Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"Harney refuses to rule out cuts in minimum wage"
Options
Comments
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
thier is no point in reducing minimum wage unless social wellfare is reduced significantly and thier is no appetite among the majority for cutting social wellfare , its by far the most sensitive and contensous area in an bord snip
instead public sector salarys should be cut across the board , starting with politicians , this will be much more palatable with the general public
Correct. There is no appetite for cutting social welfare but it has to and will happen. When you have people better off on the dole than getting off their arses to work, you have to use a size nine boot. A BIG ONE.0 -
I think we need to start looking at the concept of a MAXIMUM wage, particularly in the public sector...
THe idea of a maximum wage is immature and ridiculous.
The top 5% or so of earners pay about 50% of the tax-bill.
These are exactly the people who will piss right off and live somewhere else if the government starts trying to **** them over. Then we'll know what being in the **** really means.0 -
No. I would say however that you have just linked to perhaps the single most debunked piece of econometric analysis ever.kickoutthejams wrote: »http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5632.html
Would you say that the above writers have no economic knowledge/aren't professionals?
People need to get this idea that pay should be directly linked to inflation out of their heads. Here's a hint: if minimum wages fall, so too will costs and so too will demand and so too will price. I hear very few people complaining when pay increases above inflationary levels, as the minimum wage did over the past ten years or so.
And here's another thing: the largest declines in employment are for young people. There are no jobs going, and plenty of people looking for work. It's quite possible that places like Xtra-vision will hire two people at €6.50 an hour or one at €8.65 an hour. If this is true, people arguing for maintaining the minimum wage are condemning quite a few kids to pocket money alone.
Even the work in the area that has thrown up "sympathetic" results to minimum wages has warned that it causes unemployment when it prevents "a necessary fall" (hello Ireland!) in wages and particularly affects young people (hello Ireland!)
Minister Harney refused to rule out cuts in the minimum wage, not called for cuts in it. This "it's not even on the table" approach, especially when it the issue lead to more jobs, is one of main problems with the union movement in this country. Shower of self-interested bastards.0 -
Former Chief Economist to the US deparment of Labour, professor of Economics at Princeton.The Economist wrote: »No. I would say however that you have just linked to perhaps the single most debunked piece of econometric analysis ever.
Professor of Economics at University of California, Berkely, former professor of Economics at Princeton.
Pretty good credentials considering they've written perhaps the most debunked piece of econometric analysis ever.
For something to be "debunked" it must be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false. Despite this, Stiglitz still feels it stands up to criticism.
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2002_Emploi_justice_sociale.pdf
(page 13)0 -
Advertisement
-
The Economist wrote: »
And here's another thing: the largest declines in employment are for young people. There are no jobs going, and plenty of people looking for work. It's quite possible that places like Xtra-vision will hire two people at €6.50 an hour or one at €8.65 an hour. If this is true, people arguing for maintaining the minimum wage are condemning quite a few kids to pocket money alone.
Wouldn't a reduction in employers PRSI contibutions, currently between 8.75% and 10.75% of eployees salaries, have a similar affect?0 -
superscouse wrote: »Correct. There is no appetite for cutting social welfare but it has to and will happen. When you have people better off on the dole than getting off their arses to work, you have to use a size nine boot. A BIG ONE.
i myself think the dole is too high but because so many people who now find themselves unemployed now yet still have to pay large mortgages , i think the country could boil over if social wellfare is tackled , i think its more practical to bring down public sector wages , politicans rely on voters to keep them in a job and i do honestly think thier is very strong opposition to cutting dole , its nonsensical but its a fact0 -
I think we need to start looking at the concept of a MAXIMUM wage, particularly in the public sector...
Terrible idea. There is no need for a maximum wage as long as the pay structures in the Public Sector match that of the private sector in so much as you don't just get paid based on seniority or a defined annual increment, you are paid based on performance and ability and worth to the business. A maximum wage would stifle any ambition in the public sector just as bad as benchmarking did.0 -
The Economist wrote: »People need to get this idea that pay should be directly linked to inflation out of their heads. Here's a hint: if minimum wages fall, so too will costs and so too will demand and so too will price. I hear very few people complaining when pay increases above inflationary levels, as the minimum wage did over the past ten years or so.
