# nobody wants to do physical jobs today



## joe sod (11 Aug 2018)

It is harder and harder to get people to do physically demanding jobs today especially as the economy has improved. This may also partly explain the difficulty in getting houses built even though these jobs are reasonably well paid now. It is also a big issue in the agriculture and horticulture industries although these industries cannot pay high wages. At the same time we have an obesity problem with people eating too much and not doing enough physical tasks.

Then on another point over 50% of irish population is on welfare of some sort and this ratio is increasing all the time. I think we are reaching a tipping point where people are choosing not to work or not to work full time and to fall back on the welfare system. There are less and less people prepared to work full time to finance all this. So we have people on welfare and on the housing list and these people refuse to take up jobs to build those very houses. Somethings gotta change


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2018)

The unemployment rate has fallen from 16% to 5%, according to official figures. The notion that there are less and less people prepared to work is pure fiction.


----------



## Vanessa (11 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The unemployment rate has fallen from 16% to 5%, according to official figures. The notion that there are less and less people prepared to work is pure fiction.


Yes but there are a certain amount of people who either are not willing to work or alternatively for various reasons are unemployable. This could be because they are of ill health, general dossers, criminals etc.
Those of different levels of ill health might be able to do part time if able. I am familiar with a few cases where people suffering from depression were able to do 15/20 hours a week but it would be too much to put heavy demands on them. It is unrealistic to expect any employer to take on criminals ezpecially those with convictions for theft or violence


----------



## joe sod (11 Aug 2018)

Vanessa said:


> Yes but there are a certain amount of people who either are not willing to work or alternatively for various reasons are unemployable. This could be because they are of ill health, general dossers, criminals etc.
> Those of different levels of ill health might be able to do part time if able. I am familiar with a few cases where people suffering from depression were able to do 15/20 hours a week but it would be too much to put heavy demands on them. It is unrealistic to expect any employer to take on criminals ezpecially those with convictions for theft or violence



even if you are only working a few hours a week you are classed as employed and not included in the statistic for unemployed even though you are not paying tax and still dependant on the welfare system. That is why the unemployment rate is now a virtually useless statistic and has been manipulated lower than the reality. Therefore looking at the number of people actually receiving welfare gives the real picture of what is happening. Effectively the bar to receive welfare has been lowered , there is no problem filling non manual low paid jobs, but fewer and fewer people are willing to do the tougher physical jobs even for higher wages. And those physical jobs wont be replaced by automation because they are too difficult to automate so people will still have to do this work. Back in the early 2000s we got the east europeans to fill this gap and they did this work but that has dried up.


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2018)

Vanessa said:


> Yes but there are a certain amount of people who either are not willing to work or alternatively for various reasons are unemployable. This could be because they are of ill health, general dossers, criminals etc.



True, but that changes the narrative of the OP which claims that there are less and less people prepared to work, instead, fall back on the welfare system. This is a bogus assertion. 
While alot of people are in paid employment that pays inadequate wages to sustain a reasonable living standards in this country thus are reliant on welfare to keep a roof over their heads, that is different from the assertion that more people are opting not to work or choosing the welfare system over work. 
This is simply bogus. The reliance on welfare is a consequence of wages not being able to sustain and advance living standards.


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Aug 2018)

joe sod said:


> even if you are only working a few hours a week you are classed as employed and not included in the statistic for unemployed even though you are not paying tax and still dependant on the welfare system. That is why the unemployment rate is now a virtually useless statistic and has been manipulated lower than the reality.



If the unemployment rate is a useless statistic, can you provide the statistic that you are basing your assertions on?


----------



## joe sod (12 Aug 2018)

https://www.finfacts-blog.com/2018/06/irish-broad-rate-of-unemployment-at-17.html

its here , alot of other interesting facts here aswell.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Aug 2018)

I think it's a mistake to link physical jobs, obesity and unemployment...

I agree with you with the poverty traps the welfare state produces but for example getting in a car and commuting for an hour to an office job isn't ideal from an obesity perspective either.


----------



## TheBigShort (13 Aug 2018)

joe sod said:


> https://www.finfacts-blog.com/2018/06/irish-broad-rate-of-unemployment-at-17.html
> 
> its here , alot of other interesting facts here aswell.



Thanks, but where in all of that does it show that it is harder and harder to get people to do physically demanding jobs? 
If Im reading your data correctly, there are 119,000 people actively seeking additional hours of work?


----------



## Leper (13 Aug 2018)

As a person who laboured on building sites in the UK back in the day, Labourers were never paid enough and were always seen as lesser beings and paid accordingly. There is very little to be said in favour of hard servile work, digging foundations, mixing cement, dragging building bricks, hauling sand, lifting scaffold items, being covered head-to-toe with dried  mortar. Try it sometime, then put yourself in a Labourer's position not just all day or all week, but all year every year. Believe me, you'll be glad to pay a Labourer.

The only thing I can say in favour of labouring is you have the earliest suntan, the earliest funeral and years of pain.


----------



## Easeler (13 Aug 2018)

Time and money. the older I am getting the higher price I am putting on my time. I watched a documentary one evening about minemumlisim and it made perfect sence to me. I don't live like a monk just don't buy stuff that I don't need, clutter free living. Easy living still enjoy a few pints in local maybe 4 instead of 14


----------



## Purple (13 Aug 2018)

Leper said:


> As a person who laboured on building sites in the UK back in the day, Labourers were never paid enough and were always seen as lesser beings and paid accordingly. There is very little to be said in favour of hard servile work, digging foundations, mixing cement, dragging building bricks, hauling sand, lifting scaffold items, being covered head-to-toe with dried  mortar. Try it sometime, then put yourself in a Labourer's position not just all day or all week, but all year every year. Believe me, you'll be glad to pay a Labourer.
> 
> The only thing I can say in favour of labouring is you have the earliest suntan, the earliest funeral and years of pain.



