Minimum wage increased to 11.50

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is where the free-market posters, try to change the topic again, and are getting around to arguing that we should really be having zero inflation, or deflation.

Irelands inflation rate is around 0.4%, the EU target rate is around 2% - we want an increase in inflation (regardless of what free market supporters want regarding inflation).


Also: Quantify how much inflation is expected from the 11.50 minimum wage increase? This is another example, of taking what is likely to be an infinitesimally small increase in one economic variable, and exaggerating it massively, for rhetorical effect.

KomradeBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

Fictional example or not, its a completely legit point and it does occur in real life. I even linked to a Forbes article which talks about it occuring (with citations) right after I posted it when a similar post to yours was made.

At best, your fictional example is purely anecdotal, and to try and take a handful of anecdotal examples, and to extrapolate them to a whole economy, is to engage in the fallacy of composition.

All dealt with 14 pages ago.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let me explain this, more employment => higher aggregate demand => more employment. There is no cap on how many people can be employed in an economy.

The same reasoning explains why immigration doesn't reduce the number of jobs available for Irish workers.

Ya lets take into consideration another variable: Time.

How long do you expect it to take, for there to be enough jobs for all of the unemployed, on this path?

Remember, we are arguing over the point that there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed, so: If your answer is not 'immediately', then you are wrong, and there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

krudler

To get somewhat back on topic, here in Ontario the minimum wage has been raised from $10.25 to $11 (about €7.70 an hour give or take) it was $7.75 back in 2007 and has been raised steadily year on year. Unemployment has either decreased or stayed the same since bar one uear in 2009. And Toronto is a damn expensive city to live in so cost of living hasn't come down either.
Same in the States, Washington has the highest rate of mimimum wage, and steady or lowered unemployment rates year on year.

looking_around

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let me explain this, more employment => higher aggregate demand => more employment. There is no cap on how many people can be employed in an economy.

The same reasoning explains why immigration doesn't reduce the number of jobs available for Irish workers.

so now you're saying
24 to 1 job, is ok?
and if an extra few thousand people come into the country and it's then,
40 to 1 job, that hasn't decreased the chances of the original 24 getting a job?

:rolleyes:

Yes jobs come and go, it's not a set number, however for EVERY job offered atm, there are 24 people chasing it. some jobs more some less.
No matter what, this leaves 23 people, for every job unemployed.

Less people looking, does not mean that there is suddenly more jobs though, as there are still redundancies, under 18's becoming adults etc. and the 24 for is merely an average rather than exact.
Point is, no matter what, thousands will be left unemployed. Regardless of their skill set or education.

foxtrot101

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I somehow doubt that a modest increase in wages of such a small porportion of the workforce would erode the buying power of wages to such an extent that it would negate the benefit such an increase would afford those on the minimum wage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JRant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would agrue we have an entrenched jobs deficiency.

Can we really argue that there is a job for everyone on the dole and they are just lazing about?

When politicians fail to address upward only rents they hurt businesses.

When energy prices are purposely increased to entice competion into the energy market businesses are hurt.

There are many things that could be done to encourage business. An extra €2 per hour is not going to be the making or breaking of a business. If their business model truly needs requires this €2 then they are in serious trouble already.

KomradeBishop

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I somehow doubt that a modest increase in wages of such a small porportion of the workforce would erode the buying power of wages to such an extent that it would negate the benefit such an increase would afford those on the minimum wage.

Ya exactly - almost all of the free-market-supporter arguments in this thread, rely on stating that there is some increase, and they don't care if that increase might be infinitesimally small, they will implicitly exaggerate it and argue as if it is not small, purely for rhetorical effect - to suit the argument at hand.

Imagine yourself, using that kind of an argument in a debate: It would be almost impossible for you not to realize this fault in your own argument - these posters use reams of arguments like this, and right now they are basically just practicing how to make deceptive arguments (some of them are so ridiculous/facetious, they're barely even concealed).

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And exactly on cue, we have the free-market posters trying to change topic again, and argue that we should have zero-inflation or deflation.

Sorry, but the rest of us aren't interested in a Libertopian economic system, which ignores the pretty well recognized damage of deflation.

Almost everybody can also understand the difference between the inflation rate, and an asset bubble in houses.

krudler

foxtrot101 wrote: »

I somehow doubt that a modest increase in wages of such a small porportion of the workforce would erode the buying power of wages to such an extent that it would negate the benefit such an increase would afford those on the minimum wage.

