Yellow vest movement ireland

EdgeCase

DS86DS wrote: »

Nobody would have predicted a few months ago that a country the size of France would be in this amount of turmoil, in particular not the arrogant globalist Macron with his anti-French values.

Of course they would!

I was fully expecting France to be rioting in the streets when he started to push economic reforms. Anyone who knows anything about France was expecting this. It's not like France has never had this kind of reaction before. There's a long and established tradition of angry protesting.

I'm no fan of Macron and I agree he's coming across as very arrogant, but I think the issues in France, as per my previous post on this thread, come from a broken political system that doesn't allow for proper dialogue and basically a flawed democracy.

If you can't talk things out and find consensus, you've conflict.

France also feeds its own economic issues by not being able to do that. It should be a big version of a something like a Nordic social democracy but it's never really archived that. Instead it gets locked into this kind of us Vs them street fighting.

I'm not trying to take a dig at the french here and I'm very familiar with and like France, but it's just frustrating to see that it's still not able to get past a repeating narrative of burning cars and tear gas rather than dialogue between every aspect of french society.

My view of it is the system isn't working and that both Macron and the rioters are just playing out well meaning but inevitably conflicting roles in a system that's setting them up to go head to head instead of one that would seek to get the best of both and sit down and have proper discussion.

You need more than just a binary choice and you need open dialogue on every issue

I think the USA will end up in a similar mess as Trump starts to unravel. All that's keeping that show on the road is the economic bubble hasn't burst... yet.

Likewise the British are locked into a dogmatic two sided political mess. When that starts to spin into an economic crisis you can bet that it'll be like the poll tax riots and the 70s mess all over again.

There's a lot wrong with systems that try to condense discourse into a choice between A and B particularly when you've a situation where A and B can both be pretty unpalatable options.

Mad_maxx

Moghead wrote: »

Wow. FG and FF are left wing political parties? Did this happen last night?

Both advocate big government, both (especially FF) vigorously Court the public sector vote and demand more spending rather than tax cuts.

Irish people are deeply statist.

Mad_maxx

facehugger99 wrote: »

The health crisis in this country can only be sorted out by increased funding combined with a complete reorganisation of the current structures.

Unfortunately the Irish electorate find the idea of paying extra taxes unpalatable and any time it's mooted to close services at a regional hospital, protest ensures.

God forbid any politician actually tells it like it is though, they'd find themselves looking for alternative employment fairly quickly.

We'd rather just bitch and moan about the current health crisis than actually take the medicine, so to speak.

Agreed about us opposing the closing of small regional hospital's, no TD can risk supporting that, our system is too democratic, that level of compromise and consensus politics leads to paralysis in terms of decision making

Mad_maxx

jamesbere wrote: »

Too much middle management and people with cushy jobs who do f all, front line staff get the brunt of all the problems.

I think if anyone wanted to go in a shake things up there will be so much red tape and problems that nothing will happen. I think there are people high up in the hse who don't want things to change cos it will affect their job.

Same old clichés about how it's only administration which holds back reform, ever listen to Liam doran of the nurses union?

He practically has a dressing room in rte.

EdgeCase

They're actually not deeply statist. In every piece of research conducted they've a strong (and healthy) distrust and lack of respect for authority.

The difference is they've an ability to exert control.

If the public were genuinely dissatisfied with the current government, it would spin into instability and fail very rapidly.

If the French people are unhappy with the current government, it has a program of reforms that it's determined to drive through and isn't going to listen to anyone because it's got more or less absolute power until the next presidential and legislative election.

Also can you imagine having to vote for just one party and condense your views down to FG, Labour, SF, FF or whatever ?

Can you imagine a system where voting for an independent = wasting your vote entirely and having your constituency shut out of politics for 5 years ?

I know I definitely split my loyalties across all of them and use the ballot paper.

We don't appreciate how different our system actually is. It was designed to work like this to minimise conflict and maximise dialogue because the state was formed out of a hot conflict between unionists and nationalists and then a vicious civil war between flavours of nationalism.

That's why we have structures that are designed to keep us talking and finding consensus positions.

That's also why Northern Ireland attempted to bring that to another level to force intercommunity dialogue since the peace process. It hasn't worked very well in the current mess up there but that was the thinking behind the structures.

Mad_maxx

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Indeed they wouldnt. The Irish, while they moan about the state of it, dont fundamentally want a better health service.

It suits far to many people to keep it inefficient and poirly performing, as a means of extracting taxes back from the govt through :too many people employed in it, too many people in the wrong jobs, too many people over paid, too many hospitals, too many regions wanting 'their' local hospital even though it can only but deliver poor healthcare because it is too small ('but it support so many jobs in the town!'), too many crank exploitative party politicians and independents who campaign on local medical services even though it makes no medical sense.....and people vote for all that.


