Minimum wage increased to 11.50

KomradeBishop

jank wrote: »

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.

Ya to jank here, any conflict-of-interest is a 'conspiracy theory', and pointing it out is an accusation of a 'secret vendetta' - bollocks.

The only arguments you tend to ever make, are ones where you directly misrepresent and lie about what other people have said - usually up to the point, where you end up knocking down so many straw-men, you are left arguing purely with yourself.


Any poster who follows these discussions, can easily see the disingenuous nature of the arguments used to promote free-market views - that it's visibly obvious that much of the time, the posters making these arguments don't even believe them themselves - that brings in the question of motive for doing that: Easily seen conflicts of interest, combined with self-interest, seem a pretty good bet there - cynicism towards these posters is pretty well earned, given the often facetious/disingenuous quality of their arguments.

Iwasfrozen

I can't believe I've been accused of soapboxing by Kyussbishop, I truly feel like a kettle that has been called black. :pac:

EDIT: Look Kyuss I know you feel strongly about your views and that's admirable but you must understand that salespeople don't agree. It doesn't make them walking fatcats who wipe their ass with 50 euro notes or insincere or another nonsense. You have to just accept that not everyone in the country is going to agree with you.

KomradeBishop

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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

He also said at one time, that he, full-quote:

Iwasfrozen wrote:

I'm not asserting anything to happen, I'm a true supporter of the status quo. I'm happy with my position and lot in life and I recognise radical shifts in economic/social and political norms have nearly always been to the detriment of humanity in the past.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87590322&postcount=711

So that also perfectly describes part of his motive, for making facetious arguments - helps show that he will make arguments to back the status quo, even when he knows they are nonsense; makes it worthless trying to debate with him, as it's blindingly obvious a lot of the time, that he is not arguing in good faith.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He also said at one time, that he, full-quote:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87590322&postcount=711

So that also perfectly describes part of his motive, for making facetious arguments - helps show that he will make arguments to back the status quo, even when he knows they are nonsense; makes it worthless trying to debate with him, as it's blindingly obvious a lot of the time, that he is not arguing in good faith.

Certainly, unless there is evidence that change would be beneficial the status que should be the default position in any debate...

I added more onto my post above.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I can't believe I've been accused of soapboxing by Kyussbishop, I truly feel like a kettle that has been called black. :pac:

You've directly pointed out before, that you have played 'devils advocate' in debate, spouting views you don't even believe yourself, and without telling other posters you are doing this - that fits pretty close to soapboxing.

Point out one instance of me ever arguing in that fashion - just a trite tu quoque/accusation-of-hypocrisy, that you can't substantiate.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You've directly pointed out before, that you have played 'devils advocate' in debate,.

Indeed I have. This isn't one of them though and your constant accusations are getting boring, do you always have to derail threads to attack the character of your opposition?

KomradeBishop

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Ya am curious as to the previous usernames there - I think a lot of posters holding free-market views, do a bit of 'reputational laundering' (or in this case, just erasing past reputation, since nobody knows who it is), to try and distance themselves from the abhorrent implications/results of the policies they promote, while full well knowing what those results are.

I'm of the view, that it's worth being cynical about that and peoples motives - otherwise you can end up letting abhorrent views, maintain a semblance of respectability, that is not deserved.

karma_

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.

See if you don't want someone to respond to you don''t post. Do you even realise how condescending it is to ask someone not to respond to you on an OPEN forum?

That libertarian facade you erected has been tumbling fast these past few days.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

See if you don't want someone to respond to you don''t post. Do you even realise how condescending it is to ask someone not to respond to you on an OPEN forum?

That libertarian facade you erected has been tumbling fast these past few days.

I have no problems discussing my beliefs with anyone provided they keep a civil manner because I have no intention of getting into a flame war.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

EDIT: Look Kyuss I know you feel strongly about your views and that's admirable but you must understand that salespeople don't agree. It doesn't make them walking fatcats who wipe their ass with 50 euro notes or insincere or another nonsense. You have to just accept that not everyone in the country is going to agree with you.

