Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

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.

You haven't shown anything, you haven't shown that GNP wouldn'the have been higher. However I would surmise that it wouldn't have been much higher around 2000 as we were at full employment so the minimum wage was at a low enough level and demand for labour was so high that it wouldn'the have made that much of a difference in my opinion in those circumstances.

Iwasfrozen

kippy wrote: »

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.

There were literally thousands of other factors at play during the boom.

Perhaps the minimum wage was damaging but the effects were being masked by the boom, maybe it was beneficial it's impossible to say because the evidence is inconclusive.

And since the evidence is inconclusive you can't have proven his point wrong.

kippy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There were literally thousands of other factors at play during the boom.

Perhaps the minimum wage was damaging but the effects were being masked by the boom, maybe it was beneficial it's impossible to say because the evidence is inconclusive.

And since the evidence is inconclusive you can't have proven his point wrong.

His point is wrong. End Of.
It's impossible to ever prove as being correct. All one can look at is the results.
Prosperity, in general, in the developed world is increasing. This in an environment of increasing wages in general........

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

His point is wrong. End Of.
It's impossible to ever prove as being correct. All one can look at is the results.
Prosperity, in general, in the developed world is increasing. This in an environment of increasing wages in general........

As economies become more prosperous wages increase. From this you are inferring that a minimum wage isn't harmful, that's faulty logic. As people become more productive they earn more and society becomes more prosperous. High wages are not harmful so long as the employer gets the productivity to match those wages.

Iwasfrozen

kippy wrote: »

His point is wrong. End Of.
It's impossible to ever prove as being correct. All one can look at is the results.
Prosperity, in general, in the developed world is increasing. This in an environment of increasing wages in general........

Why is it wrong?

The evidence is inconclusive it's not possible to assume such statements right or wrong.

kippy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why is it wrong?

The evidence is inconclusive it's not possible to assume such statements right or wrong.

As time goes on, wages in general increase, as does prosperity.
That's why it is wrong to suggest that a rise in wages at any level is bad for prosperity.

Look, Im not an idiot, I know what nothing exists within a vacum and economics is a mix of a lot of things. See my post a few pages back for example of this.
However to suggest that raising wages alone is bad for prosperity is completely wrong and has been proven incorrect, else all the wages in history would see us back in the dark ages.
Christ the logic aint that difficult.

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

As time goes on, wages in general increase, as does prosperity.
That's why it is wrong to suggest that a rise in wages at any level is bad for prosperity.

Look, Im not an idiot, I know what nothing exists within a vacum and economics is a mix of a lot of things. See my post a few pages back for example of this.
However to suggest that raising wages alone is bad for prosperity is completely wrong and has been proven incorrect, else all the wages in history would see us back in the dark ages.
Christ the logic aint that difficult.

Who said a rise in wages is bad for prosperity?

Prosperity is increased primarily by finding better more efficient way to do things. So today a person can work for 2 hours and make 10 units of product whereas say 50 years ago a person would only be able to make 4 units of product. As a result of greater efficiency society has more product, ie society is more prosperous.

Efficiency and productivity is the name of the game.

Increasing wages are most definitely not a bad thing when those increases also bring increased productivity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

kippy wrote: »

As time goes on, wages in general increase, as does prosperity.
That's why it is wrong to suggest that a rise in wages at any level is bad for prosperity.

Look, Im not an idiot, I know what nothing exists within a vacum and economics is a mix of a lot of things. See my post a few pages back for example of this.
However to suggest that raising wages alone is bad for prosperity is completely wrong and has been proven incorrect, else all the wages in history would see us back in the dark ages.
Christ the logic aint that difficult.

I understand what you're saying, what do you think of my idea to link the minimum wage to inflation? That way the min wage would increase automatically in line with the cost of living, real wages for those on min wage would remain static, businesses would be able to plan and prepare for the increases further in advance and wages would rise faster in boom times when companies can afford it and less in bust when times are hard. I think it's the best compromise available .

kippy

Tigersliding wrote: »

Who said a rise in wages is bad for prosperity?

Prosperity is increased primarily by finding better more efficient way to do things. So today a person can work for 2 hours and make 10 units of product whereas say 50 years ago a person would only be able to make 4 units of product. As a result of greater efficiency society has more product, ie society is more prosperous.

Efficiency and productivity is the name of the game.

Increasing wages are most definitely not a bad thing when those increases also bring increased productivity.

Eh, you did,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92419004&postcount=536
Are you going to argue that society in general is less prosperous or indeed productive now than it was 40 years ago?

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

Eh, you did,
w.boards.ie/vbulletin/shp=92419004&postcount/quote]

I said increasing the minimum wage is harmful, I didn't say general increases in the level of wages is harmful.

kippy

Tigersliding wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

Eh, you did,
w.boards.ie/vbulletin/shp=92419004&postcount/quote]

I said increasing the minimum wage is harmful, I didn't say general increases in the level of wages is harmful.

