Minimum wage - time for a decrease?

anonymous_joe

L.R. Weizel wrote: »

Yes, countries that have a high level of state involvement like Sweden and Norway are just ****holes aren't they.

Under your system I probably wouldn't survive, given I live off disability currently, something that couldn't exist in it's current form without heavy state interference. People like you never consider such circumstances. You think businesses are going to give me hand outs? Or I should just "MAN UP" and find a job in this ****ty economy?

Delusional.

One with oil income and one with a more liberal economy.

A lower minimum wage might help certain businesses surive the current crisis. Abolition would be too far though I reckon.

Akrasia

astrofool wrote: »

We have the second highest minimum wage in Europe, higher than countries which have a far far more socialist background than us. It was allowed to get high during, effectively, full employment, just like we tried to live on a housing bubble, it has now come back to bite us in the ass.

I've lived on min. wage, and lived on wage below the minimum before it came in. If people can live on the dole, than they can live on minimum wage.

The difference is, people on minimum wages are working forcing them to accept subsistance wages is called wage slavery and reducing the minimum wage without a substantial decrease in the cost of living is the same as telling people that their only value in society is as workers and we're not prepared to pay them anything above what it costs to keep them alive.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not a 'statist' I'm an anarchist, but I recognise that as long as capitalism is around it needs to be strictly regulated.

This is pure speculative fearmongering. There is no theoretical economic framework—other than uninformed strains of Marxism—for arguing that wages would be driven down to subsistence level in a deregulated, free economy. If anything, a thriving private sector leads to demand for employees and puts upward pressure on wages.

You really really need to open your eyes to the real world mate. There is a reality out there which superceeds any of your 'theoretical economic frameworks' and in the most capitalist country in the world the reality is very close to dikensian london. Did you watch Louis Theroux' documentary about the U.S. Jail? The people incarcarated in that jail almost universally told stories about how it was harder and more dangerous on the outside than it was in a maximum security prison. They faced daily threats of violence, homelessness, lack of food, no chance of employment and no tangiable assistance from the state. How much more Dikensian can you get?

The minimum wage costs the economy thousands of jobs.

Thousands of subsistace wage jobs that are worth very little to the 'economy' (but are very lucerative to the capitalist)

It particularly affects the young and the untrained, who cannot get into the labour market to build experience and skills because employers can't afford to employ them.

Whats the point in building up skills and experience in an area that only pays subsistance wages with an over supply of potential new entrants to the labour market? You might be 'experienced' but if you're easily replacable, you see what happens if you try and ask for a raise...

The minimum wage also drives small business owners out of business because they cannot afford to take on the employees they need. All these people then become drains on the economy rather than contributors to it.

There is more to life than the economy you know, what about dignity and quality of life? Whats the point of an economy if it is only used to generate wealth for the owners of capital and the citizens of the state are forced to work for the bare subsistance wage.

What I personally get paid is irrelevant. I would believe exactly the same things regardless of my income.

Yeah, and I bet you'd feel exactly the same about the funding for leprosy research if you yourself contracted leprosy

Yes, I do, but I live in Donegal and do my shopping in Strabane and Derry. I'm one of those consumers who is sending the signal to the Irish government that until they stop crippling Irish retailers with artificially inflated minimum wages and a VAT rate that is 6.5 percent higher than our European neighbour, people such as I are going to continue voting with our feet. We are going to keep buying our goods and services where we can get them cheapest.

Ah right, so you're so concerned about the 'irish economy' that you're spending all your money in a foreign juristiction.... of course, you're not just acting out of selfish reasons, you're doing it to save the government from themselves.
Its not like you're just taking advantage of a very favourable exchange rate and using that to argue that irish retail workers are all overpaid (hint, 6 pounds an hour used to be a lot closer to 8.65 euros an hour before the exchange movements)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a naive statement, You can get insurance to protect you in case you get a disability, but you try approaching an insurance company with a pre existing condition and see what they'll tell you to do.

