Austerity isn't really working is it?

Anynama141

Anynama141 wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that it's not possible for corrupt incompetent politicians to be in charge in more than one country?

Wow, who knew. :rolleyes:

No, not saying that at all, you know what i was saying, but nice attempt to deflect what i was saying by by making reference to something i didnt say and topping it off with a ":rolleyes: face" seems to be a common theme.

eg ...

you can't comment on consultants' salaries unless you earn over 150k? :rolleyes:

If it's all voodoo to you, why are you even trying to discuss it? :rolleyes:

As is Estonia's, how is their job market? :rolleyes:

Wow, who knew. :rolleyes:

So actually using knowledge to support an argument is wrong? :rolleyes:



:D

Anynama141

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not but most people on the lower the minimum wage camp are.

I've repeatedly said that it's only part of the picture. I don't think anyone else suggested otherwise.

I'd love it if someone actually tried to address these points:

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.

Anynama141

Deleted User wrote: »

No, not saying that at all, you know what i was saying, but nice attempt to deflect what i was saying by by making reference to something i didnt say and topping it off with a ":rolleyes: face" seems to be a common theme.

Sorry - but I've little patience for those who, like you, are trying to excuse Fianna Failure for ruining this country and causing so much misery, emigration, and death by suicide and due to health cuts.

Suryavarman

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

I agree. But does increasing globalisation not mean that 'convergence' is inevitable.
Either Bangladesh moves up or we move down. Likely both move to some point in between. This means down for us.
The unknown is the timeframe for this convergence and whether that timeframe can be managed.

Free trade will allow both countries to move up as both countries will begin focusing on things that they are comparatively better at.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

No, not saying that at all, you know what i was saying, but nice attempt to deflect what i was saying by by making reference to something i didnt say and topping it off with a ":rolleyes: face" seems to be a common theme.

eg ...

you can't comment on consultants' salaries unless you earn over 150k? :rolleyes:

If it's all voodoo to you, why are you even trying to discuss it? :rolleyes:

As is Estonia's, how is their job market? :rolleyes:

Wow, who knew. :rolleyes:

So actually using knowledge to support an argument is wrong? :rolleyes:



:D

Unemployment peaked at 19% in April 2010 and is down to 9.5% as of October 2012.

https://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:ee&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=estonia%20unemployment#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:ee&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Mr. Incognito

Anynama141 wrote: »

Minimum wage is not a commodity? How can a price for something be a commodity?

You have been shown to have no argument whatsoever to back up your points. You have lost the debate, because with no arguments, there is no debate to be had. And now you are claiming that we were mean to you, when all we did was point out that you have no argument.

Oh dear. This is the reason why I don't engage in sincere debate. It's the six year old approach. Say something. Repeat it. Google it. Post that. Pass snide comments.

People are fixating on minimum wage, and historical examples and point scoring.

I made a few points on what Ireland can do proactively. Then you and a few posters jump on one sentence and stretch that to nonsensical proportions and crown thyself es victorious. Winner of the Internet. Kudos.

Here are the points. I will not lower myself to explaining them ad infinum. If you do not agree I am not investing my day attempting to educate you.

1. Ireland inc was viable. Until we decided to nationalise Anglo and Irish permanent. We then had the ultimate treason in placing their debt book on the public purse through liquidizing IBRC as a precursor to our negotiations with the ECB. So now we have no debt reduction and no write off. we have merely kicked to touch on the capital repayments of bank loans. The alternative was let them fail. But but no money in ATMs etc. this is nonsense.

2. Our public sector wage bill is a joke due to weak government appeasing the unions for 15 years with those same unions that were greed merchants for 20 years now selling their newest members out to dry to protect their bloated pay and conditions. Public sector wage is too much by any measure and most be reformed root and branch.

3. Austery has never worked. This is true. Reduction in spending aligned with strategic planning and smart investment works. Every company restructure does the same. Surplus staff are fired and new product lines rolled out. Countries are like companies. If I have a subsidiary losing money I close it and write off the losses. I do not reallocate resources from my viable subsidiaries to shore it up. People gambled using a flawed business model and failed. People talked about US in the twenties, this time was a boom as war and flu killed off many leaving to new technologies and industry and high employment and what happened? A stock market bubble. I could engage in economic history debates but, frankly I couldn't be bothered. Look what you people have done with minimum wage.

