One thing that is neglected in the report on Breaking News - assuming that approximately equal numbers of males and females are in the workplace,if the average both sexes is 2:1 and for females it's 3.5:1 this would surely suggest that male Pprotestants and Roman Catholics must be considerably closer to parity . Therefore we should be looking at the reasons for different employment opportunities in the male and female workforce.

Davros

Absolute rubbish!

Catholic male unemployment in Northern Ireland runs at nearly twice that of Protestants.

It's quite amusing how quick you were to try and turn attention away from that and draw other conclusions, with that curiously cobbled together math you've produced above.

Absolute rubbish!

Catholic male unemployment in Northern Ireland runs at nearly twice that of Protestants.

Ah Mario,

Think about what I wrote. I didn't claim that male RCs and Prods were at par.

If Males are running at 2:1 times and females 3.5:1 times then the average would be 2.75:1 !

If the average is 2:1 and one is 3.5:1 simple mathematics shows that, assuming equal numbers of male and female workers - males must be less than 2:1 .... hence the obvious conclusion that male Protestans and RCs MUST be considerably closer to parity (than 3.75:1).... as to average out , if one is Greater than 2:1 the the other MUST be less than 2:1. That's how averages work.

We have a BIG difference between male and female .
Why the specific gender difference ?

There is so much work in NI that we have had to bring in tens of thousands of foreign workers to cover vacancies.

Maybe, with all the government benefits available, it is better not to work, but rather just live off the state.

I wonder what effect 35 years of republican attacks on business interests in NI has had on where industry chiefs locate their factories and stores, etc.? Could this be why unemployment is so high in certain areas?

Well, Mario, I accept Davros' maths leaves a little to be desired, but the figures in the report simply cannot be right.

Even assuming a 2:1 ratio, unemployment in NI is only 5% (ILO measure). That would make Protestant unemployment less than 2%. That's impossibly low.

The ratio was 2:1 30 years ago! That means either than 'fair employment' legislation has achieved precisely nothing, or that these figures, when quoted as headlines, are vastly simplified.

But the crux of the matter is that either way, the message is the same. If we persist with the belief that social deprivation can be solved solely by 'equality legislation' or by middle-class people forming voluntary-sector organizations to talk about it a lot, social deprivation will remain - and your religious background won't save you from it.

What is required is fundamental economic reform to make sure our best people stay in NI and work in the private sector to create the wealth that can then be used to take real action to tackle the disgraceful deprivation we have properly. That means focusing on the real divide in NI - not between 'Prods' and 'Taigs', but between the haves and have-nots.

If anyone thinks SF and the DUP are going to do that, they've another thing coming.

"We have a BIG difference between male and female"

We have a BIG difference between male Catholic and Protestant unemployment.

We have a BIG difference between female Catholic and Protestant unemployment.

The factor common to both is that Catholics are much more likely to be unemployed. And it's that which needs to be addressed in the round. That's the abnormal factor which betrays some of the curiousity of the North of Ireland.

Pretending it's just a gender issue common to everywhere else in the world distracts from that more important point specific to the North, that Catholics are much more likely than Protestants to be unemployed.

There's another set of statistics available somewhere which prove that Catholics are more likely to be in employment than Protestants. They measure employment rather than dole queue levels. The unionists trot it out every now and again, I think the UUP made use of it in a leaflet in South Belfast.

The moral ? You can use these statistics to prove pretty much anything you like, and then embark on a campaign of foaming-at-the-mouth outrage. I'd like to see some more specific evidence that there are legions of people out there trying to get jobs and being kept back by discriminating employers.

Mario

When were you last in NI?

Just because someone is 'unemployed', doesn't mean they're not working, believe me!

6countyprod

I wonder what effect Loyalist attacks and gangsterism has had on places like The Mount and Ballymacarrett, which are also well up on the scale.

If you'd mentioned those, I'd have agreed 100%.

'Could this be why unemployment is so high in certain areas?'

The reason that there are high pockets of unemployment in certain areas is because of the decades long policy of discrimination by unionist and British administrations.
It is indicative that there are still some in this society who fail to recognise this simple fact.
Scraping about in the barrel of whataboutery will not deflect away from the definitive nature of the story headline.

6countyprod,
"Maybe, with all the government benefits available, it is better not to work, but rather just live off the state"

you are pretty naive if you think that a person can "live off the state". Those areas which are most deprived are those where most are on government benefits. Benefits give people an existence not a life.

Also, the huge sums being wasted in NI are not on social welfare but on the hordes of middle-class people being given unnecessary jobs in the public sector.

Also, what is your view on the fact that Protestant West Belfast is a top deprived area where less than 1% go to university and where the population has been decimated?

"There is so much work in NI that we have had to bring in tens of thousands of foreign workers to cover vacancies."

There are at most 30,000 foreign workers in NI, which is just 1.5% of the population and the wages being paid to many of these means they couldn't exist in NI in the long term but are instead migrant workers here for a season.

"I wonder what effect 35 years of republican attacks on business interests in NI has had on where industry chiefs locate their factories and stores, etc.? Could this be why unemployment is so high in certain areas? "

Were their billions spent in compensation for republican murder and bombing which should have been spent on
Roads,?
Railways ?
and Water Service?
Are these related-?

We need a comprehensive review of why after 30 years of draconian equality legislation there remains this huge inbalance-

"The factor common to both is that Catholics are much more likely to be unemployed. And it's that which needs to be addressed in the round. That's the abnormal factor which betrays some of the curiousity of the North of Ireland."

How would you address it, Mario ?

Here's a http://www.equalityni.org/whatsnew/newsdetails.cfm?Storyid=414
">report from the Equality Commission recently . It claims that :

"Even assuming a 2:1 ratio, unemployment in NI is only 5% (ILO measure). That would make Protestant unemployment less than 2%. That's impossibly low."

I think you've math problems too.

The unemployment numbers are around 9% Catholic unemployment and 5% Protestant employment.

That of course hides massive unemployment figures in many poorer areas. The deprivation study deals with that in detail though.

"The moral ? You can use these statistics to prove pretty much anything you like"

No you cannot!

Although, as in your example from the UUP, politicians do try it on at election time.

Mario, maybe you could address the point which is that the breakdown of the workforce in terms of religion appears to roughly match the breakdown of the population as a whole in terms of religion ?

If the workforce was 70% Protestant and 30% Catholic then clearly there would be something to talk about. But it isn't. It's roughly 60/40, which is the same as the population is. So how come this measurement of unemployment is not translating through to the measurement of actual employment ?

"How would you address it, Mario ?"

Firstly, by not pretending it's a gender issue.

Secondly by examining what it is about the North that means Catholics are much more likely to be unemployed.

"Mario, maybe you could address the point which is that the breakdown of the workforce in terms of religion appears to roughly match the breakdown of the population as a whole in terms of religion ?"

First we had math problems and now we've got reading problems from Stalin.

Read the report again. ALL they're saying is that they monitored a group based on that % breakdown.

They're not saying that that is the employment breakdown in the North. They're just replication the pop breakdown in the sample chosen!

