Minimum wage.

murphaph

Niall, what's your solution to prevent another 300,000 people on the dole by end 2010 (As ESRI today predicted)?

Bear in mind when formulating your strategy that we singularly failed to develop high value export oriented indigenous business so we are very much dependent on foreign direct investment to keep people in employment.

djpbarry

Niall Keane wrote: »

living on the minimum wage in this country = a life of poverty

With all due respect, that is utter horse****. For almost four years now, I have been earning considerably less than the minimum wage (as is the case with most postgrads in this country) and I am far from “a life of poverty”, thanks very much.

greendom

djpbarry wrote: »

With all due respect, that is utter horse****. For almost four years now, I have been earning considerably less than the minimum wage (as is the case with most postgrads in this country) and I am far from “a life of poverty”, thanks very much.

If you have a family to look after and accommodation to pay for, fair play to you

djpbarry

greendom wrote: »

If you have a family to look after and accommodation to pay for, fair play to you

I have bills to pay if that's what you mean, yes.

As for family, people shouldn't really be having kids if they can't afford to support them, should they? Granted, there are exceptions (accidents happen), but as a general rule, it wouldn't be the wisest of decisions, would it?

greendom

djpbarry wrote: »

I have bills to pay if that's what you mean, yes.

As for family, people shouldn't really be having kids if they can't afford to support them, should they? Granted, there are exceptions (accidents happen), but as a general rule, it wouldn't be the wisest of decisions, would it?

So what are you saying ? You should only have children if you know for a fact that you will never be made redundant or come down with a serious illness etc etc. Not a very tenable position really is it ?

djpbarry

greendom wrote: »

So what are you saying ? You should only have children if you know for a fact that you will never be made redundant or come down with a serious illness etc etc. Not a very tenable position really is it ?

Did I say there were no exceptions?

greendom

djpbarry wrote: »

Did I say there were no exceptions?

But it's not an exception, its what the social welfare system is for; a safety net, when things go wrong. A safety net that allows for children and accommodation costs as well

Niall Keane

"Did I say there were no exceptions?"

But in general you think that the minimum wage should be lowered, to create a class of people to entice foreign enterprise. These people in general shouldn't have children because they are there to save the country for yourself and your buddys?

I think you've raised your flag clearly now for all to see.

Niall Keane

Yea I hear echoes of animal farm here, we should all be more patriotic, all suffer through this crises, but as always, some animals are more equal than others.

djpbarry

greendom wrote: »

But it's not an exception, its what the social welfare system is for; a safety net, when things go wrong.

Where did I argue against the concept of social welfare?

djpbarry

Niall Keane wrote: »

But in general you think that the minimum wage should be lowered, to create a class of people to entice foreign enterprise.

Nope, didn’t say that – I haven’t yet decided whether or not the minimum wage should be lowered, but like I said, I’m open to the idea. Why? Because it’s not impossible to live on less than €8.65 per hour (yes, I know, there are exceptions).

Niall Keane wrote: »

These people in general shouldn't have children because they are there to save the country for yourself and your buddys?

Hmm. Bit of a contradiction there, seeing as myself and many of “my buddies” are earning less than “these people”. But hey, you go ahead and manufacture some more fiction from my posts – it’s been a slow day and I could do with some more amusement.

greendom

djpbarry wrote: »

Where did I argue against the concept of social welfare?

You didn't as you well know- let's summarise what has been said so we can be clear - you argued that the level of social welfare could be lowered quite happily as you have managed to live quite happily on less.

For families with high accomodation costs this would not be the case.

You disputed this saying that people shouldn't have children if they were on welfare. This is a nonsense as the vast majority of people don't plan to go on welfare. They are the rule - whereas you seem to see them as exceptions

DJCR

Casting everything said before aside, the fact of the matter is:

1) We have priced ourselves out of the international market. We are too highly paid.

2) Our Social Welfare is also too high (unpopular thing to say but true).. we quite simply can't sustain it anymore.

3) Minimum wage is too high and it is an added cost to employers.. Forcing closures and loss of job creation.

4) Even so.. even if we do drop wages, and social welfare is reduced we (by we, i mean those with mortgages) are still focked because they are locked into inflated agreements with the Banks from Boom Time.

