The Emigration Thread.


The “Baby Boomer” demographic monicker is purely an adverting industry convention. As is the 1945-65 delineation. Basically those whose consumer product world view was defined by the rise of TV in the US in '50’s and '60’s. According to the adverting industry I’m technically a trailing “Baby Boomer” even though I (and most of my peers) have little in common culturally and economically with the '68’er and have a much larger overlap with the “Gen X’ers”. (another advertising industry invention). We thought growing up that the '68’ers (the classic Baby Boomers) were a bunch of spoiled clueless self-indulgent fuckwits. An opinion that has not changed much over the last 35 years.

Demographically you could just as easily pick 1950-1970 as a better “Baby Boom” cohort than 1945-1965. It fits Europe better. The countries with the three most pronounced post war bulges, Japan, US and Germany, the boom started in '46 in the US, '47 in Japan but not till post '48 in Germany. Then France, which had its first real major population growth in almost 150 years, the boom did not really get going until the early 1950’s. The French baby boom is the most interesting one of all but had everything to do with the “The Glorious Thirty” and rapid urbanization than any post war baby boom. And as goes France so goes the rest of Europe demographically. Like Italy and Spain.

Ireland had no Baby Boom. After the Irish Government (i.e Sean Mac Bride) pissed away the advantage of the huge post war Sterling surplus with their crass incompetence over Marshall Plan participation the economy collapse and Ireland was looking at actual demographic population collapse by the mid 1950’s. Why do you think the gombeen politicians handed over control of the economy to T.K Whitaker? It was not for the good of the country. It was because it was the end of the road.

The years 1940-1960 works better demographically when it comes to population patterns and economic behavior. Especially in the US. Someone born in 1940 has a lot in common with someone born in 1950 and 1960. But someone born in 1965 has far less in common with someone born in 1945 than someone born in 1975.

No matter what the advertizing industry says.


Again, do you have any evidence to support any of your claims, both previously, and here? You’re just spouting questionable unsubstantiated opinion. You seem unable to grasp that the more unsupported claims you make, the deeper you dig yourself.


For fucks sake. How about look it up and do some research. Its all in the standard economic / demographic history text books / monographs. And yes. I have read them. Want a reading list?

Or would you rather have me quote some facile piece from NYT / WaPo / NPR et al. bien pensant media source which you seem to be so enamored with. To quote another thread - Washington Week ? As a source of “analysis”? WTF? There used to be some thoughtful analysis on that show back in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s (weekly viewer mid '80’s / late 90’s) but that show had jumped the shark by the mid 90’s and has been littler more than a TNR/HuffPost style J School opinion echo chamber since…

But if that is the sort of “reputable” source you are looking for…sorry, no dice. I’ll stick to the standard textbooks and monographs when it comes to demographics and the economic effects of demographics. Not NYT el al. The story of the most interesting post war baby boom of them all, the intense 1947-1949 one in Japan, gets scant coverage in the MSM but explains a large part of what happened to the Japanese economy since the crash in the early 90’s.

I’ll leave googling the relevant articles and books on the subject as an exercise for you. They are just a search term away…

It may be Memorial Day but I’ve got work to do.


Short answer… No.


Ireland is different.


This is not the first time you’ve replied to me by saying go do some research. It appears you have a penchant for telling people to do things you seem unprepared to do yourself. That will earn you a reputation as a lightweight. Oh wait!

Here’s what a Google search returns.

Busy busy man huh?
Ya coulda fooled me, judging by the length your replies.
You might also want to take a look at the chart Grumpy posted. I think your claims about the Irish baby boom are mistaken also.


Get Back on topic.


You quote the *Advertising Industries" definition of Baby Boomer. Thats not what the demographers, especially European ones, talk about when it comes to historical population cohorts. Esepcailly when it comes to economic activity. The 1946-1964 demographic is purely a US consumer product adverting invention. The UK and French consumer product adverting companies used quite different age metrics.

I remember when the term “Baby Boomer” first became popular in the US media in the late '70’s / early ‘80s’. It replaced the awkward “Us Generation” of the mid '70’s. Its use initially was always in the context of lifestyle / culture articles in places like the NYT, New Yorker and Time. It was first used more generally in a more serious context of the debate around the 1986 reforms of the Social Security Trust Fund. After that the term Boomer was used everywhere. And then ten years later the term “Gen X” was invented just in time for the Slackers of the 1990’s…

But back to Ireland. Ireland had no post WW2 baby boom by the demographically accepted use of the term. You may have had families with kids hanging out of the rafters back in the '40s and '50’s but due to the high marriage age, low marriage rates, and exceptionally high emigration rates once post war restrictions were removed the population of the ROI fell from an already low level to its lowest point in history in 1966. A very different story from the US, Germany. Japan or France.

