Austerity isn't really working is it?

Tazz T

Anynama141 wrote: »

That makes two of us, on both counts...

Point of information: we haven't given any oil away to any other countries.

That sounds expensive, and would probably destroy much of our coastline. It's an idea though, but unlikely to be a silver bullet.

Well, Germany underwent its own austerity unpleasantness in the 90s, and it's in very good shape now. Hopefully the same can be said of the rest of us.

You're Angela Merkel, aren't you. You sneaky little thing coming on Boards.

Anynama141

Tazz T wrote: »

You're Angela Merkel, aren't you. You sneaky little thing coming on Boards.

Punkt of information. I am nicht Angela Merkel.

dark crystal

joseph brand wrote: »

I don't believe you. You want us to believe, that you would be happy to have your minimum wage slashed, for the benefit of society? Seriously?

No, of course he doesn't want his own wages slashed, just the wages of those barely keeping their head above water.

It's for our own good, you know!

Anynama141

dark crystal wrote: »

No, of course he doesn't want his own wages slashed, just the wages of those barely keeping their head above water.

It's for our own good, you know!

If cutting the minimum wage halved unemployment, would it be worthwhile?

(by the way, I thought we got off the MW discussion ages ago and back to austerity?)

Three Seasons

dark crystal wrote: »

No, of course he doesn't want his own wages slashed, just the wages of those barely keeping their head above water.

It's for our own good, you know!

I don't want anyone's wages slashed. This is pure paranoia, I want everyone to be as happy as they can be and as well off as they can be long term. I believe removing the minimum wage will increase standards of living for everyone. Including the poorer in society.

My views aren't going to change the governments policies. I have no reason to lie.

dark crystal

Anynama141 wrote: »

If cutting the minimum wage halved unemployment, would it be worthwhile?

(by the way, I thought we got off the MW discussion ages ago and back to austerity?)

It wouldn't and we did.

Anynama141

dark crystal wrote: »

It wouldn't and we did.

It's a hypothetical question. Please answer it if you wish to discuss this like a grown-up.

KyussBishop

I'm happy to move away from the minimum wage debate if people don't want to rehash it, but it basically comes down to this (copied from earlier):
The main argument in support of abolition of the minimum wage, is that it reduces unemployment, and this argument is only really tenable in times of high-unemployment when that is an issue.

In good economic times, where there is low-unemployment, these arguments don't apply since new jobs are being made available all the time, so unless it is argued that minimum wage permanently reduces the stock of available jobs (which is a tall order to demonstrate), then unemployment argument does not apply here, in low-unemployment times.

So, given this, if unemployment is the main concern then posters would argue for a falloff in minimum wage as unemployment rises (with a gradual return to full minimum wage in low-unemployment times), but instead complete abolition is argued, which implies unemployment isn't the real reason abolition is being promoted.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm happy to move away from the minimum wage debate if people don't want to rehash it, but it basically comes down to this (copied from earlier):
The main argument in support of abolition of the minimum wage, is that it reduces unemployment, and this argument is only really tenable in times of high-unemployment when that is an issue.

In good economic times, where there is low-unemployment, these arguments don't apply since new jobs are being made available all the time, so unless it is argued that minimum wage permanently reduces the stock of available jobs (which is a tall order to demonstrate), then unemployment argument does not apply here, in low-unemployment times.

So, given this, if unemployment is the main concern then posters would argue for a falloff in minimum wage as unemployment rises (with a gradual return to full minimum wage in low-unemployment times), but instead complete abolition is argued, which implies unemployment isn't the real reason abolition is being promoted.

And I think I left that subject after asking at least 3 times for anybody supporting the current minimum wage to address these points: oddly, nobody did.

