nobody wants to do physical jobs today

[Purple]

I'm being very constructive in dismantling the infantile stereotypical view that those who are unemployed are bar-stool couch potatoes

Well that's a Strawman argument if ever there was one; you are debunking a point nobody is making.

or that too many people are opting for a life of welfare rather than take up physically demanding jobs on constructions sites or elsewhere

One person opting for a life on welfare is one too many. Not just because they are effectively stealing from their neighbours but because it is a horribly unfulfilled life.

The 5% is probably made up primarily of active job-seekers who for one reason or another are currently out of work. Those reasons can consist of;

• Out-of-Contract workers (temporarily unemployed)
  
• New graduates seeking placement
  
• High Skill workers looking for better t&c than what is being offered
  
• Semi-skilled workers competing for positions in labour markets
  
• Low-skilled, or unskilled workers looking for work but not being hired (not deemed suitable by prospective employers)
  
• Middle-aged workers with limited skillsets recently made redundant, needing re-training
• Lazy (possibly criminal) couch potato element that most employers wouldn’t hire anyway.

I wouldn't consider the last cohort to be active job seekers.

Here is a quote from that link;

“We add to the official unemployed total of 133,000 1) 114,000 for part-time workers seeking full-time work or longer hours 2) 119,000 — the estimate of the potential additional workforce 3) 59,00 in public “activation programmes” that are publicly funded and participants are classified as employed.”

Clearly, it states that 114,000 part-time workers are seeking full-time work or longer hours. To me, this debunks the notion that people are choosing not to work or not to work full-time as stated in the OP.

Nobody is arguing that many people would like more hours but there are still 192,000 people (133,000 + 59,000) who are not working but could be. That is a societal failure as well as an economic one.

But if employers wont hire them, how are they supposed to get work? They don't want to work, and employers don't want to hire them.

So should they get job seekers allowance? If they weren't getting any welfare they would want to work.

I would suggest that you read the OP. "50% on welfare" "we are reaching a tipping point" "more and more are choosing not to work", when in fact more and more are taking up employment.

In an era of near full employment, where unskilled people who can hardly speak english come here and are working within days or weeks, it says alot about many on welfare that they choose not to work but rather live parasitically off their neighbours.
Welfare should before those who need it, not those who choose it.
As for manual work; the world we live in has changed and many manual jobs are gone. One skilled man in a JCB can do the work of 20 unskilled men with shovels and picks. We shouldn't lament the death of those jobs; we are better off without them.

And I've dug and cemented posts into the ground. It's not that hard.

 

[Leo]

I would suggest that you read the OP. "50% on welfare" "we are reaching a tipping point" "more and more are choosing not to work", when in fact more and more are taking up employment.

I did read it, nowhere does it state that all the 5% are choosing not to work. Neither is the "50% on welfare" piece attempting to put a number on those choosing not to work. I'm not sure why you put the "more and more are choosing not to work" piece in quotes, the OP didn't say that, that's your invention.

 

[TheBigShort]

One person opting for a life on welfare is one too many.

Every sperm is sacred and all that?

Nobody is arguing that many people would like more hours but there are still 192,000 people (133,000 + 59,000) who are not working but could be. That is a societal failure as well as an economic one.

I took the 59,000 in 'public activation programmers' to mean that they are training or re-training? Surely that is a good thing? Isnt that what you consistently say, that people should re-train to improve their skill sets?

As for the 133,000, how many of them are not seeking work? The 114,000 part-timers are seeking full-time work or longer hours but cant get it (otherwise wouldn't be seeking, right?).

So if 133,000 cannot get work, might it have anything to do with matching skillsets and suitability and experience to the jobs (or lack of) on offer for those skillsets, as per my list above? Or do you think it is more to do with choosing welfare as a lifestyle?

If they weren't getting any welfare they would want to work.

But as Leo pointed out, as an employer, he wouldn't recruit them, so now no job and no welfare!

In an era of near full employment, where unskilled people who can hardly speak english come here and are working within days or weeks, it says alot about many on welfare that they choose not to work but rather live parasitically off their neighbours.

How many are choosing not to work?

Welfare should before those who need it, not those who choose it.

Who is choosing it? How many are we talking about?

We shouldn't lament the death of those jobs; we are better off without them.

For sure, and no doubt the 59,000 in public activation programs are re-training themselves.

Here is link

[broken link removed]

"Employment growth of 2.3 per cent (48,000 jobs) is projected for 20184 . The stability of the labour market will continue to influence future supply and demand for activation programmes. Evidence suggests that the cohorts requiring the most assistance, in terms of numbers and distance from the labour market, are people on the Live Register for more than 3 years and people with disabilities".