Well that's the thing, just because the miminum wage goes up, doesn't mean ALL wages go up. Have worked in jobs during minimum wage increases and didn't see another penny, doesn't affect everyone.

I also seriously doubt anyone arguing against minimum wage would turn down a raise for their own wages for the sake of keeping everything as it currently is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looking_around

JRant wrote: »

I would agrue we have an entrenched jobs deficiency.

Can we really argue that there is a job for everyone on the dole and they are just lazing about?

When politicians fail to address upward only rents they hurt businesses.

When energy prices are purposely increased to entice competion into the energy market businesses are hurt.

There are many things that could be done to encourage business. An extra €2 per hour is not going to be the making or breaking of a business. If their business model truly needs requires this €2 then they are in serious trouble already.

you forget that if business must raise wages for those on minimum.

Those above it need a pay increase too, as they are now suddenly earning min wage.
Now of course companies could refuse to do that, but a manager isn't going to be happy getting paid the same as someone bottom of the ladder.

This has a knock on affect and depending on the business it could be quite costly.

On top of the fact that everything else WILL go up.

__
Of rents is such a major issue, since they've been mentioned a few times. Government should just set a limit to them. Area x rent for standard 3 bedroom house 600€, for room, 100€, for area y, increase or decrease as standard market is showing.
But set a limit, and then make it so properties can't be rented for higher than that limit.

They could put that it's only in affect for 5 years or 10years.

krudler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, I'm not an economist and wouldn't even attempt to pretend to be, there are far more factors at play than wage costs when it comes to unemployments rates, but equally higher minimum wage doesn't always equal higher unemployment. Much more to it than that.

JRant

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya lets take into consideration another variable: Time.

How long do you expect it to take, for there to be enough jobs for all of the unemployed, on this path?

Remember, we are arguing over the point that there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed, so: If your answer is not 'immediately', then you are wrong, and there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

It only works if you buy into an infinite growth paradigm though.

Of course, we cannot have infinite growth. A basic understand of exponential mathematics would quickly show just how ludicris an idea it is.

KomradeBishop

JRant wrote: »

It only works if you buy into an infinite growth paradigm though.

Of course, we cannot have infinite growth. A basic understand of exponential mathematics would quickly show just how ludicris an idea it is.

Off topic, but great article on this here, from an ex-NASA physicist:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

JRant

looking_around wrote: »

you forget that if business must raise wages for those on minimum.

Those above it need a pay increase too, as they are now suddenly earning min wage.
Now of course companies could refuse to do that, but a manager isn't going to be happy getting paid the same as someone bottom of the ladder.

This has a knock on affect and depending on the business it could be quite costly.

On top of the fact that everything else WILL go up.

__
Of rents is such a major issue, since they've been mentioned a few times. Government should just set a limit to them. Area x rent for standard 3 bedroom house 600€, for room, 100€, for area y, increase or decrease as standard market is showing.
But set a limit, and then make it so properties can't be rented for higher than that limit.

They could put that it's only in affect for 5 years or 10years.

Any business that cannot afford even a modest increase in minimum wage is not going to last long regardless.

krudler

JRant wrote: »

If everyone continually undercuts the next person we will get to a situation where its just not worth working for a living and you either go and steal what you need or starve to death.

Woo!...sweatshops!

PopePalpatine

krudler wrote: »

Woo!...sweatshops!

Praise the market and **** the plebs!

krudler

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Praise the market and **** the plebs!

Sure they can just stop being poor!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's no wonder they're bringing people in to work in health care. I know so many people who went to the UK to do nursing, and who are working as nurses with the NHS, being well paid and fully staffed.

What's here for those nurses? It takes them a year longer to qualify over here, then they're underpaid overworked and under staffed. Why would anybody want to work in those conditions? It's no wonder they can't fill those positions

Iwasfrozen

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

if you honestly think you would make a living wage doing that, then I fear you have lost touch with the current world.

Window cleaners and landscapers seem to do alright for themselves.

B.A._Baracus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Window cleaners and landscapers seem to do alright for themselves.

Says who there, Iwasfrozen? (apart from yourself of course)
So lets talk about the context of what you quoted. Chilispray or who ever, loses their job tomorrow and knocks on doors offering to cut grass and clean windows.

Do you HONESTLY think you can make a living wage doing that in this day and age? or do you still think we live in the chimney sweep age like Mary Poppins.

