Homeless mother of 5 wants social housing

[TheBigShort]

She started off by saying that the interview with the mother of five was "very powerful" and should be played to all local authority councillors.
She didn't seem to clarify why and for what reason.

I took it to mean that the mother (Edel) spoke in a manner that simply set out the facts as they are. 17 people in a house, having to look after a child with cerebral palsy.
The bit that struck me was when she said of the child with cerebral palsy "it would be great if he could have a bed to stretch out his legs"!

Later she did seem to offer some opinions somewhat in line with what Brendan has been arguing for.

I would disagree. Brendan has not outlined in any great detail what it is that he wants when he says that those that are not working should be moved to wherever is cheap and quick to build housing.

Many people questioned why somebody eight years homeless would have five kids during that time and seem to expect to be handed a home close to their parents.

To which Alice responded that she was never going to start moralizing people about who should or should not, or how many kids should people have.
Human reproduction is a human condition, it is essential for the survival of the human species. It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.
This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.

 

[Purple]

It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.

It is if you have to pay for them yourself.

This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.

Really, that's the justification for continuing to pop out sprogs and expecting someone else to pay for them?

 

[TheBigShort]

It is if you have to pay for them yourself.

I'm talking about the basic desire for sex and to reproduce. It is not something that you can switch on and off.
You can of course choose not to have children, but that does not extinguish the desire (if you have it).
That's why they invented rubbers.

 

[Purple]

I'm talking about the basic desire for sex and to reproduce. It is not something that you can switch on and off.
You can of course choose not to have children, but that does not extinguish the desire (if you have it).
That's why they invented rubbers.

Yes, exactly. Eating is also a natural desire but unless you want to be a fatty you have to control the amount of foot you stick in your gob. I am fond of fillet steak and fine wines but I can't afford them very often so I can't have them very often.

 

[ClubMan]

17 people in a house

There are not 17 people living in the house.

"Edel also told Kenny that at weekends when other children come to stay there could be 14 people living in the house."

As far as I can tell there are 11 living there. Not ideal but hardly unique in Ireland.

To which Alice responded that she was never going to start moralizing people about who should or should not, or how many kids should people have.

And nobody should - but it's fair comment to point out that some level of reproduction and in certain circumstances is arguably irresponsible.

Human reproduction is a human condition

Not sure what you mean. But in this day and age there's a large element of choice to it too. And it is always a responsibility.

it is essential for the survival of the human species. It is not a selective genetic condition to be triggered on and off depending on where you live and how much you earn.
This is a country that survived a famine. Not because of those who held wealth, but because of those who were impoverished continued to reproduce.

I consider this an irrelevant non sequitur to the topic in hand to be honest.

 

[TheBigShort]

Eating is also a natural desire but unless you want to be a fatty you have to control the amount of foot you stick in your gob.

Doesn't stop you eating though does it? Unless you suffer from an eating disorder you will succumb to the natural human condition to feed yourself. Ditto, sexual desire.
Whether you take protection against pregnancy or whether you choose to eat healthy or fast food is choice of the individual(s).

 

[TheBigShort]

There are not 17 people living in the house.

I stand corrected, my err.

And nobody should - but it's fair comment to point out that some level of reproduction and in certain circumstances is arguably irresponsible.

And that is ultimately the issue. Where do you draw the line? Is it inconceivable that her children grow up to be high achievers? Inventors? Scientists? Peace makers? Entertainers? Artists? Etc..etc and in turn, return everything and more to society than was ever provided to them growing up?

Not sure what you mean. But in this day and age there's a large element of choice to it too. And it is always a responsibility.

I consider this an irrelevant non sequitur to the topic in hand to be honest.

 

[newirishman]

And that is ultimately the issue. Where do you draw the line? Is it inconceivable that her children grow up to be high achievers? Inventors? Scientists? Peace makers? Entertainers? Artists? Etc..etc and in turn, return everything and more to society than was ever provided to them growing up?

Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.

I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.

 

[TheBigShort]

Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.

That is an assumption that accepts the possibility that her children, or a child may achieve great things.

I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.

A reasonable stable environment? Is that what you would say to Syrians now today? Or Palestinians? Or Puerto Ricans today? Should Puerto Ricans hold off on having children until they have established a 'reasonable stable environment'.
Is that what the impoverished Irish should have done for 100+ after the famine? In which case our population would be depleted.

For the record, she and her family are not homeless. They are on the housing waiting list, due not being able to afford a home of their own. They were moved to the emergency housing list on foot of her health condition (a life threatening blood clot) and having to take care of a child with cerebral palsy.

 

[ant dee]

Except we do not have a civil war, nor a famine, nor is the species threatened. You cant be comparing those situations...

They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.
Yet, they chose to have them, because they knew social welfare will foot the bills.

Yes, social welfare should help now, and it will. But that family should have also acted more responsibly and not have that many kids while in this situation.
Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!

 

[TheBigShort]

Except we do not have a civil war, nor a famine, nor is the species threatened. You cant be comparing those situations...

They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.

My grandparents got married in 1932. They had a small farm holding in East Kerry. By any yardstick they were poor. No central heating, no electricity, no industry, no welfare, life expectancy about late 40's, infant mortality way higher than today no doubt.
Conditions arguably far worse with even less potential opportunity than today.

