• irishtimes.com - Posted: October 28, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

    Good news?

    Bryan

    Today’s Irish Times poll asks the question, “Should cuts in social welfare be introduced in the forthcoming Budget?” Thus far, a surprising 62% believe that they should. Does that result reflect the socio-economic standing of the average Irish Times reader, online poll respondent, or the prevailing mood in the country?

    I’m surprised because I assume that few people in today’s job market are completely confident that they will have their current job this time next year; or that should they be made redundant, they will easily get alternative employment. That being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that even those who are currently employed are sympathetic to the plight of the jobless. Not only that, people who are currently employed could think of tax as a form of insurance against the loss of earnings that would follow future unemployment.

    So, if the employed are paying contributions towards the national safety net, and if there is a realistic chance that those same contributors will need that safety net in the not too distant future, why do 62% want to see a reduction in welfare benefits? Is there a national consensus on the desirability of income inequality? Does Ireland generally hold that the poor should be x% poorer than the person on the average industrial wage, so that if the average wage is falling, the income of a family on the dole should fall proportionately? I’m struggling to come up with rational explanations for the poll result. Surely in this economic environment hardly anyone believes that most people who are out of work find themselves in that position through idleness, do they? If it doesn’t serve the medium-term interests of the employed, and definitely not those of the unemployed, why do we want to see the dole payments reduced?

    A simple answer might be that we all agree that the payments are too high and the country can’t afford to maintain the social welfare budget. But that assumes (providing the poll reflects the national sentiment) that 62% of people in Ireland would voluntary opt for a smaller social welfare payment than is enjoyed today, should they be made redundant tomorrow. I doubt that’s the case.

    Maybe this poll is a cause for celebration. I can only assume it means that job security is much greater than I imagined. The only way that result makes sense to me is if the the bulk of that 62% doesn’t really think they’ll need to go on the dole tomorrow, or any time in the near future.

    • 12 Comments

    1.
    October 28, 2009
    3:10 pm

    We’re bankrupt as a nation. our dole is 3 times higher than the UK. we are borrowing a billion every two weeks

    Thats why we have to reduce costs. And why 62 per cent voted in favour of reducing social welfare

    Comment by padjo
    2.
    October 28, 2009
    4:37 pm

    Doesn’t social welfare encompass more than the dole?

    Comment by Steve K
    3.
    October 28, 2009
    4:41 pm

    People might remember the 70’s & 80’s where the masses voted for policies that nearly bankrupted the country then. maybe at some level people want sensible policies now even if there is a risk of not pesonally benefiting if it comes to their turn to claim.
    Maybe there is a hope for democracy if the people end up pulling back from the brink before their overlords do.
    If the economic situation is going to get as bad as I think it will , the money taps will be turned off in any event, so there is no point voting for “stuff” that wont be there.

    Comment by Liam
    4.
    October 28, 2009
    7:28 pm

    I think the poll result has a lot to do with the ABC1 readership of the Times and the perverse selection bias of a voluntary poll sample, to be honest. I think a poll of Independent readers would produce quite a different result as the Times has a fairly metro-centric readership in comparison. There are relatively few economists who think that harsh fiscal austerity is the solution to the current crisis. Extremely harsh measures will just result in a collapse in domestic demand. Surely in a crisis of this magnitude, macro-economic restructuring is more important than balancing short term budgets, although that should undeniably be a medium term goal. A shift in the way social security funds are spent – away from passive redistribution and towards government programs that lead to labour activation (a la Denmark) – would definitely be beneficial both economically and socially.

    Comment by getoffmycloud
    5.
    October 29, 2009
    8:55 am

    gomc , I’d be a bit leery of economists opinions, especially the one that get bandied around by the media. They tend to be very short term in their thinking and their forecasts tend to converge at a happy equilibrium point.
    You can sum up alot of opinion out there as – We need to borrow so that we can buy stuff so we can pay off the debt. Or you get the pimps like David Begg who in very pleasant way of speaking says that its ok to run up the national debt to the European average. He fails to mention that the population here is completely over leveraged compared to their European neighbours. Interests rates are going to rise as the financial system in the US is still collectively insolvent, so when mark to market finally kicks in , Nama etc will be exposed as the frauds they are.