So, in essence, we can't afford a pay cut, which means we will stay uncompetitive as a nation, and we will sink further into recession until an agreement can be reached on housing.

With the Banks in their current state of affaires I can't see an agreement occuring too quickly.

I realise this is a very simplistic view!!

Any comments?

djpbarry

greendom wrote: »

you argued that the level of social welfare could be lowered quite happily as you have managed to live quite happily on less.

No I didn’t – feel free to prove otherwise.

greendom wrote: »

You disputed this saying that people shouldn't have children if they were on welfare.

No, I didn’t – I said people should not have kids if they cannot afford to support them.

What I write and what you read seem to be two very different things.

eamonnm79

maninasia wrote: »

This is a typical response when anybody proposes to change something in Ireland, all emotion and no logic.

Actually I think he made way more sence than you. No offence but your logic is much more flawed.

eamonnm79

murphaph wrote: »

Probably not, but nobody put guns to the heads of "ordinary joes" and forced them to take out credit cards and buy the latest 42" plasma telly. You know it's the truth that the "ordinary joes" have responsibility to bear as well. Personal debt is personal debt-nobody forced anybody to buy anything. Irish people in general, splurged like there was no tomorrow. It's unfair to blame others for our own personal irresponsibility (I include myself in that). Property booms are a result of a strong desire for home ownership. They occur wherever home ownership is seen as "important" (Ireland, UK, US, Japan etc.) and do not generally occur in countries with a tradition of renting (eg, Germany).

Don't get me wrong, certain individuals and institutions behaved very wrecklessy and have a LOT of responsibility to bear, but what PRACTICAL use is pointing the finger at the CEOs of irish banks and development companies? Sure, these characters should be held to account, but even if every one of them had their pay cut to €5 an hour, it wouldn't make a dent in Ireland's complete lack of competitiveness on the international stage. The population as a whole must be prepared for a fall in living standards. If not, it's simply game over and ALL our jobs will go to other EU countries and beyond.


Yes. That is unfortunately the way of things. It's the same across the industrialised world, but as a poster above points out, we need to see ALL wages fall in line with a reduction of the minimum wage, including social welfare. We need to see the costs of living (and BUSINESS) fall in tandem-Bord Gais says gas and electricity will fall in cost by 11% from Friday. Costs of living ARE falling and wages MUST fall or industry will go elsewhere.

What is the purpose of law. In my mind it is to protect society from itself.
Life in jail is to dissuade us from commiting murder.
Where were our law makers to protect People from their own greed and short sightedness? In the 70's you could only get a loan for 3.5 times your wage so house prices were on average 3.5 time the average wage, But with the antics of the financial industry all the basic simple rules of loaning were thrown out the window. Risk was undervalued and we all drank the coolaide as credit card limits rised and unsolicited cheques from finance companies came in the door.

Are individuals to blame? yes but in my mind the finance industry and bought off politicians are worse.
Now we all have to pay a very big proportional price for our sins. Oh actually hold on the Political classes and finance industry have instigated socialism for the rich. Wake up people!

eamonnm79

murphaph wrote: »

Niall, what's your solution to prevent another 300,000 people on the dole by end 2010 (As ESRI today predicted)?

Bear in mind when formulating your strategy that we singularly failed to develop high value export oriented indigenous business so we are very much dependent on foreign direct investment to keep people in employment.

The following quote is taken from the times today. It was written in 1924 in the beginings of the free state.

"By all means let us have Irish industries if they will provide the consumer with the commodities which he requires at a price that will not be greater than competing prices for commodities of equal quality; but they ought not to be contemplated on any other terms."

So my answer to your question would be another question

What good or service could it be possible to make in Ireland that that can be made as cheaply as the cost of manufacture from abroad plus transport to Ireland?
Or can we make it better?
Our relience on imported multinational ingenuity is coming home to roost.

One idea is renewable energy (wind solar wave)
There are lots and lots more if we put our minds to it.
Then we encourage to buy irish (protectionism by stealth)

greendom

djpbarry wrote: »

With all due respect, that is utter horse****. For almost four years now, I have been earning considerably less than the minimum wage (as is the case with most postgrads in this country) and I am far from “a life of poverty”, thanks very much.