So anyone trying to reform the HSE into an effective and good value health service is shouted down, ousted, forced to row back, met with strikes ans obstruction at every turn.

You get the health service you deserve. Ireland has the HSE it deserves.

Reforming it would mean two things

1.closing down hospitals in places like roscommon and improving Galway, we prefer a ****e hospital as long as its local.

2. Firing people and cutting wages, the staff themselves and their entire extended family will vote against that.

Ireland is too small to make hard decisions in government.

wrangler

Wanderer78 wrote: »

tis working out well for america!

hopefully the hse will crash soon?

The Childrens Hospital budget is overrunning by over 100%, imagine what's happening to the budgets that aren't being published.

EdgeCase

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Reforming it would mean two things

1.closing down hospitals in places like roscommon and improving Galway, we prefer a ****e hospital as long as its local.

2. Firing people and cutting wages, the staff themselves and their entire extended family will vote against that.

Ireland is too small to make hard decisions in government.

I think you've got the one example of a divide and conquer system in the HSE.

The Irish health service basically is the continuation of the pre-NHS UK model without radical reform. It spun out of a system that had poor law hospitals that were essentially unaccountable charities and private hospitals. They both got coopted into an evolving public health system in terms of funding, but they weren't really reformed structurally.

So we've ended up with a system where the influential (actually more than half the population) have private top up insurance that smooths out the bumps and a public system that, despite being as totally state funded as the NHS, still behaves as if it's doling out charity. It's never really evolved into thinking of itself as a state service.

To reform the Irish health system it needs to be turned into a single tier public system, probably using the continental universal insurance model like Germany etc. It's far too late in the day to go with the Beveridge model of the NHS.

The underlying issue with that is that it's a huge leap of faith when more than half the population takes out private insurance because they don't trust the public system to work properly...

If you ever get a mass movement demanding this, it will happen. So far, it hasn't really engaged the public other than in a tweaking things around the edges type of reforms.

You also have the problem that the a big aspect vested interests are often things like keeping a local hospital or service going even if it makes no sense from the broader system point of view or delivery of very high tech services. You'll regularly see very well meaning people demanding the status quo be maintained.

You've also got various empires within the health system notably the major Dublin hospitals who don't really cooperate properly. The childrens hospital fiasco was an example of that. You'd various system vested interests and the general public getting into a political mess about a technical decision for locating that hospital and it squandered a lot of public money by being unable to make a clear decision and changing sites and delaying projects.

Wanderer78

wrangler wrote: »

The Childrens Hospital budget is overrunning by over 100%, imagine what's happening to the budgets that aren't being published.

so is our current approach actually working, baring in mind the semi-private system we currently have? im not disagreeing that the public health care model isnt flawed or wasteful, because it clearly is, but does privatisation a critical systems truly work?

wrangler

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so is our current approach actually working, baring in mind the semi-private system we currently have? im not disagreeing that the public health care model isnt flawed or wasteful, because it clearly is, but does privatisation a critical systems truly work?

I wouldn't mind the poor management if people in pain weren't being ignored,
I suppose one is causing the other if I thought about it.
Wonder how many businesses in the private sector would survive giving workers an above average salary for working 46 36 hr weeks in the year with a generous pension and sick leave entitlement

Wanderer78

wrangler wrote: »

I wouldn't mind the poor management if people in pain weren't being ignored,
I suppose one is causing the other if I thought about it.
Wonder how many businesses in the private sector would survive giving workers an above average salary for working 46 36 hr weeks in the year with a generous pension and sick leave entitlement

its interesting that productivity has been shown to have dramatically increased, across most sectors, over the last couple of decades, but wage share of the wealth created from this increase in productivity has been extremely poor, i.e. relatively low wage inflation, is the problem more so that this is the case, baring in mind, some believing the reduction of the union movement being a leading contender to this outcome, particularly in the private sector?

EdgeCase

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so is our current approach actually working, baring in mind the semi-private system we currently have? im not disagreeing that the public health care model isnt flawed or wasteful, because it clearly is, but does privatisation a critical systems truly work?

The issue isn't that we had some ideological decision to privatise, we never had a full public health system. We simply let the existing private entities - largely a bunch of religious organisations continue to run hospitals and the state increasingly picked up the bill as the public health budgets and ability of the state to fund health increased.

During the first few decades of the state, it couldn't really afford to fund public health anyway. We were meeting the funding needs largely from the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes!! That's also why Ireland's health service was very hospital centric. There was abundant money raised for hospitals but primary care wasn't funded very well at all.

