Why is Relative Income Poverty so High in Ireland?

Relative poverty in Ireland

Hi Purple,

Sorry about this mate, but I can't let this one go...

You said


"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."

One of the most condesending statements I've ever heard!!!!

It seems to me that you're making the suggestion that the market supplies all and that anyone who tries to interfere/tweak/whatever you're having yourself is a red and really shouldn't be let out into the community???

I regard myself as a socialist and I have NO problem with entrpeneurship - its great for any economy as it allows technological innovation and creates wealth.

MY problem with the capitalist system is that say I had €10 million Euro and left it to junior - he/she doesn't have to do anything and so wealth and power is skewed as a result. Is this a problem? well, er yes if you have a class of people like this which acts as a break on the next group of potential entrpeneurs.

To me socialism is tied up in efficiency - It's more efficient to have a basic standard of living ensured for everyone - I fully accept that there can't be complete equality down to the last cent - I'd be happy that everyone had an equal OPPORTUNITY to get on in life. That's the main reason why we have such a high level of relative poverty.

As for relative poverty in Ireland, it's a thundering disgrace to see sections in this country who have not encountered the benefits of the Celtic Tiger and why? because a percentage of us absolutely HAD to scrape a few more Euro together to get another mobile phone or something equally idiotic. That's a fairly pathetic thing to be able to say about Irish society really!

Is it just me or does anyone else see how inefficient it is to deny a section of the population access to adequeate economic resources. Remember one of the reasons (well the main one at least) why we joined the EU was that we're poor they're richer and we wanna be like them!! I think the arugment is exactly the same here, it's merely at a slightly lower level.

I'm very glad to see economic development occuring because a rising tide does lift all boats.... but it's been my experience that yachts tend to rise better than lifeboats!

Oh and by the way to the folks who were bashing socialism etc. It's actually the case if you looked at it that social democratic government manage the economy better then right of centre governments, but I suppose it's better to have a good rant then to let the facts get in the way of an argument - on the plus side it must boost the old testosterone levels :rolleyes

Regards,

OpusnBill
 
Relative poverty in Ireland

Unfortunately what you're referred to as a problem with the capitalist system actually isn't any such thing. If you had gained your €10 million it was most probably through hard work and finding a successful niche in the market. If you then left your money and your business to your children who then didn't do anything it'd create a gap in the market for people like your former self to exploit and replace your offspring in providing the service. This is the efficiency of the capitalist system in a socialist system you would have had less of a chance in making your €10 million to start with. However if you still managed it socialist protectionism would have allowed your offspring to sit unchallenged on your laurels while providing a poorer service at a greater cost to society. To use your analogy a rising tide doesn't lift yachts more so smaller craft, the analogy is actually quite good as what a rising tide does is to lift at a faster rate leaner well operated craft who can adapt to the prevailing conditions much quicker than supertanker like semi-state companies so beloved of socialists. In a capitalist society everyone, absolutely everyone has a better chance of getting ahead. A hard working entrepreneur with an eye for the market (irrespective of how they're schooled) has a better chance of getting ahead than lazy unmotivated slackers, be they people who could work but would rather claim the dole or the children of rich parents who depend on their inheritance. In a proper vibrant capitalist economy whoever is prepared to work will get ahead and when it comes to jobs for the boys I think you'll find that this functioned just as well for those connected to the politbureau as it did for those who went to the "right" school.
 
Re: Relative poverty in Ireland

I'm a slightly unusual socialist. I've never been a union member. I work for an aggressively-competitive US multinational and I work bloody hard each day to provide a good service to the business. I hold shares in my current & previous employer.

I've never recommended equality of incomes. I see the value in motivating people & businesses to provide a good, competitive service to consumers.

However, I am passionate about the fundamental inequalities in Irish society. It's easy to say that "In a capitalist society everyone, absolutely everyone has a better chance of getting ahead" and there is a certain amount of truth in this. The problem is that everyone does not have an EQUAL chance of getting ahead. If you have been brought up in an environment where no-one in your extended family works for a living, did you get a fair chance? If you have been 'educated' in an overcrowded, delapidated school where your schoolmates & their parents have no real interest in education or connection to society, did you get fair chance. When you go into interview against someone who shares the school/college/golf club of the interviewer, will you get a fair shot.

I'll be the strongest proponent of the competitive capitalist system when there is a level playing field for all competitors.
 
> Re: Relative poverty in Ireland

Purple QUOTE: "I learned my lesson and now keep away from wild conjecture about the personal circumstances of other contributers to this site."

To be honest I didn't really presume you went to private school or you sent your children (if you have any) to private school. It was an attempt to show the irony of someone who has received the benefits of what might be termed "socialist" benefits. i.e. Public schools & hospitals, whilst appearing to be against socialist policies.

