Austerity isn't really working is it?

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look, people here don't know what they are talking about, as regards economics.

Because we disagree with you?

Anynama141

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Once again. This is NOT austerity. It is one half of Germany pouring money into the other half. What happened to this money, east Germany needed to be rebuilt, the people needed jobs, who do you think provided these services, west Germany.

It was austerity - they taxed the balls off the former West Germany to pour money into East Germany. The former West Germany - 75% odd of the country - endured austerity to help the other 25% catch up.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look, people here don't know what they are talking about, as regards economics, but two economics cannot agree on anything. It's a pseudo science IMO. I really have to stop checking this thread, like picking a scab now. You believe whatever you want.

It's a social science, so it's more complex in some ways than other sciences as you can get different answers to the same question at different times etc. etc. - the real problem is that it gets bound up with political beliefs, left wing and right wing, where people twist the evidence to suit their agenda. Evidence for that on this thread is how there hasn't been a single economic argument made here in favour of minimum wages, yet nobody in favour of them seems to have changed their position. There's been a mountain of arguments showing how and why they can have a negative effect on society and they are all ignored.

Suryavarman

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Austery will not work. It has never worked. Anywhere, ever. Europe has a reality problem. It keeps robbing it's reserves to shore up losses that largely are paper investment losses underwritten on overvalued assets that are greatly inflated.

Austerity will work when it's actually tried.

America in the 20s and after WWII. Ireland in the 80s. Canada in the 90s. The Baltic nations in the current crisis. All examples of austerity being tried and working.

Suryavarman

johnr1 wrote: »

But, ok, I'll play; Because goods and services produced would have to rise dramatically to cover the increased cost, - massive unsustainable inflation.

No they wouldn't. Only an increase in the quantity of money in an economy can cause massive inflation.

The result of a rise in the minimum wage to such a level would cause an enormous rise in unemployment.

Mr. Incognito

bluewolf wrote: »

Because we disagree with you?

No, because they don't know that minimum wage is not a commodity and apply supply and demand rules to it. It is a gross oversimplification that doesn't deal with policy, opportunity cost, labour elasticity, migration of labour etc.

That they think austery in Europe or ireland can work, or has worked, anywhere, ever. That reunification is austetity.

That cork has an industrial export airport. FFS large commercial beings cannot land there as the runway is too short.

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.

I've joined the rabble and taken the bait and lost as a result.

Anynama141

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

No, because they don't know that minimum wage is not a commodity and apply supply and demand rules to it. It is a gross oversimplification that doesn't deal with policy, opportunity cost, labour elasticity, migration of labour etc.

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

Or do you mean that low-skilled labour is not a commodity? If so, why not?

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.

Three Seasons

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

No, because they don't know that minimum wage is not a commodity and apply supply and demand rules to it. It is a gross oversimplification that doesn't deal with policy, opportunity cost, labour elasticity, migration of labour etc.

That they think austery in Europe or ireland can work, or has worked, anywhere, ever. That reunification is austetity.

That cork has an industrial export airport. FFS large commercial beings cannot land there as the runway is too short.

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.

I've joined the rabble and taken the bait and lost as a result.

We are spending far more than we are taking in. This gap needs to be corrected. Would you prefer we simply keep borrowing more and more?

pH

I've never understood these "Austerity isn't working" complaints - except if they're aimed at the Germans as a form of begging letter.

Leaving aside various banks and crazy decisions by the then FF gov to guarantee the banks debt - we (as in the Irish people) found ourselves in an 18 Billion pa hole. We were going to be spending 18bm more per year than we would get in in tax.

So no problem - no austerity - you borrow the money - except that those with 18billion looked at our economic basis and said pretty much "hell no" there's no way you could ever pay this back. - So they stopped lending us money.

So we needed cash from elsewhere, as because we're part of Europe other countries and institutions came up with the cash - however they were equally skeptical about our ability to ever pay back a debt that was increasing at 18bn pa.

So if "Austerity's not working" is aimed as a kind of pleading to europe then fair enough - it would be lovely if other Europeans funded out lifestyle with money we would never pay back - but just as we're not leaping to throw away our money to help the Cypriots, it's exceedingly unlikely there are others who would just throw away their money on us.

Apart from some magical wonderland where people just "give" us billions each year so we don't need to make cuts - what exactly do people think is the alternative to "austerity"?

1st dalkey dalkey

southsiderosie wrote: »

But they don't live in countries where a liter of petrol costs twice that amount, or where people pay 200 quid/week in rent. You can't compare a country like, say, Bangladesh to Ireland.

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.

steddyeddy

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.

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

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.