Sure, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - but people are not entitled to their own facts.

When people use visibly deceptive methods of argument, to try and obstruct/muddy debate, and obscure facts (such as: the evidence in support of the minimum wage being harmful, is at best inconclusive, while the evidence of it's benefits to workers is direct and conclusive/undeniable) - they are not just expressing an 'opinion' anymore, they are beginning to engage in denialism and anti-intellectualism (displaying contempt for other posters intelligence, who see the deception in the arguments used, and trying to block intelligent/productive discussion).

Displaying contempt like that to other posters, deserves contempt in return, in my view - especially when some of it also counts as an implicit advocation of Social Darwinism, in advocating stuff like deflation/stripping away social supports/blaming the unemployed for being unemployed/advocating removal of wage supports.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have no problems discussing my beliefs with anyone provided they keep a civil manner because I have no intention of getting into a flame war.

That's hardly in the spirit of AH now is it!!!

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have no problems discussing my beliefs with anyone provided they keep a civil manner because I have no intention of getting into a flame war.

You're entitled to object to my finding of your views disgusting as your are to put me on your ignore list.

Such matters mean nought to me.

Your views are still disgusting though.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Sure, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - but people are not entitled to their own facts.

When people use visibly deceptive methods of argument, to try and obstruct/muddy debate, and obscure facts (such as: the evidence in support of the minimum wage being harmful, is at best inconclusive, while the evidence of it's benefits to workers is direct and conclusive/undeniable) - they are not just expressing an 'opinion' anymore, they are beginning to engage in denialism and anti-intellectualism (displaying contempt for other posters intelligence, who see the deception in the arguments used, and trying to block intelligent/productive discussion).

Displaying contempt like that to other posters, deserves contempt in return, in my view - especially when some of it also counts as an implicit advocation of Social Darwinism, in advocating stuff like deflation/stripping away social supports/blaming the unemployed for being unemployed/advocating removal of wage supports.

I'm too lazy to write a long winded answer on my phone. I will say though holding people in contempt who disagree with you is childish. If you don't want to discuss with people who see "facts" differently than you do (and all the "facts" you mentioned have been subjective) then you should probably stay off discussion boards...

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Eugh, I'm not bothered writing a long winded answer on my phone. I will say though holding people in contempt who disagree with you is childish. If you don't want to discuss with people who see "facts" differently than you do (and all the "facts" you mentioned have been subjective) then you should probably stay off discussion boards...

Except you know that's not why people hold you in contempt - you're making another blindingly obvious misrepresentation of someones post. None of the minimum wage facts are subjective either.

People hold you in contempt for the barely-concealed deception in many of your arguments, and because many people are thoroughly unconvinced that you even believe some of those ridiculous arguments yourself (and because that implicitly shows contempt for the intelligence of other posters) - and then this gets people questioning likely motives for those extremely poor methods of argument, and wonder what you really support (by looking at the likely real-world outcome of the policies advocated), which leads them to justifiably cynical conclusions.

It's likely that people will keep (justifiably, based on past actions/posts) judging this way, unless the quality of argument drastically improves in these debates - which it never does, because free-market posters rely on it staying at a low level of quality, at a level their arguments are effective at.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except you know that's not why people hold you in contempt - you're making another blindingly obvious misrepresentation of someones post. None of the minimum wage facts are subjective either.

People hold you in contempt for the barely-concealed deception in many of your arguments, and because many people are thoroughly unconvinced that you even believe some of those ridiculous arguments yourself (and because that implicitly shows contempt for the intelligence of other posters) - and then this gets people questioning likely motives for those extremely poor methods of argument, and wonder what you really support (by looking at the likely real-world outcome of the policies advocated), which leads them to justifiably cynical conclusions.