Anynama141 wrote: »

1. Minimum wages make it more expensive to hire people on average.
2. Making something more expensive reduces demand for it.
3. Some jobs will never produce enough value to justify paying the minimum wage - although they might do if it were possible to hire someone for slightly less.
4. From the supply side perspective, the cost of goods and services is a function of the cost of inputs to provide those. If the cost of these fall, prices will fall.
5. The people whose jobs have been eliminated due to a minimum wage (due to replacement by machinery or simply by society forgoing their service) have to be subsidised by taxing others. If those people were at work, those taxes would not be needed and instead the money would be spent on more goods and services, creating more work again.

In summary, supporting minimum wages may be a classic case of 'unintended consequences' - people think they are doing a good thing, but the consequences may actually be bad.

dark crystal

Anynama141 wrote: »

It's a hypothetical question. Please answer it if you wish to discuss this like a grown-up.

You really need to stop posting in such a patronising manner.

This subject has gone round in circles now and no one is any nearer finding an answer everyone can agree on. All anyone has at this stage are theories and hypothetical questions.

Whenever anyone else attempts to put forward an alternative to austerity, you shoot it down, so it's doubtful you'll find any answer that satisfies you, tbh.

Anynama141

dark crystal wrote: »

You really need to stop posting in such a patronising manner.

This subject has gone round in circles now and no one is any nearer finding an answer everyone can agree on. All anyone has at this stage are theories and hypothetical questions.

Whenever anyone else attempts to put forward an alternative to austerity, you shoot it down, so it's doubtful you'll find any answer that satisfies you, tbh.

Sorry mate, but if you play games like refusing to answer a hypothetical question, it gets a bit trying.

As for your second point - what alternative to austerity did I shoot down? None were offered! Even Kyussbishop admits that his is impossible without a United States of Europe involving fiscal union and a new treaty.

So what alternatives are there?

Also, would you like to address the hypothetical question re. the minimum wage, or are we dropping that subject again?

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

And I think I left that subject after asking at least 3 times for anybody supporting the current minimum wage to address these points: oddly, nobody did.

The thing is, most of those points depend on times of high-unemployment to sustain the argument, because in times of low-unemployment the negatives become irrelevant; so the real determinant of where people stand, is what they say we should do in periods of low unemployment, and how they try to justify that.

If unemployment is the only issue, then arguing for complete abolition doesn't make sense, when you can just argue for a falloff in the minimum wage as unemployment increases.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

The thing is, most those points depend on times of high-unemployment to sustain the argument

No they don't. They rely only on logic. That's just your way of dodging the questions again.

Why don't you try to be honest? Or do you want to continue to argue in bad faith?

KyussBishop

There are two alternatives (roughly) to austerity: EU recovery policies, which won't happen, or breaking up the Euro, which it can be argued might happen whether we want it to or not (thus, if we are to sustain the damage from that anyway, it may make sense to just get it over with instead of taking extra damage from austerity, while waiting for it to happen).

steddyeddy

Anynama141 wrote: »

It's a hypothetical question. Please answer it if you wish to discuss this like a grown-up.

Anynama you keep accusing people of not dropping the minimum wage and then pressing them to answer your questions on minimum wage? Why?

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are two alternatives (roughly) to austerity: EU recovery policies, which won't happen, or breaking up the Euro, which it can be argued might happen whether we want it to or not (thus, if we are to sustain the damage from that anyway, it may make sense to just get it over with instead of taking extra damage from austerity, while waiting for it to happen).

Fair play - this actually is the first alternative that is just about within our hands. Whether it would be better or worse is another debate.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

No they don't. They rely only on logic. That's just your way of dodging the questions again.

Why don't you try to be honest? Or do you want to continue to argue in bad faith?

They rely on neoclassical economic theory, that is disputed and which I already specifically tackled way back, and which is not a substitute for evidence.

You haven't provided any evidence of the negatives in low-unemployment times, and it's pretty easy to argue that the gains (immediate increase in worker wages) are significant, and they are easily empirically identifiable too (you just have to look at the wage increase).

Anynama141

steddyeddy wrote: »

Anynama you keep accusing people of not dropping the minimum wage and then pressing them to answer your questions on minimum wage? Why?

