"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[ppmeath]

But you guys want to dismantle this culture of dependency!!

Yes we do.

Here we have an instance where a person working full time does not even get a wage deemed necessary to provide financial independence for him and his family!!!

But he's not part of it - go back to the first post and read it again:

"They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services. And the state is not good at providing these things. It would be much better for everyone if social welfare rates and benefits were cut back to the average rates in other EU countries. People would be encouraged to work and provide for themselves rather than become dependent on the state for everything for the whole of their lives."

The prevailing view here would be to cut this welfare payment as its too generous (laughable) rather than face up to the huge proportion of low paid workers in this state.

No, that is your prevailing view based on your inability to distinguish between dependent on a welfare "support", and the "culture of welfare dependency".

If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe.

You refuse to accept that you have misinterpreted what we are discussing and the solution (about time) you offer, to simply "increase" wages.

 

[ppmeath]

I dont agree with this view. I believe someone who has trained and worked to a position to obtain a high salary is entitled, yes entitled, to a reasonable period (say 3 months) to find suitable employment to which his is trained for. Having skilled engineers working in coffee shops does not make for a capitalising economy.

Fine, and after that? If there isn't suitable employment - what then?

 

[Purple]

I dont agree with this view. I believe someone who has trained and worked to a position to obtain a high salary is entitled, yes entitled, to a reasonable period (say 3 months) to find suitable employment to which his is trained for. Having skilled engineers working in coffee shops does not make for a capitalising economy.

I agree with you but that's not what you asked. If they can't get a job in their field then they should take whatever job they can. That's why a tapering off of benefits over time is a good idea.

 

[Purple]

TheBigShort, can you answer these questions please?;

When you say that “FIS is a welfare payment, payable to a person who is employed a minimum of 19 hours a week and has a family. But because the wage is so low they receive this payment.
FIS acts as a subsidy to employers who dont pay a decent wage.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.

You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income ?

 

[Purple]

But you guys want to dismantle this culture of dependency!! Here we have an instance where a person working full time does not even get a wage deemed necessary to provide financial independence for him and his family!!!
So little is his pay that the state intervenes to top up his wage to support him and his family. All because the employer has calculated the value of his labour to be a certain amount, which is a load of bs, to be honest.
The prevailing view here would be to cut this welfare payment as its too generous (laughable) rather than face up to the huge proportion of low paid workers in this state.
If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe.

Again; how should their wage be calculated if not on market value and/or the value of their labour?
If his income doesn't cover his costs he has loads of choices. He can;
1) Work overtime
2) Try for a better paid job where he is working
3) Get a second job
4) Reduce his costs
5) Do all of the above
6) Do any of the above while training/ ups-killing in order to make his labour more valuable

Your solution presumes that people can't better themselves. I find that morally objectionable.

 

[ppmeath]

And I just want to expand on this:

"If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe."

This is more populist nonsense, without any attempt to even try to understand the possible consequences of simply "increasing wages".

The backbone of this country is not the MNC's - it's the small and medium business's who employ about one million people in this country.

If you "increase" wages then you run the risk of forcing these companies to either reduce the working hours of some people - forcing these workers onto FIS. Or you risk forcing them to let people go because they simply cannot sustain the wage increases, so you force them on the dole.

And you stifle growth because the employer may not expand and/or employ new staff due to the fear of ever increasing wages.

And/or they push they increases onto the consumers, swallowing up any benefit of the increases that they may have felt.

 

[TheBigShort]

Yes we do.



But he's not part of it - go back to the first post and read it again:

"They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services. And the state is not good at providing these things. It would be much better for everyone if social welfare rates and benefits were cut back to the average rates in other EU countries. People would be encouraged to work and provide for themselves rather than become dependent on the state for everything for the whole of their lives."



No, that is your prevailing view based on your inability to distinguish between dependent on a welfare "support", then the "culture of welfare dependency".



You refuse to accept that you have misinterpreted what we are discussing and the solution (about time) you offer, to simply "increase" wages.

And you refuse to say what proportion of people in receipt of welfare are part of this culture of dependency.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this topic was started, using (false) data that 23% of households were jobless. The implication being that if not all, but a significant large proportion of these households are welfare dependent. Otherwise what was the purpose of using the NESC report, if only to imply that these jobless households are a drain on the taxpayer.
I have expressed my view that I believe most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence. I based that on the time when unemployment reached 4% in this country. That is, if there are jobs, people will work them. I also base it on the 50,000 or jobs bridge applicants.
You have ruled out home carers, people in receipt of FIS, people actively seeking work, people with disabilities, people who are upskilling or training as welfare dependents. So who is left?
All you have presented is the woman in the hotel and the fictional character Johnny (actually I presented that).
I have agreed that some people milk the system, will take advantage, but in the round, the figures are tiny relative to the costs that will be needed in other social provisions when you drive people further into poverty with your dismantling plans.
I exposed the €660m control savings reported by Social Protection as nothing more than an estimate of what would be defrauded if they didnt carry out their checks. The actual figure of €68million in savings is made up of fraudulent payments and overpayments made in error. With overpayments retrieved being the bulk of savings.
You accused me of labelling you with discriminatory views, yet the tone of posts stating that welfare dependents are 'like a disease' would be at home in a Nazi fanzine.
So enough of your garbage, lets have some figures.
How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?

