Minimum Wage?

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there is an "income" market

Well, employment market

My office is overheated and my brain stopped functioning about around 3pm

PeakOutput

givyjoe wrote: »

Were Dell workers on the minimum wage? No they were not, it was wages which were well above this level which caused them to pick up and leave, not to mention the fact people have stopped buying Dell computers FFS! But thats a different issue.

dell left well paid customer support and r+d staff in ireland these are definitely paid more than manufacturing line workers who would not have been been earning that much more than minimum wage

Small business owners will argue all the live long day that it's too high, with most of them arguing this solely because it's eating into the profits gonig directly into their pocket

they are arguing on behalf of their business, shock horror

Arguing against your point is far from ridiculous, how in god's name could you afford to work for two euro less per hour? Do you live at home? Have you kids etc?

no i cant but i will survive and have been giving bucketloads by this country already. it is in my best interest for the economy to turn around and i feel reducing the minimum wage is a way to help that happen and get things bac on track personal feelings shouldnt come into it.

If a company cant afford to pay basic levels of pay, it shouldnt be in business the market cant support it

who sets the basic rate of pay? who decides what that is? oh thats right the goverment does jsut because a few years ago 8odd euro was an appropriate min wage to live on dosnt mean it is right now. you say they shouldnt be in business because the market cant support it. that only applies if it is a completely free market. if 100 business's go bust tomorrow because they cant pay staff the minimum wage its not the markets problem its the minimum wages problems the market is screaming at you that it cant handle the minimum wage because business's are closing. the market cant do anything about that because its not in control of the wage the goverment is

The last thing that should be touched is the minimum wage, especially if welfare is going to stay at the same level, absolutely insane.

well obviously the two have to be reduced together

BTW, google and apple are exceptions as they are one of the few large multinationals actually growing, they can afford to pay those wages,

you think the only factor that goes threw their heads is the ability to pay? you dont think that if they could get the same quality of employee for half the price in poland they would go tomorrow?

Also, how on earth do you prove who is refusing to work?! Ludicrous statement, how do you determing accross the board what is the 'minimum to survive'?

thats not my job but do you disagree that an able bodied person with no other commitments should not be given any money after a certain amount of time / interviews / job offers. you create a service that provides them with all the ifrastructure needed to gain employment and if after a certain period of time(i would say years not months now) if they refuse to do any work (weather its cleaning the toilets or working in a bar or whatever) they should be cut off completely. for example should all the newly unemployed trades people be allowed stay on the dole indefinitely or until they can find a job in their trade? imo **** no they shouldnt they should be given a ceratin amount of time to do so and then if it hasnt happened a certain amount of time to find other work(and the majority will)

thats the people who refuse to work

as for minimum to survive

quality shelter, heat, water, food

for everyone and every family who needs it but cant afford it and a support system to reintroduce them back into the workforce asap

For OP's question, if we abolish the min wage, clearly welfare will have to be drastically cut or people simply wont work, why should they cripple themselves financially to please the righteous.

no way it should be abolished but its too high to be competitive right now

Valmont

I'm on the minimum wage and a reduction wouldn't matter a damn as my employer is simply cutting my hours to make up the difference. I'm broke either way! I would have to insist that any reduction in minimum wage is accompanied by a proportionate or greater reduction in all types of social welfare less we incentivise doing nothing even more.

Firetrap

I think there's an agenda to drive wages right down in both private and public sectors. Interesting times ahead

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

to put it frankly minimum wage workers got shafted by, not by employers, but by trade unions and government who hugely increased welfare and PS wages
the irony of people being worse of due to socialistic misalocation of capital is rather amusing



welfare spend went from 6.2 billion in 1999 to 21.1 billion and rising in a decade (graphically illustrated here)

A really important question is where all that extra "spend" on welfare went. If most of the money went on increased benefits then the logical (and unpleasant) solution is to cut benefits. If most of the money went on increased pay for staff and/or increased numbers of staff then there is another obvious solution to consider...