Should they have had any kids?

Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!

The 'safety net' as you call I think was first adopted in Japan around a hundred years ago when they started paying the old age pension. Human kind has survived for thousands of years before that without the 'safety net'.
The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies

and not have that many kids while in this situation.

So how many kids should they, or anyone for that matter, have?
Have you got a chart that outlines how many kids anyone should have?
If people in poor conditions should not have kids, how many kids should wealthy people be having?

 

[Purple]

My grandparents got married in 1932. They had a small farm holding in East Kerry. By any yardstick they were poor. No central heating, no electricity, no industry, no welfare, life expectancy about late 40's, infant mortality way higher than today no doubt.
Conditions arguably far worse with even less potential opportunity than today.

Should they have had any kids?

Did they expect someone else to house them, cloth them and feed them?

 

[Purple]

The 'safety net' as you call I think was first adopted in Japan around a hundred years ago when they started paying the old age pension. Human kind has survived for thousands of years before that without the 'safety net'.
The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies

Bismarck introduced the first State old age pension in Germany in 1881.
People got it at 70. Life expectancy was 71. Most people started work in their teens so 50 years plus at work before getting a pension for a few years = sustainable.

 

[Firefly]

Maybe not inconceivable, but highly unlikely.

I find it irresponsible to have children if you are not in a reasonable stable environment. Having 5 kids whilst being homeless is shocking. Why would you want to disadvantage your kids so severely from the start? Pure selfishness.

I agree. I'm not sure enough people think things through in general, be it taking on debt they cannot afford or having kids when they can't afford to. As long as someone else picks up the tab then why should the bother?

Living within your means is a pretty fundamental concept to help safeguard your future. It should be drilled into the minds of every child.

 

[TheBigShort]

Did they expect someone else to house them, cloth them and feed them?

No I don't think so. They relied on the local community when food was tight, as they provided to others in their community when their neighbours were struggling.
But that wasn't my question. Given the circumstances that they lived in, should they have had any kids (or how many)? Or should they have left the replacement of the population to those who could 'afford' it?

Bismarck introduced the first State old age pension in Germany in 1881.

I stand corrected.

People got it at 70. Life expectancy was 71. Most people started work in their teens so 50 years plus at work before getting a pension for a few years = sustainable.

Yes, but again, it is the worker who ultimately pays for it through wealth created through Labour.
So perhaps time for the ownership of all wealth to be transferred to those who do all the work?

 

[Firefly]

They know they can't possibly afford to raise the 5 kids, they cant even afford to house them.
Yet, they chose to have them, because they knew social welfare will foot the bills.

Yes, social welfare should help now, and it will. But that family should have also acted more responsibly and not have that many kids while in this situation.
Just because the safety net is there doesn't mean we should all go jump in it!

+1

 

[Delboy]

I know lots of people who have moved to Dublin to find work. Broke their backs to save for mortgages, many still in negative equity. They got married and struggled for years during the recession with wage cuts and luckily, very few were laid off who didn't find work again quickly.
But all of those couples really had to think hard about the number of kids they could afford. Most had 2 and some had only the one. Others tried for a 2nd but as they had left it so late for the 1st, it sadly wasn't possible to have any more kids. They are feeling really guilty about only having the one but that was all they could afford at the time.

That's personal responsibility. Thats what the current structure of the Irish State has done to hard working people.
Having several kids while waiting to be housed and having no job is a personal choice that is funded by the people I mention above. It's not 1930's east Kerry, it's not nature calling. It's people playing a system that's there to be gamed

 

[ant dee]

My grandparents got married in 1932

Except we live in 2017 and infant mortality rates are like 0.5%. Yes, you had to try quite a few times in the old ages to make sure a couple of kids survived to adulthood, but that is no the case today.

The correlation between the introduction of 'safety net' and the advancement of modern societies through the past century, in life expectancy, in reducing infant mortality rates, innovation, education, health and medicine etc is there for everyone to see in all nations across the globe that have adopted welfare policies

Correlation does not mean causation though. Are you saying social welfare caused the advancement of modern societies?

So how many kids should they, or anyone for that matter, have?
Have you got a chart that outlines how many kids anyone should have?
If people in poor conditions should not have kids, how many kids should wealthy people be having?

Common sense says wealthy people can have as many kids as they want. Is that bad?

A couple struggling with their mortgage will not go and have 5 kids. But a homeless couple will, and it will get them higher up the housing list and there is nothing wrong with that?

I am not saying it is reasonable to make any rules regarding how many kids we should have. The kids are here now and the State will help.
But can you not agree it was irresponsible to have so many while homeless?

 

[Firefly]

That's personal responsibility.

Something a lot of people lack!

 

[cremeegg]

So perhaps time for the ownership of all wealth to be transferred to those who do all the work?

Transferred ? Why transferred. I acquired my small sliver of "all wealth" by working and investing. I didn't get it as a result of a transfer, and I certainly don't want to give it up in a transfer.

I would be very happy to see those who do all the work having ownership of all the wealth, it would happen a lot faster if taxes were reduced.