Would we be better off without a minimum wage?

Blowfish

StudentDad wrote: »

If your margins are that meagre perhaps it would be best to remain at the current level until the market improves.

SD

Who says the margins would have to be meagre for this to occur? If the job will only bring in €8.50 an hour, it will never make any sense to hire someone, even if your company is making millions.

Honest opinion

chrismon wrote: »

I love how every thread on AH turns into talking about bringing down social welfare

Probably because our social welfare rates are far to high and generous and are bankrupting the state? :pac:

RADIUS

StudentDad wrote: »

If your margins are that meagre perhaps it would be best to remain at the current level until the market improves.

SD

But that stifles the very thing we need to get out of this mess - growth.

K3lso

StudentDad wrote: »

It's hardly magnificent. It is a floor though. Combined with social welfare and labour laws, it's just saying to employers that people have a value beyond the market place. People are more than simple economic units to be exploited at will.

SD

But what you are creating is an artificial "floor". Sorry to say but that "floor" cannot exist in the market. Price controls don't work.

Logical Fallacy

Blowfish wrote: »

Who says the margins would have to be meagre for this to occur? If the job will only bring in €8.50 an hour, it will never make any sense to hire someone, even if your company is making millions.

Kind of an odd example, you'd be better applying your example to a smaller business.

Any company making millions who hires someone to generate 8.50 an hour minus their wage is just too extreme an example to be relevant. With the smaller company you have a valid discussion subject.

StudentDad

Blowfish wrote: »

Who says the margins would have to be meagre for this to occur? If the job will only bring in €8.50 an hour, even if your company is making millions it makes no sense to hire someone.

Then don't hire someone. It isn't the fault of the minimum wage that the business isn't willing to absorb the cost of employing someone.

SD

StudentDad

StudentDad wrote: »

Then don't hire someone. It isn't the fault of the minimum wage that the business isn't willing to absorb the cost of employing someone.

SD

You'd really prefer someone stay on the dole as a point of principle?
I thought you guys were trying to help people

sbsquarepants

Blowfish wrote: »

Ok, to break it down to it's simplest. Lets pretend you are a running a small business and calculate that there's potential to expand somewhat, but it'll involving hiring another worker. Now, being a sensible person, you calculate just how much extra this is worth to your business. After taxes, expenditure etc. you calculate that it'll generate €8.50 per hour for the business. Naturally enough since the minimum wage is at €8.65, there's no point in you hiring anyone as it'll increase your losses. Thus, the economy now has less goods produced, less taxes generated and an aditional person remaining on the Dole.

Do you genuinely think this is a better situation than being able to make the job available and allowing the labour force the choice of whether or not to work for that wage?

Seems like an unlikely scenario to be honest - why is some company going to go to the time and bother of taking on an extra member of staff just to break even? Certain companies look on their employees as a drain on expenses, sucking money out of the company - what they should be doing is hiring the right employees in the first place, ones who are an asset to them. They should then be treated AND PAID accordingly.

You can't treat employees like parasites and expect them to bend over backwards for you, there is such a thing as ethics and common decency. People are people, not stock units or commodities.

TwoShedsJackson

Another comfortably off right-wing twat who's outraged at how easy the working poor have it. Why is it the minimum wage that needs to be changed?

Would you support pay cuts for higher-paid workers at the same time?

If not, why not?

StudentDad

K3lso wrote: »

But what you are creating is an artificial "floor". Sorry to say but that "floor" cannot exist in the market. Price controls don't work.

As was said earlier in the thread - the minimum wage is linked to the cost of living - lower the cost of living - and you can lower the minimum wage - it seems to me that an element in society wants their cake and eat it too - higher margins and lower costs - there are people in this country earning salaries are are far too high considering the size of the market in this country. I'd love to see them take a credible pay cut.

SD

StudentDad

bluewolf wrote: »

You'd really prefer someone stay on the dole as a point of principle?
I thought you guys were trying to help people

That is funny. There is a huge difference between helping people up and asking them to bend over!

