# Where are all the unemployed?



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

Who are "the people who do not work"? 
Unemployment is at, or heading to all time lows. 
Trade Unions only represent people at work
SF/FG/FF all got 20+% votes, way above the unemployment rate. 
What is "generous housing"? 10,000 homeless, tens of thousands on waiting lists, tens of thousands struggling to pay rent, mortgage, tens of thousands living too long with parents unable to buy a home. 
Where is this generous housing system? 

Its a nonsense to think the housing issue can be resolved in any effective way by moving people around in a game of musical chairs, depending on spare rooms or their employment status - either of which could change at any given moment, meaning more musical chairs. 
It doesn't happen anywhere else in the world, not since the dawn of time. 
The answer to the housing issue is build more houses. If the private sector is failing in that regard, which it is, the State needs to step in.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Who are "the people who do not work"?
> Unemployment is at, or heading to all time lows.



Is it? If we used the same measure as France for determining unemployment, what would ours be e.g. participation in the workforce.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Is it? If we used the same measure as France for determining unemployment, what would ours be e.g. participation in the workforce.



Why would I use the same measure as France? Should we just cherry pick whatever measure we want to suit the narrative that we wish to push? 
But im open to alternative viewpoints, what is our unemployment rate using the French  measure.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Why would I use the same measure as France? Should we just cherry pick whatever measure we want to suit the narrative that we wish to push?
> But im open to alternative viewpoints, what is our unemployment rate using the French  measure.



It looks like successive Irish governments have done the cherry picking to push their own narrative.

_If people on *job activation* schemes were included in the unemployment figures, the rate of *unemployment would be roughly 3 percentage points higher* – a significant impact _








						FactCheck: You asked, we answered - "real unemployment"
					

Are job activation schemes masking the reality of unemployment in Ireland? What kind of jobs are people getting anyway?




					www.thejournal.ie
				




Why did our figures for those on disability surge 50% since 2008?








						Government sees 50% surge in disability claims in a decade
					

The Government is investigating a surge in disability claims after they have jumped by 50%.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




Why do more Irish peple live in jobless households than in the rest of the EU?





						Why do more  Irish people live in jobless households than in the rest of the EU?
					

In 2009, 23% of Irish people between the ages of 0 and 59 lived in a jobless household. The equivalent figure for the EU -15 was 11%. The next highest was the UK at 13%.  What this means   I have used the figures for 2009, as they have been the subject of detailed studies by the ESRI and NESC...



					www.askaboutmoney.com
				




Why would you choose the Irish ones and not the French ones?
The main point is that if you want to count "the people who do not work", you really cannot base it upon the declared Irish unemployment rate.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Why would you choose the Irish ones and not the French ones?



Because Im talking about Irish unemployment figures. I cannot really discuss Irish unemployment figures if the discussion is open to comparing them with measurement models any given random nation.



odyssey06 said:


> The main point is that if you want to count "the people who do not work", you really cannot base it upon the declared Irish unemployment rate.



Well what measurement should apply? 



odyssey06 said:


> Why do more Irish peple live in jobless households than in the rest of the EU?



Are those 2009 _Irish _measured figures? 
Why not use French measurement figures here?


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Because Im talking about Irish unemployment figures. I cannot really discuss Irish unemployment figures if the discussion is open to comparing them with measurement models any given random nation.



Are you talking about the unemployed as per the arbitrary definition of the Irish government or *those who do not work*?
If you want to talk about those who do not work don't use the unemployment rate declared by the Irish government.

I have provided ample support to demonstrate why that is a fallacy  including references to other major EU countries whose declared unemployment rate more closely matches "those who do not work".
The Irish unemployment rate does not equate to those who do not work. It is wrong to say that it does.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Are you talking about the unemployed as per the arbitrary definition of the Irish government or *those who do not work*?



I was talking about the unemployment rate, but I sense you are not satisfied with such. So im happy to use the "those who do not work" figure (Irish measurement model or French?).
So let me know what it is and how it has anything to do with there being a supposed generous housing system in this country when homelessness is at record highs, waiting lists record high, private rents through the roof, high rates of mortgage arrears, age profile increasing of those living at home with parents, etc...etc...


