"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[Deiseblue]

According to the latest figures from the CSO there are now over 2 million people in paid labour in the State - the highest figure since 2008.

Tellingly the long term unemployment rate has fallen over the past year from 5.5 % to 4.4% which suggests that as jobs are created the long term unemployed are willing to take them .

Is it possible that the Government's target of creating full employment can be achieved by 2020 based on an unemployment rate of 6 % ? ( a figure apparently based on the largest number of jobs the economy can support at any time after allowing for workers who are between jobs but still an active part of the work force & those that are unable to work ).

Reasons for cautious optimism I would have thought & with decreasing numbers on the dole & accompanying increases in tax revenue not only should it be possible to maintain social welfare payments to the hard pressed it may indeed be possible to increase same - Leo will be pleased !

 

[TheBigShort]

TheBigShort, I know you missed me but I'm working odd hours at the moment and I'm busiest in the evenings. You can relax though, I'm still around.

You still haven't answered my question about why you think FIS is a subsidy to employers if you think wages should be set by the market. Did you have a chance to think about it overnight?

I have already explained how an employer can offer a worker with a family a rate of pay below the value of the workers labour, full in the knowledge that the worker can replenish the deficit in the wage by claiming FIS.
But im gone way past discussing viewpoints without anyone producing anything of substance by way of data.
The title of this topic is about a culture of welfare dependency and that it should be dismantled. I concede that some people choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency but I dispute strongly the attempts to use headline grabbing figures to force an agenda on an issue, while not to dismiss it, is not even close to being as bad as its being made out to be.
The first attempt was to suggest that 23% of households were jobless and being funded by the other 77%. Even the author of that article has admitted that his facts were wrong.
Another poster has put up (another) irish independent article with "disturbing" figures about PRSI contributions (or absence of) for welfare recipients. Automatically, the assumption is made that ALL these people (14%) are choosing a welfare lifestyle without for one nano-second giving thought to the possible reasons behind these figures.
I have posted some data, and will post a lot more, that will provide, if not definitive, reasonable and strong indicators that the level of people choosing a lifestyle of welfare dependency is between 0.5% to 1% of the number of welfare recipients. The cost of which is less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget.
I challenge others, including you , to provide your own data in relation to this issue and how much it will cost the taxpayer to dismantle it. Bearing in my mind, it is my contention that attempts to dismantle it by way of cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty and possibly end up costing more than is saved by way of providing other social services.

 

[Gerard123]

I was following this post but gave up. All too much!

 

[TheBigShort]

http://www.tasc.ie/news/2016/06/17/flexibility-is-being-imposed-on-more-and-more-work/

Somewhat off topic but not totally unrelated. A report detailing the difficulties imposed on employees in their workplaces. The hospitality sector comes under scrutiny, amongst others, in terms of imposed working hours that make childcare difficult to arrange. A sector that relies heavily on women.
Also the lack of training and promotion opportunities is evident. It has been argued here that people should just 'better' themselves, but this report shows that it is certainly not always welfare payments that prevent a return to work, but the practical terms and conditions of employment that can be an obstacle also.
The report goes someway to highlighting the 'do more for less' approach of employers, which in effect is trying to negotiate down the value of labour.

 

[Purple]

I have posted some data, and will post a lot more, that will provide, if not definitive, reasonable and strong indicators that the level of people choosing a lifestyle of welfare dependency is between 0.5% to 1% of the number of welfare recipients. The cost of which is less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget.

If you can that would be great but don't do it on my account. So far there's no hard data on the specifics from anyone so no pressure. In the context of the overall discussion that doesn't matter as we are discussing the issue in general terms.

 

[Delboy]

According to the latest figures from the CSO there are now over 2 million people in paid labour in the State - the highest figure since 2008.

Tellingly the long term unemployment rate has fallen over the past year from 5.5 % to 4.4% which suggests that as jobs are created the long term unemployed are willing to take them .

Is it possible that the Government's target of creating full employment can be achieved by 2020 based on an unemployment rate of 6 % ? ( a figure apparently based on the largest number of jobs the economy can support at any time after allowing for workers who are between jobs but still an active part of the work force & those that are unable to work ).

Reasons for cautious optimism I would have thought & with decreasing numbers on the dole & accompanying increases in tax revenue not only should it be possible to maintain social welfare payments to the hard pressed it may indeed be possible to increase same - Leo will be pleased !