4.The main point raised, that is going to happen, eventually is a realistic write down. FDR did it. Europe needs to do it and the US needs to do it. My gut is that when China's economic bubble goes it will lead to a global financial restructuring or world war three.

Anynama141

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Oh dear. This is the reason why I don't engage in sincere debate. It's the six year old approach. Say something. Repeat it. Google it. Post that. Pass snide comments.

Oh dear. You dodged the question I asked, and then you ignored the points I hoped that someone would address regarding minimum wage.

You are avoiding the debate because you have no answers. That's fair enough, but there's no need for the diversionary tactics. People can see through them.

You also ignored my question about your rather strange comments about Cork airport. You ignore a lot of stuff.

And the irony is that I agree with a lot of your broader points.

Anynama141

Anynama141 wrote: »

Oh dear. You dodged the question I asked, and then you ignored the points I hoped that someone would address regarding minimum wage.

You are avoiding the debate because you have no answers. That's fair enough, but there's no need for the diversionary tactics. People can see through them.

You also ignored my question about your rather strange comments about Cork airport. You ignore a lot of stuff.

And the irony is that I agree with a lot of your broader points.

Indeed, tax breaks are more likely to be effective than a higher min wage, iirc.
But "I'll make a load of statements and I won't lower myself to explain them"... well, why bother so. That's not "welcoming debate". We can all post a bunch of statements. A few of us have even studied economics and are a little beyond "randomly googling things"...

Anynama141

bluewolf wrote: »

A few of us have even studied economics and are a little beyond "randomly googling things"...

Indeed. A few of us have dabbled with economics at PhD level.

Mr. Incognito

Anynama141 wrote: »

Oh dear. You dodged the question I asked, and then you ignored the points I hoped that someone would address regarding minimum wage.

You are avoiding the debate because you have no answers. That's fair enough, but there's no need for the diversionary tactics. People can see through them.

You also ignored my question about your rather strange comments about Cork airport. You ignore a lot of stuff.

And the irony is that I agree with a lot of your broader points.

Typical Ah response. I ignored your questions because IMO they are irrelevant and sidetrack the debate. I don't care what your opinions, gesticulations or interpretations of minimum wage and it's effect is on the economy. It did not cause austery will not tackle austery and is a minute of he debate. It is akin to judging what football team will win by examining their shoe laces. I don't have the answers. Repeat a lie until it becomes a truth. That's ancient greece old. I do admit I don't have the answers. It's the people that claim to that I have a problem with as they are wrong, in approach and spin and people in the main swallow the bait.

Cork airports runway is to short to take meaningful commercial aircraft no matter how shiny their terminals are. It's useless. Google EMC's CEO's comments on it. They are a multi billion company in Ballincollg resigned to using Shannon or Dublin.

These are not substantive issues of any importance and you'll forgive my dismissive tone. I don't think you are capable of substantive debate or understanding of the underlying economic triggers of this austery. I know most of our senior politicians are not and we recently tried to pawn off our grossly under qualified senior civil servant advising on these maters to Europe who point blank said, no. That's who is running the country. If you take offence to that. Apologies. That's my sincere opinion. This is not an economic forum. It's AH.

Blue. I too have studied economics, and tax and law. Economics is the poor cousin of the three. Frankly I don't know how you could take any of them as policy making without and understanding of three of them in practice.

There have been some very very stupid decisions taken nationally and internationally. If it were a football game I'd shout you don't know what you're doing. But that's politics for you. We get what we vote for.

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Blue. I too have studied economics,
.

Yes I remember that from your earlier post, I was just adding that you aren't alone

Anynama141

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Cork airports runway is to short to take meaningful commercial aircraft no matter how shiny their terminals are. It's useless. Google EMC's CEO's comments on it. They are a multi billion company in Ballincollg resigned to using Shannon or Dublin.

I read his comments when they were published. The problem with Cork Airport isn't the lack of runway, it's a lack of demand. While the runway is too short for jumbo jets, it's adequate for mid-sized widebody planes like the A330.

If there isn't the demand for medium sized jets, what is the point in lengthening the runway to cater to 747s and A380s?

Three Seasons

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Typical Ah response. I ignored your questions because IMO they are irrelevant and sidetrack the debate. I don't care what your opinions, gesticulations or interpretations of minimum wage and it's effect is on the economy. It did not cause austere, will not tackle austere and is a minute of he debate. It is akin to judging what football team will win be examining their shoe laces.