If minimum wage falls, only the markets that cater to minimum wage earners will follow them. Every one above minimum wage will keep there wage as is, and will continue to consume as they are.
This will not bring down inflation, you just have minimum wage earners having less purchase power, while those on higher wages will maintain theirs if not increase them due to the minimum wage markets dropping there prices.And here's another thing: the largest declines in employment are for young people. There are no jobs going, and plenty of people looking for work. It's quite possible that places like Xtra-vision will hire two people at €6.50 an hour or one at €8.65 an hour. If this is true, people arguing for maintaining the minimum wage are condemning quite a few kids to pocket money alone.
Or the government can ease cost for business that are truly struggling,
or stimulate the economy by developing and building thing the country needs, schools, roads, hospitals, communications infrastructure, the knowledge economy jazz etc.
we can as you propose cut back now and attempt to save money to cover our debt or we can invest now so when the economy begins to grow again we can use the benefits of our investments to pay our debts.Even the work in the area that has thrown up "sympathetic" results to minimum wages has warned that it causes unemployment when it prevents "a necessary fall" (hello Ireland!) in wages and particularly affects young people (hello Ireland!)
Yes and the unemployment and the unemployment of the young should be eased directly rather than indirectly.Minister Harney refused to rule out cuts in the minimum wage, not called for cuts in it. This "it's not even on the table" approach, especially when it the issue lead to more jobs, is one of main problems with the union movement in this country. Shower of self-interested bastards.
yes because the employers are in it for the social benefits employment provides,
shower of self interested bastards: self is a big part of market economics, its a two way street.0 -
Indeed. It makes it all the more embarrassing.kickoutthejams wrote: »Former Chief Economist to the US deparment of Labour, professor of Economics at Princeton.
Professor of Economics at University of California, Berkely, former professor of Economics at Princeton.
Pretty good credentials considering they've written perhaps the most debunked piece of econometric analysis ever.
Ha, no it doesn't! If you show serious methodological flaws in the data-gathering elements of an econometric study, the entire basis for the study falls to pieces. Sure, the econometrics holds, but for the wrong data. People have been awarded Nobel Prizes for pointing out just how serious this is.For something to be "debunked" it must be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.
If the data-collection process is shown to be skewed, that completely invalidates the finding. It does not have to be proven to be wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt because the onus on factual data-collection is on the original author.
Despite this, yes there is conclusive proof that their data was wrong. Neumann and Wascher showed that Card and Krueger's data was awful, with their standard errors three times the size of more accurate data. It's been a few years since I looked at this in detail, but iirc they called companies during the summer and during the winter and assumed that any changes in employment were non-seasonal, i.e. they "forgot" that fast food places hire people for summer jobs. There were also serious problems with missing values, but that's a technical issue that belongs on the Economics forum.
You're really taking his work out of context. That article is primarily about the role of the international community in ensuring minimum wage practices in developing nations. The article contains the sentence "In Mexico, for instance, the incomes of the poorest 30 per cent have actually declined over the past 16 years." He is not arguing for a minimum wage of €8.65 in 2009 Ireland. You note he references Card and Kreuger on page 13, but overlook that on page 24 he says that even if it was wrong, there wasn't a big impact.Despite this, Stiglitz still feels it stands up to criticism.
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2002_Emploi_justice_sociale.pdf
(page 13)
So let's look at how that impact would translate to Ireland. I'll take a quote from the PUP page: "The Card-Krueger work is essentially correct: the minimum wage at levels observed in the United States has had little or no effect on employment." Okay, aside from that having been now seriously debased, what are/were the levels observed? This page shows the 1992 NJ minimum wage was $5.05. This page will show you that's about $7.60 in 2008 money. Which is less than €5.50.