It might be a good idea is you spelled out exactly what you mean by "socialist". I realise communism pushes people down.

You stated "it [capitalism] pushes people up whereas socialism pushes people down". I realise capitalism can push many people up. I am a business owner, so it's certainly pushed me up.

The UK Labour government describes themselves as a socialist party, so do main (and in power) parties in France & Spain as well as other European countries.

I'm not aware of which main policies these governments implement which pushes their citizens down.

What aspect(s) in particular "pushes people down"? Do you mean receiving benefits, or some other aspect?
 
Re. income poverty

Hi Opusnbill, nice to hear from you again and while I’m being nice it’s good to see the high quality of debate from everyone on this one.
Opus, I think that waltermitty answered your last post better than I could, all I can add to his post is my agreement.

"Is it just me or does anyone else see how inefficient it is to deny a section of the population access to adequate economic resources"
I agree with you but nether capitalism nor socialism seeks to do this.

"One of the most condescending statements I've ever heard!!!!" Thanks, I do my best but how dare you use that number of exclamation marks on me!!!!!!!

"I suppose it's better to have a good rant then to let the facts get in the way of an argument "
it’s a speciality of mine.

Rainyday wrote;
"However, I am passionate about the fundamental inequalities in Irish society. It's easy to say that "In a capitalist society everyone, absolutely everyone has a better chance of getting ahead" and there is a certain amount of truth in this. The problem is that everyone does not have an EQUAL chance of getting ahead. If you have been brought up in an environment where no-one in your extended family works for a living, did you get a fair chance? If you have been 'educated' in an overcrowded, dilapidated school where your schoolmates & their parents have no real interest in education or connection to society, did you get fair chance. When you go into interview against someone who shares the school/college/golf club of the interviewer, will you get a fair shot."

I completely agree with you but if you are right (and I think you are) then why was it a socialist minister for education who abolished third level fees, at a cost at the time of 30 million, instead of using that money to target children at the bottom and help them to get through third level by not only giving them free access but the grant and income support to make it through third level. The kids that the labour party said they were trying to help would not have paid fees anyway so all the abolition of fees for third level did was enable upper middle income people to build an extension or move into a bigger house knowing that they would not have to worry about putting their kids through collage. I know I have banged on about this before on LOS but I feel passionate about this! With a bit of planning I could afford to pay for my three children to go to 3rd level and so could most people so why should I get something for free that I can pay for when others still can’t access it even when it is nominally free?
Access to the opportunity to participate in the economy depends, IMHO, on education. I think you would agree with me there rainyday. It is a nice and laudable notion that all education should be free but in the real world of finite resources those who can afford it should pay for it and that money should be pumped into primary and preschool education in disadvantaged areas. Again; this is something I feel passionate about and I see the abolition of third level fees as a cynical vote getting sop to middle income people (like me) and an utter betrayal of the very people that the Labour party should be looking out for.
Nepotism or the old boy network, or whatever you want to call it will exist in any system. What is required is rules and laws to prevent it from existing in public companies or the state sector. Opusnbill did a very good job of defending the public sector in this context some time back and in a capitalist system where companies survive by being the best a culture of nepotism in a private company will be rooted out by the market.
Much of the disadvantage that you talk about rainyday is a symptom of a social more than economic problem. All the access in the world won’t help if the culture of education and social responsibility is not there to go with it.

"I'll be the strongest proponent of the competitive capitalist system when there is a level playing field for all competitors" - I’m with you there as well. To me that makes you a capitalist who believes in a free market in fact as well as name. I went into my opinions on the role of government in a free market in the poverty in America thread so I won’t bore you with more half bakes ideas on it here!

Sean wrote; "It might be a good idea is you spelled out exactly what you mean by "socialist". "
You have hit the nail on the head there Sean. I think that you, rainyday, waltermitty, opusnbill and I all agree that the free market is a good thing, or at least the best way to run the economy. I don’t think any of us think that it should be bigger than the government in that strong government is necessary in order for the economy to be run for the benefit of the country at a whole. For me capitalism regulates the reality whereas socialism seeks to impose the ideal. The latter is the best solution in theory as long as everyone is willing to work for the common good. The former is the best solution in reality because to a larger of smaller extent we are all selfish and capitalism realises this and allows for it while still enabling a system to be put in place that helps those at the bottom.

Apologies for the essay.

Regards,
P
 
.

When you go into interview against someone who shares the school/college/golf club of the interviewer, will you get a fair shot.
Click to expand...

How does socialism get around that? I suspect that under socialism, it'll be even worse. It would be interesting to see a study of instances of nepotism in the civil service vs private enterprise.