It's likely that people will keep (justifiably, based on past actions/posts) judging this way, unless the quality of argument drastically improves in these debates - which it never does, because free-market posters rely on it staying at a low level of quality, at a level their arguments are effective at.

When you say "you" directed at me you really mean "all proponents of the free market."

And when you say "people" you really mean just you.

And when you say my arguments are "facetious" you really mean "I'm so right about everything how can anyone possibly disagree with me. Bingo, they know I'm right they only pretend not to because it's in their interests to do so."

And when you say contempt you really mean contempt because you're so convinced your way of viewing the world is so right that those who disagree must see your greater logic but pretend not to for self interest so you really do hold those who disagree in contempt.

Anyone, that's one man's (poorly written since I'm on a phone) view. I'm *outskies.

*Until we actually get back to the topic of the thread, if ever.

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya to jank here, any conflict-of-interest is a 'conspiracy theory', and pointing it out is an accusation of a 'secret vendetta' - bollocks.

See, there you go again making straw man arguments. I did not say there may be conflicts of interests but you certainly tried to make some tedious link to the corporate world and people making free market arguments on this board. You have basically accused anyone who speaks in favour the the free market as being a corporate shill, who is at best naive about the world or at worst a paid shill who perpetuates fraud.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Any poster who follows these discussions, can easily see the disingenuous nature of the arguments used to promote free-market views - that it's visibly obvious that much of the time, the posters making these arguments don't even believe them themselves - that brings in the question of motive for doing that: Easily seen conflicts of interest, combined with self-interest, seem a pretty good bet there - cynicism towards these posters is pretty well earned, given the often facetious/disingenuous quality of their arguments.

Do you follow the same rules yourself that you set out for others?
Weren't you the person who accused a fellow poster of fraud? Weren't you also the poster who advocated setting fire to tax revenue in some 'thought' experiment. Weren't you also banned form the politics forum for your continuos and persistent monochromatic posts about peoples 'motives' and 'beliefs'. Glad to have you back

LordNorbury

This wider national discussion on raising the minimum wage is just a clown like attempt by those in Government to try to put the burden on small employers and small businesses, to give people more money in their pockets.

If you want people to have more money in their pockets then try doing the following:

(1) Abolish the Universal Social Charge,

(2) Stop taxing people who earn over 32,800 Euro, at the 41% rate.

(3) Tell the EU we want our bank bailout money back and stop pandering to those in the EU who tell us that is isn't going to happen.

(4) Make sure that massive multinational firms that have located here on the basis of a 12.5% tax rate, are paying their fair share of Corporation Tax at 12.5% and not at 2%, if we could just manage to do that, we could start doing (1) and (2) above.

As for small businesses paying minimum skilled jobs 11 something an hour, forget about that as a solution I think. It would massively drive up the cost of everything and is an absolutely hair brained idea.

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya am curious as to the previous usernames there - I think a lot of posters holding free-market views, do a bit of 'reputational laundering' (or in this case, just erasing past reputation, since nobody knows who it is), to try and distance themselves from the abhorrent implications/results of the policies they promote, while full well knowing what those results are.

I'm of the view, that it's worth being cynical about that and peoples motives - otherwise you can end up letting abhorrent views, maintain a semblance of respectability, that is not deserved.

Since you harp on endlessly about motives, what is my motive KB?

jank

Oh, nice derailing of the thread guys! Well done!

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm too lazy to write a long winded answer on my phone. I will say though holding people in contempt who disagree with you is childish. If you don't want to discuss with people who see "facts" differently than you do (and all the "facts" you mentioned have been subjective) then you should probably stay off discussion boards...

Surely I cannot be the only one to spot the outrageous hypocrisy in this post?

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When you say "you" directed at me you really mean "all proponents of the free market."

And when you say "people" you really mean just you.