There are many people who work as labourers when they are young and then acquire skills and make their time more valuable.
If you are working as a labourer for 10 or 15 years then it is your fault that you are not more highly paid. Higher skill = higher pay. If you want more pay then get more skills.
The Dole is €5.50 an hour. Many people don't want to work for an extra €4.45 an hour. Another issue is that some people are so unskilled that they are not worth a wage of €9.55 so they are effectively unemployable.


----------



## TarfHead (13 Aug 2018)

The original post reminded me of this article ..

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/whatever-happened-to-the-teenage-summer-job-1.3585707

Maybe it's another case of Millennial bashing, or whatever this generation are labelled as.


----------



## joe sod (13 Aug 2018)

TarfHead said:


> The original post reminded me of this article ..
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/whatever-happened-to-the-teenage-summer-job-1.3585707
> 
> Maybe it's another case of Millennial bashing, or whatever this generation are labelled as.



Thats an extension alright of what I was talking about, smart phones have ruined the young in that they dont want to do anything physical .Its actually more serious than that in terms of higher skills if you are dumb as to how the physical world works, you cant be a doctor an engineer, an architect. You dont discover new ways of working or new building techniques or actually any new ideas peering into a smart phone. Its like the phones are smart but the users are dumb.


----------



## Leper (14 Aug 2018)

Hands Up those who ever spent a full week digging a trench, foundations with a pick-axe and shovel. How many of us operated a pneumatic drill on a tarmacadam or concrete road over a few days? When was the last time you wheel-barrowed top-soil continuously into a skip over two or three days having loaded it with a shovel? When was the last time you saw a grave being dug using only a shovel?

Newsflash! Those days are gone and to those of us who did all of the above on a fulltime basis Good Riddance to such toil! There are health & safety regulations now and what was entirely manual labour is now done by machines operated by a person sitting at control levers/buttons. The machines cost. The manhood of Ireland has gone soft. We want our garden posts set in a metre of concrete, our gardens landscaped, our trenches dug by labourers for a cheap as we can find. They should be happy to work for almost nothing.  Sure, all they can do is dig and use a pick-axe. 

I am by no means soft, but our garden fence was blown down in one of our storms. I can inform you digging holes for wooden support posts is not easy and to be honest, I wouldn't expect anybody else to do ours. OK, what I did cost less than a quarter of quotes I had received. But, I was knackered. Try some hard labour and I bet you will come away with a different point-of-view.


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2018)

Leper said:


> Newsflash! Those days are gone and to those of us who did all of the above on a fulltime basis Good Riddance to such toil!
> 
> ...our trenches dug by labourers for a cheap as we can find. They should be happy to work for almost nothing. Sure, all they can do is dig and use a pick-axe.



So are those days gone or not?



Leper said:


> I can inform you digging holes for wooden support posts is not easy and to be honest, I wouldn't expect anybody else to do ours.



That's for sure, if I was doing it again I'd still do it myself, but I'd hire a post auger. You know, embrace progress and do as good a job in less time.

Back to the OP, it's harder to get people to do most jobs these days. It's taking us a lot longer to fill highly paid IT roles at the moment, the volumes of candidates is way down and for some roles, 50%+ of applicants are coming from abroad.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> Back to the OP, it's harder to get people to do most jobs these days. It's taking us a lot longer to fill highly paid IT roles at the moment, the volumes of candidates is way down and for some roles, 50%+ of applicants are coming from abroad.



Are highly paid IT roles physically demanding? Are those roles not being filled because prospective candidates are opting not to work but instead fall back on welfare? 

If not, then its hard to know what this comment has to do with the OP.


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> If not, then its hard to know what this comment has to do with the OP.



If you read the first sentence, there's a clue in there.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> If you read the first sentence, there's a clue in there.



I did. I understand your point, although I disagree. Unemployment rate has fallen from 16% to 5%. Indicating at least that if there is work available people will generally take it up.
Of course, and if, as asserted by another poster, the official unemployment rate is a useless statistic then the statistic that that poster provided shows that there are at least 119,000 actively seeking more hours to work.




Leo said:


> Back to the OP, it's harder to get people to do most jobs these days. It'



This is your opening sentence. You have broadened the terms, fair enough. So my questions to you apply.
Are highly paid IT roles not being filled because prospective candidates are opting not to work but instead falling back on welfare? Are highly paid IT roles physically demanding jobs?


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> This is opening sentence. You have broadened the terms, fair enough. So my questions to you apply.
> Are highly paid IT roles not being filled because prospective candidates are opting not to work but instead falling back on welfare? Are highly paid IT roles physically demanding jobs?



I doubt too many well educated people are choosing a social welfare lifestyle in place of an income double or more the industrial average. Perhaps some do for a time to game the housing system, it might make sense at the more junior level where even those on good incomes would struggle to rent or buy property in Dublin. I've seen nothing that would suggest this is happening to any great extent though.

