Austerity isn't really working is it?

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

I rarely use this smiley but :rolleyes: you pick the most blindingly obvious straw-man possible: "find a way to pin the label 'socialist' on someone, then accuse them of supporting failed Communist policies".

I guess seeing as the vast majority of people here support things like public services or welfare, that makes us all dirty socialists then; bravo.

If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist and believes in economic quackery like a socialist, it's probably a socialist.

Or a very, very confused non-socialist.

Anynama141

mikemac1 wrote: »

I quoted you on cost of living

You've lost me. If the cost of living goes down, that's a good thing, right?

What makes up the cost of living? The cost of stuff you spend money on. What makes up the cost of things you spend money on? Raw materials, rent, administration, legal fees, wages, fuel etc. etc. etc.

So cutting the cost of some of these will cut the cost of living, right? Or cutting the cost of any of them? Or none of them?

mikemac1

You lost me though I did have a ninja edit to be fair.

You quoted me so quickly I know you didn't read the links

When did 2011 become a boom year?

Anynama141 wrote: »

So cutting the cost of some of these will cut the cost of living, right?

I dunno, will it be passed on?

History tells us it will not

dxhound2005

I was watching this on BBC2 earlier this evening. It introduced me to a new word pagpag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn0XynCvqIE

That's what real poverty is like. In this country households are throwing away food worth hundreds or even thousands of Euros every year.

tayto lover

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I was watching this on BBC2 earlier this evening. It introduced me to a new word pagpag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn0XynCvqIE

That's what real poverty is like. In this country households are throwing away food worth hundreds or even thousands of Euros every year.

Ha ha "you're not as badly off as my one-eyed, deaf lame brother" kinda thing.

Good attempt though.

darkhorse

bluewolf wrote: »

What austerity

Indeed. Austerity is only for the little people.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Can you prove that the cost of living will not go down? Or give a solid economic argument to back up that position?

I've demonstrated that basic economic laws show that the cost of living will fall as marginal costs drop. Any chance of some sort of refutation from your side, rather than just demanding more from me?

I'm not the one saying
1. That the minimum wage is a good thing or bad thing.
2. That scrapping the minimum wage will drive down the cost of living.

But it's quite obvious with high VAT, high fuel costs which has a direct impact on food and other essential items required for living, high electric and heating costs (ESB charge you more for using less with greater standing charges), high commercial rates, upward only rents, relatively high social welfare payments when compared to existing minimum wage payments.

There is simply no justifiable reason to scrap minimum wages without also tackling the above first.

I'm still waiting for an example of where a country with an extremely high cost of living going through a IMF bailout has successfully scrapped minimum wages, which apply mainly in the private sector, has driven down the cost of living. You only need to provide one. It's all very well quoting economic theory how about some practicable examples. How will minimum wages effect public sector pay?

Bullseye1

darkhorse wrote: »

Indeed. Austerity is only for the little people.

He is quite happy to defend consultants pay in excess of €100,000. Funny how that works.

mikemac1

I'm pretty sure Bluewolf is a wimmins

Suryavarman

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because you don't need to earn 100/hour to be able to afford the minimum necessities: a roof over your head and food on the table. That is the point of the minimum wage: what you need to scrape by.

Why stop at the minimum necessities though? Why be so tight? We should give everyone a great standard of living and raise the minimum wage to €100 per hour.

mikemac1 wrote: »

That already exists!

Called job bridge and you too can stack shelves in Tesco, work the tills in Supervalue or stand behind a hotel bar for 50 euro and your job seekers!

Yes people get experience of working but you ignored the earlier posters who talked about employers taking the piss. And there are plenty of employers out there who are happy for free labour.
Cut minimum wage and you'll have kitchen porters offered money that nobody could live on.

Apart from the kitchen porters earning more than the minimum wage.

And if they can't live off their offered wage then maybe they should refuse to take the job.

darkhorse

Gambas wrote: »

But that is tantamount to working for your dole.

I know I won't be very popular for saying this, but what would be so disagreeable about doing some small bit of labour for one's dole, just a couple of hours in the week. I have a neighbour who is on a three day week in his minimum wage job, who earns €207.36 per week before any deductions are taken. I have another neighbour who is on the dole, and he receives €195.00 per week. You see where I'm coming from.

mikemac1

Suryavarman wrote: »

Apart from the kitchen porters earning more than the minimum wage.