And when you say my arguments are "facetious" you really mean "I'm so right about everything how can anyone possibly disagree with me. Bingo, they know I'm right they only pretend not to because it's in their interests to do so."

And when you say contempt you really mean contempt because you're so convinced your way of viewing the world is so right that those who disagree must see your greater logic but pretend not to for self interest so you really do hold those who disagree in contempt.

Anyone, that's one man's (poorly written since I'm on a phone) view. I'm *outskies.

*Until we actually get back to the topic of the thread, if ever.

I've explained it twice already, despite your second attempt at misrepresenting me: The poor quality of your arguments presented, and the ridiculous nature of them, has been noticed by several posters, not just me - arguments so ridiculous, that it's hardly convincing that even you (plural) believe them, which (for someone who has grown justifiably cynical of this, due to it constantly being displayed) easily leads to the chain of conclusions detailed in my previous posts.

I have a disdain for anyone who uses a quality of argument, which seems designed to deceive people or block debate - and that's not just limited to 'free-market' types, neither does someone disagreeing with me, qualify as that - as much as you would like to misrepresent/portray it that way, to shift view from the quality of argument you use.

There are plenty of people I disagree with on Boards, but not many that come out with a quality of argument so poor, that it seems facetious to the point that they don't even believe it themselves.

KomradeBishop

jank wrote: »

See, there you go again making straw man arguments. I did not say there may be conflicts of interests but you certainly tried to make some tedious link to the corporate world and people making free market arguments on this board. You have basically accused anyone who speaks in favour the the free market as being a corporate shill, who is at best naive about the world or at worst a paid shill who perpetuates fraud.



Do you follow the same rules yourself that you set out for others?
Weren't you the person who accused a fellow poster of fraud? Weren't you also the poster who advocated setting fire to tax revenue in some 'thought' experiment. Weren't you also banned form the politics forum for your continuos and persistent monochromatic posts about peoples 'motives' and 'beliefs'. Glad to have you back

Ya whatever jank, continue on making barely concealed misrepresentations of my posts (even a straight-out lie, such as saying I accused anyone of 'fraud') - effectively arguing with yourself, in a form of argumentative masturbation, that is done so frequently it might as well be known as 'janking off'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Neo-liberals are not interested in debate or considering any other points of view, to a person they are locked into their ideology, an odious and transparent ideology it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's because of the dismissive attitudes that anyone who tries to rebut is faced with, it gets met with absolute disdain, hypocrisy and downright contempt. Evidence presented is 'always' inconclusive or biased. Is it any wonder you are met with hostility.

Look at this very thread, we have one poster being contemptuous whilst chastising that very thing, it's absolutely astonishing in its brazenness...where were you then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't engage? And miss the craic? Like that's ever going to happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kippy

Raising the minimum wage a tad (maybe not as high as being mooted), reducing social welfare a tad, depending on the time you have been on it, increasing incentives for people to retrain/educate even more than they are now, scrapping jobsbridge, increasing awareness/uptake of jobs plus, reducing non employment costs for business (such as rates, upward rent reviews, energy rebates etc) would all, in my opinion help improve things no end.
Changing one area on its own wont improve much tbh and I dont think a wage increase on its own in the current environment is good. A tax cut may be more in order.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See I don't whinge about it but I'll give as good as I get, and I'll point out hypocrisy when I see it. Read back and look at who the biggest whingers on this thread were and perhaps you will pass on the same advice to your brethren.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is the one case where Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid and non-fallacious form of argument:

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Pointing out the ridiculous quality of arguments ("why not raise the minimum wage to €100 then?" - which is the only argument left), and pointing to posters past history of similar arguments plus their personal conflicts of interest, is a perfectly valid form of argument, for attacking the credibility of both them and their arguments - nobody is obliged to take any of you seriously.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lets have a list of these arguments, which have not been addressed earlier in the thread?