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I was talking about the unemployment rate, but I sense you are not satisfied with such. So im happy to use the "those who do not work" figure (Irish measurement model or French?).
> So let me know what it is and how it has anything to do with there being a supposed generous housing system in this country when homelessness is at record highs, waiting lists record high, private rents through the roof, high rates of mortgage arrears, age profile increasing of those living at home with parents, etc...etc...



Waiting lists are at record highs but so is the budget allocated to health, both relatively and in absolute terms.
Our social welfare budget is at a record high, both relatively and in absolute terms yet supposedly homelessness is at a record high.
Is it any wonder more and more people want to put their feet up and expect to state to provide everything when it is so generous.
When something is free there will never be enough of it.

Our generous housing system is claiming 20% of all new builds. It is buying up existing properties competing with those trying to make their own way in life.
Because we have so many Irish people putting their feet up instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel, we are sucking in people from outside Ireland to do the jobs Irish people won't do and I'm not talking about Facebook IT workers. 
They have to live somewhere. Any new social housing within the M50 should only go to those who work.
We need to switch to American model of less benefits or a European model of tying elevated benefits to work. 
Our model just ain't sustainable and is slowly eating itself.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Is it any wonder more and more people want to put their feet up and expect to state to provide everything when it is so generous.
> When something is free there will never be



I find this type of commentary very disparaging. Tens of thousands of working people lost their jobs, their businesses folded, recovery has been slow. But to think that the deepest economic crash will not leave long-term casualties - suicide, homelessness, depression, drug dependency, divorce and separation rates, etc.
There are not more and more people "want to put their feet up".
For someone who cites specific figures as evidence over other official figures, it is odd that you would then extrapolate a baseless interpretation from those figures.



odyssey06 said:


> we are sucking in people from outside Ireland to do the jobs Irish people won't do and I'm not talking about Facebook IT workers.



A lot FB IT workers are from abroad? Aren't they?
Why wont Irish people fill these jobs?



odyssey06 said:


> Our model just ain't sustainable and is slowly eating itself.



I do agree with this. But it is not poor people, sick people, elderly people, that is the problem. It is an economic system that puts paper profits and the value of balance sheets above everything else.
We live in a phony contrived monetary system that somehow manages to value our economy near twice what it was at the peak in 2007.
There is no plausible reason for this. The workforce hasn't expanded by any significant amount. Wage increases are increasing by modest amounts after a near decade of stagnation. Personal debt remains high, national debt equates to around €45,000 per capita, corporate debt is high etc...etc...
There is no plausible reason as to why the economy is valued nearly twice what it was in 2007 unless there has been massive manipulation and interference.

But, never mind all that, look over here...its all the fault of unemployed people, disabled people, people who are working but cant afford private rents or mortgages.

I don't think so.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Feb 2020)

Thanks to Mod for opening this topic.
Thanks to @odyssey06 for providing figures from previous topic.

In order to extrapolate real meaning, I may require some clarification



> _A jobless household is defined as one where the average time worked in the last year by adults of 18 or over was less than 20%._



May I ask, 20% _of what?_


Or A couple where one person working full-time, non-working partner, with three kids or more are classed as a Jobless household in these figures?


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Feb 2020)

> But the huge difference between Ireland and the rest of the EU 15 is the fact that 56% of adults in jobless households have children living with them. It's less than half that in the EU 15.





> In other words, most jobless adults in the EU 15 do not have children living with them. This brings down the number of people living in jobless households.




What is supposed to be the significance of this?
Stop having children during periods of unemployment?
Kind of tricky once they have arrived.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Feb 2020)

Unemployment rates across EU

Ireland 5.2% Aug 2019


----------



## Protocol (16 Feb 2020)

VLWI is defined as working less than 20% of the hours you could work.

So if a two adult household work as follows - one person one day, that means 10% work intensity.

We have had the highest numbers of people living in VLWI households every year for 11 years in a row.


