Thanks for the clarification but why do you keep talking about scenarios which to be real would require seriously inept people in the DSP?
"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
His coaching skills are marketable. All leadership positions (of any degree) will require evidence of team management. In order for him to be involved with the Irish soccer squad he will have obtained coaching badges recognisable in any UEFA affiliate country. If he were to live in England, he could perhaps command a fee, but in Ireland the structures around soccer are weak.
Furthermore, the man clearly shows a high level of dedication (thousands of soccer players, few make it to L o Ire standard), loyalty, working for same company for a long time, responbility, working with kids, ethics, trust etc. Comparable to a kid who just left college with a degree in Business & Management and who is still half stoned I know who I would place more value on as a prospective employee.
I never said he didnt have basic computer skills, I said he was not computer literate, that is, to define computer literacy; the ability to use computer and related technology efficiently, with a range of skills that covers elementary use to programming and advanced problem solving.
The beauty of todays technology, such as SAP, is that it allows even the most illiterate computer user to perform basic functions. And no doubt, any proper processing plan will ensure that the user is capable of performing the required functions.
A butcher is a provider of food, like a farmer. A surgeon can also be categorized. For instance a knee surgeon or a brain surgeon.
Nevertheless, the market value of the surgeon is greater than the butcher or the farmer as the job is intrinsically more complex than butchering or farming.
But the economic and social value of the farmer and the butcher is infinitely far greater than the surgeon.
That is to say, the probability of the human race going to conflict or extinction without surgeons is, at best minimal.
On the other hand, without the millions of butchers and farmers providing food we could be in a right state. And if we have a shortage of food, I wouldnt fancy a hungry surgeon chopping at my bits.
So I would value the butcher (or food provider) more than the surgeon.
Ditto the carpenter and the street sweeper.
A bizarre comment of humongous distortions not worth responding to.
If the population of cows fell to 1% of what it is now, a fillet steak would be more expensive than going to see a doctor and a butcher with a solid supply of beef could earn more than a surgeon.
Basically, it's supply and demand.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
No, its considerably more complex than basic supply and demand.
For sure, if the cattle population fell to that level the price of beef would rise, but if the butcher also supplied alternative meats (many of them do!) then its likely his main trade would be pork or chicken or lamb etc..
Now, if you are suggesting that the supply of all meats fell to 1% then its likely the population would resort to other available food supplies, fish, fruit, bread, veg, nuts etc.
True, the butchers that remained in existence could make a handsome profit from selling meat as it would be classed as a luxury good. The butcher may even make more money than the surgeon. But in this regard, whilst the butcher and surgeon could command high market prices for their produce/services, the economic and social value of the buthcher would be greatly diminished relative to the fisherman, green grocer, baker.
Of course you are correct if there are alternatives available and I could have picked a better example as there are no real alternatives to surgery - you have extremely limited supply of surgeons for something that, for someone who needs it, a very high demand. Hence the high cost of labour. Whether you value a surgeon or a farmer higher on societal contributions is somewhat mute..since people first began trading and later with the development of currencies, the market has by and large set the price of things we pay for. Anyway, I'm straying way off topic. Back to Johnny!
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Yes, but market value is different to economic value and/or social value.
So going back to Johnny, my point about him, or if not specifically him, is that if you push people further into poverty, then you are more likely (not conclusively) to increase the chances of pushing a person into crime.
If we define crime as stealing a loaf of bread, then a hungry person would carry the profile of potential criminal.
Considering the title of this thread and the position you take, the above post is deeply ironic.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
In what sense?
I don't have the time or energy to spend 4 or 5 pages of a thread explaining the same thing over and over again to you so just think about it.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I have...and there is nothing to think about. More empty babble.
Be it black and white stats pulled from newspaper headlines spouting alarmist nonsense or preconceived notions that those on welfare are parasites or low skilled workers are mutton heads with little intrinsic value to the economy, its all been bluster.
Considering the title of the topic, in 27 pages not one poster, in favour of the proposition, has provided any form of concrete proposal on how to implement the proposal.
That is ironic.
There you go again.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Not one decent idea, not one original thought.
Twenty years ago the US addressed the issue of welfare dependancy. Bill Clinton introduced the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
Consideration of how this succeeded or failed might shed some light on the issue here.
Would it be wise , at this juncture , to look at the reality of the situation ?
If the Government were to be approached at the current time with the proposition that we should dismantle our culture of dependency I would imagine that their response would be somewhat along the lines of - who is this " WE " Kemo Sabe ?
After all the Government have stated that when the unemployment rate falls to 6% we will effectively hit full employment & we are not a million miles away from that at 8.3 % currently ( in excess of 2 million people in the workforce , highest figure since 2008 )
They can also point to the fact the Dept. of Social Welfare are now far more proactive than any time in the past in dealing with fraud & ensuring that people seek work & attend appropriate courses & if they fail to comply then they suffer punitive consequences.
I can speak to this as after availing of voluntary redundancy in 2007 I signed on & was taken aback at the laissez faire attitude - I simply attended one interview with my social welfare officer , never had to produce a CV , never had to attend a job interview , never had to produce evidence of seeking work .
I signed on once a month & after initially having to call to the local Post Office with ID to collect my payment I was then able to have my payment transferred to my Bank Account.
All has changed , my wife took voluntary redundancy last year & she had a number of meetings with her Welfare Officer - she had to produce a CV , produce evidence that she was seeking work ( she actually got a part time retail job at Christmas & a 6 month contract in a financial institution subsequently ) & was lucky enough initially to be placed on a hugely oversubscribed EDCL course .