We've never really had a big debate about what kind of health system we want. Instead we've just kept it running, like fixing up an increasingly expensive old car.

There is public pressure on to reform but there's very little push to drive a big ideological reform to make it a proper public system that at could all rely on. I think that's largely what's missing. You've always got this issue driven focus.

Wanderer78

EdgeCase wrote: »

The issue isn't that we had some ideological decision to privatise, we never had a full public health system. We simply let the existing private entities - largely a bunch of religious organisations continue to run hospitals and the state increasingly picked up the bill as the public health budgets and ability of the state to fund health increased.

During the first few decades of the state, it couldn't really afford to fund public health anyway. We were meeting the funding needs largely from the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes!! That's also why Ireland's health service was very hospital centric. There was abundant money raised for hospitals but primary care wasn't funded very well at all.

We've never really had a big debate about what kind of health system we want. Instead we've just kept it running, like fixing up an increasingly expensive old car.

some good points there, but has the introduction of private health insurance companies, and other private entities, further compounded these issues?

EdgeCase

Wanderer78 wrote: »

some good points there, but has the introduction of private health insurance companies, and other private entities, further compounded these issues?

Probably. The logical thing would have been to turn the state owned VHI into a national public insurance system.
You could still do that with multiple insurers though. I mean we already have community rating and the vast majority of health spend here is public not private anyway.

I think you'd need to get some concrete proposals on reform here before you could campaign for reform though.

I don't really think you've any current party opposed to the idea of universal public healthcare. Even FG proposed it and hasn't been able to deliver and they're supposed to be 'right wing'.

You'd need a very clear idea of what reforms were going to be made before you could get the public on board.

Right now all I see is people focused on narrow issues around specific services and glitches.

I don't think we are actually up against an ideology, rather it's a lack of one that's been the problem. It's been decades and decades of the can being kicked down the road and patching things up.

The Irish system is also extremely expensive when you look at €/capita public spending and worse again when you add in out of pocket spending. It should be delivering something more like what's available in Scandinavia based on what we are putting in, but that isn't happening.

It's clearly now a structural issue and not a financial one. I think though the chaotic structure has its roots in historical lack of state financial resources to create a proper system.

I think really what you're looking at in the HSE is a legacy of a much poorer Ireland. If we are going to reform the system I think you need to start by recognising why it's such a mess.

wrangler

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its interesting that productivity has been shown to have dramatically increased, across most sectors, over the last couple of decades, but wage share of the wealth created from this increase in productivity has been extremely poor, i.e. relatively low wage inflation, is the problem more so that this is the case, baring in mind, some believing the reduction of the union movement being a leading contender to this outcome, particularly in the private sector?

Agreed, salaries haven't moved the way you'd think they should have, but we have to compete in the world market and I suppose they're comparable with our competitors.
Salaries of 20 -25% more and generous pensions in the PS doesn't make it any easier to accept

ArnieSilvia

listermint wrote:

They really want low taxes on fuel or whatever nonsense they are peddling

Deleted User wrote:

Some sort of movement is needed, but thus far these so-called "movements" haven't been marked by much more than self-interest, alas. Water charges, for instance, make huge sense: you are penalised if you waste a valuable environmental resource. What with the parasites in "consultancies" seeking state contracts for privatising water, or the parasites in poorer areas who want free everything, something that could have benefited society -a world class, safe, serviced state-owned water system - never came to fruition. Mé féinerism from rich and poor alike triumphs.

Deleted User wrote:

Some sort of movement is needed, but thus far these so-called "movements" haven't been marked by much more than self-interest, alas. Water charges, for instance, make huge sense: you are penalised if you waste a valuable environmental resource. What with the parasites in "consultancies" seeking state contracts for privatising water, or the parasites in poorer areas who want free everything, something that could have benefited society -a world class, safe, serviced state-owned water system - never came to fruition. Mé féinerism from rich and poor alike triumphs.

Deleted User wrote:

More generally, the rich are getting much, much richer in the western world, and this is no longer disputed by any economist. It is very, very well established now - and has become markedly more unequal since the 2008-2010 recession where the wealthy used the recession to intensify more cutbacks/accumulation of wealth. Again, this pattern has been extensively researched.

Deleted User wrote:

However, all most of the plebs can do online is attack other plebs (usually the ones on social welfare). Western governments, meanwhile, refuse to unite to prevent the obscenely rich from having a tax-free/low-tax zone and these countries consequently compete against each other to offer rich people/corporations a place to pay even lower tax. This is the stunning myopia of western societies in 2018. Like something from Machiavelli's statecraft in Discourses: the division between states on this issue makes these enormous corporations stronger. In 2018, it is these mega corporations and not states which are playing "divide and conquer". That's a sobering thought for people who value democracy and societal infrastructure.