 

[Purple]

So enough of your garbage, lets have some figures.
How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?

Right back at ya!

 

[TheBigShort]

And I just want to expand on this:

"If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe."

This is more populist nonsense, without any attempt to even try to understand the possible consequences of simply "increasing wages".

The backbone of this country is not the MNC's - it's the small and medium business's who employ about one million people in this country.

If you "increase" wages then you run the risk of forcing these companies to either reduce the working hours of some people - forcing these workers onto FIS. Or you risk forcing them to let people go because they simply cannot sustain the wage increases, so you force them on the dole.

And you stifle growth because the employer may not expand and/or employ new staff due to the fear of ever increasing wages.

And/or they push they increases onto the consumers, swallowing up any benefit of the increases that they may have felt.

The minimum wage increased by some 5.7% last January. The vast majority of minimum wage workers are employed in small and medium-sized enterprises. ISME, IBEC et al, said it would put jobs at risk.
Since then unemployment figures have fallen. There is also a provision in the Minimum wage Act that allows a business to opt out of paying if they cant afford it, through application to the Labour Court.
The total number of businesses that applied for this opt out? ZERO! Not one!
You seem incapable of recognising the positive impact an increase in wages can have on the economy and employment. After 7/8 years of austerity, time to try something else. But you right wing monetarists will do anything but hand leverage to labour in the form of wage increases. Thats why we have QE, asset buying bubbles, negative interest rates, and off the wall GDP figures.
Ive been in the workforce for 20 yrs and the mantra was always 'moderate wage increases' to prevent stoking inflation. Yet we live in an economy in danger of deflation (welfare cuts would add to that) and central banks trying to stoke inflation.
Wage increases stoke inflation, so go figure.

 

[ppmeath]

And you refuse to say what proportion of people in receipt of welfare are part of this culture of dependency.

?? I didn't, and I don't care if it is 1% or 10% - it needs to be dismantled.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this topic was started, using (false) data that 23% of households were jobless.

No, because the points raised in the posts are the same.

The implication being that if not all, but a significant large proportion of these households are welfare dependent. Otherwise what was the purpose of using the NESC report, if only to imply that these jobless households are a drain on the taxpayer.

No, that is your interpretation.

I have expressed my view that I believe most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence. I based that on the time when unemployment reached 4% in this country. That is, if there are jobs, people will work them. I also base it on the 50,000 or jobs bridge applicants.

So are you saying that 19% is the figure?

You have ruled out home carers, people in receipt of FIS, people actively seeking work, people with disabilities, people who are upskilling or training as welfare dependents. So who is left?

Exactly. That is the question that was asked - again - go back to the first page:

"If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work, would benefit everyone in the long run."

All you have presented is the woman in the hotel and the fictional character Johnny (actually I presented that).

You certainly did and you were provided with my solution for Johnny and you provided your own solution with the lady in the hotel - punish her by putting her back to the end of the queue leaving her and her daughter in the hotel.

I have agreed that some people milk the system, will take advantage, but in the round, the figures are tiny relative to the costs that will be needed in other social provisions when you drive people further into poverty with your dismantling plans.

Figures and stats please - when you can say how many, then I'm all ears - and my "dismantling" plan is directed at these people and if you agree with this, then you agree with the plan.

I exposed the €660m control savings reported by Social Protection as nothing more than an estimate of what would be defrauded if they didnt carry out their checks.

Nothing to do with the topic.

You accused me of labelling you with discriminatory views, yet the tone of posts stating that welfare dependents are 'like a disease' would be at home in a Nazi fanzine.

Now you are blatantly lying, because this is what I said:

"This entitlement culture is being fed by people like the poster here. "............ "(That's you by the way)

They are like a disease and they are feeding into people's psyche that the world owes them, that they should "hang on in there", go to the media and expose their "plight", when in fact they have been offered support after support and yet still want more."

And people like you, so you need to stop blatantly lying about what I wrote. Thanks.

 

[TheBigShort]

Right back at ya!

Why is it you answer for ppmeath and he answers for you?
Go back and read my post, figures already given.

 

[TheBigShort]

Again; how should their wage be calculated if not on market value and/or the value of their labour?
If his income doesn't cover his costs he has loads of choices. He can;
1) Work overtime
2) Try for a better paid job where he is working
3) Get a second job
4) Reduce his costs
5) Do all of the above
6) Do any of the above while training/ ups-killing in order to make his labour more valuable

Your solution presumes that people can't better themselves. I find that morally objectionable.

