# Show me the money - young family



## tiger (15 Jan 2006)

God, that was depressing 

(a brief summary).  Couple that married young, now with 2 kids.  Not living an extravagant life, seemed reasonably careful & intelligent just weren't able to make ends meet.  Husband had left bank job that wasn't paying enough (sinking into debt) and gone into landscaping, which was now drying up with the end of summer.  Needed to be earning €32K net at a minimum.  Did some interviews but was actually better off on welfare (eddie seemed surprised by this).  In the end they took the relatively drastic step of moving to Sligo, where the husband was from & got a job.  But the program left us hanging, as he was going to be depending on future comission, not just his basic, to make ends meet.

Ireland is really a messed place now if a young family starting out has to struggle so much & still seems to be sinking.  Hope things work out for them.


----------



## brodiebabe (15 Jan 2006)

Eddie advised them that they needed to increase their income.  I thought it was strange that he did not advise her to get a weekend or evening job (at least for 2 or 3 years so that they could try and get some of their 31,000 debt paid off).  I also think they had a lot of debt but still seemed to rent very nice places (very modern homes), could they not have tried to reduce some of their rental outgoing by renting a not so new/modern place?


----------



## Mr Toad (15 Jan 2006)

I will caveat these remarks by expressing some sympathy on a personal level for the young couple in tonight’s programme who are clearly struggling to make their way.  That said I would suggest that they (and it seemed to me, principally he) are very much the authors of their own difficulties. 

By way of summation – the couple had married young (19) and now at the age of 23 and 24 have two children under two. We were told their annual expenditure was circa €49,000, while their income seemed to be around €32,000 (the difference was bridged by loans from family and credit cards).  The husband gave up a job in financial services to work as a gardener with the vague intention of establishing his own business.   This was quickly abandoned at Eddie Hobbes suggestion in favour of a return to the financial services sector.  There followed it was hinted a somewhat half-hearted attempt to find employment, which was quickly abandoned in favour of dependency on social welfare and a plan to move to Sligo to be near family and to live more cheaply.  Eddie Hobbes left the couple with the husband in a new job in Sligo working as a mortgage advisor – “in between self employed and an employee” (Hobbes challenged that one quickly) on €2,000 per month net - again insufficient for their needs.  Eddies Hobbes seemed to have some doubt as to their ability to manage on this amount.

The husband struck me as unfocused and either unaware of his responsibilities towards his family or unwilling to take them up. 

What the programme also demonstrated was the disincentive that existed for the husband (and others in a similar situation) to enter paid employment as opposed to reliance on social welfare. 

The programme was of interest, less for any personal finances lessons that could be drawn, than as a salutary warning of the need to avoid creating employment disincentives – in this case a clearly over generous and too easily accessible social welfare system.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Jan 2006)

Mr Toad said:
			
		

> What the programme also demonstrated was the disincentive that existed for the husband (and others in a similar situation) to enter paid employment as opposed to reliance on social welfare.
> 
> The programme was of interest, less for any personal finances lessons that could be drawn, than as a salutary warning of the need to avoid creating employment disincentives – in this case a clearly over generous and too easily accessible social welfare system.


Did they explicitly list the welfare benefits that they were collecting? I presume that he was on _UA _and not _UB _(since, being self employed in the recent past, he presumably did not qualify for this _PRSI _linked benefit)? Maybe it's a good idea that they're talking about interviewing those on _UA/UB_ every month or so - rather than every 6 months or less - to check on their progress in seeking employment?


----------



## kazbah (16 Jan 2006)

It just said they were getting "the dole" of I think €230 pw and Rent Allowance of €260 pw.  Those figures may not be 100% accurate but they were getting circa €500 a week.  That is equivalent to €26,000 net per year.  Which is to me far to generous.  How can we talk about incentive to work with that kind of money being bandied about.  

I too was surprised that Natalie was not recommended to make some effort to contribute financially to the household.  Either by working part-time at evenings or weekends or taking some paid work into the home eg childminding.  

I also passed comment on their homes.  If I owed that kind of money I would be savings anywhere I could.