Mario,

I don't know whether you're being obtuse or not, but the statistics based upon surveys of the workforce (rather than surveys of the dole queues) show no clear or obvious pattern of discrimination by employers.

The first question should be, why is the measure of unemployment welfare claims significantly out of step with the measure of employment ? The second question is, why are people believing accepting statistics (British government statistics I might add - it's weird that the British would engage in a massive campaign of discrimination and then publish numbers showing how well they were doing) unquestioningly even though there is clearly a serious credibility problem with them ?

Mario - how can the average ratio be 2:1 if males are at 2:1 and females at 3.5:1 ?

There is a huge difference between male and female.
The difference between male and female inequity indicates different problems that need different solutions.

Ian - my maths are fine. I understand averages :)
If the average is 2 and women are nearly 4, then men must be considerably less than 2:1 :)

Pat - Unionism bears a lot of the blame for it's policies - would you accept that the IRA economic warfare policy should also bear some blame ?
Newry would have had RC jobs if Grundig hadn't been driven away by the IRA murder of Mr Niedermeyer. West Belfast would have had RC jobs if the IRA hadn't murdered someone trying to establish a factory....

I seem to remember Chris McGimpsey giving a talk quoting statistics showing that relative employment between RCs and Prods was worse in the border counties of the Republic. The question was then should we be interfering with the internal affairs of the republic to raise our concerns about the discrimination in employment of RCs in the Republic.

I am not saying that this shows that there isn't an issue to be addressed, but it does indicate that we need to widen our thinking in looking for solutions and not just putting it down to NI being "bad".

"I don't know whether you're being obtuse or not, but the statistics based upon surveys of the workforce (rather than surveys of the dole queues)show no clear or obvious pattern of discrimination by employers."

They don't!

You just can't read

(deep breath) OK Mario, let's take this in small steps.

Don't you think it is a problem when the statistics measuring employment show something very different from the statistics measuring unemployment ? Or do you think it's right to pick the numbers which match your argument, and ignore the numbers which appear to contradict it ?

Mario, I think I can read quite well. The trouble is that I don't read selectively.

Navigate to this page and read it in full. Get back to us when you've finished.

http://www.equalityni.org/whatsnew/newsdetails.cfm?Storyid=414

"Don't you think it is a problem when the statistics measuring employment show something very different from the statistics measuring unemployment ?"

They don't!

You've misread and misunderstood the document you posted.

All they were saying is that they SAMPLED on that % breakdown. You thought they were saying that IS the employment breakdown.

I'm afraid you've made a bit of a fool of yourself there.

Mario - how can the average ratio be 2:1 if males are at 2:1 and females at 3.5:1 ?

Davros, I agree (yay!).

According to the equality commission, the level of Catholic employment has jumped from 34.9% in 1990 to 40.8% in some parts of the workforce. The only way that could happen would have been for a near-equivalent number of Protestants to correspondingly lose their jobs in those sectors or areas. This trend could be considered by some to be "positive" discrimination in action, but that's obviously not interesting to the people trying to make use of the above news item for propaganda purposes.

It certainly hasn't helped that certain organizations actively move to block Catholic employment in certain parts of the public sector, namely in the security and courts/legal system, and of course their contractors, which have account for a large but dwindling proportion of economic activity in this country.

Mario, you seem to be disputing the sample and suggesting that it is inaccurate due to the sample size - a fair argument provided it is backed up by evidence. Please point me to your superior statistics which show the true proportion of employment breakdown in NI.

"Mario, I think I can read quite well. The trouble is that I don't read selectively."

There's nothing in that document which supports what you've claimed.

You quite simply misread and misunderstood it.

If you want to challenge that then please quote the passage that you claim supports what you're trying to say.

If you choose not to do that, then we'll know won't we, eh

Mario, I just double checked; the sample size is 71% of the entire workforce which is a pretty big sample wouldn't you agree ? The document adds :

"The following are not monitored: the self-employed, those on government training schemes, the unemployed, school teachers and those working in concerns with 10 or less employees."

Given that a large proportion of the educaton sector is run with the direct involvement of the Catholic church I would find it hard to believe that there is discrimination in the schoolteaching profession. Furthermore, these days I imagine companies with ten or less employees do not account for a significant proportion of the economy either. Perhaps you could make an argument for the self employed - maybe people are discriminating against themselves.

"Mario, you seem to be disputing the sample and suggesting that it is inaccurate due to the sample size"

I'm saying nothing of the sort. You're just digging yourself in even deeper now. Red herrings and everything.

What I'm saying to you is that you misread the document and you thought it was saying that their sample ratio was the ACTUAL employment breakdown in the North.

In the circumstances it was quite a foolish error in fact.

Comrade - The point I'm trying to make isn't that there is no problem for RC males - there obviously still are problems - not all necessarily because of discrimination - but that the difference in the male and female figures show that there are specific probelms and issues for female RC workers that need to be identified before they can be addressed.

It's disappointing that such a huge problem as gender inequality is being sidetracked onto a purely sectarian agendum. I sense an element here that some think that male worker's problems are more important than female workers.

in a nutshell:
Why are RC women EVEN MORE disadvantaged than RC Men ?

It is presumed that if ABC Plc were going to set up shop they would do it in an area that was reasonably secure. This being the case then why would such an enterprise go to an area which is controlled by criminals, be it IRA hoods or UDA hoods, which do not support the rule of law.
As Protestants and their Catholic equivalents do not travelling to each other’s neighbourhoods then it seems likely that there will be indirect discrimination, but this is not the fault of the Government et al. It is the fault of the IRA et al who control nationalist/republican areas and drive big business away from these areas through their racketeering activities.

Nice try Thomas, but none of that explains the fact there's always been a higher % of Catholics unemployed in the North, since the foundation of the state.

Mario, Davros and Comrade Stalin,
(autumn 2004 figures for you to make of what you will)

While there are 332,000 women in the NI workforce there are only 343,000 who are classified as "economically active" and accordingly 11,000 as unemployed.

This gave an unemployment rate of 3.2% as opposed to 7.0% for men. There are 30,000 unemployed men.

Link to survey on women in employment in NI from where I got the above figures.

Davros

"It's disappointing that such a huge problem as gender inequality is being sidetracked onto a purely sectarian agendum"

Because unemployment in the North IS a sectarian issue obviously. And one that's specific to the North.

What's disappointing was your attempt to sidetrack the debate into a more comfortable and normative gender issue. That just distracts from the specificity of the North in terms of the very obvious sectarian discrimination.

Stalin's misreading of his own submitted document was disappointing too, but at least it was funny, what with him trying to be patronising and all.

How do you know it is specific to "the North", (by which I take it you mean Norther Ireland and therefore not Donegal), where are the current equivalent statistics for the Republic? (Or just the border areas of the republic and the prod % of the whole of the republic's population would probably not be significant.)

If people are unemployed in Northern Ireland (or in this country) it is because they want to be unemployed. Tens of thousands of people are coming from abroad and finding employment in both N.I. and the Republic. This is just anoher example of the Daliy Provo's MOPEry campaign and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

"How do you know it is specific to "the North""

Eh?

Have you some evidence that Catholics are much more likely to be unemployed than Protestants in other places too?