If you become disabled and your insurance cover runs out, you're basically left to fend for yourself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

astrofool

Akrasia wrote: »

The difference is, people on minimum wages are working forcing them to accept subsistance wages is called wage slavery and reducing the minimum wage without a substantial decrease in the cost of living is the same as telling people that their only value in society is as workers and we're not prepared to pay them anything above what it costs to keep them alive.

Energy prices are coming down, interest rates are down, rent is down 12% already, we're in a deflationary period.

People on the dole are above "subsistence levels", but maybe we need to visit a third world country to see what subsistence really means. Not being able to afford Sky is certainly not what I would call subsistence.

But, pray tell, what is your value to this country?

You work to earn a living, even the people on the highest wage are workers. Slavery hasn't been around in Ireland for a long time, and comparing someone working at a low wage to slavery is ridiculous.

You STILL haven't answered the question as to why Ireland should have the second highest minimum wage in Europe.

Fighting Irish

gurramok wrote: »

Thats just ridiculous and something out of extreme capitalism. There should be a safety net for lower paid workers and the govt has a duty to protect the most vulnerable, not for them to be exploited by get rich quick businesses.

Yes, reduce the wage but reduce it to bring it in line with the European average as maybe with the UK as they are our biggest trading partner.

That's what wrong with the world, people think we need to protect the weak, but by protecting the weak/stupid they will never learn for themselves

Akrasia

Fighting Irish wrote: »

That's what wrong with the world, people think we need to protect the weak, but by protecting the weak/stupid they will never learn for themselves

Ah!! the solution is tough love, it's the only way they'll learn!

Its all perfectly clear now.

What happens when they 'learn' that they're completely on their own and they need to survive by any means possible? We end up with criminal gangs from some, and widespread begging and homelessness from others. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

We do need to protect the weak (i mean people with disabilities and other imparements that prevent them from working) we also need to protect against exploitation of workers who have a weak bargaining position (this used to be the job of the unions, but the last 10 years of neoliberalism has wiped out much of the labour rights legislation and replaced it with 'free contracts' and 'employment agencies'

Employers are deliberately avoiding employment protection laws by claiming that the people working for them are actually on temporary contracts or employed as 'independent contractors' or through 'agencies'

The likes of DonegalFella will claim that this is their own choice under the free market, but if you ask any of the 850 'agency staff' recently fired from BMW if they would have preferred to be full time permanent employees gues what their response would be.

astrofool

Akrasia wrote: »

Employers are deliberately avoiding employment protection laws by claiming that the people working for them are actually on temporary contracts or employed as 'independent contractors' or through 'agencies'

The likes of DonegalFella will claim that this is their own choice under the free market, but if you ask any of the 850 'agency staff' recently fired from BMW if they would have preferred to be full time permanent employees gues what their response would be.

Isn't that the problem though? By making it too expensive for a business to hire people on a permanent basis, they just use short term contract staff (who are usually better paid than the permanent staff btw). Reduce the cost and then companies will be more likely to take people on full time.

Reduce the minimum wage and announce a freeze for a number of years (say until we are at the average of the EU's top 11 countries or something), and a business can plan ahead and fix their costs, and offer long term contracts. As it is right now, most companies don't know if they'll be in business in Ireland in 3 months time, so are not going to saddle themselves with hefty payouts by taking on highly paid permanent staff.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not really, the world is more complicated than black and white, government bad, 'freedom' good.

There are causes and effects, as long as capitalism is around there need to be restrictions on capital to prevent domination. (it's not that hard to understand)

There is none whatsoever—as the many unemployed plasterers and barristers in this country will attest.

so...

Dignity and quality of life are built on a framework of economic stability and prosperity. You really have been reading too much Marx. Are you a college student?