SD

Dravokivich

bluewolf wrote: »

Hm. I had my own experience in fast food in mind, where you start off on less than min wage. Then when you've proven you can deal with customers, do all the other stuff, you get more, or you then have the experience to go work in someone's shop and ask for more money. If you're starting off with zero skills/experience of any kind and nobody is going to bother taking a risk giving you even minimum wage, it is a foot in the door.
Even if it's literally just cleaning floors, the experience will show you can be reliable - maybe you can move into cleaning houses, that's always above min wage. Maybe you can move somewhere else where they just decided they preferred paying more and getting better people. Especially if there is the increased competition due to lack of min wage, as one/more studies have shown.

But the thing is, it's not about you, nor me for that matter. With our own respective career progression / options. But for those who won't be in such a position. There is always going to be a workforce that'll be providing services which won't require a skill set. A min wage is needed to regulate basic rates of pay to help sustain a basic standard of living. Without it, we are scuttling an entire group of people.

The Irish market, is not going to bring it's costs down for consumers in any kind of hurry. All they'll be thinking is more money they are making because of a lower wage bill. Which is something I'm seeing first hand myself.

RADIUS

StudentDad wrote: »

As was said earlier in the thread - the minimum wage is linked to the cost of living - lower the cost of living - and you can lower the minimum wage - it seems to me that an element in society wants their cake and eat it too - higher margins and lower costs - there are people in this country earning salaries are are far too high considering the size of the market in this country. I'd love to see them take a credible pay cut.

SD

I disagree
People shop with their feet. Spending power directs the cost of living.

Blowfish

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Kind of an odd example, you'd be better applying your example to a smaller business.

Any company making millions who hires someone to generate 8.50 an hour minus their wage is just too extreme an example to be relevant. With the smaller company you have a valid discussion subject.

Extreme yes, but illustrative of the simple fact that if minimum wage makes a job uneconomical, then regardless of other factors, the job won't be created.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Seems like an unlikely scenario to be honest - why is some company going to go to the time and bother of taking on an extra member of staff just to break even?

Even by breaking even, increasing turnover increases the value of the company.

StudentDad wrote: »

Then don't hire someone. It isn't the fault of the minimum wage that the business isn't willing to absorb the cost of employing someone.

So you do conceed then that the minimum wage is contributing to unemployment?

StudentDad

RADIUS wrote: »

I disagree
People shop with their feet. Spending power directs the cost of living.

In Theory ... but the market is so small in this country and insulated in so many ways from proper competition that I haven't seen the cost of living go down in any meaningful way here. If minimum wage was reduced or scrapped all it would do would screw over a group of people who are barely surviving as it is.

SD

K3lso

StudentDad wrote: »

Then don't hire someone. It isn't the fault of the minimum wage that the business isn't willing to absorb the cost of employing someone.

SD

BINGO!

And there you have it. A businessman won't hire someone if that person doesn't justify the 350E he must, by law, be paid. Thus, that person is not hired and it's a lost job at the hands of the minimum wage.

Now you're getting it.

sbsquarepants

Blowfish wrote: »

Even by breaking even, increasing turnover increases the value of the company.

Not really.
Which company would you prefer to own, company a that turns over 100m and makes 1m profit, or company b that turns over 50m and makes 2m profit?

StudentDad

Blowfish wrote: »

So you do conceed then that the minimum wage is contributing to unemployment?

Not in the slightest. As it stands the cost of removing minimum wage would far outweigh it remaining in place. If anything removing it would drive people out of employment.

SD

RADIUS

StudentDad wrote: »

In Theory ... but the market is so small in this country and insulated in so many ways from proper competition that I haven't seen the cost of living go down in any meaningful way here. If minimum wage was reduced or scrapped all it would do would screw over a group of people who are barely surviving as it is.

SD

Yes I agree if it is reduced alone. The cost of living cannot drop without a massive welfare overhaul firstly to make low skilled work meaningful again.

StudentDad

K3lso wrote: »

BINGO!