(Ireland will always be a nation of what you mentioned. It stinks)
 
Re: Re. income poverty

Hi Purple - The 3rd level fees issue is not the most or significant issue of inequality. I think it really is a bit of a red herring in this particular debate. But if you really want to go there;

- The same socialist education minister also did trojan work at addressing many of the problems at primary level (check out the 'Breaking the Cycle' and 'Early Start' schemes.
- By focusing on primary students & ignoring 3rd level students, we are effectively disposing of a generation of students currently in late primary or secondary students. Is this really fair to those students. They only get one chance at their full-time education.
- The benefits of free primary/secondary education took about 20 years to become clearly visible/measurable. It really is too early to assess the benefits or otherwise of this measure. However, the data for participation in 3rd level by lower socio economic groups from the recent Clancy report does show noticable increases for 1998, the latest year for which data was available;

Estimated proportion of age cohort entering full-time higher education by father’s socioeconomic group
Socio-Economic Group 1998 1992 1986
Other non-manual workers 0.31 0.26 0.11
Skilled manual workers 0.32 0.28 0.13
Semi-skilled manual workers 0.23 0.19 0.11
Unskilled manual workers 0.21 0.12 0.04
Source: Clancy pp.70

- Free fees are the norm in Western Europe. In the Scandinavian countries, France and Germany there are no fees. Belgium charges fees of €500. The only countries introducing or significantly increasing fees are Austria, Portugal and the UK. In Austria fees were abolished in 1972 by The Social Democrats. They were reintroduced in 2001 by the right of centre Peoples Party in coalition with the right wing Freedom Party of Jorgan Haider. The annual fee is now €725. Prior to their reintroduction there was a student registration fee of €12. In the UK fees of £1,100 were introduced a few years ago. However in Scotland this measure was rescinded. There is now a discussion on more substantial fees and related loan schemes for the rest of the UK, but no changes are expected until 2006 at the earliest. It is noteworthy that the countries with the most egalitarian societies, namely the Scandinavian societies charge no fees. In the OECD only Greece, Korea, Turkey and Japan spent less on education than Ireland.
- The old means-testing system was hugely abused, particularly by non-PAYE workers (self-employed, farmers). With any such business, it is not too difficult to manipulate your book profits to get below the thresholds for a year or two in order to qualify for grants. I accept that this issue could be addressed, probably by improving any means-testing system to look at assets as well as income. But any such system would also need to be graduated, to ensure that a €50 salary increase didn't leave a family facing thousands in college bills as a result.
- Redirecting funds raised by charging 3rd level fees to the primary sector is ignoring the fundamental problem of the poor funding of the primary sector. This needs to be addressed on its own merit as a matter of priority, not based on funds available through 3rd level funding. We need a better argument from Dempsey than 'McCreevy won't give me the money'.

I'd really like to get back to the more fundamental issues of the debate. I think you touch on these in your throwaway comment of "All the access in the world won’t help if the culture of education and social responsibility is not there to go with it" - so how do we address the problems of the absence of the culture of education & social responsibility?

With thanks to Jan O'Sullivan's [broken link removed] document for much of the material.
 
Re..

Hi rainyday,
I scanned through the document in the link provided and it makes a strong theoretical case for no 3rd level fees. I agree that education is the most important service that the state provides in the development of a socially cohesive society. The think I just can’t get past is that we still have a situation where children from middle and upper income families are far and away the most likely to go to 3rd level.
Any of the very welcome changes in the level of access to 3rd level from poorer areas over the last ten years has everything to do with investment in primary education and shag all to do with the abolition of fees.
So what we now have is a situation where tax is collected from all, rich and poor, and it is used in a manner which helps the children of rich and privileged parents become rich and privileged themselves.

Yes, you are right that education should be free to all but in a real and practical way making it free to all does not give access to all. Just making it free to kids from the area I work in is no good, you have to give them an income while they are in college, make it an attractive alternative to just getting a job in a factory and not seeking to get a trade or a skill within that factory, just treating is at a source of pocket money and then settling into the life that their parents had rather than the life that they could have.

The removal of third level fees happened in the context of the "spring tide" as it was known, where many middle income people who had never voted for the Labour party before did so on the promise of removing Fianna Fail from government. I believe that abolishing fees was a cynical play to buy those middle income votes in the following election and the cash it freed up want some way towards financing the property boom that further disenfranchised those who it benefited least. It would take a lot to change my mind on this or is it only non socialist parties that can be accused of cynicism?