----------



## rpmacmurphy (16 Jan 2006)

Two things I found a bit strange with this couple;
1) They lived in a very modern apt, paying I think €1300 a month!, surely they could of found a cheaper place than that, they also had some very nice furniture in particular the leather sofa and the car was decent enough but yet they were in a position where buying bread and milk was a worry! I guess the loans all paid for the apt etc.
2) Am i right in saying he worked for a bank for 4 years and was earning €24K? What was he doing in there? my friend started in a bank a few years ago and although he started off on very low wages he now he earns 35K+

I felt so sorry for the kids, it looked like they want it all but didnt put the effort in to pay for it all


----------



## fobs (16 Jan 2006)

I watched this program and thought that Eddie could have gibrn them more definate advice or else have came back a little later on to check exactly what had happened to them.
I don't agree that the social welfare was too generous as 250 a week with 2 small kids just about pays the bills and the rest was for the rent allowance. I think they were a couple who didn't want to rely on welfare and he was donig his best to help the family. He seemed pretty responsible to me for his age. I thought they could have been advised to do the following:
1. Find cheaper accomadation but still nice.
2. Wife to contribute financially in some way i.e. try childminding,work part-time, work from home as not many young couples with their level of debt can survive on one income confortably.

I thought the program showed a fairly typical couple with fairly typical problems. Many people earning under 35,000 find it very hard to survive especially with 2 children. He needed the car for work so this couldn't go and other than them being able to get some form of affordable housing couldn't see any other solutions other than he getting a higher paid job (maybe get further qualifications at night?) or the wife contributing something on a part-time basis as minding kids is a fairly full-time job at their ages!


----------



## Capaill (16 Jan 2006)

regarding the quality of their home and the furniture in it, remember that a lot of apartments etc. come furnished so the furniture may not have been theirs in the first place. 

I did think it was somewhat reckless to give up a paying job in the faint hope of settin gup his own business without any forethought into (a) the impact of leaving the job and (b) what is requried to run his own business.

Just a thought

C


----------



## rpmacmurphy (16 Jan 2006)

Capaill said:
			
		

> regarding the quality of their home and the furniture in it, remember that a lot of apartments etc. come furnished so the furniture may not have been theirs in the first place.
> 
> C


 
They brought the furniture with them to Sligo


----------



## kazbah (16 Jan 2006)

Capaill said:
			
		

> I did think it was somewhat reckless to give up a paying job in the faint hope of setting up his own business without any forethought into (a) the impact of leaving the job and (b) what is requried to run his own business.


 
I agree - plus it would have been nice to see him try something else before signing straight on the dole.  He applied for a few financial jobs and that was it.

It sounds like they are trying to live a fairytale life without a grounding in reality.


----------



## wexford (16 Jan 2006)

did anyone notice how their attitude change once they had moved to sligo and he had a job? In bray, they were very eager for help, and praising the 'tracking system', but once a job was found, it was quite clear that they did not want to disclose earnings or discuss their finances at all...


----------



## DoctorEvil (16 Jan 2006)

wexford said:
			
		

> did anyone notice how their attitude change once they had moved to sligo and he had a job? In bray, they were very eager for help, and praising the 'tracking system', but once a job was found, it was quite clear that they did not want to disclose earnings or discuss their finances at all...



But sure they didn't need help anymore as he had gotten a job as a "Financial Advisor" and so therefore knows it all now!


----------



## Chamar (16 Jan 2006)

I saw this too - felt really sorry for them. They seemed nice but completely clueless. Cutting back & her finding evening work was the best solution I think. EH seemed to expect the guy to earn €50k pa which was very unrealistic.


----------



## kazbah (16 Jan 2006)

Chamar said:
			
		

> EH seemed to expect the guy to earn €50k pa which was very unrealistic.


 
Totally - I mean if it was that easy everyone would be on that money.


----------



## Thrifty (16 Jan 2006)

In some ways i think this program may be more educational to some. Eddie Hobbs in my opinion has always made it seem too easy to get a remortgage or a consolidated loan from the credit union to solve all problems. I felt at times he was sending out the wrong message. This program shows how easy it can be to get into the poverty trap with no quick and easy solution to get out and also as Fob points out the average industrial wage is a struggle for a family to live on in modern day Ireland given the cost of housing and our utilities.