So the Card and Kreuger findings find that at a wage of €5.50 there is little effect in employment. That's essentially what the empirical basis of your argument.
What about mine?- The Card and Kreuger data was collected really unprofessionally
- Payroll data (more reliable than over-the-phone data) find their standard errors were three times too large
- They assumed away the missing value problems
- Our minimum wage is not €5.50, it's €8.65
- I've previously argued (2 years ago) on this forum that high minimum wages are fine when the economy is growing
- We're not growing anymore. There are 400,000 people on the Live Register
- This recession has mostly affected younger people, i.e. the people that are most likely to be on minimum wage
- After construction, most jobs have been lost in the service sector, i.e. the people that are most likely to be on minimum wage
- All the best evidence on the matter suggests minimum wages are damaging to young people
- Stiglitz himself argues that minimum wages offer a trade-off between those out of jobs (less jobs) and those in them (higher wages)
- Right now, with 400,000 on the LR, many of them young, many of them from the service sector, I say f*ck those that already have a job -- share some of the spoils
- If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I'd like to at least be honest about it and say "I support this because it keeps wages higher for those in jobs, even if it prevents some from getting jobs" and stop being blinded by ideology.
0 -
Advertisement
-
So essentially your argument is that minimum wages have no impact on inflation. Is that what you're saying?If minimum wage falls, only the markets that cater to minimum wage earners will follow them. Every one above minimum wage will keep there wage as is, and will continue to consume as they are.
This will not bring down inflation, you just have minimum wage earners having less purchase power, while those on higher wages will maintain theirs if not increase them due to the minimum wage markets dropping there prices.
That'd be workable if we had money. We have a deficit of 12% -- we're already over-stimulating.Or the government can ease cost for business that are truly struggling,
or stimulate the economy by developing and building thing the country needs, schools, roads, hospitals, communications infrastructure, the knowledge economy jazz etc.
Where do you suggest we get this money from?
Where do you suggest we get this money from?we can as you propose cut back now and attempt to save money to cover our debt or we can invest now so when the economy begins to grow again we can use the benefits of our investments to pay our debts.
How?Yes and the unemployment and the unemployment of the young should be eased directly rather than indirectly.
I never said employers are in it for the social benefits. To a large extent they're also money-grabbing bastards, so WTF does this have to do with anything?yes because the employers are in it for the social benefits employment provides,
shower of self interested bastards: self is a big part of market economics, its a two way street.
Do you think that because RGDATA advocate for anti-competitive barriers to their market that it's okay for unions to blindly support wage structures that cause unemployment?
More generally, are you willing to say that this isn't causing unemployment?0 -
deadhead13 wrote: »Wouldn't a reduction in employers PRSI contibutions, currently between 8.75% and 10.75% of eployees salaries, have a similar affect?
Yes, but the government cannot afford that. We need to increases taxes, not decrease them.
The deficit is unbearably huge. In 2008 we took in €13bn in income tax. The deficit is about €21bn. So even if we doubled everyone's tax, we'd still be far, far, far short. And of course if we tried to impose 84% tax rates on the rich, they'd leg it. So we're not going to even cover our arses this year, never mind have any room for expansion.0 -
The Economist wrote: »Yes, but the government cannot afford that. We need to increases taxes, not decrease them.
Assuming a reduction in labour costs will encourage employers to employ more people. The percentage contributions an employer would have to make per employee would decrease, but he would also be making these contributions for more poeple. So it doesn't necessarily follow that there would be a reduction in the amount of tax the government receives. The reduction in unemployment benefit payments would also be a factor.0 -
For me it's the opposite; it means I'm more inclined to believe they know what they are talking about.The Economist wrote: »Indeed. It makes it all the more embarrassing.
No problem with seeing their theories refuted though.
I lack the cash to read the article you linked to; however it links to James J Heckman.The Economist wrote: »Ha, no it doesn't! If you show serious methodological flaws in the data-gathering elements of an econometric study, the entire basis for the study falls to pieces. Sure, the econometrics holds, but for the wrong data. People have been awarded Nobel Prizes for pointing out just how serious this is.
