Show me the money - young family

You confused me by saying:

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

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.
 
mo3art said:
You did Clubman, she was with the group interviewing the young man! Sarah your hair looked fab
Click to expand...

Ah, shucks, thanks.

*blushing*

Clubman - it was more like 1.5 seconds!!!
 
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 said:
What precisely do you think is disapproving or smug about those comments?
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 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.
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?)
Click to expand...
Again a personal opinion and the writer doesn't express any disapproval of the alleged approach/attitude.
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)
Click to expand...

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.
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.
 
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
 

Wow now that's condesending!

I stand my opinions which were included in your collection above.
 
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.
 
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)
Click to expand...


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

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......"
 
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!!!
 
That's what I mean Boost. Funny but not clever especially when you can't evidently spell the posh word for money yourself!!!
 
Covenant said:
God I think some of us are being judgemental and somewhat unchristian.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
tiger said:
Sarah's hair, which was fabulous
Click to expand...
I've trawled the [broken link removed] extensively, but to no avail. I presume said coiffure has been recorded for posterity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register