Tigersliding

Increasing the minimum wage results in fewer opportunities for young people to get jobs and valuable experience, it results in higher costs which reduces efficiency and thus prosperity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kippy

Tigersliding wrote: »

Increasing the minimum wage results in fewer opportunities for young people to get jobs and valuable experience, it results in higher costs which reduces efficiency and thus prosperity.

Well that logic is possibly the worst I have ever heard.
Do you know how often the "minium wage" has been introduced since it's inception?

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except nobody did resort to 'name-calling', that's you labeling an attack on posters credibility as 'ad hominem' (a definition far broader than 'name-calling'), then dishonestly attempting to twist that around and limit it to the 'name-calling' definition of ad-hominem.

Describing how the "lets raise minimum wage to €100" argument is a poor one, is something I and other posters have done pages ago - that the posters keep resurrecting the same fallacious argument, knowing it is fallacious, shows that they aren't really worth taking seriously.

Again: What arguments have posters left, against the 11.50 minimum wage, that have not already been dealt with pages ago?

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

Well that logic is possibly the worst I have ever heard.
Do you know how often the "minium wage" has been introduced since it's inception?

Why is the logic flawed?

Tigersliding

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except nobody did resort to 'name-calling', that's you labeling an attack on posters credibility as 'ad hominem' (a definition far broader than 'name-calling'), then dishonestly attempting to twist that around and limit it to the 'name-calling' definition of ad-hominem.

Describing how the "lets raise minimum wage to €100" argument is a poor one, is something I and other posters have done pages ago - that the posters keep resurrecting the same fallacious argument, knowing it is fallacious, shows that they aren't really worth taking seriously.

Again: What arguments have posters left, against the 11.50 minimum wage, that have not already been dealt with pages ago?

Your description of why it was a flawed argument was itself flawed. You seem to think just it is irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of the minimum wage at 11.50. You are wrong, it is relevant as it allows one to systematically dismantle your arguments through explicitly pinning down your beliefs and assumptions and strategically showing how you are inconsistent and logically flawed in your beliefs.

Get Real

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Nope it would just push up inflation leaving the low earners and unemployed truly fecked...

The low earners would be on this new wage though. Yes, it would push up inflation, but at a proportionally much lower rate than the wage increase as the additional labour cost would be spread over each unit, thereby giving more spending power.

Since the minimum wage has existed in this country, it has never, ever lead to an increase in prices that would make the increase in wage pointless. People have always ended up better off.

With the year 2000 being the base year @ 100, for twelve years the minimum wage increased, as did inflation, however, minimum wage was at 158 in 2012 in comparison to 2000 while inflation was only at 122 compared to the base year 2000

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Chart-1-270313.png

Tigersliding

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Go to Political Theory or Economics, if you want a discussion of the philosophical roots/justifications for the minimum wage. I don't have to justify my support of the minimum wage, from the ground up - you have to justify why you are opposed to the 11.50 minimum wage.

Given that both our posts get deleted because you are constantly re-regging, I'd appreciate if you not reply to my posts - there really is little point in writing up posts that just get deleted.

No I won't be going there. I no more have to justify anything than you do. But this is a discussion forum where we can choose to justify arguments which I have done in abundance. You have failed so far to make a logically sound argument in favour of a minimum wage that hasn't been rebutted successfully by me.

Tigersliding

Get Real wrote: »

The low earners would be on this new wage though. Yes, it would push up inflation, but at a proportionally much lower rate than the wage increase as the additional labour cost would be spread over each unit, thereby giving more spending power.

Since the minimum wage has existed in this country, it has never, ever lead to an increase in prices that would make the increase in wage pointless. People have always ended up better off.

With the year 2000 being the base year @ 100, for twelve years the minimum wage increased, as did inflation, however, minimum wage was at 158 in 2012 in comparison to 2000 while inflation was only at 122 compared to the base year 2000

blicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Chart-1-270313.pn

I commend your reasonable argument, something bishop has failed to do thus far. However it doesn't show that people are better off with a minimum wage as there are also the increased effects of unemployment to take into account and the reduced productivity.

kippy

Tigersliding wrote: »

Why is the logic flawed?