No I am not a college student, though I do have a Masters in Sociology and I am very familiar with economic theory. You seem to have a serious problem understanding that economic 'prosperity' is no good unless it is distributed fairly. There are a number of theories of capital accumulation out there (there was a conferance on the subject in NUI Galway's dept of economics a few years ago) and the broad consensus is that free markets will lead to consolidation of wealth in the hands of fewer more powerful people.

If you contracted a serious illness, you might actually be grateful for the pharmaceutical industry, exploitative capitalists that they are and all.

again you miss (or ignore) my point. You think you would hold this political position no matter what your position in society was, that might be true, but you should also allow for the possibility that if you had different experiences of the economic system, your political position would be different. (just like lepers would place a higher priority on leper treatment programs than your average non leper)

I am acting rationally by buying goods and services where I can get them cheapest. My actions are to the long-term benefit to our country's competitiveness and sense of fiscal responsibility. When the government cuts VAT to 15 percent—the lowest allowable rate under EU law—and abolishes the minimum wage, I will consider shopping in the Republic again.

You are acting selfishly (which i accept is a work interchangable with 'rational' in economic theory) but you are justifying that position by claiming that you're doing it for a noble purpose. Do you also use that 'justification' when you purchase sweatshop garments made by children in Thailand? "I am acting rationally by buying the cheapest product, i am also trying to promote lax regulation and the abolition of minimum wage laws,nd all other labour laws while I'm at it)

Of course I'm also taking advantage of a favourable exchange rate. As I said, I am acting rationally. And I've already said that I don't support a minimum wage, here or anywhere else—so the minimum wage in the UK is irrelevant.

so your only concern is that the prices for everything should be as low as possible regardless of the social cost?

glaston

Idea just popped into my head

Could they keep the minimum wage but give back to the employers through tax breaks??

Keeps people in work, government doesnt have to support as many people on dole etc

Havent thought this through...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Inca_Homes

The minimum wage is set to protect workers from exploitation and unjust conditions, but given the economy and the situation we are all in I can only see it being cut.
I have just taken 10% pay cut and I had no option or voice, however that is my situation and I still have a job for the moment. My real issue now for me is the cost of living as this has not dropped 10%. If the government make this move and expect people on the boarder line to take home less pay, then the cost of living should also drop. In some areas such as rent this has started to happen but in others like electricity it has gone up. If the basics are not looked after correctly and the people on the borderline are not protected our country is going to have its self in a real grave state.

astrofool

Inca_Homes wrote: »

The minimum wage is set to protect workers from exploitation and unjust conditions, but given the economy and the situation we are all in I can only see it being cut.
I have just taken 10% pay cut and I had no option or voice, however that is my situation and I still have a job for the moment. My real issue now for me is the cost of living as this has not dropped 10%. If the government make this move and expect people on the boarder line to take home less pay, then the cost of living should also drop. In some areas such as rent this has started to happen but in others like electricity it has gone up. If the basics are not looked after correctly and the people on the borderline are not protected our country is going to have its self in a real grave state.

Gas will be down 25% by the end of the year, electricity down 10% minimum.

Inca_Homes

astrofool wrote: »

Gas will be down 25% by the end of the year, electricity down 10% minimum.

If this is true I am sure it will help all round, however and I might be wrong on this was there not a 17.5% increase in electricity just a few months ago?

Akrasia

astrofool wrote: »

People on the dole are above "subsistence levels", but maybe we need to visit a third world country to see what subsistence really means. Not being able to afford Sky is certainly not what I would call subsistence.

Another comment from someone who has no idea what its like to live on a low income. Its not about affording sky, it's about affording the ESB bill or buying shoes, or transport required to get you to work. Its about putting off going to to the Doctor because the money is always needed elsewhere, its about never having any savings and always running out of money before the next pay cheque. Subsistance wage is the minimum amount required to keep the employee fed and sheltered so that they are able to work to earn the capitalist money.

But, pray tell, what is your value to this country?