And there you have it. A businessman won't hire someone if that person doesn't justify the 350E he must, by law, be paid. Thus, that person is not hired and it's a lost job at the hands of the minimum wage.

Now you're getting it.

No the businessman won't hire someone because they won't take a paycut themselves to allow for the employment of another individual. If that businessman refuses to recognise the value of a new employee and pay them accordingly they sure as hell are not an employer I'd like to work for.

SD

Cossax

K3lso wrote: »

BINGO!

And there you have it. A businessman won't hire someone if that person doesn't justify the 350E he must, by law, be paid. Thus, that person is not hired and it's a lost job at the hands of the minimum wage.

Now you're getting it.

How many businesses are in that situation?
How many jobs are not created because of the minimum wage?
Can you quantify the impact for the State's revenues from the new jobs created by the abolishment of the minimum wage vs. how many people will be worse off/how many more will need government assistance/how much less will be spent in the domestic economy?

summerskin

StudentDad wrote: »

No the businessman won't hire someone because they won't take a paycut themselves to allow for the employment of another individual. If that businessman refuses to recognise the value of a new employee and pay them accordingly they sure as hell are not an employer I'd like to work for.

SD

Why the hell would I cut my pay in order to give someone else a job? After years of proving my worth to my company I should cut my pay in order to give some student etc a job? You must be kidding.


With that sense of entitlement, I'd hazard that you're not the sort of employee I'd want.

StudentDad

summerskin wrote: »

Why the hell would I cut my pay in order to give someone else a job? After years of proving my worth to my company I should cut my pay in order to give some student etc a job? You must be kidding.


With that sense of entitlement, I'd hazard that you're not the sort of employee I'd want.

Well you take a wage from your company - you either want it to grow or you don't - if you are not willing to sacrifice for the growth of your company? Why the hell should someone work for you and sacrifice their time and labour for you?

SD

Blowfish

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not really.
Which company would you prefer to own, company a that turns over 100m and makes 1m profit, or company b that turns over 50m and makes 2m profit?

Weren't we talking about the value of the worker 'breaking even' which by definition would mean the profit would be exactly the same, but the turnover increased?

StudentDad wrote: »

Not in the slightest. As it stands the cost of removing minimum wage would far outweigh it remaining in place. If anything removing it would drive people out of employment.

SD

You just stated that companies would be unwilling to hire someone if they generate less revenue than the minimum wage. By definition this is contributory to unemployment.

StudentDad wrote: »

No the businessman won't hire someone because they won't take a paycut themselves to allow for the employment of another individual. If that businessman refuses to recognise the value of a new employee and pay them accordingly they sure as hell are not an employer I'd like to work for.

SD

So you genuinely expect a business person to underpay themselves in order to subsidise the wages of a worker that is not generating (through no fault of their own) enough revenue to cover their wages?

summerskin

StudentDad wrote: »

Well you take a wage from your company - you either want it to grow or you don't - if you are not willing to sacrifice for the growth of your company? Why the hell should someone work for you and sacrifice their time and labour for you?

SD

Erm, no. They get paid for their time and labour, it's what you do in employment.

StudentDad

Blowfish wrote: »

So you genuinely expect a business person to underpay themselves in order to subsidise the wages of a worker that is not generating (through no fault of their own) enough revenue to cover their wages?

Underpay themselves? lol I expect a businessman to recognise that the 'value' they put on their labour may be exaggerated. If the growth of the company is important to them a certain amount of sacrifice is needed.

SD

Dravokivich

K3lso wrote: »

BINGO!

And there you have it. A businessman won't hire someone if that person doesn't justify the 350E he must, by law, be paid. Thus, that person is not hired and it's a lost job at the hands of the minimum wage.

Now you're getting it.

Not really, you've just lead him into an arguement that couldn't be lost. As Logical Fallacy said above, why would a company making millions be even bother with not hiring someone because it'll cost them more then making 8.50? Why would they be seeing 8.50 as worth while in the first place?

The issue here isn't with that. Big companies with big turnovers are paying more than min wage anyway.