I took this to mean that you thought people could live quite happily on less than the minimum wage. I can't see how I could not have made this inference .

No, I didn’t – I said people should not have kids if they cannot afford to support them.

When people decide to have children the rule is that they believe they can afford them ( there are exceptions granted) however circumstances change and they need the state to help out. Are you happy for this to continue or should they not have had children in the first place?

I don't know if your'e a fan of The Fast Show, but there's a character, a politician, who completely denies everything despite the evidence before him. You really remind me of him

murphaph

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The following quote is taken from the times today. It was written in 1924 in the beginings of the free state.

"By all means let us have Irish industries if they will provide the consumer with the commodities which he requires at a price that will not be greater than competing prices for commodities of equal quality; but they ought not to be contemplated on any other terms."

So my answer to your question would be another question

What good or service could it be possible to make in Ireland that that can be made as cheaply as the cost of manufacture from abroad plus transport to Ireland?
Or can we make it better?
Our relience on imported multinational ingenuity is coming home to roost.

One idea is renewable energy (wind solar wave)
There are lots and lots more if we put our minds to it.
Then we encourage to buy irish (protectionism by stealth)

well at least you made a stab at answering the question I posed to Niall (which he seems to have not seen).

The bit in bold is what I've been saying throughout this thread. We made a dogs dinner of developing a high value export economy (like the Finns did with their telecoms companies, most notably Nokia). Building up a high value export led economy takes many years of government policy, university incubators, science parks and so on. You can't flick a switch and have a high value, knowledge based export economy. Now I ask the question again...

Given that we have thusfar failed to develop this high value knowledge based economy and we must balance the books in the interim (assuming we do someday have the holy grail). How do the objectors to reducing the minimum wage propose that we prevent or reduce the projected 300,000 further job losses by end 2010??? A solid answer please, one that can have an effect immediately (we need immediate action-we are borrowing SIXTY MILLION EURO PER DAY to run this country!).

Niall Keane

This thread was not titled how to save the economy, on a thread that asked that question I have posted.
On the minimum wage your solution as I have already said is one that suggests wage slavery. Others here have said they live comfortably on less, but although they pay "bills", the issue of mortgage, rent, medical etc. and serious other adult debt / expenses has been danced around. I keep thinking of Pulp's "Common People".
Your proposition is immoral in my view; to me our century’s equivalent of slavery. That is why I suggested it; my point being just because we cannot find a quick solution doesn't mean that we should abandon what social progress has been achieved.
If we abandon our morals well then, as I said slavery, or why not a pogrom? Maybe the Dead Kennedy's were on to something "Kill the Poor" with a neutron bomb that leaves the real estate intact for the survivors?

murphaph

Niall Keane wrote: »

This thread was not titled how to save the economy, on a thread that asked that question I have posted.
On the minimum wage your solution as I have already said is one that suggests wage slavery. Others here have said they live comfortably on less, but although they pay "bills", the issue of mortgage, rent, medical etc. and serious other adult debt / expenses has been danced around. I keep thinking of Pulp's "Common People".
Your proposition is immoral in my view; to me our century’s equivalent of slavery. That is why I suggested it; my point being just because we cannot find a quick solution doesn't mean that we should abandon what social progress has been achieved.
If we abandon our morals well then, as I said slavery, or why not a pogrom? Maybe the Dead Kennedy's were on to something "Kill the Poor" with a neutron bomb that leaves the real estate intact for the survivors?

Utter waffle.

The issue hasn't been danced around. I readily accept that a reduction in the minimum wage will result in a cut in living standards. People need to get back to basics. Basic foodstuffs. Walking instead of using the car. It all adds up.

djpbarry

greendom wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Niall Keane wrote: »

living on the minimum wage in this country = a life of poverty

With all due respect, that is utter horse****. For almost four years now, I have been earning considerably less than the minimum wage (as is the case with most postgrads in this country) and I am far from “a life of poverty”, thanks very much.

I took this to mean that you thought people could live quite happily on less than the minimum wage.

You probably should have taken it to mean what it said, i.e. that people earning the minimum wage are not necessarily "poor". I actually find such an insinuation quite insulting.

greendom wrote: »

When people decide to have children the rule is that they believe they can afford them ( there are exceptions granted) however circumstances change and they need the state to help out. Are you happy for this to continue…

Sure.

greendom wrote: »

…or should they not have had children in the first place?