The fact is that many Catholic women have many more children than protestants do. This may be a controversial opinion but the facts are there.
There are more likly to be at home looking after their children or on maternity leave.

It's not that SF are persuading more people to become republicans, they are breeding more republicans.

"This is just anoher example of the Daliy Provo's MOPEry campaign and should be taken with a pinch of salt."

I was wondering when someone would mention MOPEry.

I wasn't expecting the Daily Provo though, whatever that's got to do with it. Is it just a kneejerk response on your part that you use as often as you can?

This thread is becoming a wonderful example of the level of bigotry that exists within some Unionists.

If you compare it with the thread on Protestant attitudes in the border regions you can see that Nationalists and Republicans are not so contemptuous of complaints made by Protestant people.

There's a lesson there for anyone who wants to understand what's actually going on in the North.

There's a very obvious determination to downplay as much as possible reasonable and verifiable Nationalist complaints in the North.

Ballysillan,
"This may be a controversial opinion but the facts are there.
There are more likly to be at home looking after their children or on maternity leave."

Doesn't work like that. They wouldn't be classified as "economically active" as they aren't actively seeking work and claiming benefit then so therefore they aren't included in the unemployment figures.

Keith M,
what about the findings of the deprivation survey, which is from the Northern Ireland Statistics Agency and not the Daily Ireland?

Comrade Stalin

I don't think it is right to look at the Population religious break down, the working population religious break down and then because of the fact that these two are commensurate assume that the unemployment religios break down should be the same.
ie the number of catholics looking for work may be higher because they make up a larger proportion of the population seeking work ?

Anyhow it is a technical point.

The real issue is that people often jump to the conclusion that unemployment is something that is done to somebody.

I believe the days when people were not given a job on the basis of their religion are long gone. Apart from the fact that there is a horde of legislation and that business these days is too tough and competitive to employ anyone other than the best.

If somebody is unemployed in NI today then they need to look much closer to home as to why they don't have a job - or why somebody won't employ them.

We all get the same education system and have access to the same Health Service.

It is mostly a question of attitude both in terms of themselves and their attitude to work and potential employers.

The bottom line is that the ghettos (both Protestant & Catholic) in our society are home to the most unemployable gob shites who have no inclination to work and are happy to live off benefits and often subsidise it through petty crime.

It is largely nobody's fault but their own.

My employer has about 30 Polish workers in it. Hard working and industrious people who want to work long hours and who are paid the same rate as everyone else.

We couldn't get any locals to do the work.

On a positive note though there is a major gap between our training agencies here and what industry needs.

The former should be pro-active and start training people in skills that have been identified by industry as lacking. The problem is that industry doesn'thave time to train them and consequently employs immediate foreign workers instead. The Govt should take these several tens of thousands of unemployed and immediately start training them as skilled construction workers where there is a growing shortage.

"It's disappointing that such a huge problem as gender inequality is being sidetracked onto a purely sectarian agendum"

Because unemployment in the North IS a sectarian issue obviously.

why focus on the sectarian problem to the exclusion of the fact that RC women are severely disadvantaged compared to RC Men ? Do I detect some good old-fashioned Irish Chauvinism that women don't matter ? You are showing a cavalier disregard for the greater problems faced by RC women. Why?

and again - please address this - how can the average ratio be 2:1 if males are at 2:1 and females at 3.5:1 ?

What specific factors lead to the male:female disparity ?

'This is just anoher example of the Daliy Provo's MOPEry campaign and should be taken with a pinch of salt.'

The figures were derived from the extensive research and index compiled by Professor Noble, hardly a 'provo'. The figures were released by NISRA, hardly a 'provo' organisation.

"why focus on the sectarian problem to the exclusion of the fact that RC women are severely disadvantaged compared to RC Men ?"

Because the Northern peculiarity is in discrimination along religious lines.

Gender discrimination is a more common problem, and is dealt with across the planet on many levels.

What's interesting here is the way in which people have tried to downplay that which is peculiar to the North in favour of a gender issue which would allow them to pretend that they're just the same as everywhere else.

"If you want to challenge that then please quote the passage that you claim supports what you're trying to say."

What I am saying is quite simple. In the survey of a large sample of the workforce (sample size = 71%) there is no pattern of religious discrimination evident. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that.

If systematic discrimination was taking place across the board, I would expect that to be reflected in a survey of the workforce. It isn't. This means that your argument is restricted to the sections of the workforce which were not surveyed, namely the education sector and companies employing 10 or less workers. You are welcome to make the case that there is wild discrimination there, but I rather suspect you won't bother.

"All they were saying is that they SAMPLED on that % breakdown. You thought they were saying that IS the employment breakdown."

I'm sorry about that, Mario. I didn't assume I was dealing with a pedant. Yes the statistics are a sample, not a full survey.

I am certainly not going to get in a debate involving the merits of examining a sample rather than surveying the entire workforce without some sort of evidence that the sample is unrepresentative. There is no reason to believe that the equality commission statistics do not reflect the reality in the ground, given the sample size and the sectors sampled.

If you want to claim that the sample measured by the EC is unrepresentative, then please provide some evidence. Otherwise stop bleating and stirring your sectarian tribal pot.

George,

When there are so many benefits around today which incease as you pump out more children why would anyone want to work. The government need to persuade people to get of their arse-holes by taking away these ridiculous benefits. That is directed at catholics and protestants who are a burden on society.

Because the Northern peculiarity is in discrimination along religious lines.

How bizarre - you are only interested in religious discrimination and only in NI! So women don't matter in your eyes- you absolutely refuse to discuss why RC women are more disadvantaged in employment than RC Men - and the ONLY thing that could explain the disparity in employment levels is (bad) prods discriminating against RCs.

still no answer :

how can the average ratio be 2:1 if males are at 2:1 and females at 3.5:1 ?

What as Gerry Adams ever done do attract business into West Belfast? He loves to always take the position of opposition and scrutiny but what has he every achieved as MP?

He is costing myself and the people of West Belfast enough money but the service in return in terrible. He and he friends in the IRA have made West Belfast into a waste ground.

Ballysillan,
"When there are so many benefits around today which incease as you pump out more children why would anyone want to work. The government need to persuade people to get of their arse-holes by taking away these ridiculous benefits. That is directed at catholics and protestants who are a burden on society."

I've already made this point. You can't live on government benefits, you can only exist. This is a common error people make as if the dole is some kind of lazyman's nirvana. It isn't. It's the road to nowhere.

These people are unemployed because they have no education, no skills, no contacts and no opportunities. Protestant West Belfast is the perfect example where less than 1% go to university.

It's a bit like telling the working class heroin addict, who grew up without hope and turned to drugs, that he can "rejoin society" if he accepts his place and flips burgers for the rest of his lift.

Given that choice I'd stick to the needled rush myself.

Those living in deprived areas have been given the crappy end of the stick for generations and the ultimate irony is that the NI middle-class who, for the most part, are sitting in unproductive public sector jobs, drawing down a fat wage, actually think it's the working class sitting on their arses.

The spend on social welfare is miniscule compared to the wastage in the public sector and elsewhere.

Should read "the rest of his life".

"Because the Northern peculiarity is in discrimination along religious lines.