    Comment by Liam
    6.
    October 29, 2009
    10:32 am

    Obviously the poll is skewed by the Times’ readership so that could not be taken as indicative of the national mood, plus the number of votes isn’t given but nevertheless it does go some way to undermining the assumption that there is a broad opposition to public spending cuts. I’ve been on the dole in the past and was probably the click of a mouse from being made redundant this time around but I still still think there is scope for reductions. As a previous poster pointed out we nearly beggared ourselves in the past voting for blowout budgets.
    Also your point is a bit odd- unemployment is predicted to top out at 14-15%. Even if it were to hit 20%, is it really that hard to believe that 62% of the population considers their employment secure enough to be like the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas?

    Comment by Tom Ennis
    7.
    October 29, 2009
    12:18 pm

    Padjo – I realise that the country is broke, but there are several ways (all unpleasant) of cutting costs. The question is why are so many people in favour of this one?

    Steve – True. But isn’t the dole the first thing people think of when they hear the term ’social welfare’, or am I just exposing my own prejudices?

    Liam – I’d imagine that maybe half of the people who read this newspaper online are too young to have based their vote primarily on their memories of the 70s and 80s.

    getoffmycloud – You could be right.

    Tom – But even if unemployment ‘only’ rose to 20%, that’s one in 5 people. By the time things get to that stage, even the remaining 4 will be terrified that they could be next.

    Comment by Bryan
    8.
    October 29, 2009
    12:29 pm

    could be Brian , I was a kid in the 70’s but I still remember q’s for petrol , electricity strikes, parents wondering why they were working when they were paying 65% tax.
    Either the generation coming through may get it that the welfare system will be broken in the decades ahead. Or as a link I posted a while back suggested that the next generations can row back from the ideas of the previous ones.
    Who knows, there are enough vested interests in the public sector etc that would vote their parents into slavery to hang on to their perks, that does not fill me full of hope, so maybe the survey does not reflect the big picture

    Comment by Liam
    9.
    October 29, 2009
    12:45 pm

    Bryan , in your response to Tom , are you being neutral here and just trying to figure out which way the public will jump? ie how democracy will work in a stressed period?

    Comment by Liam
    10.
    October 29, 2009
    12:53 pm

    …there are enough vested interests in the public sector etc that would vote their parents into slavery to hang on to their perks.

    Liam, you should really read Nozick’s book. It has flaws, but its also peppered with fantastic wit and every now and again, genuine genius. As I said earlier, he definitely reminds me of you!

    As for the other question, I want to understand how democracy works in a stressed period. How it works period. I basically want to see how this poll result squares up with the country’s electoral history and understand the discrepancies.

    Comment by Bryan
    11.
    October 29, 2009
    1:08 pm

    I found an online copy of it , I hope to tuck into it soon. An analyst I know has the view that interventionist economics is so bad that one would have ot be an intellectual to believe in it. ;-) As I view that that the next few years will be tragic in economic terms it will be fascinating to observe the establishment response to it. So indeed it will be interesting to see what pressure the public bring to bare and how the democatic process handles it

    Comment by Liam
    12.
    October 29, 2009
    1:24 pm

    I’m not necessarily advocating swingeing welfare cuts but there is room for rationalisation in public spending. I’ve run the numbers on my own budget and I know I could survive on less than is currently available if I did lose my job. I didn’t object to the income levy as could manage it and even could have paid more. I’m not living in a gilded cage either- I earn quite a bit less than the average industrial wage. There may need to be further tax rises along with spending cuts but I’m not personally going to advocate tax increases only for those wealthier than me or spending cuts that only affect the supposedly undeserving.
    Essentially the point I’m making is that I’m not interested in the politics of clientelism- I won’t vote for a politician who promises to put money in my pocket today if the policy is counterproductive in the long run

    Comment by Tom Ennis

    Comments on this article are now closed.

Search outsidein