Deleted User wrote:

Time for the plebs to rise up against the billions upon billions of euro of resources given in corporate welfare via enormous grants, subsidies, the availability of a state-financed educated and healthy workforce, tiny or negligible tax rates and so very much else to the wealthiest people in western societies.

Deleted User wrote:

However, all most of the plebs can do online is attack other plebs (usually the ones on social welfare). Western governments, meanwhile, refuse to unite to prevent the obscenely rich from having a tax-free/low-tax zone and these countries consequently compete against each other to offer rich people/corporations a place to pay even lower tax. This is the stunning myopia of western societies in 2018. Like something from Machiavelli's statecraft in Discourses: the division between states on this issue makes these enormous corporations stronger. In 2018, it is these mega corporations and not states which are playing "divide and conquer". That's a sobering thought for people who value democracy and societal infrastructure.

Deleted User wrote:

More generally, the rich are getting much, much richer in the western world, and this is no longer disputed by any economist. It is very, very well established now - and has become markedly more unequal since the 2008-2010 recession where the wealthy used the recession to intensify more cutbacks/accumulation of wealth. Again, this pattern has been extensively researched.

Fully agree with you. The post 2008 QA was the biggest scam ever, allegedly was meant to get the economy going but gave the money to the banks rather than the people. Result - pumped up share prices, making rich richer (poor had no means to avail of this opportunity).

What should have happened is massive tax cuts and direct payments to ordinary people.

World seem to be entering recession (based on my analysis I think it already started half year ago) and it seems that this one will be the worst in history, very likely to cause civil unrest.

I don't think that this time people will just accept bailouts, not a hope. I will go protest myself. And rich won't give up such an opportunity that easily.

Also, all this tax heaven nonsense, offshore domiciled corporate HQs, bogus royalties could and should stop immediately. It is clear that people in power have their own interests in keeping the scheme going.

EdgeCase

The problem with getting an Irish audience angry about that is we are one of the key players in that tax avoidance stuff and we benefited hugely from taking small cuts of big flows of multinationals' revenues.

So unlike France, getting an Irish population up in arms about that is a bit like asking the Swiss to protest the banks.

Ireland may not technically be a tax haven but we are about as close to one as you could be without hitting the exact technical definition.

The problem is we kind of are some of the people in power and one of the wealthier states that benefits from those policies.

It's a bit of a moral dilemma that's not as easy to just discuss in isolation when you know your bread is being buttered by those kinds of revenue flows.

I mean look at the Apple tax issue. Yes, were all probably feeling a bit queazy about what it's saying about the state but most of us also seem to be prepared to swallow hard and think of the multinational tax revenues and jobs that come because we're willing to do just that.

You'll also get moral outrage by a lot of people here about the EU stepping on our sovereign rights to operate ultra low taxes on multinational companies.

So I think many of us know we've a vested interest in that status quo too.

Harry Palmr

I see Shane Ross is working to exempt pensioners from the LPT - see you don't even need to march now and a politician will allow people who don't need protecting to be let off a tax.

And people wonder why there's no money for social housing or equal teachers pay.

Atlantic Dawn

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I see Shane Ross is working to exempt pensioners from the LPT - see you don't even need to march now and a politician will allow people who don't need protecting to be let off a tax.

And people wonder why there's no money for social housing or equal teachers pay.

The grey vote is valuable.


In reality while it will help keep some politicians in power the practice of giving people the 2nd highest pension in the EU from a country with one of the largest sovereign debts on the face of the earth is crazy.

Mad_maxx

EdgeCase wrote: »

They're actually not deeply statist. In every piece of research conducted they've a strong (and healthy) distrust and lack of respect for authority.

The difference is they've an ability to exert control.

If the public were genuinely dissatisfied with the current government, it would spin into instability and fail very rapidly.

If the French people are unhappy with the current government, it has a program of reforms that it's determined to drive through and isn't going to listen to anyone because it's got more or less absolute power until the next presidential and legislative election.

Also can you imagine having to vote for just one party and condense your views down to FG, Labour, SF, FF or whatever ?

Can you imagine a system where voting for an independent = wasting your vote entirely and having your constituency shut out of politics for 5 years ?

I know I definitely split my loyalties across all of them and use the ballot paper.

We don't appreciate how different our system actually is. It was designed to work like this to minimise conflict and maximise dialogue because the state was formed out of a hot conflict between unionists and nationalists and then a vicious civil war between flavours of nationalism.

That's why we have structures that are designed to keep us talking and finding consensus positions.

That's also why Northern Ireland attempted to bring that to another level to force intercommunity dialogue since the peace process. It hasn't worked very well in the current mess up there but that was the thinking behind the structures.