Min wage, is generally unskilled grunt work for lack of any other way of putting it. It's what small newsagents/shops pay their staff. They'd only be looking for the min amount of bodies needed over the hours to cover the work that has to be done. And they'll be looking for the least they'll need to pay for it. The only difference lowering or getting rid of min wage does for these businesses is less wage bills. They wont be looking to employ new staff, other than with turnover.

Logical Fallacy

Blowfish wrote: »

Extreme yes, but illustrative of the simple fact that if minimum wage makes a job uneconomical, then regardless of other factors, the job won't be created.

Indeed, but once again way too many broad strokes. I'm not adverse to the concept of a drop in mimimum wage, i just feel there are circumstances where it is a wise move and others where it is a bad move.

StudentDad

summerskin wrote: »

Erm, no. They get paid for their time and labour, it's what you do in employment.

Yes and it's the value of that labour that's being discussed. Minimum wage is hardly exorbitant.

SD

K3lso

StudentDad wrote: »

No the businessman won't hire someone because they won't take a paycut themselves to allow for the employment of another individual. If that businessman refuses to recognise the value of a new employee and pay them accordingly they sure as hell are not an employer I'd like to work for.

SD

Sorry about you, but the employer owns the business - it's his and not yours. You're in no position to be making demands. He's taking you on because he values your work more than the 350E he's got to pay you. Now say it's between you and another guy with actual restaurant experience. You're not going to get the job. But if there was no minimum wage, the business man could hire the other guy with experience for 350E and then hire you for a price agreed upon by both of you. Both of you are now in employment. You're happy because now you're receiving on-the-job-training which will allow you to walk right into another job in 6 months. The new employer, seeing your experience (that you otherwise wouldn't of had with the minimum wage law), can justify hiring you at a higher price.

Look, let's face it. No businessman is going to take a 350E less cut to hire someone else. The employee doesn't even want him to take such a cut, but the government (entering into this contract as a third party that has nothing do to with it whatsoever) demands that both of you settle on their terms. Sadly, it's not the employer that gets the wrong end of the stick here, it's YOU.

Blowfish

StudentDad wrote: »

Well you take a wage from your company - you either want it to grow or you don't - if you are not willing to sacrifice for the growth of your company?

If you want your company to grow, then obviously you don't do it by hiring people who don't generate more income/revenue than their wages

StudentDad wrote: »

Why the hell should someone work for you and sacrifice their time and labour for you?

And this, right here is the actual crux of it. People. can. choose.

If they don't want to give their time and labour for the amount you are able to pay, that's fine, they can look elsewhere or stay on the dole. If it turns out that no one is willing to give their time and labour for it, that's fine too, evidently the income generated by the position is below the market rate for unskilled labour and will not be filled.

If however they are willing to work for the amount offered, they are able to. As it stands this doesn't happen. The minimum wage has produced an artificial floor and prevents people from freely choosing to work for less than it.

StudentDad

K3lso wrote: »

Sorry about you, but the employer owns the business - it's his and not yours. You're in no position to be making demands. He's taking you on because he values your work more than the 350E he's got to pay you. Now say it's between you and another guy with actual restaurant experience. You're not going to get the job. But if there was no minimum wage, the business man could hire the other guy with experience for 350E and then hire you for a price agreed upon by both of you. Both of you are now in employment. You're happy because now you're receiving on-the-job-training which will allow you to walk right into another job in 6 months. The new employer, seeing your experience (that you otherwise wouldn't of had with the minimum wage law), can justify hiring you at a higher price.

Look, let's face it. No businessman is going to take a 350E less cut to hire someone else. The employee doesn't even want him to take such a cut, but the government (entering into this contract as a third party that has nothing do to with it whatsoever) demands that both of you settle on their terms. Sadly, it's not the employer that gets the wrong end of the stick here, it's YOU.

Firstly you're assuming the job on offer is worth doing - if it's worth doing then it's worth paying someone a decent level of pay. Minimum wage isn't high. If the owner of the business wants to hire someone that badly they'll find the money and if that involves a pay cut for themselves so be it. They either want the employee or they don't.