----------



## Chamar (16 Jan 2006)

Very true. I think also he should focus more on the self-imposed cost of living of many people. Last night the couple had a car loan I think. Why not sell the car and buy a clunker? Also, in Rip off Ire. things like lattes/lunches/liquor really add up.


----------



## PMU (16 Jan 2006)

I agree. Hobbs’ ‘solution’ in all cases is to re-finance your debt so you can continue to ignore your personal responsibility for how you got into debt in the first place.  Has anyone seen the BBC programme ‘*Pay Off Your Mortgage in 2 Years’ o*n BBC2 on Thursday nights,* presented by *René Carayol http://www.carayol.com?  This is a far better programme where the presenter forces the participants to face up to their moral responsibility for their debts and then forces them to work / change lifestyles etc. to eliminate debt. Eddie’s ‘do a deal and sit back’ just isn’t into the same league.


----------



## ClubMan (16 Jan 2006)

PMU said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen the BBC programme ‘*Pay Off Your Mortgage in 2 Years’ o*n BBC2 on Thursday nights,* presented by *René Carayol http://www.carayol.com?



See this thread.


----------



## SarahMc (16 Jan 2006)

I thought Eddie Hobbs could have advised the couple of the incentives to work, they would qualify for Family Income Supplement (the most under claimed benefit afaik), they could also apply for Afordable Housing or Shared Ownership, bringing their housing costs right down.  I also think that although her decision to stay at home should be respected, she could have been advised to start childminding, 10K tax free!


----------



## mo3art (16 Jan 2006)

It struck me that there were other issues at play here and my heart went out to such a young couple struggling so much.  Mr Mo commented that he felt she (young mum) seemed to be suffering from PND of some sort and this could be part of the reason that she didn't take in other children to care for etc.
In saying all of that, the half hour program isn't long enough to tackle even half of the issues in the episode.........


----------



## oll (17 Jan 2006)

just a quick one............on show with money problems (not able to sort his own money out) and gets a job giving advice about money to other people.Would you be a bit nervous about this????


----------



## kazbah (17 Jan 2006)

oll said:
			
		

> just a quick one............on show with money problems (not able to sort his own money out) and gets a job giving advice about money to other people.Would you be a bit nervous about this????


 
It's ironic alright.



> I also think that although her decision to stay at home should be respected,


 
There still would be no need for external childcare for the children if she worked evenings/weekends while he looked after the kids.


----------



## Covenant (17 Jan 2006)

Read a TV critic in the Sunday Times having a real go at the participants in the series, describing them as complete idiots the type that would leave a cigarette burning and burn down the house. It was very insulting towards people trying to make ends meet. The finance on SMTM isn't rocket science but its attraction is the story of the people I think, how they have behaved badly in the past, how they react to the revelation of just what circumstances they are in and how they fight to replace old habits with new. Its an age old story. I still find SMTM a good watch and its still pulling large audiences for RTE, the highest factual programme I think.

There's a lot that could be done to sharpen up the programme but some of the more extreme criticism sounds a lot like prentiuos snobbery to me about working classes.


----------



## kazbah (17 Jan 2006)

I enjoy the show but I think I could almost host it myself at this stage the advice is usually so monotonous.

CONSOLIDATE YOUE DEBT!


----------



## TarfHead (17 Jan 2006)

Covenant said:
			
		

> .. but its attraction is the story of the people I think, how they have behaved badly in the past, how they react to the revelation of just what circumstances they are in ..


 
Financial makeover programs are to today what domestic living makeovers were to 3 years ago. Is Eddie Hobbs the new Carol Smilie or the new Handy Andy   ?

My wife was telling me about a program she saw on UK TV yesterday. Something along the lines of bring in 'pretend bailiffs' to someone with debt and seeing how much disposal of their assets would yield.

The guy featured yesterday had over £100,000 of credit card debt on lifestyle spending (why would someone need 2 iPods ?) and was defensive about how things had got so far out of control. As far as I could gather, the mock disposal of his assets yielded pocket change, probably less than next month's credit card minimum payment, or interest !