----------



## Protocol (16 Feb 2020)

AROP and VLWI
					

A quick follow-up chart using Eurostat data on at-risk-of-poverty rates and very-low work intensity and again highlights Ireland as an outli...




					economic-incentives.blogspot.com
				












						Very Low Work Intensity by Household Type
					

Ireland’s rate of people living in households with very low work intensity has received increased attention over the past few years.  It’s n...




					economic-incentives.blogspot.com
				












						Very low work intensity by tenure status
					

It is not hard to see why the issue of “jobless households” is something worth keeping an eye on from an Irish perspective.  Here are figure...




					economic-incentives.blogspot.com


----------



## Protocol (16 Feb 2020)

https://igees.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Household-joblessness-paper-final.pdf
		


Published July 2016.


----------



## Protocol (16 Feb 2020)




----------



## WolfeTone (16 Feb 2020)

Thank you for the comprehensive details above. It is clear that Ireland has a high level of VLWI to the EU-15 average.

It is also apparent that in 2003, at peak employment levels, that it was alot closer to EU average. It ballooned in 2009-2010 at height of recession and unemployment. It has receded from 23% in 2009 to around 18% in 2016 - when unemployment rate was about 9%. It would probably be fair to say that it has receded further since then, as the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.2%?
The last time our unemployment rate was at 5.2%, in 2003, our VLWI was close to 11% - the EU 15 average.

Others factors to consider is presence of children in Irish households. Irish birth rate of 1.77 children per woman remains above the EU average of 1.6.

Amongst the conclusions and recommendations, the following resonated with me.

Childcare

_According to the OECD, childcare costs in Ireland are 40 per cent of the average wage,
over three times the EU average and the highest in the OECD. One of the country 
specific recommendations the EU Commission made to Ireland in 2014 was to “facilitate 
female labour force participation by improving access to more affordable and full-time 
childcare, particularly for low income families”. In its country report in 2015 it found 
that “no progress” had been made in this area."_

Im also minded to think that the analysis above makes an over reliant assumption that VLWI households are preserve of low-income, low-skilled households.

Take a working career couple earning €120,000 (€85,000 and €35,000). Along come children, and by third child, one partner decides to stay at home and raise kids. Between cost of childcare, school and creche runs, cost of petrol on long commutes, pressure of working hours, one partner decides that for next number of years they will leave the workforce and raise kids at home.
At 20% , this is a VLWI household.
Considering the long commutes faced by the workforce in satellite towns of Dublin, career breaks are not uncommon for working people with kids. This undoubtedly adds to our VLWI household rate.

Of all the factors pertaining to VLWI, and the conclusions, interpretations and recommendations offered in the study, I can't find anything that suggests it is a case of more and more people "putting their feet up".


----------



## RedOnion (16 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Take a working career couple earning €120,000 (€85,000 and €35,000). Along come children, and by third child, one partner decides to stay at home and raise kids. Between cost of childcare, school and creche runs, cost of petrol on long commutes, pressure of working hours, one partner decides that for next number of years they will leave the workforce and raise kids at home.
> At 20% , this is a VLWI household.


I don't believe that's a correct interpretation?

Assuming the children being raised are under 18, then it would be 50%, not 20%? So not a VLWI household?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Feb 2020)

RedOnion said:


> I don't believe that's a correct interpretation?



You are correct, my misinterpretation.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> If people on *job activation* schemes were included in the unemployment figures, the rate of *unemployment would be roughly 3 percentage points higher* – a significant impact



These are not people "putting their feet up". These are people prepared to work , looking for opportunity, willing to learn, trying to impress, etc...in order to get sustainable employment.


----------



## Purple (16 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> These are not people "putting their feet up". These are people prepared to work , looking for opportunity, willing to learn, trying to impress, etc...in order to get sustainable employment.


A lot of people are doing a “FAS scheme’ because they are forced to do it. Let’s not pretend that they are all trying to get into/ back into a full time job.
Your point in the previous post is well made; childcare costs are a major barrier to entry into the labour market.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> These are not people "putting their feet up". These are people prepared to work , looking for opportunity, willing to learn, trying to impress, etc...in order to get sustainable employment.



We are at full employment. If they want a job get one. Curiously I cant find good figures on the sustainable employment rate from these schemes.... or how long people stay in the system or take repeat courses.

Until they are in real jobs they are in the category of not working.