As a citizen of the country, I am part owner and guardian of the land, the wealth and the resources (along with everyone else who lives here) We are not worker bees, we are human beings, we like to believe that we are more civilised than insects but free market capitalists want to organise everything purely around the most 'efficient' way of producing 'wealth' even if that means we have slavery.

You work to earn a living, even the people on the highest wage are workers. Slavery hasn't been around in Ireland for a long time, and comparing someone working at a low wage to slavery is ridiculous.

I was saying that without the protections of a minimum wage and social welfare than we would be looking at effective wage slavery. (work for whatever you are given, or starve to death)

You STILL haven't answered the question as to why Ireland should have the second highest minimum wage in Europe.

I don't think we should[/] have the second highest min wage in europe, I just think we shouldn't be blaming the economic catastrophy that was caused by over paid bankers 'consultants' politicians, estate agents, and media 'pundits' on the minimum wage. These are the people who contributed least to our economic problems and until there is a significant fall in the cost of living in this country, they should not be targeted for pay cuts.

grahamo

[

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't think we should[/] have the second highest min wage in europe, I just think we shouldn't be blaming the economic catastrophy that was caused by over paid bankers 'consultants' politicians, estate agents, and media 'pundits' on the minimum wage. These are the people who contributed least to our economic problems and until there is a significant fall in the cost of living in this country, they should not be targeted for pay cuts.

I Agree with the above.
It seem to me a lot of the people on here blaming everyone else bar themselves for the downturn are totally unwilling to take any kind of hit themselves. They are crying that the low paid and vulnerable should take a pay cut and a drop in their already meagre standard of living while they give up nothing. They are however, so worried about the Irish economy they shop up the North.
Wage cuts must start from the TOP down along with a reasonable drop in the cost of living

astrofool

If you had read the thread, you'll have seen that I have worked for minimum wage before.

Akrasia wrote:

I don't think we should have the second highest min wage in europe

So you agree then that we should have a lower minimum wage. Great. Discussion finished I guess.

Akrasia

astrofool wrote: »

Isn't that the problem though? By making it too expensive for a business to hire people on a permanent basis, they just use short term contract staff (who are usually better paid than the permanent staff btw).

No they're not, where did you get that information from? Are you confusing this with 'consultants'? People on 'temporary contracts' are usually working on reduced benefits for reduced salaries hoping to be made permanent at some point in the future.

Reduce the cost and then companies will be more likely to take people on full time.

it's not just about costs, it's about labour laws, they want to be 'footloose' and be able to relocate without having to have any consideration for the rights of the workers.

Reduce the minimum wage and announce a freeze for a number of years (say until we are at the average of the EU's top 11 countries or something), and a business can plan ahead and fix their costs, and offer long term contracts. As it is right now, most companies don't know if they'll be in business in Ireland in 3 months time, so are not going to saddle themselves with hefty payouts by taking on highly paid permanent staff.

Are you happy to have all your employment rights stripped away (all entitlements to redundancy or notice, or rights to fair treatment and protection from unfair dismissal) and have your wages reduced to below your cost of living (forcing you into debt, not that anyone would lend to you if you have no security of tenure or disposable income) and fix the wage at this rate for 5 years?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I do, very very well actually, I can explain it to you some time if you like.

As for a culture of "unions" and "permanent employment," they only distort the labour market and mitigate against the economic health of the nation.

and we all know, 'free' markets are infallable and unquestionably the best answer to every possible question.

Neo Liberals talk about freedom to negotiate and 'contract' but if you're living in a town where there are two or 3 big employers and lots of surplus labour, without unions or labour legislation, the individual workers have absolutely no bargaining power. The employers holds all the power and the workers by themselves get exploited. Its very very difficult to believe that a rational person can believe that it would be any different.

Have you ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair about the meat industry in the U.S. at the turn of the century.