----------



## Covenant (17 Jan 2006)

Hi Kazbah,

See I think SMTM is not a money program but a human behaviour program. The thing that gets peoples attention is how those on the program manage and not the financial side of it which as you point out is often extremely simple. But if simplicity is always the solution try to explain why hundreds of thousands of Irish people can't repay their debt - only 50% of credit cards are cleared each month and debt is rapidly rising. Are they all idiots as painted on the Sunday Times, irresponsible, ignorant, low intelligence, not the type to go on-line and chit chat with the highly informed on AAM as we like to think of ourselves?


----------



## kazbah (18 Jan 2006)

I think a lot of them are living in the ignornace is bliss camp.  They are aware that they are in debt but in denial.  They don't want so sit down and see it all totalled up in black and white.  Head in the sand syndrome


----------



## Janet (18 Jan 2006)

kazbah said:
			
		

> I think a lot of them are living in the ignornace is bliss camp.



True.  I lived there for a few years myself.  Even convinced myself (despite working in the software industry at the time and knowing there was no chance of it happening) that the millennium bug would wipe out my credit card debt.  It's amazing what your mind can do


----------



## Thrifty (18 Jan 2006)

i think in some cases its not so much ignorance is bliss - it's more that some people are just too scared to face up to the enormity of their debt. they can't bear to open the bills, let alone sit down and work out how they can be repaid. For them they are just looking at the outstanding figure and see no light at the end of the tunnel. Thats why a program which could show somebody dealing with debt by working out what they need to live on, how much they can afford to pay, contacting and talking to their creditors would help and encourage others to deal with their own debt.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2006)

These threads have identified a couple of pertinent things about these programmes: (a) taking a sober educational approach to dealing with the financial problems of the subjects might not be entertaining enough to draw in the viewers and (b) it's better from an entertainment point of view to take a bit of a "let's laugh at the freaks" approach. That's showbiz folks...!


----------



## tiger (18 Jan 2006)

Ah yes, lucky for all us AAM folks who have our act together.  I wonder what's the financial equivalent of "smug married"


----------



## fobs (18 Jan 2006)

I would say that the fact people log onto AAm doesn't preclude them from making mistakes about money as otherwise there wouldn't be so many queries relating to the exact type of circumstances seen in these programs. 
I wouldn't call the participants eejits just because they havn't all their money problems sorted out. Often people need the insight from a person who isn't emotionally attached to the situation to come in and offer solutions. It is great that people are willing to participate as it may give hope to other in the same situation whichhas to be good. 

Just wish they would go into more detail along the lines of the Alvin Hall or the Spendaholics programs that the BBC do so well.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> Ah yes, lucky for all us AAM folks who have our act together.  I wonder what's the financial equivalent of "smug married"


 The number of people who post here with serious debt problems should disabuse you of the idea that everybody here is in a cushy financial situation. And I'm sure that others who do have their finances under control have learned lessons from previous mistakes and financial problems.


----------



## tiger (18 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> The number of people who post here with serious debt problems should disabuse you of the idea that everybody here is in a cushy financial situation. And I'm sure that others who do have their finances under control have learned lessons from previous mistakes and financial problems.


 
True, but none the less I have been surprised with some of the disapproving comments so far:

_I also think they had a lot of debt but still seemed to rent very nice places _(*Tiger:* it was new, and out in co. Wicklow somewhere)

_The husband struck me as unfocused and either unaware of his responsibilities towards his family or unwilling to take them up_

_I too was surprised that Natalie was not recommended to make some effort to contribute financially to the household. _(*Tiger:*with no qualifications or experience & 2 young kids to be looked after?)

_it looked like they want it all but didnt put the effort in to pay for it all_

_It sounds like they are trying to live a fairytale life without a grounding in reality._

_Why not sell the car and buy a clunker? _(*Tiger:*The car appeared to be a 99 reg)

(Edited to better highlight my comments to quotes above)


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2006)

Seems to me that some of those comments are reasonable enough and contain some prudent suggestions/observations.


----------



## kazbah (18 Jan 2006)

Did we know that she had no qualifications/experience?
Anyway I don't think that would stand in her way for working a couple of evenings a week in a bar/shop or working from the home eg childminding, ironing.....