----------



## Protocol (16 Feb 2020)

Have a read of Barra Roantree's lecture:



			https://www.esri.ie/sites/default/files/media/file-uploads/2020-01/Slides_1.pdf
		


He used to work in the IFS in the UK, now at the ESRI.


----------



## Protocol (16 Feb 2020)

Why do we have so many households with zero market income?

Why do we have so many VLWI households?

Why do we have so many adults who declare themselves disabled?

Why do we lead Europe in lone parenthood?



Three possible answers:

(1) An endogeneity problem - the welfare state that is so effective at reducing poverty itself encourages people to not work

(2) a caring issue - we choose to care for many people informally at home, and the system encourages this, rather than in a formal welfare state, so therefore these households have less or no market income

(3) regarding the VLWI issue, our inactive adults tend to live with other inactive adults, so they remain VLWI. If they lived with an active adult, that person would lift them out of VLWI


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> We are at full employment



Thats was my thinking at the start of this thread, until you suggested that unemployment figures could not be relied upon and that in fact if the people working in job activation schemes were included in the figures, then the rate would be a few points higher. 
I took it we were at full employment, or approaching. You seemed to dismiss this at the start, suggesting the real figure to be closer to 8% or even higher (ie _not _full employment). 



odyssey06 said:


> Curiously I cant find good figures on the sustainable employment rate from these schemes....



They are not sustainable jobs. Schemes like Job Bridge effectively get people to work without payment from the employer who benefits from their labour. It is not sustainable.



odyssey06 said:


> Until they are in real jobs they are in the category of not working.



Can you define a real job?
Tens of thousands of people in this country work in a voluntary capacity, either in addition to other paid work or just in their spare capacity. 
I would define a job as any monetary consideration offered and accepted between two parties in return for services or labour provided. 
If you are not getting paid, its not a job, but dont make the mistake to think it isnt work.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> (1) An endogeneity problem - the welfare state that is so effective at reducing poverty itself encourages people to not work



I don't disagree with the sentiment, suffice the language of "encourages people _not_ to work". 
I take the view, with the exception of a tiny cohort of people (typically criminal element of society - albeit they will also work at their illegal endeavours) that every abled body is prepared to work. 
The issue is the pay and conditions of work. 
If unemployment benefit is €188 pw, and a job offer for 39hrs a week offers €450 I think most people would take it. But if such a job involved €200 in childcare and €20 bus fares, then there is a problem. It is a disincentive not to work, not an encouragement not to work.

Its no different to high income earners. Offered a job for €150,000 pa most people would take it. But add in the condition of high taxes on income and it can act as a disincentive not to work. 
So its not people "putting up their feet", as some have suggested, but simply the conditions on offer. 




Protocol said:


> (2) a caring issue - we choose to care for many people informally at home, and the system encourages this, rather than in a formal welfare state, _so therefore these households have less or no market income_



You may have answered Q1, in part.



Protocol said:


> (3) regarding the VLWI issue, our inactive adults tend to live with other inactive adults, so they remain VLWI. If they lived with an active adult, that person would lift them out of VLWI



Im not disputing this, just querying the application of this sentiment in practical real-life terms.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Thats was my thinking at the start of this thread, until you suggested that unemployment figures could not be relied upon and that in fact if the people working in job activation schemes were included in the figures, then the rate would be a few points higher.
> I took it we were at full employment, or approaching. You seemed to dismiss this at the start, suggesting the real figure to be closer to 8% or even higher (ie _not _full employment).



I was turning your full employment argument back against you. On multiple threads you were making the point that we are at full employment.
I was pointing out the number of hidden 'unemployed' or rather cohorts that are not employed, the numbers of which seem to have spiked since the last recession and some of which in other EU countries would be classed in the unemployed. Whether we are at full employment or not, we seem to be at the peak of this economic cycle and nobody seems all that bothered about the numbers in those cohorts or what is being done for their employment prospects (or rather the success rate of these employment schemes in putting trainees into the workforce).



> Can you define a real job?
> Tens of thousands of people in this country work in a voluntary capacity, either in addition to other paid work or just in their spare capacity.
> I would define a job as any monetary consideration offered and accepted between two parties in return for services or labour provided.
> If you are not getting paid, its not a job, but dont make the mistake to think it isnt work.