Read the intro though; it dates from January 1979, Myth and Measurement dates from 1997.
Grand so, disproven.The Economist wrote: »Despite this, yes there is conclusive proof that their data was wrong. Neumann and Wascher showed that Card and Krueger's data was awful, with their standard errors three times the size of more accurate data. It's been a few years since I looked at this in detail, but iirc they called companies during the summer and during the winter and assumed that any changes in employment were non-seasonal, i.e. they "forgot" that fast food places hire people for summer jobs. There were also serious problems with missing values, but that's a technical issue that belongs on the Economics forum.
I don't recall claiming he is arguing for a minimum wage of €8.65.The Economist wrote: »You're really taking his work out of context. That article is primarily about the role of the international community in ensuring minimum wage practices in developing nations. The article contains the sentence "In Mexico, for instance, the incomes of the poorest 30 per cent have actually declined over the past 16 years." He is not arguing for a minimum wage of €8.65 in 2009 Ireland. You note he references Card and Kreuger on page 13, but overlook that on page 24 he says that even if it was wrong, there wasn't a big impact.
He does say
"Card and Krueger's work strongly demonstrated that minimum wage leglislation does not have the serious adverse affect on employment predicted by the standard theory and that it may even have a positive effect."
This thread is derailing; I was responding to The_Minister's claim that the minimum wage decreases jobs and increases prices (going so far as to say that everyone with economic knowledge knows this.) Which must rule out Krueger and Card (both professors of economics with Krueger a former chief economist to the US dept of labour)
RE page 24; "their results make a compelling case that if there is an adverse affect, it is not large." I am not making the claim that the minimum wage increases jobs, I am however, sceptical
THe words "compelling case" suggest that despite the apparent debunking, Stiglitz (himself a recipient in the Nobel Memorial Prize of Economic Science), sees some merit in their findings despite writing after Heckman got his Nobel prize and Neumark and Wascher refuted it.The Economist wrote: »So let's look at how that impact would translate to Ireland. I'll take a quote from the PUP page: "The Card-Krueger work is essentially correct: the minimum wage at levels observed in the United States has had little or no effect on employment." Okay, aside from that having been now seriously debased, what are/were the levels observed? This page shows the 1992 NJ minimum wage was $5.05. This page will show you that's about $7.60 in 2008 money. Which is less than €5.50.
So the Card and Kreuger findings find that at a wage of €5.50 there is little effect in employment. That's essentially what the empirical basis of your argument.
What about mine?- The Card and Kreuger data was collected really unprofessionally
- Payroll data (more reliable than over-the-phone data) find their standard errors were three times too large
- They assumed away the missing value problems
- Our minimum wage is not €5.50, it's €8.65
- I've previously argued (2 years ago) on this forum that high minimum wages are fine when the economy is growing
- We're not growing anymore. There are 400,000 people on the Live Register
- This recession has mostly affected younger people, i.e. the people that are most likely to be on minimum wage
- After construction, most jobs have been lost in the service sector, i.e. the people that are most likely to be on minimum wage
- All the best evidence on the matter suggests minimum wages are damaging to young people
- Stiglitz himself argues that minimum wages offer a trade-off between those out of jobs (less jobs) and those in them (higher wages)
- Right now, with 400,000 on the LR, many of them young, many of them from the service sector, I say f*ck those that already have a job -- share some of the spoils
- If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I'd like to at least be honest about it and say "I support this because it keeps wages higher for those in jobs, even if it prevents some from getting jobs" and stop being blinded by ideology.
Slightly off topic; I disagreed with TM claim that anyone with economic knowledge knows that minimum wage=less jobs. I never claimed the above.0 -
Correct, but it's highly unlikely that e.g. halving employers' PRSI (about 5% off wages) would double the number of employees.deadhead13 wrote: »The percentage contributions an employer would have to make per employee would decrease, but he would also be making these contributions for more poeple.