My point was that my experience in the IT market suggests a significant element of the difficulty in filling roles at the moment is driven by a shortage of suitable candidates. With employment levels where they are currently, that can't be ruled out as a factor for physically demanding roles either.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> My point was that my experience in the IT market suggests a significant element of the difficulty in filling roles at the moment is driven by a shortage of suitable candidates. With employment levels where they are currently, that can't be ruled out as a factor for physically demanding roles either.



I agree. The inability to fill most jobs stems from the availability (or lack of) suitable candidates coupled with the terms and conditions on offer.
There is scant evidence that a option to fall back on welfare is the primary driver for not filling roles, physical or otherwise. The opposite is the reality. If (suitable) jobs and conditions are available, people will work them.


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> If (suitable) jobs and conditions are available, people will work them.



It could be argued that the fact there 5% of the workforce still unemployed (plus how many more on 'training scchemes' or very few hours) while there are open vacancies across the full spectrum of skills that there is an element who choose social welfare over gainful employment.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> It could be argued that the fact there 5% of the workforce still unemployed (plus how many more on 'training scchemes' or very few hours) while there are open vacancies across the full spectrum of skills that there is an element who choose social welfare over gainful employment.



Of course there may be 'an element' of that. But if the pay is fair, the conditions are suitable, generally the issue is that the employer cannot find a suitable candidate from those applying for the job rather than people not applying to get the job because welfare is preferential.


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> My point was that my experience in the IT market suggests a significant element of the difficulty in filling roles at the moment is driven by a shortage of suitable candidates.


.
I think the level of tax charged against higher earners also plays a part. A single person earning 100k per annum would pay 40k in income tax before then paying for expensive accommodation (another 25k ?). So for their 100k they are looking at a net after rent of approx 45k. Probably not worth it for many who have the choice I would imagine..


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> But if the pay is fair, the conditions are suitable



Some people's perception of fair and suitable don't quite tally with the reality of their skill set. And there's little doubt some people prefer the pay and conditions of lounging on their couch or the bar stool collecting social welfare than engaging in the workforce and working ~40 hours a week for little extra. Spend enough time in some quality inner city establishments and you'll meet some of them.


----------



## Purple (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Of course there may be 'an element' of that. But if the pay is fair, the conditions are suitable, generally the issue is that the employer cannot find a suitable candidate from those applying for the job rather than people not applying to get the job because welfare is preferential.


Labouring is labouring and packing shelves is packing shelves. There are some jobs that are just low skilled and low value add and so are low paid. Generally they are entry level jobs and as people acquire skills they get more pay. The employer may be unable to find a suitable candidate from those applying because many of those who would otherwise apply don't do so as they are as well off on welfare.


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> Some people's perception of fair and suitable don't quite tally with the reality of their skill set. And there's little doubt some people prefer the pay and conditions of lounging on their couch or the bar stool collecting social welfare than engaging in the workforce and working ~40 hours a week for little extra. Spend enough time in some quality inner city establishments and you'll meet some of them.



Massive generalisation there Leo, I'm surprised & shocked. Don't you know they are not actually in the pub drinking their welfare...they're in there _networking_ and actively trying to get work!


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> Some people's perception of fair and suitable don't quite tally with the reality of their skill set.



Thats true, but so what?



Leo said:


> And there's little doubt some people prefer the pay and conditions of lounging on their couch or the bar stool collecting social welfare than engaging in the workforce and working ~40 hours a week for little extra.



Is this the 'element' we agreed earlier?

If only these people would get up off their bar stools and go to work and take up the low-paid employment offers. Btw, is there a demand for these bar-stool welfare couch potatoes? Are you hiring?
Or is there a chance that, some do at least apply for jobs but they are not hired? What are we going to do with these employers who wont give some of these people jobs?


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Labouring is labouring and packing shelves is packing shelves



Is there a shortage of labourers? Is there a shortage of shelve packers?



Purple said:


> There are some jobs that are just low skilled and low value add and so are low paid. Generally they are entry level jobs and as people acquire skills they get more pay.



Yes.



Purple said:


> The employer may be unable to find a suitable candidate from those applying because many of those who would otherwise apply don't do so as they are as well off on welfare.



Or they have skillsets beyond what is being offered? Or in previous jobs they commanded a hourly rate of €x per hour, paid PRSI, USC etc...now they are being offered less, de-motivating. Or they apply but because they are in their 50's aren't as mobile as the young fellas who work faster and cheaper.
if they are as well off on welfare then employers need to start paying better wages.


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What are we going to do with these employers who wont give some of these people jobs?


What would you suggest?


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Aug 2018)

Firefly said:


> What would you suggest?



Im not sure, thats why I asked the question.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Or they have skillsets beyond what is being offered? Or in previous jobs they commanded a hourly rate of €x per hour, paid PRSI, USC etc...now they are being offered less, de-motivating. Or they apply but because they are in their 50's aren't as mobile as the young fellas who work faster and cheaper.
> if they are as well off on welfare then employers need to start paying better wages.



Sounds like we don't need welfare. If they could do just as well working.


----------



## Leper (15 Aug 2018)

Some very interesting posts here. Some stink of well, that's a hard labour job and you should be digging my support post holes for much less. It ain't my fault you're just a labourer. I'm doing you a favour taking you from your daily bar stool visits. Sure, aren't you drawing the dole also? But, they're my support holes - do you realize who I am?

