who continue to lose out fall into two categories - higher paid civil servants and those who lost their jobs in 2008 and didn't find any since.

In other cases, where jobs don't pay as much as 2008, or in sectors that don't have as many jobs as 2008, the reason is economic reform, not austerity per se. Previous economic crises eliminated blacksmiths and saddliers from the economy, the last economic crisis did the same. That is a bad thing for the individuals, but a good thing for the economy and society as we move to a higher standard of living. If you are the modern day equivalent of a blacksmith, you may well fall into the category of those who lost out.

Dohnjoe

Some people seem to confuse ill-effects of the crisis as being ill-effects of the treatment

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

For a start, the current FG/Ind government has not brought in any austerity measures. The use of the word "austerity" to refer to current fiscal decisions is a complete nonsense. Full stop, end of story, so if we are in a historical analysis thread, then so be it.

However, the social welfare bill is above 2008, the public service pay bill is above 2008. Within that, there are pockets that may not be above 2008, but that can be put down to reform measures more than austerity i.e. Government Ministers are paid less than 2008, restrictions on lone parent allowance are more sensible now etc.

While there are some people who are worse off than 2008, the vast majority of people are now back to 2008 levels or well above. The ones who continue to lose out fall into two categories - higher paid civil servants and those who lost their jobs in 2008 and didn't find any since.

In other cases, where jobs don't pay as much as 2008, or in sectors that don't have as many jobs as 2008, the reason is economic reform, not austerity per se. Previous economic crises eliminated blacksmiths and saddliers from the economy, the last economic crisis did the same. That is a bad thing for the individuals, but a good thing for the economy and society as we move to a higher standard of living. If you are the modern day equivalent of a blacksmith, you may well fall into the category of those who lost out.

For a finish, I couldn't give tuppence ha'penny who's in as regards austerity. You are changing the discussion to suit your agenda, that being 'nothing to see here, move along', as it always is.
I'm aware the OP is referring to the last ten years. The key word is 'decade'.
You try drag me off down a rabbit hole and when I respond, I get accused of going off the mark. Now you're getting all Adam Smith up in here.

Do you agree austerity, in the context of the OP, relates to how, people had it, good or bad?
If not, we are talking at cross purposes and I bid you good day sir.
The OP suggests we didn't have it too bad, I suggest some certainly had it bad. What team was/is in isn't really the point despite any allegiances.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some people seem to confuse ill-effects of the crisis as being ill-effects of the treatment

The crises are a symptom of government policy. Austerity relates to a policy type. Both relate to the OP and his belief 'we didn't have it too bad'. A national crisis is a reasonable gauge on how good or bad we have it in a certain area, IMO.

Dohnjoe

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The crises are a symptom of government policy.

The crisis was caused by a range of factors.

We can compare ourselves to other countries that had similar situations, likewise can compare the results of the actions we took

NinetyTwoTeam

First of all, welfare rates were not maintained. Where on earth did you get that idea? They were cut so much that even with 2 consecutive rises the dole is still lower than it was in 2006.

Fuel allowance they cut down the amount of time you can get it for.

Rent allowance they lowered the amount your rent could be to be eligible to the point that in some areas there simply wasn't any place that was low enough to qualify. Tenants were told to 'negotiate' with their landlord to get the rent down, ie: lie on the form and pay the difference out of your dole.

Student grants slashed in half, fees brought in. back to education allowance instead of fees paid plus the dole it was either or.

We literally had people working 40 hrs a week for the dole plus 50 euro due to the recession. A slave labor scheme so unsuccessful and abused it got scrapped. Unless you were stuck doing that don't dare tell me there was no austerity.

Those already on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder were the ones who got hit by austerity. The middle class or higher people I know barely felt it and are already convinced it's all turned around while those who really got hit either left or are still suffering.

Zubeneschamali

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The last 10 years split this country in two. The difference between the have & have nots has increased.

No, our Gini coefficient stayed flat right through the crash. We survived it without hitting the poor.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, our Gini coefficient stayed flat right through the crash. We survived it without hitting the poor.

Fair enough with the GC, but still those on low incomes were hit hardest by the recession.
Affordability of things in life are not covered by the GC, and despite attempts to hide the facts, the lower income you were on during the recession the harder it was to overcome it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/those-on-lowest-incomes-suffered-most-in-the-recession-1.2186880?mode=amp