----------



## Sarah W (18 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Seems to me that some of those comments are reasonable enough and contain some prudent suggestions/observations.



Yes, yes, yes. But did you think my hair looked good? 

Sarah


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2006)

Did I miss your 15 minutes of fame?


----------



## tiger (18 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Seems to me that some of those comments are reasonable enough and contain some prudent suggestions/observations.


 
Fair enough, we're clearly of different opinions then.



			
				kazbah said:
			
		

> Did we know that she had no qualifications/experience?


No. She was in her early/mid twenties and was looking after two kids, before that according to Eddie she had worked in a no. of different European countries. (Eddie didn't say doing what, I would guess something along the lines of au pairing). If she was to start working now, I would think it would be for something close to the minimum wage.


----------



## mo3art (18 Jan 2006)

You did Clubman, she was with the group interviewing the young man!  Sarah your hair looked fab


----------



## kazbah (18 Jan 2006)

You confused me by saying:



> (with no qualifications or experience & 2 young kids to be looked after?)


 
Every little helps as they say.  It's not all his responsibility.  She seemed to have no role to play in turning their finances around.

Families with children can save a fortune by even shopping in Lidl/Aldi or buying own brand products.  Especially things like nappies.  It would have been nice to see mention of this kind of thing.


----------



## Sarah W (18 Jan 2006)

mo3art said:
			
		

> You did Clubman, she was with the group interviewing the young man!  Sarah your hair looked fab



Ah, shucks, thanks.

*blushing*

Clubman - it was more like 1.5 seconds!!!


----------



## fobs (18 Jan 2006)

I taught of you Sarah when I saw REA on the programme and mentioned it to my husband who thouht I was mad!!!! A little bit of cheap advertising?
Why didn't ye give him a job ;-)


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> Fair enough, we're clearly of different opinions then.


 What precisely do you think is disapproving or smug about those comments?


----------



## tiger (18 Jan 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> What precisely do you think is disapproving or smug about those comments?


Ok, I'll try to spell it out:

_I also think they had a lot of debt but still seemed to rent very nice places _(*Tiger: *disapproving.  They should be living in a lower standard accomodation, I'm not sure what standard of accomodation you'd get in South Dublin for a family for less than €1300)

_The husband struck me as unfocused and either unaware of his responsibilities towards his family or unwilling to take them up_
(*Tiger: *disapproving & condescending.  I would argue there was very little basis for making this sweeping statement.  He had made a bad decision by trying to go into business for himself, but I didn't see any thing wrong with his motives.  It's not like he wanted to go off to Australia for a year)

_I too was surprised that Natalie was not recommended to make some effort to contribute financially to the household. _(*Tiger:*with no qualifications or experience & 2 young kids to be looked after?  (*added*) I think this comment is fair enough, but the underlying assumption is that a young family, not living an extravagant lifestyle, can no longer survive on just one income)

_it looked like they want it all but didnt put the effort in to pay for it all_
(*Tiger: *disapproving.  I didn't see 4 holidays or any major lifestyle spending happening here?)

_It sounds like they are trying to live a fairytale life without a grounding in reality._
*(Tiger: *disapproving.  I think they knew what their problems were, and the only solution offered was "earn more money".  Easier said than done for some.  And it was hardly a fairytale life.

_Why not sell the car and buy a clunker? _(*Tiger:*The car appeared to be a 99 reg, (added) again disapproving.  They had one family size car 6-7 years old)

Yes they were living beyond their means which obviously they cannot continue to do.  But in my view their circumstances were more due to how expensive Ireland has become, especially for those starting out, rather than extravagant lifestyle spending.  This aspect doesn't appear to have generated any debate.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> _I also think they had a lot of debt but still seemed to rent very nice places _(*Tiger: *disapproving.  They should be living in a lower standard accomodation, I'm not sure what standard of accomodation you'd get in South Dublin for a family for less than €1300)



I see this simply as an observation and one that I assume is true although I did not see the programme. To call it disapproving involves a value judgement not necessarily or obviously supported by the phraseology.