People who do hard labour are getting less and less. Their life expectancy is not the norm. Many have died. (Don't believe hard work never killed anyone). It is only relatively recently that a daily time limit was put on people who use pneumatic drills. Protective clothing, protective headgear must be worn. Just imagine the condition of your blood after continuous pneumatic drill use. How many users went deaf or at least suffered hearing problems? I didn't even mention spine problems. Multiply these by people dragging cement bags, sand, blocks, scaffolding supports, and wet mortar through building sites many of which had no health and safety procedures.

You can't better a support post set properly in concrete. It will last almost forever. The support post items available in garden centres and builders providers have a life expectancy of perhaps five years. If you've got a labourer who does your labouring for you, pay him, mind him cherish him because pretty shortly he will be extinct.

Oh! . . . . and there are no white collar workers faking unemployment benefit and no white collar workers claiming Disability illegally? Or none of them slurping cheap wine in their kitchens out of sight? Of course not.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Or is there a chance that, some do at least apply for jobs but they are not hired?


 If people are not hired then there is a more suitable candidate for that job. The applicant need to set their sites at jobs which match their economic value and skill set. 



TheBigShort said:


> What are we going to do with these employers who wont give some of these people jobs?


 I'm not sure what you mean by that. In my case we hire unskilled people and train them up over a 3-5 year period. Of course they need 10 years plus of training and experience to get to the top of their "profession". For every 8 people we take on 5 are gone within a year. Sometimes it is because they are unsuitable (not smart enough, not really interested in working, only taking the job so that they can leave and keep claiming welfare, get a better offer elsewhere). We take on people of all ages (almost always male applicants though). We, like so many others, are actively seeking employees, both skilled an unskilled. Skilled staff are almost impossible to get (factory work, paying between €40k and €80 a year). If anyone wants a job they have a job. 



TheBigShort said:


> Is there a shortage of labourers? Is there a shortage of shelve packers?


 Yes, but primerally there is a shortage of skilled labour. In many businesses if there is a shortage of unskilled labour at economic prices the business automates the process, redesigns the process so that the requirement for unskilled labour is reduced or removed or the business goes bust. The socialist idea that in this country there are a bunch of fat cognac drinking, cigar smoking old men resting on their fortunes while exploiting the masses of the great unwashed is nonsense. It is a sellers market when it comes to labour.  



TheBigShort said:


> Or they have skillsets beyond what is being offered? Or in previous jobs they commanded a hourly rate of €x per hour, paid PRSI, USC etc...now they are being offered less, de-motivating. Or they apply but because they are in their 50's aren't as mobile as the young fellas who work faster and cheaper.


 Sure, all of that could be the case. 



TheBigShort said:


> if they are as well off on welfare then employers need to start paying better wages.


 So the economic value of labour, the value they add to the business, should not dictate the wage someone is paid? 



TheBigShort said:


> Im not sure, thats why I asked the question.


 Maybe think about it some more. You are very good at knocking other peoples views and suggestions but not so hot on being constructive. It's easy to just knock things all the time but things get better when people are constructive.


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

Firefly said:


> Massive generalisation there Leo, I'm surprised & shocked. Don't you know they are not actually in the pub drinking their welfare...they're in there _networking_ and actively trying to get work!



Funnily, I know of one case who 'invested' quite heavily in self-development. His 10 years sat in the boozer watching the racing finally paid off and he got a job in a bookies!


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> If only these people would get up off their bar stools and go to work and take up the low-paid employment offers. Btw, is there a demand for these bar-stool welfare couch potatoes? Are you hiring?



I am at the moment actually, but of course I won't hire anyone who has happily sat on a bar stool for an extended period where I would look favourably on someone who took on what might be perceived as manual or low skilled work as an alternative, I have hired such people in the past and by and large, given the right environment they excel. Someone who lacks the motivation to better themselves just won't do well here, so I'll save us all the extended probations and dismissal bureaucracy. 



TheBigShort said:


> Or is there a chance that, some do at least apply for jobs but they are not hired? What are we going to do with these employers who wont give some of these people jobs?



The employers aren't the problem. You can't force employers to take on poorly-motivated staff. It just won't work for either party and will just cost us all more in the longer term.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> You are very good at knocking other peoples views and suggestions but not so hot on being constructive. It's easy to just knock things all the time but things get better when people are constructive.



I would disagree with that. I'm being very constructive in dismantling the infantile stereotypical view that those who are unemployed are bar-stool couch potatoes, or that too many people are opting for a life of welfare rather than take up physically demanding jobs on constructions sites or elsewhere.
I've pointed this out using official statistics that show over the last ten years that show the unemployment rate going from 4% to 16% back to 5%.

The 5% is probably made up primarily of active job-seekers who for one reason or another are currently out of work. Those reasons can consist of;


Out-of-Contract workers (temporarily unemployed)

New graduates seeking placement

High Skill workers looking for better t&c than what is being offered

Semi-skilled workers competing for positions in labour markets

Low-skilled, or unskilled workers looking for work but not being hired (not deemed suitable by prospective employers)

Middle-aged workers with limited skillsets recently made redundant, needing re-training
Lazy (possibly criminal) couch potato element that most employers wouldn’t hire anyway.
Going back to OP



joe sod said:


> over 50% of irish population is on welfare of some sort and this ratio is increasing all the time. I think we are reaching a tipping point where people *are choosing not to work* *or not to work full time and to fall back on the welfare system.* There are less and less people prepared to work full time to finance all this. So we have people on welfare and on the housing list and *these people refuse* *to take up jobs* *to build those very houses*. Somethings gotta change



I disagree with that statement.
I back this up with official statistics that show that when suitable job opportunities are available, people will work them. 
When official stats are dismissed as useless, I ask for alternative stats. The alternative stats provided were this;
https://www.finfacts-blog.com/2018/06/irish-broad-rate-of-unemployment-at-17.html

Here is a quote from that link;

*“*We add to the official unemployed total of 133,000 1) 114,000 for part-time workers _seeking full-time work or longer hours_ 2) 119,000 — the estimate of the potential additional workforce 3) 59,00 in public “activation programmes” that are publicly funded and participants are classified as employed.”

