Why is Relative Income Poverty so High in Ireland?

Hi Purple - Our country is already clearly divided between rich & poor, and the statistics for relative poverty (which put us on a par with the US demonstrate this). Just try getting to see a medical consultant without VHI/BUPA if you don't believe me.

And if you are really worried about sweeping statements, have a look back at 'The reason we have a high level of relative poverty is because we have a low level of social responsibility from most of those who fall into the relative poverty category' - you are not looking at root cause. Why do you believe that those guys have such a low level of social responsibility? Is it something in their genes, or what?
 
And if you are really worried about sweeping statements, have a look back at 'The reason we have a high level of relative poverty is because we have a low level of social responsibility from most of those who fall into the relative poverty category'
Click to expand...
and where did I say I wasn't a hypocrite? eh?
Why do you believe that those guys have such a low level of social responsibility?
Click to expand...
A combination of the social (not economic) environment that they were born into, the peer pressures that they grew up with and a system that fails them and at the same time gives them enough to stay where they are. It is mostly their own fault though, I don't accept the left wing view that the greed of the "system" is all the prevents everyone holding hands and being good citizens.
Some people will be scumbags no matter where they are from.
Is it something in their genes, or what?
Click to expand...
no

Just try getting to see a medical consultant without VHI/BUPA if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...
That's because there is no real separation between public and private at the functional level in the health industry in this country.
Public should be public and private should be private and no consultant should be able to use his or her publicly provided administrative system to run their private practice (as they do now).
you are not looking at root cause.
Click to expand...
so you tell me what the root cause is, without going off on an abstract philosophical tangent. (no offense).
 
There is a direct contradiction here - you cite three causes, none of which are in the control of the individuals concerned and then wrap up with 'mostly their own fault' - Please expand on this - do you believe that it is a simple coincidence that so many individuals from disadvangated areas decide to 'opt out'?
 
you are right rainyday, I should have added "and the fact that they accept their circumstances and do not bother to rise above them."
Plenty of people living in poorer areas are good hardworking people who do not choose to opt out. Plenty of people who live in middle income areas come from poorer areas but worked hard and looked after their money. Don't offend them with smoked salmon socialist paternal generalisations that talk about the poor as if they are an inferior race that need to be looked after by "us".
The obvious economic and educational disadvantages that poorer people have to overcome is no excuse for breaking the law or being a scumbag. Stop blaming the system and treating people as mindless sheep and admit that while the circumstances may, and often do, act against the individual they must still bear responsibility for their actions.
It would be nice if you addressed some of the broader issues in my posts as I would be genuinely interested in your opinion.
You have softened my stance (made me less opinionated) on other issues.
 
the fact that they accept their circumstances and do not bother to rise above them
Click to expand...
OK - now we are getting places, but we still have quite a long way to go.

Do you feel that 'the system' has given these people a fair shot at 'rising above the system' in terms of education?

What happens if all the minimum-wage workers in the country suddenly choose NOT to accept their circumstances and start rising above it? They ALL go off and do OU degrees and move up the value-chain to highly paid jobs. Who do you think is going to empty your office bin and sweep the floor? This is the myth of the capitalist system - that the masses can 'rise above it' if they choose. They can't.
 
What happens if all the minimum-wage workers in the country suddenly choose NOT to accept their circumstances and start rising above it?
Click to expand...
we become a very rich country and let in lots on emigrant workers who will then have the chance to "rise above it".
Who do you think is going to empty your office bin and sweep the floor?
Click to expand...
I empty my own office bin and a guy who spent half his life out of his mind on drugs, and has the damaged mind to prove it, sweeps the floors.
This is the myth of the capitalist system - that the masses can 'rise above it' if they choose. They can't.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Will you please stop picking out small sections of my posts and answer the substance of them.
 
The masses can't rise above the system because the system relies on having the masses of cheap labour available to keep the system going.
 
you are stuck in the 1880's. The "masses" of cheap labour that keep our system going now live in Third world countries. Why not focus your obvious intellect on that issue and stop banging a drum that was left behind years ago?
There are no oppressed masses in the west any more, social democracy is the established system in Europe and to a lesser extent in America. This is the case because they are democratic. They are democratic because they are rich.
 