We are anti authoritan, agreed! We are not statist in a scandanavian or French way in that we are not remotely ideological about the ethos of civic mindedness etc, nor are we ideological about small government like Americans

We just want the government to wipe our arse and pick us up every time any problems arise, we are a very immature electorate.

wrangler

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The grey vote is valuable.


In reality while it will help keep some politicians in power the practice of giving people the 2nd highest pension in the EU from a country with one of the largest sovereign debts on the face of the earth is crazy.

Come off it, us pensioners have overpaid the Public Service foer years to put the country in the mess it's in, the least you could do now is let us take advantage of its creative accounting. :D:D

EdgeCase

On the national debt statistics

OECD figures in $/capita public debt per capita rather than as a % of GDP.

Note income levels etc mean these can have bigger or smaller impacts in terms of what's serviceable and what isn't.

1. Japan – $90,345

2. Ireland – $62,687

3. United States – $61,539

4. Italy – $59,372

5. Belgium – $59,680

6. Austria – $49,975

7. France – $51,768

8. Greece – $49,630

9. United Kingdom – $52,816

10. Portugal – $44,819

Idbatterim

You mention outrageous motor tax op. What are you talking about willis ? There are ridiculous rates of motor tax here, but it’s a choice to drive cars on the ridiculous rates and 99% of motorists don’t.

wrangler

EdgeCase wrote: »

On the national debt statistics

OECD figures in $/capita public debt per capita rather than as a % of GDP.

1. Japan – $90,345

2. Ireland – $62,687

3. United States – $61,539

4. Italy – $59,372

5. Belgium – $59,680

6. Austria – $49,975

7. France – $51,768

8. Greece – $49,630

9. United Kingdom – $52,816

10. Portugal – $44,819

I thought it'd be more, might be some creative accounting there too.
Not much out of line with the rest of EU

EdgeCase

wrangler wrote: »

I thought it'd be more, might be some creative accounting there too.
Not much out of line with the rest of EU

That's pretty bad tbh. Still second highest in the world in raw number terms.

Harry Palmr

I'd sooner be Ireland than Portugal despite the 18k difference. Okay they have the weather

Ireland population 4.5m Portugal population 10.3m

Portugal

Revenues €83 billion (2017)
Expenses €89 billion (2017)

Ireland

Revenues Increase €78.73($91.3) billion (31% of GDP in 2018)[17]
Expenses Increase €79.265($91.9) billion (31.2% of GDP in 2018)[16]

EdgeCase

Every figure is only relevant to how sustainable it is based in income and economic factors.

A 300 grand mortgage is fine if you're on a good income too.

Japan for example runs an enormous debt to GDP but it's mostly owed to Japanese investors.

Mad_maxx

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I see Shane Ross is working to exempt pensioners from the LPT - see you don't even need to march now and a politician will allow people who don't need protecting to be let off a tax.

And people wonder why there's no money for social housing or equal teachers pay.

Ross knows most people support spoiling pensioners, besides, if Lord Ross didn't follow through on this, spokesperson for old people willie o dea would be on his back demanding pensioners shouldn't have to pay for groceries. Let alone property tax.

Mad_maxx

wrangler wrote: »

Come off it, us pensioners have overpaid the Public Service foer years to put the country in the mess it's in, the least you could do now is let us take advantage of its creative accounting. :D:D

Majority of pensioners will draw down four times as much in benefits as they made in contributions during their working life, a reflection of the vast increase in spending on pensioners and the length of time people now spend in retirement.

Biggest issue facing the country long term is pensions but politicians are not only ignoring it, they are doubling Down on indulging the grey vote.

There are at least some signs that young people are copping on to the fact that the elderly don't give a **** about them, back in 2008, the young marched so wealthy pensioners could maintain their medica cards.

wrangler

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Majority of pensioners will draw down four times as much in benefits as they made in contributions during their working life, a reflection of the vast increase in spending on pensioners and the length of time people now spend in retirement.

Biggest issue facing the country long term is pensions but politicians are not only ignoring it, they are doubling Down on indulging the grey vote.

There are at least some signs that young people are copping on to the fact that the elderly don't give a **** about them, back in 2008, the young marched so wealthy pensioners could maintain their medica cards.

In general, young are better off now than those that grew up in the 50s and 60s, I don't have a medical card probably never will, I wouldn't think wealthy pensioners can get a medical card,

EdgeCase

On average if you're 30 in Ireland in 2018 you're better off the a 30 year old in 1958 but, that's largely because of ample employment opportunities, better public services and much more open minded social attitudes.

On big capital purchases, notably a home, you are definitely not better off.