Clearly, it states that 114,000 part-time workers are _seeking_ full-time work or longer hours. To me, this debunks the notion that people are _choosing_ _not to work or not to work full-time_ as stated in the OP.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> I am at the moment actually, but of course I won't hire anyone who has happily sat on a bar stool for an extended period



That's my point. Some people want these bar-stoolers to go out and work. But if employers wont hire them, how are they supposed to get work? They don't want to work, and employers don't want to hire them.
This is the 'element' we spoke of earlier, but by no means do they make up anywhere near the 5% still unemployed.


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That's my point. Some people want these bar-stoolers to go out and work. But if employers wont hire them, how are they supposed to get work? They don't want to work, and employers don't want to hire them.



The only effective way of dealing with it is to change the mindset of those individuals. They need to be incentivesed to want to work and see gainful employment as a better option to kicking back. No amount of motivation or punishment of employers will ever solve it.



TheBigShort said:


> This is the 'element' we spoke of earlier, but by no means do they make up anywhere near the 5% still unemployed.



I don't think anyone is suggesting they make up the full 5%, or is even attempting to put a real number on it, but that doesn't mean this choice should be effectively encouraged or endorsed in any way. If the welfare system in any way makes it attractive for people to choose not to work, it needs to change.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> The only effective way of dealing with it is to change the mindset of those individuals.



Great. 



Leo said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting they make up the full 5%, or is even attempting to put a real number on it, but that doesn't mean this choice should be effectively encouraged or endorsed in any way. If the welfare system in any way makes it attractive for people to choose not to work, it needs to change.



I would suggest that you read the OP. "50% on welfare" "we are reaching a tipping point" "more and more are _choosing _not to work", when in fact more and more are taking up employment.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I'm being very constructive in dismantling the infantile stereotypical view that those who are unemployed are bar-stool couch potatoes


 Well that's a Strawman argument if ever there was one; you are debunking a point nobody is making.



TheBigShort said:


> or that too many people are opting for a life of welfare rather than take up physically demanding jobs on constructions sites or elsewhere


 One person opting for a life on welfare is one too many. Not just because they are effectively stealing from their neighbours but because it is a horribly unfulfilled life. 



TheBigShort said:


> *The 5% is probably made up primarily of active job-seekers who for one reason or another are currently out of work. Those reasons can consist of*;
> 
> 
> Out-of-Contract workers (temporarily unemployed)
> ...


I wouldn't consider the last cohort to be active job seekers. 




TheBigShort said:


> Here is a quote from that link;
> 
> *“*We add to the official unemployed total of 133,000 1) 114,000 for part-time workers _seeking full-time work or longer hours_ 2) 119,000 — the estimate of the potential additional workforce 3) 59,00 in public “activation programmes” that are publicly funded and participants are classified as employed.”
> 
> Clearly, it states that 114,000 part-time workers are _seeking_ full-time work or longer hours. To me, this debunks the notion that people are _choosing_ _not to work or not to work full-time_ as stated in the OP.


Nobody is arguing that many people would like more hours but there are still 192,000 people (133,000 + 59,000) who are not working but could be. That is a societal failure as well as an economic one. 



TheBigShort said:


> But if employers wont hire them, how are they supposed to get work? They don't want to work, and employers don't want to hire them.


 So should they get job seekers allowance? If they weren't getting any welfare they would want to work. 



TheBigShort said:


> I would suggest that you read the OP. "50% on welfare" "we are reaching a tipping point" "more and more are _choosing _not to work", when in fact more and more are taking up employment.


In an era of near full employment, where unskilled people who can hardly speak english come here and are working within days or weeks, it says alot about many on welfare that they choose not to work but rather live parasitically off their neighbours. 
Welfare should before those who need it, not those who choose it. 
As for manual work; the world we live in has changed and many manual jobs are gone. One skilled man in a JCB can do the work of 20 unskilled men with shovels and picks. We shouldn't lament the death of those jobs; we are better off without them.

And I've dug and cemented posts into the ground. It's not that hard.


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I would suggest that you read the OP. "50% on welfare" "we are reaching a tipping point" "more and more are _choosing _not to work", when in fact more and more are taking up employment.



I did read it, nowhere does it state that all the 5% are choosing not to work. Neither is the "50% on welfare" piece attempting to put a number on those choosing not to work. I'm not sure why you put the "more and more are _choosing _not to work" piece in quotes, the OP didn't say that, that's your invention.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> One person opting for a life on welfare is one too many.



Every sperm is sacred and all that?



Purple said:


> Nobody is arguing that many people would like more hours but there are still 192,000 people (133,000 + 59,000) who are not working but could be. That is a societal failure as well as an economic one.



I took the 59,000 in 'public activation programmers' to mean that they are training or re-training? Surely that is a good thing? Isnt that what you consistently say, that people should re-train to improve their skill sets?