SD

summerskin

StudentDad wrote: »

Yes and it's the value of that labour that's being discussed. Minimum wage is hardly exorbitant.

SD

Yes it is exorbitant. No way in hell would i pay €350 a week to someone with no experience or qualifications, or to do a job that required neither. It's ridiculous.

This country needs to cut the dole by half and get rid of minimum wage.
You're trying to tell me that a cleaner or labourer should earn €350 per week? Nonsense, should be closer to €250 and they should be taxed on it as they are in most other countries.

The sense of entitlement I've come across doing business in Ireland is exactly why my company is choosing to expand in the UK rather than here.

summerskin

StudentDad wrote: »

Firstly you're assuming the job on offer is worth doing - if it's worth doing then it's worth paying someone a decent level of pay. Minimum wage isn't high. If the owner of the business wants to hire someone that badly they'll find the money and if that involves a pay cut for themselves so be it. They either want the employee or they don't.

SD

Speaking from experience there is nobody who could be hired on minimum wage that could possibly be of a financial benefit to my company, so why would I cut my own wages just to overpay someone for a role that gives little or no added value to my operation?

StudentDad

Blowfish wrote: »

If however they are willing to work for the amount offered, they are able to. As it stands this doesn't happen. The minimum wage has produced an artificial floor and prevents people from freely choosing to work for less than it.

As state the minimum wage is a minimum to live on and unless the cost of living drops, which I can't see happening in Ireland in the near future, working for less than minimum wage is pointless. If we had a true free market in Ireland where there were no closed shops or protected industries sure. We don't. We have a bloody small closed market - for the most part - if minimum wage were removed all it would do would screw over people dependent on it.

SD

K3lso

StudentDad wrote: »

Firstly you're assuming the job on offer is worth doing - if it's worth doing then it's worth paying someone a decent level of pay. Minimum wage isn't high. If the owner of the business wants to hire someone that badly they'll find the money and if that involves a pay cut for themselves so be it. They either want the employee or they don't.

SD

You've a big heart, but you're living in a fantasy land. That'snot the way the world works, but we can relieve the pain by abolishing the minimum wage.

StudentDad

summerskin wrote: »

Speaking from experience there is nobody who could be hired on minimum wage that could possibly be of a financial benefit to my company, so why would I cut my own wages just to overpay someone for a role that gives little or no added value to my operation?

That's a choice you have to make.

SD

Logical Fallacy

summerskin wrote: »

Yes it is exorbitant. No way in hell would i pay €350 a week to someone with no experience or qualifications, or to do a job that required neither. It's ridiculous.

This country needs to cut the dole by half and get rid of minimum wage.
You're trying to tell me that a cleaner or labourer should earn €350 per week? Nonsense, should be closer to €250 and they should be taxed on it as they are in most other countries.

The sense of entitlement I've come across doing business in Ireland is exactly why my company is choosing to expand in the UK rather than here.

I always shudder a little when I see Ireland compared to other countries regarding minimum wage and welfare without any comparison to cost of living.

Bring down the later and we can drop the first two.

StudentDad

StudentDad wrote: »

That is funny. There is a huge difference between helping people up and asking them to bend over!

SD

Paying 15c less than min wage is "bending over". I see.

I think it's clear enough you'd rather people stay on the dole with few prospects than work for slightly less than min wage, and that you still despite admitting this, claim there is no link between the min wage and unemployment

StudentDad

K3lso wrote: »

You've a big heart, but you're living in a fantasy land. That'snot the way the world works, but we can relieve the pain by abolishing the minimum wage.

As I said before removing minimum wage will not solve the problem of the cost of living here - it's too bloody high - so either the employer - small business - is either willing to be flexible or we're going around in circles.

SD

StudentDad

bluewolf wrote: »

Paying 15c less than min wage is "bending over". I see.

I think it's clear enough you'd rather people stay on the dole with few prospects than work for slightly less than min wage, and that you still despite admitting this, claim there is no link between the min wage and unemployment

You're telling me that you'd quibble over 15cents on an hourly rate? Get real!