Dude, you see a bunch of teenagers do this every summer to try and get a bit of cash :pac:
But I actually knew a guy who was a window washer. Here's the kicker tho... he was on the dole too!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krudler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That I agree with, get rid of Irish, or make it an examless subject if students want to do it as an extracirricular activity. More time on other languages and computers. And this notion than the "thick" students get to do the things like metalwork, woodwork etc, while the high or average students read poetry and talk about symbolism, learning stuff the majority of them will never use.

B.A._Baracus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

maybe something is going over my head :pac:
But I read cutting grass and cleaning windows :pac:

jank

Australia is having a very big issue with youth unemployment because of its high minimum wage. This has been commented on a number of times here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/nothing-to-stop-young-workers-being-paid-above-minimum/story-e6frg6zo-1226873929207

Another thing is to consider the Labour supply for example the tens of thousands of people who arrive here to earn the min wage as it is much higher then else where in the world.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm happy to discuss any of my views with anyone but I'm not going to get into a flame war.

Please don't respond to me again unless you do so in a civil manner.

Frankly, your views (and a couple of others on here) disgust me.

They're the views of coldhearted, bitter, neo-lib, fantasist, which would have society planted back in the 19th Century if they were ever truly put to the test.

Tony EH

krudler wrote: »

Lower wages, lower or cut the dole, sure people can just either stop being poor and save money they don't have or go for jobs they don't have the ability for, it's easy like.

Well, you know, that's alright in the deluded world of a neo-lib fantasy, but the real world is a very different place indeed.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Once again, the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed so this "there aren't enough jobs for all of the unemployed." Is nonsense.

More filth.

So, the near half mil on the dole in Ireland are there because they want to be yeah?

:rolleyes:

Fantasy land.

Tony EH

krudler wrote: »

Again with the black and white situations. A company is mismanaged by incompetent bosses, they let lower tier staff go instead of resigning themselves to make up the losses. The person let go is overqualified for miminum wage jobs and needs to use the social welfare they paid taxes into all their working lives because that's what it's there for when people need it while they try to get back to full time work in something they trained for and are good at.

It's easy to conjure up situations, I like this game.

Except your situation is closer to reality than the lad frozen in the 19th Century.

There are any number of people with that exact story above. I've known plenty myself.

Tony EH

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course, if you have no nest egg, it's the workhouse for you!

The above maybe said in jest, but that is the endgame of Libertarian pipe dream.

Their deluded and bitter fantasy would have society stripped of all the advances made in the 20th Century and the "lower orders" would be left to live in their own waste fluid, much like the east end of London, circa 1850.

Can you simply imagine the state of Ireland if there was no social welfare safety net? A country which routinely goes through troughs of job underdevelopment and also a place where you are literally pigeonholed into the last job you were in.

The country would end up like Calcutta in about five years. A haven of poverty and rank with crime from people trying to survive.

:rolleyes:

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The fallacy of composition again: Not all of the unemployed can do this, making it a disingenuous reason to lump all blame with them.

Valmont

People willingly accept that if you raise the price of cigarettes or anything else then people will generally buy less. For some reason the left tend to ignore this basic economic fact when it comes to the cost of labour. The only people hurt by a minimum wage of 11.50 an hour are those whose value is less a.k.a. young people and those coming back to work. The state is essentially telling them that working for their fair price is illegal.

Ask yourselves why a minimum wage of 50.50 an hour would be a bad idea and you have the answer.

JustAThought

[quote

Can you simply imagine the state of Ireland if there was no social welfare safety net? A country which routinely goes through troughs of job underdevelopment and also a place where you are literally pigeonholed into the last job you were in.

The country would end up like Calcutta in about five years. A haven of poverty and rank with crime from people trying to survive.

:rolleyes:[/quote]


Can you imagine - lifers forced
To work.

Tony EH

Yeh, because everyone on the dole is a "lifer".

:rolleyes:

Lifetime dolies are a miniscule fraction of 400,000 people we have here in SW. The vast majority have found themselves there through no fault of their own.

KomradeBishop

Valmont wrote: »

People willingly accept that if you raise the price of cigarettes or anything else then people will generally buy less. For some reason the left tend to ignore this basic economic fact when it comes to the cost of labour. The only people hurt by a minimum wage of 11.50 an hour are those whose value is less a.k.a. young people and those coming back to work. The state is essentially telling them that working for their fair price is illegal.