As for the 133,000, how many of them are not seeking work? The 114,000 part-timers are seeking full-time work or longer hours but cant get it (otherwise wouldn't be seeking, right?).

So if 133,000 cannot get work, might it have anything to do with matching skillsets and suitability and experience to the jobs (or lack of) on offer for those skillsets, as per my list above? Or do you think it is more to do with choosing welfare as a lifestyle?



Purple said:


> If they weren't getting any welfare they would want to work.



But as Leo pointed out, as an employer, he wouldn't recruit them, so now no job and no welfare!



Purple said:


> In an era of near full employment, where unskilled people who can hardly speak english come here and are working within days or weeks, it says alot about many on welfare that they choose not to work but rather live parasitically off their neighbours.



How many are choosing not to work?



Purple said:


> Welfare should before those who need it, not those who choose it.



Who is choosing it? How many are we talking about?



Purple said:


> We shouldn't lament the death of those jobs; we are better off without them.



For sure, and no doubt the 59,000 in public activation programs are re-training themselves.

Here is link

[broken link removed]

"_Employment growth of 2.3 per cent (48,000 jobs) is projected for 20184 . The stability of the labour market will continue to influence future supply and demand for activation programmes. Evidence suggests that the cohorts requiring the most assistance, in terms of numbers and distance from the labour market, are people on the Live Register for more than 3 years and people with disabilities_".


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> I did read it, nowhere does it state that all the 5% are choosing not to work. Neither is the "50% on welfare" piece attempting to put a number on those choosing not to work. I'm not sure why you put the "more and more are _choosing _not to work" piece in quotes, the OP didn't say that



I never said it did - I was paraphrasing. I, perhaps lazily, thought the second sentenced linked to the first sentence, and that the third sentence linked to the second, and so on - silly me!



joe sod said:


> Then on another point over 50% of irish population is on welfare of some sort and this ratio is increasing all the time. I think we are reaching a tipping point where people are choosing not to work or not to work full time and to fall back on the welfare system. There are less and less people prepared to work full time to finance all this. So we have people on welfare and on the housing list and these people refuse to take up jobs to build those very houses. Somethings gotta change



Either you are playing dumb, or you agree with this post. I disagree with it.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So if 133,000 cannot get work, might it have anything to do with matching skillsets and suitability and experience to the jobs (or lack of) on offer for those skillsets, as per my list above? Or do you think it is more to do with choosing welfare as a lifestyle?


 Do you really think it is that binary? 



TheBigShort said:


> But as Leo pointed out, as an employer, he wouldn't recruit them, so now no job and no welfare!


Do you really think it is that binary? Taken to the extreme do you think that they would starve due to an utter inability to find a job?



TheBigShort said:


> How many are choosing not to work?


 You tell me, or do you think that all of them are choosing to work?



TheBigShort said:


> Who is choosing it? How many are we talking about?


 What are you talking about?



TheBigShort said:


> For sure, and no doubt the 59,000 in public activation programs are re-training themselves.


 They are being retrained. They are note retraining themselves. Do you think that they are all really seeking work or are some of them just going through the motions so that they can keep getting handouts? How many, in your opinion, are really committed to seeking work?


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I never said it did - I was paraphrasing. I, perhaps lazily, thought the second sentenced linked to the first sentence, and that the third sentence linked to the second, and so on - silly me!



Paraphrasing is not supposed to change the meaning, or infer meaning not present in the original. 

Why did you suggest I should go read the OP in response to me saying "I don't think anyone is suggesting they make up the full 5%, or is even attempting to put a real number on it"?




TheBigShort said:


> Either you are playing dumb, or you agree with this post. I disagree with it.



Not trying to play anything, but there are a number of points made there, not all directly related, it is possible to agree or disagree to varying degrees with these. If I may paraphrase, my interpretation of the core problem statement would be:

There is a cohort of Irish society who while capable of working, actively choose to live off welfare rather than seek gainful employment. ​So ignoring the other pieces about percentage of population who claim some form of social welfare, or stuff about people on housing lists building such houses, if we focus in on my interpretation above, that is something I know from experience to be true, and I believe it is something that should be very much discouraged.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> There is a cohort of Irish society who while capable of working, actively choose to live off welfare rather than seek gainful employment.


It is true. The only argument is the size of that cohort.


----------



## Sunny (15 Aug 2018)

Couple of points.

The 114,000 part time people were simply asked if they were looking for more work. They answered Yes. The vast majority of people would. That is not the same as actively seeking work. Could be numerous issues for this including reasonable things like childcare, health etc but it could also include more unreasonable things like fear about losing welfare benefits like medical cards etc. Welfare should never be a barrier to work. You should always be rewarded to work but in this country you are generally not.

As for the 59,000 in reactivation programmes, I would be very interested in knowing the % of this 59000 who end up back in employment. Are these reactivation programmes actually delivering on what they are meant to do or are they just being used by some people to ensure they continue to get benefits.

There are people who choose not to work. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. I don't know if it is one person or 1000 people or 10000 people. I know you want an exact figure but you can hardly expect people here to provide it if social welfare can't capture it. Or at least won't publish it. It doesn't invalidate the point though that these people are NOT ENTITLED to expect the State to provide for them. That's not right wing politics. According to the your link, 13.7% of 18-24 year olds are not in employment and are not in education. So what are they doing? This isn't an Irish problem but it does need to be dealt with because it is these people who are clinging on to right wing politics as the solution to their problems i.e. blame immigrants for everything. Why are we afraid to call these people out? People hanging around streets all day who aren't homeless? What are they doing? People popping down to shops in the pajamas at lunchtime and then back to their 400k social housing in the IFSC as I saw this morning. What are they doing? 