The deficit is about €21bn. By Census 2006 figures, that's €14,500 per household. Basically, just looking at the pure maths of it, tax cuts aren't an option.0 -
If minimum wage falls, only the markets that cater to minimum wage earners will follow them. Every one above minimum wage will keep there wage as is, and will continue to consume as they are.
This will not bring down inflation, you just have minimum wage earners having less purchase power, while those on higher wages will maintain theirs if not increase them due to the minimum wage markets dropping there prices.
This isn't true though as a lot of people on higher wages have already had their salaries reduced.It is time for the minimum wage and social welfare to be reduced in line with deflation.Those on social welfare spend most of their benefits on food and essential services such as electricity,gas etc.Food prices have gone down quite significantly in the Supermarkets since the start of the year and even the ESB charges have come down from the ridiculous levels they were at.We need to reduce VAT on essential services and increase it on luxury items.Of course the one area of difficulty is in relation to mortgage repayments and this is something that needs to be looked at to see what is possible.One thing is for sure: It wasn't the free market alone that fueled the property bubble and therefore state assistance in repayments should not be out of the question.We need to ensure the people with the most wealth are taxed appropriately and this can be done through this VAT as well as tax on non-primary residences.
We need to get people spending money but keeping prices high because of an unwillingness to rectify past mistakes when raising social welfare at unprecedented levels and maintaining a minimum wage far in excess of the value of an unskilled employee's output is not the way to go about it.People need to get used to the idea that unskilled workers and the unwaged should not expect a life of luxury.All this does is creates a lack of ambition and hunger for success and self-improvement, and the creation of a sub-class with a highly developed sense of entitlement.0 -
This isn't true though as a lot of people on higher wages have already had their salaries reduced.It is time for the minimum wage and social welfare to be reduced in line with deflation.Those on social welfare spend most of their benefits on food and essential services such as electricity,gas etc.Food prices have gone down quite significantly in the Supermarkets since the start of the year and even the ESB charges have come down from the ridiculous levels they were at.We need to reduce VAT on essential services and increase it on luxury items.Of course the one area of difficulty is in relation to mortgage repayments and this is something that needs to be looked at to see what is possible.One thing is for sure: It wasn't the free market alone that fueled the property bubble and therefore state assistance in repayments should not be out of the question.We need to ensure the people with the most wealth are taxed appropriately and this can be done through this VAT as well as tax on non-primary residences.
We need to get people spending money but keeping prices high because of an unwillingness to rectify past mistakes when raising social welfare at unprecedented levels and maintaining a minimum wage far in excess of the value of an unskilled employee's output is not the way to go about it.People need to get used to the idea that unskilled workers and the unwaged should not expect a life of luxury.All this does is creates a lack of ambition and hunger for success and self-improvement, and the creation of a sub-class with a highly developed sense of entitlement.
excellent post .0 -
The Economist wrote: »So essentially your argument is that minimum wages have no impact on inflation. Is that what you're saying?
No im saying it widens the gap between the rich and poor, adn that this will cost us more in the long run.That'd be workable if we had money. We have a deficit of 12% -- we're already over-stimulating.
guaranteeing the banks hardly counts as overstimulating,
the government will have to do these things eventually its best to do them now when its cheapest, and save money in the long run.
We borrow money and get inventive with our cash flow management.
we borrow money and get inventive with our cash flow management.Where do you suggest we get this money from?Where do you suggest we get this money from?
we borrow money and get inventive with our cash flow management.How?
government builds a school, builders live in area and use services, people working in services, uses services etc.I never said employers are in it for the social benefits. To a large extent they're also money-grabbing bastards, so WTF does this have to do with anything?
if your only going to demonise the unions it might make you appear a tad bias.Do you think that because RGDATA advocate for anti-competitive barriers to their market that it's okay for unions to blindly support wage structures that cause unemployment?
you do know that no matter how cheap labour is there are other elements in determining the demand for it, such as consumer demand and capital owned by the employer,
the cost of labour isnt the issue its the consumer demand and the lack of capital.More generally, are you willing to say that this isn't causing unemployment?