As you said, we should get back to the main topic in hand but thanks for your comments on this topic, as usual they are thought provoking. I would hate to think that I was so opinionated that I could not be influenced by another persons perspective. (I probably am, but I hate to think so…)

So… how do we "address the problems of the absence of the culture of education & social responsibility" ?
Education in the class room is only part of the solution and cannot work in isolation. There must be a visable reward at the end of the study and hard work. In other works economic opportunity.
There must be a system in place where, as I said above, an income of sorts is available so that peer pressure does not force students out who get that far.
Policing within communities must be a priority so that the state is not seen as an outsider who tries to impose it’s will on the "working man" and participation in the system, or to put it a better way good social citizenship, is seen to be in the interest of the whole community in poorer areas.
Whether we like it or not relative poverty, crime levels and social cohesion are all linked and saying " there are no barriers imposed by the state" is a world away from being able to say "there are no barriers at all". It is not good enough for the state to say we aren’t the problem so off you go.
We as a society should seek to remove the barriers to opportunity that are imposed by social circumstance or cultural background and those at the bottom need more help than those at the top so why not target the resources at those who need them most?
 
Keeping the gates open

Hi Purp - I wasn't a party member in 1992 or such a keen observer of current affairs as I am now, so I really can't comment on whether the removal of 3rd level fees was a cynical ploy to grab the middle-class vote or simply the implementation of a core policy on education. I've been Googling for the 1992 Labour manifesto without success (though I did find [broken link removed] - which was to remove 3rd level fees).

The tax system is the place for the state to collect revenue in proportion to income. I don't see why 3rd level fees should be treated differently to other state services - Should we know set higher A&E fees depending on your income, higher road taxes depending on your income, higher TV licence depending on your income etc etc.

I accept that removal of 3rd level fees does not (on its own) solve the problem of access to 3rd level, but surely it is the screamingly obvious first step down that road? Is your comment that "Any of the very welcome changes in the level of access to 3rd level from poorer areas over the last ten years has everything to do with investment in primary education and shag all to do with the abolition of fees" a personal view, or have you any basis for this in research?

On the broader issue, I don't accept that 'visable reward /economic opportunity" would be key factors in improving 3rd level access. Don't these exist today? There is a fairly obvious visible reward for anyone who has a degree under their belt, but this still isn't enough to open the gates for students from disadvantaged areas. My own humble view is that we need to remove the mystery that surrounds university/college and the associated careers in the years of early secondary school, when the pupils are starting to plan out their careers with access programs, joint school/college/community programs & events, joint business/school programs etc etc.
 
Re: Keeping the gates open

a personal view, or have you any basis for this in research
Click to expand...
A personal view. I prefer to base my comments on opinion and wild conjecture. I suppose I could try to back this up by saying that you can find statistics or reports to back up any view but the reality is that I'm too lazy/busy to bother.
My own humble view is that we need to remove the mystery that surrounds university/college and the associated careers in the years of early secondary school, when the pupils are starting to plan out their careers with access programs, joint school/college/community programs & events, joint business/school programs etc etc.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that it's too late by the time a child reaches 12 or 13, the dye had been cast by the time they are 6 or 7. I can back this up by saying that Mrs Purple was a special education primary teacher before she became a doctor and worked in the very poorest and with the most marginalised kids in the country.

Should we know set higher A&E fees depending on your income, higher road taxes depending on your income, higher TV license depending on your income etc etc.
Click to expand...
In that people with medical cards don't pay for A&E at the moment you are kind of backing up my case or since access to health care should be a right for all should it be free to all?
The country couldn't afford it but in principle it should be free so lets do it. The rich could go to private hospitals when the public system collapses and the poor would suffer but as Sean O'Casey cynically said; "a principle is a principle".
Road tax and TV licenses are not taxes or fees on essential services.

There was a great letter in the Irish Times (that smoked salmon socialist rag) from the education officer in Limerick University a few weeks back about how "free" fees have only helped the rich and now that I think of it she backed up my views on what has helped to cause the tiny increase in access from poorer areas.

The bottom line is that poor kids didn't pay for 3rd level anyway so abolishing fees only helped the rich. Labour me This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language (as O'Casey would have said as well).
 
keeping the gates open

Every society lives on on the hope of it's people.That they have a chance,that they can menage live,that they can get out of a misery.Destroying that hope-or making it impossible to reach the end of the rainbow-would undermine the state as such.What does it really matter if the fees are not abolished .Sure it helps the rich-but in more ways than just going to university for free.It would stabilise society as such.At the moment we have an economic boom but what if this boom lags down for a decade or so?In the old times it was the church and the restrained media that kept things under control.
Sweden-a Nation with no third level fees- had an economic recession for more than a decade and society did not change it's values by 180 degrees.It was stable.
I doubt it that this would be the case here.Taking away the telly and the pint and the holiday in Spain and the home for which the mortgage couldn't be paid no more
would result in a political disaster.One that could be beyond repair.
In giving the masses free access to education the ability to intellectually survive hardship will be strengthened.Crime rates like in the US would not be an issue.
 
Re: keeping the gates open

In giving the masses free access to education the ability to intellectually survive hardship will be strengthened
Click to expand...
In sort of agree, though I don't think there would be such a direct cause and effect. My point is that free access doesn't equate to equal access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top