This isn't just a welfare problem. The same problem exists with taxation. I know people who have turned down promotions that came with extra money and stopped working overtime because it just wasn't worth it after paying over 50% in tax. 

I spent 9 months of my life unemployed back in 2012. It was the most depressing, demoralising and frightening time of my life especially with a new baby on the way. I will never ever resent anyone who has lost their job receiving benefits. I will never judge anyone receiving benefits as long as receiving benefits is not considered 'Normal'. I HATED collecting my money every week. I took a minimum wage job working with people half my age to avoid having to do it. I hated it but I can tell you it was 1000 times better than walking into the post office every week. A job is more than a wage. It provides you with much more than that. So people who decide they are better off not working because they think 'it is not worth their while' are completely misguided. Never mind sponging off the rest of us.


----------



## Firefly (15 Aug 2018)

Sunny said:


> As for the 59,000 in reactivation programmes, I would be very interested in knowing the % of this 59000 who end up back in employment. Are these reactivation programmes actually delivering on what they are meant to do or are they just being used by some people to ensure they continue to get benefits.



I agree. The current system cannot be much good given the results.

I would be in favour of a system where getting "jobseekers" is dependent on completing a number of courses (3 perhaps) which are paid for by the State until that person's income rises above a certain level, after which they repay the state, interest free, over a long period of time.
Failure to secure a job after the 3 courses would mean a drop in "jobseekers" - a little at first and then more over time.

This would incentivitise the "jobseeker" to complete relevant courses that will get them earning an income.

I would also open up the provision of courses to the private sector - they can compete to provide the best course (to enabled the jobseeker get a job (imagine that?)) at the lowest cost (The jobseeker won't want to be re-paying an expensive course when they have to afterall)

This would save the taxpayer a fortune versus the current, central planning approach where civil servants determine the provision of courses and the taxpayers foots the whole bill, with little or no incentive for the "jobseeker" to get a job!


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> Not trying to play anything, but there are a number of points made there, not all directly related, it is possible to agree or disagree to varying degrees with these. If I may paraphrase, my interpretation of the core problem statement would be:
> 
> There is a cohort of Irish society who while capable of working, actively choose to live off welfare rather than seek gainful employment.



Yes, we already agreed on that earlier.



Leo said:


> So ignoring the other pieces about percentage of population who claim some form of social welfare, or stuff about people on housing lists building such houses, if we focus in on my interpretation above, that is something I know from experience to be true, and I believe it is something that should be very much discouraged.



And this is where we differ. You see, my focus was on the OP. My interpretation of the OP extends beyond your interpretation which says, in addition to your interpretation;
_This cohort is getting bigger and bigger - “50% in receipt of welfare and the ratio is increasing all the time” - to the point of being unsustainable - “tipping point”._

I disagreed with the OP, on my interpretation. I did this on the fact that more and more people are actually participating in the workforce, as they always do when suitable opportunities arise. Hence, the difficultly in filling posts.



Purple said:


> The only argument is the size of that cohort.



Yes, and my view it is a lot smaller that is often perceived or portrayed on this site. I base this on facts that show that as job opportunites arise, the unemployment rate falls. Furthermore, they are the cohort who, even if they did apply for work, are often rejected. If employers wont employ them, how are they supposed to get work?

Now I would suggest, based on my list earlier, that the cohort of unemployed who are not actively seeking employment is very small.

Here is a stat of the Long-Term Unemployed Rate in Ireland

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/long-term-unemployment-rate

It has _decreased_ to 2.10 % in first quarter of 2018 - suggesting, god forbid any of you would have to agree with this, that the OP is incorrect in its perception?
The LTUR reached a record low of 1.2% in 2001, according to this site. If correct, then it suggests to me, that outside of a very small cohort of people , most people not only _will _work when opportunities arise, but_ want_ to work.

So even while the unemployment rate is at 5% and employers are struggling to fill positions, the data suggests to me that the primary over-riding factor is matching skillsets and experience with vacancies.

Posts about people choosing welfare lifestyles, refusing to work, couch potatoes, bar-stoolers etc, are true. But notions that it is leading to "tipping points" or that less and less people are prepared to work full-time is nonsense.


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And this is where we differ. You see, my focus was on the OP. My interpretation of the OP extends beyond your interpretation which says, in addition to your interpretation;
> _This cohort is getting bigger and bigger - “50% in receipt of welfare and the ratio is increasing all the time” - to the point of being unsustainable - “tipping point”._


_
_
I don't see any correlation between the numbers collecting the likes of children's allowance and those choosing not to work. My interpretation was based on that, and so my reading of it was that with a broad range of social welfare, and a large portion of the population claiming some form of social welfare payment, we shouldn't operate a system that makes choosing not to work an attractive option.



TheBigShort said:


> I disagreed with the OP, on my interpretation. I did this on the fact that more and more people are actually participating in the workforce, as they always do when suitable opportunities arise. Hence, the difficultly in filling posts.



I don't doubt that the overall size of the workforce continues to increase. Perhaps we'd need Joe to clarify that statement.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> If employers wont employ them, how are they supposed to get work?