> _The husband struck me as unfocused and either unaware of his responsibilities towards his family or unwilling to take them up_
> (*Tiger: *disapproving & condescending.  I would argue there was very little basis for making this sweeping statement.  He had made a bad decision by trying to go into business for himself, but I didn't see any thing wrong with his motives.  It's not like he wanted to go off to Australia for a year)


 I read this as a personal opinion. I don't read it as necessarily or obviously disapproving (the writer may well agree with people being unfocused or neglecting their responsibilities for all we know from what's written) or condescending.


> _I too was surprised that Natalie was not recommended to make some effort to contribute financially to the household. _(*Tiger:*with no qualifications or experience & 2 young kids to be looked after?  (*added*) I think this comment is fair enough, but the underlying assumption is that a young family, not living an extravagant lifestyle, can no longer survive on just one income)


 How is the assumption that this may be the case smug or disapproving?


> _it looked like they want it all but didnt put the effort in to pay for it all_
> (*Tiger: *disapproving.  I didn't see 4 holidays or any major lifestyle spending happening here?)


 Again a personal opinion and the writer doesn't express any disapproval of the alleged approach/attitude.


> _It sounds like they are trying to live a fairytale life without a grounding in reality._
> *(Tiger: *disapproving.  I think they knew what their problems were, and the only solution offered was "earn more money".  Easier said than done for some.  And it was hardly a fairytale life.


 Again the writer does not express any disapproval here.


> _Why not sell the car and buy a clunker? _(*Tiger:*The car appeared to be a 99 reg, (added) again disapproving.  They had one family size car 6-7 years old)



I don't see how you can disagree with this as a generally prudent piece of advice. Many people who can ill afford to drive big expensive cars often plunging them into debt for the purchase and other costs associated with it. If it was inaccurate in the context of this specific case (i.e. if they were already driving a "clunker") then it's fair enough to object on that point but not in terms of it being smug or disapproving.


> Yes they were living beyond their means which obviously they cannot continue to do.  But in my view their circumstances were more due to how expensive Ireland has become, especially for those starting out, rather than extravagant lifestyle spending.  This aspect doesn't appear to have generated any debate.


But the programme is primarily about dealing with the financial problems/challenges facing particular individuals/families and is not a rehash of Rip-Off Republic. Whether or not prices have increased we all have to live within our means or face the consequences of not doing so. Just because prices may have increased (but note that inflation is at relatively low levels for the past good few years) doesn't give people an excuse to blow the budget and live off credit and damn the consequences. I am not saying that this couple necessarily took this approach because I did not see the programme. I am just making a general point.


----------



## tiger (19 Jan 2006)

Clubman, what I'm talking about is opinion, not fact:

*dis·ap·prov·ing:*

1. To have an unfavorable opinion of; condemn. 

Anyway, since you haven't seen the program in question, I'm not going to continue this any further. I'll let you have the last word


----------



## kazbah (19 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> Clubman, what I'm talking about is opinion, not fact:
> 
> *dis·ap·prov·ing:*
> 
> ...


 
Wow now that's condesending!

I stand my opinions which were included in your collection above.


----------



## tiger (19 Jan 2006)

kazbah said:
			
		

> Wow now that's condesending!


 
You're right, apologies Clubman, didn't mean to personalise the debate.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2006)

Actually I thought it was smug not condescending. 

But seriously - I don't see how any of the comments above betray an unfavourable opinion of the subjects of the programme to be honest.


----------



## Chamar (19 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> _Why not sell the car and buy a clunker? _(*Tiger:*The car appeared to be a 99 reg, (added) again disapproving.  They had one family size car 6-7 years old)




Sorry, this was meant to express disapproval at EH's advice (or lack thereof) - not the people in question.


----------



## Covenant (19 Jan 2006)

God I think some of us are being judgemental and somewhat unchristian. Consider trying to bring up a family on 24 grand or £18,700 Ir Punts especially after the hike in costs that we've all felt over the past number of years and now consider you're 24 no qualifications and a wife and two kids to look after.

Sure she could get a job but what about creche costs (14k two kids) and another car? And anyway she wants to look after her children. As for the sell the car and buy a clunker I mean lets get real - how much would you free up and what about extra maintenance on an older car like 1994? Surely the only way forward was to get a job with the possibility of earning over 40k which was the figure mentioned. 