What? Please re-read your post, I don't think it says what you meant it to.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

They rely on neoclassical economic theory.

They rely only on logic. Please go through them and show where the logic is incorrect. And please stop throwing around labels - remember how you went mental when I suggested you are a socialist?

Sauce for the goose, etc.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

Fair play - this actually is the first alternative that is just about within our hands. Whether it would be better or worse is another debate.

It would certainly be worse than an EU solution unfortunately, but with the rise of anti-austerity parties in Europe, an exit may not be something we have a choice over in the end.

If (and I'm not certain on this) an exit is inevitable, it really leads to the question of what there is to gain from delaying it; an exit now (and all the pain that would cause), looks like it would avoid the damage austerity will cause while waiting for the exit to come later.

Ruinously painful either way, but an early exit may lead to achieving recovery sooner, and the austerity damage that would come from waiting for the exit.

steddyeddy

Well on the minimum wage I think it is as important an issue in getting out of recession as removing scented candles is in the climate change debate. It wont solve the bigger problems and it would be inhumane and slightly pathological to lower it in a recession.

dark crystal

Anynama141 wrote: »

Sorry mate, but if you play games like refusing to answer a hypothetical question, it gets a bit trying.

As for your second point - what alternative to austerity did I shoot down? None were offered! Even Kyussbishop admits that his is impossible without a United States of Europe involving fiscal union and a new treaty.

So what alternatives are there?

Also, would you like to address the hypothetical question re. the minimum wage, or are we dropping that subject again?

We've been here already. No one advocating abolishing the MW could come up with any exsisting model that proved it did, in fact, reduce unemployment, because no other country has ever done it, yet people are still stating it would happen as fact.

This is why discussing the same questions over and over again are ultimately a waste of time.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ruinously painful either way, but an early exit may lead to achieving recovery sooner, and the austerity damage that would come from waiting for the exit.

This is similar to the bank guarantee situation - letting them go bust would have been devastating in the short term, but we would have recovered much sooner.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

They rely only on logic. Please go through them and show where the logic is incorrect. And please stop throwing around labels - remember how you went mental when I suggested you are a socialist?

Sauce for the goose, etc.

Well, the neoclassical economics label, is mainly because stuff like marginal cost and supply and demand theories, are a part of mainstream/neoclassical economics, it is not meant as a generalization, but anyway; responses to the points:
1: Does not matter during low-unemployment times
2: Not during low-unemployment times, when labour is in high demand
3: Doesn't matter; either the job is worth paying to do or it isn't
4: Does not apply during low-unemployment times, as more jobs are becoming available all the time then

As I said, if unemployment is the main issue, it still doesn't make sense to advocate full abolition of minimum wage, could just argue for a falloff in minimum wage as unemployment increases.

Anynama141

dark crystal wrote: »

We've been here already. No one advocating abolishing the MW could come up with any exsisting model that proved it did, in fact, reduce unemployment, because no other country has ever done it, yet people are still stating it would happen as fact.

And nobody against it could come up with examples OR a theoretical explanation of how it would be harmful to society. At least I managed the second one. I'm still waiting for anyone to refute the points - this is (about) my sixth time asking. I can only assume at this stage that nobody can refute them, but can't admit it.

dark crystal wrote: »

This is why discussing the same questions over and over again are ultimately a waste of time.

It would be less wasteful if time were spent ANSWERING questions rather than dodging them.

Can you refute the five points I made?

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

This is similar to the bank guarantee situation - letting them go bust would have been devastating in the short term, but we would have recovered much sooner.

Possibly, yes; with this (an exit) being something we may not end up with a choice over.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm happy to move away from the minimum wage debate if people don't want to rehash it, but it basically comes down to this (copied from earlier):
The main argument in support of abolition of the minimum wage, is that it reduces unemployment, and this argument is only really tenable in times of high-unemployment when that is an issue.