Sweet sufferin' Jayses ... if employers won't employ them they are supposed to rely on charitable handouts (welfare) until they acquire skills which employers do want.

To me the tipping point when it comes to welfare is the fact that so many people, many of them very well off, get welfare payments each week. 
I'm a "to each according to his needs" man when it comes to welfare. I must be a bit of a socialist. That's why I reject populist Parties like Solidarity and FF who pretend to be left wing but are really just populist. It is ironic that the only Minister for Social Protection (still sounds Orwellian to me) that made any real effort at reform in the last 20 years was Labours Joan Burton. Her actions make a lie of the contention that concerns about scroungers and welfare payment to the well off makes you right wing.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Leo said:


> I don't doubt that the overall size of the workforce continues to increase. Perhaps we'd need Joe to clarify that statement.



Fair enough, the OP is poorly worded (this is not a dig at the poster, its just a fact). Im guilty of some whoppers myself.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Sweet sufferin' Jayses ... if employers won't employ them they are supposed to rely on charitable handouts (welfare) until they acquire skills which employers do want.



Yeh but if they are busy acquiring skills to get work then surely they cant be labelled as "choosing not to work" or choosing a life on welfare? 
Thats my point, the cohort who choose a life on welfare, who do not seek work is very, very small - they are the cohort who employers wouldn't hire anyway. And while its far from ideal, it is not culminating in houses not being built or welfare tipping points.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> To me the tipping point when it comes to welfare is the fact that so many people, many of them very well off, get welfare payments each week.
> I'm a "to each according to his needs" man when it comes to welfare. I must be a bit of a socialist.



I don't have issue with the extent to which our welfare system reaches the people. I do agree however that the rates applicable should be subject to greater scrutiny and limitations were practicable.


----------



## Leper (16 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Sweet sufferin' Jayses ... if employers won't employ them they are supposed to rely on charitable handouts (welfare) until they acquire skills which employers do want.
> 
> To me the tipping point when it comes to welfare is the fact that so many people, many of them very well off, get welfare payments each week.
> I'm a "to each according to his needs" man when it comes to welfare. I must be a bit of a socialist. That's why I reject populist Parties like Solidarity and FF who pretend to be left wing but are really just populist. It is ironic that the only Minister for Social Protection (still sounds Orwellian to me) that made any real effort at reform in the last 20 years was Labours Joan Burton. Her actions make a lie of the contention that concerns about scroungers and welfare payment to the well off makes you right wing.



Just as I thought when he said setting support posts in concrete was easy . . . . I have no qualifications in psychology but Purple is losing the plot. Then he tells us he's "a bit of a socialist" - Wow! What next?

I'm no stranger to hard work (after all I used to work for the HSE) and during May I manually dug holes in compressed clay and put in 36 wooden support posts with 2.5ft of concrete, each no less than 8ft in length and singlehandedly screwed 6ft heavy wooden panels between each. And Senor Purple tells me that is easy. Regretably, I don't think I can ever take his word for anything again. Now for the umpteenth salts bath. . . Can anybody recommend where I can get a good massage? And preferably from a masseuse that is not on Welfare or Invalidity.


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2018)

Leper said:


> Just as I thought when he said setting support posts in concrete was easy . . . . I have no qualifications in psychology but Purple is losing the plot. Then he tells us he's "a bit of a socialist" - Wow! What next?


 LOL 



Leper said:


> I'm no stranger to hard work (after all I used to work for the HSE)


 Good one!



Leper said:


> and during May I manually dug holes in compressed clay and put in 36 wooden support posts with 2.5ft of concrete, each no less than 8ft in length and singlehandedly screwed 6ft heavy wooden panels between each. And Senor Purple tells me that is easy. Regretably, I don't think I can ever take his word for anything again. Now for the umpteenth salts bath. . . Can anybody recommend where I can get a good massage? And preferably from a masseuse that is not on Welfare or Invalidity.


 I put in 8 of them recently. It wasn't in compressed clay though. I'd probably hire a mini digger for the day if I had to put 36 of them into compressed clay. I am a tradesman and worked with my hands for years. I always made sure I used the correct tools for the job though. You shouldn't be doing that sort of thing at your age anyway.


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I don't have issue with the extent to which our welfare system reaches the people.


It's the process of taking money from people and then just giving it back to them in the form of welfare (less the admin cost) that gets me. It's just a waste of money. I'm not big on wasting people's hard earned money or a welfare budget that should be helping those in need.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> It's the process of taking money from people and then just giving it back to them in the form of welfare (less the admin cost) that gets me. It's just a waste of money. I'm not big on wasting people's hard earned money or a welfare budget that should be helping those in need.



What would you propose, that we each individually administer our own tax and welfare payments?


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What would you propose, that we each individually administer our own tax and welfare payments?


See here


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Aug 2018)

Ok, in fairness I have just picked up on this comment of yours in another thread 



Purple said:


> I don't understand why a refundable tax credit system cannot be used. Simply put it means that if your income is too low to use up your tax credits (based on a 39 hour week) then the unused credits are refunded (paid) to the person in question.
> With aa system like that pensions, child benefit, welfare, disability allowance etc can all be run through Revenue. That will result in higher tax compliance, a reduction in administrative cost to the Department of Social Protection and better data available to the Government to set and implement policy



There is merit to this.


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Ok, in fairness I have just picked up on this comment of yours in another thread
> 
> 
> 
> There is merit to this.


It only took us two year to agree. 
Should we offer our services to Ryan Air?


----------