Incidentally, "misalocation of capital" is just "misalocation of capital". There is nothing "socialistic" about it. It can and regularly is done by politicans of all political persuasions. As it is, FF is a member of the ELDR (Liberals) which would indicate they aspire to Free Market policies rather than Socialism.

View

Firetrap wrote: »

I think there's an agenda to drive wages right down in both private and public sectors. Interesting times ahead

We are spending almost twice as much as we earn. This, if left unchecked, means rapidly heading toward bankruptcy.

In the short to medium term, this means spending must be cut severely. Either:
a) wages of the people providing the services must be cut, and/or,
b) the number of people providing the services must be cut, and/or,
c) the services being provided must be cut.

Cutting c) means we don't need people to provided non-existent/reduced services and leads straight back to b).

Hence, the major choice is between options a) and b). The private sector is doing both. The public sector just a). There is no reason why this should be the case. Governments can, and do, go for option b) for their public sector elsewhere in the world.

PS The bankruptcy option would mean all three options would be pursued simultaneously in the very short term.

nesf

Firetrap wrote: »

I think there's an agenda to drive wages right down in both private and public sectors. Interesting times ahead

Yeah, the biggest problem is that for some reason not everyone has copped onto that we need to do this and that if we all do it then we won't have quality of living decreases since the wages that make up the bulk of the cost of electricity, food etc will also come down.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me what the arguments for maintaining a minimum wage level is in a country where a welfare system exists?

As far as I can see having social welfare available autmatically creates a minimum wage level at which an organisation must offer prospective employees in order to make it worth their while to accept the offer of employment.

I've asked this question in a few threads about removing / reducing the minimum wage recently and I've not received a single response, nevermind an actual argument for maintaining it.

Sleepy you're absolutely correct. The dole rate effectively puts a floor on wages since no sane person would work for less than they'd get for signing on*.


*This isn't actually technically true. For a couple with kids the maths changes due to the Family Income Supplement which increases income for working families based on how many kids they have if they earn less than a certain threshold. But effectively there still is a floor on wages since you're more likely to have experience if you have kids (average age of late 20s for first kid) and this experience generally means you'll not be doing the bottom rung jobs that would attract the lowest wages etc.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Sleepy you're absolutely correct. The dole rate effectively puts a floor on wages since no sane person would work for less than they'd get for signing on*.

Then how do you explain people doing internships? Is it that there is more utility in employment (to the employee) than just the money received?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeakOutput

taconnol wrote: »

Then how do you explain people doing internships? Is it that there is more utility in employment (to the employee) than just the money received?

arent internships normally unpaid anyway?

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's good as I'm really out of my depth! You explained it a lot better

PeakOutput wrote: »

arent internships normally unpaid anyway?

Yes, most are or it's a nominal amount to cover expenses. One argument being put forward here is that a minimum wage is not necessary because rather than work for too little, people will go on the dole. But I'm saying that people don't just work for money, they work for experience, making contacts, keeping their foot in the industry, personal motivations to work, etc.

And the existence of unpaid / very lowly paid internships demonstrates that this is the case.

Sleepy

nesf wrote: »

Sleepy you're absolutely correct. The dole rate effectively puts a floor on wages since no sane person would work for less than they'd get for signing on*.

*This isn't actually technically true. For a couple with kids the maths changes due to the Family Income Supplement which increases income for working families based on how many kids they have if they earn less than a certain threshold. But effectively there still is a floor on wages since you're more likely to have experience if you have kids (average age of late 20s for first kid) and this experience generally means you'll not be doing the bottom rung jobs that would attract the lowest wages etc.

While the maths changes slightly, wouldn't it still leave the minimum wage being offered at something over the welfare level for a single person as FIS would presumably be equivalent to the extra benefits received by a married/co-habiting person for a dependant spouse and children?