How bizarre"

Far from it. The only bizarre thing here is your pretence to an interest in gender issues. When what you're really interested in is downplaying the very obvious religious discrimination in Catholic employment in the North. That's quite clear now, and from a number of posters.

I must keep an eye out to see do you sidetrack uncomfortable debates on a regular basis.

As far as your mathematical speculation is concerned, if you don't mind I'll stick with the facts as presented in the official sources.

I've already made this point. You can't live on government benefits, you can only exist.

George - There are plenty of people, orange and green, who do very nicely on benefits rather than just existing by working on the side . That should be remembered.

As far as your mathematical speculation is concerned, if you don't mind I'll stick with the facts as presented in the official sources.

That's not good enough. You attacked me for pointing out that if the average is 2:1 and women are at 3.5:1 then men MUST be closer to parity.....

secondly - the story IS about the gender difference . it points out that while the average is 2:1 in the case of women it is 3.5:1

So, why are RC women MORE disadvantaged than RC Men ?

Stalin

Leave out the red herrings, like a good lad.

This is your misreading, and it really is rather funny:

"The equality commission is saying that when you measure the demographics of employment in Northern Ireland, you find that the religious ratio in the workforce almost exactly matches the breakdown of the population. How can that be ?"

You thought their sample ratio was the actual Catholic/Protestant employment numbers for the North!

Hilarious!

Here's what they said:

"The fourteenth annual Fair Employment Monitoring Report, released today by the Equality Commission, shows that the composition of the monitored Northern Ireland workforce for 2003 was 58.3% Protestant and 41.7% Roman Catholic."

http://www.equalityni.org/whatsnew/newsdetails.cfm?Storyid=414

Go get someone to give you a hug, eh

"
"How do you know it is specific to "the North""

Eh?

Have you some evidence that Catholics are much more likely to be unemployed than Protestants in other places too? "

It is a legitimate question for you to ask as long as you are not saying that not having any evidence means that there isn't any. As a general point I do not need to have any evidence at all to raise the question.

If anyone starts talking about statistics showing something significant in an area (geographical or otherwise), to talk about it in terms of being limited to that area you need some comparative statistics.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I remember Chris Mc Gimpsey giving a talk showing that statistics for border counties in the Republic indicated a (not even just as bad)situation re RC employment than the NI ones. I do not have those statistics nor was I able to check whether the differences were statistically significant and it was about ten years ago, so I have no idea what the current picture is, but it certainly raises an interesting twist to the debate.

"As far as your mathematical speculation is concerned, if you don't mind I'll stick with the facts as presented in the official sources.

That's not good enough"

It'll have to do. I'm determined not be sidetracked, and it's totally dishonest of you to pretend to anything other than that intention.

Fact: There is so much work in NI that we have had to bring in tens of thousands of foreign workers to cover vacancies.(26,659 in 2001 census. There has been a huge increase in the number of migrant workers since then)

Facetious thought: Maybe, with all the government benefits available, it is better not to work, but rather just live off the state. (I know what it is like to live off the state, I did it one time for a few weeks. Not too nice. But, of course, I didn't have a bunch of kids to claim for.

Amplification: I wonder what effect 35 years of republican attacks on business interests in NI and loyalist protection gangs has had on where industry chiefs locate their factories and stores, etc.? Could this be why unemployment is so high in certain areas?

Bertie

It's fairly obvious that religious discrimination is a big issue in the North. It's totally disingenuous to try and pretend otherwise.

I really wasn't aware that people were still disputing this.

Davros,
"There are plenty of people, orange and green, who do very nicely on benefits rather than just existing by working on the side . That should be remembered."

Could you furnish some evidence for this statement. Who are these people, where do they live and how are they doing "very nicely" on the meagre benefits on offer?

Or put another way, how do you explain the fact that the areas with the highest numbers unemployed and on benefit are also the areas with the highest levels of deprivation?

I know if I was "doing nicely" on benefits I wouldn't be living in the most deprived small area of Northern Ireland, which is Whiterock.

6countyprod

Your argument relates to unemployment generally.

None of what you've written addresses the disparity in Catholic and Protestant unemployment.

No mario - you are determined to sidetrack this away from the point of the findings - that RC WOMEN are disadvantaged compared to RC MEN.

Your first post was a nonsensical attack in your attempt to play the sectarian card

Now - the article points out that the average is 2:1 and that women are at 3.5:1. How can you claim that men can be at 2:1 and the average still stay at 2:1 when women are at 3.5:1 ?

Of course the obvious answer is that you cannot and that you were so keen to play "Bad Prod Good RC " that you don't want anyone to look at the difference in figures between male and female RCs.

The different ratios suggest that there are different problems that need different solutions.
Set your hatred of protestants aside and try to think of reasons why there should be a difference between male and female RCs.

Mario

How can Protestant unemployment be 5% and Catholic unemployment 9% when the rate, by the ILO definition (i.e. the higher one), is 5%?

Sorry, you're making no sense.

Comrade Stalin

You are entirely correct, of course.

The figures show the ration within the workforce is about right. As I said above, just because you're in the dole queue doesn't mean you're not part of the workforce...

The issue here is why deprived areas (regardless of their communal make-up) are so deprived, and why the same areas remain deprived. I suspect mafia-style gangsterism (regardless of its 'political' affiliation) has a lot to do with it, as has the total failure of any of our political leaders to take the tough decisions to end the economic basket case that is NI.

"No mario - you are determined to sidetrack this away from the point of the findings - that RC WOMEN are disadvantaged compared to RC MEN."

Eh, no. The big issue here is that there is religious discrimination in employemnt in the North and that's what the numbers show.

And I'm still determined not to let you sidetrack the debate away from those uncomfortable facts, no matter how abusive you become.

I'm not trying to pretend anything, not even pretenting without trying. I was just challanging the assumption (or rather just presumption) that any problem is restricted to NI. Deal with what I have posted, not your extrapolation of it.

JEB

The real issue is that people often jump to the conclusion that unemployment is something that is done to somebody.

That, and the remainder of your post, is a very important point well made.

Mario

The big issue here is that there is religious discrimination in employemnt in the North and that's what the numbers show.

Except that Comrade S has shown quite clearly that that is not the case!

You are stirring a sectarian pot with no reason. Why not answer his queries instead of just MOPEing?

"How can Protestant unemployment be 5% and Catholic unemployment 9% when the rate, by the ILO definition (i.e. the higher one), is 5%?"

Your numbers are wrong?

Out of date?

Rounded up or down. Approximated?

I dunno. Why don't you givus the url and we'll see, eh?

Sorry Mario - the point of the story is the DIFFERENTIAL between male and female RCs.....

"Catholic women in the North are three and a half times more likely to be unemployed than Protestant women, according to new British government statistics.

The figures show that Catholics in general are more than twice as likely to be on the dole queue as Protestants, a situation that has remained virtually unchanged in the past year."

Now do you see it ? RC women 3.5 times, men and women combined 2 times...why the difference ?
And if women are well above the average then by definition men must be considerablt below the average .....

Sorry Mario - the point of the story is the DIFFERENTIAL between male and female RCs.....