When she was receiving benefits over a 9 month period there was no question but that she had to call to the Post Office to collect her payment.
Given the Apple billions situation & the rather precarious nature of the current Government it is I believe politically inconceivable that this Government will reduce/limit social welfare payments/benefits ( God , they are reducing my social welfare whilst attempting to return billions to Apple - that's not going to play well ! ) .
With the mooted increase in the OAP & the restoration of cuts to the lone parent allowance can further increases in other areas be far away ?
If the Government were to be approached at the current time with the proposition that we should dismantle our culture of dependency I would imagine that their response would be somewhat along the lines of - who is this " WE " Kemo Sabe ?
After all the Government have stated that when the unemployment rate falls to 6% we will effectively hit full employment & we are not a million miles away from that at 8.3 % currently ( in excess of 2 million people in the workforce , highest figure since 2008 )
They can also point to the fact the Dept. of Social Welfare are now far more proactive than any time in the past in dealing with fraud & ensuring that people seek work & attend appropriate courses & if they fail to comply then they suffer punitive consequences.
I can speak to this as after availing of voluntary redundancy in 2007 I signed on & was taken aback at the laissez faire attitude - I simply attended one interview with my social welfare officer , never had to produce a CV , never had to attend a job interview , never had to produce evidence of seeking work .
I signed on once a month & after initially having to call to the local Post Office with ID to collect my payment I was then able to have my payment transferred to my Bank Account.
All has changed , my wife took voluntary redundancy last year & she had a number of meetings with her Welfare Officer - she had to produce a CV , produce evidence that she was seeking work ( she actually got a part time retail job at Christmas & a 6 month contract in a financial institution subsequently ) & was lucky enough initially to be placed on a hugely oversubscribed EDCL course .
When she was receiving benefits over a 9 month period there was no question but that she had to call to the Post Office to collect her payment.
Given the Apple billions situation & the rather precarious nature of the current Government it is I believe politically inconceivable that this Government will reduce/limit social welfare payments/benefits ( God , they are reducing my social welfare whilst attempting to return billions to Apple - that's not going to play well ! ) .
With the mooted increase in the OAP & the restoration of cuts to the lone parent allowance can further increases in other areas be far away ?
Last edited:
I agree Deiseblue.
So, the answer to the OP is that we are already doing it, as evidenced in your post.
Joan Burton did a good job as Minister for Social Protection (I preferred the old name, the new one sounds too Orwellian to me).
Maybe only a Labour Minister could have said and done the things she did in this area.
If, as it seems, Welfare as a lifestyle choice is becoming a more difficult proposition then it will be good for society in the longer term.
So, the answer to the OP is that we are already doing it, as evidenced in your post.
Joan Burton did a good job as Minister for Social Protection (I preferred the old name, the new one sounds too Orwellian to me).
Maybe only a Labour Minister could have said and done the things she did in this area.
If, as it seems, Welfare as a lifestyle choice is becoming a more difficult proposition then it will be good for society in the longer term.
Good post Deise and I agree. A challenge for the government now will be to continue the good work that has been done in this era if/when the economy improves and not "take the eye off the ball". Regarding those who are longterm unemployed who have never worked, then I am also starting to see TheBigShorts view - they are probably not going to turn over a new leaf at this stage but replace their lost income from other sources. However, by continuing to make it more and more difficult for people to remain on the dole can only be a good thing for the next generation - if they see the hassle & hoops their parents have to jump through to get a few bob they might realise that they would be better off working
One question on the point below however:
Is you name Johnny?
One question on the point below however:
Is you name Johnny?
I'm just wondering is there an end point to this debate. Because whatever way we look at our culture of dependency, it is not going to go away. So are we all just sucked into a vacuum that is going nowhere. But, some good points have been raised along the way. I wonder is there a case for:-
1. Dismantling nearly every Social Welfare Claim including Deserted Wives, Single Parent, Job Seekers Allowance etc and start from the beginning again.
2. Cease all 3rd Level Grants or give the grants to everybody attending 3rd Level and have them pay back what they got later.
3. Give everybody the Free Medical Card as the cost of administrating the scheme is dearer than just handing a card to everybody.
4. Stop all home improvement grants without exception.
5. Do away with the Family Income Supplement.
6. Abolish all tax free allowances on any kind of loan including mortgage.
7. Cease funding secondary grants for books etc.
8. Cease all unemployment payments.
Then start again and test each individual claim. In line with our false claimers of which we have many, would it be sensible to start from scratch?
1. Dismantling nearly every Social Welfare Claim including Deserted Wives, Single Parent, Job Seekers Allowance etc and start from the beginning again.
2. Cease all 3rd Level Grants or give the grants to everybody attending 3rd Level and have them pay back what they got later.
3. Give everybody the Free Medical Card as the cost of administrating the scheme is dearer than just handing a card to everybody.
4. Stop all home improvement grants without exception.
5. Do away with the Family Income Supplement.
6. Abolish all tax free allowances on any kind of loan including mortgage.
7. Cease funding secondary grants for books etc.
8. Cease all unemployment payments.
Then start again and test each individual claim. In line with our false claimers of which we have many, would it be sensible to start from scratch?
You're just trying to start the whole discussion again from scratch! I for one don't have the energy for that.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
This was also highlighted by Orka who identified that some 14,000 had their welfare cut for not engaging with the DSP
Its good to see a somewhat more refreshing and more realistic approach and I welcome cremeeggs contribution which goes some considerable way to outline both sides of debate here.
As Deise highlighted, perhaps a focus on the resolution to any real or perceived issues could be discussed. I for one would be interested in looking at the lack of wage increases, particularly low pay, as the primary reason for any welfare dependency.