Page 6 is the most interesting page as it shows clearly the two tiered effects of the recession on certain segments of society. Working families of child rearing age have been the worst hit by the recession with few breaks from the government.
33% of households with nobody working have had to cut back on foreign holidays. This compares to 59% for working families. Going out has been cut back in 44% of non working households and 67% in working households.
It’s a similar story when breaking it down by age. 72% of 18-34 year olds have had to cut down on going out comparedd to 38% of over 55s.
Only in Ireland (The Welfare State) would there exists a statistics like
“33% of households with nobody working have had to cut back on foreign holidays”
“Going out has been cut back in 44% of non working households”
Madness, I would have assumed 100% of non earning households would cut back. (I assume the quoted figures exclude pensioners)
People who already earned nothing less affected by loss of earnings shocker!
All that says to me is that households with nobody working take less foreign holidays, so there is less to cut back. Over 55s go out less than 18-34 year olds, so there’s less to cut back there too. It doesn’t mean non-working people are jetting off to the sun while earners stay at home. The small print at the bottom of page 6 makes that point explicitly.
Totally agree - this recession/depression has had a very uneven effect on different generations. The people with large debts - mainly in the 30s and 40s age group are really struggling, as are people in their 20s who are trying to get into the workforce. Over 50s generally have little or no debts and if they have managed to stay in the workforce have generally been untouched by the recession. As for the over 65s they are untouchable in the view of government it seems.
Another perspective is that the over 50s are traditionally the people who have built up savings. You expect them to be better off – they’ve been working for longer. Except now, a lot of them will have had their savings wiped out by all those second home purchases and other property “investments”. They may not be under water the same way as the 20-40 years olds, but the set aside money doesn’t exist any more, and they are facing into a poorer future than they had planned. Also, they have a lot less time to make up the losses than somebody 30 years younger.
Totally agree. Nevertheless, it’s no excuse for intergenerational envy or scorn. McWilliams rightly always said the Irish property game was a huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Unfortunately a lot of the “old” pissed it away too.