Cork airports runway is to short to take meaningful commercial aircraft no matter how shiny their terminals are. It's useless. Google EMC's CEO's comments on it. They are a multi billion company in Ballincollg resigned to using Shannon or Dublin.

These are not substantive issues of any importance and you'll forgive my dismissive tone. I don't think you are capable of substantive debate or understanding of the underlying economic triggers of this austery. I know most of our senior politicians are not and we recently tried to pawn off our grossly under qualified senior civil servant advising on these maters to Europe who point blank said, no. That's who is running the country. If you take offence to that. Apologies. That's my sincere opinion. This is not an economic forum. It's AH.

Blue. I too have studied economics, and tax and law. Economics is the poor cousin of the three. Frankly I don't know how you could take any of them as policy making without and understanding of three of them in practice.

There have been some very very stupid decisions taken nationally and internationally. If it were a football game I'd shout you don't know what you're doing. But that's politics for you. We get what we vote for.


Blue,
.

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed by any chance?

I agree wholeheartedly that there is massive waste in the public sector, that should be a big priority.

You can be dismissive of the minimum wage being abolished all you want but I and others have provided rationale explaining how it could help our economy which is relevant to austerity as we need the economy to function as best as possible to get out of this mess. Yet you continue to get your knickers in a twist over the discussion which I find baffling. If you disagree with the reasoning that's fine point out the errors and discuss it or don't mention it if you're not interested.

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Typical Ah response. I ignored your questions because IMO they are irrelevant and sidetrack the debate. I don't care what your opinions, gesticulations or interpretations of minimum wage and it's effect is on the economy. It did not cause austery will not tackle austery and is a minute of he debate. It is akin to judging what football team will win by examining their shoe laces. I don't have the answers. Repeat a lie until it becomes a truth. That's ancient greece old. I do admit I don't have the answers. It's the people that claim to that I have a problem with as they are wrong, in approach and spin and people in the main swallow the bait.

Cork airports runway is to short to take meaningful commercial aircraft no matter how shiny their terminals are. It's useless. Google EMC's CEO's comments on it. They are a multi billion company in Ballincollg resigned to using Shannon or Dublin.

These are not substantive issues of any importance and you'll forgive my dismissive tone. I don't think you are capable of substantive debate or understanding of the underlying economic triggers of this austery. I know most of our senior politicians are not and we recently tried to pawn off our grossly under qualified senior civil servant advising on these maters to Europe who point blank said, no. That's who is running the country. If you take offence to that. Apologies. That's my sincere opinion. This is not an economic forum. It's AH.

Blue. I too have studied economics, and tax and law. Economics is the poor cousin of the three. Frankly I don't know how you could take any of them as policy making without and understanding of three of them in practice.

There have been some very very stupid decisions taken nationally and internationally. If it were a football game I'd shout you don't know what you're doing. But that's politics for you. We get what we vote for.

So besides fixing this runway, which seems to be a bit of a preoccupation for you, what do you propose we do? How exactly do we end this mythical austerity?

Read pH's post a few posts up. If you have a response to it, I would love to hear it.

steddyeddy

Well austerity or not there are some things that need to change before we start looking at minimum wages. What I dont like about the views of some economists is that they are based on perceived views about people on a certain level of income and not scientific interpretations.

For instance many of the calls are to lower the minimum wage and not deal with commercial rents. One of the biggest reasons businesses go out of business in this country is to do with ridiculous Celtic tiger era commercial rents.

Surely more tax is generated by what is in the property and not the property itself?

Mr. Incognito

Anynama141 wrote: »

Indeed. A few of us have dabbled with economics at PhD level.

You have a phd in economics? Seriously? From where. I find that shocking from your posts. I don't believe that. I know phd economics students in NUIG!
, my alma mata and they do not share your views.

People at phd level should really be able to articulate themselves and deal with the substantive issues. Then again is the chestnut of academia vs practice again.

But from my recollection the academics predicted the crash and they are largely opposed to austery now.

You might let me know where your phd is from.

Also, I would like to add, the banks aren't why we were in an 18b p.a. hole, the collapse of our property bubble was. You do remember that the construction sector made up 20% of our entire economy at it's peak, right?