1) no overtime available
2) no jobs on offer
3) he works 40 hrs as it is and has a young family - try it sometime
4) he buys smuggled diesel on the cheap on your advice to reduce costs
6) he is a qualified computer engineer with a masters degree in law also.

Now go away with this nonsense

 

[ppmeath]

The minimum wage increased by some 5.7% last January. The vast majority of minimum wage workers are employed in small and medium-sized enterprises. ISME, IBEC et al, said it would put jobs at risk.

No, they said it might and they also said it could prevent the creation of 60,000 jobs.

Since then unemployment figures have fallen. There is also a provision in the Minimum wage Act that allows a business to opt out of paying if they cant afford it, through application to the Labour Court.

No, I guess when you go bust there's no point making the application is there?

You seem incapable of recognising the positive impact an increase in wages can have on the economy and employment.

And you are incapable of recognising or even acknowledging the negative impact it can have on business's, employees, the state and the consumer.

On one hand you want to fight the culture and get people back to work - while forcing more wage increases onto employers?

After 7/8 years of austerity, time to try something else

Like the increase in the minimum wage and increasing wages in 3/4's of the private sector?

http://www.independent.ie/business/...or-pay-rises-for-three-quarters-31483801.html

But you right wing monetarists will do anything but hand leverage to labour in the form of wage increases. Thats why we have QE, asset buying bubbles, negative interest rates, and off the wall GDP figures.

Like the 3/4's of business's above?

Ive been in the workforce for 20 yrs and the mantra was always 'moderate wage increases' to prevent stoking inflation.

Like the moderate increases already given yes?

 

[ppmeath]

So enough of your garbage, lets have some figures.
How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?

Get your own figures and when you provide them, maybe I'll discuss it.

 

[Purple]

1) no overtime available

OK

2) no jobs on offer

OK

3) he works 40 hrs as it is and has a young family - try it sometime

I have 4 children and have never worked less than 45 hours a week. I usually work over 50.

4) he buys smuggled diesel on the cheap on your advice to reduce costs

Don’t be silly.

6) he is a qualified computer engineer with a masters degree in law also.

And he’s on minimum wage? Again, don’t be silly.

Now go away with this nonsense

Right back at ya.

Now, once again, can you answer my questions above?

 

[TheBigShort]

?? I didn't, and I don't care if it is 1% or 10% - it needs to be dismantled.



No, because the points raised in the posts are the same.



No, that is your interpretation.



So are you saying that 19% is the figure?



Exactly. That is the question that was asked - again - go back to the first page:

"If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work, would benefit everyone in the long run."



You certainly did and you were provided with my solution for Johnny and you provided your own solution with the lady in the hotel - punish her by putting her back to the end of the queue leaving her and her daughter in the hotel.



Figures and stats please - when you can say how many, then I'm all ears - and my "dismantling" plan is directed at these people and if you agree with this, then you agree with the plan.



Nothing to do with the topic.



Now you are blatantly lying, because this is what I said:

"This entitlement culture is being fed by people like the poster here. "............ "(That's you by the way)

They are like a disease and they are feeding into people's psyche that the world owes them, that they should "hang on in there", go to the media and expose their "plight", when in fact they have been offered support after support and yet still want more."

And people like you, so you need to stop blatantly lying about what I wrote. Thanks.

You are some chancer

1. You should care if its 1% or 10%, because if you are going to drive people further into poverty, I want to know how much this is going to cost.
2. A fairly logical interpretation to associate the title of a topic with the subject matter supplied.
3. What are you talking about 19%?? I said when the economy had jobs for whoever wanted one, unemployment fell to 4%. If you take out of that contractors who are in between jobs and those genuinely injured or ill, then the welfare 'dependents' that you are after will come in around 1 to 1.5%.

4. You have no figures, eff all facts, and mindset that thinks of others like a disease, be it me or someone else, but stop trying to deny it.

 

[ppmeath]

1) no overtime available
2) no jobs on offer
3) he works 40 hrs as it is and has a young family - try it sometime
4) he buys smuggled diesel on the cheap on your advice to reduce costs
6) he is a qualified computer engineer with a masters degree in law also.

Now go away with this nonsense

Lol, this is what he produces and this is what he demands:

"How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?"

@Purple is talking nonsense and I am talking garbage. lol.

 

[TheBigShort]

[QUOTE="Purple, post: 1483855, member:

And he’s on minimum wage? Again, don’t be silly?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, you are right, thats silly. He is qualified engineer working in a coffee shop.

 

[TheBigShort]

No, they said it might and they also said it could prevent the creation of 60,000
?

They would say that, as you would. But unemployment fell, didnt it?

 

[Purple]

Sorry, you are right, thats silly. He is qualified engineer working in a coffee shop.

There is a major shortage of engineers. Why is he working in a coffee shop?