It's a graphic example of what powerful employers can do to an unorganised labourforce with no legal protection or union to defend their rights. (these conditions are replicated in the 21st century in 'developing' countries all around the world.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well thats where you went wrong. You try to engage in a political discussion but rely on 'dictionary definitions' for your political theory?

I have already engaged in several threads on the political theory section of this site where I vehemently present my view that 'Anarcho Capitalism' is a fraud and capitalism and anarchism are fundamentally incompatable.

Anarchists are about opposition to domination and authority. We are opposed to state authority, but I believe a 'libertarian' society would be much worse (there isn't even the pretence of justice democracy or participatory decision, the workplace can be more dictatorial than pol pot and would only get worse the less regulated they become

Which economic theory in particular?

Lots of diverse theories, but in particular Social structures of Accumulation theory (SSA) http://ssagalway.blogspot.com/

But you don't seem to understand that statist redistribution only destroys economies—taking the very possibility of prosperity with it. And what do you do when there is no wealth left to distribute? When there are no rich people left to tax?

So you're saying that only 'rich' people can create wealth?

I am in favour of workers owned cooperatives which is a very efficient method of production where there isn't the necessary conflict between owners and workers and a much lower risk of exploitation, but as long as corporate structures dominate the economy, I am in favour of very strict rules and regulations (even if cooperatives were dominant, I would still favour oversight and monitoring of their activities, but in a democratic way and not handed down from a central government.

That might be the broad consensus at NUI Galway—but that is hardly a bastion of free-market economics, is it? I think you'll find that many university departments only hire academics who reinforce the prevailing status quo, resulting in an illusory notion of conformity.

You're saying the Economics dept of Galway are commies now?

I suppose that's an easy strategy to adopt, accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of a hidden bias.

But you say that without knowing what my experience of the economic system is or has been. I can assure you that if I were earning a very low wage, my faith in the free market would be even more fervent, because I would see the statists, the unions, the public servants, and the politicians as creating a culture of economic stagnancy that prevented me from getting a better job.

fine, you could blame whoever you like, blame the state as you are fired from your job because the factory can make more money in poland, whatever makes you feel better.

If I'm acting "selfishly" by buying goods and services for half the price in another European country, so be it. If we all behaved so "selfishly," we could bring about widespread economic and political reform that would be to our immense benefit. The only people who would be unhappy would be the unions and the government—because their power over us would be weakened.

I have no problem with buying garments made by Thai children. Wages in so-called "sweatshops" are more than double the national average in many countries. Would you rather see these children working for an honest wage, or see them begging, stealing, or prostituting themselves—which are often the only realistic alternatives?

As I suspected.

My position is that efficient markets are always a social benefit. It is your pro-union, pro-regulation, pro-redistribution stance that comes with the real social cost.

And what is an 'efficient market' One that always finds the lowest unit cost? even when that unit cost is an hour of human labour? What kind of world do you think that would be?

thebman

I'm just going to ignore the pety arguments on ideologies etc.. that seem to be pestering this thread.

The cost of living is decreasing and will continue to decrease over the next year.

As a result the minimum wage will have to be reduced and social welfare will have to be introduced to meet the new market conditions. To falsely hold them at the levels they are at now will kill small business in the country when we need it and new startups the most to fill our employment gap. We also need to become more competitive to attract new foreign investment here (if we can). For these reasons, it is completely beneficial to the workforce of the country to reduce the minimum wage and to reduce social welfare (which we both can't afford and which must be lowered so that we don't encourage people on minimum wage to leave their jobs for the dole queues).

Abolishing the minimum wage is fantasy in this country so its not even worth discussing on this thread IMO. Hell even with a minimum wages, some employers just broke to law to force unworkable living conditions on their employees.

Likewise, leaving it at the current levels of one of the highest in the EU is unsustainable when we probably have one of (or the worst) performing economy in the EU at this stage so why bother even saying, leave it alone?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sunn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes:

RedPlanet

thebman wrote: »

We also need to become more competitive to attract new foreign investment here (if we can).