Mr. Incognito

As a generic response let me repeat. Minimum wage debate is irrevant, off topic and I have zero interest in joining in. You kds play with that all you want. I gotta take my son to the park. Play nice.

Anynama141

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You have a phd in economics? Seriously? From where.

It's interesting the things you want to talk about and the things you don't. I could claim anything here, and I'd have no way to prove it and you'd have no way to disprove it.

You won't address the concrete arguments I make because they are irrelevant, yet you want to talk about a complete side issue like this? How odd.

Anynama141

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Also, I would like to add, the banks aren't why we were in an 18b p.a. hole, the collapse of our property bubble was. You do remember that the construction sector made up 20% of our entire economy at it's peak, right?

Indeed. There seems to be some confusion with Mr. Incognito with regard to current spending and one-off costs like the bank bailouts.

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You have a phd in economics? Seriously? From where. I find that shocking from your posts. I don't believe that. I know phd economics students in NUIG!
, my alma mata and they do not share your views.

People at phd level should really be able to articulate themselves and deal with the substantive issues. Then again is the chestnut of academia vs practice again.

But from my recollection the academics predicted the crash and they are largely opposed to austery now.

You might let me know where your phd is from.

You're scolding someone for not being able to articulate themselves when your basis for "you can't have a PHD" is "because I know people who disagree with you"? And "you kids", "I have zero interest in this despite posting repeatedly", "I won't lower myself to explain or back up anything I've written" - go clear your head a bit in the park.

Bullseye1

Phoebas wrote: »

Spain's minimum wage is just one part of their screwed up labour market. Its probably not sensible to think that a minimum wage is the only ingredient in a labour market.

It appears the three people who thanked you are obsessed with the abolition of the minimum wage and yet for most of the time debating never mentioned other factors required to make its abolition viable.

Mr Benevolent

Gambas wrote: »

As for not working, have you seen an Irish bond yield chart in the past while? Plenty people who are prepared to fund the state believe it is working.

Well yes, based on bond rates alone it is working, we're now at pre-Celtic Tiger levels (@ 4%) for the 10 year bond, amazingly. We're not doing nearly as well as the UK of course, but a lot better than Greece.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It appears the three people who thanked you are obsessed with the abolition of the minimum wage and yet for most of the time debating never mentioned other factors required to make its abolition viable.

I'm not quite sure how the minimum wage became the lightening rod on this thread, but I don't think anyone disagrees that all sides of this should be tackled as soon as possible. The sooner Ireland becomes more competitive, the sooner people will be back at work (albeit they may not be earning a small fortune for carrying hods around a site any more).

steddyeddy

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how the minimum wage became the lightening rod on this thread, but I don't think anyone disagrees that all sides of this should be tackled as soon as possible. The sooner Ireland becomes more competitive, the sooner people will be back at work (albeit they may not be earning a small fortune for carrying hods around a site any more).

How would you rank the minimum wage as a problem compared to commercial rents? How come the minority of economists seem to think all economic problems can be solved by tackling the least well off first?

Anynama141

steddyeddy wrote: »

How would you rank the minimum wage as a problem compared to commercial rents? How come the minority of economists seem to think all economic problems can be solved by tackling the least well off first?

It would be impossible to answer the first question without huge amounts of study - years worth of work. The only thing that is clear is that there are many factors which are making Ireland uncompetitive and killing jobs, and they all need to be looked at.

As for the second, I don't know which economists you are referring to and I certainly wouldn't speak on anyone else's behalf. I certainly don't think that the MW issue should be given any priority over anything else, and I don't think I've suggested otherwise here.

steddyeddy

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Also, I would like to add, the banks aren't why we were in an 18b p.a. hole, the collapse of our property bubble was. You do remember that the construction sector made up 20% of our entire economy at it's peak, right?

This is true but the banks lending strategy was funding the property bubble. I would blame both sides to be honest.

steddyeddy

Anynama141 wrote: »

It would be impossible to answer the first question without huge amounts of study - years worth of work. The only thing that is clear is that there are many factors which are making Ireland uncompetitive and killing jobs, and they all need to be looked at.

As for the second, I don't know which economists you are referring to and I certainly wouldn't speak on anyone else's behalf. I certainly don't think that the MW issue should be given any priority over anything else, and I don't think I've suggested otherwise here.

Well it is brought up more than any other issue. Considering as a one off issue it is not a priority compared to commercial rents in Ireland I can only assume that it is the result of a contempt for people on a certain wage.