Maybe they'll emigrate is more likely if things don't work out, now there's an awful thought. This episode told us more about the struggle facing many low paid workers than any episode of Rip Off republic I thought but its hardly got a mention in this debate. That seems telling.


----------



## brodiebabe (19 Jan 2006)

Covenant said:
			
		

> Sure she could get a job but what about creche costs (14k two kids) and another car? And anyway she wants to look after her children. .


 
The husband worked a 9-5 job, why could the wife not work evenings or weekends in a shop/pub?

Eddie didn't seem to give them any basic assistance like how to make a meal for the family on a few quid i.e. a stew or casserole.  Personally, I thought they were pretty clueless with money so tips like this could have really helped them.  "Look after the pennies......"


----------



## boost (19 Jan 2006)

what i found very funny about it all was yer man getting a job as a financial advisor in the end!!!! Maybe landscaping would be more suitable given his past performance with financoal matters!!!


----------



## Covenant (19 Jan 2006)

That's what I mean Boost. Funny but not clever especially when you can't evidently spell the posh word for money yourself!!!


----------



## boost (19 Jan 2006)

just a flip of the singer


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2006)

Covenant said:
			
		

> God I think some of us are being judgemental and somewhat unchristian.


 Not sure about judgemental but I am certainly unchristian given that I am not a _Christian_. 


> Sure she could get a job but what about creche costs (14k two kids) and another car?


 Some people pointed out that it could be possible for her to get work at times that her husband was available to mind the kids. No harm in making constructive suggestions of that sort especially if economising is not sufficient to make ends meet and increasing the family's income is part of a two pronged solution. I didn't see the programme so am not sure if/why she would necessarily need her own car especially if she could use the existing one when the husband was at home minding the kids. Nobody is saying that this is the only solution or that the family should do this but it is an option.


> Maybe they'll emigrate is more likely if things don't work out, now there's an awful thought.


 Did they mention that possibility in the programme?


> This episode told us more about the struggle facing many low paid workers than any episode of Rip Off republic I thought but its hardly got a mention in this debate. That seems telling.


 If you review some of the many other threads on the whole "rip-off Ireland" issue you will see that many people (myself included) don't buy into that as an excuse for most or all of the problems relating to high prices and financial problems.


----------



## Chamar (19 Jan 2006)

Covenant said:
			
		

> As for the sell the car and buy a clunker I mean lets get real - how much would you free up and what about extra maintenance on an older car like 1994?



I don't know if they had a new car or an old one but I thought they had an outstanding car loan of 7k? So presumably they could sell what they had for 4-5k and buy a "banger" for 500 euros - bearing in mind you can get cars that will run okay for that kind of money - thereby reducing their debt and increasing their monthly disposable income. It's not about being harsh - I felt for them in a tough spot (very tough when you consider at times they couldn't afford bread & milk) - but about giving them good impartial financial advice.


----------



## tiger (19 Jan 2006)

I think the debate has split into a few related threads:

1. The financial situation of the couple & suggestions to fix it, both from the show & ones that weren't mentioned that might have been.  (This has also lead on to a discussion of education vs. entertainment of the show).

2. The extent to which the couple were to blame for their prediciment, vs. has Ireland become too expensive for young families.

3. Depending on you view on (2), some of the comments on (1) are un-christian, disapproving or smug.

4. (2) also risks degenerating into a "rip off republic" debate, which has been argued else where.

5.  & Sarah's hair, which was fabulous


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> Sarah's hair, which was fabulous


I've trawled the [broken link removed] extensively, but to no avail. I presume said _coiffure_ has been recorded for posterity?


----------



## Kiddo (19 Jan 2006)

brodiebabe said:
			
		

> Eddie didn't seem to give them any basic assistance like how to make a meal for the family on a few quid i.e. a stew or casserole. Personally, I thought they were pretty clueless with money so tips like this could have really helped them. "Look after the pennies......"


 
Its a financial programme not a cookery one...though maybe Eddie will rise the challange. He could call it  "Show me the Bacon" ?