Yeah, but is that even plausible today?
The economic landscape across the EU is very different today than it was in the 80's. Ireland probably can't compete with Poland and other eastern EU countries when it comes to low wages and the cost of living.
Surely that's not our plan is it?
A race to the bottom.
And are mulitnationals taking the bait?
I don't know about that, seems lots of large employers here and abroad are shedding workers as fast as they can.
I don't know what the answers are, but to take aim at the most vulnerable of this society, whether it's special needs children, old folks, the unemployed and those surviving on the lowest wage bracket is downright despicable.
Looking at our corrupt leaders and their golden circle buddies, can we really be surprised that this is the nonsense they prefer?

OhNoYouDidn't

thebman wrote: »

We also need to become more competitive to attract new foreign investment here (if we can).

That model is finished. Dead. Deceased.

thebman wrote: »

For these reasons, it is completely beneficial to the workforce of the country to reduce the minimum wage and to reduce social welfare (which we both can't afford and which must be lowered so that we don't encourage people on minimum wage to leave their jobs for the dole queues).

Is there any evidence that people quit jobs to go on the dole? Empirical or anecdotal?

But lets for the sake of argument say there is, surely aboloshing the minimum wage will increase that trend? Dole is €197 a week, so at a 40 hour week, any wage below €4.92 an hour means you would be better off on the scratcher.

More ill thought out right wing voodo economics.....

ongarite

Kind of on a tangent here but I know people are calling for price parity with the UK so why not minimum wage & dole parity with UK.
Its seems a bit hypocritical to me to want UK prices for goods but on Irish wages.

Very interesting program on E4 tonight on job situation in the UK.
It makes our social welfare system seem far too generous IMO seeing as the dole in the UK is £47.40 under 25 / 60.35 over 25 with minimum wage of £5.73.

K-9

ongarite wrote: »

Kind of on a tangent here but I know people are calling for price parity with the UK so why not minimum wage & dole parity with UK.
Its seems a bit hypocritical to me to want UK prices for goods but on Irish wages.

Very interesting program on E4 tonight on job situation in the UK.
It makes our social welfare system seem far too generous IMO seeing as the dole in the UK is £47.40 under 25 / 60.35 over 25 with minimum wage of £5.73.

The usual exchange rate was 1.40/1.45 so it was close.

The exchange rate seems to be settling around 1.15 but we probably need a few months to see is this a long term thing.

The Dole definitely appears to be very high here compared to the UK. Can't see any increases for a couple of years and they'll probably cut back in other areas of SW Eg. Cutting benefit from 15 to 12 months. Rents have come down by 12% so Rent Allowance amounts will come down.

Personally I think people who built or bought 5/6 bedroom houses that they didn't need should have strict restrictions on Mortgage Interest relief, both SW and Tax wise.

fly_agaric

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

hmm...:pac: somehow I doubt it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

eh, I'd say most people would think they should go to school...which makes me think of education (one of the social benefits perhaps).

In countries where all children get at least a basic education [and there is no child labour ], the state does it by subsidy and legislation. In countries where the state is quite weak &/or corrupt only children of the wealthy get an education. It's not just a function of resourses.

How will an "efficient market" alone ensure all children are educated if that is something people think should happen? Has it ever happened before?
Why should a low wage earner like yourself be confident that an "efficient market" will ensure he & his children will be able to better themselves through education? Will the "efficient market" not just set the price of said education at a level he can't afford because it's far more "eficient" if he and his children work for buttons at dead end jobs?

donegalfella wrote: »

One in which supply and demand are allowed to reach equilibrium, without interference from government, unions, or socialist collectives.

Do you care where the "equilibrium" lies?
Surely if the equilibrium arrives at an undesirable place under the aegis of the "efficient markets" it then has to be forced somewhere else by some agency other than that market (i.e. the state, or unions etc)? What about effects of distribution of wealth and power on where the equilibrium ends up?