And if they can't live off their offered wage then maybe they should refuse to take the job.

And put people who want to work on welfare as that's where they will go when they can't earn a living wage on a weeks work and can get more from the DSP

dark crystal

Anynama141 wrote: »

I've no idea what countries have done what. Why don't you do a little work here and list countries which had minimum wages and then scrapped them. Then I'll look into whether the cost of living fell in those countries.

Deal?

Well I've been searching away and it seems there are no examples whatsoever of any country scrapping their exsisting minimum wage. Not one.

There are a myriad of different wage laws and agreements in a myriad of different countries, but none have ever set a national minimum wage only to abolish it at a later time. So no joy there, I'm afraid.

It seems pointless to me to assert as fact something that has no basis in practice. One can hypothesise until the cows come home, it doesn't make it true. There's no exsisting model which proves that abolishing the minimum wage in turn reduces the basic cost of living, nor that it reduces unemployment in any significant way.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not the one saying
1. That the minimum wage is a good thing or bad thing.
2. That scrapping the minimum wage will drive down the cost of living.

But it's quite obvious with high VAT, high fuel costs which has a direct impact on food and other essential items required for living, high electric and heating costs (ESB charge you more for using less with greater standing charges), high commercial rates, upward only rents, relatively high social welfare payments when compared to existing minimum wage payments.

Yup, it all needs to be tackled.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There is simply no justifiable reason to scrap minimum wages without also tackling the above first.

There's no justifiable reason for not tackling what can be tackled. Every interest group will want everything else tackled first, and they will all come up with plausible arguments why.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an example of where a country with an extremely high cost of living going through a IMF bailout has successfully scrapped minimum wages, which apply mainly in the private sector, has driven down the cost of living. You only need to provide one. It's all very well quoting economic theory how about some practicable examples. How will minimum wages effect public sector pay?

I'm still waiting for you to list the countries that have had a minimum wage and scrapped it. I can then investigate the effect on the cost of living.

Just one will do.

dark crystal wrote: »

Well I've been searching away and it seems there are no examples whatsoever of any country scrapping their exsisting minimum wage. Not one.

Yeah, I drew a blank too. It seems that once you have it, it's very hard to get rid of it.

I like the idea in principle: the question is whether it actually benefits society in practice. The evidence is mixed at best.

Anynama141

A friend was making the "cost of living" point to me recently and claiming people are working full time for less than min wage in the states and not getting by, so I went off and looked at the stats from the USA - great source of info for this kinda thing.
Anyway generally speaking, the people who tend to be on min wage or less tend to be part time workers - the majority of them anyway. Then after that they pull themselves up very quickly above min wage so that changes wouldn't affect them.
The only issue was whether any of them had 2 jobs, I suppose they might have. It was difficult to find out.

I also know that over here it's legal to work for less than min wage in certain conditions, and people manage. Talking about cost of living on the one hand when people are advocating something that surely must cause cost push inflation... it all seems a bit circular.

Anynama141 wrote: »

I like the idea in principle: the question is whether it actually benefits society in practice. The evidence is mixed at best.

Sums it up, really.
Nice idea in principle, but if it really does have negative knock on effects we should be examining them.

dark crystal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why stop at the minimum necessities though? Why be so tight? We should give everyone a great standard of living and raise the minimum wage to €100 per hour.

How many times has this ridiculous argument been asked and answered already in this thread?

No one is proposing a luxurious standard of living, just simply that every human being who goes out to work be entitled to a fair wage to keep their heads above water and a basic wage which is in line with the high cost of living in this country.
What would be the point of paying someone €5.90 an hour, if they couldn't afford their rent, food, electricity, clothing and heating with it?

How some people fail to grasp that concept is beyond me!

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

He is quite happy to defend consultants pay in excess of €100,000. Funny how that works.

Unfortunately, you sort of have to pay them the big bucks as they have valuable skills and can scoot off somewhere else. I'm no fan of paying public servants more than you have to.

What I don't understand is how we allow a medical system to exist where they deliberately restrict the number of doctors entering the system via the points race, with the result that you have to pay them a fortune. As recently as the 60s, once you proved you were smart enough for university, you just signed up for the course you wanted - medicine, law, arts, whatever. But due to the constraints on the places in medical courses, we are breeding a race of highly-paid doctors who are great at doing exams and perhaps not so good at the more important aspects of medicine like - say - patient care. And, dare I say it, a social conscience.