I don't know what work versus real job has to do with this thread. Cutting your own grass or painting your house or looking after your own kids is hard work too and if you were doing it for someone else you'd expect to be paid for it. Obviously we are talking about paid employment and anything else seems like a rabbit hole.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Whether we are at full employment or not, we seem to be at the peak of this economic cycle and nobody seems all that bothered about the numbers in those cohorts or what is being done for their employment prospects.


The question in my mind is what happens when we pump money into an economy with no employment capacity to absorb it? Wage inflation, which is the main cause of price inflation, would be my first guess.


odyssey06 said:


> I don't know what work versus real job has to do with this thread. Cutting your own grass or painting your house or looking after your own kids is hard work too and if you were doing it for someone else you'd expect to be paid for it. Obviously we are talking about paid employment and anything else seems like a rabbit hole.


I spent the weekend batch cooking and baking for the coming week as well as doing the washing and ironing. I didn't realise that meant I didn't have to go to work this week.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> The question in my mind is what happens when we pump money into an economy with no employment capacity to absorb it? Wage inflation, which is the main cause of price inflation, would be my first guess.



What seems to happen here more is that the higher wages draw in more people to Dublin, the wage rises level off, but the rents and and cost of living increases.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> What seems to happen here more is that the higher wages draw in more people to Dublin, the wage rises level off, but the rents and and cost of living increases.


Cost of living is a result of labour costs. Everyone getting a pay rise just makes things more expensive.


----------



## Protocol (17 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't disagree with the sentiment, suffice the language of "encourages people _not_ to work".
> I take the view, with the exception of a tiny cohort of people (typically criminal element of society - albeit they will also work at their illegal endeavours) that *every abled body is prepared to work.*



This is false, and perhaps naive.

I agree with you that many people rationally choose long-term welfare, as the loss of benefits/HAP/medical card, plus the costs of childcare, etc., means it does not make sense to take up employment.

Anybody who lives in Ireland will know that there are *also *many thousands of people who choose LT welfare for other reasons.

Let's take 5 people I know on LT welfare, and I realise this is anecdotal:

(1) Person A on DA, aged in 40s, I know this person well, has worked before, but never long-term in any job, has skills/talents, but perhaps has mild personality/social issues that make them "somewhat incompatible with regular 9-5 type employment".  Spends a lot of time playing video games.

A tougher/stricter welfare state would refuse benefits, a*s person A is an able-bodied adult, who could do some job.*

Now, you could argue, and I accept this argument, that this person is genuinely disabled, fair enough.

(2) Person B, I don't know this person as well, long-term on JSA, alcoholic I think, I suspect would have difficult holding down steady employment, very good golfer. Seetac have engaged with them.

Again, a tougher/stricter welfare state, like the USA, would refuse benefits, *as person A is an able-bodied adult, who could do some job.*

(3) Person C, aged 60 approx, has talents, very sociable, runs two websites, in pub most nights, does not believe in capitalism or regular employment, not on welfare all their life, was on JSA recently, now on DA, and I quote directly from them "it's great now I'm on DA, as I won't be challenged to find employment like on JSA"

This is one reason why the numbers on DA continue to climb, you will be left alone, and Seetac won't be after you.

Now, you could argue, and I accept this argument, that person C is genuinely disabled, fair enough.

(4) D and E are married, and related to me.

Long-term on DA (not disabled) and JSA.  They say "you would be stupid to work"

Nixer brings in 40,000 gross before costs (not 40k net)

Got 100,000 in 3rd level fees and grants

Drive an Audi Q5




Now, I don't have a very wide circle of people, and yet even I know 2-3 people who have chosen long-term welfare.

So it is reasonable to say that there are 100,000 people minimum on JSA, DA, OPFP, CA, etc., who have chosen long-term welfare as a lifestyle choice.

This is one reason why we have so many households with zero market income, and so many VLWI households.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> On multiple threads you were making the point that we are at full employment.





odyssey06 said:


> We are at full employment.