Im saying if you want make the economy stronger cutting the minimum wage will be detrimental in the long term, and just having more workers in shops that aren't selling anything anyway is of no real use.
Also if you cut the minimum wage employers are not going to hirer more staff than they need, theyll just have greater profits which is in itself a good thing, but it can also be achieved with out lowering the purchase power of the poorest in society.0 -
This isn't true though as a lot of people on higher wages have already had their salaries reduced.It is time for the minimum wage and social welfare to be reduced in line with deflation.Those on social welfare spend most of their benefits on food and essential services such as electricity,gas etc.Food prices have gone down quite significantly in the Supermarkets since the start of the year and even the ESB charges have come down from the ridiculous levels they were at.
those on high salaries despite reductions in wages still have a much larger disposable incomes that those on minimum never had, lowering the minimum wage might save us a few euro today, but will cost us socially by widening the gap between rich and poor and economically as there will be less money in the economy today.We need to reduce VAT on essential services and increase it on luxury items.Of course the one area of difficulty is in relation to mortgage repayments and this is something that needs to be looked at to see what is possible.One thing is for sure: It wasn't the free market alone that fueled the property bubble and therefore state assistance in repayments should not be out of the question.We need to ensure the people with the most wealth are taxed appropriately and this can be done through this VAT as well as tax on non-primary residences.
agree with you,We need to get people spending money but keeping prices high because of an unwillingness to rectify past mistakes when raising social welfare at unprecedented levels and maintaining a minimum wage far in excess of the value of an unskilled employee's output is not the way to go about it.People need to get used to the idea that unskilled workers and the unwaged should not expect a life of luxury.All this does is creates a lack of ambition and hunger for success and self-improvement, and the creation of a sub-class with a highly developed sense of entitlement.
They do not expect a life of luxury and they never got it, they deserve a life like every other person in this state. And lowering the minimum wage will only lower there chances of getting that quality of life they have been deprived of by virtue of there social circumstances.
Lowering the minimum wage or social welfare will not change the nature of our socials supports inability to deal with the "lack of ambition and hunger for success and self-improvement, and the creation of a sub-class with a highly developed sense of entitlement" it has already created.0 -
They do not expect a life of luxury and they never got it, they deserve a life like every other person in this state. And lowering the minimum wage will only lower there chances of getting that quality of life they have been deprived of by virtue of there social circumstances.
Lowering the minimum wage or social welfare will not change the nature of our socials supports inability to deal with the "lack of ambition and hunger for success and self-improvement, and the creation of a sub-class with a highly developed sense of entitlement" it has already created.
I think that unskilled workers have got used to a higher standard of living than they probably ever expected to have.This was through skyrocketting wages and reduced direct taxation.I agree though that everybody is entitled to a basic standard of living which is comfortable and free from constant financial worry.However because of out of control wages, partly due to to imposition of a pretty high minimum wage and a generous social welfare rate, demanding that wages are pushed even higher, unskilled workers have been living the high life for years now.I know plenty of people who are invloved in menial tasks but who could afford fancy cars and multiple holidays every year.Fair enough you could say as people are working for the money and are entitled to the benefits but all it does is drive up demand for goods and services and therefore fuels inflation.
All of a sudden we had hundreds of thousands of people purchasing overvalued houses and expensive cars that they could not really afford while thinking they were on the pig's back and living the life of Reilly.People had their expectations raised too high and we became a society where it was OK to work on an assembly line, drawing a salary well in excess of the industrial average while ignoring education and sowing the seeds for your future.There are different grades of employment and I believe one should be renumerated in accordance with how much responsibility you have.In other words a Doctor should get paid much more than a factory worker etc.
