Thread-
Any forthcoming programme for austerity relies heavily on input like Anne Rabbitte’s on @SaturdayRTE. However, she was only the messenger, any TD could have relayed the ‘common-sense’ headline of ‘200,000 better off’. Real issue is @EnterInnov report behind figure. 1/ https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1264179775704350720

I read the @EnterInnov report this morning. I expected a careful calculation of the figures quoted on @SaturdayRTE – 38% of Pandemic Unemployment Payment recipients or 200,000 people were better off. Maybe an appendix with charts. A solitary graph? https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/Publication-files/Economic-Considerations-for-Reinstating-Economic-Activity.pdf 2/

The line regurgitated by Anne Rabbitte was a single sentence inserted into the report's executive summary – ‘There are also significant disincentive effects associated with the PUP with 38% of recipients previously earning less than €300 per week.’ 3/

This seemingly innocuous sentence was not accompanied by how this figure was reached. No calculation was provided. Neither source nor footnotes. An executive summary serves to condense the main points of a report down but no further discussion of this weighty point occurred. 4/

Even a rudimentary Ctrl-F found no mention of the ‘200,000’ or the ‘38%’ of people better off in the main report. The ideologically loaded term of ‘disincentive’ was mentioned only once in relation to the administrative and support sector within whole report. 5/

It appears that this single line was added knowing it would be selected as a headline. It was the proverbial trial balloon floated to assess public support or not. Was our collectivist spirit, which was encouraged in March, waning? 6/

An ESRI report in April forecast 4 scenarios of differing government support during a ‘medium’ unemployment shock. They predicted people with lowest 20% of disposable income may see an increase of 2%. The next lowest 20% of people would see no increase. https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/BP202101.pdf 7/

A possible 2% increase in disposable income is far from a ‘hell of a lot’ more. Maybe a couple of euro more but what is that for a household where people have been living with the lowest disposable income in Ireland. 8/

The @EnterInnov report and Rabbitte interview stem from how poverty and income support is understood. Come budget time each year, politicians are discussing how many people will gain from the customary additional five euro which rarely matches the rising cost of living. 9/

There is an emphasis on multitude over magnitude. This single line, with no sources, focused on the multitude who may be better off but had no complementary discussion of the magnitude of how much they were better off. 10/

This created space for others to interpret the magnitude. Rabbitte was happy to discuss the multitude of those who she perceived as being better off. Unprompted, she made unsubstantiated claims about magnitude using the uncommon social scientific measure of a ‘hell of a lot’. /11

Being accurate to the reality is not the issue here. The headline stuck, and will be used repeatedly in the next weeks and months. The trial balloon was floated. /12

Finally, the thrust of @EnterInnov report is that the cost to the Exchequer of Covid-19 income supports is large and unsustainable. My colleague @kevinhargaden addresses why the Covid_19 income supports are good for the economy in another thread here - https://twitter.com/kevinhargaden/status/1264512703458050048 /n