Ask yourselves why a minimum wage of 50.50 an hour would be a bad idea and you have the answer.

Ya I'm sure the unemployed will appreciate their worth/value, being compared to changes in the value of a pack of cigarettes.

Workers aren't just another commodity, or merely another factor of production - to be discarded if nothing is done to create demand for their labour; the economy is there to both directly/indirectly serve the publics economic needs, not for the public to be slaves to the economy, and be driven to subsistence, for the benefit of a class of people that want an ever greater disproportionate cut, of societies resources.

Tony EH

It's an incredible and quite terrifying mindset that can come up with such a cold type of thinking.

KomradeBishop

It's worth noting as well, the massive conflict of interest most of the free-market supporters have: A disproportionate number of them, either work in, or are heading to work in, the finance industry and/or upper-management within business, or otherwise likely have monetary/professional ties, that stand to benefit from the narrative they push.

The more of an attack on worker conditions and their share of corporate profits that there is, and the more deregulation i.e. decriminalization of fraud that there is, the easier it is for those within finance and upper-management in business, to reward themselves and any complicit friends, excessive monetary gains - making things worse for the rest of society in that way, makes it easier for those few to benefit.


How many people at this stage are really convinced, that many of the free-market-type posters even believe the ridiculous/facetious arguments which they repeat again, and again, and again?
I doubt many do at this stage - which leaves the question of motive, for pushing deliberately deceptive arguments: Given the conflict of interest they tend to have, self-interest seems the most glaringly obvious probable motive - which is what the free-marketeers champion above all else in the first place as well.

If people get a gradual feeling for the background of these posters over time from posting on Boards, it's pretty hard to credibly believe, that the motive is any more pure than that.


People really should stop bothering to give these posters benefit of the doubt at this stage - people can have perfectly nice personalities, while still ultimately having extremely bigoted Social Darwinist views (which don't really deserve any respectability) - the quality of argument should make it extremely obvious, how cynical the arguments are, and how little the posters making them, actually believe them.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Frankly, your views (and a couple of others on here) disgust me.

They're the views of coldhearted, bitter, neo-lib, fantasist, which would have society planted back in the 19th Century if they were ever truly put to the test.

I have asked you not to respond to me again but you don't even have the curtosey to do so. Your opposition to my views are obviously relevant but the way you frame your argument is overly aggressive.

I don't like putting people on ignore but I have no interest nor intention of tolerating your bitter childish rants and abuse.

So unfortunately on the ignore list you go. Please don't respond to this post because I won't be able to read it.

jank

So, no real logical arguments to increase the min wage then? Instead we get conspiracies and raw emotion.
Oh and I work in IT not the boardroom of Goldman Sachs in case people are wondering if I am a paid shill.
KB's rational is bordering on lunacy tbh. Basically anyone who is a proponent of the free market has a secret vendetta... yawn.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have asked you not to respond to me again but you don't even have the curtosey to do so.

I don't like putting people on ignore but I have no interest nor intention of tolerating your bitter childish rants and abuse.

So unfortunately on the ignore list you go. Please don't respond to this post because I won't be able to read it.

You don't get to decide who responds to what.

Tony EH

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's worth noting as well, the massive conflict of interest most of the free-market supporters have: A disproportionate number of them, either work in, or are heading to work in, the finance industry and/or upper-management within business, or otherwise likely have monetary/professional ties, that stand to benefit from the narrative they push.

Of course.

I knew plenty of similar gobshites who espoused this same ridiculous rhetoric during the boom, who ironically found themselves having to avail of social welfare when the neo-liberal banking experiment failed miserably and we were nearly brought to complete financial ruin.

Their stupid, bitter, selfish, ill-thought out "philosophy" didn't accord them any comfort during the hard times that followed the collapse, however.

A number spent many months and in some cases a year or more on the dole and in several cases only found employment through the good will of friends.

It was quite funny to see a different tune being played when reality hit them in the face.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have asked you not to respond to me again but you don't even have the curtosey to do so. Your opposition to my views are obviously relevant but the way you frame your argument is overly aggressive.

I don't like putting people on ignore but I have no interest nor intention of tolerating your bitter childish rants and abuse.

So unfortunately on the ignore list you go. Please don't respond to this post because I won't be able to read it.