Can you confirm, are we at full employment or not? You seem to want to be able to call it boths ways - yes, we are at full employment and, no, we are not at full employment, to suit your narrative at any given time. 



odyssey06 said:


> Obviously we are talking about paid employment



Great, im happy to accept that we are talking about paid employment. 
So people who get up to go to work on job 'activation' schemes, like job bridge, are not paid by their employers. Instead, the State continues to pay welfare. 
I take it you consider these people unemployed, not in a real job, and part of the society wanting to put their feet up? 
I dont, I consider them people actively trying to find sustainable work and not wanting to be dependent long term on welfare.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> Person A



Aside from any genuine disability, you haven't painted a very attractive picture for employers to recruit. 
It is part of the equation that tends to get overlooked in any employment relationship, _offer and acceptance. _



Protocol said:


> Person B



Again, from the perspective of any prospective employer, trying to run a business, trying to make ends meet, trying to fill a job vacancy with a hard-working, reliable person, does the characteristic of 'alcoholic' feature highly? 



Protocol said:


> D and E



These people are working "Nixer brings in 40,000 gross". 
They are working outside of the system and apparently fraudulently so. I have already referenced a criminal element to be excluded from the overall discussion.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Can you confirm, are we at full employment or not? You seem to want to be able to call it boths ways - yes, we are at full employment and, no, we are not at full employment, to suit your narrative at any given time.
> 
> Great, im happy to accept that we are talking about paid employment.
> So people who get up to go to work on job 'activation' schemes, like job bridge, are not paid by their employers. Instead, the State continues to pay welfare.
> ...



You are the one claiming we are at full employment. I am quoting you. Certainly we are in a time of rising employment, and it should be questioned re: the need for so many of these activation schemes at such a time. In the context of this thread, they are part of the real unemployed, or we can call them the 'not employed', whatever our employment figures are showing. Taken into conjunction with the number of positions being filled by citizens from other EU countries and non EU, there are employment opportunities there at all levels of the employment sector of trained and untrained.

So they are not employed, not in a real job and some of them - perhaps most - are using it as a means to dodge real work.
Someone straight out of school doing these courses is not employed, but I would not draw the conclusion that they are putting their feet up; or someone in such schemes after a redundancy.
But anyone who has done multiple of these courses in succession is much more likely to be in the latter category.
If we were paying college students and paid their fees for as many courses as they want, I would lump those doing multiple courses into the same likelihood.
Really, we need to see the success rate of these schemes to make a proper determination of where the % lies, but it's not 100% one way or the other. But in the current climate it is a valid question to ask, and also reasonable to consider what is our real unemployment rate versus our EU counterparts.


----------



## Sunny (17 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Great, im happy to accept that we are talking about paid employment.
> So people who get up to go to work on job 'activation' schemes, like job bridge, are not paid by their employers. Instead, the State continues to pay welfare.
> I take it you consider these people unemployed, not in a real job, and part of the society wanting to put their feet up?
> I dont, I consider them people actively trying to find sustainable work and not wanting to be dependent long term on welfare.



This is why threads like this are pointless. There have been plenty of them and all of them end up the same way. Someone will start claiming that not all unemployed people are the same and are trying to find work when everyone else will point out that we are not talking about everyone. But it is still a valid discussion if we talking about a sizable minority and not the majority. Disability allowance is abused. Social Housing is abused. Medical cards are abused. Job Seekers is abused. Single Parents is abused. Doesn't matter if it one person doing to it or 100000. We are entitled to demand that there is zero tolerance without being made out to be right wing monsters.

Not one person here will have a problem with anyone seeking work getting help from welfare. I myself have been in that position. After 4 months of the demoralising step of collecting a weekly payment from the post office, I took a minimum wage job for 6 months working alongside teenagers who laughed at me rather than take the jobseekers allowance. Buts lets not pretend that every person receiving welfare is looking for work. Whether that is because they wont because they don't want to or welfare is too attractive is immaterial. There are people in this country and in every country who can work but choose not to.

By the way Jobbridge was closed years ago and rightly so.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2020)

Well said Sunny.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> But it is still a valid discussion if we talking about a sizable minority and not the majority. Disability allowance is abused. Social Housing is abused. Medical cards are abused. Job Seekers is abused. Single Parents is abused. Doesn't matter if it one person doing to it or 100000.