This is why I say this has partly helped to create a lack of ambition.I mean why would you bother going to University and then work your way up from the bottom, in some industries taking years to get to a reasonable level of pay, when you could just go and work in a low, or no, skilled job in a factory and draw a yearly income of between 50 and 60k.The same becomes true in leaner times if the social welfare rate is too high as people think "why would I bother getting off my áss to earn the same amount as I'm getting on the dole".It is imperative we encourage people to achieve their potential and to take pride in working for a living.
People on social welfare need to be looked after both in the short term and long term and part of that is seeing they are receiving enough to ensure they have a basic standard of living while not being an unecessary burden on an economy in crisis.Lowering the payments in line with deflation is part of this as is encouraging people to train in new skills, go back to school etc.Once this has been done we need to do the same for the people on minimum wage so as not to allow it to become attractive to do a job that is below your skillset and ability.People need something to strive for and easy money is one way of making sure this will not happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
Spot on again Shan.
When you see the local part time barman driving a mid range beemer you suspect there is something wrong.
And there was0 -
when you could just go and work in a low, or no, skilled job in a factory and draw a yearly income of between 50 and 60k.
Nobody in this country was working for that sort of money in an unskilled factory job. If they where then i'm raging i didn't know about it earlier :eek:0 -
those on high salaries despite reductions in wages still have a much larger disposable incomes that those on minimum never had, lowering the minimum wage might save us a few euro today, but will cost us socially by widening the gap between rich and poor and economically as there will be less money in the economy today.
agree with you,
They do not expect a life of luxury and they never got it, they deserve a life like every other person in this state. And lowering the minimum wage will only lower there chances of getting that quality of life they have been deprived of by virtue of there social circumstances.
Lowering the minimum wage or social welfare will not change the nature of our socials supports inability to deal with the "lack of ambition and hunger for success and self-improvement, and the creation of a sub-class with a highly developed sense of entitlement" it has already created.
do you honestly believe that someone who is on wellfare deserves a life like someone who gets up at 6 each morning and puts in over 70 hours a week into thier own business and contributes nearly half of what they earn in taxes to the goverment
do you believe the person on the dole has the same entitlement to the luxurys as the other person , im not talking about basic needs but your post suggested they are every bit as entitled to a holiday in the canaries the self employed hardware store owner0 -
Nobody in this country was working for that sort of money in an unskilled factory job. If they where then i'm raging i didn't know about it earlier :eek:
There certainly was.I know people who were earning 18 euro per hour plus shift premium of 20% which is approx 44k.It would only take an average of 5 hours overtime per week at 27 euro to get to 50k.
Granted these would be people who were working in the same factory for over 12 years but even taking the average hourly rate of people less than 5 years in the job at about 13 euro per hour plus shift it works out at approx 32k.With average overtime of 6 hours per week they can bring their salaries up to 38k.Not bad for people with no skills and in some cases not even a leaving cert to their name.Most would have worked more hours than this and headed into 40k+ territory.I know the fact there is overtime involved may not make it a fair comparison with salaried and skilled employees although in lots of cases the salaried ones would have put in almost as many hours and ended up earning less than their unskilled fellow employees.
I know of one particular employer in the Mid West region whose unskilled warehouse employees could take home in excess of 700 pounds per week for a six day working week back in the mid 90's.I shudder to think what they were making once the economy really started to boom.The person I knew who was working there, as a secretary/receptionist and was paid crap money, left after a couple of years so I have no idea how much the wages increased there.Mind you paying big wages does not appear to have damaged them as they are one of the only businesses I know that have increased their workforce, under a different name but still doing the same work and are still paying very well by all accounts.0 -
I think that unskilled workers have got used to a higher standard of living than they probably ever expected to have.This was through skyrocketting wages and reduced direct taxation.
are we talking about the minimum wage or unskilled workers and there sky rocketing wages.I agree though that everybody is entitled to a basic standard of living which is comfortable and free from constant financial worry.However because of out of control wages, partly due to to imposition of a pretty high minimum wage and a generous social welfare rate, demanding that wages are pushed even higher, unskilled workers have been living the high life for years now.I know plenty of people who are invloved in menial tasks but who could afford fancy cars and multiple holidays every year.Fair enough you could say as people are working for the money and are entitled to the benefits but all it does is drive up demand for goods and services and therefore fuels inflation.
so what should an unskilled worker be allowed?
those on minimum did not enjoy the same increase in purchasing power as those above it, if they moved up form it fair enough, and many will take pay cuts now, there still above the minimum and still have more purchasing power.