That you make a condescending and thoroughly unconvincing pantomime, out of putting him on your ignore list, just shows that you like to use condescension to try and deride posters as 'unserious', when they pan your arguments for what they are.

Far more insulting than Tony EH's posts are (to you personally), is the method of argument you use, where you barely even hide the fact that you don't believe half your own visibly facetious arguments - which shows contempt for the intelligence of other posters, and a desire to soapbox those views; don't be surprised then, if people show contempt back towards you.

Turtwig

"Why not increase the minimum wage by to €100 or €50"

That people actually think this is a valid form of argument is baffling.

It's like me saying that because they oppose the minimum wage, why don't they favour of slave labour?

Why don't we increase property tax by 1000%? or 5000%? Why don't we decrease property tax by 1000% or 5000%? That people think they are arguments against or for decreases or increases against property tax, minimum wage, <insert anything here> is baffling to say the very least.

In fact, it's even more baffling that I have to point out that in economics relative increases/decreases is actually a more significant factor than the absolute amount since each variable has a level of dependency on another.

So, yeah, what are the reasons for and against a €1-€3 increase in minimum wage? That's what we should be discussing. Or reasons for abolition of a minimum wage, not the ridiculous absurd extremes of both sides. In short, those extremes aren't a discussion; they're vacuous nonsense.

Iwasfrozen

Turtwig wrote: »

"Why not increase the minimum wage by to €100 or €50"

That people actually think this is a valid form of argument is baffling.

It's like me saying that because they oppose the minimum wage, why don't they favour of slave labour?

Why don't we increase property tax by 100%? or 500%? Why don't we decrease property tax by 100% or 500%? That people think they are arguments against or for decreases or increases against property tax, minimum wage, <insert anything here> is baffling to say the very least.

In fact, it's even more baffling that I have to point out that in economics relative increases/decreases is actually a more significant factor than the absolute amount since each variable has a level of dependency on another.

So, yeah, what are the reasons for and against a €1-€3 increase in minimum wage? That's what we should be discussing. Or reasons for abolition of a minimum wage, not the ridiculous absurd extremes of both sides. In short, those extremes aren't a discussion; they're vacuous nonsense.

It's a fair enough point to raise that if 11.50 is good and 100 is bad then surely there is a point 11.50 < x < 100 that would be the optimal increase?

Because we could just skip the 11.50 and go straight for the x.

PopePalpatine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Far more insulting than Tony EH's posts, is the method of argument you use, where you barely even hide the fact that you don't believe half your own visibly facetious arguments - which shows contempt for the intelligence of other posters, and a desire to soapbox those views; don't be surprised then, if people show contempt back towards you.

That reminds me, does anyone remember the time Iwasfrozen said net neutrality is "unworkable"?

Tony EH

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That you make a condescending and thoroughly unconvincing pantomime, out of putting him on your ignore list, just shows that you like to use condescension to try and deride posters as 'unserious', when they pan your arguments for what they are.

Far more insulting than Tony EH's posts, is the method of argument you use, where you barely even hide the fact that you don't believe half your own visibly facetious arguments - which shows contempt for the intelligence of other posters, and a desire to soapbox those views; don't be surprised then, if people show contempt back towards you.

Chillyboy is probably a nice guy. I've no real reason to believe otherwise. But, it's his philosophy that I find utterly abhorrent, as I do the neo-liberal/libertarian mindset in general.

I may well agree with him on any number of other issues, but I've read enough of his posts to know that I could never, ever, see eye to eye on matters such as the ones under discussion in this thread.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

"Why not increase the minimum wage by to €100 or €50"

That people actually think this is a valid form of argument is baffling.

It's like me saying that because they oppose the minimum wage, why don't they favour of slave labour?

Why don't we increase property tax by 1000%? or 5000%? Why don't we decrease property tax by 1000% or 5000%? That people think they are arguments against or for decreases or increases against property tax, minimum wage, <insert anything here> is baffling to say the very least.

In fact, it's even more baffling that I have to point out that in economics relative increases/decreases is actually a more significant factor than the absolute amount since each variable has a level of dependency on another.

So, yeah, what are the reasons for and against a €1-€3 increase in minimum wage? That's what we should be discussing. Or reasons for abolition of a minimum wage, not the ridiculous absurd extremes of both sides. In short, those extremes aren't a discussion; they're vacuous nonsense.

So, why 11.50? Why not 10.50 or reduce it to 7.50? Why pick out arbitrary numbers?