You said a raise in the minimum wage (and by extension wages in general) is bad for prosperity.....(among other things)
It was pretty black and white.
At this stage, if you are going to deny that much, Im outta here for the minute.

Tigersliding

kippy wrote: »

Eh, you did,
wds.ie/vbulletin/shop=92419004
Are you going to argue that society in general is less prosperous or indeed productive now than it was 40 years ago?

Increasing the minimum wage is harmful.

Natural increases in general level of wages through supply and demand is not harmful.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's no evidence to suggest that increasing the minimum wage at this time will threaten to derail the recovery - past evidence as to the damage from the minimum wage, is at best inconclusive.

There's no evidence that issues with structural unemployment will be exacerbated either - if anything, the potential increase in aggregate demand brought on by workers getting higher wages and spending that money, may instead lead to a speedup in economic recovery and job creation, thus potentially helping to resolve any problem with structural unemployment faster.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except that's the fallacy of composition again, as you're only looking at one component of the economy while failing to look at the economy overall: Without the minimum wage, aggregate wages and thus aggregate demand could have fallen even lower after the crisis, leading to even greater damage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

That's a red herring. Lets have some stats on how many workers are going to be replaced by automation, by an 11.50 minimum wage? Not many that weren't already going to be, I'd bet.

woodoo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Picture a society that 47% of the population are unemployed long term. A society like that will break down and the rich people won't get to enjoy their money. It would precipitate a french revolution type scenario. In a future like that money would just have to be taken off the rich to provide the unemployed with some form of employment or something worthwhile to do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

woodoo

If the min wage is raised to 11.50 will the workers above that wage not demand a rise too. Where does it stop?

kippy

woodoo wrote: »

If the min wage is raised to 11.50 will the workers above that wage not demand a rise too. Where does it stop?

Yes they will.

woodoo

kippy wrote: »

Yes they will.

And they would be right.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's only really a theoretical hastening at this stage - since businesses will do this at the earliest opportunity anyway, I can't see minimum wage increases changing the rate of this more than an infinitesimal amount - would need stats to back any claim, to a large increase.

Certainly, if a minimum wage change potentially leads to an increase in wages + aggregate demand, could easily outdo any jobs offset from automation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krudler

woodoo wrote: »

If the min wage is raised to 11.50 will the workers above that wage not demand a rise too. Where does it stop?

I never demanded a raise when working for more than mimimum wage, nor has anyone I can ever recall.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

VEN

Gatling wrote: »

Don't agree with the minimum wage increase at all .
It would literally kill business' s over night

those that can't afford to be in business should not be in business. life is tough, we know.
if you see that shiny beamer, you want it so bad, but can't afford, then do without. life is tough.

VEN

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

but thats cool, its competitive, right back into the employees ball park, its been a long time. welcome back.

EmilyHoward

Nearly 600 posts in and the thread title still remains, is boards.ie turning into a red-top?

B.A._Baracus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm calling utter BS on your post.
It reads as a person who doesnt want anyone "less qualified" to earn something decent. Aka, you've gone to college. Put the effort in to where you are right now. But you, Permabear, aren't exactly making a ton of money. So you would have an issue with some guy working in a supermarket earning 11.50ph because of the road you've taken. We are talking about begruding another here. Tell me i am wrong?


But even then.. lets take your predictions on board. They are also utter BS too. Employers will turn around and think/say "So 15 euro per hour isn't good enough for ya? go get a job else where. I'll replace you with someone willing to work for 11.50" - Employers market dude.

foxtrot101

There is a dedicated website for the 11.45 euro living wage proposal. It includes the technical document if anyone cares to have a look...

http://www.livingwage.ie/

krudler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well..no because what have I done to earn more money? If I could show I deerved it sure, but just because? Not that I'd say no to a raise but I wouldnt go demanding one in a climate where anyone would do the same job for the same as I'm currently on.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wompa1

krudler wrote: »

Well..no because what have I done to earn more money? If I could show I deerved it sure, but just because? .

It's just because of a cost of living adjustment...I know somebody said in a previous thread that everything is cheaper now than it's ever been. I find that to be false. Many things have gone up in price.

Also, for the last few years the larger minimum wage employers have started to cut hours drastically in order to avail of government subsidies. They put the employees on 4-10 hour weeks and tell them to claim the dole or get a second job...I personally don't believe it's that they can't afford to pay them due to poor sales. They are taking advantage. I say hit the f**kers...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wompa1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Many could afford it. Many also didn't take care of their staff when times were good either so....f*cks to them. They could lower taxation on businesses to ease the pain of enforcing the 11.50...they probably need to do that anyways.. some of the crap they brought in during the Green Party coalition for example, could be dropped...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

B.A._Baracus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Love the way you quoted me on the predictions part, but not me accusing you of begrudgery. It's almost like "well... not gonna argue with that" :pac:

Let me tell you something, dude. I worked in Marks and Spencer in late 2007. I started out on 10.10 per hour. Min wage of 8.65 got introduced summer of 2007. M&S were willing to pay that and there wasn't no outcry of "oh wont someone think of the domino wage effect"

This was 2007. Before recession. Before everything. Rip-off Ireland in full swing.