 

[TheBigShort]

I did read it, nowhere does it state that all the 5% are choosing not to work. Neither is the "50% on welfare" piece attempting to put a number on those choosing not to work. I'm not sure why you put the "more and more are choosing not to work" piece in quotes, the OP didn't say that

I never said it did - I was paraphrasing. I, perhaps lazily, thought the second sentenced linked to the first sentence, and that the third sentence linked to the second, and so on - silly me!

Then on another point over 50% of irish population is on welfare of some sort and this ratio is increasing all the time. I think we are reaching a tipping point where people are choosing not to work or not to work full time and to fall back on the welfare system. There are less and less people prepared to work full time to finance all this. So we have people on welfare and on the housing list and these people refuse to take up jobs to build those very houses. Somethings gotta change

Either you are playing dumb, or you agree with this post. I disagree with it.

 

[Purple]

So if 133,000 cannot get work, might it have anything to do with matching skillsets and suitability and experience to the jobs (or lack of) on offer for those skillsets, as per my list above? Or do you think it is more to do with choosing welfare as a lifestyle?

Do you really think it is that binary?

But as Leo pointed out, as an employer, he wouldn't recruit them, so now no job and no welfare!

Do you really think it is that binary? Taken to the extreme do you think that they would starve due to an utter inability to find a job?

How many are choosing not to work?

You tell me, or do you think that all of them are choosing to work?

Who is choosing it? How many are we talking about?

What are you talking about?

For sure, and no doubt the 59,000 in public activation programs are re-training themselves.

They are being retrained. They are note retraining themselves. Do you think that they are all really seeking work or are some of them just going through the motions so that they can keep getting handouts? How many, in your opinion, are really committed to seeking work?

 

[Leo]

I never said it did - I was paraphrasing. I, perhaps lazily, thought the second sentenced linked to the first sentence, and that the third sentence linked to the second, and so on - silly me!

Paraphrasing is not supposed to change the meaning, or infer meaning not present in the original.

Why did you suggest I should go read the OP in response to me saying "I don't think anyone is suggesting they make up the full 5%, or is even attempting to put a real number on it"?

Either you are playing dumb, or you agree with this post. I disagree with it.

Not trying to play anything, but there are a number of points made there, not all directly related, it is possible to agree or disagree to varying degrees with these. If I may paraphrase, my interpretation of the core problem statement would be:

There is a cohort of Irish society who while capable of working, actively choose to live off welfare rather than seek gainful employment.
​

So ignoring the other pieces about percentage of population who claim some form of social welfare, or stuff about people on housing lists building such houses, if we focus in on my interpretation above, that is something I know from experience to be true, and I believe it is something that should be very much discouraged.

 

[Purple]

There is a cohort of Irish society who while capable of working, actively choose to live off welfare rather than seek gainful employment.

It is true. The only argument is the size of that cohort.

 

[Sunny]

Couple of points.

The 114,000 part time people were simply asked if they were looking for more work. They answered Yes. The vast majority of people would. That is not the same as actively seeking work. Could be numerous issues for this including reasonable things like childcare, health etc but it could also include more unreasonable things like fear about losing welfare benefits like medical cards etc. Welfare should never be a barrier to work. You should always be rewarded to work but in this country you are generally not.

As for the 59,000 in reactivation programmes, I would be very interested in knowing the % of this 59000 who end up back in employment. Are these reactivation programmes actually delivering on what they are meant to do or are they just being used by some people to ensure they continue to get benefits.

There are people who choose not to work. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. I don't know if it is one person or 1000 people or 10000 people. I know you want an exact figure but you can hardly expect people here to provide it if social welfare can't capture it. Or at least won't publish it. It doesn't invalidate the point though that these people are NOT ENTITLED to expect the State to provide for them. That's not right wing politics. According to the your link, 13.7% of 18-24 year olds are not in employment and are not in education. So what are they doing? This isn't an Irish problem but it does need to be dealt with because it is these people who are clinging on to right wing politics as the solution to their problems i.e. blame immigrants for everything. Why are we afraid to call these people out? People hanging around streets all day who aren't homeless? What are they doing? People popping down to shops in the pajamas at lunchtime and then back to their 400k social housing in the IFSC as I saw this morning. What are they doing?

This isn't just a welfare problem. The same problem exists with taxation. I know people who have turned down promotions that came with extra money and stopped working overtime because it just wasn't worth it after paying over 50% in tax.