SD

StudentDad

StudentDad wrote: »

You're telling me that you'd quibble over 15cents on an hourly rate? Get real!

SD

The question posed to you was whether it would be better to hire someone for 15c less per hour than leave them unemployed. Your reply was that 15c less per hour was asking someone to "bend over". But only a mere 15c more per hour was a good wage.
And you're accusing ME of quibbling over it?

sbsquarepants

Blowfish wrote: »

Weren't we talking about the value of the worker 'breaking even' which by definition would mean the profit would be exactly the same, but the turnover increased?

We were, i'm just intriqued as to how you think doing more work for the same amount of money somehow adds value to a business?

StudentDad

bluewolf wrote: »

No, the govt is by enforcing a min wage

I can tell you 15c extra per hour is welcome when on less than min wage

Yes but why would anyone in Ireland have to worry about not being on min wage? As we all know paying less than min wage is illegal.

SD

sock puppet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We were, i'm just intriqued as to how you think doing more work for the same amount of money somehow adds value to a business?

Ask Amazon!

StudentDad

StudentDad wrote: »

Yes but why would anyone in Ireland have to worry about not being on min wage? As we all know paying less than min wage is illegal.

SD

You seem to be having trouble following the conversation:

Blowfish wrote: »

Ok, to break it down to it's simplest. Lets pretend you are a running a small business and calculate that there's potential to expand somewhat, but it'll involving hiring another worker. Now, being a sensible person, you calculate just how much extra this is worth to your business. After taxes, expenditure etc. you calculate that it'll generate €8.50 per hour for the business. Naturally enough since the minimum wage is at €8.65, there's no point in you hiring anyone

StudentDad wrote: »

Then don't hire someone.
SD

bluewolf wrote:

You'd really prefer someone stay on the dole as a point of principle?
I thought you guys were trying to help people

StudentDad wrote: »

That is funny. There is a huge difference between helping people up and asking them to bend over!

SD

bluewolf wrote: »

Paying 15c less than min wage is "bending over". I see.

StudentDad wrote: »

You're telling me that you'd quibble over 15cents on an hourly rate? Get real!

SD

1. It was a hypothetical situation you were posting in
2. You're the one quibbling over 15c an hour, to the point of calling it "bending over" even though a mere 15c higher is a fine wage according to you. You're quibbling over it so much you'd prefer people to stay unemployed than take this 15c an hour paycut in this example.
3. Paying less than minimum wage is legal in Ireland in certain circumstances

Blowfish

StudentDad wrote: »

As state the minimum wage is a minimum to live on and unless the cost of living drops, which I can't see happening in Ireland in the near future, working for less than minimum wage is pointless.

It has dropped. The first graph here shows the minimum wage in real terms in comparison to cost of living. The drop at the end of the graph was actually the one which FG reversed back in 2011. Minimum wage is now worth higher in cost of living terms than it's ever been.

sbsquarepants

sock puppet wrote: »

Ask Amazon!

I don't know what you mean. If you make a million quid off the back of selling 1 million widgets, you have a million quid. If you then conspire to make it off the back off selling 10 million widgets - you've still got a million quid, you just had to do 10 times the work to earn it. Hardly a smart move? Or am i missing something?

RADIUS

bluewolf wrote: »

3. Paying less than minimum wage is legal in Ireland in certain circumstances

Thats right, Joint Labour Committees (JLC's) / Registered Employment Agreements (REAs) wage rates start out lower than the minimum wage.

invinciblePRSTV

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder would the people here who want to scrap the minimum wage be members of society who would be in higher paid/middle class jobs themselves.

Excellent point. In my own experiences here on boards its quite often middle class types with little to no experience of living in the real world on MW - except that job they had during college to pay for beer money loike - who rant about the perils and injustices of the MW.

Most amusing was one little particular so and so on here complaining that the MW was too high, it transpired this libertarian poster had never had a job in his life! there's something both sad and amusing about people complaining about the MW when its mammy and daddy paying for everything.