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except nobody did resort to 'name-calling',

What? Really? You did in this post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=92415883

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is a very good point. Automation will be every more prevalent in the coming years where non or semi skilled work can be outsourced to a machine or robot. This is and is already happening in places where even a few years ago it would have been unthinkable.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/paid-like-surgeons-240k-a-year-rio-tinto-train-drivers-to-be-replaced-by-robots-20131003-2utlw.html

Train drivers employed by Rio Tinto to haul iron ore across Australia's outback make about the same money as surgeons in the US. It's little wonder the mining company will replace them with robot locomotives.

The 400-plus workers in the remote Pilbara region who earn about $240,000 a year probably are the highest-paid train drivers in the world, according to UK-based transport historian Christian Wolmar. Australia's decade-long mining boom has sucked up skilled workers, raising wages for engineers to drivers at Rio, the second-largest exporter of the mineral, and its closest competitors, Vale and BHP Billiton.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/automated-train-driving

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/rise-of-the-machines/story-e6frg6z6-1226291014017

Last month, the bell tolled for most of Rio's 380 Pilbara iron ore train driver jobs when the company said it was reviving a program to automate the vast majority of its private Pilbara railways and the 41 train sets, each 2km long, that run on them.

Most of the jobs done by drivers will be replaced by computers and Perth-based operators by 2015 (although Rio says there will be relocation opportunities for drivers).

IN Western Australia's dusty Pilbara region, fully laden robot trucks weighing as much as a fuelled A380 Airbus and as high as a two-storey building are working in mining pits, often within a few metres of people.

So far, it is just a trial. But it is working so well that, within three years, half the trucks working for the nation's biggest iron ore exporter - Rio Tinto - will be hauling the nation's main resource bounty without drivers.

Google is investing billions into driver-less cars and it is not unbelievable that we could have driver-less buses on our streets in the next 10 years. Any discussion of a minimum wage increase should release the 'threat' of automation to jobs.

jank

woodoo wrote: »

Picture a society that 47% of the population are unemployed long term. A society like that will break down and the rich people won't get to enjoy their money. It would precipitate a french revolution type scenario. In a future like that money would just have to be taken off the rich to provide the unemployed with some form of employment or something worthwhile to do.

Other jobs would be created in their place. How many IT jobs existed 20 or 30 years ago. Not many, now it is a massive employer due to the ubiquitous nature of computer systems and ICT systems.

Do you propose that we stop R&D to stop these jobs being destroyed?

foxtrot101

The UK is a bit further along in the concept of a living wage then we are here. The rate, in euros, for London is set at 11.30 and 9.8 for the rest of the UK.

It has some quite surprising supporters - David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Over 700 employers have committed to paying the living wage to employed and subcontracted staff. Of course, many more haven't.

jank

foxtrot101 wrote: »

There is a dedicated website for the 11.45 euro living wage proposal. It includes the technical document if anyone cares to have a look...

http://www.livingwage.ie/

Had a quick read over this.
The 11.45 per hour living wage has some weird calculations. Including the provision to rent a DVD 4 times a year. Who the **** rents DVD's anymore?

Also, some unions support this. I wonder how many of their members are on the min wage? Not many if at all.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578318541000422454

The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases—even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.

The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace.

http://cafehayek.com/2013/10/milton-friedman-and-walter-williams-on-minimum-wage-legislation.html

Anyway, less than 5% of Irish earn the min wage which means that more than twice that many are looking for a job. The focus should be therefore to increase job opportunities and get people to work rather than put unneeded pressure on business looking to expand and employ people in the future.

Now before people start about aggregate demand, well one can easily do that with tax cuts to the USC.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

foxtrot101

jank wrote: »

Had a quick read over this.
The 11.45 per hour living wage has some weird calculations. Including the provision to rent a DVD 4 times a year. Who the **** rents DVD's anymore?

Also, some unions support this. I wonder how many of their members are on the min wage? Not many if at all.

They are copying a campaign that has been running in the UK for a number of years, which has had some success.

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

jank

foxtrot101 wrote: »

They are copying a campaign that has been running in the UK for a number of years, which has had some success.

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

Well, they need to scrap the DVD 'allowance', makes the whole thing look amateur.

B.A._Baracus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So last year means something that happened in 2007
and yeah... it's my opinion that you dont want anyone making a fair wage. read it off you mate. you'd gladly let someone earn 4 euro an hour as they had you your burger.