This thread's on it's 3rd page already and there's not even a suggestion of a reason for having taken this tool out of the toolbox.

dlofnep

Ah, the words of the misinformed.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it's not. It's an argument by those who actually earn little in society, and it's always those who earn alot that wish to reduce it with intent to make the economy more competitive.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course they would. The goal for a company is to turn profit. If we don't have a minimum wage, then workers will earn less. It's really that simple.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hyperbole. Nobody suggested anything remotely close to 10 cent an hour, but wages would be reduced - effecting the most vulnerable people in society who barely have enough to make ends meet as it is.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you serious?

I worked 84 hour weeks in a nightclub and a pub for 2.50 an hour (where I was eventually privileged to a raise of 3 euro an hour). If that's not slaving away for pennies, you tell me what is.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it doesn't. It protects young people like myself who needs the money to fund their way through college. Lowering our wages would mean that we would have to work more hours, and ultimately have our college work suffer.

You come across as someone who's been living with their head in the sand all their life.

Sleepy

dlofnep wrote: »

I worked 84 hour weeks in a nightclub and a pub for 2.50 an hour (where I was eventually privileged to a raise of 3 euro an hour). If that's not slaving away for pennies, you tell me what is.

No, it doesn't. It protects young people like myself who needs the money to fund their way through college. Lowering our wages would mean that we would have to work more hours, and ultimately have our college work suffer.

Working for cents an hour rather than a number of euros is slaving for pennies. How did you work for €2.50 an hour btw? Minimum wage was introduced before the euro...

An overhaul of the grant system is most definitely needed but from my experience, very, very few students in Ireland are actually reliant on part-time jobs for survival at college. Most who work do so to fund their social lives / J1 trips to the states etc. So students funding their way through college based on minimum wage doesn't really sway my mind towards validating the necessity for minimum wage I'm afraid.

Taking the single person's JSB and dividing it by 35 for a full time week gives an hourly rate of €5.60. I can't see why a student couldn't support themselves on €112 a week if they were working 20 hours a week at this rate.

dlofnep

Sleepy wrote: »

Working for cents an hour rather than a number of euros is slaving for pennies. How did you work for €2.50 an hour btw? Minimum wage was introduced before the euro...

I meant pounds, just a habit of using the Euro key.

Sleepy wrote: »

An overhaul of the grant system is most definitely needed but from my experience, very, very few students in Ireland are actually reliant on part-time jobs for survival at college.

You don't have a clue, if I can be frank. Without a part-time job, I wouldn't be able to put myself through college and there are many of my peers in the same position. The grant is not available to everyone.

Sleepy wrote: »

Most who work do so to fund their social lives / J1 trips to the states etc.

Um, food, rent?

Sleepy wrote: »

So students funding their way through college based on minimum wage doesn't really sway my mind towards validating the necessity for minimum wage I'm afraid.

Why, because you've made up some idiotic notion that students don't require to fund themselves through college?

Macha

Sleepy wrote: »

An overhaul of the grant system is most definitely needed but from my experience, very, very few students in Ireland are actually reliant on part-time jobs for survival at college. Most who work do so to fund their social lives / J1 trips to the states etc.

Do you have evidence of this other than your experience? Genuine question.

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't see why a student couldn't support themselves on €112 a week if they were working 20 hours a week at this rate.

That entirely depends on the course. I did Arts so I worked about 15 hours. week but friends of mine did Medicine or Engineering and there's no way they could have done 20 hours a week.

Sleepy

Some rather selective reading there dlofnep.

dlofnep wrote: »

I meant pounds, just a habit of using the Euro key.

I assumed as much and lets be honest - you're still here aren't you? You survived on it as unpleasant as it may have been at the time.

You don't have a clue, if I can be frank. Without a part-time job, I wouldn't be able to put myself through college and there are many of my peers in the same position. The grant is not available to everyone.

The quote you posted this in reply to opened with the words "An overhaul of the grant system is most definitely needed". Where did I state that students shouldn't be allowed to work part-time in addition to this? Do students really need more than the grant and the €112 figure I calculated to survive and complete their studies. I'm sure I could get by on the €112 alone if I had no dependants and was back in college. TBH, I reckon I'd still manage to finance some sort of social life out of that too...