Anynama141

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it is brought up more than any other issue. Considering as a one off issue it is not a priority compared to commercial rents in Ireland I can only assume that it is the result of a contempt for people on a certain wage.

I can't speak for how often it has been brought up, I only commented on it when someone else raised it. As I said, I don't know how it became the big issue on a thread about austerity that started quite well.

As for contempt - most of my jobs to date have paid less than the current minimum wage. I've no problem with anyone who does an honest day's work, and in fact hold in high regard people who prefer to do something useful when for a little less they could sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle all day.

Three Seasons

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

As a generic response let me repeat. Minimum wage debate is irrevant, off topic and I have zero interest in joining in. You kds play with that all you want. I gotta take my son to the park. Play nice.

You probably should have done that from the beginning, you never seemed to have much interest in engaging in discussion. Monologues are more your thing I'd say.

Three Seasons

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It appears the three people who thanked you are obsessed with the abolition of the minimum wage and yet for most of the time debating never mentioned other factors required to make its abolition viable.

It's one area people disagree in so it comes up more in conversation. Most seem to be agreed upward only rents are stupid.

KyussBishop

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Mostly because when someone makes a valid point they pass snide little remarks and attack the poster.

I welcome debate. This is not debate. It is a bunch of people talking about things they have no experience of beyond googling nonsense.

That's pretty much exactly what it is, and you notice that the level of argument they bring, is always chock full of deliberately fallacious and dishonest argument, with a constant undertone of condescension; it amounts to endless setting up of and knocking down of straw-men, and trying to edge out anyone who brings forward successful counterargument as 'unserious' (usually with the labels Marxist or Socialist), so they don't have to engage with their arguments.

Not only that, but in this case many are obvious re-regs as well.

It's a level of soapboxing and trolling, done just subtle enough to evade banning, that is aimed at framing and controlling debate; they are well aware of it themselves too, as the disingenuousness is so unconcealed, that it takes the most extreme level of obtuseness to miss it (and you can tell who supports it due to the shared thanks).

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly what it is, and you notice that the level of argument they bring, is always chock full of deliberately fallacious and dishonest argument, with a constant undertone of condescension; it amounts to endless setting up of and knocking down of straw-men, and trying to edge out anyone who brings forward successful counterargument as 'unserious' (usually with the labels Marxist or Socialist), so they don't have to engage with their arguments.

There is only one side in this discussion not addressing arguments.

I asked repeatedly for anyone to address 5 points I made about the minimum wage - nobody did. Perhaps you would like to?

Or perhaps you would prefer to revert to discussing the hole that Ireland finds itself in, as the minimum wage discussion seems to be a bit of a side track? Because, either way, I'm pretty sure nobody is interested in discussing your attack on me and other posters here.

KyussBishop

You simply steadfastly ignored the request for proof of your claims, that abolishing minimum wage would reduce the price of goods (still waiting for that btw); then when your attempt to use obfuscatory economic theory to support your view failed, because I knew it well enough to debunk, you resort to the truly lazy level of argument, of just trying to label me a socialist.

If people have lost interest in debating with you, it's because they can see that you are not debating, but are deliberately making every effort you can to wrangle your way around having to engage in honest argument.

Anynama141

The questions are here if you get tired of bitching and want to talk about the issues.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

You simply steadfastly ignored the request for proof of your claims, that abolishing minimum wage would reduce the price of goods (still waiting for that btw); then when your attempt to use obfuscatory economic theory to support your view failed, because I knew it well enough to debunk, you resort to the truly lazy level of argument, of just trying to label me a socialist.

If people have lost interest in debating with you, it's because they can see that you are not debating, but are deliberately making every effort you can to wrangle your way around having to engage in honest argument.

How about just agree from here on in everyone simply makes points and people address them.

The rationale for the removal of the minimum wage has been put forward. If you feel their are holes in the logic we will discuss them. How about that?

Indon't know of anywhere where there isn't a minimum wage so I can't discuss that with you.

steddyeddy

Three Seasons wrote: »

How about just agree from here on in everyone simply makes points and people address them.

The rationale for the removal of the minimum wage has been put forward. If you feel their are holes in the logic we will discuss them. How about that?

Indon't know of anywhere where there isn't a minimum wage so I can't discuss that with you.