Once again, that’s not what I said (but I suspect you know that).

djpbarry

Niall Keane wrote: »

Others here have said they live comfortably on less, but although they pay "bills", the issue of mortgage, rent, medical etc. and serious other adult debt / expenses has been danced around. I keep thinking of Pulp's "Common People".

:rolleyes: Some of the reverse snobbery on this thread is unbelievable. Not that it’s any of your business (but I feel it’s necessary to dispel this myth that those at the top are telling those down below what to do), but I have the same financial outgoings as most other people in this country; food, rent, clothes, bills, loans, etc.

Do you need to see bank statements before you’ll believe it’s possible to live on less than €1,400 per month? That’s before tax of course, which there won’t be much of, seeing as how so many people in this country think it’s ok for about 40% of the population not to make any contribution to Revenue.

Niall Keane

I readily accept that a reduction in the minimum wage will result in a cut in living standards. People need to get back to basics."

Will a cut in the minimum wage reduce your living standards?

"it’s possible to live on less than €1,400 per month?"

Sure it is, and possibly on €5/hour as proposed earlier. Sure we could live 6-10 families to a house, feck it, sure we could all live in a Sean O'Casey Play!

murphaph

Niall Keane wrote: »

I readily accept that a reduction in the minimum wage will result in a cut in living standards. People need to get back to basics."

Will a cut in the minimum wage reduce your living standards?

Indirectly it will filter through to me sooner rather than later. I have already seen a fall off in my income due to the economic realities of recession at the commercial level. Have you?

I advocate a reduction in the minimum wage and expect all middle and higher earners will be asked to take pay cuts or face redunsancy. This is already happening. An employer can't 'fabricate' a redundancy and then hire cheaper staff 2 weeks later-that's an unfair dismissal and would see the employer in court. Better for everyne to take the pain than single out one or two folks for redundancy and then load all the extra work on those who remain (as well as increasing their taxes to pay the dole to the people made redundant).

djpbarry

Niall Keane wrote: »

Sure it is, and possibly on €5/hour as proposed earlier. Sure we could live 6-10 families to a house, feck it, sure we could all live in a Sean O'Casey Play!

Yeah, that's my life in a nutshell :rolleyes:.

eamonnm79

Live in a Sean O Casey play:D absolute classic!

murphaph

We'll be living in a Roddy Doyle book quite soon anyway if we don't stem the job losses.

eamonnm79

murphaph wrote: »

well at least you made a stab at answering the question I posed to Niall (which he seems to have not seen).

The bit in bold is what I've been saying throughout this thread. We made a dogs dinner of developing a high value export economy (like the Finns did with their telecoms companies, most notably Nokia). Building up a high value export led economy takes many years of government policy, university incubators, science parks and so on. You can't flick a switch and have a high value, knowledge based export economy. Now I ask the question again...

Given that we have thusfar failed to develop this high value knowledge based economy and we must balance the books in the interim (assuming we do someday have the holy grail). How do the objectors to reducing the minimum wage propose that we prevent or reduce the projected 300,000 further job losses by end 2010??? A solid answer please, one that can have an effect immediately (we need immediate action-we are borrowing SIXTY MILLION EURO PER DAY to run this country!).

You make it sound like reducing the minimum wage will reduce the the projected further losses in some significant way. It wont.

In short there are no magic wand here to get us out of this.
But I dont want to attempt it by, in the first step, attacking the vulnerable first.
Redistribute the wealth of the super rich and then we can look at lowering everyone elses standards too.

murphaph

eamonnm79 wrote: »

You make it sound like reducing the minimum wage will reduce the the projected further losses in some significant way. It wont.

Labour is the highest cost of pretty much any business. How can reducing pay not encourage more businesses to keep more people in employment?

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Redistribute the wealth of the super rich and then we can look at lowering everyone elses standards too.

That sounds awfully like collectivisation/communism. If we go down that road living standards may become more equal, but will fall overall as the incentive to work harder than the next guy or be innovative is eliminated.

In any case, we don't have enough "super rich" for this to be effective. The ordinary people must take the pain sooner rather than later.