Spending Plans for 2007

Quote:

---

Mr Brian Cowen, TD, Minister for Finance, Announces the Government’s Spending Plans for 2007

The Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, TD, in presenting the Government’s pre-Budget 2007 spending plans said that: “we have an economy that is working and a country that is at work. From being one of the developed world’s worst economies twenty years ago, we now have a model of excellence and a performance which is the envy of much of the developed world. Over the course of the past decade, the combination of this Government’s sound policies and the hard work of Irish people has transformed our country. We have enjoyed a quantum leap in terms of our performance and over the last decade we have achieved:

an economy that has grown at an annual average rate of over 7 per cent between 1997 and 2005.
Our debt/GDP ratio has declined from 65 per cent in 1997 to 27½ per cent of GDP in 2005. This debt-to-GDP ratio puts us at the second lowest in the euro area.
The level of employment this year exceeded 2 million for the first time in the history of the State.
Unemployment has fallen dramatically from 10 per cent in 1997 to around 4¼ per cent today with long term unemployment of just 1.4 per cent. Ireland's unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the EU.
We have created a Pension Reserve Fund which as of 30 September 2006 was valued at over €17.6 billion.”

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=4328

---

The one thing that really hit me was the unemployment at 4.25%. I was wondering how it was still so high. We're told we need to allow in more & more immigrants to fill the jobs. Ok not all the jobs aren’t high paying. But why should we be paying so much unemployment benefit

Is 4.25% not one of the lowest in the world and an acceptable rate? Don't forget there are some members of society who are essentially unemployable.

I remember Business Studies in First Year (1993) and it was 12% or 13%. So it's certainly come a long way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Is 4.25% not one of the lowest in the world and an acceptable rate? Don't forget there are some members of society who are essentially unemployable.

---

if you take that outside this 4.25% are on disabilty, lone parent etc on what basis are these umemployable & why should the taxpayer foot the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ringo

if you take that outside this 4.25% are on disabilty, lone parent etc on what basis are these umemployable & why should the taxpayer foot the bill.

---

Some of them are between jobs and some of them work seasonally.

The taxpayers foot the bill because that's their job.

This won't include people on schemes either who to all intents and purposes are unemployed but for statistics sake have been put in a different camp. If you look at the stats here you will see that the number of unemployed is constantly fluctuating, which indicates that a large proportion of these people as has been mentioned are between jobs.
There are however some long term unemployed, people who are out of the job market for so long that employers will not take them on. The reasons they are out of the market are many. Some people could have been on disability for a long time and are just coming off it. You may have some people who are not qualified due to poor educational options to do anything but the lowest paid jobs and figure whats the point in working for peanuts.

If some is not available for work they are not unemployed but unemployable. If you have a disability I am sure you would be excluded from the figures.

Its hard to estimate but lets say there are 1% of people in between jobs that still leaves 3.25% unemployed. People in all forms of jobs can be in between jobs as they hold out for job in their area. 3.25% of the working polpulation unemployed is too much in virtual full employment.

I believe government spending is increasing by 8% next year which is a worry. Have to look at what increased spending is going on. IMO investment in infrastructure, education etc... is most important to sustain the competitiveness of the state. I think state now spends 25% of income on health which is 3,000 a year per person. :eek:

I think the value of the Minister of Finance is diminished in recent years as most of the decisions made by small sectors of the economy such as employer & employee trade unions.

Do you think that percentage includes those doing 'nixers'?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strangeirish

Do you think that percentage includes those doing 'nixers'?:D

---

A certain percentage of people will no extra untaxed work in addition to their day job which will alwasy happen. If the dept for Social Welfare is paying people unemployment benefit while they work off the books then it is failing its job. Seems to be little punishment even when people caught for this.

I think the country has now got to a stage where its not how to get more money but how to decide what to do with all the cash it has in the bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I think the country has now got to a stage where its not how to get more money but how to decide what to do with all the cash it has in the bank.

---

A good position to be in no doubt but, I don't think the department of finance have quite finished tweeking their little brains on how to extract more money from you just yet. We'll all need an overcoat for hell before that happens!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

If some is not available for work they are not unemployed but unemployable. If you have a disability I am sure you would be excluded from the figures.

---

Yes people on disability benefit or disability allowance would not be included but people who have been on longterm DB and no longer qualify would be on the list.

Quote:

---

Its hard to estimate but lets say there are 1% of people in between jobs that still leaves 3.25% unemployed.

---

I can give you a rough figure for long term unemployed tomorrow if you are interested.

Quote:

---

I think the value of the Minister of Finance is diminished in recent years as most of the decisions made by small sectors of the economy such as employer & employee trade unions.

---

Don't know where you get the idea the unions are some powerful force in Irish society. Partnership nominally gives unions a say but its really IBEC calling the shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Partnership nominally gives unions a say but its really IBEC calling the shots.

---

Both sides of the unions have too much power on in social partnership. Governments are elected to govern. By give IBEC & ICTU too much say probably 75% of the country are not represented.

Budgets are largely devalued anyway as we have no control over interest rates or money supply since the Euro.

