Agreed!Can everyone step back and take a few deep breaths here please?
This is just a discussion on the internet.
andYou are some chancer
begin to manifest in a thread, it's time for it to end for good.You have no figures, eff all facts, and mindset that thinks of others like a disease
No, it’s a strong indicator that in a bubble economy with rampant wage inflation people are better off working than on welfare. Therefore when people are not better off working they remain on welfare even if jobs are available. This creates a welfare trap; a culture of welfare dependency.2004/5 unemployment fell to 4%. A strong indicator that people will work when there are jobs
Yep, great scheme but badly policed by the state.50,000 applicants for job bridge scheme.
What’s your point?All minimum wage increases from 2000 correlate with an increase in employment
What’s your point?One minimum wage decrease correlates with an increase in unemployment.
Yes, we all agree that the Department of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing welfare fraud.€68m the total in welfare clawbacks for 2015, most of which were for accidental overpayments on the Department's side.
Once expressions like and begin to manifest in a thread, it's time for it to end for good.
2004/5 unemployment fell to 4%. A strong indicator that people will work when there are jobs
50,000 applicants for job bridge scheme. All minimum wage increases from 2000 correlate with an increase in employment
One minimum wage decrease correlates with an increase in unemployment.
No, it’s a strong indicator that in a bubble economy with rampant wage inflation people are better off working than on welfare. Therefore when people are not better off working they remain on welfare even if jobs are available. This creates a welfare trap; a culture of welfare dependency.
Yep, great scheme but badly policed by the state.
What’s your point?
What’s your point?
Yes, we all agree that the Department of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing welfare fraud.
Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?
It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.
In fairness, I wasnt the one who brought up the 'like a disease'. Either ppmeath was referring to welfare dependents or he was referring to me, but either way that was the provocation.
But you are right, it has descended into farce.
How do you know the Department's of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing fraud if you wont tell us how many welfare dependency recipients there are.
You see, you are not so shy in blaming others when you want, or when the answers dont fall your way.
Farce.
Yea, but probably not the right thing to say. You should withdraw the remark.My post was very clear, I was referring to you and people like you, taken out of context it may seem bad, but when taken into context the full meaning of it is also very clear - I did not say that welfare dependants were a disease and you should withdraw the remark -because now you have said it twice.
Agreed, this is classed a full employment. Here's the thing though, and it is a point that I don't see in a lot of places. In that year wages were absolutely huge and this would encourage people to come off welfare - no doubt about it. But these wages were part of the problem, not the solution.
A lot of people also taken off the dole were put into CE schemes or other activation schemes and of course when things came crashing down - then these were not renewed, so while there was 4% employment, when you dig deeper into the figures it tells us a lot more.
I don't see the connection? Genuinely don't.
And here - I don't see the connection.
These are the questions you need to answer and you haven't answered them.
"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?"
OK, so you didn't refer to people on welfare or other posters as being like a disease. You said that populist parties which encourage people not to be self reliant were like a disease. That's fair enough and in no way offensive to anyone engaged in this debate.
My post was very clear, I was referring to you and people like you, taken out of context it may seem bad, but when taken into context the full meaning of it is also very clear - I did not say that welfare dependants were a disease and you should withdraw the remark -because now you have said it twice.
He said that political parties who encouraged a culture of welfare dependence were a disease.Speak for yourself. Stop trying to dig him out, its pathetic.
In that you are incorrect and there is a mountain of data to back it up. Take a look at this from the Journal.ie (hardly a right wing site) for a good summary.1. I disagree. It was not wages that collapsed the economy, it was a massive credit bubble. Loans to people that were way out of synch with their wages.
You are seeing a link where there is none. Your logic is similar to how people used to think disease was spread by "bad vapors".2. You argued against my proposal to increase wages. I merely pointed out that increases in the Minimum wage have always correlated with an increase in employment. The one decrease, correlates with an increase in unemployment.
So the argument that increasing the minimum wage could cost jobs is very dubious. The reverse is actually what has happened.
He said that political parties who encouraged a culture of welfare dependence were a disease.
Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?
It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?