The real Irish Baby Boom started in the late '60’s / early ‘70’s and continued for a decade or so. My abiding memory of Ireland in the 1960’s is a countryisde were every other farm house was empty and there were empty dilapidated buildings in most parts of the City Center, starting at the Quays. My abiding memory of Ireland of the 1970’s was kids and young families everywhere and the explosive growth of the suburbs of Dublin. Places which are now considered very much the inner ring of urban Dublin where they were still cutting hay in the 1960s’ were by the mid '70’s covered in houses and full of families with young kids. Now thats what I call a Baby Boom.

Those kids are the demographic that helped drive the 1995-2005 boom in Ireland. Again very different dynamic from the US “Baby Boomers”.

Sorry if “do the research” sounded a bit brusk but in the context and given what you have posted before it was the most suitable reply to what was basically a silly demand. You demanded citations for a post that was couched as tempered opinion. Which is all it remains. Pure ephemera.


Will do…

#990 … -1.2263338


About time this is being properly pointed out


Something that strikes me and i haven’t read the report. 15-24 is such a ridiculous range clearly all the 15 year olds are not emigrating so I’m guessing if they do come up as a statistics it’s as part of a family. Is it impossible not to make a informed decision and stop the range at least 17 and then proceed 18-24.


Perhaps they’re counting bunking off in with emigrating for statistical purposes.



Is such economic activity now also measured as part of GDP/GNP?

Granted it does seem that the Irish education system is a net contributor to the emigration issue and those slots and pool tables are not going to play themselves you know!


What I found interesting in that is that a full third of the net emigrants, 40,000 people, were 25+ - or precisely the sort of experienced skilled workers Ireland cannot affford to lose.

Wasn’t their another survey that showed about 70% of emigrants had a job in Ireland when they quit?

The long-term fiscal and demographic implications of this current round of emigration could be more severe than people realise.


Ive heard many relatively high earners have started to move to EU/Middle East/Asia etc due to high tax burden in Ireland. When I crunch the numbers between tax and living costs In Dublin Dublin comes out pretty badly compared to almost everywhere except for the big financial centers like London or New York. I and many other emigrants ain’t got any interest in moving to London either!
Secondly Dublin is where most of the jobs are in Ireland but it comes
With a lot of hassle for that. I think a lot of people would consider moving back to other parts of Ireland but what would one do if not a sheep herder or dairy farmer :slight_smile:.


This was an asymetric depression from Ireland’s Banking Collapse. Has anyone copyrighted the term “asymetric depression” yet?The interests of the vested interests\gombeens\insiders were protected while those who make a living through their sweat and labour were loaded with the costs of sustaining the parasitic classes and the bank debts. No wonder emigration is a sensible option.

Frankly, I look at some of the discussions regarding the prices of flips on here and “value” at a price which is many many multiples of the professional man or woman’s wage and I think “are ye having a giraffe”.


Cork or Galway, that being where most of the jobs are, probably even more than Dublin. :wink:

It depends what field you work in (and no I don’t mean a choice between a dairy or arable field :laughing: ). Many of the jobs in Ireland for somebody with a background in a chemical/materials engineering or chemistry are in the medical device or pharma industries, with a big cluster in Cork and smaller ones in Galway, Dublin and Limerick/Shannon, plus Intel and HP in east Leinster. Employment is also disturbingly dependent on FDI.

The single biggest argument against (inner) London, even more than the expense, crowds and general hassle is the fact that it is a complete private sector employment wasteland. Apart from maybe a few micro scale start ups, mostly associated with academia, I would have only three or four sizeable employers in inner London and they’re all universities (UCL, Imperial and Queen Mary; King’s is OK for biomedical research, but that’s about it and there’s a bit of engineering in South Bank). Unless I want to be a lecturer or an eternal postdoc, anything inside at least Zone 4 is a wilderness. I’d do almost as well with the sheep and cows. :open_mouth:


And yet the Nevin institute and Fr. Sean Healy and his “poverty-industry” comrades are constantly calling for no tax cuts in the budget but yet more spending on Welfare and “the homeless.” Let’s hope Noonan ignores them and makes it more worthwhile to work for a living here.


You are overlooking the many jobs available in financial services and IT which are concentrated in Dublin in terms of Ireland and heavily available in London. In fact so many roles come available each year that there is a constant inward immigration to fill these roles. For IT roles in the UK where skillset deficiencies exist these roles are filled largely from the subcontinent. In Ireland the latest trend I see is for many IT people rocking up here on spec from South America (we have already hired many of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish IT people who wanted to come here and who had reasonable English). Also IT people from the subcontinent are coming here in steady numbers but often these come in initially via onshore outsourcing roles with the likes of IBM, Accenture etc.