Suryavarman

dark crystal wrote: »

How many times has this ridiculous argument been asked and answered already in this thread?

No one is proposing a luxurious standard of living, just simply that every human being who goes out to work be entitled to a fair wage to keep their heads above water and a basic wage which is in line with the high cost of living in this country.
What would be the point of paying someone €5.90 an hour, if they couldn't afford their rent, food, electricity, clothing and heating with it?

How some people fail to grasp that concept is beyond me!

This "ridiculous" question has yet to be answered in this thread. Mainly because the answer is because a minimum wage at such a level would cause unemployment; just like the minimum wage does when set at €8.65.

Well maybe I think a fair wage constitutes somebody being paid €100 per hour. It's unfair that somebody earning €8.65 per hour can't afford the finer things in life.

mikemac1

That's about 8 times I've seen €100 per hour minimum wage on this thread.

Nobody who wants to keep the minimum wage ever gave such an outlandish figure.

It's just thrown into this thread multiple times and there ya go, €100, I can't debate your points so I'll pull a figure from nowhere

Anynama141

mikemac1 wrote: »

That's about 8 times I've seen €100 per hour minimum wage on this thread.

Nobody who wants to keep the minimum wage ever gave such an outlandish figure.

It's just thrown into this thread multiple times and there ya go, €100, I can't debate your points so I'll pull a figure from nowhere

The actual number isn't important Mike, it's the principal. If €9 is a good idea, why not €12 per hour? Or €15? Or, ultimately, the €100 that has been mentioned repeatedly.

The general point is this: why stop at €8.65? Why not more?

dark crystal

Suryavarman wrote: »

This "ridiculous" question has yet to be answered in this thread. Mainly because the answer is because a minimum wage at such a level would cause unemployment; just like the minimum wage does when set at €8.65.

Well maybe I think a fair wage constitutes somebody being paid €100 per hour. It's unfair that somebody earning €8.65 per hour can't afford the finer things in life.

Where have you come up with the notion that the minimum wage has caused unemployment?

Are all the college graduates suddenly emigrating because they can't find work stacking supermarket shelves, making hotel beds or flipping burgers?

If you seriously think the lowest paid workers in this country are the cause of high unemployment, I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

Anynama141

dark crystal wrote: »

Where have you come up with the notion that the minimum wage has caused unemployment?

It's pretty obvious that it causes unemployment.* It's equally obvious that it hasn't caused a large amount the huge unemployment that we see in Ireland today.


*seriously - think about it for 10 seconds and you will know why. Or spend a minute googling it if you have to.

Bullseye1

What part of my post did you not understand? 1 or 2? I'm not the one arguing for minimu wage. I've pointed out that getting rid of minimum wage is likely to increase unemployment if current social welfare payments are kept at current levels.

Your the one who has stated that cost of living will come down. If people's salaries are reduced below current minimum wage levels without tackling cost of living they will give up work and go on the dole. That will drive up taxes on those still working. The social welfare bill is paid out of general taxation and IMF funding.

I am open to agreeing to scraping the minimum wage if you can show proof that those people effected have seen an increase in their standard of living.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Yup, it all needs to be tackled.

There's no justifiable reason for not tackling what can be tackled. Every interest group will want everything else tackled first, and they will all come up with plausible arguments why.
I'm still waiting for you to list the countries that have had a minimum wage and scrapped it. I can then investigate the effect on the cost of living.

Just one will do.


Yeah, I drew a blank too. It seems that once you have it, it's very hard to get rid of it.

I like the idea in principle: the question is whether it actually benefits society in practice. The evidence is mixed at best.

dark crystal

Anynama141 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that it causes unemployment.* It's equally obvious that it hasn't caused a large amount the huge unemployment that we see in Ireland today.


*seriously - think about it for 10 seconds and you will know why. Or spend a minute googling it if you have to.

Ok, I've googled and already found:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2013/02/minimum_wage_an.html

I'm really trying to find the correlation here between minimum wage and high unemployment.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What part of my post did you not understand? 1 or 2? I'm not the one arguing for minimu wage. I've pointed out that getting rid of minimum wage is likely to increase unemployment if current social welfare payments are kept at current levels.