Lowering the minimum wage will just lower the quality of life of those earning it.
Minimum wage is not relevant to what everyone else is earning it's there to ensure people have enough to live on and enough to move up in society.
Cutting it will only hurt them and allow the employers more profit.All of a sudden we had hundreds of thousands of people purchasing overvalued houses and expensive cars that they could not really afford while thinking they were on the pig's back and living the life of Reilly.People had their expectations raised too high and we became a society where it was OK to work on an assembly line, drawing a salary well in excess of the industrial average while ignoring education and sowing the seeds for your future.There are different grades of employment and I believe one should be renumerated in accordance with how much responsibility you have.In other words a Doctor should get paid much more than a factory worker etc.
your drifting off topic here,The same becomes true in leaner times if the social welfare rate is too high as people think "why would I bother getting off my áss to earn the same amount as I'm getting on the dole".It is imperative we encourage people to achieve their potential and to take pride in working for a living.
there are more constructive ways to encourage people to take up work than cutting the dole but we have elected a very lazy government.People on social welfare need to be looked after both in the short term and long term and part of that is seeing they are receiving enough to ensure they have a basic standard of living while not being an unecessary burden on an economy in crisis.Lowering the payments in line with deflation is part of this as is encouraging people to train in new skills, go back to school etc.Once this has been done we need to do the same for the people on minimum wage so as not to allow it to become attractive to do a job that is below your skillset and ability.People need something to strive for and easy money is one way of making sure this will not happen.
yes but a lack of money will also ensure that this cannot happen.
People have families to take care of and bills to pay, and making money scarcer will not help them work around these responsibilities or make other options more appealing to them.
Even if you lower minimum wage or social welfare, many things in the market arent aimed at them and there pricing will reflect this.
They already have a lower purchasing power than those earning more and are a lot less able to cut back on spending or be inventive with there budgets hence are more vulnerable than their wealthier counterparts.0 -
FlutterinBantam wrote: »Spot on again Shan.
When you see the local part time barman driving a mid range beemer you suspect there is something wrong.
And there was
what should he be allowed have,
maybe his family is wealthy, maybe he's financially prudent else where.0 -
do you honestly believe that someone who is on wellfare deserves a life like someone who gets up at 6 each morning and puts in over 70 hours a week into thier own business and contributes nearly half of what they earn in taxes to the goverment
they dont.
And I dont.do you believe the person on the dole has the same entitlement to the luxurys as the other person , im not talking about basic needs but your post suggested they are every bit as entitled to a holiday in the canaries the self employed hardware store owner
Where did I do that and Ill try explain what I meant?0 -
Minimum wage is not relevant to what everyone else is earning it's there to ensure people have enough to live on and enough to move up in society.
Cutting it will only hurt them and allow the employers more profit.
Like it or not profit making is what creates employment. It's a very naive view to just peddle the same line of evil business owners exploiting employees.0 -
Lowering the minimum wage will just lower the quality of life of those earning it.
Reducing minimum wage will be in the hope that more jobs can be created, that we might be competitive in wage terms with the rest of Europe. The people working these jobs would likely not have a job otherwise, that would be raising, rather than lowering, their quality of life. Especially if social welfare takes a similar or greater cut.0 -
Advertisement
-
superscouse wrote: »Correct. There is no appetite for cutting social welfare but it has to and will happen. When you have people better off on the dole than getting off their arses to work, you have to use a size nine boot. A BIG ONE.
...and what alternative dimension are you living in where there are all these jobs lying around?0
Advertisement