We have an unusual situation going on at the moment, not just in Ireland but in most of the Western World, where quantitive easing policies have caused a spike in asset prices notably of property relative to income. A lot of that has been driven by QE i.e. more money went into the system from the central banks, more money started to circulate around the economy. Wages and prices haven't really changed but durable assets like housing have shot up in value. There's no point in putting money in the bank if its value is going down so people put it into hard assets. Unfortunately, that has tended to mean housing.

In Ireland you now have a situation where despite the housing crisis, a lot of people would punish any government that sought to reduce house prices as their pensions depend on it. Half the population desperately wants a house the other half is clinging on for dear life to their future rental income.

The result of that is you're on good money but can't afford a home.

Mad_maxx

wrangler wrote: »

In general, young are better off now than those that grew up in the 50s and 60s, I don't have a medical card probably never will, I wouldn't think wealthy pensioners can get a medical card,

You can still qualify for a medical card while earning 700 per week if you are over seventy, the over seventies have no expenses bar food

Those who grew up in the fifties were also better off than those who were seventy in 1958. Its a canard

EdgeCase

The problem is more that those who were hitting adulthood in the 70s and early 80s are actually the parents of the people who are now in a housing mess. They were generally a lot better off than we are because they were able to buy and inflate away house prices.

Imagine for example you borrowed to buy a home in 1979-80. Your house rapidly increased in value due to massive inflation and your income did too. Your previous mortgage load was tiny by the time your kids say born in the early-mid 80s were in secondary school.

By the time they were adults you'd a tiny mortgage / paid it off fully.

For the generation born in the 80s and 90s they're far more likely to have had to rent for long periods and may have no prospect of seeing anything like that ever happening. If they owe money in Euro now due to currency stability it is only going to have inflated away by a few % in a couple of decades.

It's a generation that is not worse off than their typical grandparents, but are definitely worse off than their parents.

In the states, it's the first generation in modern history that are worse off than their predecessors going back to almost the industrial revolution times. Things had been getting progressively better throughout most of that history.

gormdubhgorm

I saw this it is unintentionally hilarious.

Fluoride in water is listed as one of the main issues:

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/yellow-jacket-demo-in-dublin-shows-solidarity-for-french-protesters/ar-BBQZExc?li=BBr5KbJ&ocid



'Socialist republicans' are obviously very worried about thier dental hygiene?

ligerdub

EdgeCase wrote: »

On average if you're 30 in Ireland in 2018 you're better off the a 30 year old in 1958 but, that's largely because of ample employment opportunities, better public services and much more open minded social attitudes.

On big capital purchases, notably a home, you are definitely not better off.

You can't separate one from the other in my opinion.

I don't think there's any comparison between a 30 year old now and a 30 year old of 40 years ago (I know you've said 50).

A guy born in the mid 40's could get a house and raise a family on one income and have a large family at that. He could live near to work and generally speaking could drive to work without too much bother. My folks had their mortgage paid off after about 3 years and before they hit their mid 30's.

Compare that to somebody born in 1985. There's absolutely slim to zero chance of being able to do that.

Yeah fair enough, the average salary and modern society for somebody born in the mid 80's is a positive, but not sure how much comfort there is having a few extra euros to spend on lattes and focaccia based lunches when they haven't even managed to get a tiny little space for themselves, and to do so would cost a small fortune. They'll be lucky to have that paid off by the time they hit their mid 60's. Give me tea and toast in a mobile phone free environment in return for being able to setup some sort of plan and being able to have some sort of security in my life over what we have now.

I'm not entirely convinced that the employment opportunities are better now. In previous generations there was an idea of a job for life and generally speaking employers were locally based and weren't looking at group balance sheets and the risk of moving operations to India/Poland on the whim of some executive based in the States. You have zero hours contracts and a rise in contracting in Ireland now, and a much reduced defined benefit based pension scheme.

Are public services better now than before? There used to be a plethora of hospitals based in Dublin city, most of which are now closed. The healthcare system is not exactly in tip-top shape at the moment. The transport system is in tatters, and most of the main cities are in near constant gridlock.

As for more open minded social attitudes? Well yes it's true that there were tragedies and shameful incidents hidden by the Irish state, but that didn't really impact on the average 30 year old, the distinction is important. Are attitudes more open-minded now? I don't think they are. It's just that the closed-mind has moved from the religious authorities and their dogma to the dogma of the "socially conscious" types, disagree with them at your peril (especially when you consider potential issues such as doxxing and potentially pressuring employers to act on certain complaints nothing to do with work).

wrangler

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is more that those who were hitting adulthood in the 70s and early 80s are actually the parents of the people who are now in a housing mess. They were generally a lot better off than we are because they were able to buy and inflate away house prices.