A. How many of the new jobs being created are going to Migrants?
B. Any sign of the figures for those on Disability (they exploded during the crash) coming down as jobs become more plentiful and the 'bad backs' miraculously improve?

If A is a high number and B is a low number then, in the context of this thread, we still have a large welfare dependency problem in this country.

 

[TheBigShort]

If you can that would be great but don't do it on my account. So far there's no hard data on the specifics from anyone so no pressure. In the context of the overall discussion that doesn't matter as we are discussing the issue in

Can you provide your source for that figure please?

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

.

On the one hand you qoute a ,'mountain of data' and request me to source my claims. But when I request the same of you, you dilute the topic to a 'general discussion'!

 

[Purple]

I have already explained how an employer can offer a worker with a family a rate of pay below the value of the workers labour, full in the knowledge that the worker can replenish the deficit in the wage by claiming FIS.

Ok, it's clear now that you really don't understand how wages are set in an open market. The employee will take the best job his skills and experience will allow in the market (note that both the employer and the employee are workers as they both work so I use the term employee for clarity). The Employer will hire whomever he or she thinks ads the most value to their business relative to the wage they must pay them in order to get them. The employer cares not a whit what the family circumstances are of the employee when deciding what level of pay they are willing to offer.

But im gone way past discussing viewpoints without anyone producing anything of substance by way of data.

That's a pity. It's just a discussion between strangers on the inter-web that nobody else cares about. See it in that context and relax a bit. I'm sure we'd all get on great over a few pints.

The title of this topic is about a culture of welfare dependency and that it should be dismantled. I concede that some people choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency but I dispute strongly the attempts to use headline grabbing figures to force an agenda on an issue, while not to dismiss it, is not even close to being as bad as its being made out to be.

The discussion has evolved and it never claimed that all 23% were scroungers or even that 23% were welfare. It said that 23% of people lived in households where most or all of their income came from welfare.

 

[TheBigShort]

A. How many of the new jobs being created are going to Migrants?
B. Any sign of the figures for those on Disability (they exploded during the crash) coming down as jobs become more plentiful and the 'bad backs' miraculously improve?

If A is a high number and B is a low number then, in the context of this thread, we still have a large welfare dependency problem in this country.

You have already been told that the disability allowance is means tested. So during the boom, many people with disabilities had financial independence of their own. As people lose jobs, they need assistance to pay for the physio on those bad backs.
Not hard to figure out really.

 

[TheBigShort]

Ok, it's clear now that you really don't understand how wages are set in an open market. The employee will take the best job his skills and experience will allow in the market (note that both the employer and the employee are workers as they both work so I use the term employee for clarity). The Employer will hire whomever he or she thinks ads the most value to their business relative to the wage they must pay them in order to get them. The employer cares not a whit what the family circumstances are of the employee when deciding what level of pay they are willing to offer.

Well you obviously dont know how FIS works. In order for the employee to avail of it his employer must sign a declaration to the dept of social protection confirming his agreed weekly wage. And if employers know that the employee can top up via the taxpayer, dont you think they (some) will avail of that? Dont you recall the scrapping of Job bridge due to employers who were more than capable of paying a full-time wage availing of cheap labour via the taxpayer?

And you really need to get past those supply and demand charts for determining wages. They dont apply much at all.

 

[TheBigShort]

That's a pity. It's just a discussion between strangers on the inter-web that nobody else cares about. See it in that context and relax a bit. I'm sure we'd all get on great over a few pints.

This is probably your most significant contribution to this discussion. And I dont mean that in a disparaging way, its helps to keep that in mind.

 

[Purple]

On the one hand you qoute a ,'mountain of data' and request me to source my claims. But when I request the same of you, you dilute the topic to a 'general discussion'!

I gave you a link. Did you read it?
The cost of the banking sector bail out was €60 billion. A staggering amount. The total National Debt is over €180 Billion. The extra two thirds are from borrowing money for day to day expenditure; the opposite of austerity.

Well you obviously dont know how FIS works. In order for the employee to avail of it his employer must sign a declaration to the dept of social protection confirming his agreed weekly wage. And if employers know that the employee can top up via the taxpayer, dont you think they (some) will avail of that? Dont you recall the scrapping of Job bridge due to employers who were more than capable of paying a full-time wage availing of cheap labour via the taxpayer?