Honestly you are way off about the unions. The union leaderships don't want real power, just the trappings of power - the high paid jobs etc.
Thats why they sell their members up the river in these deals and then propose them as something good. Fact is actual UNION MEMBERS have lost out big time under Partnership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Honestly you are way off about the unions. The union leaderships don't want real power, just the trappings of power - the high paid jobs etc.

---

This is getting too much of a habit but I actually agree with you.

I have no inside knowledge of unions but does look like the leaders too keen on government quangos & keeping their (very likely) high paid jobs.

I could be wrong on this and am open to correction from someone of a more economistic (?) background than me, but I'm nearly sure that 3% is viewed as de facto full employment, that it's almost impossible to get the figure below this.

Don't forget that for all the Celtic Tiger's yelping, there are still people being laid off in droves from high-profile companies - Cadbury's about a month ago, Castlemahon Chickens the other week, 140 redundancies announced by Hasbro the toy company in Waterford only today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Don't forget that for all the Celtic Tiger's yelping, there are still people being laid off in droves from high-profile companies.

---

I don't like to use specific examples as makes little of hardshop some people may be under. Manufacturing is some or less dead in this country as so much cheaper in other countries. We will soon be a country of office workers. I am sure in the future we will see the end of an industry that is booming now but that is the order of things...

Eventhough i am sure Ireland is getting more expensive we are still cheaper to operate in than most Western countries in areas such as IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

I can give you a rough figure for long term unemployed tomorrow if you are interested.

---

If you look at the first post its 1.4%. I see drug addicts and young able people getting money in the GPO every week. Those are the people I’m talking about. The problem with a lot of people is that they would lose too much, if the came off the dole, medical cards etc

Drug addicts are unemployable. If you stop their welfare you increase social problems like crime.

In other news:

Quote:

---

MINISTER BRENNAN ‑ SPENDING ON SOCIAL WELFARE TO RISE TO A
PRE‑BUDGET AMOUNT OF 14.07 BILLION IN 2007

The Minister for Social Affairs, Seamus Brennan T.D., today announced that spending on social welfare will increase in 2007 to a total of 14.07 billion ‑ an increase of over EUR458 million before announcements in the December Budget are taken into account.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ringo

on what basis are these umemployable & why should the taxpayer foot the bill.

---

There's at least a certain chunk of the population that are technically employable but due to pathetic work ethic and general incompetence can't hold down a job for long and aren't of much use to any employer.

I'm a bit more economistic nightdub and yes from what I recall in my first year lectures in college 3 percent sounds about right for full employment for the reasons you gave.

There are some extreme examples where this differs, notably Luxembourg, where the population is so small that the figure can dip well below this barrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

There's at least a certain chunk of the population that are technically employable but due to pathetic work ethic and general incompetence can't hold down a job for long and aren't of much use to any employer.

---

There is no excuse for anyone between say 18-25 being unemployed. Excluding drug addicts clearly too many not willing to work. Thats why emigrants have come in here. Would be better to reduce hand outs & push people into training & education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

I could be wrong on this and am open to correction from someone of a more economistic (?) background than me, but I'm nearly sure that 3% is viewed as de facto full employment, that it's almost impossible to get the figure below this.

---

There is no set percentage at which you can say there is full employment. It is generally between 2-7% depending on the natural rate of unemployment in the country. You need to have this unemployment to make sure inflation doesn't go bananas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Honestly you are way off about the unions. The union leaderships don't want real power, just the trappings of power - the high paid jobs etc.
Thats why they sell their members up the river in these deals and then propose them as something good. Fact is actual UNION MEMBERS have lost out big time under Partnership.

---

I'm with you on this one BP. Union Officials have become part of the establishment. No extra claims are allowed under partnership and if the workers start kicking up they get the no industrial action clause shoved in their faces. Unfortunately a lot of workers didn't read the small print and only saw the bottom line.

As regards the unemplyment figures, back in the late nineties there were about 130,000 unemployed and I was told that the Government accepted that there was full employment and that the remainder were unemployable. Cant rcall what percentage it amounted to.

I presume union leaders do better if the workers are not striking. Striking workers means union has to pay them money? Less strikes means more pay increases for the unions bosses. I've always suspected unions only run to keep union bosses in jobs.

The national wage agreements have been bad for Trade Unions, despite it being them that originally called for the start of such a process (don't let the politicians kid you it was them that institgated it). Obviously it's going to weaken the Union's locally if more decisions are made nationally - one of the big things was collective bargaining, which is gone. Not sure why you'd expect workers to be anymore proactive than the general population though. Numbers in Trade Unions is increasing, it's that as a percentage of employed it's coming down - and a lot of that is to do with recognition by the multinationals.

As for the wage agreements themselves, Government are part of that along with Congress and the employers union IBEC. Other even less representative groups are around the table - IFA and CORI. It'd be wrong to say their strictly just between ICTU and IBEC, and wrong to say Government don't have a say.

Personally I'm totally opposed to the national wage agreements, and the current one gives away some fundamental rights imo, for a modest wage increase. I've not voted in favour of one, and niether has my branch. Unfortunately, like the rest of the country, the general membership is blinded by the money in their pocket, not the wider issues.

CPSU is holding a ballot to withdraw from the partnership process (they voted against the current deal) and negotiate their own pay claim. It will be difficult for them going alone though.
BTW Macy Which union are you in?