I spent 9 months of my life unemployed back in 2012. It was the most depressing, demoralising and frightening time of my life especially with a new baby on the way. I will never ever resent anyone who has lost their job receiving benefits. I will never judge anyone receiving benefits as long as receiving benefits is not considered 'Normal'. I HATED collecting my money every week. I took a minimum wage job working with people half my age to avoid having to do it. I hated it but I can tell you it was 1000 times better than walking into the post office every week. A job is more than a wage. It provides you with much more than that. So people who decide they are better off not working because they think 'it is not worth their while' are completely misguided. Never mind sponging off the rest of us.

 

[Firefly]

As for the 59,000 in reactivation programmes, I would be very interested in knowing the % of this 59000 who end up back in employment. Are these reactivation programmes actually delivering on what they are meant to do or are they just being used by some people to ensure they continue to get benefits.

I agree. The current system cannot be much good given the results.

I would be in favour of a system where getting "jobseekers" is dependent on completing a number of courses (3 perhaps) which are paid for by the State until that person's income rises above a certain level, after which they repay the state, interest free, over a long period of time.
Failure to secure a job after the 3 courses would mean a drop in "jobseekers" - a little at first and then more over time.

This would incentivitise the "jobseeker" to complete relevant courses that will get them earning an income.

I would also open up the provision of courses to the private sector - they can compete to provide the best course (to enabled the jobseeker get a job (imagine that?)) at the lowest cost (The jobseeker won't want to be re-paying an expensive course when they have to afterall)

This would save the taxpayer a fortune versus the current, central planning approach where civil servants determine the provision of courses and the taxpayers foots the whole bill, with little or no incentive for the "jobseeker" to get a job!

 

[TheBigShort]

Not trying to play anything, but there are a number of points made there, not all directly related, it is possible to agree or disagree to varying degrees with these. If I may paraphrase, my interpretation of the core problem statement would be:

There is a cohort of Irish society who while capable of working, actively choose to live off welfare rather than seek gainful employment.

Yes, we already agreed on that earlier.

So ignoring the other pieces about percentage of population who claim some form of social welfare, or stuff about people on housing lists building such houses, if we focus in on my interpretation above, that is something I know from experience to be true, and I believe it is something that should be very much discouraged.

And this is where we differ. You see, my focus was on the OP. My interpretation of the OP extends beyond your interpretation which says, in addition to your interpretation;
This cohort is getting bigger and bigger - “50% in receipt of welfare and the ratio is increasing all the time” - to the point of being unsustainable - “tipping point”.

I disagreed with the OP, on my interpretation. I did this on the fact that more and more people are actually participating in the workforce, as they always do when suitable opportunities arise. Hence, the difficultly in filling posts.

The only argument is the size of that cohort.

Yes, and my view it is a lot smaller that is often perceived or portrayed on this site. I base this on facts that show that as job opportunites arise, the unemployment rate falls. Furthermore, they are the cohort who, even if they did apply for work, are often rejected. If employers wont employ them, how are they supposed to get work?

Now I would suggest, based on my list earlier, that the cohort of unemployed who are not actively seeking employment is very small.

Here is a stat of the Long-Term Unemployed Rate in Ireland

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/long-term-unemployment-rate

It has decreased to 2.10 % in first quarter of 2018 - suggesting, god forbid any of you would have to agree with this, that the OP is incorrect in its perception?
The LTUR reached a record low of 1.2% in 2001, according to this site. If correct, then it suggests to me, that outside of a very small cohort of people , most people not only will work when opportunities arise, but want to work.

So even while the unemployment rate is at 5% and employers are struggling to fill positions, the data suggests to me that the primary over-riding factor is matching skillsets and experience with vacancies.

Posts about people choosing welfare lifestyles, refusing to work, couch potatoes, bar-stoolers etc, are true. But notions that it is leading to "tipping points" or that less and less people are prepared to work full-time is nonsense.

 

[Leo]

And this is where we differ. You see, my focus was on the OP. My interpretation of the OP extends beyond your interpretation which says, in addition to your interpretation;
This cohort is getting bigger and bigger - “50% in receipt of welfare and the ratio is increasing all the time” - to the point of being unsustainable - “tipping point”.

I don't see any correlation between the numbers collecting the likes of children's allowance and those choosing not to work. My interpretation was based on that, and so my reading of it was that with a broad range of social welfare, and a large portion of the population claiming some form of social welfare payment, we shouldn't operate a system that makes choosing not to work an attractive option.

I disagreed with the OP, on my interpretation. I did this on the fact that more and more people are actually participating in the workforce, as they always do when suitable opportunities arise. Hence, the difficultly in filling posts.

I don't doubt that the overall size of the workforce continues to increase. Perhaps we'd need Joe to clarify that statement.

 

[Purple]

If employers wont employ them, how are they supposed to get work?

Sweet sufferin' Jayses ... if employers won't employ them they are supposed to rely on charitable handouts (welfare) until they acquire skills which employers do want.