Um, food, rent?

Some students do pay these things out of their part-time jobs. Most don't.

Why, because you've made up some idiotic notion that students don't require to fund themselves through college?

Read my post again. I didn't state that anywhere. In fact I'm in favour of properly means-tested* grants higher than the present level and generally against the re-introduction of fees for courses of economic benefit to the country.

*i.e. the student's eligibility for support is judged on their own financial circumstances rather than their parents and any support/funding from parents must be provided on the application) of a higher

Sleepy

taconnol wrote: »

Do you have evidence of this other than your experience? Genuine question.

My own experience of 5 years in NUI, Galway and many friends and family who have been in third level education since I graduated. I can count on two hands the number of students I knew who genuinely were entirely self-funding in college aside from some mature students I met in my post-grad who'd returned to education for a top-up/conversion course out of personal savings.

That entirely depends on the course. I did Arts so I worked about 15 hours. week but friends of mine did Medicine or Engineering and there's no way they could have done 20 hours a week.

I worked with plenty of engineering and medicine students during my time in college who managed 40 hours of lectures and 20 of work just fine. I did Commerce myself and usually managed about 30 hours a week of part-time work on top of large amounts of time spent on clubs / society activities.

dlofnep

Sleepy wrote: »

I assumed as much and lets be honest - you're still here aren't you? You survived on it as unpleasant as it may have been at the time.

Oh, so that makes it ok then? Because I managed to endure working 84 hour weeks for 2.50 an hour. Workers in sweatshops are still alive too. It doesn't mean that cutting wages for those earning so little is right.

Sleepy wrote: »

The quote you posted this in reply to opened with the words "An overhaul of the grant system is most definitely needed". Where did I state that students shouldn't be allowed to work part-time in addition to this?

That's not the issue. The issue is that many students need to work in order to get by. I'm one of them. If I didn't work, I wouldn't be in college.

Sleepy wrote: »

Do students really need more than the grant and the €112 figure I calculated to survive and complete their studies.

Assuming they get a grant, probably not. I'm not one of the fortunate who receives a grant, so I require to be paid above the minimum wage.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm sure I could get by on the €112 alone if I had no dependants and was back in college. TBH, I reckon I'd still manage to finance some sort of social life out of that too...

I'd love to see it. Food, rent, social life, college materials - all on 112 a week.

And that's even IF you can afford to work 20 hours a week. I worked 20 hours a week for my first 3 years, but had to cut back to 16 hours a week for forth year due to too much pressure and too much coursework.

Sleepy wrote: »

Some students do pay these things out of their part-time jobs. Most don't.

I do.

Sleepy wrote: »

*i.e. the student's eligibility for support is judged on their own financial circumstances rather than their parents and any support/funding from parents must be provided on the application) of a higher

I agree 1000% with you.

ei.sdraob

View wrote: »

A really important question is where all that extra "spend" on welfare went.

you are right, i would like to see a further breakdown of these costs, cant find anything on cso about further stats unfortunately

and as we seen few weeks ago the minister is refusing to disclose what % is lost to fraud

Macha

Sleepy wrote: »

My own experience of 5 years in NUI, Galway and many friends and family who have been in third level education since I graduated. I can count on two hands the number of students I knew who genuinely were entirely self-funding in college aside from some mature students I met in my post-grad who'd returned to education for a top-up/conversion course out of personal savings.

In my opinion the reason you don't find many students who are entirely self-funded in college is that it is practically impossible. Everyone I know from my undergraduate had help from their family.

I did a Masters and far more people were self-funded through their savings.

Sleepy wrote: »

I worked with plenty of engineering and medicine students during my time in college who managed 40 hours of lectures and 20 of work just fine. I did Commerce myself and usually managed about 30 hours a week of part-time work on top of large amounts of time spent on clubs / society activities.