And you really need to get past those supply and demand charts for determining wages. They dont apply much at all.

Do you think you might be guilty of some double standards here (and I’m sure we all are to some extent), in that you assume employers will take advantage of something which will at best make a very small impact on their bottom line. You then take exception to people even asking if a welfare system which can financially mitigate against people taking up employment does in fact mitigate against people taking up employment?


Nobody here is suggesting that everyone on welfare is on unemployment benefit.

Nobody here is suggesting that everyone on unemployment benefit is a scrounger.

What people are suggesting is that a system which provides a stable long term income for people who don’t work and in many cases leaves them with a higher net income than they would get when working does not encourage people to work.

You agree that a system which pays more at the start and less as people remain unemployed would be better than what we have not. That in itself is an acknowledgement of the problem.


I have no problem with what we spend on welfare. I just want that money to reach the right people and I want it to be used to better society in the medium to long term and not just to sustain and treat a symptom of a broader problem.

If we want to create a really equal society then it has to be based on real equality of opportunity. That can only be done by educating people, changing mind sets, and equipping them to grasp the opportunities that life provides. There are people who are disengaged from society at large. That may be 1% or 5% or 20%. It doesn’t matter what the percentage is; it is unjust and immoral for us to leave them, and particularly their children, behind.

 

[TheBigShort]

What people are suggesting is that a system which provides a stable long term income for people who don’t work and in many cases leaves them with a higher net income than they would get when working does not encourage people to work.

And I dont agree, in general, with that sentiment. There are many people who, if they lost their jobs in the morning, would be financially better off on welfare, yet they continue to choose to work. And in terms of discouraging people going to work and instead choosing a welfare lifestyle I estimate the number of those people to be in the region of 0.5% - 1% of all welfare recipients, circa 8,000-10,000 people. So in other words, other than a tiny percentage of people on welfare, the system does NOT ENCOURAGE WELFARE DEPENDENCY! So stop saying it does, unless you have something to back it up with.

But you are correct, these people if caught in a welfare trap or willingly choosing a welfare lifestyle should not be left behind or should be assisted out of that lifestyle.
I dont have an answer to that other than to spend more on social services, training, education etc.I certainly don't advocate dismantling welfare provisions.

The only proposal I have heard from the pro-'dismantle' side is to cut benefits. This is usually accompanied with a headline grabbing stat that 23% of jobless households are being funded by 77%. Or that 43,500 people have never paid PRSI. Why? Why when discussing welfare dependency, does every welfare recipient need to be included as part of the problem?
23% of jobless households are not living a lifestyle of welfare dependency, so why were included at the beginning of the topic?
There is no evidence to suggest that never having contributed PRSI means you are welfare dependent. But yet that headline is used in this discussion. Why?

Why cant those in favour of dismantling welfare dependency actually produce some evidence based data that can tell us how many people we are talking about, what they propose to do about it, and how much would it save the taxpayer?

 

[TheBigShort]

Do you think you might be guilty of some double standards here (and I’m sure we all are to some extent), in that you assume employers will take advantage of something which will at best make a very small impact on their bottom line.
.

There are plenty of employers who are surviving week to week earning a low wage/profit for themselves. Some will be tempted, yes. Less will succumb to the temptation, but happen it does.
And you seem to ignore my point about the employers who could well afford to pay a wage, but chose instead free labour from job bridge at the cost to the taxpayer.

 

[Purple]

There are plenty of employers who are surviving week to week earning a low wage/profit for themselves. Some will be tempted, yes. Less will succumb to the temptation, but happen it does.

So it creates a culture of exploitation but only a minority succumb to it. Is that what you are saying?

And you seem to ignore my point about the employers who could well afford to pay a wage, but chose instead free labour from job bridge at the cost to the taxpayer.

I like the idea of Job Bridge but it was certainly exploited. Wages are never determined by what an employer can afford to pay. They are set by the amount the employer has to pay in order to get person to do the job and keep them happy. The same goes for someone buying a car or a house; they buy it for the lowest price they can.

 

[TheBigShort]

So it creates a culture of exploitation but only a minority succumb to it. Is that what you are saying?
I like the idea of Job Bridge but it was certainly exploited. Wages are never determined by what an employer can afford to pay. They are set by the amount the employer has to pay in order to get person to do the job and keep them happy. The same goes for someone buying a car or a house; they buy it for the lowest price they can.