In good economic times, where there is low-unemployment, these arguments don't apply since new jobs are being made available all the time, so unless it is argued that minimum wage permanently reduces the stock of available jobs (which is a tall order to demonstrate), then unemployment argument does not apply here, in low-unemployment times.

So, given this, if unemployment is the main concern then posters would argue for a falloff in minimum wage as unemployment rises (with a gradual return to full minimum wage in low-unemployment times), but instead complete abolition is argued, which implies unemployment isn't the real reason abolition is being promoted.

I'm generally in favour the market determining the price for goods and services as I believe it is the most efficient use of resources.

Except of course in the case of monopolies where I believe intervention may be required.

In the case where full of full employment then the market price of labour would be above minimum wage generally anyway do there wouldn't be much need for a minimum wage as ther would be a shortage of labour.

Where there is full employment ( with minimum wage) I don't see nearly an issue with having a minimum wage, but then why bother re introducing it. The demand for labour would be high enough for all to get above the minimum wage.

Do you actually believe I just want to see poor people suffer? Seriously.

Most well respected economists believe minimum wages are detrimental.

Just because something is counter intuitive diesn't make it false.

Anynama141

Well, thanks at least for finally addressing these points. For clarity, I will repeat them here:

1. Minimum wages make it more expensive to hire people on average.
2. Making something more expensive reduces demand for it.
3. Some jobs will never produce enough value to justify paying the minimum wage - although they might do if it were possible to hire someone for slightly less.
4. From the supply side perspective, the cost of goods and services is a function of the cost of inputs to provide those. If the cost of these fall, prices will fall.
5. The people whose jobs have been eliminated due to a minimum wage (due to replacement by machinery or simply by society forgoing their service) have to be subsidised by taxing others. If those people were at work, those taxes would not be needed and instead the money would be spent on more goods and services, creating more work again.

KyussBishop wrote: »

responses to the points:
1: Does not matter during low-unemployment times

It does not matter if it costs extra to hire during low-unemployment times? Firstly, how often do we have those times? And secondly, won't that push up inflation even further during such times?

KyussBishop wrote: »

2: Not during low-unemployment times, when labour is in high demand

Again, how often do we have 'low unemployment times' in Ireland? One decade in six? And again, doesn't it risk exacerbating inflation during such times?

KyussBishop wrote: »

3: Doesn't matter; either the job is worth paying to do or it isn't

So there's no conceivable job in existence in Ireland today that is only worth €8 per hour? Or €7? That's a ridiculous argument and I presume you know it. That's arguing in bad faith.

KyussBishop wrote: »

4: Does not apply during low-unemployment times, as more jobs are becoming available all the time then

So the cost of goods does not matter during those rare times of 'high employment'? We should all be happy to pay more than we need to?

And you haven't addressed point 5 at all.

Your arguments are all contingent on dismissing these points only during 'times of high employment' - how often do we have those times? So even you admit that your points are relevant for at best 20% of the time, and even then they still don't make sense as they don't deliver the best outcomes for society.

At least you tried.

KyussBishop

Three Seasons wrote: »

I'm generally in favour the market determining the price for goods and services as I believe it is the most efficient use of resources.

Except of course in the case of monopolies where I believe intervention may be required.

Okey, in that situation, minimum wage would provide a good benefit/assurance for workers and society, by setting a floor to the wages and the quality of life that can be attained in working, and reduces one opportunity for exploitation of workers.

This would provide a strong argument against total abolition, with concerns surrounding unemployment easily being mooted, by just suggesting a falloff in the minimum wage, as unemployment increases (not something I'd advocate, but with the availability of that choice, it raises the standard of justification needed, in arguing for complete abolition).

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

This would provide a strong argument against total abolition, with concerns surrounding unemployment easily being mooted, by just suggesting a falloff in the minimum wage, as unemployment increases (not something I'd advocate, but with the availability of that choice, it raises the standard of justification needed, in arguing for complete abolition).

Good point.