"Catholic women in the North are three and a half times more likely to be unemployed than Protestant women, according to new British government statistics.

The figures show that Catholics in general are more than twice as likely to be on the dole queue as Protestants, a situation that has remained virtually unchanged in the past year."

Now do you see it ? RC women 3.5 times, men and women combined 2 times...why the difference ?
And if women are well above the average then by definition men must be considerablt below the average .....

"Except that Comrade S has shown quite clearly that that is not the case!"

He hasn't done anything of the sort. I showed that he misread the document!

IJP

"I suspect mafia-style gangsterism (regardless of its 'political' affiliation) has a lot to do with it, as has the total failure of any of our political leaders to take the tough decisions to end the economic basket case that is NI."

That doesn't explain the disparity in rates of Catholic and Protestant unemployment.

Ian's post contributes some factors to help explain the religious difference, although not the gender difference.

We could also remember that by and large if protestant employers favour protestants and RC employers favour RCs, then as there are more protestants then protestants will be at an overall advantage.....

Down Council :

Council hired 80% Catholics

" 27 January 2005
A probe has been demanded into the recruitment policies of Down District Council after it was discovered that Catholics filled 80% of job vacancies over a seven-year stretch.
From 1997 to 2003, 485 jobs were advertised and only 101 were filled by Protestants.
The latest figures show that in 2003 Protestants constituted less than a quarter of the permanent workforce, holding only 69 of 291 positions."

In 2004 the Equality Commission described the described the Catholic-Protestant balance in the Northern workforce as "very fair" - disputed at the time by SF.

Women are disproportionately employed by local authorities - and as nationalists and unionist councils both are accused of unfair practises and as there are more Unionist councils than Nationalist councils, could this be a factor in the gender employemnt differential ?

Further to last post and to support my claim that there are imbalances where both RCs and Protestants can be said to be disadvantages in local government employment :

"By 1993, the Fair Employment Agency had published reports on employment practices in seventeen of the twenty-six districts. In eleven cases, there was no discrimination by religious affiliation in the manual workforce. Of the six remaining councils, three showed evidence of discrimination against Catholics and three against Protestants."

Neville Douglas, page 166, In Search of Ireland a cultural geography edited by Brian Graham , Routledge, © 1997

This question may already have been asked, or might even be answered in the article, but what's the definition of female unemployment? Is a mother bringing up a child full time considered unemployed?

Perhaps the figures are explained (or at least partly explained) by Catholic women having more children, or else being more likely to bring them up full time?

"Ian's post contributes some factors to help explain the religious difference"

He does nothing of the sort!

And your little foray into whataboutery above there, reveals that I was right all along about your intentions in sidetracking this thread. It's begining to look like it's a regular practice of yours indeed.

First you tried to sidetrack the debate into the more comforatble area of gender issues.

And now you're trying whataboutery.

All that's clear from this thread is that there is religious discrimination in Catholic unemployment in the North and that Unionist posters to this forum are determined that it's never discussed.

That base dishonesty is exposed, at least.

O.C - I don't think there's a big diference these days in family sizes ?

I think RC women could be facing a double whammy-

Protestant employers might tend to discriminate against them because they are RC and women and RC employers might also tend to discriminate against them because they are women.

au contraire maryo - that discrimination occurs has been accepted.

I have suggested a theory that can explain why women are especially disadvantaged.

I'm not denying that there may be discrimination, in fact I'm pretty sure there's a lot of it right across the board affecting many groups, but I'm pointing out that there are a lot of other factors that have to be accounted for alongside discrimination.

Even if the family sizes are the same, then a difference in the stay-at-home vs. working mums ratio could have a very significant effect.

If there are twice as many stay-at-home RC mums as unemployed RC non-mums, and the Protestant mums all go out to work, then that could explain the above figures. I know the RC and Protestant mums aren't going to be that different.

"au contraire maryo - that discrimination occurs has been accepted."

You seem to have accepted that now. Most of the other posters were seeking to explain it away with any and every excuse but look the facts straight in the face.

"I have suggested a theory that can explain why women are especially disadvantaged."

It's possible.

Mario,

You're getting ahead of yourself. Statistics can't prove anything least of all that there is discrimination on religious grounds.

Equating the fact that Catholics are more likely to be unemployed (even though perversely the statistics show that they are not less likey to be employed) does not mean that religious discrimination is proven. Saying it many times doesnt make it so.

Strange that precisely what is *not* being discussed in this thread is the main body of the report, which links social deprivation with lack of opportunity (go figure) and lists the main area of unemployment as West Belfast Catholic *AND* Protestants. Exactly who can the people on the Shankhill blame their poverty on ?

What as Gerry Adams ever done do attract business into West Belfast? He loves to always take the position of opposition and scrutiny but what has he ever achieved as MP?
He is costing myself and the people of West Belfast enough money but the service in return in terrible. He and he friends in the IRA have made West Belfast into a waste ground.

Whiterock_inhabitant thats an outrageous statement I suspect you are simply out to undermine the republican movement with a staement like that.

Mr Adams and the volunteer soldiers provide a great service to the republican community here.

You cant say you havent noticed the quality of our community work here and how we've managed to alienate and demonise practically every teenager in West Belfast with our toy soldiering in the local community watches.

Its fabulous for on a Friday and Saturday night between 9-12pm we get all the adrenalin rush of the old days but with no risk even if hospitalise someone. We even get to use real walkie talkies and torches and everything.

And then sure when someone naievely asks us to protect an old person or the vulernable in the community the leadership remind you sternly that you could be jailed for that kind of behaviour and will tell you its a community problem not ours. If thats not a service to the republican community i dont know what is? I for one am very, very grateful ...

Meanwhile in terms of a job sure we can happily use to name of the movement to provide
'security' on the local bars and even in some shops. Its great having all that power at the weekends ... Failing that we'll get a 'community job' somewhere nice and handy and in no time we'll have a new volkswaggon ... red is 'in' these days. Im all for the passat but some of the mates have the new golf parked outside their house(s) which we cleverly commandered from many a waste bit of ground.

And sure come August festival time dont about a thousand of us cramm into a tent, the republican social elite, and tell West belfastians and whoever else will listen that its the biggest community fesatival in Europe. You cant tell me thats not a good thing for the republican community, it certainly makes ME feel special !!!

And hey should you ever hanker for the good old days when the fight was 'against' the brits instead of for them (as we do now) republicans will even give you a wee tour round the districts in a black taxi taking in all the former hot spots and daring exploits. That way we can live in the past to pretend to the community we are brave and daring today (in the Community Watch and then in the PD later that night)

Whiterock_inhabitant I find the thankless tone in your post appalling ... I mean havent we been fighting for thirty odd years to give the republican community and you 'the people' a better life? Isnt this a better life for us now than before?

Okay like, we've fallen a bit short of our stated objectives, our politics have watered down some and weve let the community down at times for example I know weve meekly allowed british politicial vetting in the community to become as drastic as it ever was with funding for even the most worthy community projects being completely withdrawn.

Nonetheless I think its unfair when you actually try to publicly challange us on it ... sure why not call down to the offices and we can have a wee chat about it in private?

Republican Activist

You seem to have accepted that now.