Yes, a tiny minority, something similar to the tiny minority that succumb to the temptation of a lifestyle of welfare dependency.

Wages are set by the amount the employer is willing to pay and by the amount an employee is prepared to accept.

Have you any information to support the notion that there is a culture of welfare dependency and that this culture is the cause of high taxes on earnings, USC, PRSI etc, as alleged by the opening poster in his article in the Irish Independent?

 

[Purple]

Yes, a tiny minority, something similar to the tiny minority that succumb to the temptation of a lifestyle of welfare dependency.

So why did you bring it up?

Wages are set by the amount the employer is willing to pay and by the amount an employee is prepared to accept.

Exactly.

Have you any information to support the notion that there is a culture of welfare dependency and that this culture is the cause of high taxes on earnings, USC, PRSI etc, as alleged by the opening poster in his article in the Irish Independent?

The opening poster pointed out that our proportion of people living households where people were under employed was by far the highest in Europe. No matter what figures you use that is the case.
Given that Irish people are no more of less likely to work than people anywhere else, and that our economy and social structures are roughly in line with European norms, it is reasonable to suggest that the reason for such a high number is to do with our welfare system and it's relation to potential earned income.
If there are 50% or 100% or 25% more people for whom welfare is their primary income that income has to come from general taxation, ergo without such a burden taxes could be lower (or spent elsewhere).

In my experience working over the last 25 years most problems and inefficiency is due to structures and processes being badly designed and/or badly implemented. If the structures are correct the outcome is almost always also correct. Therefore this discussion is not a judgement on people but simply questioning if our systems and processes are designed to give the most socially desirable outcome.

 

[TheBigShort]

The opening poster pointed out that our proportion of people living households where people were under employed was by far the highest in Europe. No matter what figures you use that is the case.

Under a title banner that says "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency"??

it is reasonable to suggest that the reason for such a high number is to do with our welfare system and it's relation to potential earned income.

Of course it is reasonable to suggest, .but the title of this topic is not a suggestion, it is quite definite in what needs to be done.

Therefore this discussion is not a judgement on people but simply questioning if our systems and processes are designed to give the most socially desirable outcome.

Well I have no problem with questioning, suggesting, discussing, inquiring.
But again, go back to the title of the topic. There is no suggestion or questioning, it is a definite statement.
Not only is it a definite statement, it is based on inaccurate, misinterpreted material that even the author has admitted was wrong.

As for 'socially desirable outcomes', I have been consistent in stating that cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty. I have been consistent in stating that such measures would only end up costing the taxpayer even more through the provision of other social services.

I have yet to see one idea or one suggestion that would effectively end "the culture of welfare dependency". I have seen no data (other than inaccurate, misinterpreted) to show how many people it concerns, their circumstances, the cost savings, and the approach to be taken (other than cut benefits).

The title is a lazy slur on Irish working people, many of whom who over the last decade have faced intolerance hurdles through job losses, pay cuts, emigration, house repossessions, property taxes on negative equity homes, high rates of suicide, depression, increased taxes on average incomes, USC, increasing insurance premiums, higher VAT, increased child poverty, highest rate of low paid jobs, water charges, cuts in carer allowances, cuts in child benefits...and whatever you would like to add yourself.
Admittedly, some of things are beginning to reverse, and that is very welcome.

But now, before any more progress can be made, some people are at the ready to attack those at the bottom of the social ladder. I will call them out on their agenda and their bogus, lazy, 'analysis' whenever, wherever.

 

[PGF2016]

As for 'socially desirable outcomes', I have been consistent in stating that cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty. I have been consistent in stating that such measures would only end up costing the taxpayer even more through the provision of other social services.

You may have been consistent in stating that but that doesn't make it a fact. It's still an opinion.

Cutting welfare may well drive some people further into poverty but it might also encourage some to get up off their backsides and start taking the initiative to provide for themselves.

 

[TheBigShort]

You may have been consistent in stating that but that doesn't make it a fact. It's still an opinion.

Cutting welfare may well drive some people further into poverty but it might also encourage some to get up off their backsides and start taking the initiative to provide for themselves.

See my first post from page 1 and work from there.