"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

TheBigShort said:
Its good to see a somewhat more refreshing and more realistic approach and I welcome cremeeggs contribution which goes some considerable way to outline both sides of debate here.
Click to expand...
I agree. Rather than just arguing with anyone who thinks there is a problem and asking them for date to back up their views it might be better to go with what a Labour Party Minister for Social Welfare thought and highlight the proactive approach she took recently to start to deal with it.
 
Purple said:
it might be better to go with what a Labour Party Minister for Social Welfare thought
Click to expand...

Which was, from 2012

Commenting on the statistics, Minister Burton said: "The crucial importance of the welfare system is reflected in these figures. The Department of Social Protection plays a role in virtually everyone's life at some stage, whether it is through Child Benefit, Jobseeker's payments, pensions or any of the many other income supports we provide.

"But the figures also demonstrate the emphasis I've placed since becoming Minister on transforming the Department from the passive benefits provider of old to one that is actively assisting people back to work, training and education. Our service does not stop at merely providing a jobseeker's payment to somebody who is out of work. We also provide the employment supports to help that person back into work, training or education. That is why we spent over €950 million last year on schemes such as Community Employment, Tús, JobBridge, and the Back to Work and Back to Education Allowances."
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
Ok, why do you think that is the case?
Click to expand...

Using cremeggs contribution, which portrays both sides of this debate, im drawn to the comments of Professor Frances Piven

Frances Fox Piven said that the problem with AFDC (Aid for Dependent Families) was not a problem with the welfare system, but with low-wage work:

"Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect."

The last sentence resonates, insofar that I have argued here many a time, that the vast majority of welfare recipients would prefer financial independence over welfare dependency.
 
Firefly said:
Of course you are correct if there are alternatives available and I could have picked a better example as there are no real alternatives to surgery - you have extremely limited supply of surgeons for something that, for someone who needs it, a very high demand. Hence the high cost of labour. Whether you value a surgeon or a farmer higher on societal contributions is somewhat mute..since people first began trading and later with the development of currencies, the market has by and large set the price of things we pay for. Anyway, I'm straying way off topic. Back to Johnny!
Click to expand...

Ok, I stopped reading this about 22 pages ago but out of curiousty, who is Johnny?
 
TheBigShort said:
Using cremeggs contribution, which portrays both sides of this debate, im drawn to the comments of Professor Frances Piven

Frances Fox Piven said that the problem with AFDC (Aid for Dependent Families) was not a problem with the welfare system, but with low-wage work:

"Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect."

The last sentence resonates, insofar that I have argued here many a time, that the vast majority of welfare recipients would prefer financial independence over welfare dependency.
Click to expand...
In many ways I agree with the Professor. Thankfully in this country we provide free healthcare and subsidised childcare in many deprived areas as well as income supplements to working people who don't have marketable skills and so can only command a low wage. Employers pay social insurance which contributes strongly to these benefits which is a good think. Asking employers to pay far more than the economic value of a persons labour makes those unskilled people even less likely to ever get a job and so is a poverty trap in itself. Therefore the only way of maintaining that state subsidy on the income of low skilled members of the workforce it through taxation.
It would be great to see a more Scandinavian type income taxation system in Ireland but it would mean more indirect taxes and much higher direct taxes for low and medium income earners. I don't think that would fly with the Irish electorate. We'll just keep on resenting high earners and taxing the hell out of them.
 
Purple said:
In many ways I agree with the Professor. Thankfully in this country we provide free healthcare and subsidised childcare in many deprived areas as well as income supplements to working people who don't have marketable skills and so can only command a low wage.
Click to expand...

And may I ask, is this the culture of welfare dependency that needs to be dismantled? If so, how do you propose it should be done?

Purple said:
Employers pay social insurance which contributes strongly to these benefits which is a good think
Click to expand...

Agreed. I may be mistaken, but I think it was yourself that posted a ratio of some 75% to 25% of social insurance contributions made by employers.
But as low incomes rise, that ratio will begin to tighten.
Furthermore, as incomes rise, participation in the employment market will increase, reducing the overall cost of the social insurance fund (as people move from unemployment to employment).
And in the round, low paid workers tend to spend 100%, if not v close to it, of their income. If wages increase for low paid workers, this will be reflected in increased trade - good for business.

Purple said:
Asking employers to pay far more than the economic value of a persons labour makes those unskilled people even less likely to ever get a job and so is a poverty trap in itself.
Click to expand...

I think this statement is, with respect, too simplistic. First, I would distinguish between the market value and the economic value, and in real terms both factors contribute to determining the wage paid or due.
The market value of a person's labour will increase/reduce relative to the availability of that labour. The economic value may not alter. The street sweeper for example. There may be an abundance of workers willing to sweep the streets pushing downward pressure on the wage, but in reality we only need say, 500 street sweepers. But the economic value of what they do can be quantified in other ways. I would suggest there is a significant premium in trade for businesses in a town that is clean and tidy, rather than a town that is a dirty kip? It is questionable as to how much or how little such a premium is reflected in the street sweepers wage.

Purple said:
Therefore the only way of maintaining that state subsidy on the income of low skilled members of the workforce it through taxation.
Click to expand...

So what exactly is supposed to be dismantled?
 
I know a chap working part time earning €225 per week. His overall take home "income"is over €62,000 per year and every cent is legit !!!.
 
Protocol.

Maybe things/wages are so bad in Poland that a move to another country for any wage is preferable to staying in Poland?
Maybe like Paddy in 50,s and 60,s the Poles can run with this. Like Paddy, in times past, it beats doing nothing.

I am more of the view (Draghi ;We need higher wages).

I worry that we are drifting into a circle of minimalistic wages for the plebs !
 
Thankfully there are far fewer unskilled jobs around than there used to be. Those that are left are increasingly becoming more productive through the use of technology (cleaners use machines to clean floors, not scrubbing brushes, bar codes increase throughputs at tills etc. ).

The only sustainable way to increase your wages is to make your labour more valuable. The best way to do that is to become more skilled. Nobody should expect a pay increase this year for doing the same job the same way as they did last year, not while we have no inflation (unless you drive a bus).


Anyone who thinks pay increases are a good thing for us, with our small open economy, is nuts.

The USA has a massive internal market which acts as an engine for the world economy. Our internal market is tiny and consumes very little of what we produce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top