I accepted it from my very first post*, possibly you haven't learned to follow my tortuous, some might say twisted, reasoning ? ;)

* "closer to parity" is very different to parity. In this I acknowledged that male RCs are still disadvantaged. My point was that they are less disadvantaged than RC females.

"You're getting ahead of yourself. Statistics can't prove anything least of all that there is discrimination on religious grounds."

It's because there's a history of such discrimination in the North that we know we're on safe ground with this one.

Discrimination and how it's effected is a complex area and there are many studies and reports on it in the North. So there's a whole body of work in that area. I just want to say one thing about this sort of discrimination because some people seem to be confused. It's rarely an individual thing these days. That's to say, it's not so much one bigoted individual making a choice not to employ another because of his religion. It's much more institutional and structural today.

"Exactly who can the people on the Shankhill blame their poverty on ?"

They can blame it on deprivations in their area and poor social and skilling provision, something they share with similarly deprived Catholic areas.

But the point about the religious discrimination is that all other things being equal, Catholics are still more likely to suffer discrimination in employment opportunities.

So what people need to do is work out the reasons for that differential. It's an additional problem on top of the others.

George "what about the findings of the deprivation survey". Deprivation is relative, and the one sure way of making sure you are not deprived is to get a job. There are courses a planty and jobs by the ton. If people "are deprived" it is the result of sloth and nothing else.

"I accepted it from my very first post*, possibly you haven't learned to follow my tortuous, some might say twisted, reasoning ? ;)"

I'll watch and learn then from a master of the art ;-)

Keith M

"If people "are deprived" it is the result of sloth and nothing else."

I hope the DUP will be putting that on their next election campaign literature.

We've already got one Alliance councillor expressing some rather disturbing neo-conservative notions.

Might have to set meself up one of those Delevan "Fredo" blogs.

Incidentally Mario - you seem to have changed a bit from the person who used to claim to be from Argentina and asked for lots of explanations to someone who now has very firm opinions - or was that another Mario ?

could someone define MOPEry?

I have be gone from NI from 15 years and I have never heard this term but I see it on this site a lot.

Keithm,
"Deprivation is relative, and the one sure way of making sure you are not deprived is to get a job. There are courses a planty and jobs by the ton. If people "are deprived" it is the result of sloth and nothing else."

That is a very simplistic and prejudicial view, a sort of work makes free attitude where the poorest and weakest in our society are treated as workshy, anti-social degenerates.

Have you ever heard of the term poverty trap?

How do you explain that when these areas are given the support they need and proper meaningful employment opportunities, not burger flipping, that they all are more than happy to go out and work?

Why is it only to poorest of the poor who seem to suffer from sloth in your view (you've never mentioned anyone else) and why does this laziness disappear the second these people are given a decent chance by society?

heck - MOPE - "Most Oppressed People Ever", so MOPEry is invention of or exaggeration of victimhood.

"Incidentally Mario - you seem to have changed a bit from the person who used to claim to be from Argentina and asked for lots of explanations to someone who now has very firm opinions - or was that another Mario ?"

No era yo

"could someone define MOPEry?"

It's mostly used as a straw man by Unionism to deny there is any validity in Nationalist or Republican complaints

You know Mario - I was never convinced you were a foreigner :) Now I'm certain LOL.

ah

so the slogan of this site is

NO MOPE HERE

do you listen to KICK THE MOPE flute bands?

sooory bad jokes

I first heard MOPE being used by Ruth Dudley Edwards to describe provos and their justification for what they do. this is way I interpret the saying - victimhood (exagerated or otherwise) as an excuse for making other people victims.

"You know Mario - I was never convinced you were a foreigner :) Now I'm certain LOL

¿Que? I fra Barcelona

Bertie

"I interpret the saying - victimhood (exagerated or otherwise) as an excuse for making other people victims".

Right. So it's not appropriate then to use it to undermine reasonable and verifiable complaints.

The problem is that that's the way it's been used in this thread and is commonly used by Unionism to downplay all genuine Nationalist grievances.

Mario,

I was just making a couple of, what I thought were, relevant observations. 1 - There is plenty of work in NI. Some people just seem to be more picky than others. 2 - Given the history of violence and mafia style gangs in some parts, is it any wonder some areas lack industry and investment.

I am not trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking, but I am entitled to express an opinion.

Mario, it's a very simple question. Why can't you explain why the monitored workforce does not show any evidence of the discrimination you are claiming exists ?

By the way, you're not from Argentina and you're not in the least convincing.

Is it possible that the Catholic women are more likely to be employed in the informal economy, while drawing benefit? This explanation has often been used to explain high unemployment levels in other Catholic countries such as Spain.

"But the point about the religious discrimination is that all other things being equal, Catholics are still more likely to suffer discrimination in employment opportunities."

I noticed how you slipped that in rather carefully there. Unemployment statistics by themselves do not constitute evidence that discrimination is taking place, especially given what we know about the makeup of the workforce.

TM,

As you well know anti-social behaviour is a huge problem in West Belfast. As for Gerry's Army I have never seen them around Whiterock. Unless at the start of July when they come to blacken the name of nationalism by throwing bricks at young Junior orangemen aged between 7 and 12.

When I confronted Marie Moore with the problems facing our community she told me to have abit of f*cking wit". I have actually voted for SF before because Fra Mc Cann told me the IRA would be going away after the election. That was 2003 and no changes yet.

Stalin

"Mario, it's a very simple question. Why can't you explain why the monitored workforce does not show any evidence of the discrimination you are claiming exists ?"

They don't say there's no discrimination. All they say is that things are not as bad as they were. But there's obviously still discrimination going on.

The whole point of the monitoring is because there is discrimination.

"By the way, you're not from Argentina and you're not in the least convincing."

No kiddin, eh.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear, what have we here!

Stalin

"Unemployment statistics by themselves do not constitute evidence that discrimination is taking place"

There's a lot more than stats on their own

There's historical discrimination in the system. We already know that. That's why it's monitored

6countyprod

"I am not trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking, but I am entitled to express an opinion."

And you're also entitled to be challenged upon it.

You made a argument about why people generally might be employed. But that doesn't explin the disparity in higher Catholic unemployment compared with Protestant unemployment.

6countyprod and Slug9987

Very relevant observations.

The fact is the religious breakdown of the workforce is about right. There are other reasons for apparent disparities in the dole queue, among them:
- the Catholic adult population is younger, and younger people are more likely to work in temporary positions (between which they will be unemployed);
- Catholics are more likely to live in areas where economic (and even physical) infrastructure is inferior;
- Catholics have suffered disproportionately from having their neighbourhoods run by mafiosi (just about all the 'deprived areas' noted are in this situation);
- more Catholics do not (or pretend to not) recognize the State.

But there is in fact very little evidence of wholesale discrimination specifically against those of a Catholic faith - indeed, in some occupations (most obviously the police) quite the opposite is the case.

Most of these are a product of other divides: adult v youth; West-of-the-Bann v East-of-the-Bann; lawless v lawful. Frankly, in many of these cases, it is up to the people living in the 'deprived area' to sort it out. In all of these cases, a sectarian political system only serves to increase the problem, rather than solve it.

