What are your thoughts on the economy?

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Any Government who attempted to manage the economy in a vaguely prudent manner would be turfed out at the earliest opportunity and populist charlatans would be carried shoulder-high into office.

How do you explain FG victory in 2011?
How do you explain the supposed 'money for nothing' parties having the lowest support in the country?

People want value for money and a decent quality of life. It's not all austerity on one hand and 'forever homes' on the other.

Mad_maxx

Geuze wrote: »

Bond yield spreads are indicating a slowdown in the USA, yes.

Yes, there is a slowdown in Europe.

France and especially Italy is incapable of economic growth, Europe from an economic standpoint is a place in decline

corcaigh1

https://www.ft.com/content/c71ae3b2-876a-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453

SirGerryAdams

corcaigh1 wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/c71ae3b2-876a-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453

paywalled

I see there was only 75k jobs created last month in the US against expected 180k or something. Think we'll start to see inflation rise?

smurgen

topper75 wrote: »

Impossible for any govt in Ireland in the 2008/2013 period. They would have been thrown out on their ear in the morning by the Irish electorate. You forget the volume of news coverage on ghost estates in those times.

I would like to see the subject of macroeconomics taught on a mandatory basis, for at least one year, in the Irish second-level curriculum. It could be built into a mandatory Business subject. State finances are complicated but how can people meaningfully cast a vote in elections without a rudimentary knowledge of such matters. If we don't do this, the painful horrid pantomime will rage on boom after bust after boom after bust...

I would argue it's yourself that needs economic education. As someone who done economics at a degree and masters level i think our government should be running a counter cyclical approach to capital expenditure. In my city at the moment on the northside tye government is completely rebuilding social housing and new homes are being build and old ones knocked. Why is this now beung done when labour costs and building costs are at an all time high?

El_Duderino 09

kneemos wrote: »

4.4 % unemployment, what's not to like?

High employment stats are great IF they lead to pay rises. The wealthy are getting paid lore and accumulating more wealth but the poor aren't getting paid more at the same rate.

The cost of houses goes up so the wealthy people (older people who have wealth such as house or a other assets like a rental property) get wealthier. Meanwhile the people on Low wages without wealth, struggle to keep up with rising rent and rising cost of buying a house.

So full employment is great but it's not the end of the story. Half of the good of full employment is that it forces up wages for the poorest. I don't think that's happening for the poorest. Overall wages are going up but it's skewed towards the already wealthy.

So this is not a very good boom. As it's concentrated on the already wealthy.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

KSU wrote: »

Alot more than that. Large portion of people are paying negative taxation in this country (i.e getting more out of the system than they put in)

Depending how long people live that could be true of anybody.

Yurt2

The next recession is going to hurt more than the last one and will show up our FDI-first economic model as unsustainable (as if it's not obvious already).

If there's trouble in the US in the next year or so, hang on to your hats.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

EurosportHD wrote: »

The poorest now are wealthier than ever before, if someone wants a pay rise they should actually try and earn it. Meaning become more productive or learn how to negotiate.

In general people aren’t getting pay raises across the western world. Individuals can’t buck that general trend.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

In general people aren’t getting pay raises across the western world. Individuals can’t buck that general trend.

That's where unions came in. The did the collective bargaining and the poorest benefited. Now the unions are weak, it really is each worker for themselves. Dont like your conditions? Then you can be replaced by someone who will do the job on those terms. It means conditions for wealthier people are rising but poor people stay poor.

Geuze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

High employment stats are great IF they lead to pay rises. The wealthy are getting paid lore and accumulating more wealth but the poor aren't getting paid more at the same rate.

Note that although Ireland has low unemployment, it does not have high employment.

El_Duderino 09

Geuze wrote: »

Note that although Ireland has low unemployment, it does not have high employment.

Do you mean if you include disabled people etc? Compared to which countries?

In any case, low unemployment means supply of labour is relatively short and cost if labour should be going up at a fairly rapid rate. But it isn't going up at the rate expected rate for poor people.

Church on Tuesday

'A lot done, more to do'.

Geuze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you mean if you include disabled people etc? Compared to which countries?

In any case, low unemployment means supply of labour is relatively short and cost if labour should be going up at a fairly rapid rate. But it isn't going up at the rate expected rate for poor people.

I mean that the % of adults in employment is not very high in Ireland.

(It's not very low, either)


Example: take two countries , A and B

Country A
100 adults, 40 inactive, 57 employed, 3 un
UNR is 3/60 = 5%


Country B
100 adults, 30 inactive, 63 employed, 7 un
UNR is 7/70 = 10%


County B has higher employment AND higher unemployment.

El_Duderino 09

Geuze wrote: »

I mean that the % of adults in employment is not very high in Ireland.

(It's not very low, either)


Example: take two countries , A and B

Country A
100 adults, 40 inactive, 57 employed, 3 un
UNR is 3/60 = 5%


Country B
100 adults, 30 inactive, 63 employed, 7 un
UNR is 7/70 = 10%


County B has higher employment AND higher unemployment.

I get the point about economically inactive people. Which countries are you Comparing ireland to?

topper75

smurgen wrote: »

I would argue it's yourself that needs economic education. As someone who done economics at a degree and masters level i think our government should be running a counter cyclical approach to capital expenditure. In my city at the moment on the northside tye government is completely rebuilding social housing and new homes are being build and old ones knocked. Why is this now beung done when labour costs and building costs are at an all time high?

Congrats on getting your masters. I imagine it involved having to read through a lot of material really quickly. If you read what I posted again, you'll see that I agreed with you. I am not the electorate. I was commenting on the way they see things typically and how that feeds politicians decision-making on the economy. We can easily see with retrospect how destructive the policies were in the first decade of this century. Everything they did fiscally was fuel to the fire, with the exception of the paltry SSIA savings scheme. The bust was about finding money to pay Garda/nurse/teacher wages from the Troika. They were never going to allow us to build houses.

Geuze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I get the point about economically inactive people. Which countries are you Comparing ireland to?

All other EU nations.

We lead the EU in the rate of VLWI:

El_Duderino 09

Geuze wrote: »

All other EU nations.

We lead the EU in the rate of VLWI:

OK. Does that change the fact that low unemployment usually pushes up wages?

Balanadan

Geuze wrote: »

All other EU nations.

We lead the EU in the rate of VLWI:

A simple solution - cut the dole.

El_Duderino 09

Balanadan wrote: »

A simple solution - cut the dole.

Yeah. Make people with disabilities work. Make old people work.

Solution to what exactly?