Imagine for example you borrowed to buy a home in 1979-80. Your house rapidly increased in value due to massive inflation and your income did too. Your previous mortgage load was tiny by the time your kids say born in the early-mid 80s were in secondary school.

By the time they were adults you'd a tiny mortgage / paid it off fully.

For the generation born in the 80s and 90s they're far more likely to have had to rent for long periods and may have no prospect of seeing anything like that ever happening. If they owe money in Euro now due to currency stability it is only going to have inflated away by a few % in a couple of decades.

It's a generation that is not worse off than their typical grandparents, but are definitely worse off than their parents.

In the states, it's the first generation in modern history that are worse off than their predecessors going back to almost the industrial revolution times. Things had been getting progressively better throughout most of that history.

Don't know about mortgages, but my loans went from 12 - 18% interest in the early 80s and if you missed a payment it'd go to 20%.
Expectations weren't as high so the houses were cheaper alright, 1.6 ltr car was £3000 and house was 25 - 30000.....just remembering a house on a half acre site local that was sold for £30000 house was about 1500 sq ft.
Just a few figures, can't remember salary rates, £5000/yr comes to mind

Mad_maxx

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is more that those who were hitting adulthood in the 70s and early 80s are actually the parents of the people who are now in a housing mess. They were generally a lot better off than we are because they were able to buy and inflate away house prices.

Imagine for example you borrowed to buy a home in 1979-80. Your house rapidly increased in value due to massive inflation and your income did too. Your previous mortgage load was tiny by the time your kids say born in the early-mid 80s were in secondary school.

By the time they were adults you'd a tiny mortgage / paid it off fully.

For the generation born in the 80s and 90s they're far more likely to have had to rent for long periods and may have no prospect of seeing anything like that ever happening. If they owe money in Euro now due to currency stability it is only going to have inflated away by a few % in a couple of decades.

It's a generation that is not worse off than their typical grandparents, but are definitely worse off than their parents.

In the states, it's the first generation in modern history that are worse off than their predecessors going back to almost the industrial revolution times. Things had been getting progressively better throughout most of that history.

Young people in Ireland are distracted by cultural issues like gay marriage and abortion, it suits the political status quo to focus on these as the generational wealth divide can be ignored, the political class priortise the elderly - older at every turn, the young have been remarkably slow in realising this due to being energised by marriage equality etc.

Grayson

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Apparently its starting in England on Saturday, be interesting to see what kind of numbers turn up, and if it gets violent like the French protests.

Don't know if it was posted but here's the turnout in the UK.

Some very bad urban camo in that photo

Grayson

wrangler wrote: »

Don't know about mortgages, but my loans went from 12 - 18% interest in the early 80s and if you missed a payment it'd go to 20%.
Expectations weren't as high so the houses were cheaper alright, 1.6 ltr car was £3000 and house was 25 - 30000.....just remembering a house on a half acre site local that was sold for £30000 house was about 1500 sq ft.
Just a few figures, can't remember salary rates, £5000/yr comes to mind

The ratio to income was a lot lower though.

As edgecase said, we need the price of houses to drop. The increase during the celtic tiger was nuts. I have a friend who bought in a housing estate, just outside Dublin, just before it kicked off. 10 years later she put a small extension on the house and it cost more than the house did originally. In a 10-15 year period the price of houses leapt by about 1000%. It wasn't unusual to see a house that cost 30k in 1993 go for 300k in 2007.

So as he said, we have a situation now where a huge amount of people have houses that are worth a fortune and any drop in price will either see their nest egg diminish (If they bought before the tiger) or will see them go into negative equity (if they bought in the last half of the boom or even later in some cases).

So people who haven't bought are fecked. They need far higher earnings to buy and because of the rental crises it's getting far harder to save.

The tiger boom screwed an entire generation.

EdgeCase

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Young people in Ireland are distracted by cultural issues like gay marriage and abortion, it suits the political status quo to focus on these as the generational wealth divide can be ignored, the political class priortise the elderly - older at every turn, the young have been remarkably slow in realising this due to being energised by marriage equality etc.

It's not a choice between cultural issues and housing.

I mean living in Ireland in the 80s you had one of the most conservative countries in the developed world without access to even a packet of condoms without fuss and without a fuss and active Magdalene Laundries.

If you were gay you more or less has to stay out of sight or emigrate. If you were divorced the same. If you were gay and divorced ... !?

The costs have gone up for a large number of reasons including a booming economy creating strains and a stable currency and not being used to that concept.

The biggest issue is simply demand massively outstripping supply and supply being incapable of coming back on stream due to nursing wounds from 2008.

The economic issues are undoubtedly next on the agenda as the big social ones are dealt with.