My very first comment on whether scrapping the minimum wage would benefit unemployment was this:

Yes, if you tackle the ridiculous situation where it pays more to be on the dole than to work.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I am open to agreeing to scraping the minimum wage if you can show proof that those people effected have seen an increase in their standard of living.

If you are looking for a historical example, you first have to show me a country that has scrapped its minimum wage. I can then look into the effects, and see if they can be disentangled from whatever else was going on economically at the time.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that it causes unemployment.* It's equally obvious that it hasn't caused a large amount the huge unemployment that we see in Ireland today.


*seriously - think about it for 10 seconds and you will know why. Or spend a minute googling it if you have to.

Why are you so cryptic in your answers? If your advocating the removal of minimum wage why can't you simply make your case and stop referring people to google.

If you were a married man with one child and your getting benefits of €325 week and a job offer of €400 (before tax) was made to you would you take it? More than likely your travel expenses and taxes would exceed the €75 a week extra. I know a father who has decided it was not worth his while to take that job.

Suryavarman

dark crystal wrote: »

Where have you come up with the notion that the minimum wage has caused unemployment?

Are all the college graduates suddenly emigrating because they can't find work stacking supermarket shelves, making hotel beds or flipping burgers?

If you seriously think the lowest paid workers in this country are the cause of high unemployment, I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

Jesus Christ. When has anyone in this thread said that Ireland has such a high unemployment rate because of the minimum wage? What is being said is that unemployment is higher than it would be without the minimum wage.

Basic economic theory tells us that when you set a price floor for a particular good you increase the supply of that good and reduce the demand for it. In the the case of the minimum wage, that good is low-skill labour. The result of a minimum wage is therefore to increase the number of people willing to work at low-skill jobs. At the same time though, this reduces the demand for low-skill labour resulting in less low-skill jobs, which in turn results in a higher unemployment rate, especially among low-skill workers.

To look at it a different way. The minimum wage is set at €7.65. An employee is earning that wage while providing services worth €8.00 per hour for his employer. The minimum wage is the raised to €8.65 without a corresponding increase in productivity from the employee. This means that the employer goes from making an €0.35 profit per labour hour to making a €0.65 loss per labour hour. Taking into consideration that businesses are profit making entities and not charities, the business is then going to sack the employee.

Anynama141

dark crystal wrote: »

Ok, I've googled and already found:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2013/02/minimum_wage_an.html

I'm really trying to find the correlation here between minimum wage and high unemployment.

Ok, two simple examples:

1. Do your parents have a maid? Why not?
2. If I run a factory and I have a choice between buying a machine to do a job and hiring people to do a job, what factors will affect whether I decide to go with humans or machines?

The question gets more complex of course when you get into minimum wages which are, for many industries, not far off what the market would set anyway.

mikemac1

Meh, I'm sick of economic theory

Marc Coleman of Newstalk Radio talking to Pat Kenny of a Friday night about his new book

In 2007 he published The Best is Yet to Come. The book forecast the continued growth in the Irish economy as well as a sustainable construction Industry for the years ahead

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Yet-Come-Marc-Coleman/dp/1842181424
Published in 2007

Been told to commit suicide by Bertie for naysaying

Jim Power, Chief Economist of Bank of Ireland, then went to AIB and then to UCD with his comical Ali commentary of shure, twill be grand.

Landlords don't accept economic theories when you have to pay the rent and to have a sandwich at Centra is too much expense

Anynama141

mikemac1 wrote: »

Meh, I'm sick of economic theory

Marc Coleman of Newstalk Radio talking to Pat Kenny of a Friday night about his new book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Yet-Come-Marc-Coleman/dp/1842181424
Published in 2007

Been told to commit suicide by Bertie for naysaying

Jim Power, Chief Economist of Bank of Ireland, then went to AIB and then to UCD with his comical Ali commentary if shure, twill be grand.

Landlords don't accept economic theories when you have to pay the rent have a sandwich at Centra is too much expense

Those guys were shills working for banks for the most part, their job was to sell mortgages for banks by selling the property market. Most people swallowed their bullsh!t, so they did a great job. Economic evidence clearly showed that there was a property bubble, and every bubble in history had burst.

Coleman is just a total idiot. He really can't be blamed for his hilarious book.

By the way, it was Professor Morgan Kelly who was the target of Ahern's suicide comment.