Yes but why hone in on the minimum wage as a major issue in the recession? It seems to be not something based on a serious economical suggestion rather a lazy attack on those of fairly low incomes.

KyussBishop

There's no 'clean slate' to be had here, when people have already shown the level of argument they are willing to engage in; it is clear how many are simply arguing in bad faith, and are likely to keep doing so.


Where it comes to the minimum wage:
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.

Three Seasons

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes but why hone in on the minimum wage as a major issue in the recession? It seems to be not something based on a serious economical suggestion rather a lazy attack on those of fairly low incomes.

I mentioned it and people kept replying and I replied to their replies and so on.

There are many other aspects that are more important than minimum wage such as inefficiency of resources in the public sector. The conversation just went we're it went.

Anynama141

Just on the off-chance that someone will actually address these points:

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.

If you can't address them, then just acknowledge that they are correct.

And of course the main subject of the thread is the 'policy' (is it a policy if you have no choice?) of austerity, happy to discuss that too.

steddyeddy

Wait guys I thought you both acknowledged that minimum wage wasn't the important aspect in the economy and that is other people bringing it up? Why keep bringing it up?

Anynama141

steddyeddy wrote: »

Wait guys I thought you both acknowledged that minimum wage wasn't the important aspect in the economy and that is other people bringing it up? Why keep bringing it up?

Because both you and Kyussbishop have brought it up repeatedly since then? Have you forgotten?
Here, here, and here

steddyeddy

Anynama141 wrote: »

Because both you and Kyussbishop have brought it up repeatedly since then? Have you forgotten?

Eh no I brought it up in the context of asking why others where talking about it. I think there are far more important issues and I seem to remember being agreed with?

Have you any problem with dropping it as an issue?

Anynama141

steddyeddy wrote: »

Eh no I brought it up in the context of asking why others where talking about it. I think there are far more important issues and I seem to remember being agreed with?

Have you any problem with dropping it as an issue?

No particular problem, but I'm just pointing out in reply to a rant from KyussBishop that I have made concrete arguments which nobody - including him - has even tried to refute.

If people are going to accuse me of not supporting my position, I'm obliged to direct them to my arguments and point out that they have been ignored (presumably because they cannot be refuted).

I'm happy to move on otherwise.

darkhorse

Three Seasons wrote: »

The cost of living will come down following the abolition of the minimum wage. People will be better off, especially the poorer people in society.

So, if the minimum wage was to be abolished to-morrow, what's to stop employer's who pay the now minimum wage, from slashing the wage of the employee to, lets say, €4.00 an hour. Tell me, what people will be better off.

steddyeddy

darkhorse wrote: »

So, if the minimum wage was to be abolished to-morrow, what's to stop employer's who pay the now minimum wage, from slashing the wage of the employee to, lets say, €4.00 an hour. Tell me, what people will be better off.

Plus minimum wage is only one aspect of employer cost that is an issue. Retailers say that biggest reason for a business going bust is commercial rents. Yet there doesn't seem to be the same passion to deal with these. Maybe because people only get satisfaction from dealing with issues that will affect those on lower incomes.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

So, if the minimum wage was to be abolished to-morrow, what's to stop employer's who pay the now minimum wage, from slashing the wage of the employee to, lets say, €4.00 an hour. Tell me, what people will be better off.

He most likely wouldn't be able to attract staff at that level of pay.

But it does raise a question. If he could get people to work for €4 an hour, why should the employer bear the full cost of what is basically a social support? Surely the state should be picking up at least some of this tab?

Three Seasons

steddyeddy wrote: »

Plus minimum wage is only one aspect of employer cost that is an issue. Retailers say that biggest reason for a business going bust is commercial rents. Yet there doesn't seem to be the same passion to deal with these. Maybe because people only get satisfaction from dealing with issues that will affect those on lower incomes.

Rents should be determined by supply and demand just like labour.

steddyeddy

Three Seasons wrote: »

Rents should be determined by supply and demand just like labour.

Well then you can say goodbye to any real reduction of the cost of living in line with a drop in minimum wage. Dealing with a small issue and ignoring the big ones is a bad way of doing things.

Three Seasons

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you can say goodbye to any real reduction of the cost of living in line with a drop in minimum wage. Dealing with a small issue and ignoring the big ones is a bad way of doing things.

Who's dealing with small issues and ignoring big ones?