But let's just put this diplomatically once and for all: we have full employment in NI, and indeed on the island of Ireland...

Whiterock_inhabitant

My sardonic post belies the fact that anti-social behaviour is a major issue where we live.

Yet if the response to it is to focus the energies of activists who previously fought against the state to violently tackle this issue in the absence of any real strategy of engaging these kids then i feel thats a recipe for social implosion. And geeze arent things really cooking?

In the seventies and eighties it was the Brits and RUC goading, harrassing and attacking the kids on the streets. These days more often than not its semi-retired members of the movement a la the community watch and whatever bored thug of old they can scratch up to go out and 'patrol' the area.

In days gone by this harrassment, next to having a relative killed was the single most crucial factor of people joining the movement and fighting the brits. A drastic response in anyone's eyes to the bully taunting the brave !!

Nowadays many kids, (not all) in an equally drastic response are completely void of respect for the provo watch as they fondly call it, and from what i can gather hate and despise the republican movement in equal measure.

Even among the best intentioned community workers I find more and more we are in danger of demonising our kids, all of them by our condoning the very actions and behaviour that cause them to be isolated from and indifferent to the communities they live in.

Yes I agree totally we do need a community response to tackle this issue as there are a numerically small hardcore who are beyond the pale but in general the answer doesnt lie in treating all kids who stand on corners (didnt we all) with suspicion and the repeatedly engage in the degrading act of moving them on with threats and abuse and very often violence, like a herd of beasts.

Has no one of influence the sense to see that if you treat people like animals you dehumanise them and eventually they will behave like animals and possibly turn round and bite you?

Threats beget threats, abuse begets abuse and violence begets violence and perhaps thats why we are in the situation we are in in West belfast today, we created it, we tackled it as best we knew (and failed) and now the monster is biting us back and our 'swords' are useless.

How often have you, like me, gasped as you see kids as young as 9 and 10 behaving with absolutely no respect or healthy fear of adults nor indeed any authority. I suspect their lack of fear has evolved over the last 10-15 years down through families, cousins brothers and sisters. Their role models are the Stephen McDade's of this world (ironically the latter day outlaws of the West), amongst that is, the teenage resistance movement of Albert Street and the Mona bypass.

There is absolutely no voice for these disaffected young people in West Belfast, no forum for them to have a say ... by and large we are indifferent to their needs as we only want them to leave us alone and move on somewhere else !!

They in turn are indifferent to the fear and anxiety they create with their blue bags and large roudy groups. Like any unloved neglected child too soon their behaviour turns negative as any attention is better than none right? Yet they too, within their own alienated teenage sub-culture, just want 'us' to leave 'them' alone.

Was it ghandi who said "be the change you want to see?" I for one avoid 'the watch' like the plague, engage the kids (all of them) as positively as i can and find mutual respect is the only currency worth anything on these mean streets ... at the very least this might prevent them stealing my car again !!

some good points there Tomas.

George "That is a very simplistic and prejudicial view, a sort of work makes free attitude where the poorest and weakest in our society are treated as workshy, anti-social degenerates."

Firstly I have not used the word "degenerate", please stop creating straw men. I have used the word "workshy" and I stick by it. How else would you describe people who choose to leech off of the taxpayer when there are jobs a plenty out there?

"Have you ever heard of the term poverty trap?". Yes I have and that's why I would end all unemployment assistance, once the level of unemployment falls below a figure which relates to full employment". I would limit unemployment benefit to one month for every year that a person has worked, up to the age of 50. People over 50 could continue to claim unemployment benefit once they have taken additional courses to increase their prospects of getting a job.

"How do you explain that when these areas are given the support they need and proper meaningful employment opportunities, not burger flipping, that they all are more than happy to go out and work?" There will always be the workshy, and given the choice of starving or flipping burgers these people will gain the work ethic. Once in a job and getting used to the disciple that work brings, you would be surprised how quickly people will find somethingmore rewarding.

The taxpayer's money should be used to help the genuinely needy people who will never be able to support themselves, not on layabouts who seem to have a parade of simple minded people willing to pamper them and pander to their self imposed vareiety of victimhood.

Why is it only to poorest of the poor who seem to suffer from sloth in your view (you've never mentioned anyone else) and why does this laziness disappear the second these people are given a decent chance by society?

IJP

"Frankly, in many of these cases, it is up to the people living in the 'deprived area' to sort it out."

Imagine a politician in Britain saying that in reference to long-term, deep-seated structural deprivation and unemployment.

You can't! It just wouldn't happen!

It just shows how out of touch Unionist opinion is with the outside world. They avoid facing up to the facts that are staring everyone else in the face.

Ed Moloney made reference to this mentality when reporting one of Trimble's speeches some years ago:

"Although Trimble's speech reflected a continuing reluctance to reject the Unionist dogma that high Catholic unemployment is not the result of discrimination but of a higher birth rate, his speech will nevertheless be welcomed in Britain and Irish government circles for the commitments it contains on equality in the North."

Folks - sorry to intrude but figures on unemployment differentials mean damn all if taken out of context and tend to be used as a political football. cf above.

For example: if only three people are unemployed in all of NI but two of them are Catholic it results in a 2:1 unemployment ratio - if so is this due to discrimination?

There is some good research out there to be examined, was/is there discrimination - probably, but then how much is also due to historical barriers to employment - Pete Shuttleworth's work on 'Spaces of Fear' is useful as an into.

scipio

"There is some good research out there to be examined, was/is there discrimination - probably, but then how much is also due to historical barriers to employment - Pete Shuttleworth's work on 'Spaces of Fear' is useful as an into"

As I've already explained discrimination works at a number of different levels and by this stage is much more likely structural rather then personal. Even spaces of fear is itself a political issue in terms of the attention that needs to be paid to where investment takes place.

It's all political, and so far as that's disputed football has little to do with it.

So RC women are a couple of percentage points more unemployed than protestant women. Given the higher deprivation in many nationalist areas I am not surprised to see more looking for a job.

Age would affect this greatly. Women declaring as unemployed to ensure they receive full child benefits. Younger catholic women doing some studying while unemployed, as I did.

A longer history of employment in protestant households would give their women an advantage, having had more experience of different jobs to draw on, and perhaps leads for jobs from a male partner and female friends.

The wonderful thing is that unfair discrimination seems to be very much on the wane with full employment, although employment persists in areas that bore the brunt of the Provo campaign, its destruction of local businesses, and the violent state reaction it invited.

Licensing lawnessness in one generation may have made these areas economic and social no-go areas in the next.

And what employer should expose staff with relations in the PSNI or army to future targetting by a still armed PIRA, or risk staff being set up for kidnapping, by employing catholic 'republicans'.

Discrimination is only illegal if it is unfair, after all.

Champagne corks will be popping at 'community groups' all over west belfast at this news . . .

Hmm. Another Mario?

To be clear Im Argentinian Mario.

Ocasional poster on slugger and clearly not as knowledgable is that Mario up there.

aquifier, there are several possible explanations for the disparity in unemployment statistics for women, and discrimination is just one of them. Problems in this country would probably be better addressed if people didn't take every last issue and use it to promote their tribal grievances.