I disagree - The oppressed masses are all around us. They are the ones with 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs, or living on the dole stuck in a poverty trap without the initiative, education or resources. I did some work via a community scheme with a school in Jobstown in Tallaght some years back - the key objective of the scheme was to give the kids exposure to someone who has a job, as there was probably no-one in their family circle or locality working for a living. These problems are still very real in Ireland today - the Celtic Tiger bypassed these areas.
 
There are a lot of disadvantaged people in Ireland but they could hardly be described as "masses". Drop the Marxist terminology and get down to cause and solution.
Typical socialist, you can list off all the countries ills but nothing short of a revolution will fix a thing ;-)
 
I worked in a school in 1996. Many of the LC class who came from deprived backgrounds had no interest in school. They spent most of their days in bed watching videos. Typical parent response: "sure what can I do with him"? Their ambition was to go on the dole asap to get money. It was rather depressing.

Within 2 years - 1998 the climate had changed. The students were better dressed. They started to take pride in their appearance. They went on foreign holidays - (mostly during term time!). They started to work and spent 3-4 hours after school at their jobs. They came to school on their new 50cc bikes. They attended more often - even if it was only to discuss bikes with their pals! They saved money in the credit union. The celtic tiger bit them and got them motivated. They started talking about going to college, getting an apprenticeship.

These lads will never be able to go back to the life which would have been their lot previously.

They learned quickly that you had to go out and work for what you want in this life. Of course there are those who through illness/disability will never be able to work and will have to be looked after by the taxpayer.

It was great to see the transformation.

Marion :hat
 
good post Marion.
The Celtic Tiger comparatively disadvantaged middle class people on salaried incomes (civil, public, and unionised sector). That's why the Labour party, the party of the well heeled suburban socialist, and their (un?)official news paper the Irish Times, trot out so much crap about it only helping the rich. It helped the rich most but it also helped the poor.
I work in one of the most deprived areas of Dublin and the poverty here has shag all to do with income.
 
They learned quickly that you had to go out and work for what you want in this life. Of course there are those who through illness/disability will never be able to work and will have to be looked after by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...
and that's the practical capitalist system at it's best Marion; it pushes people up whereas socialism pushes people down.
 
Do you mean communism?

QUOTE:"socialism pushes people down".

By "socialism" are you actually referring to communism?

I presume your parents sent you and your siblings to private fee paying schools, not schools which are open to the public; and you also intend to do the same with any children of your own i.e. privately pay all their school fees.

I take it you would only receive treatment in a private hospital, and not a public one?

I expect public schools & hospitals would be much too "socialist" for your tastes...
 
Re: Do you mean communism?

No, I mean socialism.
No, I went to a public school.
No, my children go to public schools.
No, I have received treatment only in public hospitals (as both a private and public patient).

I had a go at rainyday about a year ago in the same way as you have here Sean and , like you, I couldn't have been more wrong. I learned my lesson and now keep away from wild conjecture about the personal circumstances of other contributers to this site.

By socialism are you actually referring to a capitalist system that taxes and spends in order to maintain a social (not socialist) policy?

I am a tradesman and I work in a factory. That gives me better socialist credentials than most of the labour party. It's just that having worked in a poorer area for the last 14 years and worked and socialised with people from that area I have seen that socialism seeks to make the disadvantaged stay where they are and capitalism gives them the opportunity to do well and change their circumstances by their own efforts if they desire to do so.
I expect public schools & hospitals would be much too "socialist" for your tastes...
Click to expand...
Public schools and hospitals are good for social cohesion and so are in everybody's interest. Socialist policies seek to punish those who work hard and take risks and so are bad for society in general.
Socialists mean well but can't see the whole story.
 
Re: Do you mean communism?

socialism seeks to make the disadvantaged stay where they are
Click to expand...
This is absolutely untrue. Unfortunately, my time to debate is very limited, but I just can't let this stuff go.
 
.

This is absolutely untrue. [/b[

No it's not! - what example can you give where this isn't the case?

Anything that dilutes capitalism is a bad thing. Communism didn't work (notice how communist countries are poor, or collapsed). Socialism is simply 'Communism lite' and should be eradica
 
Re: Do you mean communism?

I'm not trolling here rainyday but I would like to hear your comments on this as I find them informed and interesting.
 
.

purple, I think you'll be waiting a long time to hear any redeeming factors about socialism.

Socialism is for sheep, whereas those with drive and ambition with thrive under capitalism.
 
Re: .

Anything that dilutes capitalism is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I hate to disagree with you here but any system that seeks to implement, and therefore impose, a philosophy in a pure form is a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register