To me the tipping point when it comes to welfare is the fact that so many people, many of them very well off, get welfare payments each week.
I'm a "to each according to his needs" man when it comes to welfare. I must be a bit of a socialist. That's why I reject populist Parties like Solidarity and FF who pretend to be left wing but are really just populist. It is ironic that the only Minister for Social Protection (still sounds Orwellian to me) that made any real effort at reform in the last 20 years was Labours Joan Burton. Her actions make a lie of the contention that concerns about scroungers and welfare payment to the well off makes you right wing.

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't doubt that the overall size of the workforce continues to increase. Perhaps we'd need Joe to clarify that statement.

Fair enough, the OP is poorly worded (this is not a dig at the poster, its just a fact). Im guilty of some whoppers myself.

 

[TheBigShort]

Sweet sufferin' Jayses ... if employers won't employ them they are supposed to rely on charitable handouts (welfare) until they acquire skills which employers do want.

Yeh but if they are busy acquiring skills to get work then surely they cant be labelled as "choosing not to work" or choosing a life on welfare?
Thats my point, the cohort who choose a life on welfare, who do not seek work is very, very small - they are the cohort who employers wouldn't hire anyway. And while its far from ideal, it is not culminating in houses not being built or welfare tipping points.

 

[TheBigShort]

To me the tipping point when it comes to welfare is the fact that so many people, many of them very well off, get welfare payments each week.
I'm a "to each according to his needs" man when it comes to welfare. I must be a bit of a socialist.

I don't have issue with the extent to which our welfare system reaches the people. I do agree however that the rates applicable should be subject to greater scrutiny and limitations were practicable.

 

[Leper]

Sweet sufferin' Jayses ... if employers won't employ them they are supposed to rely on charitable handouts (welfare) until they acquire skills which employers do want.

To me the tipping point when it comes to welfare is the fact that so many people, many of them very well off, get welfare payments each week.
I'm a "to each according to his needs" man when it comes to welfare. I must be a bit of a socialist. That's why I reject populist Parties like Solidarity and FF who pretend to be left wing but are really just populist. It is ironic that the only Minister for Social Protection (still sounds Orwellian to me) that made any real effort at reform in the last 20 years was Labours Joan Burton. Her actions make a lie of the contention that concerns about scroungers and welfare payment to the well off makes you right wing.

Just as I thought when he said setting support posts in concrete was easy . . . . I have no qualifications in psychology but Purple is losing the plot. Then he tells us he's "a bit of a socialist" - Wow! What next?

I'm no stranger to hard work (after all I used to work for the HSE) and during May I manually dug holes in compressed clay and put in 36 wooden support posts with 2.5ft of concrete, each no less than 8ft in length and singlehandedly screwed 6ft heavy wooden panels between each. And Senor Purple tells me that is easy. Regretably, I don't think I can ever take his word for anything again. Now for the umpteenth salts bath. . . Can anybody recommend where I can get a good massage? And preferably from a masseuse that is not on Welfare or Invalidity.

 

[Purple]

Just as I thought when he said setting support posts in concrete was easy . . . . I have no qualifications in psychology but Purple is losing the plot. Then he tells us he's "a bit of a socialist" - Wow! What next?

LOL

I'm no stranger to hard work (after all I used to work for the HSE)

Good one!

and during May I manually dug holes in compressed clay and put in 36 wooden support posts with 2.5ft of concrete, each no less than 8ft in length and singlehandedly screwed 6ft heavy wooden panels between each. And Senor Purple tells me that is easy. Regretably, I don't think I can ever take his word for anything again. Now for the umpteenth salts bath. . . Can anybody recommend where I can get a good massage? And preferably from a masseuse that is not on Welfare or Invalidity.

I put in 8 of them recently. It wasn't in compressed clay though. I'd probably hire a mini digger for the day if I had to put 36 of them into compressed clay. I am a tradesman and worked with my hands for years. I always made sure I used the correct tools for the job though. You shouldn't be doing that sort of thing at your age anyway.

 

[Purple]

I don't have issue with the extent to which our welfare system reaches the people.

It's the process of taking money from people and then just giving it back to them in the form of welfare (less the admin cost) that gets me. It's just a waste of money. I'm not big on wasting people's hard earned money or a welfare budget that should be helping those in need.

 

[TheBigShort]

It's the process of taking money from people and then just giving it back to them in the form of welfare (less the admin cost) that gets me. It's just a waste of money. I'm not big on wasting people's hard earned money or a welfare budget that should be helping those in need.

What would you propose, that we each individually administer our own tax and welfare payments?

 

[Purple]

What would you propose, that we each individually administer our own tax and welfare payments?

See here