Could not agree more.

I see the problems on the ground, and I'm addressing them, but I can see limits to how effectively they can be addressed within the circle of separatist republican analysis, and I'm addressing that too.

Mario (the latter one)

Argentinian

Were you the Mario who was so pernickety about only speaking languages you know on another thread?

If so, the correct spelling is 'Argentinean', an important one to know.

If not, never worry, it's a common mistake.

Comrade S and aquifier

Very interesting stuff! Good you weren't put off by the hiatus!

Even if this report isnt all just a big coincidence, a distortion of the facts,a statistical anomaly or none of the above, it is really not a hard problem!.

IF there are all these dreadful Catholic mother-people at home (in public housing) having families of 10 in order to get welfare and breed a united Ireland , the way both to save Nortern Ireland (and the British paxtayer)at a stoke is crystal blindingly clear -give them all jobs.

Where will these jobs come from you may ask.

Easy ; fire the required number of Protestant women who will then go home and ...well.. preserve NIrons destiny as a...

Why hasnt Paisley figured this out by now?

A real bonus in this very obvious solution would be to get the resultingly grateful Catholic women of NI to vote for DUP.

Next problem please

This debate is going round in ever decreasing circles without any reference to the statistical basis of the original report.

Given that the female labour participation rates (employed plus unemployed) in the workforce are much less than the male rates then it is possible that the summation of the male and female rates of unemployment can result in a figure of 2:1.

This is because it is not an arithmetic average of the two ratios but a weighed average of the actual figures i.e. the total male and female Catholic unemployed are calculated as a percentage of the total numbers Catholic unemployed. The same exercise is carried out for the Protestant workforce.

The result of both these calculations are then compared to give the overall ratio.

The term survey and sample are in fact interchangeable. They relate to any piece of research which does NOT involve the complete 'population'. Population is a statistical term referring to all those involved.

The alternative is a census which does involve the complete 'population'.

A sample size of 71% of the population would be thought to be extremely accurate so long as the sampling was not skewed.

In the case of employment/unemployment it woudl require a number of strong assumptions regarding employment patterns in small enterprises.

Contrary to the opinion expressed there are very many small enterprises

Argentino for me. English is not my first language so I do not worry too much about it,but thanks for pointing that out. the last time I posted was on the thread about that NI football team
"Were you the Mario who was so pernickety about only speaking languages you know on another thread?"

No. I have never been accused of being pernickety, since I dont know what it means, I am quite sure I am not anything of the sort.

Mario (el argentino)

Entonces no importa.

Pero escribes muy bien, ?seguro que has vivido una vez en un pais anglófono?

Buenas noches.

Efectivamente IJP. Hice estudios de post-grado en Estados Unidos y en Inglaterra. Mis ancestros son de County Atrim, por eso me interesa NI. En Argentina hay un Club Celta del cual soy miembro.

Por cierto, veo que vos también manejas el castellano ¿Donde lo estudiaste? ¡Felicidades!

Tomas
Are you a community worker in your area ?

Mario el argentino

Pues si, estudiaba durante cinco meses en Granada. Pero para mí el argentino es algo diferente, !un dialecto mucho más romántico!

John

I'm not sure I've understood your point, although I suspect it's a good one! Care to clarify?

As I said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And there are a lot more reasons for imbalances in the job market than 'discrimination', as I myself indicated above.

Pronsias "Are you a community worker in your area?". Is "social worker" the new "nigger" (ie the word that nobody dare utter). I really do need an up to date English-PC dictionary.

Keithm,
while I agree that it's a social net and not a hammock (Helmut Kohl) you go way too far for my liking and I believe your type of policies will lead to more deprivation, more unemployment, more social disintegration and more misery.

I will remind you of one important thing, it's the taxpayer's money and the majority of taxpayers want a social net for the poorest in society, including those classified as unemployed.

Also, more of the taxpayer's money goes to widen the gap with the haves in society than goes to the unemployed and deprived. If they were receiving as much as you seem to think with your use of words like pamper, they wouldn't be living in such abject poverty and without hope. Being poor is no picnic and poor people are not "layabouts".

As a matter of interest, instead of your suggested solutions, would you be in favour of removing free nursing care to the elderly who have large assets locked up in their property but instead rely on the state to pay for their nursing fees and leave the house to their highly educated children instead?

This alone would pay the unemployment benefit bill for generations.

Or how about removing the children's allowance automatically given to the offspring of the richest in society.

Or how about removing mortgage relief, which is another sop to the middle class.

Or removing free university education which is widening the gap to the most deprived.

Why do you think having a "work ethic" which involes flipping burgers is something to be proud of or something to aspire to? Surely that makes a human little more than a wage slave?

Personally, I'd look at tackling this from structural unemployment point of view rather than insulting and demonising the poorest and most deprived.

I would invest in giving them the skills necessary to take up the new jobs being created as these jobs more often go to new entrants to the job market with the uneducated and deprived left jobless. University-educated Pole or Oliver Bond flats bud who can't write?

I would not cut the FAS Community Employment schemes for a start.

Also, a degenerate is defined as a person whose "behavior deviates from what is acceptable" and you describe unemployed people as workshy, lazy, leeches. Seems to me you consider them totally unacceptable. Why are you afraid to wrap it up in one word: degenerate?

You are happy to advocate a work makes free ideology and to label people as workshy so why not take that final step? Would you consider arresting and interning them if they refuse to work and start cluttering up the city?

FYI, it is possible to live a reasonable life on benefits, not just an existance:


£56.20 per week Jobseeker's Allowance; convince your doctor to sign you off with a bad back or depression and you can get £58.80 per week disability allowance. From speaking to psychiatric nurses I've been told you can get money for other expenses e.g. if you are an alcoholic you can claim £40 per week laundry allowance because you wet the bed. Housing Benefit can cover up to 100% of rent (say £350 per month) and rates (based on an example from the rates collection agency website: £350.00 per year).


That gives you a weekly income of £249.13, or an annual income of nearly £13,000.


Of course it's not fair to say that every unemployed person is claiming all of these benefits, or those that are are not fully entitled to them, but some people do claim fraudulently.

dia duit pronsais

Yes for my sins Im a community worker in Belfast, right at the coal face ... you trying to track me down for a wee office chat :-)

"Or how about removing mortgage relief, which is another sop to the middle class."

mortgage relief, -no such animal exists-.

I wonder if anyone has looked at the quality of jobs broken down by religion.

I wonder as Protestants were geared up towards manufacturing jobs that didn't require much in the way of education, while Catholics, in very general terms, knew that without an education they had no chance of a job.

With the disappearance of manufacturing and the mover towards a more skills based service sector economy have more of the plum jobs gone towards Catholics.

Barnshee

MIRAS is long dead but it could well be back as another animal next year when your allowed to put residential property into pension.

It's not going to be straightforward but with the efforts of a good creative accoutant and an accomaditing bank it should be possible to get 40% releif on your mortgage costs.

"mortgage relief, -no such animal exists-."

It does south of the border and quite lucrative for house owners it is too Barnshee.

I was arguing the point with fellow Dub Keithm so brought it up as an example.