Because it has been proven to be wrong.....

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

Because it has been proven to be wrong.....

Can you share that proof?

kippy

Tigersliding wrote: »

Can you share that proof?

I would have thought that to be fairly obvious.

This was your statement:
"Increasing the minimum wage results in fewer opportunities for young people to get jobs and valuable experience, it results in higher costs which reduces efficiency and thus prosperity."

Here is a history of minimum wage policy globally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law
Irelands is in there somewhere as well.
Minimum wage was introduced in 2000 at around 5.6 per hour.

"The employment rate in Ireland rose from 55.1% in 1996 to 67.1% in 2005 which was higher than the EU rate of 63.8% in 2005. The employment rate for women in Ireland increased by almost 15 percentage points over the period, while the rate for men rose by over 9 percentage points. Productivity in Ireland, measured as GDP per person employed, was the second highest in the EU in 2004."
From here:
http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2006pressreleases/measuringirelandsprogress2005/

In the period the minimum wage was introduced employment increased as did GDP/GNP etc

I am not sure when the minimum wage was increased, possibly around 06, and again things continued to improve on all fronts for a number of years until the crash.
In 2011 the minimum wage was reduced (as far as I recall) by a euro an hour.

Prosperity increased after the minimum wage was introduced and continued to increase until the crash.

Look, I aint going to bother getting into more detail but history shows that increasing wages is not necessarily a bad thing, at whatever level it is at.

Iwasfrozen

^^^

That's not proof correlation =/> causation.

You haven't proven that raising the minimum wage is not a bad thing which is what you claimed at the start.

kippy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

^^^

That's not proof correlation =/> causation.

You haven't proven that raising the minimum wage is not a bad thing which is what you claimed at the start.

No,
I've shown that introducing the minimum wage, and subsequently amending it, cannot in any way be linked to any of the factors that the poster had said it was linked to.
If anything, from the very basic pieces I have provided, its the opposite.
I realise there are a lot of other factors at play, however the OP was happy enough to put it all down the raising the minimum wage.

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

I would have thought that to be fairly obvious.

This was your statement:
"Increasing the minimum wage results in fewer opportunities for young people to get jobs and valuable experience, it results in higher costs which reduces efficiency and thus prosperity."

Here is a history of minimum wage policy globally:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim
Irelands is in there somewhere as well.
Minimum wage was introduced in 2000 at around 5.6 per hour.

"The employment rate in Ireland rose from 55.1% in 1996 to 67.1% in 2005 which was higher than the EU rate of 63.8% in 2005. The employment rate for women in Ireland increased by almost 15 percentage points over the period, while the rate for men rose by over 9 percentage points. Productivity in Ireland, measured as GDP per person employed, was the second highest in the EU in 2004."so.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2006pressreleases/measuringirelandsprogress200

In the period the minimum wage was introduced employment increased as did GDP/GNP etc

I am not sure when the minimum wage was increased, possibly around 06, and again things continued to improve on all fronts for a number of years until the crash.
In 2011 the minimum wage was reduced (as far as I recall) by a euro an hour.

Prosperity increased after the minimum wage was introduced and continued to increase until the crash.

Look, I aint going to bother getting into more detail but history shows that increasing wages is not necessarily a bad thing, at whatever level it is at.

We were experiencing a boom, of course unemployment dropped and productivity increased. There is more than one factor that effects unemployment and productivity levels.

That's not proof at all.

kippy

Tigersliding wrote: »

We were experiencing a boom, of course unemployment dropped and productivity increased. There is more than one factor that effects unemployment and productivity levels.

That's not proof at all.

Yes, I flipping know that.
Yet the OP is happy to put all of these negative results down purely to increasing the minimum wage.
He is allowed get away with it, why not I?