Well that is amazing because out of 200 Engineering students in Trinity, my friend said that some worked part time but none would have worked as much as 20 hours. I also remember her saying the class had to fight to get a lunch hour during the day because lectures were scheduled from 9-6 every day. 20 hours on top of that plus study? And maybe some time for a social life?

Stark

PeakOutput wrote: »

arent internships normally unpaid anyway?

Short term internships (a few weeks duration) are generally unpaid. An intern working 6 months to a year should expect some sort of funding, whether it be directly from the company employing them or through some other scheme.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

No it's not. It's an argument by those who actually earn little in society, and it's always those who earn alot that wish to reduce it with intent to make the economy more competitive.
.

and why do they earn little? in this country anyone can avail of good education, like it or not we now live in a highly open and competitive world, the concept of a job for life is gone, if you dont keep keep improving your skills you endup left behind, its a tough world out there whether you like it or not,
if you dont increase increase your competitiveness thru increased production (as the public sector are refusing to do) the alternative to increase competitiveness is lower wages

dlofnep wrote: »

Of course they would. The goal for a company is to turn profit. If we don't have a minimum wage, then workers will earn less. It's really that simple.
.

if the wages are too high then some jobs are not created in first place or existing jobs are lost, It's really that simple.

dlofnep wrote: »

Hyperbole. Nobody suggested anything remotely close to 10 cent an hour, but wages would be reduced - effecting the most vulnerable people in society who barely have enough to make ends meet as it is.

see OPs post about welfare net

dlofnep wrote: »

Are you serious?

I worked 84 hour weeks in a nightclub and a pub for 2.50 an hour (where I was eventually privileged to a raise of 3 euro an hour). If that's not slaving away for pennies, you tell me what is.
.

good for you, i also worked in my day scrubbing pots for few pounds an hour, thats life unless you have skills or education the jobs available are far from exciting (one of the reasons i worked so hard to get an education, the alternatives aint pretty, and yes i had to work thru college and my studies did suffer, its tough but thats life), what would have happened to you if that nightclub didnt open in first place because the employee costs would have been to high?

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It protects young people like myself who needs the money to fund their way through college. Lowering our wages would mean that we would have to work more hours, and ultimately have our college work suffer.
.

and we finally come to the crux of you problem, you feel entitled to more because you think your special, but you forget there are 2 sides in an employment equation, if an employer thinks it doesn't make to hire someone they wont and then you both loose

dlofnep wrote: »

You come across as someone who's been living with their head in the sand all their life.

i hope you read this comment of yours a few years from now

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if the wages are too high then some jobs are not created in first place or existing jobs are lost, It's really that simple.

That's not quite true - look at the salaries of the bankers high up. Their incomes were dependent on short-term gains, not long-term financial stability.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

That's not quite true - look at the salaries of the bankers high up. Their incomes were dependent on short-term gains, not long-term financial stability.

and if they weren't bailed out they would have learned quite a lesson about gambling

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and if they weren't bailed out they would have learned quite a lesson about gambling

Good point

The thing is, is it really the people on minimum wage that are making Ireland uncompetitive? Or is it that the minimum wage acts as a sort of standard, pushing up all other salaries? How many people in Ireland are on the minimum wage? What sort of % business costs do they make up and what % would businesses benefit if the minimum wage were to go down?

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Good point

The thing is, is it really the people on minimum wage that are making Ireland uncompetitive? Or is it that the minimum wage acts as a sort of standard, pushing up all other salaries? How many people in Ireland are on the minimum wage? What sort of % business costs do they make up and what % would businesses benefit if the minimum wage were to go down?

all very good questions

my only trouble with min wage is that it might be acting as a barrier of new jobs being created or some jobs being lost

like it or not we are one of the most open economies in world if we cant compete globally then were toast, we dont have any natural resources like oil to fallback on

yes its unfair but life is not fair

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

all very good questions

my only trouble with min wage is that it might be acting as a barrier of new jobs being created or some jobs being lost

Oh I agree we have to be competitive. But the flip side of keeping wages down is keeping the cost of living down and the government doesn't seem to be quite so interested in that.