There are advantages to living in a relatively poor and unpopular place to live, if you have resources and are a member of the middle class. That's how Ireland used to be. The rest of the population emigrated.

The housing issue right now is crazy and needs to be resolved but I think it will basically hit FF and FG electorally if they think that appealing to elderly middle class voters is the only game in town. Even many of them have lent money to children to get onto the property market and have lost lots of money in the banking crash so it's not even universally popular with that subsection of voters.

Basically the housing protest needs to take the same path as the marriage equality and abortion rights groups did. I don't think the Gilets Jaunes approach is even necessary here. You can effect change more politically.

gormdubhgorm

EdgeCase wrote: »

I don't think the Gilets Jaunes approach is even necessary here. You can effect change more politically.

I agree over here most of those protesting types always seem like 'student union' crowd or the other cohort is people who want to f**k 'the establishment'.
Laughable stuff really.

The Tetrarch

The Tetrarch wrote: »

The French like a riot.
The Irish like to moan.

Ya, just seen Les Misrables. That revolution didn’t end too good!

Mad_maxx

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's not a choice between cultural issues and housing.

I mean living in Ireland in the 80s you had one of the most conservative countries in the developed world without access to even a packet of condoms without fuss and without a fuss and active Magdalene Laundries.

If you were gay you more or less has to stay out of sight or emigrate. If you were divorced the same. If you were gay and divorced ... !?

The costs have gone up for a large number of reasons including a booming economy creating strains and a stable currency and not being used to that concept.

The biggest issue is simply demand massively outstripping supply and supply being incapable of coming back on stream due to nursing wounds from 2008.

The economic issues are undoubtedly next on the agenda as the big social ones are dealt with.

There are advantages to living in a relatively poor and unpopular place to live, if you have resources and are a member of the middle class. That's how Ireland used to be. The rest of the population emigrated.

The housing issue right now is crazy and needs to be resolved but I think it will basically hit FF and FG electorally if they think that appealing to elderly middle class voters is the only game in town. Even many of them have lent money to children to get onto the property market and have lost lots of money in the banking crash so it's not even universally popular with that subsection of voters.

Basically the housing protest needs to take the same path as the marriage equality and abortion rights groups did. I don't think the Gilets Jaunes approach is even necessary here. You can effect change more politically.

Up to now any politician who has prioritised goodies for the grey vote has always saw gains personally and young and old has backed him or her, if that has changed, its a very recent change.

Wheeliebin30

Think of everything this generation has compared to the past.

Foreign holidays, I phones, tablets, internet subscription, eating out, take aways etc.

That’s before the demands kids have now with toys etc.

Back in the day people lived a much simpler and modest life but this generation wants everything now no matter what the cost.

briany

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Think of everything this generation has compared to the past.

- said by basically every generation since industrialisation.

Wheeliebin30

briany wrote: »

- said by basically every generation since industrialisation.

Yeah but come on.

Nowadays the world is one big self indulged massive consumption of everything.

One example. You can now “binge” your favorite tv show.

Years ago you waited a week.

Or get food or clothes or music the instantly if you want.

It’s gone off the scale and now people think housing etc should be instant too.

There’s no working towards things anymore.

NIMAN

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yeah but come on.

Nowadays the world is one big self indulged massive consumption of everything.

One example. You can now “binge” your favorite tv show.

Years ago you waited a week.

Or get food or clothes or music the instantly if you want.

It’s gone off the scale and now people think housing etc should be instant too.

There’s no working towards things anymore.

Don't forget the entitlement culture.
This certainly did not exist in my parents generation. They believed you worked and saved for things, they never demanded a house.

vicwatson

Grayson wrote: »

Don't know if it was posted but here's the turnout in the UK.

Some very bad urban camo in that photo

Are these the assholes that stopped an emergency ambulance getting through?

yourdeadwright

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yeah but come on.

Nowadays the world is one big self indulged massive consumption of everything.

One example. You can now “binge” your favorite tv show.

Years ago you waited a week.

Or get food or clothes or music the instantly if you want.

It’s gone off the scale and now people think housing etc should be instant too.

There’s no working towards things anymore.

You do realise every generation before us has said the same thing about the new generation , Obviously just with different problems , Its nothing new

People have always wanted more and will always want more, its what people do ,

blinding

DS86DS wrote: »

Still so many posters here trying to paint this as a mere "tax issue".

I thought it would have been fairly obvious to anybody familiar with recent years that such an assessment is nonsense.



France is in flat out revolt for its very future


Try and reduce it to economic arguments all you want.....but the truth is, is that France is in revolt against the EU model.


And hopeful Ireland is to follow.

Macron's France and Macron’s Eu aint up to much . The French people are not impressed .