TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
If 3,500 have their benefits cut and 2,000 of them repent the follow year and engage, I would expect the DSP to consider this a success and make a big deal about it. I can't find any stats on how successful or otherwise cutting benefits has been at getting people back on full benefits - so I have my doubts that it has actually been successful (beyond the actual cutting of benefits - which the DSP does publish stats about). If people stay on cut benefits, the numbers keep increasing year on year - as my calcs assumed.
If people stay on cut benefits, the numbers keep increasing year on year - as my calcs assumed.
You mean apart from your own?
Really? I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'. Why would politicians not want to give that message?Or perhaps making a big deal of how those on welfare have 'repented' or come crawling back, may not be the most politically astute thing to do?
Really? I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'. Why would politicians not want to give that message?
But that's information the DSP does already give us - they tell us they reduced benefits for 14,279 people. I'm querying why they don't give us updates on the follow-on - how many are still on reduced benefits, how many have left the country, how many have engaged etc.Because as I pointed out before, the reasons for not engaging in the first instance are varied. For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?
Or which politician would be proud to say we reduced the welfare on some of those considering emigration as an option for their futures?
Or a 55 yr old fork lift driver (unemployed for 1st time in his life in 2013) refused to do an ECDL course?
Political suicide in my opinion.
I'm querying why they don't give us updates on the follow-on - how many are still on reduced benefits, how many have left the country, how many have engaged etc.
Would that happen though?For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?
if you are 55 and the only skill you have acquired in 35 years is the ability to drive a fork lift truck then you should be ashamed of yourself and gladly take an ECDL course rather than live off your neighbours for the next 30 or 40 years.Or a 55 yr old fork lift driver (unemployed for 1st time in his life in 2013) refused to do an ECDL course?
Political suicide in my opinion.
For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?
Would that happen though?
if you are 55 and the only skill you have acquired in 35 years is the ability to drive a fork lift truck then you should be ashamed of yourself and gladly take an ECDL course rather than live off your neighbours for the next 30 or 40 years.
Wow. Another prize for you for making stuff up. Where did I imply this?It was implied by Orka that it would or should.
Not true. I don't think there are large numbers of people re-engaging ~ so the DSP can't make the claim so they don't publish any stats. I think the number of people on cut benefits gets bigger each year - you don't seem to share this view but you have nothing to back this view up. The only official data we have is that 14,279 people had their benefits cut.She couldn't understand how the DSP would not make a big deal out of successfully getting people whose welfare was cut to re-engage with the DSP.
Information on numbers of people coming off reduced benefits is not a 'claim' - it's just data.In my view, no government department could make such claims without the approval of the Minister in charge.
No, I don't think so.It was implied by Orka that it would or should.
You said he was a forklift driver. That suggested to me that was his main marketable skill. If he'a also a particle physicist then you should have let us know and, more importantly, he should have let the DSP know. Social insurance payments over 35 years for someone on the pay of a forklift driver wouldn't cover their welfare payments for more than a few years. If, after 35 years, the peak of their professional prowess was to be able to drive a forklift, then it's reasonable to assume that they were unskilled for most of that time.Where did I say that it was the only skill obtained by the fork lift driver? And having contributed social insurance and made pension contributions for 35 years, there is little chance that the driver will be living off his/her neighbours?
You see there's your problem right there; you keep assigning motive to other peoples posts based on your preconceptions.Fork lift drivers are a vital, indespensable part of any functioning economy and nothing to be ashamed of.
Snobbery coming to the fore again.
Wow. Another prize for you for making stuff up. Where did I imply this?
Really? I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'. Why would politicians not want to give that message?
You said he was a forklift driver. That suggested to me that was his main marketable skill. If he'a also a particle physicist then you should have let us know and, more importantly, he should have let the DSP know
You see there's your problem right there; you keep assigning motive to other peoples posts based on your preconceptions.
After 35 years in the workforce you would have to be an utter mutton head if that's the only skill, or even the main skill, you have.
If so it is you who are, though ignorance and passive snobbery rather than overt and conscious snobbery, undervaluing the skills of an employee because you consider his job to be manual and therefore requiring a lower intellect.
Sigh... The sequence of posts was:Forgive me, for misinterpreting this quote from you.
If 3,500 have their benefits cut and 2,000 of them repent the follow year and engage, I would expect the DSP to consider this a success and make a big deal about it. I can't find any stats on how successful or otherwise cutting benefits has been at getting people back on full benefits - so I have my doubts that it has actually been successful (beyond the actual cutting of benefits - which the DSP does publish stats about)
Or perhaps making a big deal of how those on welfare have 'repented' or come crawling back, may not be the most politically astute thing to do?
So, to summarise:Really? I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'. Why would politicians not want to give that message?
Sigh... The sequence of posts was:So, to summarise:
orka: IF (note the big IF!!) the strategy (getting people to re-engage) worked – the DSP would want to publish stats.
BigShort: That would not be a politically astute thing to do. [You at least seem to understand here that we are talking about the re-engagement part]
orka: Why not? Good message that the strategy worked and people engaged.
You seem to take this last point as supporting nonsensical engagement efforts. My comment is independent of any comment about to whom or how engagement efforts should happen. It doesn’t say we should do it all costs – just that it’s good if it works and people re-engage (after their benefits are cut). It’s (again) about the re-engagement part of the process not the cutting benefits part (which is what your Sligo single mother and fork-lift driver examples were about).
And this is the point where I realise that I’m engaging in a pointless debate mired in deliberate obfuscation (or maybe just poor comprehension skills) so I’ll leave y’all at it.
I specified marketable skills. His community activities are of no consequence from an employment perspective. He may be good at baking with his kids or grandkids and be brilliant at doing great voices when he reads stories to them but that’s not much use on a CV.I did say a forklift driver, that is correct. But for expedient purposes I didnt provide a full bio.
But he was also a former League of Ireland player (his first love) and is currently engaged in a voluntary capacity with the Irish womens soccer team. He is also actively involved in coaching kids at his local soccer club.
His wife runs a small florists and he frequently helps out at busy times of the year. He is not computer literate, and has no inkling in that regard. Hence his refusal of the ECDL course. But as you can see he has more skills (perhaps more that im unaware of).
Apology accepted.I apologise for my snobbery remark.
Eh yes, there is. Settling for mediocrity is not OK.Its just I never said his only skill was fork lift driver. But even if it was, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
Too late, I already accepted it.I retract my apology.
I don’t, because I know about them.I value all the manual jobs on par with any other.
Scientists and entrepreneurs are workers; they work. Everyone who works is a worker. Some work in the paid economy, some work in the community or voluntary sectors. We are talking about employees and others who work in the paid economy. Please use language appropriate to the 21st, or even the 20th, century.You can have all the great ideas, from all the great scientists and entrepreneurs, but that is what they will remain, just ideas, without the input of all the workers elsewhere.
Only to point out how absurd and destructive it is.And for someone who doesn't like the archaic language of class identity, you are pretty loose with the terminology yourself.
You seem to have a very low opinion of the people in the DSP. Are you suggesting that's the reason for this problem?Opposition: Minister, does the figure of those whose welfare was cut include a single mother living in Sligo, asked to attend an interview in Galway, with no real means of transport or childcare provision? Does it include a 55yr old man, who for the first time in his life, finds himself unemployed and is asked to attend a course that holds no value to him?
Are these the type of people who you class as 'non-engagement'? Are you for real? These are real people, with real qualities, who contribute to society, and dont need the big, bad, department bullying them by way of cuts to their welfare.
You seem to have a very low opinion of the people in the DSP. Are you suggesting that's the reason for this problem?
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?