Although, we do have ourselves to blame for that. Research has shown that Irish consumers are incredibly brand-conscious and unnecessarily purchase higher priced goods (although I suppose some would argue that many consumers find utility in buying branded goods). But there is an element of snobbery there. Take hairdressers for example: there are perfectly good Asian hairdressers around that charge under 30 for a cut & blowdry but the majority of Irish women continue to go to establishments where prices start at €55. Madness.

So it is up to the government to keep living costs down or is it up to consumers?

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and why do they earn little? in this country anyone can avail of good education, like it or not we now live in a highly open and competitive world, the concept of a job for life is gone, if you dont keep keep improving your skills you endup left behind, its a tough world out there whether you like it or not,

You seem to be under the impression that everyone has a chance to avail of a good education. My parents have children depending on them, and wouldn't be able to attend college and have to work full-time.

Without people working the hard, factory life - the world would cease to operate. You think that because you've obtained a good education and that (I'm assuming) you're earning quite a bit, that people who work their arses off 40-45 hours a week in a factory don't deserve to have a decent wage for their work. Just because they didn't invest 4 years in a degree does not mean that they have not worked hard. Both my parents have worked since they were in their teens, and earn every penny they get - but they never had a chance to have an education - so are limited to what jobs they can work.

If someone ever threatened to cut their wages, I would take that as a direct threat to my family. I detest snobby, shítehawks who think that people don't deserve a fair wage because they don't have the same education, or upbringing.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if you dont increase increase your competitiveness thru increased production (as the public sector are refusing to do) the alternative to increase competitiveness is lower wages

Didn't Ireland set one of the world's lowest corporate taxes in order to increase competitiveness? If the cost of living wasn't so high here - the wage requirements wouldn't be so high - but it's not an easy life for a family which is operating on the minimum wage, and if that were to be reduced or even abolished - they would suffer further, and workers would be exploited because the wages would be dictated by the employer.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if the wages are too high then some jobs are not created in first place or existing jobs are lost, It's really that simple.

Well, if they are going to reduce wages - then the cost of living also needs to come down. You can't have it both ways.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

good for you, i also worked in my day scrubbing pots for few pounds an hour, thats life unless you have skills or education the jobs available are far from exciting (one of the reasons i worked so hard to get an education, the alternatives aint pretty, and yes i had to work thru college and my studies did suffer, its tough but thats life),

It is life, but it doesn't have to be that way. People shouldn't have to have their studies suffer because they spend countless nights in work. If someone can afford it - it's fine, but for more disadvantaged families - they really need the support.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what would have happened to you if that nightclub didnt open in first place because the employee costs would have been to high?

I would have worked elsewhere. They operated at a HUGE profit in there. The assistant manager at the time was only clearing about 4.50 an hour. They routinely had 800-900 people in there. We were exploited as workers, and there was no excuse to pay us the terrible pay that we received. We deserved more for our work. My job consisted of listening to drunk idiots at night, and then scraping their vomit up off the ground in the morning, taking bottles out of bins and putting them back in cases - meanwhile getting stung by wasps never every 2nd hour because the coke bottles attracted them. 2.50 an hour for that?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and we finally come to the crux of you problem, you feel entitled to more because you think your special,

No, I don't feel I'm special. There is nothing unique about my circumstances. Many people are in the same situation as me. You've obviously not read my post.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but you forget there are 2 sides in an employment equation, if an employer thinks it doesn't make to hire someone they wont and then you both loose

If the employer can't make a profit, without paying a fair wage - then fúck them - they don't deserve to be in business. Nobody should get rich off the backs of hard workers, without paying them a fair and decent wage for their work.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i hope you read this comment of yours a few years from now

I'll be proud of my stance 10 years on. I've always supported a fair wage for workers. That stance will never change.