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.
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.
3. 0.5 to 1% welfare dependency
Employment participation when jobs are available.
€100 to €120million
Increase wages.
Now your turn
I think wages should be calculated on the value of labour.
Where are you going with this? You've made some whoppers already what with communist slogans, engineers working in coffee shops and so forth. Mind how you go now.
1. I did not say that they did, I said they were part of the problem.
2. Because your are wrong.
3. Are you saying that when there was 4% unemployment that 3% - 3.5% of them had a culture of welfare dependency?
Are you basing it on job availability - how many jobs are available now? Can you give a breakdown of how you came to this figure?
4. To what?
Can you provide your source for that figure please?Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.
Can you provide your source for that figure please?
My argument is that the real figure is closer to 0.5% to 1% of welfare recipients choose a dependency lifestyle.
With respect, its been difficult enough to come to this point without factoring in all the variable that apply to the British welfare system too.
Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.
We can discuss my figures when you eventually produce your own based on the questions asked.
Back it up.
I'm just showing what the figures look like for our nearest neighbour with whom we have a lot in common with. Over there it seems 9.5% of those who are unemployed have never worked. Take away those who are physically and mentally impaired and the carers, you are probably looking at a figure of about 5% which is 5 to 10 times bigger than your figure. So, again, can you please back up your figure?
The statistics, broken down by age and by region, show, for the first time, the extent of people who have been totally reliant on Jobseeker's Benefit to survive throughout their adult life, without making any contribution whatsoever by way of PRSI payments.
...
As these figures reveal, 43,375 people, or one in seven of those in receipt of the €188-a-week Jobseeker's Benefit, have never made any contribution to the PRSI system, in other words, they have never been in employment.
Of those, one in three, or 13,222, are aged 35 or older, which makes them far more likely to have children, which Mr Keaveney said is an intolerable situation. "Based on the figures, there is a strong possibility of children growing up with parents who have never contributed to the State."
Orka beat me to it. Would you be so kind as to provide back up to your figures now or is this going to be another "What do we do about Johnny" rigmarole?Im not interested in what happens in Britain. I mean, why produce figures for Britain now? Why dont you produce Irish figures?
You're just playing games now. How can you explain that many people getting to age 35 having never worked? Sure, there might be some doing home care but not many. What are the others upskilling from? If you go 1/2 years without a job to your liking, you accept that your ambitions are too high and go for a lower level job.
No way we have that many people actively seeking work, upskilling like crazy, volunteering from dawn to dusk but somehow just unlucky in not finding the right role. That is delusional.
Except that most of life's actual necessities (food, fuel, housing) are at a low/no VAT rate.Unemployed people spend nearly 100% of their income from the dole. That's at least 23% (VAT) of the dole back into the state coffers straight away.
Michael Taft? That's priceless that is!!!!Some people have had more unfortunate upbringings concerning criminal convictions or recovering from drug or alcohol abuse. Again, it does not mean they are deliberately avoiding work for welfare benefits no more than employers tend not to offer such individuals work in the first instance.
Nevertheless, here is media article debunking data from department of social protection. By no means definitive but if you are using media articles, then so will I.
http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/...the-government-believes-it-can-save-600m.html