----------



## Bonafide (20 Jan 2006)

It’s a shame that they did not realise the general cost of things before they decided to have a two-child family. They just did what was the norm 30 years ago. It underlines the fact that we need to introduce personal finance and budgeting as a compulsory part of the mathematics leaving certificate curriculum. Most kids leave school now with no idea of how to handle their income when they join the workforce. As a result problems just get compounded like in the case of this young family. Sure they made some poor decisions, but the obviously didn’t realise fully the implications that these decisions were going to have.


----------



## tiger (20 Jan 2006)

Bonafide said:
			
		

> It’s a shame that they did not realise the general cost of things before they decided to have a two-child family. They just did what was the norm 30 years ago.  It underlines the fact that we need to introduce personal finance and budgeting as a compulsory part of the mathematics leaving certificate curriculum.


 
For me that was one of the key issues of the show.  Has Ireland become a place where a young couple can't think about starting a family until they are financially on their feet (earning €40K+), possibly with both partners working, or were the couple in question just bad with money?

It looks like contraception as well as finance needs to be part of the curriculum


----------



## Bonafide (20 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> Has Ireland become a place where a young couple can't think about starting a family until they are financially on their feet (earning €40K+), possibly with both partners working, or were the couple in question just bad with money?


 
I think that unfortunately Ireland has become that kind of place. If a young couple get their family planning wrong and end up with children at a young age the kind of salary a young person can earn (outside of the construction sector) just isn't enough to get by with. Is it any wonder that so many similar young people in that situation don't get married and the mother just puts her name down on the public housing list.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Jan 2006)

All of my siblings have several kids, single parent working (not in any professional/high powered/paid jobs), own their own homes (bar one who rents) and cars and seem to have comfortable enough lifestyles. I don't think that it's necessarily the case that _Ireland _is unaffordable for families.


----------



## Humpback (20 Jan 2006)

tiger said:
			
		

> Has Ireland become a place where a young couple can't think about starting a family until they are financially on their feet (earning €40K+), possibly with both partners working,


 
This just makes me mad. Why is it that the activity of having children should raise such a comment? 

Myself and my partner can't get married and have our ideal honeymoon of a round the world holiday for 3 months until we're financially on our feet either.

But you don't hear us complaining and looking for handouts from the government (childcare costs!!!) in order to help us go on do the things that we want to do???

Having children shouldn't be any different. If you can't afford it, don't do it.


----------



## tiger (20 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> This just makes me mad. Why is it that the activity of having children should raise such a comment?


 
Sorry, probably not explaining myself well.  I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be financially responsible, my question is has the bar become too high?


----------



## TarfHead (20 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> .. If you can't afford it, don't do it.


 
In our case, we reduced our spend to be able to afford it. When we were both working and looking to step up from apartment to house, we could have got a bigger (nicer ?) house with a huge mortgage and deferred starting a family for a couple of years. Instead we bought our house based on a mortgage that one salary could support and, 2 kids later, are smug about that approach.

People have choices to make - you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Bonafide (20 Jan 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> This just makes me mad. Why is it that the activity of having children should raise such a comment?
> 
> Myself and my partner can't get married and have our ideal honeymoon of a round the world holiday for 3 months until we're financially on our feet either.
> 
> ...


 
You can't really compare a having a child to an ideal honeymoon of a round the world holiday for 3 months. What if the child was unexpected? Why aren't children entitled to recognition by the state (or handouts from the government (childcare costs!!!) as stated above). The average worker will work and contribute to the state from when they are roughly twenty until they are roughly sixty-five. They will benefit from the state before and after that period. Seems like a fair trade off.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Jan 2006)

Bonafide said:
			
		

> Why aren't children entitled to recognition by the state (or handouts from the government (childcare costs!!!) as stated above).


They are -  including the new €1K p.a. for the under 6's, the [broken link removed] where applicable, , etc.


----------



## Bonafide (20 Jan 2006)

I am aware of that Clubman, I was merely arguing the point and asking ronan_d_john why shouldn't children be entitled based on the following quote from post #66

"But you don't hear us complaining and looking for handouts from the government (childcare costs!!!)"

Sorry if this was not clear.


----------