Yes, and I have already pointed to a criminal element, which is what you appear to be referring to - those that abuse the system. 
I have never denied the existence of such. The extent of that abuse is up for debate. 
My view is that it not near the extent that others would like to portray. 
And as job bridge was closed, rightly so, then the question of the 5.2% full employment being manipulated to avoid counting people on job activation schemes like job bridge does not hold up. 

I agree, there is little to be gained in any further discussion that takes official figures and academic research to propagate a narrative that is nowhere to be found, anywhere, in those official figures or that academic research.


----------



## Protocol (26 Feb 2020)

Have a look at table 2.14 below to see our employment rates:





__





						Economy - CSO - Central Statistics Office
					






					www.cso.ie
				




We are below average, and well down the league table, due to the high level of joblessness in Ireland.


----------



## Protocol (26 Feb 2020)

Also see table 2.18 for the jobless household data.

The situation has thankfully improved, we are no longer above the EA average, but we are still above the EU average.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> Also see table 2.18 for the jobless household data.
> 
> The situation has thankfully improved, we are no longer above the EA average, but we are still above the EU average.


What stands out there for me is how *GNI as a percentage of GDP is declining which shows how reliant we are on a few Multinationals to carry our economy. Was the construction industry ever such a disproportionate part of the economy?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> We are below average, and well down the league table, due to the high level of joblessness in Ireland.



This is a false conclusion. Firstly, in the Eurozone area, we are _above _average. Only 0.1% below EU 28 average. 
All of these tables are a snapshot in time. Fig 2.10 provides better detail. It is clear, that since 2012 more and more people are returning to work.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> The situation has thankfully improved, we are no longer above the EA average, but we are still above the EU average.



Would you agree then that assumptions about more people wanting to put their feet up expecting the State to look after them is a false assumption? 

Instead, structural issues such as  - high childcare costs, long commutes, unaffordable accommodation, are more likely the causes of preventing people returning to work. 

Table 2.17 The Long-term Unemployment rate is well below the EU average.


----------



## Protocol (27 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is a false conclusion. Firstly, in the Eurozone area, we are _above _average. Only 0.1% below EU 28 average.
> All of these tables are a snapshot in time. Fig 2.10 provides better detail. It is clear, that since 2012 more and more people are returning to work.



Yes, more people are in employment, which is great.

But it's important to note that although:

(1) employment has risen a lot
(2) unemployment has fallen a lot

...the employment rates are not high.

Yes, employment rates are about the EU average, yes, but there are 15 countries approx with higher employment rates.

Now, this may not be a bad thing...............if it's a reflection of us wanting more people cared for at home (children/disabled adults/some elderly), and not cared for formally.

Our caring preferences may lead to structural underlying differences in employment rates?


----------



## Protocol (27 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Would you agree then that assumptions about more people wanting to put their feet up expecting the State to look after them is a false assumption?
> 
> Instead, structural issues such as  - high childcare costs, long commutes, unaffordable accommodation, are more likely the causes of preventing people returning to work.
> 
> Table 2.17 The Long-term Unemployment rate is well below the EU average.



This is not a false assumption, as there are people in Ireland who do exactly as you describe.

Yes, those structural issue, i.e. the design of the welfare state, cause people to *rationally *refuse work, or refuse extra work.

The question is how do we re-design the welfare state?


----------



## Protocol (27 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Table 2.17 The Long-term Unemployment rate is well below the EU average.



Remember, although unemployment is low, joblessness is high.

Many of the working-age adults on long-term welfare are not unemployed.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> Our caring preferences may lead to structural underlying differences in employment rates?



Yes, quite possibly so.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> This is not a false assumption, as there are people in Ireland who do exactly as you describe.



I didn't say there are not. Im saying its wrong to assume that _more _people are putting their feet up when in fact _more _people are returning to work. 
Any structural deficits in the welfare system need to be tackled. *Rational* refusals to take up employment (eg childcare and commuting costs outweigh benefit of returning to work) is not a case of people choosing welfare over employment. 
Extreme example - a couple living in Cork with two kids, one partner works low wage in restaurant, the partner gets offered a job in Galway - it is rational that the position is refused if the terms incur costs over and above benefits.


----------

